[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55591-55592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26998]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service


Availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Receipt of 
an Application for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the Red-Cockaded 
Woodpecker (RCW) by Potlatch Corporation for Timber Harvesting and 
Management in Calhoun, Cleveland, and Bradley Counties in South-Central 
Arkansas

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Potlatch Corporation (Applicant) is seeking an ITP from the 
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of 
the Endangered Species Act (Act), as amended. The permit would 
authorize the take of the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), 
an endangered species, in Calhoun, Cleveland, and Bradley Counties in 
south-central Arkansas, for a period of 30 years. The proposed 
incidental take would be the inadvertent harvest of an unknown RCW 
cavity tree during forest management on land owned by the Applicant or 
other privately owned land where the Applicant has purchased timber.
    The Service also announces the availability of a habitat 
conservation plan (HCP) and EA. The Applicant's HCP describes 
conservation measures that will be taken to avoid accidentally 
harvesting cavity trees. Also, the HCP delineates other measures to 
conserve cavity trees, cavity tree clusters, and RCW foraging habitat. 
The EA prepared by the Service describes the environmental consequences 
of issuing or denying the ITP. As stated in the EA, the Service 
proposes to issue the requested permit. This proposal is based on a 
preliminary determination that the Applicant has satisfied the 
requirements for permit issuance and that the HCP provides conservation 
benefits to RCWs that exceed the impact of inadvertently harvesting 
cavity trees. Copies of the EA and HCP may be obtained by making a 
written request to the Regional Office [See ADDRESSES below]. This 
notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act and National 
Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

DATES: Written comments on the permit application, EA, and HCP should 
be received on or before December 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application, HCP, and EA may 
obtain a copy by writing the Service's Southeast Regional Office, 
Atlanta, Georgia. Requests for the documents must be in writing to be 
processed. Documents will also be available for public inspection by 
appointment during normal business hours at the Regional Office, or the 
Jackson, Mississippi, Field Office. Written data or comments concerning 
the application, EA, or HCP should be submitted to the Regional Office. 
Please reference permit under PRT-807952 in such comments:

Regional Permit Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 
Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (404-679-7110, fax 
404-679-7081)
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View 
Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, Mississippi 39213 (601-965-4900, fax 601-
965-4340)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will McDearman, Jackson, Mississippi, 
Field Office or Rick Gooch at the Atlanta, Georgia, Regional Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act 
(Act), and implementing regulations, prohibits the take of RCWs. Take, 
in part, is defined as an activity that kills, injures, harms, or 
harasses a listed endangered or threatened species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) 
of the Act provides an exemption, under certain circumstances, to the 
Section 9 prohibition if the taking is incidental to, and not the 
purpose of otherwise lawful activities.
    The RCW is the only woodpecker in North America that excavates its 
roosting and nesting cavities in live pine trees. Cavities are located 
in heartwood that is usually infected and softened by the red-heart 
fungus (Phellinus pini). Mature trees usually 80 or more years old are 
typically selected for cavities because the heartwood is sufficiently 
large for a cavity and the incidence of red-heart fungus is greater in 
older trees. RCWs do not excavate and place cavities in sapwood.
    RCWs are non-migratory, territorial, and live in family units that 
are called groups. A group usually consists of a breeding pair, 
offspring of the current year, and one or more male helpers that are 
offspring from previous years. Each bird has a roost cavity that, 
collectively, 

[[Page 55592]]
comprise a cluster of cavity trees occupied by the group. Other 
cavities that are abandoned, inactive, or under construction may also 
occur in the cluster. RCWs forage for invertebrates on pine trees 
within and surrounding the cluster. Birds usually forage on larger and 
older pines. The foraging area will vary in size depending upon habitat 
quality, but birds generally forage within a one-half mile radius of 
the cluster.
    Suitable habitat in the southern pine forest also consists of a 
vegetation structure affected by and maintained by fire. Encroachment 
of fire intolerant hardwoods into the forest midstory, particularly 
within clusters, can cause RCWs to abandon cluster and foraging 
habitat.
    The number of RCW groups persisting today represents about 1 
percent of the historical population that occupied the pre-Columbian 
southern pine forest. The decline of the RCW was initiated by the 
deforestation of the fire-maintained southern pine ecosystem at the 
turn of this century. Subsequent habitat loss and fragmentation has 
been caused by urbanization, fire exclusion, and forest management 
practices. Where forests exist today, most are either unsuitable or 
uninhabited by RCWs due to short harvest rotations, clear cutting, 
infrequently prescribed fire, and insufficient cluster and foraging 
habitat.
    About 44 RCW groups inhabit land owned by the Applicant in south-
central Arkansas. In the Draft RCW Procedures Manual for Private Lands 
(Draft Manual), the Service has proposed minimum forest management 
guidelines to avoid taking RCWs. The Draft Manual's recommendations 
provide the minimum quantitative and qualitative standards to avoid 
harm and harassment as a result of modifying RCW foraging and cluster 
habitat. The Applicant's HCP will provide cluster and foraging habitat 
in excess of that minimally recommended in the Draft Manual. Minimum 
foraging habitat guidelines recommend 3,000 ft\2\ of pine basal area 
( 10'' DBH) within a 0.5 mile radius area of each active 
cluster. The Applicant's plan, which relies on uneven-aged forest 
management and select harvesting, currently provides an average of 
8,188 ft\2\ pine basal area for each RCW cluster. This quantity is 
about 2.7 times the minimum recommendation, and is about 96 percent of 
the amount (8,490 ft\2\) the Service has established for foraging 
habitat on Federal lands at the higher standard of RCW recovery-level 
management. As the Applicant's foraging stands become fully stocked by 
the all-aged management objective, a target of 14,596 ft\2\ of basal 
area may be obtained, about 1.7 times the amount recommended in the 
Service's RCW recovery plan.
    Cluster management in the HCP involves measures to identify, mark, 
and map cavity trees, using an integrated Geographic Information 
System. Within each cluster, the Applicant will control hardwood 
encroachment, provide suitable replacement cavity trees, and prohibit 
the cutting of any active or inactive cavity tree. Active cavity trees 
lost due to natural factors such as lightning and wind will be replaced 
using artificial cavity inserts. Also, cavity restrictor plates will be 
installed when cavities are threatened by pileated woodpecker activity. 
The number of breeding pairs and the status of each cavity tree and 
cluster (active vs. inactive) will be determined every 3 years by the 
Applicant's monitoring and survey program.
    The HCP also establishes annual employee training to effectively 
implement all elements of the plan. Such training includes the field 
identification of cavity trees, the provisions of records and 
monitoring, and all other elements of cluster and foraging habitat 
management.
    An accidental harvest of a cavity tree associated with an unknown 
cluster is possible, though the Service believes the HCP minimizes such 
a chance. Even so, the net expected effect of the HCP and ITP is that 
the RCW population will either be sustained or increased. The EA 
considers the environmental consequences of two alternatives; issue the 
requested permit as conditioned by the HCP, or take no action (deny 
permit). The Service finds the greatest conservation benefits accompany 
the HCP and proposed permit. RCW management according to minimum 
private landowner guidelines, accompanying permit denial, would provide 
less conservation benefit. The Service's proposed alternative is to 
issue the requested ITP, based upon the submitted HCP. The principal 
environmental consequence of permit issuance is to sustain or enhance 
the status of the RCW, via implementation and funding the mitigation 
and minimization measures as outlined above.

    Dated: October 23, 1995.
Noreen K. Clough,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 95-26998 Filed 10-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P