[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 170 (Friday, August 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45983-45985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22040]



[[Page 45983]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service


Receipt of Application and Availability of a Recirculated Draft 
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for Issuance 
of Permits To Allow Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered 
Species Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program Planning Area 
in San Diego County, California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the receipt of an application and the 
availability of a Recirculated Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed issuance of incidental 
take permits, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended, for species federally listed as threatened or endangered. The 
proposed take would occur due to urban development in southwestern San 
Diego County, California. The City of San Diego has submitted an 
application, and the County of San Diego, the Cities of Chula Vista, 
Coronado, Del Mar, and Santee, and the Otay Water District (applicants) 
intend to apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the 
foreseeable future for incidental take permits pursuant to the 
Endangered Species Act.
    The applications include a regional Multiple Species Conservation 
Program Plan and individual Subarea Plans and Implementing Agreements. 
The Multiple Species Conservation Program is intended to conserve 
listed and unlisted species, thereby reducing the uncertainty 
associated with development and future species' listings.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service anticipates that each of the 
applicants will request permits for 12 listed animals: the threatened 
western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), coastal 
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), bald eagle 
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and the red-legged frog (Rana aurora 
draytoni); and the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus 
woottoni), California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis 
californicus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), 
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 southwestern arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus 
californicus).
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also anticipates that each 
applicant will request assurances for future incidental take, should it 
become necessary, of 5 endangered plants, 12 plants and 1 animal 
proposed for listing, and 55 other unlisted species (29 plants, 18 
birds, 3 reptiles, 3 mammals, and 2 invertebrates). These species would 
be listed on the permits, with take authorization effective upon 
listing. Plants would be covered by the permits to the extent that take 
of plants is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. The exact number of species for which assurances are sought 
may change between the draft and final Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement.
    The Recirculated Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement evaluates the effects on the human 
environment expected to occur from proposed issuance of the permits. 
Adoption of the Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan, and 
adoption of the Concept Plan for the Otay Valley Regional Park within 
the Multiple Species Conservation Program planning area, would be at 
the programmatic level. Project level actions, including adoption of 
Subarea Plans, are evaluated for the County of San Diego, and the 
Cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, and Santee. 
Another proposed action evaluated in the document is the adoption of 
the County of San Diego's Biological Mitigation Ordinance. Incidental 
take resulting from the above actions would be minimized and mitigated 
by implementation of the regional Multiple Species Conservation Program 
Plan.
    Federal approval of the Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan 
is required pursuant to the special section 4(d) rule for the coastal 
California gnatcatcher. Incidental take of the coastal California 
gnatcatcher is allowed under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended, if take results from activities conducted in 
accordance with the California Natural Community Conservation Planning 
Act, the Natural Community Conservation Planning Process Guidelines, 
and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Southern California 
Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation Guidelines provided that all of the 
issuance criteria for incidental take permits have been met.
    The Multiple Species Conservation Program and Draft Joint 
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement are being 
recirculated due to project changes that warrant issuance of new 
documents with new analyses. Earlier drafts of the documents were made 
available to the public during spring of 1995 (60 FR 25734).

DATES: Written comments on the Multiple Species Conservation Program 
Plan, Recirculated Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement, and City of San Diego Implementing 
Agreement should be received on or before October 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Mr. Gail Kobetich, Field 
Supervisor, Carlsbad Field Office, 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Documents

    Individuals wishing copies of the Recirculated Draft Joint 
Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement should 
immediately contact Ms. Gilbert. Copies of this Draft Joint 
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 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 Multiple Species 
Conservation Program Plan and City of San Diego Implementing Agreement 
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. All documents can be 
viewed, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service's Carlsbad Field Office (see ADDRESSES) and the 
City of San Diego's Clean Water Program Office.

Background

    Under section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 
and its implementing regulations, wildlife listed as threatened or 
endangered are protected from ``taking.'' The Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended, defines take, in part, as killing, harming, or 
harassing listed wildlife. U.S. Fish and 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

[[Page 45984]]

circumstances, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may issue incidental take permits 
for listed animals for which an approved habitat conservation plan has 
been prepared. 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 50-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 
171,917-acre preserve within the boundaries of a Multiple Habitat 
Planning Area. Twenty-four habitats are represented in the Multiple 
Habitat Planning Area, including 6 rare or protected habitats. In 
addition, 85 species are expected to be adequately protected under the 
Multiple Habitat Planning Area.
    The Recirculated Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement considers the environmental consequences 
of 5 alternatives, including the applicants' habitat conservation plan 
(the Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan) and the no action 
alternative. Under the no action or no project alternative, the 
regional Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan would not be 
implemented. Jurisdictions would either avoid take of listed species 
within the planning area or apply for individual permits under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 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 Multiple Species Conservation Program 
planning area under the no action alternative would be similar to that 
conserved under the proposed action (Multiple Habitat Planning Area). 
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 scenario would conserve 84,900 acres. The coastal 
sage scrub alternative would include 21 habitats, providing adequate 
protection for 2 habitats, neither of which is rare. Twenty-six species 
would be covered under the coastal sage scrub alternative. The 
biologically preferred scenario would conserve 167,000 acres. The 
biologically preferred alternative would include 24 habitats, 
adequately protecting 9. Of these 9 habitats, 7 are considered rare. 
Seventy-three species are expected to be adequately protected under the 
biologically preferred alternative. The public lands scenario would 
conserve 147,000 acres. The public lands alternative would include 24 
habitats and adequately protect 6, all 6 of which are rare. Thirty-five 
species are expected to be adequately protected under public lands.
    Local jurisdictions would implement their respective portions of 
the Multiple Species Conservation Program 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. Lands would be acquired from willing sellers.
    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 Multiple Species Conservation Program 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 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of 
Fish and Game to identify the specific responsibilities and assurances 
of each party in implementing the Multiple Species Conservation Program 
Plan. Although each applicant has not yet completed an Implementing 
Agreement, all Implementing Agreements will follow a model. Because the 
Implementing Agreement is a legal contract to ensure that all actions 
in the Subarea Plans are implemented, the effects of individual 
Implementing Agreements should be the same as the effects of the 
corresponding Subarea Plans. If late submission of individual 
Implementing Agreements reveals effects significantly different from 
those analyzed in the Recirculated Draft Joint Environmental Impact 
Report/Environmental Impact Statement, the comment period would be 
reopened.
    Should take authorizations be approved, each jurisdiction would 
then exercise its land-use review and approval powers in accordance 
with its Implementing Agreement and the Multiple Species Conservation 
Program. The 5 percent limit on interim loss of coastal sage scrub, 
imposed as part of the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program 
and special section 4(d) rule for the gnatcatcher, would be replaced by 
the conditions of each jurisdiction's permit and Implementing 
Agreement.
    Each jurisdiction would be expected to adopt the final 
configuration of the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve 
within its subarea boundary and adopt the recommendations of the 
Multiple Species Conservation Program 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 Multiple 
Species Conservation Program Plan. The Multiple Species Conservation 
Program 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.
    This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended, and National Environmental Policy Act 
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). All comments received will become part of 
the public record and may be released.


[[Page 45985]]


    Dated: August 23, 1996.
Thomas Dwyer,
Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 96-22040 Filed 8-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P