[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5564-5566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2294]
[[Page 5564]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R8-2011-N270; FF08E00000-FXES11120800000F2-112]
Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan;
Kern County, CA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the
availability of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(SDEIS) for the Tehachapi Uplands Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (TU MSHCP) and the draft TU MSHCP and Implementing Agreement (IA),
for public review and comment. The SDEIS updates the analysis presented
in the 2009 Draft EIS on the TU MSHCP, which we released for public
comment on February 4, 2009. Specifically, the SDEIS addresses comments
on the 2009 Draft EIS, and considers a 2010 analysis by the U.S.
Geological Survey on occurrence of California condor in and around the
TU MSHCP Covered Lands. We are considering the issuance of a 50-year
incidental take permit (permit) for 27 species in response to receipt
of an application prepared by Tejon Ranch Corporation (Tejon or
Applicant) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act).
DATES: Written comments must be received by on or before May 3, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Obtaining Documents: You may download copies of the SDEIS,
TU MSHCP and IA on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/.
Alternatively, you may use one of the methods below to request hard
copies or a CD-ROM of the documents.
Submitting Comments: You may submit comments or requests for copies
or more information by one of the following methods.
Email: [fw8tumshcp@fws.gov]. Include ``Tehachapi Upland
Draft MSHCP/SEIS Comments'' in the subject line of the message.
U.S. Mail: Roger Root, Assistant Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA
93003.
In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or Pickup: Call (805) 644-
1766 to make an appointment during regular business hours at the above
address.
Fax: Roger Root, Assistant Field Supervisor, (805) 644-
3958, Attn.: Tehachapi Upland Draft MSHCP/SEIS Comments.
Hard bound copies of the SDEIS, TU MSHCP, and IA are available for
viewing at the following locations:
1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003.
2. Kern County Library, Frazier Park Branch, 3732 Park Drive,
Frazier Park, CA 93225.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Kirkland, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 805-644-1766.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
We have received an application for an incidental take permit
covering 27 listed and unlisted species that may be taken or otherwise
affected by on-going ranch activities and future low density
residential and commercial development activities on a portion of the
Tejon Ranch. The Applicant has prepared the plan to satisfy the
requirements for a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit (``permit'') under the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The permit is requested to authorize the
incidental take of species that could potentially result from plan-wide
activities occurring throughout the 141,886 acres of lands proposed to
be covered by the permit (``covered lands''), and from approximately
5,533 acres of mountain resort and other development within and
adjacent to the Interstate 5 corridor and Lebec community within the
covered lands in Kern County, California. The TU MSHCP proposes a
conservation strategy to minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent
practicable any impacts that could occur to covered species as the
result of the covered activities.
Background
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations prohibit the ``take''
of wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C.
1538). The Act defines the term ``take'' as to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed species, or
to attempt to engage in 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)].
Pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the Service may issue
permits to authorize ``incidental take'' of listed animal species.
``Incidental Take'' is defined by the Act as take that is incidental
to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity.
Regulations governing permits for threatened species and endangered
species, respectively, are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 50 CFR 17.22.
Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the
Act, and therefore cannot be authorized by an incidental take permit,
plant species may be included on a permit in recognition of the
conservation benefits provided to them by a habitat conservation plan.
All species included on an incidental take permit would receive
assurances under the Service's ``No Surprises'' regulation [50 CFR
17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)].
The Applicant seeks a 50-year incidental take permit for covered
activities within 141,886 acres of covered lands on Tejon Ranch lands
in Kern County, California. Activities covered by the permit would
include ongoing activities that have historically occurred at the
Ranch, such as grazing and film production, as well as planned future
community development of approximately 5,533 acres within and adjacent
to the Interstate-5 corridor in the Tejon Mountain Village Planning
Area and the Lebec/Existing Headquarters area, and take minimization,
mitigation and conservation measures provided under the TU MSHCP. The
permit would not cover hunting or mineral extraction.
Species proposed for coverage in the TU MSHCP are species that are
currently listed as federally threatened or endangered or have the
potential to become listed during the term of the permit and have some
likelihood to occur within the plan area. Should any of the unlisted
covered wildlife species become listed under the Act during the term of
the permit, take authorization for those species would become effective
upon listing. Twenty-one animal species and six plant species are known
or have the potential to occur within the plan area and are proposed to
be covered by the permit (Covered Species). The permit would include
the following federally listed animal species: California condor
(Gymnogyps californianus--federally listed as endangered and state
listed as endangered and fully protected), least Bell's vireo (Vireo
bellii pusillus--federally listed as endangered), southwestern willow
flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus--federally listed as
endangered), and Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Democerus
californicus dimorphus--federally listed as threatened). The permit
would also include the following species currently unlisted under the
Act: western yellow-
[[Page 5565]]
billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis--Federal candidate for
listing); Tehachapi slender salamander (Batrachoseps stebbinsi ), bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus anatum), little willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii
brewsteri), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), white-tailed kite (Elanus
leucurus), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor), Tehachapi pocket mouse (Perognathus alticola
inexpectatus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), yellow-blotched
salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzii croceater), western spadefoot (Spea
hammondii), purple martin (Progne subis), yellow warbler (Dendroica
petechia brewsteri), coast horned lizard) (Phrynosoma coronatum (both
frontale and blainvillii populations), two-striped garter snake
(Thamnophis hammondii), round-leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum),
Fort Tejon woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum var. hallii), Kusche's
sandwort (Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei), Tehachapi buckwheat
(Eriogonum callistum), striped adobe lily (Fritillaria striata), and
Tejon poppy (Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. kernensis).
The TU MSHCP includes a conservation strategy intended to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable any impacts
that would occur to covered species as the result of the covered
activities. Under the plan, and consistent with the Tejon Ranch
Conservation and Land Use Agreement between Tejon and the Sierra Club,
National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Endangered
Habitats League, and Planning and Conservation League, no land
development would be allowed within approximately 93,522 acres of
Covered Lands, including the approximately 37,100 acre Tunis and
Winters ridge area, which is designated as the Condor Study Area under
the plan and is the area of the ranch most likely to be frequented by
condors. An additional 23,001 acres would be preserved as open space
within the Tejon Mountain Village planning area, resulting in the
permanent conservation of approximately 82 percent of the Covered Lands
(TU MSHCP Mitigation Lands).
Upon initiation of construction of the Tejon Mountain Village
development, the TU MSCHP requires that the Mitigation Lands be
permanently protected by phased recordation of conservation easements
or equivalent legal restrictions over all such lands by the end of the
permit term. The TU MSCHP also requires implementation of general and
species-specific take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures
to reduce potential impacts to the covered species. With regard to the
California condor, the plan requires the ongoing monitoring of covered
activities by a qualified biologist to reduce the potential for any
human/condor interactions and the permanent enforcement of covenants,
conditions, and restrictions on residential development to minimize any
impacts to condors. The plan also provides funding for condor capture,
care, and relocation in the unlikely event that a condor becomes
habituated to human activities. No lethal take of condors would be
authorized under the permit.
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
The Service's proposed issuance of an incidental take permit is a
Federal action and triggers the need for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Service has prepared a SDEIS that
evaluates the impacts of proposed issuance of the permit and
implementation of the TU MSHCP, and also evaluates the impacts of a
reasonable range of alternatives.
The SDEIS analyzes four alternatives in addition to the proposed TU
MSHCP, summarized above. The Service has identified the proposed TU
MSHCP as the Preferred Alternative. Additional alternatives are
described below.
The No Action Alternative (referred to as the No Action/No MSCHP
Alternative in the 2009 Draft EIS) has been revised. For the purposes
of analysis, this alternative now assumes that the Ranchwide Agreement
would remain in effect, that development of the TMV Project and other
future commercial or residential development allowed within the Covered
Lands under the Ranchwide Agreement would not occur, and that Existing
Ranch Uses would continue at current levels into the future. The
conditions of approval for the TMV Project by Kern County identify
certain actions to be undertaken by the Service, including directing
the operation of a feeding station and capture of condors that have
become habituated. The No Action Alternative does not assume future
action on the part of the Service, including future action identified
as a condition of Kern County's approval of the TMV Project. Instead,
it is assumed the Service would continue to provide technical
assistance to Tejon regarding the California condor.
The proposed TU MSHCP Alternative generally remains the same as
described in the 2009 Draft EIS. The alternative has been updated to
reflect the TMV Project Approvals, including approved mitigation
measures required by the County, to reflect clarifications made to the
California condor mitigation measures proposed in the applicant's
revised MSCHP, and to reflect that the options to purchase easements
over the areas formerly referred to as Potential Open Space have been
recorded per the terms of the Ranchwide Agreement (referred to as
Existing Conservation Easement Areas). Where appropriate, we added
information or required mitigation measures associated with the TMV
Project approvals to the SDEIS.
The Condor Only HCP Alternative continues to represent a species
management approach that addresses only the California condor; the
protection measures for the other federally listed species would be
determined as a result of project-specific review and approval
processes triggered by applicant requests. Like the Proposed TU MSHCP
Alternative, the Condor Only HCP Alternative has been updated to
reflect the TMV Project Approvals and to include the land conservation
requirements contained in the Ranchwide Agreement. Under the Ranchwide
Agreement, general plan development areas previously identified for the
Condor Only HCP Alternative become Established Open Space Areas.
Therefore, the development area under the Condor Only HCP Alternative
is now the same as the development area under the Proposed TU MSHCP
Alternative.
A new alternative, the Condor Critical Habitat (CCH) Avoidance
MSHCP Alternative, has been added to this SDEIS to address several
public comments that proposed development areas be reconfigured to
avoid federally designed critical habitat for California condor. Under
this alternative, no commercial or residential development would occur
in any designated critical habitat for California condor. The TMV
Project would not occur, as that project would extend into California
condor critical habitat. Instead, development would follow Kern County
General Plan designations and would cluster most commercial and
residential development in the southwestern portion of the Covered
Lands, in the portion of the TMV Planning Area nearest to Interstate 5
(I-5), and in areas outside condor critical habitat. The CCH Avoidance
MSHCP Alternative also assumes implementation of the Ranchwide
Agreement, where development boundaries outside critical habitat
conform to the development
[[Page 5566]]
setbacks and general boundaries provided in that agreement.
The Kern County General Plan Buildout Alternative (referred to as
the MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative in the 2009 Draft EIS) has
also been revised. While the Ranchwide Agreement has resulted in the
recordation of conservation easements on 12,795 acres of the Covered
Lands (Existing Conservation Easement Areas), the remainder of the
Covered Lands to be precluded from development under the Ranchwide
Agreement do not currently have conservation easements recorded. As
noted above, because the Ranchwide Agreement is a private agreement
between parties and Service is not a party to and has no contractual
standing under the agreement, it can be amended (or even terminated) by
mutual agreement of the parties such that the land preservation outcome
of the Ranchwide Agreement on Covered Lands may not be realized. While
the Service considers the likelihood remote that the Ranchwide
Agreement would be terminated, for purposes of comprehensive NEPA
analysis, this alternative does not assume continuation of the
Ranchwide Agreement except for the permanent protection of the already-
recorded conservation easements on the Existing Conservation Easement
Lands.
Under the Kern County General Plan Buildout Alternative,
development is assumed to proceed in accordance with the Kern County
General Plan, including implementation of the TMV Project (per the TMV
Project Approvals). Development of the Covered Lands would require Kern
County approval, and the SDEIS assumes that it would proceed on a
project-by-project basis and that the Service would issue incidental
take authorization as appropriate through either the ESA Section 7 or
Section 10 process.
Public Comments
If you wish to comment on the permit application, SDEIS, TU MSHCP,
or draft IA, you may submit your comments to the address listed in
ADDRESSES. Before including your address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should
be aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you may
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.
Decision
The Service will evaluate the application, associated documents,
and comments submitted before preparing a final EIS. A permit decision
will be made no sooner than 30 days after the final EIS is filed with
EPA, published and the Record of Decision is completed.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act and
pursuant to implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6).
Dated: January 19, 2012.
Alexandra Pitts,
Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento,
California.
[FR Doc. 2012-2294 Filed 2-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: P