[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