[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