San Luis Valley Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Draft for Public Review
|
|  Yüklə 4.45 Mb.
|
1.8Federal ActivitiesUnder Section 7 of the ESA, Federal agencies are required to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species” (ESA Section 7(a)(2)). Non-federal entities or landowners are subject to this Section 7 consultation when activities they conduct are permitted, approved, or funded by a Federal agency. Examples of activities that may create this type of “Federal nexus” and therefore may require a Section 7 consultation are activities requiring Clean Water Act 404 permits, NRCS assistance programs, Federal grazing permits, or U.S. Department of Transportation funding. Federal Land ManagementSeveral of the core, protected habitat areas (and many of the known flycatcher territories) in the Valley are on Federal lands managed by the Service and the BLM. While Federal agencies are not applicants to the ITP, they are important partners in the conservation and recovery of the covered species in the Valley, and are responsible for managing and protecting covered species and their habitat through section 7 of the ESA, agency policies, and management plans. To this end, this HCP seeks to coordinate with Federal agencies to implement habitat management and conservation practices on Federal lands that are consistent with this HCP. In addition, this HCP proposes to involve representatives from appropriate Federal agencies in the HCP Steering Committee. While the Federal agencies are critical partners in the overall conservation of the covered species and their habitat in the Valley, the Applicants are not responsible under the ITP for mitigating habitat losses on Federal lands. The Federal agencies will be responsible for ensuring their management activities meet the long-term conservation needs of the covered species. 1.9Rationale for 30-year Permit TermThe Applicants seek an Incidental Take Permit with a 30-year permit term to cover typical and routine agricultural, infrastructure, and conservation activities. The rationale for a 30-year permit term includes the following:
For these reasons, the District and the Applicants are seeking a 30-year term for this HCP and associated Incidental Take Permit. 1.10Public InvolvementThe development of this HCP has been, and will continue to be, a public process. During the early stages of the HCP development, the District followed a varied approach to public involvement that included a public scoping meeting, stakeholder consultation meetings, discussions and meetings with individual stakeholders and organizations, distribution of a project newsletter, and the development of a project web page. These efforts have been widely publicized in local newspapers, the agendas of individual organizations, and through the local word-of-mouth networks. Participation in these meetings has generally been strong, and residents of the entire Valley have had the opportunity to attend multiple public involvement meetings, beginning unofficially with critical habitat public scoping and the Section 6 Grant application process, and continuing officially with the public scoping period beginning January 13, 2005. Public ScopingThe public involvement process began in November 2003 with informal discussions with Federal and State agencies and stakeholder groups, as well as the development of the Federal Section 6 Grant application. The formal public scoping process was initiated in January 2005. Public comments and concerns were solicited through public notice in the Federal Register (70 FR 1457), and a press release that was sent to the Alamosa Valley Courier and The Pueblo Chieftain (an out-of-Valley paper with local distribution). A public scoping meeting was held on January 13, 2005 at the Alamosa County Services Center. This meeting was sponsored by the Service to meet NEPA requirements. Simultaneously, the information and feedback gathered at this meeting and through the comment period was considered in the development of this HCP. Stakeholder ConsultationsDistrict representatives met with a number of individual stakeholder groups in the Valley to ensure that they were informed about the HCP process and the activities intended to be covered by this HCP, and to solicit feedback and questions about the HCP. These meetings included multi-stakeholder forums, presentations to group meetings, and individual consultations. Stakeholder groups included resource management agencies, land trusts, environmental organizations, river restoration organizations, agricultural organizations, and local jurisdictions. The following organizations were represented at the various stakeholder meetings:
Other Outreach MethodsSeveral other methods have been used to keep the public and stakeholders informed and solicit feedback about the HCP process. On several occasions, District representatives met or talked with individuals from the organizations listed above, as well as local government staff and private individuals. The purpose of these discussions has been to explain particular elements of the HCP process, solicit feedback on sections of the HCP, and/or gather specific information about a certain topic area. A formal consultation has also been initiated with interested tribal governments per Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3206, and the Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes. Background information and project updates, along with information on the draft and final HCP, are posted to the project website at www.slvhcp.com. |