Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Notices 10305 

Citation 

30 CFR 

Part 256 and NTLs 

Reporting requirement Hour burden Average number of 

annual responses 

Annual burden 

hours 

Subtotal ................... ................................................................................. ................................ 2 responses ........... 2 hours. 

Citation 30 CFR Part 

260 

Reporting requirement Hour burden Average number of 

annual reponses 

Annual burden 

hours 

124(a) ............................. Request MMS to reconsider field assignment of a 

lease.

Exempt under 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2), (c). 0. 

Total Reporting ....... ................................................................................. 9,553 Responses ... ................................ 15,732 Hours. 

$393,345 Non-Hour Cost Burdens 

Estimated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Non-Hour Cost Burden: 

We have identified three paperwork 

non-hour cost burdens associated with 

the collection of information. Sections 

256.62 and 256.64(a) require 

respondents to pay service fees when 

submitting either a request for 

assignment of record title interest, 

assignment of operating rights interest, 

and/or to file documents for record 

purposes. The service fees are required 

to recover the Federal Government’s 

processing costs. We have not identified 

any other non-hour cost burdens 

associated with this collection of 

information, and we estimate a total 

reporting non-hour cost burden of 

$393,345. 

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA 

(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Until OMB approves a 

collection of information, you are not 

obligated to respond. 

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 

requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide 

notice * * * and otherwise consult 

with members of the public and affected 

agencies concerning each proposed 

collection of information * * *’’ 

Agencies must specifically solicit 

comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the agency to perform its 

duties, including whether the 

information is useful; (b) evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

minimize the burden on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

To comply with the public 

consultation process, on October 6, 

2009, we published a Federal Register 

notice (74 FR 51316) announcing that 

we would submit this ICR to OMB for 

approval. The notice provided the 

required 60-day comment period. In 

addition, § 256.0 provides the OMB 

control number for the information 

collection requirements imposed by the 

30 CFR 256 regulations and their 

associated forms. The regulation also 

informs the public that they may 

comment at any time on the collections 

of information and provides the address 

to which they should send comments. 

We have received no comments in 

response to these efforts. 

If you wish to comment in response 

to this notice, you may send your 

comments to the offices listed under the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. The 

OMB has up to 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the information collection 

but may respond after 30 days. 

Therefore, to ensure maximum 

consideration, OMB should receive 

public comments by April 5, 2010. 

Public Availability of Comments: 

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. 

MMS Information Collection 

Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 

208–7744. 

Dated: January 19, 2010. 

William S. Hauser, 

Acting Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4695 Filed 3–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R2–ES–2009–N278; 20124–1112– 

0000–F2] 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Habitat Conservation Plan for the 

Incidental Take of Seven Federally 

Listed Species by the Edwards Aquifer 

Recovery Implementation Program 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

draft environmental impact statement 

and draft habitat conservation plan; 

announcement of public scoping 

meetings; and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), advise the 

public that we intend to prepare a draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

to evaluate the impacts of, and 

alternatives to, the proposed issuance of 

an Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), section 10(a)(1)(B) 

permit to one or more members of the 

Edwards Aquifer Recovery 

Implementation Program (the 

‘‘Applicant(s)’’) for incidental take of 

seven Federally listed species from 

activities associated with management 

and use of the Edwards Aquifer. The 

Applicant may include, among others, 

the Edwards Aquifer Authority (‘‘EAA’’). 

DATES: Written comments on 

alternatives and issues to be addressed 

in the draft EIS must be received by 

close of business on June 3, 2010. Public 

scoping meetings will be held at seven 

locations throughout South Central and 

South Texas. Public meetings will be 

held between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. Exact 

meeting locations and times will be 

noticed within 2 weeks prior to each 

event in local newspapers and at the 

Austin Ecological Services Office Web 

site, http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

AustinTexas/. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments by 

mail to Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
10306 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Notices 

Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services 

Field Office, 10711 Burnett Road, Suite 

200, Austin, TX 78758–4460; telephone 

512/490–0057; facsimile 512/490–0974; 

or e-mail luela_roberts@fws.gov. Note 

that your information request or 

comments are in regards to the Edwards 

Aquifer Recovery Implementation 

Programs. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, 

Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 

10711 Burnett Road, Suite 200, Austin, 

TX 78758–4460; telephone 512/490– 

0057; facsimile 512/490–0974; or e-mail 

luela_roberts@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), and its implementing 

regulations (40 CFR 1506.6) and section 

10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.). The Service intends to gather 

the information necessary to determine 

impacts and alternatives to support a 

decision regarding the potential 

issuance of an incidental take permit to 

the Applicant(s), and the 

implementation of the supporting draft 

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). 

The Edwards Aquifer Recovery 

Implementation Program (EARIP) is a 

collaborative, consensus-based 

stakeholder process to protect and 

contribute to the recovery of the 

Federally listed species associated with 

the San Marcos and Comal Springs, 

while also protecting the Edwards 

Aquifer (also referred to as the Aquifer) 

as a water supply source. The EARIP 

consists of a diverse group of regional 

stakeholders. The stakeholders that have 

executed a Memorandum of Agreement 

with the Service regarding participation 

in the EARIP include: Aquifer Guardian 

in Urban Areas, Alamo Cement 

Company, Bexar County, Bexar 

Metropolitan Water District, Carol G. 

Patterson, City of Garden Ridge, City of 

New Braunfels, City of San Marcos, City 

of Victoria, Comal County, CPS Energy, 

Dow Chemical, East Medina Special 

Utility District, EAA, Gilleland Farms, 

Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, 

Greater San Antonio Chamber of 

Commerce, Guadalupe Basin Coalition, 

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, 

Guadalupe County Farm Bureau, John 

M. Donahue, PhD, Larry Hoffman, Mary 

Q. Kelly, Nueces River Authority, New 

Braunfels Utilities, Preserve Lake 

Dunlap Association, Regional Clean Air 

and Water Association, San Antonio 

River Authority, San Antonio Water 

System, San Marcos River Foundation, 

South Central Texas Water Advisory 

Committee, South Texas Farm and 

Ranch Club, Texas Bass Federation, 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, Texas Department of 

Agriculture, Texas Living Waters 

Project, Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, Texas Water Development 

Board, and Texas Wildlife Association. 

We also announce plans for a series 

of public scoping meetings located 

throughout the region served by the 

EAA and affected by the management of 

the Edwards Aquifer area and a public 

comment period. 

The Service intends to prepare a draft 

EIS to evaluate the impacts of, and 

alternatives to, the proposed issuance of 

an incidental take permit under the Act 

to the Applicant(s). The Applicant(s) 

proposes to apply for an incidental take 

permit through development and 

implementation of an HCP. The 

proposed HCP will include measures 

necessary to minimize and mitigate the 

impacts to the maximum extent 

practicable of potential proposed taking 

of Federally listed species and the 

habitats upon which they depend by the 

management and use of the Edwards 

Aquifer and the areas associated with 

the Comal and San Marcos springs. 

Background 

Section 9 of the Act prohibits ‘‘taking’’ 

of fish and wildlife species listed as 

endangered or threatened under section 

4 of the Act. Under the Act, the term 

‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or attempt to engage in any 

such conduct. The term ‘‘harm’’ is 

defined in the regulations as significant 

habitat modification or degradation that 

results in death or injury to listed 

species by significantly impairing 

essential behavioral patterns, including 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 

17.3). The term ‘‘harass’’ is defined in 

the regulations as 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). 

However, the Service may, under 

specified circumstances, issue permits 

that allow the take of Federally listed 

fish and wildlife, provided that the take 

occurs 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 applicant will, to the 

maximum extent practicable, minimize 

and mitigate the impact of such taking; 

(3) The applicant will develop a draft 

HCP and ensure that adequate funding 

for the plan 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 

applicant will carry out any other 

measures that we may require as being 

necessary or appropriate for the 

purposes of the habitat conservation 

plan. 

Thus, the purpose of issuing a permit 

is to allow management and use of the 

Edwards Aquifer and the use of areas 

associated with the Comal and San 

Marcos springs, while preserving 

protected species and their habitat that 

are dependent on water from the 

Aquifer. Adoption of a multispecies 

habitat conservation approach, rather 

than a species-by-species/project-byproject approach, will reduce the costs 

of implementing species minimization 

and mitigation measures, and eliminate 

cost and time-consuming efforts 

associated with processing individual 

incidental take permits for each user of 

the Edwards Aquifer. In addition, the 

multispecies habitat conservation plan 

approach provides a program including 

avoidance, minimization and mitigation 

for each species that is coordinated on 

a landscape level and provides 

increased benefits to the covered 

species. The Service expects that the 

Applicant(s) will request permit 

coverage for a period of between 20 and 

50 years. 

Scoping Meetings 

The purpose of the scoping meetings 

is to provide the public with a general 

understanding of the background of the 

proposed HCP and activities that would 

be covered by the draft HCP, alternative 

proposals under consideration for the 

draft EIS, and the Service’s role and 

steps to be taken to develop the draft 

EIS for the draft HCP. The meeting 

format will consist of a one hour open 

house prior to the formal scoping 

meeting that will provide an 

opportunity to learn about the proposed 

action, permit area, and species covered. 

The open house will be followed by a 

formal presentation of the proposed 

action, summary of the NEPA process, 

and presentation of oral comments from 

meeting participants. A court reporter 

will be present at each meeting and an 

interpreter will be present when 

deemed necessary. The primary purpose 

of these meetings and public comment 

period is to solicit suggestions and 

information on the scope of issues and 

alternatives to consider when drafting 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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