75832 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Notices 

3. Single-County Alternative. The 

Single-County Alternative would 

essentially be limited to the extent of 

the permittees’ jurisdictions. This 

would include both incidental take 

coverage and mitigation. It is assumed 

that the plan area for the Single-County 

Alternative would include Bexar County 

and the area within 10 miles outside of 

Bexar County (which would be 

generally sufficient to accommodate the 

City of San Antonio’s current extraterritorial jurisdiction and possible 

future expansions). As habitat for the 

covered species within Bexar County 

only occurs in the northwest half of the 

county, the plan area for this alternative 

is still roughly equivalent to the 

geographic area of a single central Texas 

county. 

Since all mitigation would occur in 

the vicinity of San Antonio, the price of 

land is substantially higher compared to 

more rural parts of the plan area. This 

alternative assumes that approximately 

75 percent of the GCWA and BCVI 

preserve lands would be acquired in 

relatively ‘‘suburban’’ areas, and 

approximately 25 percent of the land 

would be acquired in relatively rural 

areas. This distribution of preserve 

lands would have a significant impact 

on the method of acquisition (fee simple 

vs. easement), the anticipated cost for 

acquisition, and the costs to manage 

suburban preserves compared to rural 

preserves. This alternative could cost 

nearly twice as much overall to 

implement over 30 years compared to 

the proposed alternative. 

4. Increased Mitigation Alternative. 

The Increased Mitigation Alternative 

would implement recommendations 

passed by the SEP HCP’s Biological 

Advisory Team (BAT) pertaining to 

mitigation for the GCWA and the karst 

invertebrates (BCVI mitigation would be 

the same as the Proposed Alternative). 

These recommendations were also 

strongly favored by many members of 

the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). 

The BAT passed a recommendation 

calling for impacts to GCWA habitat 

within Bexar County to be mitigated at 

a 3:1 ratio (i.e., 3 acres of habitat 

protected for each acre of direct habitat 

loss) and that at least 60 percent of that 

mitigation be placed within Bexar 

County or within 5 miles outside of 

Bexar County. The BAT also passed a 

recommendation that the karst preserve 

system be sized to achieve roughly 

twice the level of conservation specified 

by the Service’s downlisting criteria for 

the karst invertebrates. For the purpose 

of modeling this alternative, it is 

assumed that all of the incidental take 

of the GCWA requested by the 

Permittees would be mitigated at a 3:1 

ratio and that 60 percent of the GCWA 

preserve system would be acquired in 

relatively suburban parts of the Plan 

Area, with the remaining preserve lands 

acquired in rural areas. This 

recommendation is modeled as a 

requirement to acquire approximately 

2,000 acres of recovery-quality karst 

preserves over 30 years, with at least 

two high-quality (100 acres each) and 

four medium-quality preserves (50 acres 

each) created in each of the five regions 

where the karst invertebrates occur. 

Similar to the Single-County 

Alternative, this Increased Mitigation 

Alternative requires the acquisition of a 

large portion of the preserve system in 

relatively high-cost suburban or (for the 

karst preserves) urban areas, which 

would disproportionately increase the 

expected preserve acquisition and 

management costs. This alternative 

would achieve a higher level of 

conservation for the GCWA and karst 

invertebrates, but at a financial cost that 

would be approximately 275 percent 

higher than the proposed SEP HCP. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Written comments we receive become 

part of the public record associated with 

this action. 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 can request in your comment that 

we withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public disclosure in 

their entirety. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under section 

10(c) of the Act and its implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) 

and NEPA and its implementing 

regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). 

Joy E. Nicholopoulos, 

Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29525 Filed 12–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–ES–2014–0051; 

FXES111205000000–156–FF05E00000] 

Receipt of an Application for an 

Incidental Take Permit for Piping 

Plover, From the Town of Orleans, MA, 

and Availability of Proposed Habitat 

Conservation Plan 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service or ‘‘we’’), 

announce the availability of an 

application for an Incidental Take 

Permit (ITP) and a proposed Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP) from the Town 

of Orleans (Town) for public review and 

comment. We received the permit 

application from the Town for 

incidental take of the threatened piping 

plover (Charadrius melodus) resulting 

from the Town’s authorization and 

management of over-sand vehicle (OSV) 

activities over the next 3 years. Our 

preliminary determination is that the 

proposed HCP qualifies as low-effect 

under our final Handbook for Habitat 

Conservation Planning and Incidental 

Take Permitting Process. To make this 

determination, we used our Low-Effect 

HCP Screening Form/Environmental 

Action Statement (EAS), the preliminary 

version of which is also available for 

review. 

We provide this notice to (1) seek 

public comments on the proposed HCP 

and application; (2) seek public 

comments on our preliminary 

determination that the HCP qualifies as 

low-effect and is therefore eligible for a 

categorical exclusion under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and 

(3) advise other Federal and State 

agencies, affected Tribes, and the public 

of our intent to issue an ITP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

January 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted electronically by any one of 

the following methods: 

Electronically: www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on Docket No. FWS–R5–ES– 

2014–0051. 

U.S. mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2014– 

0051; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; 

Falls Church, Virginia 22041–3803. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susi 

vonOettingen, by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Notices 75833 

and Wildlife Service, New England 

Field Office, 70 Commercial Street, 

Suite 300, Concord, NH 03301; or via 

phone at 603–223–2541. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

received an application from the Town 

of Orleans for an ITP for take of the 

federally listed threatened piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) resulting from the 

Town’s authorization and management 

of OSV activities over the next 3 years. 

To minimize and mitigate for the 

incidental take, the Town will 

implement a conservation program as 

described in its proposed HCP. 

We prepared a preliminary EAS to 

comply with NEPA. The Service will 

evaluate whether the proposed action, 

issuance of an ITP to the Town of 

Orleans, is adequate to support a 

categorical exclusion. 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

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

Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.). 

We are requesting comments on the 

proposed HCP and our preliminary 

determination that the plan qualifies as 

low effect under NEPA. 

Availability of Documents 

The proposed HCP and preliminary 

EAS are available on the New England 

Field Office’s Web site at http://

www.fws.gov/newengland/, or at http:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket 

Number FWS–R5–ES–2014–0051. 

Copies of the proposed HCP, 

subsequently filed addendum to the 

HCP, and preliminary EAS will also be 

available for public review during 

regular business hours at the New 

England Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). Those who do 

not have access to the Web site or 

cannot visit our office may request 

copies by telephone at 603–223–2541, 

or by letter to the New England Field 

Office. 

Background 

Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of 

animal species listed as endangered or 

threatened. Take is defined under the 

ESA as to ‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct’’ (16 U.S.C. 1538). 

However, under section 10(a) of the 

ESA, we may issue permits to authorize 

incidental take of listed species. 

‘‘Incidental take’’ is defined by the ESA 

as take that is incidental to, and not the 

purpose of, carrying out an otherwise 

lawful activity. Regulations governing 

ITPs for threatened and endangered 

species, respectively, are found in the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 

17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32. 

The Town of Orleans is seeking a 

permit for the incidental take of piping 

plover for a term of 3 years. Incidental 

take of this species may occur as a result 

of the Town’s authorization and 

management of OSV activities along 

Nauset Beach South. 

Proposed covered activities include 

authorization and implementation of the 

Town of Orleans OSV use program. The 

Town’s proposed management of OSV 

activities would in one limited respect 

deviate from established State and 

Federal guidelines for managing 

recreational beaches to avoid the take of 

piping plovers. The Town proposes to 

add a late-breeding season OSV escort 

program across limited areas where 

OSVs would otherwise not be allowed 

due to nesting plovers’ presence. The 

HCP and addendum explain how the 

escort program has been designed to 

minimize the potential to take 

unfledged plover chicks. It also contains 

a variety of on-site and off-site predator 

management measures developed to 

mitigate for the impact of the 

anticipated taking, and improve piping 

plover productivity. 

The proposed action consists of the 

issuance of an ITP and implementation 

of the proposed HCP. One alternative to 

the proposed action was considered in 

the HCP: No action (i.e., operation of the 

project without an ITP and without 

avoidance, minimization, or mitigation 

of piping plover impacts). This 

alternative was deemed not practicable 

by the Town because the project would 

not have the important protections of 

the ITP and would not have the 

conservation benefits proposed by the 

Town. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have made a preliminary 

determination that the Town of Orleans 

proposed HCP, including the proposed 

minimization and mitigation measures, 

will have a minor or negligible effect on 

the species covered in the plan, and that 

the plan qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ HCP 

as described in the Service’s HCP 

Handbook (61 FR 63854, December 2, 

1996). 

As further explained in the 

preliminary EAS, included for public 

review, our preliminary determination 

that the plan qualifies as a low-effect 

HCP is based on the following three 

criteria: 

(1) Implementation of the plan would 

result in minor or negligible effects on 

federally listed, proposed, and 

candidate species and their habitats; 

(2) Implementation of the plan would 

result in minor or negligible effects on 

other environmental values or resources 

prior to implementation of the 

mitigation measures; and 

(3) Impacts of the plan, considered 

together with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

similarly situated projects, would not 

result, over time, in cumulative effects 

to environmental values or resources 

that would be considered significant. 

Therefore, we initially conclude that 

the proposed ITP would qualify for a 

categorical exclusion under the NEPA, 

as provided by the Department of the 

Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 

and 516 DM 8). Based on our review of 

public comments that we receive in 

response to this notice, we may revise 

this preliminary determination. 

Next Steps 

We will evaluate the proposed HCP 

and comments we receive to determine 

whether the permit application meets 

the requirements of section 10(a) of the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We will 

also evaluate whether issuance of a 

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would comply 

with section 7 of the ESA by conducting 

an intra-Service section 7 consultation. 

We will use the results of this 

consultation, in combination with the 

above findings, in our final analysis to 

determine whether to issue a permit. If 

the requirements are met, we will issue 

the permit to the applicant. 

Public Comments 

The Service invites the public to 

comment on the proposed HCP and 

preliminary EAS during a 30-day public 

comment period (see DATES). You may 

submit written comments by one of the 

methods in the ADDRESSES section. 

We will post all public comments and 

information received electronically or 

via hard copy on http://

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

received, including names and 

addresses, will become part of the 

administrative record and will be 

available to the public. 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—will be 

publicly available. 

If you submit a hard copy comment 

that includes personal identifying 

information, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75834 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Notices 

Authority 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 

1506.6). 

Martin Miller, 

Acting Assistant Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29751 Filed 12–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLORV000.51010000.ER0000.

LVRWH09H0480; OROR065375; IDI036029 

HAG 14–0196] 

Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Land-use Plan Amendments for the 

Boardman to Hemingway 

Transmission Line Project 

AGENCIES: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended, and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976, as 

amended, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Vale District Office 

announces the availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and Land-Use Plan Amendments 

(LUPAs) for the Boardman to 

Hemingway Transmission Line Project 

(Project) and by this notice is 

announcing the opening of the public 

comment period. 

DATES: The Draft EIS is now available 

for public review. To be considered in 

the Final EIS, written comments on the 

Draft EIS must be received within 90 

days after the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s publication in the Federal 

Register of a Notice of Availability 

(NOA) of this Draft EIS. 

All public meetings or other 

opportunities for public involvement 

related to the Project will be announced 

to the public by the BLM at least 15 days 

in advance through the public Web site 

at: http://www.boardmanto

hemingway.com, project mailings, and 

local media news releases. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft EIS have 

been sent to affected Federal agencies, 

state and local governments and public 

libraries in the Project area. The Draft 

EIS and supporting documents will be 

available electronically on the project 

Web site at: http://

www.boardmantohemingway.com. 

Compact Disc copies of the document 

are available through request on this 

project Web site address. A list of 

locations where copies of the Draft EIS 

are available for public inspection can 

be found in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by the following methods: 

• email: comment@

boardmantohemingway.com 

• mail: Boardman to Hemingway 

Transmission Line Project, P.O. Box 

655, Vale, OR 97918 

• courier or hand delivery: Bureau of 

Land Management, Vale District Office, 

100 Oregon Street, Vale, OR 97918 

• no faxed or anonymous comments 

will be accepted 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tamara Gertsch, BLM National Project 

Manager, Bureau of Land Management, 

Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, 

Vale, OR 97918, or by telephone at 307– 

775–6115. Any persons wishing to be 

added to the project mailing list of 

interested parties may write or call Ms. 

Gertsch at the address and phone 

number above. 

Persons who use telecommunication 

devices for the deaf may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

307–775–6115 to contact Ms. Gertsch 

during normal business hours. The FIRS 

is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week, to leave a message or questions 

with the above individual regarding the 

project. You will receive a reply during 

normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Idaho 

Power Company submitted applications 

to the BLM for a right-of-way (ROW) 

grant, the United States Forest Service 

(USFS) for a special use authorization, 

and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) for an authorization/

permit, to use federal lands for portions 

of a proposed 300 mile 500-kilovolt (kV) 

single-circuit, alternating-current 

transmission line and ancillary facilities 

between a new or existing substation 

near Boardman, Oregon, and the 

Hemingway Substation, near Melba, 

Idaho. Idaho Power Company filed its 

applications in December 2007 and then 

filed revised applications in November 

2011 and May 2012 to reflect changes to 

the proposed action. Idaho Power 

Company’s objective for the Project is to 

provide additional capacity to connect 

transmission between the Pacific 

Northwest and Intermountain Regions 

in order to alleviate existing 

transmission constraints and to ensure 

sufficient capacity that will enable 

Idaho Power Company to meet present 

and forecasted load requirements. The 

Project description includes a rebuild of 

two separate 138 and 69-kV lines into 

double circuit monopole structures for 

short distances. Electrical equipment to 

connect the 500 kV transmission line 

would be installed at the endpoint 

substations. The proposed ROW width 

is 250 feet for the 500 kV portion of the 

line and 100 feet for two 138/69 kV 

rebuild sections of the line. The BLM’s 

purpose and need for action is to 

respond to Idaho Power Company’s 

ROW application. 

The BLM published a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to Prepare an EIS on September 

12, 2008 (73 FR 52944), and held public 

scoping meetings in October 2008. On 

July 27, 2010 (75 FR 44008), the BLM 

published a revised NOI to Prepare an 

EIS in response to substantive changes 

in Idaho Power Company’s proposal as 

submitted in the revised application, 

and sought public input on the issues 

associated with the project. The issues 

brought forward from the scoping 

comments for analysis in the Draft EIS 

include: 

• Use of Federal versus private 

property; 

• Potential impacts to private 

agricultural operations and irrigated 

lands and other existing land use; 

• Potential impacts to Greater Sagegrouse; 

• Proximity to other protected 

wildlife and habitats (e.g., fish and 

water resources, plants, Washington 

ground squirrel); 

• Potential impacts to Department of 

Defense operations; 

• Potential impacts to lands with 

wilderness characteristics; 

• Potential impacts to visual 

resources, including visual impacts to 

cultural resources; 

• Potential impacts to historic 

properties (e.g., Oregon Trail) and 

paleontological resources; 

• Native American concerns; 

• Potential impacts to air quality; 

• Potential impacts of noxious weeds 

and invasive species; 

• Potential Socio-economic impacts; 

• Potential health effects from electromagnetic fields; and 

• Noise and potential line 

interference with electronic devices. 

The scoping comments and 

preliminary alternatives, some of which 

were eliminated from further 

consideration are documented and 

discussed in the Boardman to 

Hemingway Transmission Project Siting 

Study Report available online at: http:// 

www.boardmantohemingway.com/

documents/B2H_Siting_Study_8–17– 

10.pdf. The Draft EIS analyzes the 

environmental consequences of granting 

a ROW to Idaho Power Company to 

construct, operate, and maintain, the 

transmission project. The Draft EIS also 

analyzes: (1) The consequences of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES