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

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