Draft Multi-Species General Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment; Douglas County, Washington, 68289-68291 [2014-27021]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Notices
record and available for public review at
the BIA address shown in the
ADDRESSES section, during business
hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays. Before
including your address, telephone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Text of Proposed Addition to 516 DM
10
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10.5
Categorical Exclusions
H. Forestry.
(11) Harvesting live trees not to
exceed 70 acres, requiring no more than
0.5 mile of temporary road construction.
Such activities:
(a) Shall not include even-aged
regeneration harvests or vegetation type
conversions.
(b) May include incidental removal of
trees for landings, skid trails, and road
clearing.
(c) May include temporary roads
which are defined as roads authorized
by contract, permit, lease, other written
authorization, or emergency operation
not intended to be part of the BIA or
Tribal transportation systems and not
necessary for long-term resource
management. Temporary roads shall be
designed to standards appropriate for
the intended uses, considering safety,
cost of transportation, and impacts on
land and resources and
(d) Shall require the treatment of
temporary roads constructed or used so
as to permit the reestablishment by
artificial or natural means, of vegetative
cover on the roadway and areas where
the vegetative cover was disturbed by
the construction or use of the road, as
necessary to minimize erosion from the
disturbed area. Such treatment shall be
designed to reestablish vegetative cover
as soon as practicable, but at least
within 10 years after the termination of
the contract.
Examples include, but are not limited
to:
(a) Removing individual trees for
sawlogs, specialty products, or
fuelwood.
(b) Commercial thinning of
overstocked stands to achieve the
desired stocking level to increase health
and vigor.
(12) Salvaging dead or dying trees not
to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Nov 13, 2014
Jkt 235001
than 0.5 mile of temporary road
construction. Such activities:
(a) May include incidental removal of
live or dead trees for landings, skid
trails, and road clearing.
(b) May include temporary roads
which are defined as roads authorized
by contract, permit, lease, other written
authorization, or emergency operation
not intended to be part of the BIA or
Tribal transportation systems and not
necessary for long-term resource
management. Temporary roads shall be
designed to standards appropriate for
the intended uses, considering safety,
cost of transportation, and impacts on
land and resources and
(c) Shall require the treatment of
temporary roads constructed or used so
as to permit the reestablishment, by
artificial or natural means, of vegetative
cover on the roadway and areas where
the vegetative cover was disturbed by
the construction or use of the road, as
necessary to minimize erosion from the
disturbed area. Such treatment shall be
designed to reestablish vegetative cover
as soon as practicable, but at least
within 10 years after the termination of
the contract.
(d) For this CE, a dying tree is defined
as a standing tree that has been severely
damaged by forces such as fire, wind,
ice, insects, or disease, such that in the
judgment of an experienced forest
professional or someone technically
trained for the work, the tree is likely to
die within a few years.
Examples include, but are not limited
to:
(a) Harvesting a portion of a stand
damaged by a wind or ice event.
(b) Harvesting fire damaged trees.
(13) Commercial and non-commercial
sanitation harvest of trees to control
insects or disease not to exceed 250
acres, requiring no more than 0.5 miles
of temporary road construction. Such
activities:
(a) May include removal of infested/
infected trees and adjacent live
uninfested/uninfected trees as
determined necessary to control the
spread of insects or disease and
(b) May include incidental removal of
live or dead trees for landings, skid
trails, and road clearing.
(c) May include temporary roads
which are defined as roads authorized
by contract, permit, lease, other written
authorization, or emergency operation
not intended to be part of the BIA or
tribal transportation systems and not
necessary for long-term resource
management. Temporary roads shall be
designed to standards appropriate for
the intended uses, considering safety,
cost of transportation, and impacts on
land and resources and
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68289
(d) Shall require the treatment of
temporary roads constructed or used so
as to permit the reestablishment, by
artificial or natural means, of vegetative
cover on the roadway and areas where
the vegetative cover was disturbed by
the construction or use of the road, as
necessary to minimize erosion from the
disturbed area. Such treatment shall be
designed to reestablish vegetative cover
as soon as practicable, but at least
within 10 years after the termination of
the contract.
Examples include, but are not limited
to:
(a) Felling and harvesting trees
infested with mountain pine beetles and
immediately adjacent uninfested trees to
control expanding spot infestations (a
buffer) and
(b) Removing or destroying trees
infested or infected with a new exotic
insect or disease, such as emerald ash
borer, Asian longhorned beetle, or
sudden oak death pathogen.
Dated: October 29, 2014.
Willie R. Taylor,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014–27015 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R1–ES–2014–N131;
FXES11120100000–145–FF01E00000]
Draft Multi-Species General
Conservation Plan and Draft
Environmental Assessment; Douglas
County, Washington
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft multi-species
general conservation plan (MSGCP) for
Douglas County, Washington. The
Service and the Foster Creek
Conservation District (FCCD) developed
the draft MSGCP as a programmatic
approach to streamline the development
of individual farm plans by non-Federal
agricultural landowners and operators
to facilitate their applying for incidental
take permits (ITPs) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The ITPs would
authorize take of the federally
endangered Columbia Basin pygmy
rabbit and three other nonlisted species,
should they become listed, resulting
from otherwise lawful activities on non-
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
68290
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal agricultural lands within
Douglas County. The Service also
announces the availability of a draft
environmental assessment (EA) for
public review and comment.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please
send your written comments by January
13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: To request further
information or submit written
comments, please use one of the
following methods, and note that your
information request or comments are in
reference to the Douglas County
MSGCP:
• Internet: Documents may be viewed
on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/
wafwo/.
• In-Person Viewing or Pickup:
Documents will be available for public
inspection by appointment during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service’s Eastern
Washington Field Office, 11103 E.
Montgomery Dr., Spokane Valley, WA
99206; and at the Foster Creek
Conservation District Office, Douglas
County Courthouse–3rd Floor, 203
Rainier, Waterville, WA 98858.
• Email: FW1DouglasCountyGCP@
fws.gov. Include ‘‘Douglas County
MSGCP’’ in the subject line of the
message.
• U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Eastern Washington Field
Office, 11103 E. Montgomery Dr.,
Spokane Valley, WA 99206.
• Fax: Eastern Washington Field
Office, 509–891–6748, Attn.: Douglas
County MSGCP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Eames, Project Manager,
Eastern Washington Field Office (see
ADDRESSES), telephone: 509–893–8010.
If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf, please call the Federal
Information Relay Service at 800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) prohibits take of fish and
wildlife species listed as endangered or
threatened under section 4 of the Act.
Under the Act, the term ‘‘take’’ means
to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
to attempt to engage in any such
conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term
‘‘harm,’’ as defined in our regulations,
includes significant habitat modification
or degradation that results in death or
injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Nov 13, 2014
Jkt 235001
‘‘harass’’ is defined in our regulations as
to carry out actions that create the
likelihood of injury to listed species to
such an extent as to significantly disrupt
normal behavioral patterns, which
include, but are not limited to, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
However, under specified
circumstances, the Service may issue
permits that allow take of federally
listed species, provided that the take
that occurs is incidental to, but not the
purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity.
Regulations governing permits for
endangered and threatened species are
at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains
provisions for issuing such incidental
take permits to non-Federal entities for
the take of endangered and threatened
species, provided the following criteria
are met:
(1) The taking will be incidental;
(2) The applicant will, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimize
and mitigate the impact of such taking;
(3) The applicant will ensure that
adequate funding for the plan will be
provided;
(4) The taking will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival
and recovery of the species in the wild;
and
(5) The applicant will carry out any
other measures that the Service may
require as being necessary or
appropriate for the purposes of the plan.
Proposed Action
The Service and the FCCD developed
the proposed MSGCP for Douglas
County, Washington, as a programmatic
approach to streamline the development
of individual farm plans to support ITP
applications under section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Act. The MSGCP would expedite
Service review of such permit
applications. The MSGCP is a type of
programmatic conservation plan, under
which multiple section 10 permits can
be issued. The proposed MSGCP
provides land management guidance for
protecting the federally endangered
Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit
(Brachylagus idahoensis) and three
nonlisted wildlife species, over
approximately 879,000 acres of private
agricultural lands in Douglas County,
Washington, for the next 50 years. The
three nonlisted species include the
greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus), Washington ground
squirrel (Urocitellus washingtoni), and
the sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus
phasianellus). Collectively these four
species are hereafter referred to as the
‘‘covered species.’’ The MSGCP does not
cover private, nonagricultural land uses
within Douglas County, and it does not
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
cover activities on Federal land. It also
does not cover State-owned land, unless
those lands are leased for agricultural
production to private operators, as can
occur with lands managed by the
Washington Department of Natural
Resources.
The Douglas County MSGCP will
streamline the development of future
ITP applications, which, if approved,
would authorize the incidental take of
federally endangered or threatened
species resulting from otherwise lawful
activities on non-Federal agricultural
lands within Douglas County. Should
any of the nonlisted covered species
become federally listed as endangered
or threatened under the Act during the
term of an ITP, take authorization for
those species would become effective
upon listing, as long as the permittee is
in compliance with the terms of the
MSGCP and ITP. Agricultural
landowners and operators participating
in the Douglas County MSGCP under an
ITP would be provided with legal
authority to conduct covered
agricultural activities that cause
incidental take of listed species. The
MSGCP covers numerous activities
associated with dryland farming,
ranching, and some irrigated farming in
Douglas County. Farmers and ranchers
in Douglas County may voluntarily
apply for ITPs under the MSGCP. The
Service will publish notice of the
receipt of applications in the Federal
Register and request public comments.
If an application is consistent with
expectations of the MSGCP, the EA and
related documents and all other
applicable Federal laws and regulations,
the USFWS will issue the ITP. An ITP
is needed to authorize the incidental
take of federally endangered and
threatened species that may occur as a
result of covered agricultural activities.
The proposed Douglas County
MSGCP includes measures to minimize
and mitigate, to the maximum extent
practicable, the impacts of farming and
ranching activities that may incidentally
take the covered species. Avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures
in the MSGCP include development of
farm plans, implementation of best
management practices, and an adaptive
management and monitoring plan. The
draft MSGCP and draft EA address and
analyze the impacts of incidental take of
the covered species resulting from
agricultural activities.
The purpose of developing a MSGCP
is to allow potential applicants for an
ITP to use the provisions in the MSGCP
instead of developing their own
individual habitat conservation plans.
Under this scenario, the MSGCP allows
multiple applicants to conduct similar
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
activities within a predetermined area,
while jointly conserving the covered
species and their habitats.
Implementation of the Douglas County
MSGCP, rather than a species-by-species
or plan-by-plan approach, will
maximize the benefits of conservation
measures for covered species at a larger
landscape scale and facilitate future
review of multiple individual ITPs.
National Environmental Policy Act
Compliance
The development of the draft MSGCP
for Douglas County and the proposed
issuance of ITPs under this plan is a
Federal action that triggers the need for
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.;
NEPA). We have prepared a draft EA to
analyze the environmental impacts of
three alternatives related to the issuance
of ITPs and implementation of the
conservation program under the
proposed MSGCP. The three alternatives
include the proposed action, a no-action
alternative, and an expanded
conservation lands alternative.
The proposed action alternative is the
implementation of the MSGCP and
issuance of ITPs to participating
agricultural landowners and operators
in Douglas County.
Under the no-action alternative, the
proposed MSGCP would not be
implemented and no ITPs would be
issued to agricultural landowners and
operators in Douglas County to cover
the incidental take of covered species
resulting from farming and ranching
activities. The no-action alternative
would not give agricultural landowners
and operators regulatory certainty, and
actions that could result in take of listed
species on non-Federal lands would be
prohibited under section 9 of the Act.
The expanded conservation lands
alternative would include many of the
same features as described for the
proposed action alternative, including
the same covered activities, covered
species, and monitoring and adaptive
management. The key difference would
be in the approach to managing
conservation lands. In recent years, the
conservation of all wildlife species in
Douglas County has been considerably
improved by implementation of the
Natural Resources Conservation
Service’s Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). Prior to 2009, about 33 percent of
the ‘‘eligible lands’’ in Douglas County
(186,144 acres) were enrolled in the
CRP. This expanded conservation lands
alternative involves an increase in the
extent of lands enrolled in the CRP or
similar protected lands by 100,000 acres
above the 2009 benchmark of 186,144
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Nov 13, 2014
Jkt 235001
acres over the next 10 years, to a level
of about 50 percent of the eligible lands
in Douglas County. This would be a
voluntary commitment on the part of
landowners.
Public Comments
68291
Authority
We provide this notice in accordance
with the requirements of section 10 of
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and
NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.7,
1506.6, and 1508.22).
You may submit your comments and
materials by one of the methods listed
in the ADDRESSES section. We
specifically request information, views,
and opinions from the public on our
proposed Federal action, including
identification of any other aspects of the
human environment not already
identified in the draft EA pursuant to
NEPA regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6.
Further, we specifically solicit
information regarding the adequacy of
the MSGCP pursuant to the
requirements for ITPs at 50 CFR parts 13
and 17.
Dated: October 21, 2014.
Richard Hannan,
Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Public Availability of Comments
Interior.
All comments and materials we
receive become part of the public record
associated with this action. Before
including your address, phone number,
email address, or other personally
identifiable information (PII) in your
comments, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
PII—may be made publicly available at
any time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your PII from
public review, we cannot guarantee that
we will be able to do so. Comments and
materials we receive, as well as
supporting documentation we use in
preparing the EA, will be available for
public inspection by appointment,
during normal business hours, at our
Eastern Washington Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Next Steps
After completion of the EA, we will
determine whether adoption of the
Douglas County MSGCP warrants a
finding of no significant impact or
whether an environmental impact
statement should be prepared. We will
evaluate the Douglas County MSGCP
and its potential use by future ITP
applicants, as well as any comments we
receive, to determine whether the
MSGCP, when used by ITP applicants,
would meet the requirements for
issuance of ITPs under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also
evaluate whether issuance of section
10(a)(1)(B) ITPs under the MSGCP
would comply with section 7 of the Act
by conducting an intra-Service section 7
consultation on anticipated ITP actions.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
[FR Doc. 2014–27021 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[DR.5B711.IA000815]
Indian Gaming
AGENCY:
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Notice of extension of TribalState Class III Gaming Compact.
ACTION:
This publishes notice of the
extension of the Class III gaming
compact between the Yankton Sioux
Tribe and the State of South Dakota.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective Date: November 14,
2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian
Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary—Policy and Economic
Development, Washington, DC 20240,
(202) 219–4066.
Pursuant
to 25 CFR 293.5, an extension to an
existing tribal-state Class III gaming
compact does not require approval by
the Secretary if the extension does not
include any amendment to the terms of
the compact. The Yankton Sioux Tribe
and the State of South Dakota have
reached an agreement to extend the
expiration of their existing Tribal-State
Class III gaming compact to April 23,
2015. This publishes notice of the new
expiration date of the compact.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: November 4, 2014.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014–27004 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–4N–P
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68289-68291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27021]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R1-ES-2014-N131; FXES11120100000-145-FF01E00000]
Draft Multi-Species General Conservation Plan and Draft
Environmental Assessment; Douglas County, Washington
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft multi-species general conservation plan (MSGCP)
for Douglas County, Washington. The Service and the Foster Creek
Conservation District (FCCD) developed the draft MSGCP as a
programmatic approach to streamline the development of individual farm
plans by non-Federal agricultural landowners and operators to
facilitate their applying for incidental take permits (ITPs) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The ITPs would
authorize take of the federally endangered Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit
and three other nonlisted species, should they become listed, resulting
from otherwise lawful activities on non-
[[Page 68290]]
Federal agricultural lands within Douglas County. The Service also
announces the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) for
public review and comment.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by
January 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: To request further information or submit written comments,
please use one of the following methods, and note that your information
request or comments are in reference to the Douglas County MSGCP:
Internet: Documents may be viewed on the Internet at
https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/.
In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Documents will be available
for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Eastern Washington Field Office,
11103 E. Montgomery Dr., Spokane Valley, WA 99206; and at the Foster
Creek Conservation District Office, Douglas County Courthouse-3rd
Floor, 203 Rainier, Waterville, WA 98858.
Email: FW1DouglasCountyGCP@fws.gov. Include ``Douglas
County MSGCP'' in the subject line of the message.
U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern
Washington Field Office, 11103 E. Montgomery Dr., Spokane Valley, WA
99206.
Fax: Eastern Washington Field Office, 509-891-6748, Attn.:
Douglas County MSGCP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Eames, Project Manager,
Eastern Washington Field Office (see ADDRESSES), telephone: 509-893-
8010. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call
the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prohibits take of fish and wildlife species
listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act. Under
the Act, the term ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term ``harm,'' as defined in our
regulations, includes significant habitat modification or degradation
that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding,
or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term ``harass'' is defined in our
regulations as to carry out actions that create the likelihood of
injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt
normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
However, under specified circumstances, the Service may issue
permits that allow take of federally listed species, provided that the
take that occurs is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise
lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for endangered and
threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing such incidental
take permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and
threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:
(1) The taking will be incidental;
(2) The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize
and mitigate the impact of such taking;
(3) The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan
will be provided;
(4) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
(5) The applicant will carry out any other measures that the
Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes
of the plan.
Proposed Action
The Service and the FCCD developed the proposed MSGCP for Douglas
County, Washington, as a programmatic approach to streamline the
development of individual farm plans to support ITP applications under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The MSGCP would expedite Service review
of such permit applications. The MSGCP is a type of programmatic
conservation plan, under which multiple section 10 permits can be
issued. The proposed MSGCP provides land management guidance for
protecting the federally endangered Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit
(Brachylagus idahoensis) and three nonlisted wildlife species, over
approximately 879,000 acres of private agricultural lands in Douglas
County, Washington, for the next 50 years. The three nonlisted species
include the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), Washington
ground squirrel (Urocitellus washingtoni), and the sharp-tailed grouse
(Tympanuchus phasianellus). Collectively these four species are
hereafter referred to as the ``covered species.'' The MSGCP does not
cover private, nonagricultural land uses within Douglas County, and it
does not cover activities on Federal land. It also does not cover
State-owned land, unless those lands are leased for agricultural
production to private operators, as can occur with lands managed by the
Washington Department of Natural Resources.
The Douglas County MSGCP will streamline the development of future
ITP applications, which, if approved, would authorize the incidental
take of federally endangered or threatened species resulting from
otherwise lawful activities on non-Federal agricultural lands within
Douglas County. Should any of the nonlisted covered species become
federally listed as endangered or threatened under the Act during the
term of an ITP, take authorization for those species would become
effective upon listing, as long as the permittee is in compliance with
the terms of the MSGCP and ITP. Agricultural landowners and operators
participating in the Douglas County MSGCP under an ITP would be
provided with legal authority to conduct covered agricultural
activities that cause incidental take of listed species. The MSGCP
covers numerous activities associated with dryland farming, ranching,
and some irrigated farming in Douglas County. Farmers and ranchers in
Douglas County may voluntarily apply for ITPs under the MSGCP. The
Service will publish notice of the receipt of applications in the
Federal Register and request public comments. If an application is
consistent with expectations of the MSGCP, the EA and related documents
and all other applicable Federal laws and regulations, the USFWS will
issue the ITP. An ITP is needed to authorize the incidental take of
federally endangered and threatened species that may occur as a result
of covered agricultural activities.
The proposed Douglas County MSGCP includes measures to minimize and
mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, the impacts of farming and
ranching activities that may incidentally take the covered species.
Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the MSGCP include
development of farm plans, implementation of best management practices,
and an adaptive management and monitoring plan. The draft MSGCP and
draft EA address and analyze the impacts of incidental take of the
covered species resulting from agricultural activities.
The purpose of developing a MSGCP is to allow potential applicants
for an ITP to use the provisions in the MSGCP instead of developing
their own individual habitat conservation plans. Under this scenario,
the MSGCP allows multiple applicants to conduct similar
[[Page 68291]]
activities within a predetermined area, while jointly conserving the
covered species and their habitats. Implementation of the Douglas
County MSGCP, rather than a species-by-species or plan-by-plan
approach, will maximize the benefits of conservation measures for
covered species at a larger landscape scale and facilitate future
review of multiple individual ITPs.
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
The development of the draft MSGCP for Douglas County and the
proposed issuance of ITPs under this plan is a Federal action that
triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA). We have
prepared a draft EA to analyze the environmental impacts of three
alternatives related to the issuance of ITPs and implementation of the
conservation program under the proposed MSGCP. The three alternatives
include the proposed action, a no-action alternative, and an expanded
conservation lands alternative.
The proposed action alternative is the implementation of the MSGCP
and issuance of ITPs to participating agricultural landowners and
operators in Douglas County.
Under the no-action alternative, the proposed MSGCP would not be
implemented and no ITPs would be issued to agricultural landowners and
operators in Douglas County to cover the incidental take of covered
species resulting from farming and ranching activities. The no-action
alternative would not give agricultural landowners and operators
regulatory certainty, and actions that could result in take of listed
species on non-Federal lands would be prohibited under section 9 of the
Act.
The expanded conservation lands alternative would include many of
the same features as described for the proposed action alternative,
including the same covered activities, covered species, and monitoring
and adaptive management. The key difference would be in the approach to
managing conservation lands. In recent years, the conservation of all
wildlife species in Douglas County has been considerably improved by
implementation of the Natural Resources Conservation Service's
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Prior to 2009, about 33 percent of
the ``eligible lands'' in Douglas County (186,144 acres) were enrolled
in the CRP. This expanded conservation lands alternative involves an
increase in the extent of lands enrolled in the CRP or similar
protected lands by 100,000 acres above the 2009 benchmark of 186,144
acres over the next 10 years, to a level of about 50 percent of the
eligible lands in Douglas County. This would be a voluntary commitment
on the part of landowners.
Public Comments
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods
listed in the ADDRESSES section. We specifically request information,
views, and opinions from the public on our proposed Federal action,
including identification of any other aspects of the human environment
not already identified in the draft EA pursuant to NEPA regulations in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6. Further, we
specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the MSGCP
pursuant to the requirements for ITPs at 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.
Public Availability of Comments
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public
record associated with this action. Before including your address,
phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable
information (PII) in your comments, you should be aware that your
entire comment--including your PII--may be made publicly available at
any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII
from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation
we use in preparing the EA, will be available for public inspection by
appointment, during normal business hours, at our Eastern Washington
Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Next Steps
After completion of the EA, we will determine whether adoption of
the Douglas County MSGCP warrants a finding of no significant impact or
whether an environmental impact statement should be prepared. We will
evaluate the Douglas County MSGCP and its potential use by future ITP
applicants, as well as any comments we receive, to determine whether
the MSGCP, when used by ITP applicants, would meet the requirements for
issuance of ITPs under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also
evaluate whether issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) ITPs under the MSGCP
would comply with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service
section 7 consultation on anticipated ITP actions.
Authority
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of
section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40
CFR 1501.7, 1506.6, and 1508.22).
Dated: October 21, 2014.
Richard Hannan,
Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 2014-27021 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P