[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6794-6796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3583]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Receipt of an
Application Submitted by the Charles Ingram Lumber Company for an
Incidental Take Permit for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in Association With
Management Activities on Their Property in Florence County, South
Carolina
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Charles Ingram Lumber Company (Applicant) has applied to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an incidental take
permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. The proposed permit would authorize the
incidental take of a Federally endangered species, the red-cockaded
woodpecker, Picoides borealis (RCW), known to occur on property owned
by the Applicant in Florence County, South Carolina. The Applicant is
requesting an ITP in order to harvest the timber on their property for
economic reasons. The Applicant's property, known as Hoods Crossing, is
located approximately five miles northwest of Pamplico in Florence
County. The tract consists of 753 acres of which 364 acres is in pine
plantation aged between 1-15 years, 382 acres in mature timber, and
approximately 7 acres in ditches and roads. The proposed permit would
authorize incidental take of a single RCW at Hoods Crossing in exchange
for mitigation elsewhere as described further in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below.
The Service also announces the availability of an environmental
assessment (EA) and habitat conservation plan (HCP) for the incidental
take application. Copies of the EA and/or HCP may be obtained by making
a request to the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). This notice also
advises the public that the Service has made a preliminary
determination that issuing the ITP is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. The Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is
[[Page 6795]]
based on information contained in the EA and HCP. The final
determination will be made no sooner than 30 days from the date of this
notice. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10 of the Act and
NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
DATES: Written comments on the permit application, EA, and HCP should
be sent to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) and should be
received on or before March 17, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application, HCP, and EA may
obtain a copy by writing the Service's Southeast Regional Office,
Atlanta, Georgia. Documents will also be available for public
inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Regional
Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(Attn: Endangered Species Permits), or at the following Field Offices:
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 12559,
Charleston, South Carolina 29422-2559; Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, College of Forest and
Recreational Resources, 261 Lehotsky Hall, Box 341003, Clemson, South
Carolina 29634-1003 (telephone 864/656-2432). Written data or comments
concerning the application, EA, or HCP should be submitted to the
Regional Office. Requests for the documentation must be in writing to
be processed. Comments must be submitted in writing to be processed.
Please reference permit number PRT-822028 in such comments, or in
requests of the documents discussed herein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick G. Gooch, Regional Permit
Coordinator, (see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 404/679-7110; or Ms.
Lori Duncan, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Charleston Field Office, (see
ADDRESSES above), telephone: 803/727-4707 extension 21.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RCW is a territorial, non-migratory
cooperative breeding bird species. RCWs live in social units called
groups which generally consist of a breeding pair, the current year's
offspring, and one or more helpers (normally adult male offspring of
the breeding pair from previous years). Groups maintain year-round
territories near their roost and nest trees. The RCW is unique among
the North American woodpeckers in that it is the only woodpecker that
excavates its roost and nest cavities in living pine trees. Each group
member has its own cavity, although there may be multiple cavities in a
single pine tree. The aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster.
RCWs forage almost exclusively on pine trees and they generally prefer
pines greater than 10 inches diameter at breast height. Foraging
habitat is contiguous with the cluster. The number of acres required to
supply adequate foraging habitat depends on the quantity and quality of
the pine stems available.
The RCW is endemic to the pine forests of the Southeastern United
States and was once widely distributed across 16 States. The species
evolved in a mature fire-maintained ecosystem. The RCW has declined
primarily due to the conversion of mature pine forests to young pine
plantations, agricultural fields, and residential and commercial
developments, and to hardwood encroachment in existing pine forests due
to fire suppression. The species is still widely distributed (presently
occurs in 13 southeastern states), but remaining populations are highly
fragmented and isolated. Presently, the largest known populations occur
on Federally owned lands such as military installations and national
forests.
In South Carolina, there are an estimated 1,000 active RCW clusters
as of 1992; 53 percent are on Federal lands, 7 percent are on State
lands, and 40 percent are on private lands.
There has not been a complete inventory of RCWs in South Carolina
so it is difficult to precisely assess the species' overall status in
the State. However, the known populations on public lands are regularly
monitored and generally considered stable. While several new active RCW
clusters have been discovered on private lands over the past few years,
many previously documented RCW clusters have been lost. It is expected
that the RCW population on private lands in South Carolina will
continue to decline, especially those from small tracts isolated from
other RCW populations.
There is only one known RCW cluster at Hoods Crossing. The cluster
consists of one active and six inactive cavity trees. A single male RCW
is known to occupy the cluster. The nearest known RCW group to Hoods
Crossing is approximately 5 miles away on private land in Williamsburg
County. The nearest known concentration of RCW groups occurs
approximately 40 miles away to the north at Sandhills State Forest in
Chesterfield County and to the south approximately 25 miles near
Hemingway in Williamsburg County.
The Applicant proposes to harvest the timber at Hoods Crossing for
economic reasons. The Hoods Crossing property has very limited suitable
habitat and is relatively isolated from other RCW populations. Without
management, the midstory would continue to encroach and the RCW would
most likely abandon the tract.
The EA considers the environmental consequences of three
alternatives, including the proposed action. The proposed action
alternative is issuance of the incidental take permit and
implementation of the HCP as submitted by the Applicants. The HCP
provides for an off-site mitigation strategy focusing on enhancing four
clusters in designated recruitment stands at Cheraw State Park through
cavity provisioning. Cheraw State Park is located in a designated
recovery population for RCWs. The recruitment sites will be managed and
protected. The Applicant, via their consultant, will attempt to
translocate the adult male RCW from Hoods Crossing to Poinsett Weapons
Range in Sumter County. The HCP provides a funding source for the
above-mentioned mitigation measures.
As stated above, the Service has made a preliminary determination
that the issuance of the ITP is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. This preliminary information may
be revised due to public comment received in response to this notice
and is based on information contained in the EA and HCP. An appropriate
excerpt from the FONSI reflecting the Service's finding on the
application is provided below:
Based on the analysis conducted by the Service, it has been
determined that:
1. Issuance of an ITP would not have significant effects on the
human environment in the project area.
2. The proposed take is incidental to an otherwise lawful
activity.
3. The Applicant has ensured that adequate funding will be
provided to implement the measures proposed in the submitted HCP.
4. Other than impacts to endangered and threatened species as
outlined in the documentation of this decision, the indirect impacts
which may result from issuance of the ITP are addressed by other
regulations and statutes under the jurisdiction of other government
entities. The validity of the Service's ITP is contingent upon the
Applicant's compliance with the terms of the permit and all other
laws and regulations under the control of State, local, and other
Federal governmental entities.
The Service will also evaluate whether the issuance of a Section
10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with Section 7 of the Act by conducting an
intra-Service Section 7 consultation. The results of the biological
opinion, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the
final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP.
[[Page 6796]]
On Thursday, January 16, 1997, the Service published a notice in
the Federal Register announcing the Final Revised Procedures for
implementation of NEPA (NEPA Revisions), (62 FR 2375-2382). The NEPA
revisions update the Service's procedures, originally published in
1984, based on changing trends, laws, and consideration of public
comments. Most importantly, the NEPA revisions reflect new initiatives
and Congressional mandates for the Service, particularly involving new
authorities for land acquisition activities, expansion of grant
programs and other private land activities, and increased Endangered
Species Act permit and recovery activities. The revisions promote
cooperating agency arrangements with other Federal agencies; early
coordination techniques for streamlining the NEPA process with other
Federal agencies, Tribes, the States, and the private sector; and
integrating the NEPA process with other environmental laws and
executive orders. Section 1.4 of the NEPA Revisions identify actions
that may qualify for Categorical Exclusion. Categorical exclusions are
classes of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Categorical exclusions are
not the equivalent of statutory exemptions. If exceptions to
categorical exclusions apply, under 516 DM 2, Appendix 2 of the
Departmental Manual, the departmental categorical exclusions cannot be
used. Among the types of actions available for a Categorical Exclusion
is for a ``low effect'' HCP/incidental take permit application. A ``low
effect'' HCP is defined as an application that, individually or
cumulatively, has a minor or negligible effect on the species covered
in the HCP [Section 1.4(C)(2)].
The Service may consider the Applicant's project and HCP such a
Categorical Exclusion, since the project's habitat currently contains
only a single RCW. The Service is soliciting for public comments on
this determination. The Service is announcing the availability of the
EA since the project's environmental documents were finalized shortly
after the NEPA Revisions were released. However, the Service may make a
final determination that this action is categorically excluded.
Dated: February 6, 1997.
C. Monty Halcomb,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 97-3583 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P