[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16257-16258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8914]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the
Proposed Issuance of a Permit to Authorize Incidental Take of
Threatened and Endangered Species on Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P.,
Lands in the I-90 Corridor, King and Kittitas Counties, Washington
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed issuance of a permit to
authorize incidental take of threatened and endangered species to Plum
Creek Timber Company, L.P. (Applicant), is available for review. The
Applicant has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (together Services) for an incidental
take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Applicant has also requested an
unlisted species agreement and a provision reflecting the ``Safe
Harbor'' concept to cover vertebrate species which may be found in the
planning area. The term of the proposed permit, which includes this
provision, would be 100 years. The application has been assigned permit
number PRT-808398. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of
the Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40
CFR 1506.6).
DATES: Completion of the Record of Decision and permit decision will
occur no sooner than May 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Individuals wishing copies of the application or Final EIS
for review should immediately contact William Vogel, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Pacific Northwest Habitat Conservation Plan Program,
3704 Griffin Lane S.E. Suite 102, Olympia, Washington 98501-2192; (360)
534-9330. Documents will be available for public inspection by
appointment during normal business hours (8 am to 5 pm, Monday through
Friday) at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Vogel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, or Steve Landino, National Marine Fisheries Service, at the
office listed above.
[[Page 16258]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations,
``taking'' of threatened and endangered species is prohibited. However,
the Services, under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take
threatened or endangered wildlife species if such taking is incidental
to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations
governing permits for threatened and endangered species are in 50 CFR
17.32 and 17.22.
The Applicant has addressed species conservation and ecosystem
management on approximately 170,000 acres of its land in the Cascade
Mountains of Washington. The subject ownership occurs in a
``checkerboard'' pattern in an area commonly referred to as the I-90
Corridor. The term ``checkerboard'' refers to alternate sections of
public and private land.
The Applicant is proposing to implement a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) which was designed to complement the Federal Northwest Forest
Plan, and includes various forms of mitigation which are integral parts
of the HCP. It also includes a schedule of habitat amounts to be
provided for the 100-year plan. These habitats include eight stand-
structure types (ranging from early-successional stages, such as stand
initiation, to late-successional stages, such as old growth) and
habitat for northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) (owls).
Owl-habitat projections include projections for nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat and for foraging and dispersal habitat. Mitigation for
gray wolves (Canis lupus) and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos = U.a.
horribilis) include avoidance of timber harvest and road construction
in certain habitats, limits to road densities, provision of visual
cover, and other specific management prescriptions. The Applicant plans
to avoid or minimize the take of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus
marmoratus marmoratus), but has included murrelets in the permit
application in case some incidental take occurs. Minimum prescriptions
are also provided for riparian and wetland areas, and watershed
analyses will be completed on an accelerated basis. Specific
prescriptions will also be implemented for a number of other species
and special habitats. The underlying purpose or goal of the proposed
action is to develop a management plan for these lands upon which
incidental take of listed species can be based so that economic
benefits can be realized from those lands while providing necessary
habitat for listed and unlisted wildlife species.
Development of the Final EIS
In development of this Final EIS, the Services have initiated
action to ensure compliance with the purpose and intent of NEPA.
Scoping activities were undertaken preparatory to developing the Draft
EIS. A Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS was published in the
February 8, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 7577). This was followed by a
Notice of Availability of a Draft EIS and receipt of an Application for
an Incidental Take Permit published in the November 17, 1995, Federal
Register (60 FR 57722).
Potential consequences, in terms of adverse impacts and benefits
associated with the implementation of each alternative, were described
in the Draft EIS. Key issues addressed in the Draft and Final EIS are
identified as the effects that implementation of the various
alternatives would have upon: (1) Threatened and endangered species;
(2) other wildlife and their habitats; (3) surrounding and intermingled
land uses; and (4) other aspects of the physical and the human
environment. Each alternative was evaluated for its potential to result
in significant adverse impacts, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the
proposed measures to avoid, minimize, and substantially reduce the
effects.
The Services received 166 letters (representing 260 groups and
individuals) and 424 pre-printed cards (representing 477 individuals)
providing comment on the Draft EIS. A total of 737 signatures were
represented in letters, cards, and attached petitions. Comments were
varied. Topics covered in the comments included the range of
alternatives, length of the comment period, adequacy of mitigation,
credibility of the science relied upon in developing conservation
strategies, adequacy of the impacts analysis, population viability of
the subject species, uncertainty surrounding alternatives, assurances
provided to the Applicant, and permit issuance criteria. The Final EIS
contains summaries of, and responses to, all comments received during
the comment period. Issues and potential consequences remain constant
from the Draft to the Final EIS.
Alternatives Analyzed In the Final EIS
The Draft EIS considered nine alternatives, but only advanced four
for further detailed study. Alternatives considered but not advanced
for detailed analysis included the following: (1) no harvest on Plum
Creek land; (2) compliance with Federal Aquatic Conservation
Strategies; (3) land exchanges; (4) retention of unroaded areas in Plum
Creek ownership; and (5) inclusion of all Plum Creek properties within
the general planning area. Four alternatives were advanced for detailed
analysis. Under the No-action Alternative, the Applicant would avoid
the take of any and all Federally listed species and no permit would be
issued. Under the Riparian Alternative, emphasis for conservation of
fish and wildlife species would be placed in riparian and wetland
areas; other portions of the ownership would be managed for aggressive
timber harvest. Under the Dispersal Alternative, riparian areas would
continue to be managed for fish and wildlife; but, in addition, upland
areas would be managed to provide dispersal habitat for owls. The
Proposed Action builds upon the benefits of the previous alternatives.
It, too, places emphasis for conservation on riparian and wetland
areas; but, in addition, commits to implementation of the Applicant's
Environmental Principles; provision of nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat for owls; and provision of habitat deferrals for owls and
northern goshawks. It includes specific mitigation for other wildlife
such as the gray wolf, grizzly bear, Larch Mountain salamander, and
other species and special habitats. The Proposed Action remains the
Services' preferred alternative.
The Final EIS contains minor modifications to the Draft EIS and
also highlights minor changes made to the HCP in response to public
comments. Additional information regarding these changes may be
obtained from the Services at the above address.
Dated: March 26, 1996.
Thomas J. Dwyer,
Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 96-8914 Filed 4-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
