80 FR 34689 - Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander and California Red-Legged Frog, Sonoma County, California
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 116 (June 17, 2015)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 116 (June 17, 2015)
| Page Range | 34689-34691 | |
| FR Document | 2015-14853 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 34689-34691] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-14853] [[Page 34689]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2015-N038; FF08ESMF00-FXES11120800000-156] Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander and California Red-Legged Frog, Sonoma County, California AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability; receipt of permit application, proposed habitat conservation plan; request for comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Steven Sannella (applicant) for a 5-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The application addresses the potential for ``take'' of two listed animals, the California tiger salamander and California red- legged frog. The applicant would implement a conservation program to minimize and mitigate the project activities, as described in the applicant's low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP). We request comments on the applicant's application and HCP, and our preliminary determination that the HCP qualifies as a ``low-effect'' HCP, eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). We discuss our basis for this determination in our environmental action statement (EAS), also available for public review. DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 17, 2015. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than July 17, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submitting Comments: Please address written comments to Vincent Griego, Coast Bay Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. Alternatively, you may send comments by facsimile to (916) 414-6713. Reviewing Documents: You may obtain copies of the HCP and EAS from the individuals in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Web site at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento. Copies of these documents are also available for public inspection, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent Griego, Coast Bay Division; Mike Thomas, Chief, Conservation Planning Division; or Eric Tattersall, Deputy Assistant Field Supervisor, at the address shown above or at (916) 414-6600 (telephone). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction We have received an application from Steven Sannella (applicant) for a 5-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act). The application addresses the potential for ``take'' of two listed animals, the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog. Below, we refer to both species, collectively the Covered Species. The applicant would implement a conservation program to minimize and mitigate the project activities, as described in the applicant's low-effect HCP. We request comments on the applicant's application and HCP, and our preliminary determination that the HCP qualifies as a ``low-effect'' habitat conservation plan, eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (43 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA). We discuss our basis for this determination in our environmental action statement (EAS), also available for public review. Background Information Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 et seq.) and Federal regulations (50 CFR 17) prohibit the taking of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act. Take of federally listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in such conduct. The term ``harass'' is defined in the regulations as to carry out actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term ``harm'' is defined in the regulations as significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury of listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However, under specified circumstances, the Service may issue permits that allow the take of federally listed species, provided that the take that occurs is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing such incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) The applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking; (3) The applicants will develop a proposed HCP and ensure that adequate funding for the HCP will be provided; (4) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) The applicants will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP. Proposed Project The draft HCP addresses potential effects to the Covered Species that may result from the proposed activities. The applicant seeks incidental take authorization for covered activities within 13.31 acres located at 215 Valley View Drive, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. The federally endangered California tiger salamander (Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (Ambystoma californiense)) and federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) are the Covered Species in the applicant's proposed HCP. The applicant would seek incidental take authorization for these two Covered Species and would receive assurances under our ``No Surprises'' regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)). Proposed Covered Activities The following actions are proposed as the ``Covered Activities'' under the HCP: The 13.31-acre property will be subdivided to create 3 additional lots, comprising the following: Lot 1 will be approximately 3.25 acres; Lot 2, approximately 3 acres; and Lot 3, approximately 3.23 acres, with the remainder lot being 3.83 acres. The existing developed area, the 3.83-acre lot, will not be further developed or renovated, nor will the other three new lots be developed at this time. The proposed general rural residential development, driveways, and sewage disposal system will comprise 1.54 acres of development/disturbance. The proposed building envelopes, which include the building staging areas and [[Page 34690]] landscape areas, are proposed as follows: Lot 1 would have 5,200 square feet; Lot 2 would have 6,773 square feet; and Lot 3 would have 17,186 square feet. The applicant seeks a 5-year permit to cover the activities associated with this proposed development within the 13.31- acre site (the permit area). Proposed Mitigation Measures The applicant proposes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the effects to the Covered Species associated with the Covered Activities by fully implementing the HCP. The following mitigation and minimization measures will be implemented:Mitigate for the loss of 1.54 acres of upland habitat for California tiger salamander by purchasing 1.54 acres of California tiger salamander credits from a Service-approved conservation bank. The applicant will also mitigate for the loss of 1.54 acres of upland habitat for California red-legged frog by purchasing 1.54 acres of California red-legged frog credits from a Service-approved conservation bank; Immediately prior to the start of work, a pre-construction survey will be conducted in the construction area for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog by a Service-approved biologist. If California tiger salamander or California red-legged frog are found, the Service will be notified and the relocation of the individual will be completed with approval by the Service; A Service-approved biologist will conduct an Employee Education Program for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include a description of the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog and their habitat, the importance of the species and their habitats, and the general measures that are being implemented to protect the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog as they relate to the project. Instruction will include the appropriate protocol to follow in the event California tiger salamander or California red-legged frogs are found on site; A Service-approved biological monitor will be on site each day during initial site grading of development sites. Thereafter, an on-site person will be designated to monitor on-site compliance with all minimization measures. The Service-approved biologist will ensure that this individual receives training consistent with that outlined in the HCP; Before the start of work each morning, the biological monitor will check for animals under any equipment such as vehicles and stored pipes. The biological monitor will check all excavated steep- walled holes or trenches greater than 1 foot deep for any California tiger salamanders or California red-legged frogs. Any listed animals found will be removed by the biological monitor and translocated under approval by the Service; An erosion and sediment control plan will be implemented to prevent impacts to the wetlands and construction on habitat outside the work areas; Best Management Practices, including a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, will be implemented during construction to prevent any construction debris or sediment from impacting adjacent habitat; The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area of activity will be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project goal. The staging areas will be located in hardscaped areas or areas to be developed to prevent creating temporary impacts to suitable habitat. Any areas that are temporarily disturbed (within one season) will be restored to pre- disturbance conditions immediately following construction. The Service- approved biological monitor will identify the boundaries of the work and staging areas and ensure that that contractor does not disturb any ground outside the designated construction areas. The contractor will obtain approval from the monitor to go outside designated areas; All foods and food-related trash items will be enclosed in sealed trash containers at the end of each day, and removed completely from the site once every three days; No pets will be allowed anywhere in the project site during construction; A speed limit of 15 mph on dirt roads will be maintained, if applicable; All equipment will be maintained such that there will be no leaks of automotive fluids such as gasoline, oils, or solvents; Hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, etc., will be stored in sealable containers in a designated location that is at least 200 feet from aquatic habitats. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas will occur at least 200 feet from any aquatic habitat; Grading and clearing will typically be conducted between April 15 and October 15 of any given year, depending on the level of rainfall and/or site conditions; Project areas temporarily disturbed by construction activities will be re-vegetated; If California tiger salamander or California red-legged frog are found, the proponent will coordinate with the Service to prevent take of individuals and mitigate for loss of habitat. Proposed Action and Alternatives Our proposed action (see below) is approving the applicant's HCP and issuance of an incidental take permit for take resulting from implementation of the Covered Activities. As required by the Act, the applicant's HCP considers alternatives to the take under the proposed action. The HCP considers the environmental consequences of two alternatives to the proposed action: (1) The No-Action Alternative; and (2) the Reduced Development Alternative. No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, we would not issue an incidental take permit; the applicant would not build the proposed project; the project site would remain undeveloped, the existing upland habitat would not be disturbed, and the applicant would not implement proposed mitigation measures. While this No-Action Alternative would avoid take of the Covered Species, it is considered infeasible because it would result in unnecessary economic burden on the applicant. It also could result in sale of the parcel to a party that would develop the property without maintaining any habitat on site. For this reason, the No-Action Alternative has been rejected. Reduced Development Alternative Under the Reduced Development Alternative, the size of the proposed residences would be reduced but not the required access roadway. The Service would issue a permit, and the applicant would implement the proposed mitigation measures. While this Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the loss of California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog habitat, it would still potentially result in take of these species, and it would not reduce the project footprint to a biologically meaningful extent. This alternative would result in unnecessary economic burden to the applicant. For these reasons, the Reduced Take Alternative was rejected. Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative, we would issue an incidental take permit for the applicant's proposed project, which includes the activities described above. The Proposed Action Alternative would result in the permanent loss of 1.54 acres of California tiger salamander and [[Page 34691]] California red-legged frog upland habitat. The habitat would be converted to rural residential and associated infrastructure and road access. To mitigate for these effects, the applicant proposes to purchase (a) 1.54 acres of California tiger salamander credits from a Service-approved conservation bank located in Sonoma County, and (b) 1.54 acres of California red-legged frog credits from a Service- approved conservation bank located in Alameda County. National Environmental Policy Act As described in our EAS, we have made the preliminary determination that approval of the proposed Plan and issuance of the permit would qualify as a categorical exclusion under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 et seq.), as provided by NEPA implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1500.5(k), 1507.3(b)(2), 1508.4), by Department of the Interior regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, 46.215), and by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 3 and 516 DM 8). Our EAS found that the proposed HCP qualifies as a ``low-effect'' HCP, as defined by our ``Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process Handbook'' (November 1996). Determination of whether a habitat conservation plan qualifies as low-effect is based on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation of the proposed HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the proposed plan would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of the HCP, considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources that would be considered significant. Based upon the preliminary determinations in the EAS, we do not intend to prepare further NEPA documentation. We will consider public comments when making the final determination on whether to prepare an additional NEPA document on the proposed action. Public Comments We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. We particularly seek comments on the following: (1) Biological information concerning the species; (2) Relevant data concerning the species; (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the species; (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on the species; and (5) Identification of any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed rural residential project and permit action. You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed above in ADDRESSES. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the EAS, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--might 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. Next Steps We will evaluate the permit application, including the HCP, and comments we receive to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If the requirements are met, we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog from the implementation of the covered activities described in the low-effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authority We publish this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1500- 1508, as well as in compliance with section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: June 11, 2015. Jennifer M. Norris, Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. [FR Doc. 2015-14853 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Notices 34689
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mike Thomas, Chief, Conservation but not the purpose of, an otherwise
Planning Division; or Eric Tattersall, lawful activity.
Fish and Wildlife Service Deputy Assistant Field Supervisor, at Regulations governing permits for
[FWS–R8–ES–2015–N038; FF08ESMF00– the address shown above or at (916) endangered and threatened species are
FXES11120800000–156] 414–6600 (telephone). If you use a at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.
telecommunications device for the deaf, Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains
Proposed Low-Effect Habitat please call the Federal Information provisions for issuing such incidental
Conservation Plan for the California Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. take permits to non-Federal entities for
Tiger Salamander and California Red- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the take of endangered and threatened
Legged Frog, Sonoma County, species, provided the following criteria
California Introduction are met:
We have received an application from (1) The taking will be incidental;
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (2) The applicants will, to the
Interior. Steven Sannella (applicant) for a 5-year
maximum extent practicable, minimize
incidental take permit under the
ACTION: Notice of availability; receipt of and mitigate the impact of such taking;
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
permit application, proposed habitat (3) The applicants will develop a
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act).
conservation plan; request for comment. proposed HCP and ensure that adequate
The application addresses the potential
funding for the HCP will be provided;
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and for ‘‘take’’ of two listed animals, the (4) The taking will not appreciably
Wildlife Service (Service), have received California tiger salamander and reduce the likelihood of the survival
an application from Steven Sannella California red-legged frog. Below, we and recovery of the species in the wild;
(applicant) for a 5-year incidental take refer to both species, collectively the and
permit under the Endangered Species Covered Species. The applicant would (5) The applicants will carry out any
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The implement a conservation program to other measures that the Service may
application addresses the potential for minimize and mitigate the project require as being necessary or
‘‘take’’ of two listed animals, the activities, as described in the applicant’s appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.
California tiger salamander and low-effect HCP. We request comments
on the applicant’s application and HCP, Proposed Project
California red-legged frog. The applicant
would implement a conservation and our preliminary determination that The draft HCP addresses potential
program to minimize and mitigate the the HCP qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ effects to the Covered Species that may
project activities, as described in the habitat conservation plan, eligible for a result from the proposed activities. The
applicant’s low-effect habitat categorical exclusion under the National applicant seeks incidental take
conservation plan (HCP). We request Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as authorization for covered activities
comments on the applicant’s amended (43 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; within 13.31 acres located at 215 Valley
application and HCP, and our NEPA). We discuss our basis for this View Drive, City of Petaluma, Sonoma
preliminary determination that the HCP determination in our environmental County, California. The federally
qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ HCP, eligible action statement (EAS), also available endangered California tiger salamander
for a categorical exclusion under the for public review. (Sonoma County Distinct Population
National Environmental Policy Act of Background Information Segment (Ambystoma californiense))
1969, as amended (NEPA). We discuss and federally threatened California red-
our basis for this determination in our Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531– legged frog (Rana draytonii) are the
environmental action statement (EAS), 1544 et seq.) and Federal regulations (50 Covered Species in the applicant’s
also available for public review. CFR 17) prohibit the taking of fish and proposed HCP.
wildlife species listed as endangered or The applicant would seek incidental
DATES: To ensure consideration, please
threatened under section 4 of the Act. take authorization for these two Covered
send your written comments by July 17, Take of federally listed fish or wildlife Species and would receive assurances
2015. We will make the final permit is defined under the Act as to harass, under our ‘‘No Surprises’’ regulations
decision no sooner than July 17, 2015. harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).
ADDRESSES: Submitting Comments: trap, capture, or collect listed species, or
Please address written comments to attempt to engage in such conduct. The Proposed Covered Activities
Vincent Griego, Coast Bay Division, U.S. term ‘‘harass’’ is defined in the The following actions are proposed as
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento regulations as to carry out actions that the ‘‘Covered Activities’’ under the HCP:
Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage create the likelihood of injury to listed The 13.31–acre property will be
Way, W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. species to such an extent as to subdivided to create 3 additional lots,
Alternatively, you may send comments significantly disrupt normal behavioral comprising the following: Lot 1 will be
by facsimile to (916) 414–6713. patterns, which include, but are not approximately 3.25 acres; Lot 2,
Reviewing Documents: You may limited to, breeding, feeding, or approximately 3 acres; and Lot 3,
obtain copies of the HCP and EAS from sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term approximately 3.23 acres, with the
the individuals in FOR FURTHER ‘‘harm’’ is defined in the regulations as remainder lot being 3.83 acres. The
INFORMATION CONTACT, or from the significant habitat modification or existing developed area, the 3.83–acre
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office degradation that results in death or lot, will not be further developed or
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ injury of listed species by significantly renovated, nor will the other three new
sacramento. Copies of these documents impairing essential behavioral patterns, lots be developed at this time. The
are also available for public inspection, including breeding, feeding, or proposed general rural residential
by appointment, during regular business sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However, development, driveways, and sewage
hours, at the Sacramento Fish and under specified circumstances, the disposal system will comprise 1.54
Wildlife Office. Service may issue permits that allow the acres of development/disturbance. The
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: take of federally listed species, provided proposed building envelopes, which
Vincent Griego, Coast Bay Division; that the take that occurs is incidental to, include the building staging areas and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:47 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM 17JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_34805/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 116 / Wednesday, June 17, 2015 / Notices 34691
California red-legged frog upland (2) Relevant data concerning the Dated: June 11, 2015.
habitat. The habitat would be converted species; Jennifer M. Norris,
to rural residential and associated (3) Additional information concerning Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and
infrastructure and road access. To the range, distribution, population size, Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California.
mitigate for these effects, the applicant and population trends of the species; [FR Doc. 2015–14853 Filed 6–16–15; 8:45 am]
proposes to purchase (a) 1.54 acres of (4) Current or planned activities in the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
California tiger salamander credits from subject area and their possible impacts
a Service-approved conservation bank on the species; and
located in Sonoma County, and (b) 1.54 (5) Identification of any other DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
acres of California red-legged frog environmental issues that should be
credits from a Service-approved considered with regard to the proposed National Park Service
conservation bank located in Alameda rural residential project and permit [NPS–SERO–CAHA–18133; PPSESEROC3,
County. action. PPMPSAS1Y.YP0000]
National Environmental Policy Act You may submit your comments and
materials by one of the methods listed Environmental Impact Statement for a
As described in our EAS, we have above in ADDRESSES. Comments and Special Use Permit to Dare County for
made the preliminary determination materials we receive, as well as Activities Related to the Protection of
that approval of the proposed Plan and supporting documentation we used in North Carolina Highway 12 in Cape
issuance of the permit would qualify as preparing the EAS, will be available for Hatteras National Seashore, North
a categorical exclusion under NEPA (42 public inspection by appointment, Carolina
U.S.C. 4321–4347 et seq.), as provided during normal business hours, at our
by NEPA implementing regulations in AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR CONTACT).
ACTION:Notice of termination of
1500.5(k), 1507.3(b)(2), 1508.4), by environmental impact statement.
Department of the Interior regulations Public Availability of Comments
(43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, 46.215), and by SUMMARY: The National Park Service
Before including your address, phone (NPS) is terminating preparation of an
the Department of the Interior Manual number, or other personal identifying
(516 DM 3 and 516 DM 8). Our EAS environmental impact statement (EIS)
information in your comment, you for a Special Use Permit to Dare County
found that the proposed HCP qualifies should be aware that your entire
as a ‘‘low-effect’’ HCP, as defined by our for Activities Related to the Protection
comment—including your personal of North Carolina Highway 12 in Cape
‘‘Habitat Conservation Planning and identifying information—might be made
Incidental Take Permitting Process Hatteras National Seashore, North
publicly available at any time. While Carolina. Instead, the NPS will be
Handbook’’ (November 1996). you can ask us in your comment to preparing an environmental assessment
Determination of whether a habitat withhold your personal identifying (EA) to assist the NPS in determining
conservation plan qualifies as low-effect information from public review, we whether, where, and under what
is based on the following three criteria: cannot guarantee that we will be able to conditions the NPS would issue a
(1) Implementation of the proposed HCP do so. Special Use Permit to Dare County for
would result in minor or negligible
Next Steps actions related to the protection of
effects on federally listed, proposed, and
Highway 12 in the Buxton Village area.
candidate species and their habitats; (2) We will evaluate the permit
implementation of the proposed plan ADDRESSES: Cape Hatteras National
application, including the HCP, and
would result in minor or negligible comments we receive to determine Seashore, 1401 National Park Road,
effects on other environmental values or whether the application meets the Manteo, North Carolina 27954.
resources; and (3) impacts of the HCP, requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
considered together with the impacts of If the requirements are met, we will Dave Hallac, Park Superintendent at the
other past, present, and reasonably issue a permit to the applicant for the address shown above, by phone at (252)
foreseeable projects, would not result, incidental take of the California tiger 475–9000.
over time, in cumulative effects to salamander and California red-legged SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice
environmental values or resources that frog from the implementation of the of Intent to prepare an EIS to consider
would be considered significant. Based covered activities described in the low- a Special Use Permit to Dare County for
upon the preliminary determinations in effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Activities Related to the Protection of
the EAS, we do not intend to prepare California tiger salamander and North Carolina Highway 12 was
further NEPA documentation. We will California red-legged frog, City of published in the Federal Register on
consider public comments when making Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. December 29, 2014 (79 FR 78106, Pages
the final determination on whether to We will make the final permit decision 78106–78107). The NPS then engaged in
prepare an additional NEPA document no sooner than 30 days after publication a scoping process which included
on the proposed action. of this notice in the Federal Register. public meetings and consultation with
Public Comments federal agencies, and the initial
Authority
development of a range of management
We request data, comments, new We publish this notice under the alternatives with preliminary
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
information, or suggestions from the National Environmental Policy Act of environmental impact assessment.
public, other concerned governmental 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et Preliminary analysis of the alternatives
agencies, the scientific community, seq.), and its implementing regulations shows there is no potential for
Tribes, industry, or any other interested in the Code of Federal Regulations significant impacts to park resources
party on this notice. We particularly (CFR) at 40 CFR 1500–1508, as well as and values and no concerns or issues
seek comments on the following: in compliance with section 10(c) of the were expressed during the public
(1) Biological information concerning Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 scoping process that would have the
the species; et seq.). potential for highly controversial
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:47 Jun 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM 17JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_34805/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 14:22:47
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 14:22:47
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of availability; receipt of permit application, proposed habitat conservation plan; request for comment. | |
| Dates | To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 17, 2015. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than July 17, 2015. | |
| Contact | Vincent Griego, Coast Bay Division; Mike Thomas, Chief, Conservation Planning Division; or Eric Tattersall, | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 34689 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR