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

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