[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25734-25735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11630]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement for Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of
Threatened and Endangered Species Within the Multiple Species
Conservation Program Planning Area in San Diego County, CA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a draft joint
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/DEIS)
for the proposed incidental take of species listed pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The proposed take
would occur due to urban development in southwestern San Diego County,
California. The County of San Diego and cities of San Diego, Chula
Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon
Grove, National City, Poway, and Santee (applicants) intend to apply to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for incidental take
permits pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
The Service anticipates that the applicants will request permits
for 10 listed animals: the threatened Western snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus) and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica); and the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp
(Streptocephalus woottoni), California brown pelican (Pelecanus
occidentalis californicus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), California
least tern (Sterna antillarum), southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii
pusillus), and Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris
pacificus).
The Service also anticipates that the applicants will request
covered species agreements for 3 endangered plants, 4 plants and 1
animal proposed for listing, and 39 other unlisted species (26 plants,
9 birds, 2 reptiles, 1 mammal, and 1 invertebrate). The exact number of
species included in these covered species agreements may change between
the draft and final EIR/EIS. The purpose of the agreements is to
conserve listed and unlisted species, thereby reducing the uncertainty
associated with development and future species' listings.
The programmatic DEIR/DEIS evaluates the effects on the human
environment expected to occur from proposed issuance of the permits and
covered species agreements. Incidental take would be minimized and
mitigated by implementation of the regional Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) plan. This notice is provided pursuant to
section 10(c) of the Act and National Environmental Policy Act
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
In addition, Federal approval of the MSCP plan is required as part
of the special 4(d) rule for the California gnatcatcher. Incidental
take of the gnatcatcher is allowed under section 4(d) of the Act if
take results from activities conducted pursuant to the California
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, the NCCP Process
Guidelines, and the NCCP Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub
Conservation Guidelines.
DATES: Written comments on the DEIR/DEIS should be received on or
before June 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Mr. Gail Kobetich, Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker Avenue,
Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments also may be sent by facsimile to
telephone (619) 431-9618.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy Gilbert, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, at the above address, telephone (619) 431-9440. Individuals
wishing copies of the DEIR/DEIS should immediately contact Ms. Gilbert.
Copies of the DEIR/DEIS have been sent to City and County libraries in
the greater San Diego area, and to all agencies and individuals who
participated in the scoping process or requested copies. In addition,
copies of the draft MSCP Plan are available at public libraries and can
be obtained by contacting the City of San Diego Clean Water Program,
600 B Street, Suite 500, San Diego, California 92101, telephone (619)
533-4200. Upon receipt of an official permit application, the Service
will officially announce availability of the final MSCP Plan for public
review as required by section 10(c) of the Act.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 9 of the Act and its
implementing regulations, wildlife listed as threatened or endangered
are protected from ``taking.'' The Act defines take, in part, as
killing, harming, or harassing listed wildlife. Service regulations
further define harm to include significant habitat modification that
results in death or injury of listed wildlife (50 CFR 17.3). Under
limited circumstances, the Service may issue permits to take listed
wildlife if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of,
otherwise lawful activities. The taking prohibitions of the Act do not
apply to listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate
State law. Regulations governing permits are in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.
Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the Service may issue incidental
take permits for listed animals with an approved conservation plan.
Among other criteria, issuance of such permits must not jeopardize the
existence of listed species, both plant and animal.
The proposed action would allow incidental take of listed animals
over a 30-year period. Take would occur on approximately 314,900 acres
of habitat within the 581,600-acre planning area. Approximately 102,400
acres of the planning area is already developed. To mitigate the
impacts of the proposed take, the applicants propose establishment of a
164,300-acre preserve within the boundaries of a Multiple Habitat
Planning Area (MHPA). According to the draft MSCP plan, 24 habitats
would be conserved under the [[Page 25735]] MHPA, including 6 rare or
protected habitats. Fifty-seven species are proposed to be adequately
protected under the MHPA. The Service would issue incidental take
permits for listed animal species and covered species agreements for
listed and unlisted plant and animal species that are adequately
protected.
The DEIR/DEIS considers the environmental consequences of 5
alternatives, including the proposed action and no action alternatives.
Under the no action or no project alternative, the regional MSCP would
not be implemented. Jurisdictions would either avoid take of listed
species within the planning area or apply for individual 10(a) permits
on a project-by-project basis. Existing land use and environmental
regulations would apply to all projects proposed within the planning
area. Existing regulatory practices require mitigation for impacts to
sensitive species and habitats resulting in lands being set aside for
open-space preservation. Analyses indicate that the amount of land
potentially conserved within the MSCP planning area under the no action
alternative would be similar to that conserved under the proposed
action (MHPA). However, under the no action alternative, greater
habitat fragmentation would likely occur because the lands set aside
for open-space preservation would not be assembled in coordination with
a regional preserve design.
Other alternatives consider different preserve configurations. The
coastal sage scrub (CSS) scenario would conserve 84,900 acres.
According to the MSCP plan, CSS would include 21 habitats, providing
adequate protection for 2 habitats, neither of which is rare. Twenty-
six species would be covered under CSS. The biologically preferred (BP)
scenario would conserve 167,000 acres. According to the MSCP plan, BP
would include 24 habitats, adequately protecting 9. Of these 9
habitats, 7 are considered rare. Seventy-three species are proposed to
be adequately protected under BP. The public lands (PL) scenario would
conserve 147,000 acres. According to the MSCP plan, PL would include 24
habitats and adequately protect 6, all of which are rare. Thirty-five
species are proposed to be adequately protected under PL.
Local jurisdictions would implement their respective portions of
the MSCP plan. Preserve establishment would be a cooperative effort
among Federal, State, and local governments and private landowners.
These groups would manage habitat on certain lands they currently own
and on additional lands acquired for the preserve. Additional lands
within the preserve would be acquired as compensation for impacts to
habitat both inside and outside the preserve.
In addition to off-site mitigation, take within the preserve would
be avoided or minimized through local land-use regulation,
environmental review, and resource protection guidelines. Land-use
regulations would emphasize avoidance by limiting encroachment onto
sensitive biological resources. Long-term preserve management plans
would be prepared to address habitat management and land-use issues.
The MSCP plan provides guidelines for vegetative restoration and
reintroduction, fencing, signs, fire management, grazing, predator and
exotic species control, insects and disease, lighting, and other
factors.
Each jurisdiction would sign an individual implementing agreement
(IA) with the Service and California Department of Fish and Game to (1)
obtain permits to take listed animals, (2) obtain covered species
agreements and assurances for listed plants and unlisted plants and
animals, and (3) identify the specific responsibilities of each party
in implementing the MSCP plan. Each jurisdiction would then exercise
its land-use review and approval powers in accordance with its IA and
the MSCP. The 5 percent limit on interim take of coastal sage scrub,
imposed as part of the NCCP program and special 4(d) rule, would be
replaced by the conditions of each jurisdiction's IA.
Each jurisdiction would be expected to adopt the final
configuration of the MSCP preserve within its boundary and adopt the
recommendations of the MSCP through amendment of its General plan or
other applicable plans. Zoning would be retained or properties rezoned,
as needed, and zoning regulations amended to reflect the preserve
boundaries and to achieve consistency with the MSCP plan. The MSCP
guidelines for compatible land uses in and adjacent to the preserve are
expected to be incorporated into the General Plan, zoning regulations,
and approval process for projects, including adoption of appropriate
mitigation guidelines. Procedures and regulations for interim controls
will be necessary to address activities that would potentially impact
sensitive habitats prior to issuance of permits to individual
jurisdictions.
Dated: May 4, 1995.
Thomas Dwyer,
Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon
[FR Doc. 95-11630 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
