Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Notices 10307 

the EIS. Oral and written comments will 

be accepted at the meetings. Comments 

can also be submitted to persons listed 

in the addresses section above. 

Once the draft EIS and draft HCP are 

completed and noticed for review, there 

will be additional opportunity for 

public comment on the content of these 

documents through an additional public 

hearing and comment period. 

Alternatives 

The proposed action presented in the 

draft EIS will be compared to the NoAction alternative. The No-Action 

alternative represents estimated future 

conditions to which the proposed 

action’s estimated future conditions can 

be compared. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the 

management and use of the Edwards 

Aquifer and the use of areas associated 

with the Comal and San Marcos springs 

would continue regardless of whether a 

10(a)(1)(B) permit is sought or issued. 

The Applicant(s), and those potentially 

covered by the permit, would continue 

to be subject to the take prohibition of 

the ESA. Where potential impacts could 

not be avoided, and where a Federal 

nexus exists, measures designed to 

minimize and mitigate for the impacts 

would be addressed through individual 

formal or informal consultation with the 

Service. In the absence of a Federal 

nexus, the Applicant(s), and other 

parties in the region taking actions that 

would affect the protected species, 

would potentially need individual 

section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take 

permits on a project-by-project basis if 

activities might result in the incidental 

take of a Federally protected species 

within the proposed permit area. This 

project-by-project approach would be 

more time-consuming, less efficient, and 

could result in an isolated independent 

mitigation approach, which might be 

less beneficial to the covered species 

than a regional permit. 

Proposed Alternative 

The proposed action is the issuance of 

an incidental take permit for the 

covered species within the proposed 

permit area for a period of between 20 

and 50 years. The proposed HCP, which 

must meet the requirements in section 

10(a)(2)(A) of the Act by providing 

measures to minimize and mitigate the 

effects of the potential incidental take of 

covered species to the maximum extent 

practicable, would be developed and 

implemented by the Applicant(s). This 

alternative could allow for a 

comprehensive mitigation approach for 

unavoidable impacts and also reduce 

the permit processing effort for the 

Service. 

The actions to be covered under the 

requested incidental take permit have 

yet to be determined. They may include 

general activities associated with the 

management of the Aquifer, pumping 

from the Aquifer, actions to protect 

spring flow, land stewardship, and 

recreational activities at and near the 

San Marcos and Comal springs. 

Construction activities covered for new 

facilities may include construction of 

recharge structures, well fields, 

pipelines, and related types of activities. 

The Applicant(s) expects to apply for 

an incidental take permit for seven 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened within the permit area. 

These species include: Fountain darter 

(Etheostoma fonticola), San Marcos 

salamander (Eurycea nana), San Marcos 

gambusia (Gambusia georgei), Texas 

blind salamander (Eurycea rathbuni), 

Peck’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus 

pecki), Comal Springs dryopid beetle 

(Stygoparnus comalensis), and the 

Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelemis 

comalensis). Other species that are 

currently not listed as threatened or 

endangered may also be covered. The 

Service will also evaluate possible 

impacts to species not listed here, such 

as the whooping crane. 

Counties that may be included in the 

proposed permit area are those counties 

within the EAA’s jurisdiction to manage 

the Edwards Aquifer including all, or 

portions of, eight counties, including 

Atascosa, Bexar, Caldwell, Comal, 

Guadalupe, Hays, Medina and Uvalde 

counties. Moreover, EAA’s organic 

legislation establishes a five-mile buffer 

beyond the jurisdictional boundary, 

reflecting the existence of a contributing 

zone to the aquifer recharge area, in 

which EAA has authority to protect 

water quality. Consequently, the permit 

area may also include the eight counties 

within the EAA’s jurisdiction proper 

and the portions of the counties that 

contain the EAA’s jurisdictional fivemile buffer located over the Edwards 

Aquifer contributing zone. 

Species not covered by the proposed 

incidental take permit may also be 

addressed in the draft HCP. These 

species may include candidate species 

and Federally listed species not likely to 

be affected by the covered activities. 

The purpose of addressing the 

additional species is to explain why the 

Applicant believe(s) these species will 

not be impacted by the covered 

activities. 

Other alternatives considered will 

also be addressed in the draft EIS, 

including impacts associated with each 

alternative evaluated will be discussed 

in the draft EIS. 

Public Availability of Comments 

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. 

Environmental Review 

The Service will conduct an 

environmental review to analyze the 

proposed action, as well as other 

alternatives evaluated and the 

associated impacts of each. The draft 

EIS will be the basis for the impact 

evaluation for each species covered and 

the range of alternatives to be addressed. 

The draft EIS is expected to provide 

biological descriptions of the affected 

species and habitats, as well as the 

effects of the alternatives on other 

resources such as vegetation, wetlands, 

wildlife, geology and soils, air quality, 

water resources, water quality, cultural 

resources, land use, recreation, water 

use, local economy, and environmental 

justice. 

Following completion of the 

environmental review, the Service will 

publish a notice of availability and a 

request for comment on the draft EIS 

and the Applicant(s)’ permit 

application, which will include the 

draft HCP. The draft EIS and draft HCP 

are expected to be completed and 

available to the public in September 

2011. 

Thomas L. Bauer, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 2, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4583 Filed 3–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Notice of Availability of a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
10308 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Notices 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park 

Service (NPS) announces the 

availability of a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore (Seashore) Off-Road 

Vehicle Management Plan (Plan/EIS). 

The Plan/EIS evaluates the impacts of 

several alternatives for regulations and 

procedures that would manage off-road 

vehicle (ORV) use/access in the 

Seashore to protect and preserve natural 

and cultural resources and natural 

processes, to provide a variety of visitor 

use experiences while minimizing 

conflicts among various users, and to 

promote the safety of all visitors. 

Executive Order 11644 of 1972, 

amended by Executive Order 11989 of 

1977, requires certain Federal agencies 

permitting ORV use on agency lands to 

publish regulations designating specific 

trails and areas for this use. Title 36, 

section 4.10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations implements the executive 

orders by providing that routes and 

areas designated for off-road vehicle use 

shall be promulgated as special 

regulations. 

DATES: The NPS will accept comments 

on the Plan/EIS for 60 days following 

publication by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) of the Notice 

of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. After 

the EPA Notice of Availability is 

published, the NPS will schedule 

hearing-style public meetings during the 

comment period. Dates, times, and 

locations of these meetings will be 

announced in press releases, e-mail 

announcements and on the NPS 

Planning, Environment and Public 

Comment (PEPC) Web site for the 

project at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ 

caha. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Plan/EIS will 

be available for public review at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/caha. A 

limited number of hard copies are 

available at the Seashore headquarters, 

1401 National Park Drive, Manteo, 

North Carolina 27954, or a copy may be 

requested, as long as supplies last, from 

Mike Murray, Superintendent, Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore, 1401 

National Park Drive, Manteo, North 

Carolina 27954. Copies will be provided 

to local libraries in Manteo, Kill Devil 

Hills, Hatteras Village and Ocracoke, 

North Carolina. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This plan/ 

EIS evaluates the impacts of two noaction (alternatives A and B) and four 

action alternatives (alternatives C, D, E 

and F). Alternative A would manage 

ORV use and access at the Seashore 

based on the 2007 Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore Interim 

Protected Species Management Strategy/ 

EA and the Superintendent’s 

Compendium 2007, as well as elements 

from the 1978 draft interim ORV 

management plan that were 

incorporated in Superintendent’s Order 

#7. Alternative B would manage ORV 

use in the same manner as alternative A, 

except as modified by the consent 

decree, as amended, which has been in 

effect at the Seashore since 2008. 

Alternative C would provide visitors to 

the Seashore with a degree of 

predictability regarding areas available 

for ORV use, as well as vehicle-free 

areas, based largely on the seasonal 

resource and visitor use characteristics 

of various areas in the Seashore. Under 

alternative D, visitors to the Seashore 

would have the maximum amount of 

predictability regarding areas available 

for ORV use and vehicle-free areas for 

pedestrian use with most areas having 

year-round, rather than seasonal 

designations. Restrictions would be 

applied to larger areas over longer 

periods of time to minimize changes in 

designated ORV and non-ORV areas 

over the course of the year. Alternative 

D is the environmentally preferable 

alternative. Alternative E would provide 

for additional flexibility in access for 

both ORV and pedestrian users, 

including allowing some level of 

overnight vehicle use at selected points 

and spits. Where greater access is 

permitted, often additional controls or 

restrictions are in place to limit impacts 

on sensitive resources. The level of 

access provided under alternative F is 

similar to alternative E, but with 

different limitations on allowable times 

and dates of ORV access. Alternative F 

is the NPS Preferred Alternative. 

If you wish to comment 

electronically, you may submit your 

comments online in the PEPC Web site 

by visiting http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ 

caha, clicking on *open for comment, 

clicking on the Off-Road Vehicle 

Management Plan/EIS, and then 

clicking on Comment on Document. 

NPS encourages commenting 

electronically through PEPC. If you wish 

to submit your written comments in 

hard copy (e.g. in a letter), you may 

send them by U.S. Postal Service or 

other mail delivery service or handdeliver them to: Mike Murray, 

Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore, 1401 National Park Drive, 

Manteo, North Carolina 27954. Oral 

statements and written comments will 

also be accepted during the hearingstyle public meetings. Comments will 

not be accepted by fax, e-mail, or in any 

other way than those specified above. 

Bulk comments in any format (hard 

copy or electronic) submitted on behalf 

of others will not be accepted. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

e-mail 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 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Murray, Superintendent, Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore, 1401 

National Park Road, Manteo, North 

Carolina 27954, 252–473–2111, 

extension 148. 

Dated: February 3, 2010. 

Gordon Wissinger, 

Acting Regional Director, Southeast Region. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4637 Filed 3–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Fire Management Plan, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Record of Decision, Grand Canyon 

National Park, AZ 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a 

Record of Decision on the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Fire Management Plan, Grand Canyon 

National Park. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park 

Service announces the availability of the 

Record of Decision for the Fire 

Management Plan, Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona. On January 12, 

2010, the Regional Director, 

Intermountain Region, approved the 

Record of Decision for the project. As 

soon as practicable, the National Park 

Service will begin to implement the 

Preferred Alternative contained in the 

FEIS issued on August 7, 2009. 

The document describes and analyzes 

the environmental impacts of several 

action alternatives, including the 

preferred alternative for management of 

fire in Grand Canyon National Park. The 

preferred alternative analyzes the use of 

prescribed fire, wildland fire use, 

suppression fire, and manual and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES