[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41510-41513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17638]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-ES-2010-N283; 20124-1112-0000-F2]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Habitat Conservation
Plan for Commercial Wind Energy Developments Within Nine States
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent; announcement of public scoping meetings;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, as lead agency advise the
public that we intend to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) on a proposed application, including a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP), for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. The potential ITP would include federally
listed and candidate species within portions of nine states (North
Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas).
The activities covered by a potential ITP would include regional-
level construction, operation, and maintenance associated with multiple
commercial wind energy facilities. The planning partners are currently
considering, for inclusion in the HCP, certain species listed as
federally threatened or endangered, or having the potential to become
listed during the
[[Page 41511]]
life of the HCP, and having some likelihood of being taken by the
applicant's activities within the proposed permit area. The intended
effect of this notice is to gather information from the public to
develop and analyze the effects of the potential issuance of an ITP
that would facilitate wind energy development within the planning area,
while minimizing incidental take and mitigating the effects of any
incidental take to the maximum extent practicable.
We provide this notice to (1) Describe the proposed action; (2)
advise other Federal and state agencies, potentially affected tribal
interests, and the public of our intent to prepare an EIS; (3) announce
the initiation of a 90-day public scoping period; and (4) obtain
suggestions and information on the scope of issues and possible
alternatives to be included in the EIS.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments
on or before October 12, 2011. For approximate public meeting dates,
see ``Public Meetings'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments or request for information by any one of
the following methods:
U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306,
Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306; Attention: Laila Lienesch;
Facsimile: 505/248-6922 (Attention: Laila Lienesch);
E-Mail: [email protected]; or
Toll-Free Telephone Message Service: 800/815-8927.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laila Lienesch at 505/248-6494 or
[email protected], Amelia Orton-Palmer at 303/236-4211 or
[email protected], or Marty Tuegel at 505/248-6651 or
[email protected]. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech
impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800/877-8337 for TTY
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.; NEPA) of 1969, as amended, we, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service), as lead agency, advise the public that
we intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a
proposed application, including a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), for
an incidental take permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and seek public input
prior to developing a draft EIS for the potential issuance of an ITP.
Public Meetings
To facilitate information transfer, we will hold nine public
meetings in the following cities between August 2011 and September
2011:
Pueblo, Colorado--August 9, 2011.
Amarillo, Texas--August 10, 2011.
Clovis, New Mexico--August 11, 2011.
Pierre, South Dakota--August 23, 2011.
Bismarck, North Dakota--August 24, 2011.
Glendive, Montana--August 25, 2011.
Kearney, Nebraska--August 30, 2011.
Great Bend, Kansas--August 31, 2011.
Woodward, Oklahoma--September 1, 2011.
Austin, Texas--September 7, 2011.
Corpus Christi, Texas--September 8, 2011.
Specific times and locations of the public information meetings will be
available on the Service's Web site--http://www.fws.gov/southwest/--and
noticed in local newspapers at least 14 days prior to the meeting
dates.
Reasonable Accommodations
Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and
participate in the public meetings should contact the Service at the
address above no later than 1 week before the public meeting.
Information regarding this proposed action is available in alternative
formats upon request.
Background
Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit take
of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. The definition of
take under the Act includes the following activities: To harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed
animal species, or attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538).
Section 10 of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1539, establishes a program whereby
persons seeking to pursue activities that are otherwise legal, but
could give rise to liability for unlawful take of federally protected
species, may receive an ITP, which provides incidental take
authorization to the ITP holder. To obtain an ITP, an applicant must
submit an HCP containing measures that would minimize incidental take,
including avoidance, and mitigate for the effects of any incidental
take to the maximum extent practicable; and ensure that the taking is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity (16
U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B) and 1539(a)(2)(A)). If we determine that an
applicant has satisfied all permitting criteria and other statutory
requirements, we intend to issue the ITP. At this time, the entity or
entities that would serve as the applicant(s) for and be potentially
permitted under an ITP have not been selected. However, the ITP is
being sought by the Wind Energy Whooping Crane Action Group (WEWAG), a
group of wind energy industry companies formed in 2009. Member
companies include Acciona North America; Allete; Alternity; BP
Renewables; Clipper Wind Energy; CPV Renewable Energy Company, LLC;
EnXco; Duke Wind Energy; Horizon Wind Energy; Iberdrola Renewables;
Infinity; MAP Royalty; NextEra Energy Resources; Renewable Energy
Systems Americas; Terra-Gen; Trade Wind Energy; Element Power; Own
Energy; and Wind Capital Group. Additional companies may become
involved as the planning process proceeds. Hereafter, the term
``applicant'' is used to refer to the ultimate applicant(s) selected
and the potential permittee(s). The proposed ITP would be granted for
certain wind energy development, operation, and decommissioning or
repowering-related activities undertaken within the permit area
(described below).
WEWAG has sought to work in partnership with the Service to promote
species conservation, while complying with environmental stewardship
goals and policy requirements that compel the development of clean and
sustainable energy from wind resources. If successful, the HCP and
subsequent ITP would allow take authorization for otherwise lawful
activities, such as the development, construction, operation, and
decommissioning or repowering, of commercial wind energy developments
within the planning area. The HCP will contain a multifaceted approach,
including but not limited to take avoidance, minimization of take
(e.g., through proven and defined best management practices), and
mitigation of the impacts of take through potential habitat
preservation, restoration, and enhancement measures. The applicant must
also ensure that adequate funding for implementation, including
biological and compliance monitoring, is provided.
WEWAG is currently considering, for inclusion in the HCP, certain
species listed as federally threatened or endangered, or having the
potential to become listed during the life of the HCP, and having some
likelihood of being taken by the applicant's activities within the
proposed permit area. Those species include the endangered whooping
crane (Grus americana), the endangered interior least tern (Sterna
antillarum athalassos), the endangered piping plover (Charadrius
melodus),
[[Page 41512]]
and the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), a
candidate species. The final list of covered species may include all
these species, a subset of them, and/or additional species, based on
the outcome of this planning process.
The proposed planning area is a 200-mile-wide corridor determined
by defining the center line of the whooping crane migration path
corridor (100 miles on either side of the center line). This line is
based on the database of confirmed whooping crane observations from the
Cooperative Whooping Crane Tracking Program. This corridor extends from
the Gulf Coast of Texas north to the Canadian border and encompasses
such cities as Houston, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Wichita, KS; Bismarck,
ND; Grand Island, NE; and Aberdeen, SD. In addition, the planning area
includes the majority of the historic range of the lesser prairie-
chicken, which extends the permit area beyond the 200-mile-wide
whooping crane migration corridor to include parts of Kansas, Colorado,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas.
Environmental Impact Statement
The Service will be the lead Federal agency in the preparation of
the EIS to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. With this notice of intent
(NOI), we ask other Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies with
jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental
issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.
Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status on the
EIS should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under
the ADDRESSES section above.
The EIS will consider the proposed action (the issuance of a
section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP, as supported by an HCP), no action (no HCP/no
ITP), and a reasonable range of alternatives that accomplish the
purpose and need of the proposal. A detailed description of the
proposed action and alternatives will be included in the EIS. The
alternatives to be considered for analysis in the EIS may include, but
are not limited to, modified lists of covered species, differing land-
coverage areas, activities which may be covered, and a variety of
permit structures under consideration for the conservation program,
described below in the Public Comment section. The EIS will also
identify potentially significant impacts on biological resources, land
use, air quality, water quality, water resources, economics, and other
environmental/historical resources that may occur from issuance of the
ITP; indirect impacts as a result of implementing a proposed HCP,
including any of the alternatives; and cumulative impacts. Various
strategies for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the impacts of
incidental take will also be considered.
Environmental review of the EIS will be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of NEPA, its implementing regulations (40 CFR
1500-1508), other applicable regulations, and our procedures for
compliance with those regulations. We furnish this notice in accordance
with 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22 to obtain suggestions and information
from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues and
alternatives they believe need to be addressed in the EIS. We invite
comments from interested parties to ensure that the full range of
issues related to the proposed permit application is identified.
Public Comments
We are requesting information from other interested government
agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or other interested parties concerning the following areas of analysis:
Vegetation, Wildlife and Aquatic Resources, Special Status Species,
Surface Waters and Floodplains, Hydrology and Groundwater, Wetlands and
Waters of the U.S., Archeology, Architectural History, Sites of
Religious and Cultural Significance to Tribes, Noise and Vibration,
Visual Resources and Aesthetics, Economics and Socioeconomics,
Environmental Justice, Air Quality (including greenhouse gas emissions
and climate change), Geology and Soil, Land Use, Transportation,
Infrastructure and Utilities, Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste
Management, and Human Health and Safety.
In addition to the topics above, we are seeking comments on how a
future ITP or ITPs may be structured. Currently there are four
potential ITP structures being considered. The first involves a single
habitat conservation plan that supports a single ITP held by a third
party, referred to as a Programmatic HCP. This third-party ITP holder
would enroll companies and their projects under the ITP. The third
party would need to meet all general permit and ITP issuance criteria
(50 CFR 13.21, 17.22(b), and 17.32(b)); and would be responsible for
the administration of the HCP, including enrollment, compliance
monitoring, biological monitoring, coordination of the mitigation,
annual reporting, adaptive management, any ITP amendments, and annual
coordination meetings. Under this ITP administrative structure the HCP
and ITP would undergo NEPA and section 7 consultation once under the
ESA prior to the ITP being issued. The ITP holder would administer the
HCP without further Service involvement or reanalysis under NEPA or
ESA.
The second ITP structure, referred to as an Umbrella HCP, under
consideration is a single habitat conservation plan that supports
multiple ITP holders. A single HCP would be developed, and all NEPA and
ESA compliance would be done on the HCP. Each company would apply for
separate ITPs under the Umbrella HCP. At the time a company applied for
an ITP, the Service would evaluate the NEPA and section 7 consultation
under ESA to ensure that the impacts and effects of the company's
projects are consistent with the HCP's NEPA and ESA compliance
documents, and the general permit issuance criteria and ITPs (50 CFR
13.21, 17.22(b), and 17.32(b)). The Service would also announce a
Notice of Intent to issue the ITP in the Federal Register and take
public comment on the application for 30-days (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)).
Issuance of ITPs could take up to 90 days to process. Each company
holding an ITP would be responsible for implementation of their
minimization and mitigation measures, compliance monitoring and
biological monitoring, annual reporting, adaptive management
procedures, and participation in annual coordination meetings. The
Service would be responsible for issuance of new ITPs, coordination of
the mitigation, and conducting annual meetings with ITP holders. This
ITP administrative structure would have continued Service involvement
during the implementation of the HCP.
The third ITP structure, referred to as the Primary Permit HCP,
also involves a single HCP that supports an initial ITP held by a third
party. Authorities in the initial ITP are then transferred to
individual companies through the issuance of ITPs specific to their
projects. A single HCP would be developed and all NEPA and ESA
compliance would be completed on the HCP prior to issuance of the
initial ITP. All compliance and issuance criteria would be reviewed
prior to any transfer of authorities to an individual company. The
Service would transfer the authorizations in the initial ITP, in whole
or in part, based on a joint submission by the initial ITP holder and
the proposed transferee, so long as the Service determines that the
transferee is qualified to hold an ITP (50 CFR 13.21, 17.22(b), and
17.32(b)) and provides adequate written assurance that it will provide
sufficient funding and implement the relevant terms and
[[Page 41513]]
conditions of the ITP (50 CFR 13.25). The Service anticipates
publishing a Notice of Intent to issue an ITP with transfer authorities
in the Federal Register and take public comments on the application for
30 days. Issuance of each ITP may take up to 90 days to process. The
holder of the initial ITP would be responsible for the coordination of
all activities among the transferees. Each company holding an ITP would
be responsible for implementation of their minimization and mitigation
measures, compliance monitoring and biological monitoring, annual
reporting, adaptive management procedures, participation in annual
meetings, and coordination with the initial ITP holder. The Service
would be responsible in processing the transfers and reviewing annual
reports. This ITP administrative structure would have some continued
Service involvement during the implementation of the HCP, but it would
be less than under the Umbrella HCP and more than under the
Programmatic HCP.
The fourth ITP structure, referred to as the Co-Permitted HCP, also
involves a single HCP that supports an ITP, but all parties are named
as co-permittees on the ITP. A single HCP would be developed and all
NEPA and ESA compliance would be completed on the HCP prior to issuance
of the initial ITP. Current members of WEWAG (or those who join prior
to permit application) would be named as permittee in the incidental
take permit application. Assuming the Service found that the HCP met
the ESA's permit issuance criteria, the Service would issue a single or
master incidental take permit naming each of the WEWAG members as a
participating permittee (co-permittee). Similar to the programmatic
approach, the incidental take permit would authorize each co-
permittee's projects located within the permit area. Prior to
undertaking any new project, a co-permittee would submit to the Service
a prescribed form indicating how its project complies with the
incidental take permit and that any required mitigation has been paid
to the appropriate entity. The Service would have the authority to
review each project and would stay engaged during the implementation of
the HCP. Each company named as a co-permittee would be responsible for
implementation of their minimization and mitigation measures,
compliance monitoring and biological monitoring, annual reporting,
adaptive management procedures, and participation in annual
coordination meetings. Additional NEPA and ESA section 7 would not be
necessary, as each permittee would be fully authorized under the
permit.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not provide information
useful in determining the issues and the impacts to the human
environment in the draft EIS. The public will also have a chance to
review and comment on the draft EIS when it is available (a notice of
availability will be published in the Federal Register).
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods
described above under the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
notice. Written comments will also be accepted at the public meetings,
although these public meetings are primarily intended to provide
additional information and provide a chance for the public to ask
specific questions concerning the proposed HCP and EIS.
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become part of the public record
associated with this action. Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that the entire comment--including
your personal identifying information--may 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.
Joy E. Nicholopoulos,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico .
[FR Doc. 2011-17638 Filed 7-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P