Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Habitat Conservation Plan for the Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston Counties, Washington, 25299-25302 [2019-11393]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2019 / Notices
the crimping and gluing require only a
low level of skill and technology. The
crimping process takes roughly five
seconds to perform, while the
alternative gluing process takes roughly
20 seconds to complete. The remaining
processing of the Product, consisting of
cleaning and drying (spin and
convention drying), adding the heat
shrink cover, and inserting the Product
into the plastic pouch and cardboard
packaging are likewise simple, minor,
and low-skill operations. Therefore, we
find that the name, character, and use of
the cutaneous electrode remain
unchanged after the lead wire and other
components are attached in China. As
such, the U.S. origin cutaneous EEG
electrodes which are processed in China
by attaching a lead wire and being
covered with a heat shrink, are not
substantially transformed. Accordingly,
for purposes of government
procurement, we find that the last
substantial transformation of the
product is in the United States.
HOLDING:
Based on the information provided,
the last substantial transformation of the
self-adhesive cutaneous EEG electrode
product occurs in the United States.
Notice of this final determination will
be given in the Federal Register, as
required by 19 C.F.R. § 177.29. Any
party-at-interest other than the party
which requested this final
determination may request, pursuant to
19 C.F.R. § 177.31, that CBP reexamine
the matter anew and issue a new final
determination. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §
177.30, any party-at-interest may,
within 30 days after publication of the
Federal Register notice referenced
above, seek judicial review of this final
determination before the Court of
International Trade.
Sincerely,
Craig T. Clark
Acting Executive Director, Regulations and
Rulings, Office of Trade
[FR Doc. 2019–11373 Filed 5–30–19; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 May 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2019–N054;
FXES11140100000–190–FF01E00000]
Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Final Habitat Conservation Plan
for the Skookumchuck Wind Energy
Project, Lewis and Thurston Counties,
Washington
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of a final environmental
impact statement (EIS) and a final
habitat conservation plan (HCP)
addressing the Skookumchuck Wind
Energy Project (project) in Lewis and
Thurston Counties, Washington. The
Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project
LLC (applicant) is requesting an
incidental take permit (ITP) covering the
take of one threatened species listed
under the Endangered Species Act, and
two non-listed federally protected
species (collectively referred to as
covered species) likely to be caused by
the operation of the project over a 30year period. The HCP describes the
steps the applicant will take to
minimize, mitigate, and monitor
incidental take of the covered species.
The final EIS has been prepared in
response to the ITP application in
accordance with the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
DATES: The Service’s ITP decision will
occur no sooner than 30 days after
publication of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s notice of the final
EIS in the Federal Register, and will be
documented in a record of decision
(ROD).
SUMMARY:
You may obtain copies of
the documents by any of the following
methods:
• Internet: https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2019–
N054.
• Upon Request: You may call Curtis
Tanner at 360–753–4326 to request
alternative formats of the documents or
make an appointment to inspect the
documents during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office, 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102,
Lacey, WA 98503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Curtis Tanner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone: 360–
753–4326; email: Curtis_Tanner@
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25299
fws.gov. Hearing or speech impaired
individuals may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339 for TTY
assistance.
We, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
announce the availability of a final
environmental impact statement (EIS)
and a final habitat conservation plan
(HCP) addressing the Skookumchuck
Wind Energy Project (project) in Lewis
and Thurston Counties, Washington.
The Skookumchuck Wind Energy
Project LLC (applicant) is requesting an
incidental take permit (ITP) covering the
take of one threatened species listed
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), and two non-listed federally
protected species (collectively referred
to as covered species) likely to be
caused by the operation of the project
over a 30-year period. The HCP
describes the steps the applicant will
take to minimize, mitigate, and monitor
incidental take of the covered species.
The final EIS has been prepared in
response to the ITP application, in
accordance with the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
The applicant is seeking an ITP
authorizing take of the following
covered species: Marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus), bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and
golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The
murrelet is listed as threatened under
the ESA. Bald and golden eagles are not
listed under the ESA, but are protected
under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. 668–
668d).
If issued, the ITP would authorize
take of the covered species that may
occur as a result of their collision with
project wind turbines, and as a result of
the applicant carrying out site
management and maintenance activities
over the 30-year permit term. The
applicant is not seeking ITP coverage for
the construction phase of the project,
which includes, without limitation, the
construction of roads and turbine pads,
and the erection of 38 commercial wind
turbines, transmission lines, and
meteorological towers. The applicant is
also not seeking ITP coverage for the
decommissioning of project facilities.
The applicant anticipates completing
project construction prior to
implementation of the HCP.
The HCP describes the anticipated
amount of take of each covered species,
and the steps the applicant will
implement to minimize and mitigate the
impacts of that taking. The HCP also
describes the life history and ecology of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
25300
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2019 / Notices
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
the covered species, the biological goals
and objectives of the HCP, the impact of
the anticipated taking on the affected
populations of each covered species,
adaptive management procedures, and
take monitoring procedures.
The Service prepared the final EIS in
response to the ITP application and in
consideration of comments received on
the draft EIS, in accordance with the
requirements of NEPA.
Background
The project site encompasses
approximately 9,700 acres of forestlands
in Thurston and Lewis Counties,
Washington. The applicant intends to
initiate turbine operations in 2019, or as
soon as possible thereafter. A detailed
description of the project is presented in
chapter 2 of the HCP. The majority of
the project is located in Lewis County,
Washington, including all 38 wind
turbines. Some supporting
infrastructure is located in Thurston
County, Washington. The wind energy
generation facility is located on a
prominent ridgeline on the
Weyerhaeuser Company’s Vail Tree
Farm, located approximately 18 miles
east of Centralia, Washington.
The project is expected to produce an
output of approximately 137 megawatts
(MW) of electricity from 38 wind
turbines, each of which is 492 feet tall
(from ground to vertical blade tip) with
rotor diameters of 446 feet. The turbine
operating prescriptions presented in
chapter 2 of the HCP include
curtailment regimes and site
management prescriptions.
Pre-project monitoring identified the
presence of each covered species in the
project area. The applicant determined
that adverse effects to each of the
covered species are unavoidable, and
developed the HCP to cover take of
those species caused by project
operations over a period of 30 years.
The HCP details measures the applicant
will implement to minimize, mitigate,
and monitor the unavoidable incidental
take of the covered species.
Avoidance and minimization
measures in the HCP to benefit the
marbled murrelet include seasonal
curtailment of turbine blades (turbine
blades are fully stopped and feathered
into the wind) and site management
prescriptions to maintain transmission
and distribution line flight diverters,
shield artificial light sources, reduce
murrelet collisions with vehicles on the
project site, and minimize the artificial
increase of potential nest predators in
the project area. Mitigation measures in
the HCP to benefit the marbled murrelet
include acquisition and permanent
management of conservation lands to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 May 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
promote the preservation and
enhancement of suitable nesting habitat
for the species, and funding the removal
of abandoned or derelict fishing nets in
the Salish Sea in which murrelets can
become entangled and drown.
Avoidance and minimization
measures in the HCP to benefit the bald
eagle and the golden eagle include site
management prescriptions to remove
mammal carrion to reduce scavenging
by eagles on the project site, minimize
cover for prey animals such as rabbits to
reduce prey-based attractions of eagles
to the project site, and testing of eagle
detection-based turbine curtailment
technologies intended to reduce eagle
collisions with operating turbine blades.
If effective, the turbine curtailment
triggered by automated eagle-detection
will be implemented routinely.
Mitigation measures in the HCP
intended to benefit bald eagles and
golden eagles consist of retrofitting
power poles to reduce the occurrence of
eagle collisions with power lines and
electrocution.
The action considered in the final EIS
is approval of the HCP and issuance of
an ITP with a term of 30 years to the
applicant, if permit issuance criteria are
met.
Endangered Species Act
Section 9 of the ESA and its
implementing regulations prohibit
‘‘take’’ of fish and wildlife species listed
as endangered. The ESA implementing
regulations extend, under certain
circumstances, the prohibition of take to
threatened species (50 CFR 17.31).
Under section 3 of the ESA, the term
‘‘take’’ means to ‘‘harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect, or attempt to engage in any
such conduct’’ (16 U.S.C. 1538). Under
section 10(a) of the ESA, the Service
may issue permits to authorize
incidental take of listed fish and
wildlife species. ‘‘Incidental take’’ is
defined by the ESA as take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of,
carrying out an otherwise lawful
activity. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA
contains provisions for issuing ITPs 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
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5. The applicant will carry out any
other measures that the Service may
require as being necessary or
appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Though the applicant is requesting
incidental take for bald and golden
eagles under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
ESA, consistency with the requirements
of BGEPA is also necessary. The BGEPA
prohibits take of eagles where ‘‘take’’ is
defined as to ‘‘pursue, shoot, shoot at,
poison, wound, kill, capture, trap,
collect, destroy, molest, or disturb’’ and
where ‘‘disturb’’ is further defined as
‘‘to agitate or bother’’ a bald or golden
eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely
to cause, based on the best scientific
information available: (1) Injury to an
eagle; (2) a decrease in its productivity,
by substantially interfering with normal
breeding, feeding, or sheltering
behavior; or (3) nest abandonment, by
substantially interfering with normal
breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior
(50 CFR 22.3).
Under 50 CFR 22.26, the Service has
the authority to authorize take of bald
and golden eagles (generally,
disturbance, injury, or killing) that
occurs incidental to an otherwise lawful
activity. For the Service to issue such a
permit, the following required
determinations must be met (see 50 CFR
22.26(f)):
1. The taking will be compatible with
the preservation of the bald or golden
eagle (further defined by the Service to
mean ‘‘consistent with the goals of
maintaining stable or increasing
breeding populations in all eagle
management units and the persistence
of local populations throughout the
geographic range of each species’’);
2. The taking will protect an interest
in a particular locality;
3. The taking will be associated with,
but not the purpose of, the activity;
4. The taking will be avoided and
minimized by the applicant to the
extent practicable;
5. The applicant will have applied all
appropriate and practical compensatory
mitigation measures, when required
pursuant to 50 CFR 22.26(c);
6. Issuance of the permit will not
preclude issuance of another permit
necessary to protect an interest of higher
priority as set forth in 50 CFR
22.26(e)(7); and
7. Issuance of the permit will not
interfere with ongoing civil or criminal
action concerning unpermitted past
eagle take at the project.
The Service can provide eagle take
authorization through an ITP for an
HCP, which confers take authorization
under the BGEPA without the need for
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2019 / Notices
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
a separate permit, as long as the permit
issuance criteria under both ESA and
BGEPA will be met by the conservation
measures included in the applicant’s
HCP. See 50 CFR 22.11(a).
National Environmental Policy Act
Compliance
The development of the HCP and the
proposed issuance of an ITP under this
plan comprise a Federal action that
triggers the need for compliance with
NEPA. We prepared a draft EIS and
reviewed public comments in
preparation of a final EIS to analyze the
environmental impacts of a range of
alternatives related to the issuance of
the ITP and implementation of the
conservation program under the HCP.
The alternatives include a no-action
alternative and three action alternatives:
Proposed action (alternative 1), a
modified site design for the proposed
action (alternative 2), and an enhanced
curtailment regime alternative
(alternative 3).
No-Action Alternative: Under the NoAction Alternative (Options A and B),
no permit would be issued, and the
applicant’s HCP would not be
implemented. This alternative consists
of two options: Option A—No Project
Operations and Option B—No Project.
Option A assumes the applicant would
construct the project before the Service
makes a final permit decision, but
would not operate the project without
an ITP. Option A is included in the final
EIS because the applicant informed the
Service that it may initiate and complete
construction of the project before the
Service makes a decision on the ITP
application. Option B assumes that the
applicant would not construct the
project without an ITP. Under this
option, nothing would change from
current conditions and no impacts on
the human environment would result
from the project.
Alternative 1 (Proposed HCP):
Issuance of the requested permit and
implementation of the conservation
program described in the applicant’s
HCP. Alternative 1 is the Service’s
preferred alternative.
Alternative 2: Under the Modified
Project Site Design Alternative, the
project would not operate the five wind
turbine generators (WTGs) closest to
documented marbled murrelet nest
locations for the duration of the ITP.
The Service would issue an ITP
authorizing the level of incidental take
expected to result from operation and
maintenance of the remaining 33 WTGs
and site management activities.
Alternative 3: Under the Enhanced
Curtailment Alternative, all 38 WTGs
would operate under an expanded set of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 May 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
curtailment measures intended to
minimize the potential for take of the
covered species. The Service would
issue an ITP authorizing the level of
incidental take expected to result from
covered activities in accordance with
the additional curtailment measures.
The environmental consequences of
each alternative were analyzed in the
final EIS. The types of effects on
covered species were similar across
action alternatives, with take resulting
from project operations being mitigated
through land acquisition, derelict net
removal, and power pole retrofits.
Increasing the use of avoidance and
minimization measures through
different turbine curtailment regimes
can reduce the amount of take of
covered species and the amount of
renewable electricity produced; a
commensurate reduction in the amount
of derelict net removal and power pole
retrofits are expected with alternatives
that increase turbine curtailment. Public
comments received in response to the
draft EIS were considered, and the final
EIS reflects clarifications of the existing
analysis to address public comments.
The final EIS does not identify an
environmentally preferred alternative,
because the alternatives reflect a mix of
outcomes relating to the amount of
renewable energy production versus the
extent of effects on covered species, for
which there is no single metric of
environmental preference.
EPA’s Role in the EIS Process
The EPA is charged with reviewing all
Federal agencies’ EISs. Therefore, EPA
is publishing a notice in the Federal
Register announcing this EIS, as
required under section 309 of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401). EPA’s notices
are published on Fridays. EPA serves as
the repository (EIS database) for EISs
prepared by Federal agencies. All EISs
must be filed with EPA. You may search
for EPA comments on EISs, along with
EISs themselves, at https://
cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/
action/eis/search.
Public Involvement
The Service published a notice of
intent (NOI) to prepare a draft EIS in the
Federal Register on May 3, 2018 (83 FR
19569). The NOI also announced a
public scoping period (May 3, 2018,
through June 4, 2018), during which we
invited interested parties to provide
written comments related to the
proposal. Two public scoping meetings
were held, in Lacey, Washington, on
May 8, 2018, and in Centralia,
Washington, on May 10, 2018, in
accordance with NEPA procedures (40
CFR 1501.7). Using public scoping
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25301
comments, we prepared a draft EIS to
analyze the effects of the alternatives on
the human environment. The Service
published a notice of availability (NOA)
of the draft EIS in the Federal Register
on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 61664),
opening a 45-day public comment
period. The Service also posted the
Federal Register NOA, notice of public
scoping meeting, draft HCP, draft EIS,
and a news release at https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo/. Two public openhouse meetings were held, on December
5, 2018, in Chehalis, Washington, and
on December 10, 2018, in Lacey,
Washington, to solicit additional input
from the public on the draft EIS and
draft HCP. A total of 17 comment letters
and electronic submissions were
received from the public. The official
comment period ended on January 14,
2019.
Next Steps
We will evaluate the permit
application, associated documents, and
public comments in reaching a final
decision on whether the application
meets the requirements of section 10(a)
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We
will evaluate whether the proposed
permit action would comply with
section 7 of the ESA by conducting an
intra-Service section 7 consultation. We
will use the results of this consultation,
in combination with the above findings,
in our final analysis to determine
whether or not to issue an ITP. If the
requirements are met, we will issue the
ITP to the applicant. We will issue a
record of decision and issue or deny the
ITP no sooner than 30 days after
publication of the EPA’s NOA of the
final EIS in the Federal Register.
Public Review
We are not requesting public
comments on the final EIS and HCP, but
any written comments we receive will
become part of the public record
associated with this action. Before
including your address, phone 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 request in your comment
that we withhold your personal
identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. All submissions
from organizations or businesses, and
from individuals identifying themselves
as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
made available for public disclosure in
their entirety.
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
25302
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2019 / Notices
Authority
We provide this notice in accordance
with the requirements of section 10(c) of
the ESA and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32)
and NEPA and its implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Dated: May 8, 2019.
Robyn Thorson,
Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–11393 Filed 5–30–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[190A2100DD/AAKC001030/
A0A501010.999900 253G]
Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Ho-Chunk Nation Fee-to-Trust
and Casino Project, City of Beloit,
Rock County, Wisconsin
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
This notice advises the public
that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
as lead agency, with the City of Beloit,
Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, Ho-Chunk Nation
(Nation), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) serving as
cooperating agencies, intends to file a
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) with the EPA in connection with
the Nation’s application for transfer into
trust by the United States of
approximately 33 acres for gaming and
other purposes in the City of Beloit,
Rock County, Wisconsin.
DATES: The Record of Decision for the
proposed action will be issued on or
after 30 days from the date the EPA
publishes its Notice of Availability in
the Federal Register. Any comments on
the FEIS must arrive on or before that
date.
ADDRESSES: You may mail or handdeliver written comments to Mr.
Timothy LaPointe, Regional Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Midwest
Region, Norman Pointe II Building, 5600
West American Boulevard, Suite 500,
Bloomington, Minnesota 55347. Please
include your name, return address, and
the caption: ‘‘FEIS Comments, HoChunk Nation Fee-to-Trust and Casino
Project,’’ on the first page of your
written comments. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this notice for addresses where the FEIS
is available for review.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Mr.
Timothy Guyah, Archaeologist, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Midwest Region,
Norman Pointe II Building, 5600 West
American Boulevard, Suite 500,
Bloomington, MN 55347; phone: (612)
725–4512; email: timothy.guyah@
bia.gov. Information is also available
online at www.ho-chunkbeloiteis.com.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tribe
proposes to develop a casino-hotel
resort on approximately 33 acres in the
City of Beloit, Rock County, Wisconsin.
The BIA published a Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS in the Federal Register
on November 26, 2012 (77 FR 70460),
and in The Daily News, The Janesville
Gazette, and The Rockford Register Star.
The BIA held a public scoping meeting
on December 13, 2012, at Aldrich
Middle School in Beloit, Wisconsin.
The BIA published a Notice of
Availability for the Draft EIS in the
Federal Register on November 9, 2018
(83 FR 56096), and in The Daily News,
The Janesville Gazette, and The
Rockford Register Star. The BIA held a
public hearing for the proposed project
on December 11, 2018, at Aldrich
Middle School.
Background: The Tribe’s proposed
project consists of the following
components: (1) The Department of the
Interior’s (Department) transfer of
approximately 33 acres from fee to trust
status; (2) issuance of a determination
by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant
to Section 20 of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2719; and (3)
the development of the trust parcel. The
proposed casino-hotel resort would
include a hotel, convention center,
outdoor amphitheater, several restaurant
facilities, waterpark, retail buildings,
and parking facilities. Access to the
project site would be provided via three
driveways, one along Willowbrook Road
and two along Colley Road. The
following alternatives are considered in
the FEIS: (1) Proposed Project; (2)
Reduced Casino and Commercial
Development; (3) Retail Development;
and (4) No Action/No Development. The
BIA identifies Alternative 1 the
Preferred Alternative as discussed in the
FEIS.
The information and analysis
contained in the FEIS, as well as its
evaluation and assessment of the
Preferred Alternative, will assist the
Department in its review of the issues
presented in the fee-to-trust application.
The Preferred Alternative does not
reflect the Department’s final decision
because the Department must further
evaluate all of the criteria listed in 25
CFR part 151 and 25 CFR part 292. The
Department’s consideration and analysis
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
16:42 May 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the applicable regulations may lead to
a final decision that selects an
alternative other than the Preferred
Alternative, including no action, or a
variant of the Preferred or another of the
alternatives analyzed in the FEIS.
Environmental issues addressed in
the FEIS include geology and soils,
water resources, air quality, biological
resources, cultural and paleontological
resources, socio-economic conditions
(including environmental justice),
transportation and circulation, land use,
public services, noise, hazardous
materials, aesthetics, cumulative effects,
and indirect and growth-inducing
effects.
Locations Where the FEIS is Available
for Review: The FEIS will be available
for review at the Beloit Public Library
located at 605 Eclipse Blvd., Beloit,
Wisconsin 53511, and online at
www.ho-chunkbeloiteis.com. To obtain
a compact disk copy of the FEIS, please
provide your name and address in
writing to Mr. Timothy Guyah, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Midwest Regional
Office. Contact information is listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice. Individual paper
copies of the FEIS will be provided only
upon payment of applicable printing
expenses by the requestor for the
number of copies requested.
Public Comment Availability:
Comments, including names and
addresses of respondents, will be
available for public review at the BIA
address shown in the ADDRESSES
section, during regular business hours, 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. Before
including your address, phone 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 in your comment that
your personal identifying information
be withheld from public review, the BIA
cannot guarantee that this will occur.
Authority: This notice is published
pursuant to Sec. 1503.1 of the Council
of Environmental Quality Regulations
(40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) and
Sec. 46.305 of the Department of the
Interior Regulations (43 CFR part 46),
implementing the procedural
requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of l969, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371, et seq.), and
is in the exercise of authority delegated
to the Assistant Secretary—Indian
Affairs by 209 DM 8.
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25299-25302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11393]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2019-N054; FXES11140100000-190-FF01E00000]
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Habitat
Conservation Plan for the Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and
Thurston Counties, Washington
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of a final environmental impact statement (EIS) and a
final habitat conservation plan (HCP) addressing the Skookumchuck Wind
Energy Project (project) in Lewis and Thurston Counties, Washington.
The Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project LLC (applicant) is requesting an
incidental take permit (ITP) covering the take of one threatened
species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and two non-listed
federally protected species (collectively referred to as covered
species) likely to be caused by the operation of the project over a 30-
year period. The HCP describes the steps the applicant will take to
minimize, mitigate, and monitor incidental take of the covered species.
The final EIS has been prepared in response to the ITP application in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act.
DATES: The Service's ITP decision will occur no sooner than 30 days
after publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's notice
of the final EIS in the Federal Register, and will be documented in a
record of decision (ROD).
ADDRESSES: You may obtain copies of the documents by any of the
following methods:
Internet: https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R1-ES-2019-N054.
Upon Request: You may call Curtis Tanner at 360-753-4326
to request alternative formats of the documents or make an appointment
to inspect the documents during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond
Dr. SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curtis Tanner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES);
telephone: 360-753-4326; email: [email protected]. Hearing or
speech impaired individuals may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-
877-8339 for TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), announce the availability of a final environmental impact
statement (EIS) and a final habitat conservation plan (HCP) addressing
the Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project (project) in Lewis and Thurston
Counties, Washington. The Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project LLC
(applicant) is requesting an incidental take permit (ITP) covering the
take of one threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and two non-listed
federally protected species (collectively referred to as covered
species) likely to be caused by the operation of the project over a 30-
year period. The HCP describes the steps the applicant will take to
minimize, mitigate, and monitor incidental take of the covered species.
The final EIS has been prepared in response to the ITP application, in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
The applicant is seeking an ITP authorizing take of the following
covered species: Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).
The murrelet is listed as threatened under the ESA. Bald and golden
eagles are not listed under the ESA, but are protected under the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. 668-668d).
If issued, the ITP would authorize take of the covered species that
may occur as a result of their collision with project wind turbines,
and as a result of the applicant carrying out site management and
maintenance activities over the 30-year permit term. The applicant is
not seeking ITP coverage for the construction phase of the project,
which includes, without limitation, the construction of roads and
turbine pads, and the erection of 38 commercial wind turbines,
transmission lines, and meteorological towers. The applicant is also
not seeking ITP coverage for the decommissioning of project facilities.
The applicant anticipates completing project construction prior to
implementation of the HCP.
The HCP describes the anticipated amount of take of each covered
species, and the steps the applicant will implement to minimize and
mitigate the impacts of that taking. The HCP also describes the life
history and ecology of
[[Page 25300]]
the covered species, the biological goals and objectives of the HCP,
the impact of the anticipated taking on the affected populations of
each covered species, adaptive management procedures, and take
monitoring procedures.
The Service prepared the final EIS in response to the ITP
application and in consideration of comments received on the draft EIS,
in accordance with the requirements of NEPA.
Background
The project site encompasses approximately 9,700 acres of
forestlands in Thurston and Lewis Counties, Washington. The applicant
intends to initiate turbine operations in 2019, or as soon as possible
thereafter. A detailed description of the project is presented in
chapter 2 of the HCP. The majority of the project is located in Lewis
County, Washington, including all 38 wind turbines. Some supporting
infrastructure is located in Thurston County, Washington. The wind
energy generation facility is located on a prominent ridgeline on the
Weyerhaeuser Company's Vail Tree Farm, located approximately 18 miles
east of Centralia, Washington.
The project is expected to produce an output of approximately 137
megawatts (MW) of electricity from 38 wind turbines, each of which is
492 feet tall (from ground to vertical blade tip) with rotor diameters
of 446 feet. The turbine operating prescriptions presented in chapter 2
of the HCP include curtailment regimes and site management
prescriptions.
Pre-project monitoring identified the presence of each covered
species in the project area. The applicant determined that adverse
effects to each of the covered species are unavoidable, and developed
the HCP to cover take of those species caused by project operations
over a period of 30 years. The HCP details measures the applicant will
implement to minimize, mitigate, and monitor the unavoidable incidental
take of the covered species.
Avoidance and minimization measures in the HCP to benefit the
marbled murrelet include seasonal curtailment of turbine blades
(turbine blades are fully stopped and feathered into the wind) and site
management prescriptions to maintain transmission and distribution line
flight diverters, shield artificial light sources, reduce murrelet
collisions with vehicles on the project site, and minimize the
artificial increase of potential nest predators in the project area.
Mitigation measures in the HCP to benefit the marbled murrelet include
acquisition and permanent management of conservation lands to promote
the preservation and enhancement of suitable nesting habitat for the
species, and funding the removal of abandoned or derelict fishing nets
in the Salish Sea in which murrelets can become entangled and drown.
Avoidance and minimization measures in the HCP to benefit the bald
eagle and the golden eagle include site management prescriptions to
remove mammal carrion to reduce scavenging by eagles on the project
site, minimize cover for prey animals such as rabbits to reduce prey-
based attractions of eagles to the project site, and testing of eagle
detection-based turbine curtailment technologies intended to reduce
eagle collisions with operating turbine blades. If effective, the
turbine curtailment triggered by automated eagle-detection will be
implemented routinely. Mitigation measures in the HCP intended to
benefit bald eagles and golden eagles consist of retrofitting power
poles to reduce the occurrence of eagle collisions with power lines and
electrocution.
The action considered in the final EIS is approval of the HCP and
issuance of an ITP with a term of 30 years to the applicant, if permit
issuance criteria are met.
Endangered Species Act
Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit
``take'' of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered. The ESA
implementing regulations extend, under certain circumstances, the
prohibition of take to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31). Under section
3 of the ESA, the term ``take'' means to ``harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in
any such conduct'' (16 U.S.C. 1538). Under section 10(a) of the ESA,
the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed
fish and wildlife species. ``Incidental take'' is defined by the ESA as
take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an
otherwise lawful activity. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains
provisions for issuing ITPs 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
HCP.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Though the applicant is requesting incidental take for bald and
golden eagles under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, consistency with
the requirements of BGEPA is also necessary. The BGEPA prohibits take
of eagles where ``take'' is defined as to ``pursue, shoot, shoot at,
poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or
disturb'' and where ``disturb'' is further defined as ``to agitate or
bother'' a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely
to cause, based on the best scientific information available: (1)
Injury to an eagle; (2) a decrease in its productivity, by
substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering
behavior; or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with
normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior (50 CFR 22.3).
Under 50 CFR 22.26, the Service has the authority to authorize take
of bald and golden eagles (generally, disturbance, injury, or killing)
that occurs incidental to an otherwise lawful activity. For the Service
to issue such a permit, the following required determinations must be
met (see 50 CFR 22.26(f)):
1. The taking will be compatible with the preservation of the bald
or golden eagle (further defined by the Service to mean ``consistent
with the goals of maintaining stable or increasing breeding populations
in all eagle management units and the persistence of local populations
throughout the geographic range of each species'');
2. The taking will protect an interest in a particular locality;
3. The taking will be associated with, but not the purpose of, the
activity;
4. The taking will be avoided and minimized by the applicant to the
extent practicable;
5. The applicant will have applied all appropriate and practical
compensatory mitigation measures, when required pursuant to 50 CFR
22.26(c);
6. Issuance of the permit will not preclude issuance of another
permit necessary to protect an interest of higher priority as set forth
in 50 CFR 22.26(e)(7); and
7. Issuance of the permit will not interfere with ongoing civil or
criminal action concerning unpermitted past eagle take at the project.
The Service can provide eagle take authorization through an ITP for
an HCP, which confers take authorization under the BGEPA without the
need for
[[Page 25301]]
a separate permit, as long as the permit issuance criteria under both
ESA and BGEPA will be met by the conservation measures included in the
applicant's HCP. See 50 CFR 22.11(a).
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
The development of the HCP and the proposed issuance of an ITP
under this plan comprise a Federal action that triggers the need for
compliance with NEPA. We prepared a draft EIS and reviewed public
comments in preparation of a final EIS to analyze the environmental
impacts of a range of alternatives related to the issuance of the ITP
and implementation of the conservation program under the HCP. The
alternatives include a no-action alternative and three action
alternatives: Proposed action (alternative 1), a modified site design
for the proposed action (alternative 2), and an enhanced curtailment
regime alternative (alternative 3).
No-Action Alternative: Under the No-Action Alternative (Options A
and B), no permit would be issued, and the applicant's HCP would not be
implemented. This alternative consists of two options: Option A--No
Project Operations and Option B--No Project. Option A assumes the
applicant would construct the project before the Service makes a final
permit decision, but would not operate the project without an ITP.
Option A is included in the final EIS because the applicant informed
the Service that it may initiate and complete construction of the
project before the Service makes a decision on the ITP application.
Option B assumes that the applicant would not construct the project
without an ITP. Under this option, nothing would change from current
conditions and no impacts on the human environment would result from
the project.
Alternative 1 (Proposed HCP): Issuance of the requested permit and
implementation of the conservation program described in the applicant's
HCP. Alternative 1 is the Service's preferred alternative.
Alternative 2: Under the Modified Project Site Design Alternative,
the project would not operate the five wind turbine generators (WTGs)
closest to documented marbled murrelet nest locations for the duration
of the ITP. The Service would issue an ITP authorizing the level of
incidental take expected to result from operation and maintenance of
the remaining 33 WTGs and site management activities.
Alternative 3: Under the Enhanced Curtailment Alternative, all 38
WTGs would operate under an expanded set of curtailment measures
intended to minimize the potential for take of the covered species. The
Service would issue an ITP authorizing the level of incidental take
expected to result from covered activities in accordance with the
additional curtailment measures.
The environmental consequences of each alternative were analyzed in
the final EIS. The types of effects on covered species were similar
across action alternatives, with take resulting from project operations
being mitigated through land acquisition, derelict net removal, and
power pole retrofits. Increasing the use of avoidance and minimization
measures through different turbine curtailment regimes can reduce the
amount of take of covered species and the amount of renewable
electricity produced; a commensurate reduction in the amount of
derelict net removal and power pole retrofits are expected with
alternatives that increase turbine curtailment. Public comments
received in response to the draft EIS were considered, and the final
EIS reflects clarifications of the existing analysis to address public
comments. The final EIS does not identify an environmentally preferred
alternative, because the alternatives reflect a mix of outcomes
relating to the amount of renewable energy production versus the extent
of effects on covered species, for which there is no single metric of
environmental preference.
EPA's Role in the EIS Process
The EPA is charged with reviewing all Federal agencies' EISs.
Therefore, EPA is publishing a notice in the Federal Register
announcing this EIS, as required under section 309 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401). EPA's notices are published on Fridays. EPA serves as
the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared by Federal agencies.
All EISs must be filed with EPA. You may search for EPA comments on
EISs, along with EISs themselves, at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.
Public Involvement
The Service published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a draft
EIS in the Federal Register on May 3, 2018 (83 FR 19569). The NOI also
announced a public scoping period (May 3, 2018, through June 4, 2018),
during which we invited interested parties to provide written comments
related to the proposal. Two public scoping meetings were held, in
Lacey, Washington, on May 8, 2018, and in Centralia, Washington, on May
10, 2018, in accordance with NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1501.7). Using
public scoping comments, we prepared a draft EIS to analyze the effects
of the alternatives on the human environment. The Service published a
notice of availability (NOA) of the draft EIS in the Federal Register
on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 61664), opening a 45-day public comment
period. The Service also posted the Federal Register NOA, notice of
public scoping meeting, draft HCP, draft EIS, and a news release at
https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/. Two public open-house meetings were held, on
December 5, 2018, in Chehalis, Washington, and on December 10, 2018, in
Lacey, Washington, to solicit additional input from the public on the
draft EIS and draft HCP. A total of 17 comment letters and electronic
submissions were received from the public. The official comment period
ended on January 14, 2019.
Next Steps
We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and
public comments in reaching a final decision on whether the application
meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). We will evaluate whether the proposed permit action would comply
with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7
consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in
combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine
whether or not to issue an ITP. If the requirements are met, we will
issue the ITP to the applicant. We will issue a record of decision and
issue or deny the ITP no sooner than 30 days after publication of the
EPA's NOA of the final EIS in the Federal Register.
Public Review
We are not requesting public comments on the final EIS and HCP, but
any written comments we receive will become part of the public record
associated with this action. Before including your address, phone
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 request in your comment that we withhold
your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their
entirety.
[[Page 25302]]
Authority
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of
section 10(c) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22
and 17.32) and NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Dated: May 8, 2019.
Robyn Thorson,
Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-11393 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
