[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26322-26323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12456]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Availability of an Application Submitted by Friendfield 
Plantation for an Incidental Take Permit for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers 
in Association With the Sale of the White Oak Bay Tract in Georgetown 
County, South Carolina

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Friendfield Plantation (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 ITP 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 
Georgetown County, South Carolina. The Applicant is requesting an ITP 
associated with the sale of the White Oak Bay tract. The White Oak Bay 
Tract consists of 792 acres and the extant RCW population currently 
consists of one group. The proposed ITP would authorize incidental take 
of one group of RCWs at the White Oak Bay Tract; the expectation of the 
Applicant is to sell or otherwise develop the parcel for economic 
reasons incompatible to RCW conservation on-site. The proposed ITP 
would authorize incidental take in exchange for mitigation elsewhere as 
described further in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section below. The 
mitigation and minimization strategy in the HCP involves creating two 
new recruitment clusters on Friendfield Plantation tract, and 
relocating the one RCW group from the White Oak Bay Tract to 
Friendfield Plantation. The Friendfield Plantation tract is also owned 
by the Applicant. (See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section below.) By 
consolidating the two populations in two separate tracts onto one 
tract, the Applicant will increase the stability of the extant 
population.
    The Service also announces the availability of the Applicant's 
habitat conservation plan (HCP) for the incidental take application. 
Copies of the HCP may be obtained by making a request to the Regional 
Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests must be in writing to be processed. 
The Service specifically requests comment on the appropriateness of the 
``No Surprises'' assurances should the Service determine that an ITP 
will be granted and based upon the submitted HCP. Although not 
explicitly stated in the HCP, the Service has, since August 1994, 
announced its intention to honor a ``No Surprises'' Policy for 
applicants seeking ITPs. Copies of the Service's ``No Surprises'' 
Policy may be obtained by making a written request to the Regional 
Office (see ADDRESSES). The Service has considered this a Categorical 
Exclusion on the action under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). The Service is soliciting public 
comments and review the

[[Page 26323]]

applicability of the ``No Surprises'' Policy to this application and 
HCP.

DATES: Written comments on the permit application and HCP should be 
sent to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) and should be 
received on or before June 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application and HCP 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 (telephone 803/727-4707); 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 or HCP should be submitted to the 
Regional Office. Comments must be submitted in writing to be processed. 
Please reference permit under PRT-827374 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 White Oak Bay. The cluster 
consists of two active cavity trees. Two RCWs are known to occupy the 
cluster. The nearest known concentration of RCW groups occurs on the 
Francis Marion National Forest, approximately 20 miles away from the 
White Oak Bay tract. The Applicant proposes to sell the White Oak Bay 
property, unencumbered by RCWs as soon as possible. The White Oak Bay 
tract has serious midstory problems 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 HCP provides for an off-site mitigation strategy focusing on 
creating two clusters in designated recruitment sites at Friendfield 
Plantation through cavity provisioning. The Friendfield Plantation 
clusters (including the recruitment sites) and the Williamsburg County 
clusters (also owned by the Applicant) will be managed and protected 
for the RCW. The Applicant, via their consultant, will attempt to 
translocate the RCWs from White Oak Bay to the main Plantation. The HCP 
provides a funding source for the above-mentioned mitigation and 
minimization measures.
    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/ITP. 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 considers the Applicant's project and HCP a Categorical 
Exclusion, since the impacts of issuing the ITP involve only a single 
RCW group. The Service is soliciting for public comments on this 
determination.

    Dated: May 6, 1997.
Sam D. Hamilton,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 97-12456 Filed 5-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P