[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43288-43290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15417]
[[Page 43288]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0101; FXES11140100000-223-FF01E0000]
Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Habitat Conservation Plan for Thurston County, Washington
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; record of decision and habitat
conservation plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a record of decision (ROD) for the issuance of a permit
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the
Thurston County habitat conservation plan (HCP). The ROD documents the
Service's decision to issue an incidental take permit (ITP) to the
Thurston County Community Planning and Economic Development Department
(Thurston County, County, or applicant) in response to their permit
application. As summarized in the ROD, the Service has selected the
proposed action alternative, which includes implementation of the HCP
and issuance of a 30-year ITP authorizing incidental take from covered
activities of four threatened species and one endangered species listed
under the ESA, and one non-listed species.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain copies of the ROD and other documents
associated with the decision by any of the following methods:
Internet: https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-
R1-ES-2020-0101, or at https://www.fws.gov/office/washington-fish-and-wildlife.
Upon Request: You may request alternative formats of the
documents directly from the Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Connally, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, by telephone at 360-753-
9440 or by email at Kevin_Connally@fws.gov. Individuals in the United
States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), announce the availability of a record of decision (ROD) for
the issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 10(a)(1)(B)
incidental take permit (ITP) to the Thurston County Community Planning
and Economic Development Department (Thurston County, County, or
applicant) in Thurston County, Washington. The ROD documents the
Service's decision to issue an ITP to the applicant. As summarized in
the ROD, the Service has selected the agency-preferred alternative
(also described as the proposed action below), which includes
implementation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) and issuance of a
30-year ITP authorizing incidental take of the threatened Yelm pocket
gopher (Thomomys mazama yelmensis), Olympia pocket gopher (T. mazama
pugetensis), Tenino pocket gopher (T. mazama tumuli), and Oregon
spotted frog (Rana pretiosa); the endangered Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori); and the Oregon vesper sparrow
(Pooecetes gramineus affinis), which is under review to determine if
Federal listing under the ESA is warranted.
We are advising the public of the availability of the ROD,
developed in compliance with agency decision-making requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). The
Service published a notice of availability (NOA) for the draft
environmental impact statement (EIS) in the Federal Register on
September 24, 2021 (86 FR 53111), and we published an NOA for the final
EIS on May 13, 2022 (87 FR 29361). All alternatives were described in
detail, evaluated, and analyzed in the draft and final EIS.
In 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a final
rule updating the NEPA implementing regulations (the ``2020 rule''; 85
FR 43304, July 16, 2020). The 2020 rule went into effect on September
14, 2020, and it applied to any NEPA process begun after that date.
Because the Service published a notice of intent (NOI) to develop an
EIS for this project on October 16, 2020 (85 FR 65861), the DEIS and
FEIS were prepared according to the 2020 rule. On April 20, 2022, CEQ
published a final rule that modified the 2020 rule, including
reinstating the definition of cumulative effects (the ``2022 rule''; 87
FR 23453). The 2022 rule went into effect on May 20, 2022. While
terminology used in the EIS is based on the 2020 rule, the analysis in
the EIS is consistent with both the 2020 and 2022 rules; the purpose
and goals of NEPA; longstanding Federal judicial and regulatory
interpretations; the Department of the Interior's NEPA regulations (43
CFR part 46); and Administration priorities and policies, including
Secretary's Order No. 3399, requiring use of ``the same application or
level of NEPA that would have been applied to a proposed action before
the 2020 rule went into effect.''
Background
Thurston County applied for an ITP to cover a variety of activities
for which the County issues permits or approvals, or activities the
County otherwise carries out under its jurisdiction, as detailed in the
HCP. The covered activities are described further in the final EIS and
in the HCP. The covered activities include:
Residential development;
Development of accessory structures;
Installation, repair, or alteration of septic systems;
Commercial and industrial development;
Public service facility construction;
Transportation projects;
Transportation maintenance and other work within County-
owned road rights-of-way;
Landfill and solid waste management;
Water resources management;
Management of conservation lands; and
County parks, trails, and land management.
Through implementation of the HCP, the County will permit or
conduct covered activities that incidentally take covered species. The
HCP includes an analysis of projected impacts to covered species and
measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts. Where take is
unavoidable, the County will permanently conserve lands in accordance
with HCP requirements (``conservation lands'') to fully offset impacts
of the taking on covered species before permits are issued or covered
activities are conducted. Conservation lands will be monitored and
adaptively managed to ensure they meet HCP-specified performance
standards. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are
discussed in greater detail below.
It is not practical to analyze anticipated take of individuals of
each species; therefore, the HCP uses habitat, measured as habitat area
or as ``functional-acre'' values, as a surrogate for quantifying
impacts and mitigation for each covered species. The functional-acre
approach weights habitat acreage with values for the covered species'
distribution, habitat condition, and landscape context. This approach
provides greater weight to
[[Page 43289]]
both impacts and mitigation occurring in or near areas that are a
priority for conservation of the covered species.
Development and maintenance activities covered by the HCP will
impact Mazama pocket gopher subspecies when the activities occur within
habitat in the ranges of the covered species. Fewer HCP-covered
development and maintenance activities will impact the Oregon spotted
frog, the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, and the Oregon vesper
sparrow, because they have relatively localized ranges in Thurston
County and thus are less likely to be impacted by covered activities.
Measures to avoid and minimize impacts of the taking on covered
species include avoiding habitat where feasible, reducing the extent of
habitat impacts through within-site project design, and additional
species-specific measures for each group of covered activities, as
described in the HCP. These measures are detailed in Appendix C of the
HCP, including standard practices to avoid and minimize impacts on
prairie species and prairie habitats, as well as on the Oregon spotted
frog and its habitat, when siting and locating activities as well as
during construction. Appendix C of the HCP also details enhanced
measures recommended as best practices for land managers who
voluntarily maintain habitat functions for the covered species.
To mitigate for unavoidable impacts to covered species, Thurston
County proposes to permanently protect, restore or enhance where
appropriate, and manage habitat occupied by covered species on
conservation lands. Conservation lands include newly acquired permanent
habitat reserves; working agricultural lands; and existing reserves
where the County will enhance and permanently maintain habitat quality.
The addition of conservation lands to the HCP conservation lands
network will occur incrementally during HCP implementation at a pace
that meets or exceeds the pace of impacts to each covered species.
The HCP includes funding assurances, monitoring, an adaptive
management process, and changed circumstance provisions to help ensure
that the conservation program achieves the biological goals for the
covered species. Annual reports will confirm the amount, type, and
location of impacts and mitigation, as well as the status of
monitoring, adaptive management, changed circumstances, and funding.
The conservation program and expected effects of HCP implementation on
the covered species and their habitats are described in greater detail
in the HCP and in the FEIS. The HCP is expected to be implemented for
30 years, and the resulting conservation lands will be permanently
maintained.
Anticipated Permits and Authorizations
In addition to the ITP, Thurston County will manage covered
activities to comply with all other applicable laws, including, without
limitation, Washington State endangered and protected species
regulations; the Washington State Growth Management Act, which includes
State and local protection of historic and cultural resources
implemented through the County's comprehensive plan; the Washington
State Shoreline Management Act; the Washington State Hydraulic Code;
Thurston County Critical Area Ordinances; State and local requirements
for administrative procedures; and other regulations. Individual
projects conducted under the HCP will undergo individual review by the
County for compliance with local codes and further public review, as
appropriate, through the Washington State Environmental Policy Act.
Purpose and Need
As described in the final EIS, the Service's purpose and need for
the Federal action is to process the County's request for an ITP, the
issuance of which is necessary to meet the County's development and
biological goals, and to inform the Service's decision to grant, grant
with conditions, or deny the ITP request in compliance with the
Service's authority under applicable law, including, without
limitation, section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and applicable ESA
implementing regulations. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA includes
conservation authorities and obligations that require us to respond to
the ITP application submitted by the applicant.
Alternatives
In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.), the Service
prepared a final EIS analyzing the proposed action (identified as the
preferred alternative), a no-action alternative, and one alternative to
the proposed action. Summaries of each alternative are presented below.
The environmental consequences of each alternative were analyzed to
determine if significant impacts to the human environment would occur.
Public comments received in response to the draft EIS were considered,
and the final EIS responds to comments and includes some clarifications
that address public comments. The final EIS did not identify an
environmentally preferable alternative. Pursuant to NEPA implementing
regulations found at 40 CFR 1505.2, the Service identified the proposed
action as the environmentally preferable alternative in the ROD,
because the network of conservation lands would be slightly larger and
more diverse than in the modified HCP alternative action, resulting in
greater conservation benefit to the covered species.
No-Action Alternative: The Service would not issue incidental take
authorization to the County, and the County would not implement the
HCP. The County would continue to conduct, permit, and approve
activities on a case-by-case basis in compliance with Federal, State,
and local requirements, including the Thurston County Critical Areas
code. The County and individual project proponents would continue to
evaluate each project to ensure unauthorized take of listed species is
avoided. The County would not implement a coordinated, County-wide
conservation program for ESA-listed species. This alternative is the
current situation in Thurston County.
Proposed Action Alternative: The Service would, in accordance with
applicable law, issue the requested ITP to Thurston County for the
incidental take of covered species by the covered activities. The
County would implement the Thurston County HCP and its conservation
program, including, without limitation, implementation of measures to
minimize effects of covered activities, mitigation measures to fully
offset the impacts of the taking on covered species, and monitoring and
reporting. The County would also ensure funding for HCP implementation.
Under the proposed action, the County would mitigate for the impacts of
the taking on covered species, in part through the execution of
conservation easements on working agricultural lands, the enhancement
of existing conservation reserves, and the establishment and management
of new conservation reserves. The proposed action is the Service's
agency-preferred alternative because it provides a practical approach
for durable conservation outcomes in the permit area while supporting
the County's goals and community interests, such as preservation of
agricultural lands.
Modified HCP Alternative Action: The Service would, in accordance
with applicable law, issue an ITP to Thurston County with the same
permit area, permit term, covered species, covered activities, and many
of the HCP elements described for the proposed action. Under this
alternative, the County would mitigate for the impacts of the taking on
covered species solely through the establishment and
[[Page 43290]]
management of new conservation reserves. The County would not execute
conservation easements on working agricultural lands, or include the
enhancement of existing conservation reserves in the mitigation
strategy. Under this alternative, the network of conservation lands
would be slightly smaller.
Decision and Rationale for Decision
We have made the determination that the applicant's proposed HCP,
as modified by the terms and conditions of the ITP, would meet the
statutory ITP issuance criteria set forth in section 10(1)(2)(B) (16
U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)). Our assessment of the application was conducted
in accordance with the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA
and its implementing regulations. Based on our review of the
alternatives and their environmental consequences as described in the
final EIS, we selected the proposed action because implementation of
the final HCP and issuance of the ITP best fulfills the Service's
statutory mission and responsibilities while meeting our purpose and
need. This decision is described further in the ROD.
Authority
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR
1506.6).
Nanette Seto,
Acting Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Region 1, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-15417 Filed 7-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P