[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10781-10784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4252]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the East Contra Costa County Habitat
Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan and Receipt
of Application for an Incidental Take Permit From the Contra Costa
County Flood Control and Water District, Contra Costa County, CA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the receipt of an application from the
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water District (Flood Control
District) and the availability of the final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), East Contra Costa
County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation
Plan (Plan), and Implementing Agreement (IA) for public review and
comment. A notice of availability of the draft EIS/EIR was published in
the Federal Register on September 2, 2005. The application described in
that notice did not include the Flood Control District, which has since
been added to the list of proposed permittees. The Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) is considering the proposed action of issuing a 30-
year incidental take permit for 28 species in response to the
application. The proposed permittees are: Contra Costa County (County);
the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg (cities); the
Flood Control District; East Bay Regional Park District; and an
Implementing Entity to be formed by the County and the cities to
implement certain aspects of the Plan. The proposed permit would
authorize the incidental take of individual members of species listed
under the ESA. The permit is needed because take of species could occur
during proposed urban development activities, rural infrastructure
projects, and preserve management activities within a 174,018-acre
planning area located in eastern Contra Costa County, California.
DATES: The 30-day waiting period will end on April 9, 2007. Written
comments should be received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail or facsimile to: (1) Lori Rinek,
Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-
[[Page 10782]]
2605, Sacramento, California 95825; facsimile 916-414-6713; and/or (2)
John Kopchik, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Community
Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Fourth Floor Northwest,
Martinez, CA 94553; facsimile 925-335-1299.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) Sheila Larsen, Wildlife Biologist,
or Lori Rinek, Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone 916-414-6600; or (2)
John Kopchik, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Community
Development Department, telephone 925-335-1227.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Documents
Copies of the Plan, IA and Final EIS/EIR are available for public
review from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department (see ADDRESSES). These documents also are
available on the Association's Web site: http://www.cocohcp.org.
In addition, copies of all documents are also available at the
following local agency offices:
(1) City of Brentwood, Community Development Dept., 104 Oak Street,
Brentwood, CA 94513.
(2) City of Clayton, Community Development Department, 6000
Heritage Trail, Clayton, CA 94517.
(3) City of Oakley, Community Development Department, 3231 Main
Street, Oakley, CA 94561.
(4) City of Pittsburg, Planning Department, 65 Civic Drive,
Pittsburg, CA 94565.
(5) East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court,
Oakland, CA 94605.
The documents are also available at the following Contra Costa
Library locations:
(6) 751 Third Street, Brentwood, CA.
(7) 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, CA.
(8) Freedom High School, 1050 Neroly Road, Oakley, CA.
(9) 80 Power Avenue, Pittsburg, CA.
(10) Riverview Middle School, 205 Pacifica Avenue, Bay Point, CA.
You also may obtain copies of these documents for review by
contacting Sheila Larsen [see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT].
Documents also will be available for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office [see
ADDRESSES].
Background Information
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the take of
fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C.
1538). The term ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532). Harm includes significant habitat
modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, and sheltering [50 CFR 17.3(c)]. Under
limited circumstances, the Service may issue permits to authorize
incidental take of listed fish or wildlife; i.e., take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity.
Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and
endangered species are found in 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively.
Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the
ESA, 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. All species included on an incidental take permit would receive
assurances under the Services ``No Surprises'' regulation [50 CFR
17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)].
In response to the proposed permittees' application, the Service
proposes to issue an incidental take permit to the following local
agencies: Contra Costa County (County); the cities of Brentwood,
Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg (cities); Flood Control District; and
East Bay Regional Park District. An incidental take permit is also
proposed to be issued to an Implementing Entity to be formed by the
County and cities to implement certain aspects of the Plan. The local
agencies and the Implementing Entity are collectively referred to as
the ``permittees''. The Association has prepared the Plan on behalf of
the permittees to satisfy the application requirements for a section
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit under the ESA and a section 2835
permit under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
of 2003 (NCCPA). Thus, the Plan constitutes a Habitat Conservation Plan
pursuant to the ESA, and a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)
pursuant to the California NCCPA.
The permittees seek a 30-year incidental take permit for covered
activities within a proposed 174,018-acre planning area, located
entirely in eastern Contra Costa County, California. They are
requesting a permit for 28 species, 8 of which are currently listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA. Of these 28 species, the
Association requests a permit and assurances for 17 animal species and
assurances for 11 plant species. Proposed covered species include 3
wildlife species, currently listed as endangered under the ESA [San
Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotus mutica), longhorn fairy shrimp
(Brachinecta longiantenna), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus
packardi)] and 5 wildlife species currently listed as threatened under
the Federal ESA [Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus),
giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi)]. The
proposed covered species also include 9 wildlife species and 11 plant
species that are not currently listed under the ESA: Townsend's western
big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii), tricolored
blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos),
western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), Swainson's hawk
(Buteo swainsonii), silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra),
western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), foothill yellow-legged frog
(Rana boylii), midvalley fairy shrimp (Brachinecta mesovallensis),
Mount Diablo manzanita (Arctostaphylos auriculata), brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joanquiniana),
big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa ssp. plumosa), Mount Diablo fairy
lantern (Calochortus pulchellus), recurved larkspur (Delphinium
recurvatum), round-leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), Diablo
helianthella (Helianthella castanea), Brewer's dwarf flax (Hesperolinon
breweri), showy madia (Madia radiata), and adobe navarretia (Navarretia
nigelliformis ssp. nigelliformis).
If the proposed Plan is approved and the permit issued, take
authorization of covered listed wildlife species would be effective at
the time of permit issuance. Take of the currently non-listed covered
wildlife species would be authorized concurrent with the species'
listing under the ESA, should they be listed during the duration of the
permit. Collectively, the 28 listed and unlisted species are referred
to as the ``covered species'' in the Plan.
The applicants propose to minimize and mitigate the effects to
covered species associated with the covered activities by participating
in the Plan. The proposed Plan is intended to be a comprehensive and
multi-jurisdictional document, providing for regional species
conservation and habitat planning, while allowing the prospective
permittees to better manage
[[Page 10783]]
anticipated growth and development. The proposed Plan also is intended
to provide a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the take
of covered species as an alternative to the current project-by-project
approach.
In order to define a reasonable range of expected growth, the
proposed Plan defines two permit areas: the initial urban development
area and the maximum urban development area. Although the initial and
maximum urban development areas bound the range of the proposed permit
area, the final permit area may lie somewhere in between, depending on
local land use decisions that occur during the proposed 30-year permit
term. The proposed Plan, therefore, encompasses a range of alternative
permit areas. Both the initial and maximum urban development areas are
based on current general plans of the local jurisdictions.
The proposed initial urban development area is defined by: (1) The
Urban Limit Line (ULL) of Contra Costa County and the city limits of
the participating cities (Pittsburg, Clayton, Oakley, and Brentwood),
whichever is largest; (2) the footprint of specific rural
infrastructure projects outside the ULL and the city limits of
participating cities; and (3) the boundary of any land acquired in fee
title or conservation easement and managed under the Plan.
Up to 8,670 acres of ground-disturbing urban development activities
within the ULL are proposed to be permitted under the initial urban
development. The proposed maximum urban development area is the largest
extent to which urban development could expand under the terms of the
proposed Plan. Under this scenario, up to 11,853 acres of ground-
disturbing urban development activities within the permit area could be
allowed, as long as the conditions of the Plan are met. With either
urban development area, an additional 1,126 acres of impact are
expected from rural infrastructure projects and activities within the
Plan's preserves. Thus, total impacts allowed under the Plan, are 9,796
acres and 13,029 acres with the initial and maximum urban development
areas, respectively.
The conservation strategy was designed to minimize and mitigate the
impacts of covered activities, contribute to the recovery of listed
covered species, and protect and enhance populations of non-listed
covered species, as proposed. The proposed conservation strategy
provides for the establishment, enhancement, and long-term management
of the preserves for the benefit of covered vegetation communities,
covered species, and overall biodiversity and ecosystem functions. The
proposed preserves would also serve to achieve other complementary
goals such as recreation, grazing, and crop production, as long as the
primary biological goals of the Plan are met and not compromised. The
system of new preserves would likely be linked to existing protected
lands to form a network of protected areas outside the area where new
urban growth is proposed to be permitted under the Plan.
On September 2, 2005, a notice was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 52434) announcing that the Service had received an
application for an incidental take permit from the Association and the
availability of the draft EIS/EIR. The draft EIS/EIR analyzed the
potential environmental impacts that may result from the Federal action
of authorizing incidental take associated with implementation of the
Plan and the identified alternatives. We received a total of 18 comment
letters on the draft EIS/EIR. A response to each comment received has
been included in the final EIS/EIR.
Alternatives
The draft EIS/EIR analyzed three alternatives in addition to the
proposed Plan described above. The proposed Plan was identified as
Alternative 1 (also referred to as Conservation Strategy A). The three
other alternatives are described below.
Alternative 2 (also referred to as Conservation Strategy B) would
provide for the same size planning area, located entirely in eastern
Contra Costa County, with the same preserve size as the proposed Plan,
except that the location of the preserve would be modified.
Modification of the preserve locations would result in increased
protection of chaparral and cultivated agriculture and decreased
protection of grassland. This alternative would also involve less
riparian restoration than the proposed Plan. Other elements of the
proposed Plan would remain the same, including species and communities
covered, conservation measures, monitoring and adaptive management, and
implementation approach.
Compared to the Proposed Plan, Alternative 3 (the Reduced
Development Area Alternative) would provide for a reduced level of take
due to a reduced permit area. Existing open space or agricultural lands
within the ULL that are not currently designated for development would
be conserved. Under this alternative, the permit area would be 6,991
acres. Other elements of the proposed Plan would remain the same
including the species and communities covered, conservation measures,
monitoring and adaptive management, and implementation approach.
Under the Alternative 4 (the No-Action/No-Project alternative), the
proposed Plan would not be adopted, and permits pursuant to Section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 2835 of the NCCPA would not be
issued by the Service and California Department of Fish and Game,
respectively. Compliance with the ESA would continue to be addressed on
a case-by-case basis.
National Environmental Policy Act
Proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, a joint final NEPA/CEQA
document has been prepared. The Service is the Lead Agency responsible
for compliance under NEPA, and the Association is the Lead Agency with
responsibility for compliance with CEQA. As NEPA Lead Agency, the
Service is providing notice of the availability of the final EIS/EIR
and is making available for public review the responses to comments on
the draft EIS/EIR.
Public Review
The Service and Association invite the public to review the final
Plan, final EIS/EIR, and final IA during a 30-day public waiting period
[see DATES]. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will
become part of the administrative record and may be made available to
the public. Our practice is to make comments, including names, home
addresses, home telephone numbers, and email addresses of respondents,
available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we
withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to
consider withholding this information you must state this prominently
at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a
rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must
demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden.
In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this
information will be released. We will always make submissions from
organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
[[Page 10784]]
The Service will evaluate the application, associated documents,
and comments submitted to them to prepare a Record of Decision. A
permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after the
publication of the final EIS/EIR and completion of the Record of
Decision.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the ESA and
Service regulations for implementing NEPA, as amended (40 CFR 1506.6).
We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other
organizations to review these documents.
Dated: March 5, 2007.
Polly Wheeler,
Acting Deputy Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, Sacramento,
CA.
[FR Doc. E7-4252 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P