17434 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices 

Citation 

30 CFR 250 

Subpart I and 

related NTLs 

Reporting and/or recordkeeping 

requirement 

Non-Hour cost burdens* 

Hour 

burden 

Average No. of annual reponses Annual 

burden hours 

Subtotal 1,198 responses 74,700 hours 

General Departure 

900 thru 921 General departure and alternative compliance requests not specifically 

covered elsewhere in Subpart I regulations.

10 hours 10 requests 100 hours 

1,975 Responses 116,341 

Hours 

TOTAL BURDEN $331,079 Non-Hour Cost Burdens 

* The non-hour cost burdens associated with this ICR relate to cost recovery fees. These fees are based on actual monies received in FY2010 

thru the Pay.gov system. 

Estimated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Non-Hour Cost Burden: 

We have identified four paperwork nonhour cost burdens associated with the 

collection of information. The costs are 

specifically broken out in the burden 

table. The non-hour costs are for: 

installation under the Platform 

Verification Program; installation of 

fixed structures under the Platform 

Approval Program; installation of 

Caisson/Well Protectors; and 

modifications and/or repairs. We have 

not identified any other non-hour cost 

burdens associated with this collection 

of information. We estimate a total 

reporting non-hour cost burden of 

$331,079. 

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA 

(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Until OMB approves a 

collection of information, you are not 

obligated to respond. 

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 

requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide 

notice * * * and otherwise consult 

with members of the public and affected 

agencies concerning each proposed 

collection of information * * *’’ 

Agencies must specifically solicit 

comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the agency to perform its 

duties, including whether the 

information is useful; (b) evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

minimize the burden on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

To comply with the public 

consultation process, on November 9, 

2010, we published a Federal Register 

notice (75 FR 68814) announcing that 

we would submit this ICR to OMB for 

approval. The notice provided the 

required 60-day comment period. In 

addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB 

control number for the information 

collection requirements imposed by the 

30 CFR part 250 regulations. The 

regulation also informs the public that 

they may comment at any time on the 

collections of information and provides 

the address to which they should send 

comments. We have received one 

comment in response to these efforts. 

The comment received was from 

another government agency, and it did 

not affect the paperwork burden, but 

was in support of the collection of such 

information. 

If you wish to comment in response 

to this notice, you may send your 

comments to the offices listed under the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. The 

OMB has up to 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the information collection 

but may respond after 30 days. 

Therefore, to ensure maximum 

consideration, OMB should receive 

public comments by April 28, 2011. 

Public Availability of Comments: 

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 us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

BOEMRE Information Collection 

Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz, (703) 

787–1025. 

Dated: February 15, 2011. 

Doug Slitor, 

Acting Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7254 Filed 3–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA020 

Receipt of Application for an 

Endangered Species Act Incidental 

Take Permit 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior; National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of submissions 

of applications for incidental take 

permits; availability of a draft habitat 

conservation plan, a preliminary draft 

environmental impact statement 

prepared by the Applicant, and a draft 

implementation agreement. 

SUMMARY: The Lewis County, 

Washington, Board of Commissioners 

(Applicant) has submitted applications 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the 

Services) for incidental take permits 

(ITPs) under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The 

Applicant requests ITPs to cover the 

take of 7 listed and 70 other covered 

species under the Services’ jurisdictions 

in conjunction with forest management 

activities on a class of private lands in 

Lewis County, Washington. The ITP 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices 17435 

application submission includes: A 

draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) 

describing the Applicant’s proposed 

actions and the proposed measures the 

Applicant would implement to 

minimize, mitigate, and monitor take of 

listed and other covered species; a 

preliminary draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS); and a draft 

Implementation Agreement (IA). The 

Services are making the ITP submission 

package available for public review and 

comment consistent with a request from 

the Applicant. The public is invited to 

submit comments and any other 

relevant information regarding: the 

adequacy of the mitigation, 

minimization, and monitoring measures 

proposed under the draft Lewis County 

HCP, particularly with respect to 

proposed riparian forest buffers, in 

relation to measures and buffers 

required under Washington State forest 

practices regulations; and the adequacy 

of the draft IA provisions. 

DATES: All comments from interested 

parties must be received on or before 

May 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Please address written 

comments to Ken Berg, Project Leader, 

by U.S. mail to the Washington Fish and 

Wildlife Office, FWS, 510 Desmond 

Drive SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503– 

1273; by facsimile at (360) 753–9405; or 

by electronic mail (e-mail) at 

LewisCountyHCP@fws.gov. 

Alternatively, you may send comments 

to Steve Landino, Washington State 

Director, Habitat Division, NMFS, 510 

Desmond Drive SE., Suite 103, Lacey, 

WA 98503–1273. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Michaels, at the FWS address above or 

by telephone at (360) 753–9440, or Dan 

Guy, at the NMFS address above or by 

telephone at (360) 534–9342. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Statutory Authority 

Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) 

and implementing regulations prohibit 

the taking of animal species listed as 

endangered or threatened. The term 

‘‘take’’ is defined under the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1532(19)) to mean to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. ‘‘Harm’’ is 

defined by FWS regulation to include 

significant habitat modification or 

degradation where it actually kills or 

injures wildlife by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, and 

sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). NMFS’ 

definition of ‘‘harm’’ includes significant 

habitat modification or degradation 

where it actually kills or injures fish or 

wildlife by significantly impairing 

essential behavioral patterns, including 

breeding, feeding, spawning, migrating, 

rearing, and sheltering (64 FR 60727; 

November 8, 1999). 

Section 10 of the ESA and 

implementing regulations specify 

requirements for the issuance of ITPs to 

non-Federal landowners for the take of 

endangered and threatened species 

caused by actions these landowners 

propose to implement. Any anticipated 

take must be incidental to otherwise 

lawful activities, and it must not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 

survival and recovery of the species in 

the wild; also, ITP holders must 

minimize and mitigate the impacts of 

such take to the maximum extent 

practicable. The applicant must prepare 

a HCP describing the impact that will 

likely result from such taking, the 

strategy for minimizing and mitigating 

the take, the funding available to 

implement such steps, alternatives to 

such taking, and the reasons such 

alternatives are not being implemented. 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

requires that Federal agencies conduct 

an environmental analysis of their 

proposed actions to determine if the 

actions may significantly affect the 

human environment. Under NEPA, a 

reasonable range of alternatives to the 

proposed Federal action is developed 

and considered in the Services’ 

environmental review. Alternatives 

considered for analysis in an EIS may 

include: variations in the scope of 

covered activities; variations in the 

location, amount, and type of 

conservation activities; variations in ITP 

duration; or a combination of these 

elements. In addition, an EIS will 

identify potentially significant direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts on 

biological resources, land use, air 

quality, water quality, water resources, 

socioeconomics, and other 

environmental issues that could occur 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal actions and alternatives. For 

potentially significant impacts, an EIS 

may identify avoidance, minimization, 

or mitigation measures to reduce these 

impacts, where feasible, to a level below 

significance. In this instance, the 

Applicant has provided a preliminary 

draft EIS to the Services. The 

Applicant’s preliminary draft EIS is 

being made available to the public. You 

may request a copy of the preliminary 

draft EIS by contacting the FWS’s 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

above). 

For reasons stated in detail below, the 

preliminary draft EIS was not prepared 

under the Services’ oversight or 

involvement and does not represent the 

Services’ analysis or environmental 

review of the proposed submission. 

This notice is provided under section 

10(c) of the ESA. This notice does not 

initiate a public comment period under 

NEPA. The Services will provide an 

opportunity for public comment under 

NEPA, based on a Services-endorsed 

draft NEPA document, if we determine 

it is appropriate to continue processing 

the ITP application. 

Background 

On July 25, 2005, the Services 

published a notice (70 FR 42533) of the 

intent to conduct scoping meetings and 

to gather information to prepare an EIS 

related to Lewis County seeking ITPs 

from the Services that would provide 

increased regulatory certainty for small 

forest landowners making long-term 

commitments to forest resource 

protection. The notice stated that Lewis 

County believed the assurances 

embodied in such regulatory certainty 

might encourage family forest 

landowners in Lewis County to 

maintain their property in forest 

management instead of converting lands 

to non-forest uses. The notice affirmed 

that Lewis County was seeking ITPs 

under which it would in turn provide 

certificates of inclusion to certain forest 

landowners, after verifying they meet 

eligibility criteria and agree to comply 

with the Lewis County HCP. Eligible 

landowners would be those that hold 

lands below the elevation of 1,250 feet 

within the Chehalis and Cowlitz River 

watersheds in Lewis County, and 

harvest less than 2 million board feet of 

timber per calendar year. As of 2004, 

approximately 133,000 acres were 

owned by small forest landowners who 

met these criteria in Lewis County. 

If issued, the ITPs would provide 

incidental take coverage for activities on 

a maximum of 200,000 acres in Lewis 

County. Should Lewis County seek to 

exceed that acreage, it would need to 

obtain an ITP amendment, which could 

be subject to additional analysis, 

including additional NEPA review. The 

notice stated that the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

would verify compliance with the Lewis 

County HCP concurrent with harvest 

activities, and Lewis County and the 

Services would conduct additional 

compliance monitoring at other times. 

Annual implementation reports would 

be provided by Lewis County to the 

Services. 

Forestry activities that Lewis County 

is now proposing for ITP coverage, and 

for which minimization and mitigation 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
17436 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices 

measures were developed, include the 

following: 

• All activities involved in timber 

management and harvest, including: 

mechanical site preparation, prescribed 

burning, reforestation, vegetation 

management (other than with 

herbicides), precommercial thinning, 

commercial thinning, timber salvage, 

other commercial harvest (felling, 

bucking, limbing, yarding, skidding, 

processing, loading, and hauling) of 

timber, fire prevention, fire suppression 

(including mop-up activities), and 

nonchemical pest control; 

• Construction, reconstruction, 

improvement, maintenance, 

abandonment, closure, and use of 

logging roads, spurs, landings, and 

decking areas; 

• Quarrying, processing, and 

transporting of stone, gravel, and/or dirt 

for use in roads; 

• Administrative activities, such as 

land surveying, timber cruising, and 

other resource inventorying; 

• All activities required by the HCP 

or ITP; and 

• Entering into and administering 

access rights, utility rights of way, and 

recreational and hunting leases. 

Species for which Lewis County seeks 

coverage include 33 species of fish and 

up to 44 species of wildlife. Seven of the 

species are currently listed as 

threatened under the ESA: the Lower 

Columbia River Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Lower 

Columbia River coho salmon (O. 

kisutch), Columbia River chum salmon 

(O. keta), Lower Columbia River 

steelhead (O. mykiss), marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern 

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), 

and the gray wolf (Canis lupus). 

Fourteen species proposed for coverage 

are unlisted species for which take 

authorization would become effective 

concurrent with their listing, should the 

species be listed under the ESA during 

the permit term. 

The draft Lewis County HCP provided 

with the submission includes a 

description of the impacts of take on 

proposed covered species, and proposes 

a conservation strategy that Lewis 

County asserts will minimize and 

mitigate those impacts on each covered 

species to the maximum extent 

practicable. In the submission, Lewis 

County asserts that streams would be 

protected by a combination of noharvest and partial-harvest buffers; 

roads would be designed, constructed, 

and maintained to minimize erosion 

and mass wasting; specified numbers of 

snags, logs, and residual live trees 

would be retained in uplands; and 

timber harvest unit size would be 

restricted to a maximum of 60 acres to 

minimize potential cumulative effects. 

Protection of steep and unstable slopes, 

road construction, and road 

maintenance would follow Washington 

State Forest Practices Rules, including 

any changes made to those rules 

through the adaptive management 

process associated with the Washington 

State Forest Practices Habitat 

Conservation Plan, which is currently 

applicable to all lands subject to this 

submission. 

The conservation strategy in the draft 

HCP provided with the Lewis County 

submission deviates from the strategies 

for habitat conservation, including 

riparian area protection, employed in 

current Washington State Forest 

Practices regulations and five other 

forestry HCPs already approved and 

operating in Washington State (West 

Fork Timber Co., Port Blakely Tree 

Farms, Plum Creek Timber, Washington 

State Lands DNR, and Green Diamond 

Timber Co.). Proposed riparian buffers 

on streams vary by stream width, but are 

smaller than those in any previously 

approved forestry HCP in Washington 

State and those in the current 

Washington State Forest Practices 

regulations (which also are the subject 

of an ITP) as displayed in Table 1. 

Riparian buffers are essential 

landscape features needed to provide 

important ecological functions integral 

to the survival and recovery of salmon 

and other aquatic species. Appropriately 

sized riparian buffers facilitate the 

delivery of adequate amounts of large 

woody debris to the channel, provide 

shade to moderate stream temperature, 

and maintain bank stability by 

providing root strength. For the buffers 

proposed in the Lewis County HCP to be 

found adequate, persuasive evidence 

would be required to ensure that they 

would provide a functional supply of 

recruitable large wood over time, that 

the wood in the buffer actually does 

recruit over time to streams in a manner 

similar to recruitment in a late-seral 

forest (late-successional, mature or oldgrowth forest), and that the riparian tree 

stands moderate stream temperature on 

the covered lands. 

The existing Washington State Forest 

Practices regulations for riparian 

buffering provide context for 

comparison with and analysis of those 

buffers proposed in the draft Lewis 

County HCP, because the provisions of 

the State’s regulations and the 

Washington State Forest Practices 

Habitat Conservation Plan associated 

with them are the substance of another 

ITP, that already is applicable to the 

proposed covered lands for the Lewis 

County HCP. In contrast to the riparian 

buffers proposed in the draft Lewis 

County HCP provided with the 

submission, the buffer widths for the 

Washington State Forest Practices 

regulations are based on a combination 

of factors, including water type, fish 

presence, and the types of practices 

(such as thinning) that might be 

employed, depending on a variety of 

site-determined factors. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices 17437 

As required by the ESA, the Services 

are responsible for determining whether 

a sufficient application for an ITP under 

section 10 of the ESA meets permit 

issuance criteria. The conservation 

strategy and measures in the draft Lewis 

County HCP provided with the 

submission have been the subject of 

extensive consultation and discussion 

between Lewis County and the Services. 

Throughout the HCP discussions, the 

Services have expressed concerns about 

the adequacy of the riparian 

prescriptions and the sufficiency of the 

scientific rationale provided in the 

applicant’s plan, a rationale that now is 

used in the draft Lewis County HCP. 

Among measures taken in an effort to 

remove these concerns, the Services 

analyzed the results of three separate 

peer reviews, two of which were 

independent and one of which NMFS 

conducted. The general focus of the 

inquiry was to validate that the 

applicant was properly modeling the 

attributes of a late-seral forest for the 

covered lands and, as a result, properly 

mimicking those attributes in its 

proposal for a riparian buffer regime. All 

of the reviews addressed the metrics, 

methodology, assumptions, and models 

that went into the preparation of the 

draft Lewis County HCP that the 

applicant provided with this 

submission. The first review was 

provided to the Family Forest 

Foundation on December 2, 2004, and 

the second was provided in the fall 

2006. The third review was provided on 

October 5, 2007. These reviews are 

discussed below and are available upon 

request by contacting the FWS’s 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

above). 

The first two peer reviews were 

conducted by the Sustainable 

Ecosystems Institute (SEI) in Portland, 

Oregon, on behalf of the applicant. In 

the first of the SEI reviews, four 

reviewers responded to a series of 

questions relative to natural 

(unmanaged) forest conditions in Lewis 

County and the use of Forest Inventory 

and Analysis (FIA) data plots as inputs 

to model these conditions. The objective 

of the modeling was to inform the 

development of forest management 

prescriptions in the Lewis County HCP 

that result in managed, mature riparian 

forest stands that closely mimic natural, 

mature riparian forest stand conditions 

in Lewis County. While SEI summarized 

the reviewers as ‘‘unequivocal’’ in their 

support of using FIA data to model 

natural, mature riparian forest stand 

conditions in Lewis County, the 

Services perceived considerable 

uncertainty associated within their 

individual responses. For example, two 

of the four SEI reviewers could not agree 

that Lewis County had used the 

appropriate forest stand parameters to 

describe the FIA integrated database. 

The Applicant used the FIA database to 

identify mature, natural forest stands of 

approximately 120 years of age that 

could be used as reference stands. The 

purpose of these reference stands was to 

develop target stand conditions to be 

achieved under the proposed HCP. After 

further discussion between NMFS and 

the SEI reviewers about their responses, 

significant concerns remained that the 

data used were inappropriate to model 

unmanaged, natural, mature riparian 

forest stand conditions. 

The second SEI review asked a series 

of questions of three respected forest 

ecologists from Oregon about the model 

being used to predict available large 

woody debris. SEI summarized their 

reviews as ‘‘somewhat critical,’’ adding 

that ‘‘The panel felt the model used an 

inappropriate definition of functional 

wood.’’ The synopsis of panel responses 

was that the model was combined with 

unrealistic assumptions relative to the 

timing of tree fall. 

One of the three reviewers cautioned 

against ‘‘developing sweeping 

conclusions about regional management 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESen29mr11.000</GPH>
17438 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices 

based on an untested model.’’ The 

reviewer also noted that ‘‘the model 

does not consider several fundamental 

characteristics of streams and riparian 

areas.’’ The reviewer also noted that 

‘‘another aspect of the report that is 

misleading is the assertion that this 

model reduces or eliminates 

uncertainties that are associated with 

other models. * * * In many ways, 

uncertainty is increased by more simple 

and narrow representations.’’ This 

reviewer ended by saying, ‘‘The 

conclusions are overly simplistic, place 

enormous weight on the evidence from 

this single model, and fail to provide 

context for the possible uncertainties 

associated with this assessment.’’ 

Another reviewer noted: ‘‘The output 

of this model is number and volume of 

trees that would intersect the nearest 

bank assuming all the trees within the 

riparian zone fell at the same time. This 

is an unrealistic assumption.’’ The 

reviewer found that the model 

‘‘produced un-interpretable results.’’ 

This reviewer found that ‘‘[t]his model 

has limited usefulness in evaluating the 

relative performance of various riparian 

management strategies on wood 

recruitment to the stream, which 

requires a dynamic model framework.’’ 

The final reviewer found the model to 

be very detailed and sophisticated 

mathematically, but ecologically naive, 

and noted that the model appeared to 

ignore current science about the 

delivery of wood into fish habitat. 

The NMFS conducted the third 

review through its Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center (Science Center) in 

Seattle, Washington. The Science Center 

review found fault with a variety of 

issues concerning estimates of 

recruitable large wood that Lewis 

County asserted would be available 

following the provisions of the draft 

Lewis County HCP. Specifically, the 

Science Center review acknowledged 

that the Available Functional Large 

Woody Debris (AFLWD) model relied 

on in the draft Lewis County HCP does 

not produce output data that could be 

translated into estimates of instream 

wood loads, and pointed out that the 

model’s effectiveness therefore relied 

upon assumptions that wood 

recruitment would occur on the riparian 

tree stands addressed by the draft HCP 

as it did in a late-seral stand (i.e., 

reference conditions), or, in the 

alternative, that differences in 

anticipated recruitment would be 

explained. The Science Center review 

also concluded it could not be verified 

that the FIA stand data used to provide 

input to the AFLWD model are 

representative of late-seral forest 

conditions (i.e., reference conditions) 

for the covered lands. For example, it 

was determined that several FIA plots 

selected for intensive review by the 

Science Center were not an accurate 

representation of unmanaged, late-seral 

forest conditions and probably had been 

managed for timber harvest. Many of the 

‘‘reference’’ stands the applicant selected 

consisted of stands much less than 120 

years of age. To illustrate the problem, 

the Science Center reviewed data from 

17 of the subplots comprising 4 of the 

179 data plots used. Some of the 

subplots had stand ages as young as 20 

years. The mean age of all 17 subplots 

was 72 years, much younger than the 

targeted 120-year-old natural stand age. 

Following this finding, the Applicant 

removed these and other stand data it 

found to be inappropriate and asserted 

that there was no change of significance 

in the model outputs as a result. 

Unfortunately, the Services are unable 

to verify that the remaining plot data 

used in the model overcome the above 

concerns and are appropriate, because 

the locations of the FIA plots are 

confidential and, as a result, it is not 

possible to determine what forest 

attributes (for example, late-seral or 

managed) are reflected in the data. 

In addition, the model used by the 

Applicant included an assumption of 

472 existing conifers per acre on average 

in the proposed ‘‘no-cut’’ portion of 

riparian areas on covered lands. Nonrandom visits in October 2008 to dozens 

of accessible riparian sites on covered 

lands by Science Center staff found that 

most had few conifers within the 

proposed no-cut buffer and many had 

no conifers at all. Many of the no-cut 

buffers observed were dominated by 

alders, with an understory of grasses, 

often reed canary grass, with little 

indication of conifer regeneration. In 

addition to the three reviews, the 

Services received another outside 

review of the conservation strategy 

contained in the draft Lewis County 

HCP that was critical of the strategy. On 

June 2, 2008, the Quinault Indian 

Nation, through its consultant ARC 

Consultants, presented NMFS with ‘‘A 

Critical Review of the Family Forest 

Habitat Conservation Plan’’ (Quinault 

review). The Quinault review supported 

the Services’ continuing concerns that 

the draft Lewis County HCP is not based 

on the best available science and that it 

develops riparian targets that are not 

representative of unmanaged riparian 

forests. The Quinault review refers to 

Washington’s Cooperative Monitoring, 

Evaluation, and Research Committee 

‘‘Desired Future Condition (DFC) 

Validation Study’’ (DFC Study) (SchuettHames et al., 2005). This report is 

available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ 

Publications/fp_cmer_05_507.pdf. It 

was prepared under a process 

supporting the implementation of the 

Washington State Forest Practices HCP. 

The peer-reviewed DFC Study focuses 

on data from fully stocked riparian 

stand plots and establishes an 

appropriate standard by which to 

measure mature riparian stand 

conditions (in which at least 30 percent 

of the sites are occupied by crowns of 

dominant and co-dominant conifers 

between 80 and 200 years of age and 

show no past harvest activity). 

Finally, many of the proposed 

covered lands are within the Chehalis 

River Basin, which currently is ‘‘water 

quality impaired’’ for temperature under 

the Clean Water Act. The Washington 

State Department of Ecology, based on 

a review of the draft Lewis County HCP 

prescriptions related to water quality, 

submitted a memo to the Services on 

August 4, 2010, that includes the 

following findings: The draft Lewis 

County HCP (1) is based on a 

combination of selective weak outdated 

statistical models with optimistic 

assumptions on riparian input 

conditions that do not match the 

riparian conditions that will be 

encountered on the ground or that are 

permitted during the life of the HCP; (2) 

is not based on attributes that are 

unique to Lewis County or small 

landowners, but only on the 

interpretation of models and 

assumptions that are neither calibrated 

nor validated for that purpose; (3) lacks 

robust adaptive management and 

effectiveness monitoring components 

and feedback processes to ensure that 

the requirements of the HCP are tested 

and changed to meet protective 

assumptions; and (4) allows extensive 

tree removal adjacent to narrow, noharvest zones immediately adjacent to 

streams that will decrease shade and 

degrade riparian microclimate for the 

stream. 

These reviews and discussions with 

the peer reviewers and other 

commenters have highlighted the 

Services’ concerns about the adequacy 

of the draft Lewis County HCP to 

appropriately conserve the habitat 

requirements of covered species, 

particularly the covered aquatic species. 

The Services continue to be concerned 

about the information in the draft HCP 

relating to the amount of large woody 

debris produced in the covered riparian 

areas over time. Under the draft HCP, 

the amount of large woody debris 

produced in these areas would not be 

adequate and would not meet 

requirements for wood produced by the 

riparian buffers in any of the other six 

approved HCPs in Washington. While 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices 17439 

this fact alone is not fatal to the 

proposal, the applicant’s reliance on the 

FIA data does not justify the reduced 

buffer size proposed under the draft 

HCP by sufficiently differentiating the 

late-seral forest conditions on proposed 

covered lands in Lewis County from 

late-seral conditions on covered lands in 

these other HCPs. While the volume of 

information provided by the Applicant 

to support its assertions is substantial, 

the type and quality of the information 

is insufficient to allow analysts to 

clearly and fully understand how the 

conclusions reached in the draft Lewis 

County HCP are supported. 

The base mitigation strategy, or initial 

minimization and mitigation measures 

that are implemented in any HCP, 

should be sufficiently vigorous so that 

the Services may reasonably determine 

they will be successful. The adaptive 

management program should address 

uncertainties associated with that 

determination and improve knowledge 

over time. In this instance, and as 

described above, the Services question 

whether the proposed conservation 

regime in the Lewis County HCP meets 

statutory criteria for issuance of an ITP. 

As currently written, the conservation 

regime contains substantial biological 

risk that is not addressed adequately 

through the adaptive management 

provisions in the draft HCP. By contrast, 

the Washington Forest Practices HCP 

contains an initial mitigation strategy 

that the Services determined was 

sufficient, and an extensive adaptive 

management program. 

Typically, HCPs include an IA that, 

among other things, provides for 

enforcement of the measures in the 

HCP, and also for remedies, should any 

party fail to perform its obligations. A 

draft IA was among the documents in 

the applicant’s submission; each page of 

the draft IA contains a statement that 

the provisions are ‘‘subject to change 

based on the Services’ review.’’ The 

Services believe they have previously 

and clearly indicated to the applicant 

that some provisions in the draft IA are 

inconsistent with the criteria for 

issuance of an ITP. For example, the 

Services have advised the Applicant 

that the draft IA lacks a provision for 

potential mitigation upon early 

termination of the ITP (the draft IA 

suggests, in fact, that the Services make 

a finding that such mitigation would 

never be required), lacks compliance 

details including for enforcement, and 

omits provisions that establish the 

accountability of Lewis County for 

performance of its responsibilities as 

ITP holder. The draft IA submitted to 

the Services by the Applicant does not 

address these concerns. 

The Services also believe the 

preliminary draft EIS provided by Lewis 

County with the submission is 

inadequate for the Services’ 

environmental review required under 

the NEPA for an ITP application 

submission. The analysis was prepared 

by the Applicant and does not 

accurately reflect the views of the 

Services regarding the effects of the 

proposal on the human environment. 

While it is customary for an applicant 

to prepare the preliminary draft NEPA 

document for the Services, the Services 

are responsible for ensuring that the 

published draft EIS discloses the 

environmental impacts as determined 

by the Services. The preliminary draft 

EIS currently stands only as the 

Applicant’s analysis, and is not a 

Federal environmental review meeting 

the statutory and regulatory 

requirements in NEPA. Typically, the 

Services work with an applicant to 

address our concerns; in this case, the 

Applicant has chosen not to modify the 

draft EIS in response to the Services’ 

concerns. 

On February 12, 2008, the Services 

met with the Family Forest Foundation, 

policy representatives from the 

Washington Department of Ecology, 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, and the Washington DNR. At 

that meeting, the State of Washington 

verbally indicated it did not support the 

science in the draft HCP and it did not 

believe that the Lewis County HCP 

would qualify as an ‘‘alternate plan’’ 

under the existing Washington State 

forest practices regulations by providing 

equivalent or better ecological function 

than existing forest practices 

regulations. 

Availability of Documents 

The ITP application submission— 

which includes a draft HCP, preliminary 

draft EIS provided by the Applicant, 

and a draft IA—is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, between 

the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the 

FWS’s Washington Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see ADDRESSES above). You may 

also request copies of the documents by 

contacting the FWS’s Washington Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT above). The public 

is invited to submit comments and any 

other relevant information regarding: 

The adequacy of the mitigation, 

minimization, and monitoring measures 

proposed under the draft Lewis County 

HCP, particularly with respect to 

proposed riparian forest buffers in 

relation to those required under 

Washington State forest practices 

regulations; and the adequacy of the 

draft IA provisions. 

All comments received will become 

part of the public record for this 

proposed action. Our practice is to make 

comments, including names and home 

addresses of respondents, available for 

public review during regular business 

hours. 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 information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, this 

cannot be guaranteed. 

Dated: March 21, 2011. 

Richard Hannan, 

Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Dated: March 22, 2011. 

Therese Conant, 

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7238 Filed 3–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0022; 

92220–1113–0000–C3] 

Nonessential Experimental 

Populations of Gray Wolves in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains; Lethal 

Take of Wolves in the West Fork Elk 

Management Unit of Montana; Draft 

Environmental Assessment 

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 environmental 

assessment (EA) of the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

(MFWP) proposal to lethally take 

wolves in the West Fork Elk 

Management Unit (EMU) in western 

Montana in response to impacts on elk 

populations. The MFWP’s proposal was 

submitted under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and our special 

regulations under the ESA for the 

central Idaho and Yellowstone area 

nonessential experimental populations 

of gray wolves in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains. The draft EA describes the 

environmental effects of two 

alternatives: (1) The preferred 

alternative, which would approve the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES