Environmental Assessment; Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Conservation Program, 54080-54082 [2018-23384]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54080-54082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23384]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2018-0064]


Environmental Assessment; Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 
Conservation Program

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to conduct a scoping process and prepare an 
environmental assessment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) and its sub-agency, the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS), are considering developing a conservation 
program pursuant to the Endangered Species Act for the southwestern 
willow flycatcher, a small, neotropical migrant bird found in Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. We are also 
planning to prepare an environmental assessment to analyze the effects 
of the proposed conservation program. This notice identifies potential 
issues, alternatives, and conservation measures that USDA and APHIS 
propose to review, and requests public comments to determine the 
relevant scope of issues and range of alternatives to be addressed in 
the environmental process from individuals, organizations, Tribes, and 
government agencies on this topic.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before 
November 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0064.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to 
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0064, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, 
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.

[[Page 54081]]

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may 
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-
0064 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA 
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. 
Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, 
please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kai Caraher, Biological Scientist, 
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 
851-2345; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Saltcedar, also known as tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), is an invasive 
plant widely established in riparian areas in the western United 
States. This non-native weed, which can take the form of a shrub or 
small tree, was introduced into the United States in the latter 19th 
century. Although saltcedar is an invasive plant, native animals have 
adapted to its presence.
    In 2000, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
began issuing permits for the release of the tamarisk leaf beetle 
(Diorhabda species) for research and biological control of saltcedar. 
During May 2001, the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) released tamarisk leaf beetles from 
field cages into the open environment at 10 sites. The beetles 
overwintered and defoliated saltcedar at Lovelock, NV, during 2002 to 
2004. Further redistribution without permit was prohibited by APHIS.
    In February 2004, Congress passed the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive 
Control Demonstration Act directing the Secretary of the Interior, 
working with other Federal agencies, to undertake saltcedar eradication 
demonstration projects. In 2005, APHIS initiated a biological control 
program for saltcedar defoliation in the northern United States using 
the tamarisk leaf beetle as the biological control agent. Although the 
beetle was released in limited locations outside of the habitat of the 
southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL, Empidonax traillii extimus, a 
small, neotropical migrant bird found in Arizona, California, Colorado, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah), greater than anticipated natural 
and intentional human-assisted movement of the beetle resulted in the 
presence of tamarisk leaf beetles in SWFL habitat. The beetle 
defoliates saltcedar trees as intended as a biological control agent; 
however, in SWFL habitat, nesting success can be adversely affected 
because the SWFL nests in the saltcedar.
    After tamarisk beetles were discovered in SWFL habitat, APHIS 
terminated its saltcedar biological control program in 2010 and 
canceled release permits owing to the potential adverse effects to 
SWFL. APHIS reinitiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) on these actions, in compliance with section 7(a)(2) of 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), and FWS 
concurred with APHIS' determination that these actions were not likely 
to adversely affect the SWFL.
    On September 30, 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a 
lawsuit against USDA, APHIS, ARS, the Department of the Interior (DOI), 
and FWS alleging that the APHIS saltcedar biological control program 
violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the ESA. On 
May 3, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiff's second of five claims, 
finding that APHIS did not comply with the ESA section 7(a)(1), which 
requires Federal agencies to consult with DOI and ``utilize their 
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of [the ESA] by carrying out 
programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened 
species listed pursuant to [16 U.S.C. 1533]'' 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1). On 
June 19, 2018, the Court ordered USDA and APHIS to publish proposed 
conservation program alternatives in compliance with ESA section 
7(a)(1) and solicit public comments on the proposed alternatives. USDA 
and APHIS ultimately intend to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) 
for the conservation program, or an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) should it be appropriate.
    The EA will examine the environmental effects of possible program 
alternatives including conservation measures available to USDA and 
APHIS, as well as a no action alternative. The EA will be used for 
planning and decision-making and to inform the public about the 
environmental effects of the various conservation actions.

Proposed Programmatic Alternatives

    We are requesting public comment on the listed conservation program 
alternatives that may help us identify additional potential 
alternatives and environmental issues the EA should examine. Based on 
the comments that we receive, we may determine that we should prepare 
an EIS instead of an EA. In that case, we would notify the public of 
our intent to prepare an EIS in a notice published in the Federal 
Register.
    The EA will be prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, (2) 
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing 
the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA's 
regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' 
regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 372). APHIS requests that 
Federal, State, Tribal or local government entities who manage areas, 
or have jurisdictional control over sites or actions under 
consideration as part of this conservation program, participate as 
cooperating agencies in this environmental risk analysis and 
development of the NEPA documents.
    We have identified two alternatives for further examination in the 
EA:
    No action. Under this alternative, USDA and APHIS would evaluate 
the current USDA and APHIS programs benefitting the SWFL and would not 
develop any new conservation programs for SWFL. For example, the USDA 
Natural Resource Conservation Service has restored 2,623 acres of SWFL 
habitat since 2012. This alternative represents the baseline against 
which a proposed action may be compared.
    Conservation Program. Under this alternative, APHIS would develop a 
new conservation program that would have a beneficial impact on the 
SWFL. USDA and APHIS are considering a number of measures, listed 
below, that could comprise or be part of a new conservation program.
    1. Riparian Restoration. Funding intensive third-party riparian 
restoration efforts or otherwise facilitating the mass planting of 
native vegetation at high-risk and medium-risk sites within the SWFL's 
occupied habitat to ensure that suitable habitat exists to mitigate the 
potential adverse effects of the beetles' defoliation of saltcedar in 
these areas, including but not limited to:
     Middle Rio Grande River, including sites at the Elephant 
Buttes Reservoir and the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge;
     Gila River (entire reach);
     San Pedro River, including sites from the Narrows to the 
Gila River confluence;
     Bill Williams River, including sites at the Alamo Lake 
margin, the Big Sandy confluence, and the Santa Maria confluence;
     Burnt Springs/Colorado River confluence within Grand 
Canyon

[[Page 54082]]

National Park managed by the National Park Service;
     Colorado River Mile 274 within Grand Canyon National Park 
managed by the National Park Service;
     Pearce Ferry within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area 
managed by the National Park Service;
     Cottonwood Cove on the western shore of Lake Mohave within 
the Lake Mead National Recreation Area managed by the National Park 
Service;
     Lands within the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation along the 
Colorado River above and adjoining Topock Marsh and the Havasu Wildlife 
Refuge;
     Colorado River, including sites at the Chemehuevi Indian 
Reservation below Lake Havasu;
     Virgin River, including sites at Mesquite, Mormon Mesa, 
Littlefield, and St. George;
     Muddy River, including sites at Overton Wildlife 
Management Area to Lake Mead;
     Lower Colorado River, including sites from Glen Canyon Dam 
to Lake Mead, Davis Dam to Parker Dam, and Parker Dam to Imperial Dam;
     Verde River, including sites from Horseshoe Lake to Salt 
River;
     Roosevelt Lake;
     Santa Maria River, including sites upstream from U.S. 
Highway 93 and from Date Creek to Alamo Lake;
     Big Sandy, including sites from the USGS gage to Alamo 
Lake; and
     Lower Tonto Creek.
    2. Tamarisk Leaf Beetle Surveying and Data Collection. Compiling 
and synthesizing the results of survey and data collection efforts to 
better understand the tamarisk leaf beetle's past and projected 
movements into SWFL habitat.
    3. Geographic Information System (GIS) Habitat Mapping. Fund and 
assist with GIS mapping of saltcedar and native riparian cover across 
the southwestern United States--and specifically throughout the SWFL's 
occupied range. APHIS may collaborate with the U.S. Geological Survey 
to improve a SWFL habitat assessment model that uses satellite imagery 
and create an online mapping platform for conservation groups and land 
management agencies to access the model results.
    4. Educational Campaign. Continue current public outreach efforts 
and collaborate with Federal, State, Tribal, and local authorities to 
prohibit or strongly discourage any further intrastate movement, 
distribution, or release of tamarisk leaf beetles, as a means of 
slowing the beetle's spread into farther reaches of SWFL habitat.
    5. Streamlined Permitting Process. Collaborate with FWS and other 
relevant agencies to streamline the ESA permitting process for third 
parties engaged in restoration work to benefit SWFLs and their habitat.
    6. Watershed Partnership Collaboration. Work cooperatively with, 
and provide restoration funding for, established watershed partnerships 
that have already developed detailed restoration plans, some of which 
are listed below.
    7. Streamlined Funding Sources. Ensure that funding streams for 
restoration projects are in easily accessible structures such as block 
grants administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation or a 
similar entity, rather than through cost share programs.
    8. Information Repository. Fund and facilitate a long-term 
centralized and standardized information repository concerning the 
tamarisk leaf beetle, its spread, vegetative resources in the 
southwestern United States, and the SWFL's status.
    9. Invasive Weed Control. Conduct invasive weed control and 
monitoring in riparian areas where habitat restoration with native 
vegetation is planned or has been conducted. USDA and APHIS are 
currently considering the following areas, but are soliciting other 
potential restoration sites:
     Escalante River watershed in southern Utah restored by the 
Grand Staircase Escalante Partners;
     Areas of the Verde River from Paulden to Sheep's Crossing, 
AZ, restored by the Friends of the Verde River;
     Gila River in Graham and Greenlee Counties in New Mexico, 
restored by the Gila Watershed Partnership;
     Rio Grande in the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife 
Refuge in New Mexico; and
     Rio Grande in the Orilla Verde Recreation Area in New 
Mexico.
    10. SWFL Data Collection Surveying. Fund data collection surveys 
throughout the range of the SWFL. Data collected by researchers may 
include but is not limited to: SWFL presence or absence surveys, 
determining breeding status for each bird, site evaluations and 
descriptions, SWFL nest searches, SWFL nest monitoring at breeding 
sites in order to calculate parasitism and predation rates, impact of 
habitat restoration efforts, and the amount of saltcedar defoliation 
caused by the tamarisk leaf beetle.

Potential Environmental Impacts

    We have identified the following potential environmental impacts 
for further examination in the EA:
     Effects on wildlife, including consideration of migratory 
bird species and changes in native wildlife habitat and populations, 
and federally listed endangered and threatened species.
     Effects on soil, air, and water quality.
     Effects on human health and safety.
     Effects on cultural and historic resources.
     Effects on economic resources.
    We welcome comments on the alternatives and environmental impacts 
or issues that should be considered for further examination in the EA. 
In addition, we welcome suggestions for conservation measures for APHIS 
to include in its conservation plan. Upon completion of the draft EA, 
we will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing its 
availability and an invitation to comment.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of October 2018.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-23384 Filed 10-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-34-P