Notice of Intent to Conduct Public Scoping and to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Port of Vancouver's Columbia Gateway Site Habitat Conservation Plan, 75478-75480 [E5-7564]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75478
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Notices
implementation. The recovery plan
implementation team will also
coordinate actions and help reduce the
potential for overlap. The Recovery Plan
has been revised to include an
expanded discussion of the issue of
governance as it relates to the recovery
of the DPS. The Services agree that the
complexity of the multiple state,
Federal, local and private groups
involved in salmon recovery or related
activities presents specific challenges
that must be addressed if recovery is to
be successful.
River-Specific Recovery Planning
Comment 17: Several comments
stated that the recovery plan did not
address recovery action at a riverspecific scale. These individual state
that the plan does not make any attempt
to address individual rivers, identify
unique threats to salmon in each and
describe actions necessary to address
each threat. In addition, the comments
state that the threats identified in the
plan are not the most important in all
watersheds.
Response: The Recovery Plan
considers threats to the DPS at a riverspecific scale and discusses regional
differences that exist between various
watersheds and regions in Maine. The
Recovery Plan identifies site-specific
management actions for all the threats
the Services have identified under
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA five-factor
analysis. The Services acknowledge that
the Recovery Plan does not present
comprehensive river specific recovery
strategies for each of the rivers still
known to support wild salmon
populations. The Services agree that
recovery implementation may be further
facilitated by the development of
watershed or river-specific management
plans that would include and highlight
those threats and accompanying actions
applicable within that particular area.
The Recovery Plan acknowledges
ongoing recovery implementation
activities that are currently responsive
to the specific circumstances within
individual watersheds (e.g., NPS
surveys, nutrient management plans in
the Sheepscot, liming project
Downeast). Management plans for
specific issues of concern have been
developed, or are envisioned, for many
of the rivers and watersheds within the
DPS. For example, the Maine ASC has
been working to develop river-specific
fisheries management plans for
individual DPS rivers. The State of
Maine, working in cooperation with
multiple public and private partners,
has developed a water use management
plan (WUMP) for the Narraguagus and
Pleasant rivers and for Mopang Stream
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:23 Dec 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
(a tributary to the Machias River). The
WUMP was developed to address a
specific issue (i.e., agricultural water
use) that was a concern in these three
rivers. In a number of instances, local
conservation organizations have begun
the process of developing river-specific
management plans for specific issues.
Pesticides
Comment 18: The Services received a
number of comments related to
pesticides. Comments provided by the
State of Maine questioned the factual
basis of statements in the draft plan that
drift of hexazinone from aerial
applications has been documented. The
State stated that it had no
documentation of hexazinone drift in its
records. The DSF commented that the
plan did not adequately present the
extent of pesticide use and the threat to
the DPS posed by DPS by this activity.
The Services received comments that
the threat from pesticides warrants
consultation between the Services and
the EPA on the effects of pesticide
registration on the DPS. This commenter
stated that pesticides should not be used
until this consultation has taken place.
Further, these comments stated the view
that the recovery plan does not place a
high enough priority on measures to
control pesticide use. Lastly, the
comments stated that no pesticides can
be discharged into DPS waters without
a CWA, NPDES permit.
Response: The Services have revised
the recovery plan based on public
comments received. An assessment of
the magnitude and severity of the threat
posed to the survival and recovery of
the DPS by chemical contaminants
resulted in the conclusion that
pesticides currently are not a high-level
threat to the DPS recovery. The recovery
plan identifies a number of recovery
actions related to continued monitoring
of any threat to the DPS related to
pesticides. Should water quality or
other data indicate that pesticides
applied in accordance with approved
labeling instructions may be adversely
affecting the DPS, the Services will
consult with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address any
potential impact to the DPS.
Implementation of the Plan
NMFS and the FWS are committed to
the implementation of the Gulf of Maine
DPS of Atlantic salmon Recovery Plan.
The recovery plan may be revised in the
future on the basis of new information.
Public notice and an opportunity for
public review and comment would be
provided prior to final approval of a
revised recovery plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: December 14, 2005.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
Dated: December 2, 2005.
Marvin E. Moriarty,
Regional Director, Region 5U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E5–7567 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 110905A]
Notice of Intent to Conduct Public
Scoping and to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement
Related to the Port of Vancouver’s
Columbia Gateway Site Habitat
Conservation Plan
Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), Interior; National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; scoping meetings.
AGENCIES:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (Services) advise
interested parties of their intent to
conduct public scoping under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) to gather information to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) related to a permit application
from the Port of Vancouver,
Washington, for the incidental take of
listed species. The permit application
would be associated with the Port of
Vancouver Columbia Gateway Site
Habitat Conservation Plan adjacent to
the Columbia River in Vancouver, WA.
DATES: The public scoping meeting will
be held on January 4, 2006, from 4–7
p.m. in Vancouver, WA.
Written comments should be received
on or before January 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The public scoping meeting
will be held at the Fruit Valley
Community Center, 3203 Unander
Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98660–1100.
All comments concerning the
preparation of the EIS and the NEPA
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Notices
process should be addressed to: Greg M.
Smith, FWS, 2600 SE 98th Avenue,
Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266–1325,
facsimile (503) 231–6195, or Laura
Hamilton, NMFS, 510 Desmond Drive
SE, Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503–1273,
facsimile (360) 753–9517. Comments
may be submitted by e-mail to the
following address:
ColumbiaGatewayHCP.nwr@noaa.gov.
In the subject line of the e-mail, include
the document identifier: Columbia
Gateway HCP–EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg
M. Smith, FWS (503) 231–6179; or
Laura Hamilton, NMFS (360) 753–5820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority
Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1538) and
implementing regulations prohibit the
taking of animal species listed as
endangered or threatened. The term
‘‘take’’ is defined under the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1532(19)) as to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct. ‘‘Harm’’ is
defined by FWS regulation to include
significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or
injures wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, and
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). NMFS’
definition of ‘‘harm’’ includes
significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or
injures fish or wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, spawning,
migrating, rearing, and sheltering (64 FR
60727, November 8, 1999).
Section 10 of the ESA and
implementing regulations specify
requirements for the issuance of
incidental take permits (ITPs) to nonFederal landowners for the take of
endangered and threatened species. Any
proposed take must be incidental to
otherwise lawful activities, not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of the species in
the wild, and minimize and mitigate the
impacts of such take to the maximum
extent practicable. In addition, the
applicant must prepare a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) describing the
impact that will likely result from such
taking, the strategy for minimizing and
mitigating the take, the funding
available to implement such steps,
alternatives to such taking, and the
reason such alternatives are not being
implemented.
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires
that Federal agencies conduct an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:23 Dec 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
environmental analysis of their
proposed actions to determine if the
actions may significantly affect the
human environment. Under NEPA, a
reasonable range of alternatives to
proposed projects is developed and
considered in the Services’
environmental review. Alternatives
considered for analysis in an EIS may
include: variations in the scope of
covered activities; variations in the
location, amount, and type of
conservation; variations in permit
duration; or a combination of these
elements. In addition, the EIS will
identify potentially significant direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts on
biological resources, land use, air
quality, water quality, water resources,
socioeconomics, and other
environmental issues that could occur
with the implementation of the
applicant’s proposed actions and
alternatives. For potentially significant
impacts, an EIS may identify avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation measures to
reduce these impacts, where feasible, to
a level below significance.
Background
An EIS for the Columbia Gateway
HCP would analyze the potential
issuance of two ITPs, one by NMFS and
one by the FWS. To obtain an ITP, the
applicant must prepare an HCP that
meets the issuance criteria established
by the ESA and Service regulations (50
CFR 17.22(b)(2), 17.32(b)(2), and
222.307). Should a permit or permits be
issued, the permit(s) may include
assurances under the Services’ ≥No
Surprises≥ regulations.
The Port of Vancouver (Port) is
seeking ITPs from the Services that
would provide ESA regulatory certainty
for a proposed expansion of waterdependent and water-related
development at the Columbia Gateway
site. This industrial development would
consist of the infrastructure necessary to
support marine terminals on Parcel 3
(approximately 517 acres), and offsite
transportation facilities necessary to
move material to and from Parcel 3.
These offsite transportation facilities
include a proposed rail line to connect
Columbia Gateway with the existing
Burlington Northern Santa Fe mainline,
and the extension of 26th Avenue
within the City of Vancouver to provide
an alternate route between the site and
Interstate 5, to accommodate increased
cargo and employee trips that would
occur as a result of the project.
In addition to Parcel 3, the Columbia
Gateway site includes Parcels 2, 4, and
5, and the Port’s Rufener property.
Parcel 2 is a 31-acre tract near Parcel 3,
Parcels 4 (112 acres) and 5 (430 acres)
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75479
are located north of the Vancouver Lake
Flushing Channel, and the Rufener
property (206 acres) is located east of
Vancouver Lake and west of the Fruit
Valley neighborhood. To compensate for
wildlife habitat impacts that would be
caused by proposed development
activities on Parcel 3, the Port proposes
to provide habitat mitigation on Parcels
4 and 5 and the Rufener property. Some
industrial facilities would also be
developed on the Rufener property. A
portion of Parcel 2 may be used as a
transportation corridor to access Parcel
3.
Species for which the Port seeks
incidental take coverage include 15
species of fish and one species of
wildlife. Three of the fish species are
currently listed as endangered under the
ESA, including Upper Columbia River
Spring-run Chinook (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), Upper Columbia River
steelhead (O. mykiss), and Snake River
sockeye (O. nerka). Nine fish species are
currently listed as threatened under the
ESA, including Lower Columbia River
Chinook, Upper Willamette Chinook,
Snake River Fall-Run Chinook, Snake
River Spring/Summer-Run Chinook,
Columbia River chum (O. keta), Lower
Columbia River steelhead, Middle
Columbia River steelhead, Upper
Willamette River steelhead, and Snake
River Basin steelhead. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is also listed
as threatened. The Lower Columbia
River coho evolutionary significant unit
(O. kisutch) is proposed for listing. The
Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)
and coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki
clarki) are species of concern. One
additional species, the sandhill crane
(Grus canadensis), will be addressed in
the conservation measures contained in
the HCP; however, the Port is not
seeking ITP coverage for this species.
The bald eagle, Pacific lamprey, coastal
cutthroat trout and sandhill crane are
under the jurisdiction of the FWS, and
the remaining species are under the
jurisdiction of NMFS.
The draft HCP to be prepared by the
Port in support of the ITP applications
will describe the impacts of take on
proposed covered species, and will
propose a conservation strategy to
minimize and mitigate those impacts on
each covered species to the maximum
extent practicable. The Port will
develop habitat conservation measures
for fish and wildlife, and their
associated habitat, with assistance from
the Services. Habitat conservation
measures for the bald eagle will follow
the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife Bald Eagle Management Plan,
developed for the site with the FWS and
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
75480
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Notices
the Port. Other conservation and
mitigation strategies will include:
• Regulated wetland (Clean Water Act
section 404) impacts as a result of
development on Parcel 3 would be
mitigated on Parcels 4 and 5
(approximately 542 acres).
• Natural resource protection and
mitigation planning would be primarily
shaped by regulatory requirements.
• Wetland and wildlife habitat
impacts from development of the road
and rail infrastructure would be
mitigated on the Port’s Rufener
property.
• Limited mitigation and habitat areas
would be retained along the shoreline
and the Flushing Channel on Parcel 3.
The draft HCP will identify HCP
alternatives considered by the Port and
will explain why those alternatives were
not selected. The Services are
responsible for determining whether the
HCP satisfies ESA section 10 permit
issuance criteria.
Under NEPA, a reasonable range of
alternatives to a proposed project must
be developed and considered in the
Services’ environmental review. The
Services have identified the following
preliminary alternatives for public
evaluation during the scoping period:
Alternative 1: No Action - Under the
No Action Alternative, the ITPs would
not be issued by the Services and the
HCP would not be approved. The Port
would be required to comply with all
local, state, and Federal laws and
regulations through the appropriate
permitting processes.
Alternative 2: Proposed Alternative There would be full implementation of
the HCP, which includes a set of sitespecific wetland, riparian, and upland
habitat conservation measures that
would be specific to the Columbia
Gateway site and associated rail and
road improvements.
Alternative 3: The HCP would be
modified by changing or adding
measures to further reduce the amount
and risk of incidental take. These
measures could involve different road
and/or rail alignments, industrial
development configurations, approaches
to ESA compliance, conservation
commitments, adaptive management,
permit timeframes, covered lands,
covered species, eligible parties and
other covered activities.
Additional project alternatives may be
developed based on input received from
the public scoping process.
Request for Comments
The primary purpose of the scoping
process is for the public to assist the
Services in developing the EIS by
identifying important issues and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:34 Dec 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
alternatives related to the applicant’s
proposed action. The scoping workshop
will allocate time for presentations by
the Services and the Port, followed by
informal questions and discussions.
Written comments from interested
parties are welcome to ensure that the
full range of issues related to the
proposed permit request are identified.
All comments and materials received,
including names and addresses, will
become part of the administrative record
and may be released to the public.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the offices listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
The Services request that comments
be specific. In particular, we request
information regarding: direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts that
implementation of the proposed HCP or
other alternatives could have on
endangered and threatened and other
covered species, and their communities
and habitats; other possible alternatives
that meet the purpose and need;
potential adaptive management and/or
monitoring provisions; funding issues;
existing environmental conditions in
the plan area; other plans or projects
that might be relevant to this proposed
project; permit duration; maximum
acreage that should be covered; specific
species that should or should not be
covered; specific landforms that should
or should not be covered; and
minimization and mitigation efforts.
NMFS and FWS estimate that the draft
EIS will be available for public review
in the summer of 2006.
The environmental review of this
project will be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the NEPA of
1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 1508),
other applicable Federal laws and
regulations, and applicable policies and
procedures of the Services. This notice
is being furnished in accordance with
40 CFR 1501.7 of the NEPA regulations
to obtain suggestions and information
from other agencies and the public on
the scope of issues and alternatives to be
addressed in the EIS.
Reasonable Accommodation
Persons needing reasonable
accommodations to attend and
participate in the public meeting should
contact Greg Smith (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). To allow
sufficient time to process requests,
please call no later than December 28,
2005. Information regarding the
applicant’s proposed action is available
in alternative formats upon request.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: November 29, 2005.
David J. Wesley,
Deputy Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
Dated: December 14, 2005.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office
of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E5–7564 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODES 4310–55–S, 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[(NV–912–0777)]
Notice of Public Meeting, Mojave
Southern Great Basin Resource
Advisory Council Meetings
Bureau of Land Management.
Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Mojave
Southern Great Basin Resource
Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as
indicated below.
DATES: The Mojave Southern Great
Basin RAC meetings will be held
January 20, 2006; March 23, 2006; June
15 and 16, 2006; and August 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The Mojave Southern Great
Basin RAC meetings will be held
January 20, 2006 and March 23, 2006 at
the BLM Las Vegas Field Office, located
at 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas,
NV; June 15, 2006, at the Bristlecone
Convention Center 150 Sixth St., Ely,
NV; and August 17, 2006 at the Beatty
Community Center, 100 A–Ave. South,
Beatty, NV.
The Mojave Southern Great Basin
RAC meetings will usually begin at 8
a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4
p.m. Public comment periods regarding
matters on the agenda will be held at
9:30 a.m. during each meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hillerie C. Patton, BLM Las Vegas Field
Office Public Affairs Specialist at 702–
515–5046.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Mojave Southern Great Basin RAC
advises the Secretary of the Interior,
through the Bureau of Land
Management, on a variety of public
issues in Southern Nevada. Topics of
discussion during Mojave Southern
RAC meetings may include land use
planning, Environmental Impact
Statements, recreation, fire
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75478-75480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7564]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 110905A]
Notice of Intent to Conduct Public Scoping and to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Port of Vancouver's
Columbia Gateway Site Habitat Conservation Plan
AGENCIES: Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior; National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; scoping meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (Services) advise interested parties of their intent
to conduct public scoping under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) to gather information to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) related to a permit application from the Port of
Vancouver, Washington, for the incidental take of listed species. The
permit application would be associated with the Port of Vancouver
Columbia Gateway Site Habitat Conservation Plan adjacent to the
Columbia River in Vancouver, WA.
DATES: The public scoping meeting will be held on January 4, 2006, from
4-7 p.m. in Vancouver, WA.
Written comments should be received on or before January 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The public scoping meeting will be held at the Fruit Valley
Community Center, 3203 Unander Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98660-1100.
All comments concerning the preparation of the EIS and the NEPA
[[Page 75479]]
process should be addressed to: Greg M. Smith, FWS, 2600 SE 98th
Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266-1325, facsimile (503) 231-6195,
or Laura Hamilton, NMFS, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103, Lacey, WA
98503-1273, facsimile (360) 753-9517. Comments may be submitted by e-
mail to the following address: ColumbiaGatewayHCP.nwr@noaa.gov. In the
subject line of the e-mail, include the document identifier: Columbia
Gateway HCP-EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg M. Smith, FWS (503) 231-6179; or
Laura Hamilton, NMFS (360) 753-5820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1538) and
implementing regulations prohibit the taking of animal species listed
as endangered or threatened. The term ``take'' is defined under the ESA
(16 U.S.C. 1532(19)) as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct. ``Harm'' is defined by FWS regulation to include significant
habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). NMFS'
definition of ``harm'' includes significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding, spawning, migrating, rearing, and sheltering (64 FR
60727, November 8, 1999).
Section 10 of the ESA and implementing regulations specify
requirements for the issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) to non-
Federal landowners for the take of endangered and threatened species.
Any proposed take must be incidental to otherwise lawful activities,
not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of
the species in the wild, and minimize and mitigate the impacts of such
take to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the applicant must
prepare a habitat conservation plan (HCP) describing the impact that
will likely result from such taking, the strategy for minimizing and
mitigating the take, the funding available to implement such steps,
alternatives to such taking, and the reason such alternatives are not
being implemented.
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies
conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to
determine if the actions may significantly affect the human
environment. Under NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives to proposed
projects is developed and considered in the Services' environmental
review. Alternatives considered for analysis in an EIS may include:
variations in the scope of covered activities; variations in the
location, amount, and type of conservation; variations in permit
duration; or a combination of these elements. In addition, the EIS will
identify potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts on biological resources, land use, air quality, water quality,
water resources, socioeconomics, and other environmental issues that
could occur with the implementation of the applicant's proposed actions
and alternatives. For potentially significant impacts, an EIS may
identify avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures to reduce
these impacts, where feasible, to a level below significance.
Background
An EIS for the Columbia Gateway HCP would analyze the potential
issuance of two ITPs, one by NMFS and one by the FWS. To obtain an ITP,
the applicant must prepare an HCP that meets the issuance criteria
established by the ESA and Service regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(2),
17.32(b)(2), and 222.307). Should a permit or permits be issued, the
permit(s) may include assurances under the Services' No
Surprises regulations.
The Port of Vancouver (Port) is seeking ITPs from the Services that
would provide ESA regulatory certainty for a proposed expansion of
water-dependent and water-related development at the Columbia Gateway
site. This industrial development would consist of the infrastructure
necessary to support marine terminals on Parcel 3 (approximately 517
acres), and offsite transportation facilities necessary to move
material to and from Parcel 3. These offsite transportation facilities
include a proposed rail line to connect Columbia Gateway with the
existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe mainline, and the extension of
26th Avenue within the City of Vancouver to provide an alternate route
between the site and Interstate 5, to accommodate increased cargo and
employee trips that would occur as a result of the project.
In addition to Parcel 3, the Columbia Gateway site includes Parcels
2, 4, and 5, and the Port's Rufener property. Parcel 2 is a 31-acre
tract near Parcel 3, Parcels 4 (112 acres) and 5 (430 acres) are
located north of the Vancouver Lake Flushing Channel, and the Rufener
property (206 acres) is located east of Vancouver Lake and west of the
Fruit Valley neighborhood. To compensate for wildlife habitat impacts
that would be caused by proposed development activities on Parcel 3,
the Port proposes to provide habitat mitigation on Parcels 4 and 5 and
the Rufener property. Some industrial facilities would also be
developed on the Rufener property. A portion of Parcel 2 may be used as
a transportation corridor to access Parcel 3.
Species for which the Port seeks incidental take coverage include
15 species of fish and one species of wildlife. Three of the fish
species are currently listed as endangered under the ESA, including
Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),
Upper Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss), and Snake River sockeye (O.
nerka). Nine fish species are currently listed as threatened under the
ESA, including Lower Columbia River Chinook, Upper Willamette Chinook,
Snake River Fall-Run Chinook, Snake River Spring/Summer-Run Chinook,
Columbia River chum (O. keta), Lower Columbia River steelhead, Middle
Columbia River steelhead, Upper Willamette River steelhead, and Snake
River Basin steelhead. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is
also listed as threatened. The Lower Columbia River coho evolutionary
significant unit (O. kisutch) is proposed for listing. The Pacific
lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) and coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki
clarki) are species of concern. One additional species, the sandhill
crane (Grus canadensis), will be addressed in the conservation measures
contained in the HCP; however, the Port is not seeking ITP coverage for
this species. The bald eagle, Pacific lamprey, coastal cutthroat trout
and sandhill crane are under the jurisdiction of the FWS, and the
remaining species are under the jurisdiction of NMFS.
The draft HCP to be prepared by the Port in support of the ITP
applications will describe the impacts of take on proposed covered
species, and will propose a conservation strategy to minimize and
mitigate those impacts on each covered species to the maximum extent
practicable. The Port will develop habitat conservation measures for
fish and wildlife, and their associated habitat, with assistance from
the Services. Habitat conservation measures for the bald eagle will
follow the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Bald Eagle
Management Plan, developed for the site with the FWS and
[[Page 75480]]
the Port. Other conservation and mitigation strategies will include:
Regulated wetland (Clean Water Act section 404) impacts as
a result of development on Parcel 3 would be mitigated on Parcels 4 and
5 (approximately 542 acres).
Natural resource protection and mitigation planning would
be primarily shaped by regulatory requirements.
Wetland and wildlife habitat impacts from development of
the road and rail infrastructure would be mitigated on the Port's
Rufener property.
Limited mitigation and habitat areas would be retained
along the shoreline and the Flushing Channel on Parcel 3.
The draft HCP will identify HCP alternatives considered by the Port
and will explain why those alternatives were not selected. The Services
are responsible for determining whether the HCP satisfies ESA section
10 permit issuance criteria.
Under NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed
project must be developed and considered in the Services' environmental
review. The Services have identified the following preliminary
alternatives for public evaluation during the scoping period:
Alternative 1: No Action - Under the No Action Alternative, the
ITPs would not be issued by the Services and the HCP would not be
approved. The Port would be required to comply with all local, state,
and Federal laws and regulations through the appropriate permitting
processes.
Alternative 2: Proposed Alternative - There would be full
implementation of the HCP, which includes a set of site-specific
wetland, riparian, and upland habitat conservation measures that would
be specific to the Columbia Gateway site and associated rail and road
improvements.
Alternative 3: The HCP would be modified by changing or adding
measures to further reduce the amount and risk of incidental take.
These measures could involve different road and/or rail alignments,
industrial development configurations, approaches to ESA compliance,
conservation commitments, adaptive management, permit timeframes,
covered lands, covered species, eligible parties and other covered
activities.
Additional project alternatives may be developed based on input
received from the public scoping process.
Request for Comments
The primary purpose of the scoping process is for the public to
assist the Services in developing the EIS by identifying important
issues and alternatives related to the applicant's proposed action. The
scoping workshop will allocate time for presentations by the Services
and the Port, followed by informal questions and discussions.
Written comments from interested parties are welcome to ensure that
the full range of issues related to the proposed permit request are
identified. All comments and materials received, including names and
addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be
released to the public.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
The Services request that comments be specific. In particular, we
request information regarding: direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
that implementation of the proposed HCP or other alternatives could
have on endangered and threatened and other covered species, and their
communities and habitats; other possible alternatives that meet the
purpose and need; potential adaptive management and/or monitoring
provisions; funding issues; existing environmental conditions in the
plan area; other plans or projects that might be relevant to this
proposed project; permit duration; maximum acreage that should be
covered; specific species that should or should not be covered;
specific landforms that should or should not be covered; and
minimization and mitigation efforts. NMFS and FWS estimate that the
draft EIS will be available for public review in the summer of 2006.
The environmental review of this project will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the NEPA of 1969 as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40
CFR parts 1500 1508), other applicable Federal laws and regulations,
and applicable policies and procedures of the Services. This notice is
being furnished in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 of the NEPA
regulations to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies
and the public on the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed
in the EIS.
Reasonable Accommodation
Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate
in the public meeting should contact Greg Smith (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). To allow sufficient time to process requests,
please call no later than December 28, 2005. Information regarding the
applicant's proposed action is available in alternative formats upon
request.
Dated: November 29, 2005.
David J. Wesley,
Deputy Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1,
Portland, Oregon.
Dated: December 14, 2005.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E5-7564 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODES 4310-55-S, 3510-22-S
