Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Notices 8031 

associated with this action. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personally 

identifiable information in your 

comments, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personally identifiable information— 

may be made publicly available at any 

time. While you can ask us in your 

comment to withhold your personally 

identifiable 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 on https://

www.regulations.gov. 

Next Steps 

After public review, we will evaluate 

the permit application, associated 

documents, and any comments received 

to determine whether the permit 

application meets the requirements of 

section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA. We will 

also evaluate whether issuance of the 

requested section 10(a)(1)(B) permit 

would comply with section 7 of the ESA 

by conducting an intra-Service section 7 

consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA on the proposed ITP action. The 

final NEPA and permit determinations 

will not be completed until after the end 

of the 30-day comment period; we will 

fully consider all comments received 

during the comment period. If we 

determine that all requirements are met, 

we will issue an ITP under section 

10(A)(1)(B) of the ESA to the applicant 

for the take of the covered species, 

incidental to otherwise lawful covered 

activities. 

Authority 

We provide this notice in accordance 

with the requirements of section 10(c) of 

the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

17.32), and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and its implementing regulations 

(40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 46.205). 

Robyn Thorson, 

Regional Director, Columbia-Pacific 

Northwest and Pacific Islands Regions, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02932 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R2–ES–2021–N195; 

FXES11140200000–223–FF02ENEH00] 

Application for an Incidental Take 

Permit; Oil and Gas Habitat 

Conservation Plan for the Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken; Colorado, Kansas, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public 

that LPC Conservation LLC (applicant) 

has applied to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) for an 

incidental take permit (ITP) supported 

by the Oil and Gas Habitat Conservation 

Plan for the Lesser Prairie-chicken; 

Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma and Texas (HCP). The 

applicant has applied to the Service for 

the ITP pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act. The requested ITP, if 

approved, would authorize incidental 

take of the lesser prairie-chicken 

(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus; LEPC) 

resulting from activities covered by the 

HCP (e.g., all activities associated with 

oil and gas upstream and midstream 

buildout, including ancillary (e.g., 

access road) ground disturbing activities 

associated with these project types) and 

would authorize incidental take 

resulting from conservation actions 

taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

impacts of incidental take to LEPC that 

result from covered activities. If 

approved, the requested ITP would 

become effective should the LEPC 

become federally listed during the life of 

the ITP and HCP. With this notice we 

announce the availability of a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) that has 

been prepared to evaluate the ITP 

application in accordance with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. We are 

making the ITP application package, 

including the HCP and draft EA, 

available for public review and 

comment. 

DATES: Submission of comments: We 

will accept comments received or 

postmarked on or before March 14, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: 

Obtaining documents: You may 

obtain copies of the ITP application, 

HCP, draft EA, or other related 

documents on the internet at https://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arlington

Texas. 

Submitting comments: You may 

submit written comments by email to 

arles@fws.gov. Please note that your 

comment is in reference to the abovereferenced HCP. For more information, 

see Public Availability of Comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Debra Bills, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Texas, 

Ecological Services Office; telephone 

817–277–1100. Hearing or speech 

impaired individuals may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339 

for TTY service. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

make available the Oil and Gas Habitat 

Conservation Plan for the Lesser Prairiechicken; Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma and Texas (HCP). The LPC 

Conservation LLC (applicant) has 

applied for an incidental take permit 

(ITP). If approved, the requested ITP 

would become effective and authorize 

incidental take of the lesser prairiechicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus; 

LEPC) should the LEPC become 

federally listed during the life of the ITP 

and HCP under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

We are considering issuing a section 

10(a)(1)(B) ITP for the LEPC, a species 

that is not currently listed under the 

ESA, in response to the applicant’s 

application and supporting HCP. While 

our 2016 revised HCP handbook 

(Handbook) provides guidance that an 

ITP and supporting HCP include at least 

one ESA-listed animal species, the 

issuance of this ITP could provide for 

LEPC conservation in several ways. 

First, the proposed HCP may meet the 

Service’s conservation recommendation 

for the LEPC because it emphasizes 

avoidance and minimization and 

focuses mitigation in areas that can 

serve as conservation strongholds for 

this species. Depending on enrollment, 

this mitigation strategy could help to 

preclude the need to list the LEPC or 

could help to recover the LEPC, if the 

LEPC is listed in the future. Second, the 

proposed HCP would provide taxpayer 

and industry savings in the use of an 

overarching conservation planning 

strategy. In contrast, the processes of 

developing a candidate conservation 

agreement with assurances (CCAA) 

prior to a future listing and then 

developing an HCP or multiple HCPs 

after a potential future listing would be 

inefficient for both the Federal agency 

and industry participants. The proposed 

HCP would be more efficient because 

potential participants could enroll on a 

project-by-project basis either before or 

after a potential future listing. This 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
8032 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Notices 

allows for greater, more consistent, and 

more predictable conservation efforts to 

be undertaken. Third, with this 

proposed HCP, the Service would issue 

a permit that does not go into effect 

until a future listing, if one occurs. This 

is the same as our practice for permits 

associated with CCAAs, and ITPs 

associated with multi-species HCPs that 

include unlisted species. Although the 

permit would not go into effect until a 

future listing, if it occurs, participants 

would be required to implement all 

conservation activities identified within 

the HCP at the time they enroll, 

providing for prelisting conservation of 

the covered species. Finally, the 

proposed HCP would support States’ 

ability to manage the unlisted species, 

similar to how a CCAA would support 

this, in that the proposed ITP does not 

become effective until such time that 

the covered species may be listed. 

Prelisting participation is voluntary for 

participants, and provides the affected 

States with continued regulatory 

authority regarding wildlife species. 

We believe that considering an HCP 

without a currently listed species is 

supported by the House Conference 

Report (Conference Report) to the 1982 

ESA amendments that created HCPs, 

which expressly considered both listed 

and unlisted species (H.R. Report No. 

97–835, at 30 (1982)). The Conference 

Report states that ‘‘although the 

conservation plan is keyed to the permit 

provisions of the Act [ESA] which only 

apply to listed species, the committee 

intends that conservation plans may 

address both listed and unlisted 

species.’’ Ibid. The Conference Report 

continues by stating that the inclusion 

of unlisted species supports the 

Congressional purpose that species not 

be viewed in isolation but in terms of 

their relationship to the ecosystem as a 

whole. This broad view of conservation, 

including conservation planning and 

permitting for unlisted species, is 

‘‘consistent with the purposes of several 

other fish and wildlife statutes (e.g., 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act) which are 

intended to authorize the Secretary to 

cooperate with the States and private 

entities on matters regarding 

conservation of all fish and wildlife 

resources of this nation.’’ Ibid. The 

Conference Report encourages the 

Secretary to develop ‘‘creative 

partnerships between the public and 

private sectors’’ and notes that the 

Secretary ‘‘may utilize this provision to 

approve conservation plans that provide 

long-term commitments regarding the 

conservation of listed as well as unlisted 

species.’’ Ibid. 

Through the proposed minimization 

and mitigation measures, the HCP 

would provide long-term commitments 

regarding the conservation of LEPC that 

would fully offset impacts to the species 

associated with habitat loss and 

fragmentation resulting from 

implementation of the covered activities 

by participants in the HCP. The HCP 

would provide opportunities for 

voluntary pre-listing conservation that 

may be used to evaluate the species’ 

status in a future listing decision, and 

potential participants would have the 

option to enroll in the HCP prior to or 

after a potential future listing decision. 

As such, processing the ITP application 

and HCP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

ESA could provide for long-term 

conservation for the LEPC and more 

flexibility and long-term regulatory 

certainty for participants, as described 

above. 

Based on the information above, we 

have determined that processing this 

ITP application and HCP is consistent 

with the Conference Report and current 

regulations, and, therefore, we may 

process this ITP application and HCP 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and 

its implementing regulations (50 CFR 

17.22(b) and 50 CFR 17.32(b)). 

In accordance with the requirements 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), we advise the public that: 

1. We have prepared a draft EA to evaluate 

the ITP application. We are accepting 

comments on the ITP application and draft 

EA. 

2. The applicant has developed an HCP, 

which describes the measures the applicant 

has volunteered to take to meet the issuance 

criteria for a 10(a)(1)(B) ITP associated with 

an HCP. The issuance criteria for HCPs are 

found at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(2) and 50 CFR 

17.32(b)(2). 

3. The HCP would be implemented by 

those parties who voluntarily enroll, 

providing conservation upon enrollment, but 

the subject ITP would not be effective until 

such time as the covered species may be 

listed in the future. The ITP would be 

effective only for those participants fully 

implementing the conservation plan. 

4. As described in the HCP, the potential 

incidental take of LEPC could result from 

otherwise lawful, voluntary activities 

covered by the HCP. 

5. We have included the alternative of 

issuing an enhancement of survival permit 

(ESP) under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, 

the CCAA Policy, and implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 17.22(d) and 50 CFR 

17.32(d)), and we will accept comments 

related to this alternative. 

Background 

Section 9 of the ESA and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

17 prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of fish or wildlife 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened. Take is defined under the 

ESA as to ‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect listed animal species, or to 

attempt to engage in such conduct’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1538(19)). However, under 

section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue 

permits to authorize incidental take of 

listed 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. 

Regulations governing such take of 

endangered and threatened species are 

found at 50 CFR 17.21–22 and 50 CFR 

17.31–32, respectively. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action involves the 

issuance of a 10(a)(1)(B) ITP to the 

applicant and approval of the proposed 

HCP. The ITP would cover incidental 

‘‘take’’ of the LEPC associated with oil 

and gas upstream and midstream 

buildout, including ancillary (e.g., 

access road) ground-disturbing activities 

associated with these project types 

within the HCP permit area that could 

affect potentially suitable LEPC habitat 

(the ‘‘covered activities’’). In addition, 

the covered activities include grassland 

improvement and management 

activities that could occur in potential 

LEPC habitat on mitigation parcels to 

manage the parcel for LEPC. Beyond 

initial construction of a project, other 

ground-disturbing activities could occur 

during some types of repairs required 

during the operations and maintenance 

phase, project repowering, or project 

decommissioning within the permit 

area. 

The requested term of the ITP is 30 

years, and the ITP would authorize 

incidental take of LEPC associated with 

impacts on up to 500,000 acres of 

suitable LEPC habitat within the plan 

area (approximately 1.7 percent of the 

30,178,085 total acres of potentially 

suitable LEPC habitat within the plan 

area) resulting from implementation of 

the covered activities by participants in 

the HCP. 

To meet the requirements of a section 

10(a)(1)(B) ITP, the applicant has 

developed, and proposes to implement, 

the HCP, which describes the 

conservation measures the applicant has 

voluntarily agreed to undertake. These 

measures will be implemented prior to 

or concurrent with proposed impacts. 

These measures include LEPC habitat 

conservation through enhancement and 

restoration. On average, for every acre of 

LEPC habitat impacted, 2 acres of 

perpetual LEPC habitat conservation 

would be required. Of those 2 acres, 1 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Notices 8033 

acre would consist of restoration and 

the other acre would consist of 

enhancement. Restoration actions 

include removal of woody vegetation 

encroachment, removal of 

infrastructure, and conversion of 

cropland to grasslands. Enhancement 

efforts primarily include actions to 

maintain or enhance the quality of 

existing LEPC habitat, such as 

prescribed burning, prescribed grazing, 

and chemical and mechanical 

manipulation of the vegetative 

community. Implementation of the 

proposed LEPC habitat conservation 

measures are projected to result in no 

net loss of LEPC habitat. The ITP would 

authorize incidental take that may result 

from the implementation of the 

proposed conservation measures, 

including activities occurring on 

mitigation parcels that, while providing 

a long-term benefit to LEPC, may have 

temporary impacts to the species. 

The HCP, including the proposed 

conservation measures, was developed 

in coordination with the Service. 

Implementation of the HCP 

requirements, including the 

conservation measures, would be 

required for all participants in the HCP 

regardless of the listing status of the 

LEPC. The proposed conservation 

measures, once implemented, would 

fully offset impacts to the LEPC 

associated with habitat loss and 

fragmentation resulting from 

implementation of the covered 

activities. 

Alternatives 

We are considering two alternatives to 

the proposed action as part of this 

process: Issue an ESP for a CCAA, and 

a No Action Alternative. 

1. Issue an Enhancement of Survival 

Permit for a Candidate Conservation 

Agreement With Assurances 

Under this alternative, instead of 

approving the HCP and issuing an ITP, 

the Service would issue an ESP 

pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 

ESA, supported by a CCAA, to the 

applicant for incidental take associated 

with the covered activities in the CCAA. 

The proposed covered activities in the 

CCAA would be the same as those 

proposed in the HCP. The permit term 

for the ESP would be 30 years. Under 

this alternative, it is assumed the 

applicant (in the role of CCAA 

administrator) would require enrolled 

projects to implement all the avoidance, 

minimization, mitigation, monitoring, 

adaptive management, and reporting 

processes described in the HCP as part 

of the CCAA. It is anticipated that a 

similar level of oil and gas development 

within the permit area would occur 

under an HCP or a CCAA for each 

project. However, the enrollment of 

projects under the CCAA would end on 

the future date of a possible listing of 

the covered species, whereas the HCP 

enrollment would continue for the 

duration of the permit. We anticipate 

that this alternative would result in the 

same level of potential impacts to LEPC 

and the same level of LEPC conservation 

as what is proposed in the HCP for those 

enrolled prior to listing; however, 

projects after a potential listing would 

need to develop their own HCPs or find 

an alternative coverage for incidental 

take. This action would be consistent 

with existing Service guidance for 

conservation actions of unlisted species. 

2. No Action Alternative 

Under this alternative, the Service 

would not issue an ITP or an ESP, and 

therefore this programmatic permitting 

structure would not be available for 

willing participants. While the LEPC 

remains unlisted, potentially 

participating entities (i.e., oil and gas 

companies) would have little economic 

or legal incentive to voluntarily initiate 

the conservation or management 

activities that are proposed in the HCP 

to benefit the LEPC. Therefore, unless 

potentially participating entities 

voluntarily participate in another 

programmatic permitting option, should 

one be available, or voluntarily develop 

their own standalone permitting option, 

conservation measures above and 

beyond those directed by existing 

Federal, State, and local laws, policies, 

or regulations likely would not be 

implemented, and the LEPC would not 

gain additional protections and 

conservation benefits over what 

currently exist. On private lands, where 

the State or Federal government has no 

authority to protect or direct the 

management of LEPC habitat, LEPC 

conservation programs would be 

implemented entirely at the discretion 

of the landowners and private 

developers. 

Next Steps 

We will evaluate the permit 

application, HCP, associated 

documents, and comments we receive to 

determine whether the ITP application 

meets the requirements of ESA, NEPA, 

and implementing regulations, or 

whether the issuance of an ESP should 

be considered. If we determine that all 

requirements are met, we will approve 

the HCP and issue the ITP under section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) to the applicant in accordance 

with the terms of the HCP and specific 

terms and conditions of the authorizing 

ITP. Alternatively, we could approve 

this plan as a CCAA and issue an ESP 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA and 

applicable regulations if we determine 

that all requirements of the ESA, NEPA, 

and implementing regulations are met. 

We will consider comments on both the 

alternative and the denial of issuing a 

permit in our final decision. We will not 

make our final decision until after the 

30-day comment period ends, and we 

have fully considered all comments 

received during the public comment 

period. 

Public Availability of Comments 

All comments we receive become part 

of the public record associated with this 

action. Requests for copies of comments 

will be handled in accordance with the 

Freedom of Information Act, NEPA, and 

Service and Department of the Interior 

policies and procedures. 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 to 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. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under the 

authority of section 10(c) of the ESA and 

its implementing regulations (50 CFR 

17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32) and NEPA (42 

U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and its 

implementing regulations (40 CFR 

1506.6). 

Amy L. Lueders, 

Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02939 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0033383; 

PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] 

Notice of Inventory Completion: 

Anniston Museum of Natural History, 

Anniston, AL; Correction 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1