[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13757]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 7, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Receipt of a
Joint Application for an Incidental Take Permit Involving San Joaquin
Kit Fox, Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard, Tipton Kangaroo Rat, and Giant
Kangaroo Rat by the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, CA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern (co-applicants)
have applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an
incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act). The permit application and accompanying
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) cover a 408-
square mile area of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The HCP would result in
incidental take of several federally listed endangered or threatened
animal species presently occupying the conservation plan area. The
Service announces the availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA),
HCP, application for incidental take, and Implementing Agreement (IA).
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act and
National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
DATES: Written comments on these documents should be received on or
before July 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review these documents may obtain a copy
by writing to the Service's Sacramento Field Office (SFO). Documents
will be available by written request for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the SFO. Written data or
comments concerning the documents should be submitted to the SFO.
Please reference permit number PRT-786634 in your comments. Address
comments or questions to: Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800
Cottage Way, room E-1823 Sacramento, California 95825-1846 (Telephone:
916-978-4866).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Peter Cross at the Service's Sacramento Field Office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service must determine that the criteria
identified in section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act have been met in order to
issue an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(2)(B). The criteria
are: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of
taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the
plan will be provided and procedures are available to deal with
unforeseen circumstances; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce
the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild;
and (5) other measures which may be necessary, if any, are met. The
public is invited to comment on the applicability of those criteria to
this permit application.
Background
Existing conflicts among federally protected species and urban
development have prompted City of Bakersfield (City) and County of Kern
(County) to pursue an HCP and incidental take permit pursuant to
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The HCP is designed to offset impacts
resulting from loss of habitat incurred through land use development
activities in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The goal of the HCP is
to acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitats which support
endangered and threatened species and other species of concern, while
allowing urban development to proceed within the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area. The area covered by the HCP contains land within the
jurisdiction of the City and County. The HCP is the product of a 7-year
planning process involving the city, county, representatives of the
environmental community and the building industry, and the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).
The HCP will result in incidental take of several endangered and
threatened species within the 408-square mile area of Metropolitan
Bakersfield. The Federal permit would make this take lawful so long as
it is in accordance with the conditions of the permit as described in
the HCP and its IA. The permit issued would cover the species formally
listed by the Service at the time of issuance. Other species of concern
could be added by amendment in the event that they are subsequently
listed as an endangered species or threatened species. The section
10(a)(1)(B) permit would permit the incidental take of the following
listed species: San Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton
kangaroo rat, and giant kangaroo rat.
The HCP addresses the following species of concern and listed
plants, in addition to the federally protected species which will be
covered by the plan: Short-nosed kangaroo rat, San Joaquin antelope
squirrel, San Joaquin pocket mouse, Bakersfield saltbush, Slough
thistle, recurved larkspur, Tulare pseudobahia, striped adobe lily,
Bakersfield cactus, California jewel flower, San Joaquin wooly-threads,
Hoover's wooly-star and Kern mallow.
The federally listed species are scattered generally throughout the
open, non-urbanized lands of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.
According to biological surveys conducted for the HCP and surveys
conducted by others since 1980, several of the species of concern may
no longer occur in the area. the San Joaquin kit fox is the most
widespread of the species of concern and is most frequently affected by
urbanization in the HCP area. High potential for impact and the need
for large preserves make the kit for a natural focus for the HCP.
Much of the area is in intensive agriculture, but retains value for
kit fox in prey and even for dens in berms, near water impoundments,
and on fallow land. Urbanization of agricultural land will result in a
take of species, loss of habitat, and intensification of population
related take (e.g., road kills). The natural lands of the area have
greater species value and represent more viable long-term habitat.
The HCP describes a method of collecting funds for the acquisition
and/or enhancement of natural lands and restorable lands for purpsoes
of preserves. Areas targeted for acquisition have been identified for
conservation by the Service and CDFG as part of the Biological
Framework for Natural Lands and Endangered Species in the southern San
Joaquin Valley. The HCP also provided for the minimization of take
within the developed area.
The HCP addresses two categories of land: (1) Natural land, meaning
land generally in grazing and with original soil and topography intact,
and (2) open land, which includes natural land as well as agriculture
and all other non-urban land in the area. Urbanization of either
category would pay the same mitigation fee, but the two are
distinguished for the purposes of environmental assessment and permit
monitoring.
The HCP provides for: 1. Acquisition and management of a minimum of
3 acres of significant value endangered species habitat for every 1
acre of ``natural'' land developed within the HCP area, or acquisition
and management of 1 acre of significant value endangered species
habitat for every 1 acre of ``open'' land developed within the HCP
area, whichever is greater.
2. Land acquisition outside of the HCP area with consideration to
pre-approved acquisition areas identified by CDFG.
3. Acquisition and management of between 500 and 1,000 acres of
land in the northeast portion of the study area for the primary purpose
of preserving the Bakersfield cactus.
4. Acquisition and management of land, as feasible, adjacent to the
Kern Water Bank project on the west side of I-5, south of Panama Lane.
5. Pursuit of cooperative agreements for restoring and enhancing
land, as feasible, within the Kern Water Bank project area and provide
funding as appropriate.
6. Limited relocation or displacement of individuals in areas
affected by development as a means of reducing direct take of
endangered species.
The HCP will be implemented under the terms of the section
10(a)(1)(B) permit issued by the Service and the IA. The permit is
requested for a period of 20 years, or until urban development permits
are issued for 15,200 acres of natural lands or 43,000 acres of open
lands. The HCP has three categories of participation.
1. The Service as a permitter and advisor to the Implementation
Trust (Trust);
2. City and County as permittees and trustees; and
3. Other implementing entities such as The Nature Conservancy and
CDFG as preserve development coordinators.
The City and County will be the primary entities responsible for
administering the institutional elements of the HCP in their respective
jurisdictions.
Administration of the HCP involves the following categories: (1)
Local mitigation fee collection and fund management, (2) management of
State and Federal funding, if applicable, (3) preserve selection and
acquisition, (4) preserve management, (5) land restoration and
enhancement and species monitoring, (6) annual report and preparation,
and (7) enforcement.
The HCP program relies on the formation of a Trust which would be
in charge of making major preserve acquisition decisions and for
administering the plan. The Trust will comprise representatives from
the City and County as trustees, the Service, CDFG, and a member of the
public as mandatory advisors. Specific preserve management plans would
be developed later and carried out by each individual preserve
management entity. The mitigation funds collected by the City and
County will be deposited into a trust fund and would be administered by
the Trust. The Trust will meet as necessary to carry out the HCP. The
Trust will be responsible for reporting to the Service as to the status
of enhancement.
The HCP program will be funded through the collection of a one time
mitigation fee paid on all new construction taking place within the
conservation plan area. The fee is $1,240 per gross acre for all new
construction on previously undeveloped land, payable at the time
building permits are issued. The fee is set in 1993 dollars and will be
adjusted annually for inflation. Upon payment of this fee and receipt
of City or County project approval, a development permit applicant
would become a sub-permittee and would be allowed the incidental take
of species in accordance with Federal endangered species laws.
The fee is based on per acre estimated costs of, (1) $600 for land,
(2) $100 for fencing and improvement, (3) $300 for management and
enhancement, and (4) $250 for program administration. The amount of
mitigation fees collected will depend on the rate of growth in the HCP
area. At current growth rates, fees will generate funding for
acquisition and management or roughly 700 acres per year. State and
Federal conservation funds will be sought to augment local funds for
land acquisition.
The HCP applies to the entire conservation plan area (2010 General
Plan), but the requested section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would only allow
take in the area outside of the primary flood plain of the Kern River
and lands within the Kern Water Bank. The Kern River is excluded to
assure that an open corridor can be maintained between the foothills to
the northeast and the San Joaquin Hills Valley floor to the west. Kern
Water Bank lands are under the jurisdiction of the State of California.
The HCP addresses lands converted primarily to urban uses as
permitted by the City or County. Activities which may result in a take,
but which are not subject to approval by the City or County, will not
be authorized by the proposed permit. Thus, impact on natural lands
from oil extraction or agriculture are not subject to the permit,
although some types of ancillary oil and agricultural facilities that
are subject to City or County permits would be covered. Activities not
covered by the permit would have to comply separately with Federal
requirements.
Although the permit covers a large area, the take of threatened or
endangered species will only occur where actual urban growth occurs.
The area designated for urban uses (including all low density
residential categories) in the 2010 General Plan covers roughly 74.5
square miles (47,600 acres) of undeveloped or open land. Of this, 22.25
square miles (14,200) acres is natural land, which currently supports
populations of the species of concern, and 52.25 square miles (33,400
acres) of other open lands, primarily intensive agriculture. Full
build-out of the 2010 General Plan would double the size of
Bakersfield, but full build-out is not expected to occur within the
proposed 20-year life of the permit. Realistic projections indicate a
loss of open lands at a rate of roughly 1 square miles per year, which
is assumed to be divided proportionately between natural and other open
lands. At that rate, a loss of some 20 square miles of open land,
including some 7 square miles of natural land, will take place over the
life of the permit. Even though actual growth and impact may vary, the
mitigation program is designed to be self-regulating, even a major
increase in growth could be accommodated by the proposed HCP program.
The actual extent and location of Metropolitan Bakersfield growth
cannot be exactly predicted, and the HCP must therefore rely on the
ongoing preservation actions of the Trust. Permit compliance will be
met by maintaining adequate enhancement levels. There are two tests
that the Trust must meet: (1) 1 acre of enhancement for each acre of
open land urbanized, or (2) 3 acres enhanced for each acre of natural
land urbanized, whichever is greater. The accounting will be done
quarterly and annually, but will reflect cumulative urbanization
commencing at the beginning of the permit period. Management plans for
habitat areas will require approval from the Service.
The EA examines a range of alternatives pertaining to preserve
strategy. The no-action alternative, meaning that the City and County
would not obtain a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, would leave much of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield area in conflict with the Act and potentially
subject to civil and criminal penalties. The Service could only enforce
the Act on a case-by-case basis and significant impact on endangered
species could still occur through piece meal reduction of habitat,
cumulative indirect impact of growth, and lack of enhancement to offset
past impacts. No action would lead to significant impairment of growth
in Metropolitan Bakersfield, along with gradual, significant
deterioration in the status of endangered species. Other alternatives
examined include five other preserve strategies and mandatory
relocation as additional mitigation.
Dated: May 31, 1994.
Marvin L. Plenert,
Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-13757 Filed 6-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
