Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Notices 8059

collect, or to attempt to engage in such

conduct. ‘‘Harm’’ is further defined by

regulation as any act that kills or injures

wildlife including significant habitat

modification or degradation where it

actually kills or injures wildlife by

significantly impairing essential

behavioral patterns, including breeding,

feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3)

The Service, however, may issue

permits to carry out otherwise lawful

activities involving take of endangered

and threatened wildlife under certain

circumstances. Regulations governing

permits are at 50 CFR 17.22, 17.23, and

17.32. For threatened species, such

permits are available for scientific

purposes, enhancing the propagation or

survival of the species, economic

hardship, zoological exhibition or

educational purposes, incidental taking,

or special purposes consistent with the

purposes of the Act.

Clark County; the cities of Las Vegas,

North Las Vegas, Henderson, Mesquite,

and Boulder City; and Nevada

Department of Transportation (NDOT)

(Applicants) submitted an application to

the Service for a permit to incidentally

take desert tortoises (Gopherus

agassizii), pursuant to section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act), in

association with various proposed

public and private projects in Clark

County, Nevada. The proposed permit

would allow incidental take of desert

tortoises for a period of 30 years,

resulting from development on up to

113,900 acres of private lands with

Clark County, Nevada. The permit

application was received September 28,

1994, and was accompanied by the

Clark County Desert Conservation Plan

(CCDCP), which serves as the

Applicant’s habitat conservation plan

and details their proposed measures to

minimize, monitor, and mitigate the

impacts of the proposed take on the

desert tortoise.

To minimize the impacts of take, the

Applicants propose to provide a free

pick-up and collection service for desert

tortoises encountered in harm’s way

within Clark County. These desert

tortoises will be made available for

beneficial uses such as translocation

studies and programs, research,

education, zoos, museums, or other

programs approved by the Service and

Nevada Division of Wildlife. Sick or

injured desert tortoises will be

humanely euthanized. NDOT will

incorporate specific measures into its

operations to avoid or minimize impacts

to desert tortoises. Clark County will

also implement a public information

and education program to benefit the

desert tortoise and the desert ecosystem.

To mitigate the impacts of take, the

Applicants propose to provide funding

of between $1 million and $1.325

million per year for State and Federal

resource managers to implement desert

tortoise recovery measures

recommended in the Desert Tortoise

(Mojave Population) Recovery Plan and

for the planning and management of

lands both within and outside of desert

wildlife management areas to address

the needs of other plant and wildlife

resources to avoid the need to list these

species as threatened or endangered

under the Act in the future. The

Applicants also propose to purchase a

conservation easement that preserves,

protects, and assures the management

and study of the conservation values,

and in particular the habitat of the

desert tortoise, of more than 85,000

acres of non-Federal land in Clark

County.

Clerk County or the cities would

approve the issuance of land

development permits for otherwise

lawful public and private project

proponents during the 30-year period in

which the proposed Federal permit

would be in effect. Clark County or the

cities would impose, and NDOT would

pay, a fee of $550 per acre of habitat

disturbance to fund the measures to

minimize and mitigate the impacts of

the proposed action on desert tortoises.

The underlying purpose or goal of the

proposed action is to develop a program

designed to ensure the continued

existence of the species, while resolving

potential conflicts that may arise from

otherwise lawful private and public

improvement projects.

Two alternatives are under

consideration. Issuance of the permit

with the mitigation, minimization, and

monitoring measures outlined in the

CCDCP is the Service’s preferred action

and is discussed above. The EIS also

outlines alternative measures that may

be considered by the Service in issuing

the permit. The other alternative

selected for detailed evaluation is a No

Action alternative. The No Action

alternative was not identified as the

preferred alternative because it would

diffuse existing regional conservation

planning efforts for the desert tortoise

and possible concentrate activity on

individual project needs and not meet

the purpose and need of the applicants.

Additionally, the No Action alternative

could result in adverse impacts to the

social environment within Clark County

due to constraints on land-use activities

that would impact the desert tortoise.

In the development of this draft EIS,

the Service initiated action to ensure

compliance with the purpose and intent

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, as amended. Scoping

activities were undertaken preparatory

to developing the EIS with a variety of

Federal, State, and local entities. A

Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS was

published February 4, 1994 (59 FR

5439), and a public scoping meeting was

held February 14, 1994.

Key issues addressed in this draft EIS

are identified as the effects that

implementation of the alternatives

would have upon: (1) The desert

tortoise, (2) plant communities of

concern, (3) other species of concern, (4)

land uses, (5) socioeconomics, and (6)

cultural resources.

Eight alternatives were considered

before limiting the alternatives to be

advanced for further study. Alternatives

considered but not advanced for

detailed analysis included: (1) A

multiple-species plan, (2) a statewide

plan, (3) a range-wide plan, (4)

mitigation on non-Federal land, and (5)

continuation of the short-term HCP.

Alternatives advanced for detailed

analysis include: (1) Issuing the permit

with the mitigation, minimization, and

monitoring measures outlined in the

CCDCP or with one or more of the

alternative measures provided and (2) a

No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 is

the Service’s preferred alternative.

The No Action alternative would

benefit individual desert tortoises on

private lands in the short-term,

however, it has been determined that

viable populations of desert tortoises

will not persist in the urban areas over

the long-term. The No Action alternative

would, therefore, not provide the

benefits of the long-term recovery efforts

for the desert tortoise identified in the

CCDCP. In addition, the No action

alternative would diffuse existing

regional conservation planning efforts

for the desert tortoise and possibly

concentrate activity on individual

project needs and not meet the purpose

and need of the applicants. The No

Action alternative could also result in

adverse impacts to the social

environment within Clark County due

to constraints on land-use activities that

would impact the desert tortoise.

Dated: February 1, 1995.

Thomas Dwyer,

Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, Portland,

Oregon.

[FR Doc. 95–3078 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P