SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ESA-Listed Species Covered in This Notice

Species covered by NMFS:

Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch): Threatened Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), Threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU, Threatened Lower Columbia River ESU

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened Upper Willamette River ESU, Threatened Lower Columbia River ESU

Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta): Threatened Columbia River ESU

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Threatened Upper Willamette River Distinct Population Segment (DPS)

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus): Threatened Southern DPS.

Species covered by FWS:

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis): Threatened

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus): Threatened

Coastal marten (Martes caurina): Threatened Coastal DPS.

Non-ESA-Listed Species Included in the HCP

Oregon Coast spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Oregon slender salamander (Batrachoseps wrighti)

Columbia torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton kezeri)

Cascade torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae)

Red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus).

Background

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the taking of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” to mean to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS and FWS may issue permits, under limited circumstances, to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and implementing regulations (50 CFR 222.307 for NMFS and 50 CFR 17.22(b) and 17.32(b) for FWS) provide for authorizing incidental take of listed species.

NMFS and FWS received separate ITP applications from ODF on February 9, 2022, pursuant to the ESA, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). ODF prepared the HCP in support of both ITP applications and is seeking authorization from NMFS and FWS (together, the Services) for incidental take of the species described above.

The ITPs, if issued, would authorize take of the covered species that may occur incidental to ODF's forest and recreation management activities (the covered activities). These activities include timber harvest; reforestation and young stand management; road system management activities; construction and maintenance of quarries, borrow sites, and stockpile sites; fire management; recreation infrastructure construction and maintenance; and implementation of the HCP's conservation strategy. A non-listed species that may become listed during the term of the proposed permit can be included in an HCP and ITP; take coverage would become effective if and when the species is listed.

The HCP specifies the impacts that will likely result from the taking of covered species and describes the steps that ODF will take to minimize and mitigate such impacts. The HCP also describes the covered species' life history and ecology, as well as biological goals and objectives of the HCP, adaptive management, monitoring, and funding assurances.

The proposed issuance of the ITP is considered a Federal action under NEPA, and NMFS determined that preparation of an EIS to analyze the potential impacts on the human (biological, physical, social, and economic) environment caused by the implementation of the HCP was appropriate. The Draft EIS was prepared by NMFS in accordance with the requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), with input from FWS as a cooperating agency. NMFS analyzed five alternatives in detail in the Draft EIS, including the issuance of the ITPs and implementation of the HCP, a no action alternative, and three action alternatives. All alternatives include the forest and recreation management activities listed above. The HCP includes a conservation strategy that ODF would implement to achieve the biological goals and objectives for the covered species and to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts of take on listed species. Under the no action alternative, current management practices would continue to guide the management of ODF lands, and ODF would continue to conduct these activities in the absence of the HCP. The action alternatives include Alternative 3, which modifies the proposed action's conservation strategy to increase conservation, Alternative 4, which has a shorter permit term than the proposed action, and Alternative 5, which modifies the proposed action's conservation strategy to increase timber harvest.

The Services are seeking public input on the NEPA analysis in the Draft EIS, including the associated impacts of any reasonable alternatives, as well as comments on the HCP submitted with the ITP applications. We specifically request information on the following:

1. Biological information, analysis, and relevant data concerning the covered species, other wildlife, and ecosystems.

2. Potential effects that the proposed permit actions could have on the covered species, and other endangered or threatened species, and their habitats, including the interaction of the effects of the project with climate change and other stressors. ( printed page 15385)

3. Adequacy of the proposed actions to minimize and mitigate the impact of the taking on covered species.

4. Potential effects that the proposed permit actions could have on other aspects of the human environment, including effects on plants and animals; water resources; and aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, environmental justice, climate change, or health.

5. The alternatives, information, and analyses submitted during the public scoping period.

6. The alternatives analysis, including the range of alternatives analyzed and the alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail.

7. Relevant reasonably foreseeable environmental trends and planned actions and their possible impacts on the affected environment, including the covered species, as well as any closely related connected actions.

8. Other information relevant to the HCP and its impacts on the human environment.

The Services will each make their permit decisions based on the statutory and regulatory criteria of the ESA. Their decisions will also be informed by the data, analyses, and findings in the EIS and public comments received on the Draft EIS and HCP. The Services will each document their determinations independently in an ESA section 10 findings document, ESA Section 7 biological opinion, and NEPA Record of Decision developed at the conclusion of the ESA and NEPA compliance processes. If the Services find that all requirements for issuance of the ITPs are met, they will issue the requested permits, subject to terms and conditions deemed necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of ESA section 10.

Additional Information: NMFS, as the lead Federal agency, has chosen to use the NEPA substitution process to fulfill obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). While obligations under NHPA and NEPA are independent, the regulations implementing NHPA allow for the use of NEPA review to substitute for various aspects of the NHPA section 106 (16 U.S.C. 470f) review to improve efficiency, promote transparency and accountability, and support a broadened discussion of potential effects that a project may have on the human environment (36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6). During preparation of the EIS, NMFS will ensure that the NEPA substitution process will meet any NHPA obligations.

Authority: Section 10(c) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 222.307, 50 CFR 17.22, and 50 CFR 17.32) and NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1503.1 and 40 CFR 1506.6).

87 FR 15383