[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3959-3967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1687]



[[Page 3959]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment and 
the Strategy and Guidelines for the Recovery and Management of the Red-
cockaded Woodpecker and Its Habitat on National Wildlife Refuges

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) announces the 
availability of a finalized Strategy and Guidelines for the Recovery of 
the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) and Its Habitat on National Wildlife 
Refuges (Guidelines). Included in the Guidelines are population 
management objectives for 644-654 active clusters of RCWs on 
approximately 141,900 acres of pine and pine hardwood forest on 13 
refuges in the southeastern United States. We will implement actions 
directed at protection of clusters, management of nesting habitat, 
population management, management of foraging habitat, forest 
management (including silvicultural activities), and management of RCWs 
in federally designated Wilderness.
    We also announce the availability of a final environmental 
assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA 
includes an evaluation of the environmental impact of four 
alternatives: (1) implementing the Guidelines as proposed; (2) taking 
no action to comprehensively implement revised recovery guidelines and 
strategies; (3) implementing the Guidelines, intensifying management 
efforts and expanding the area to be managed for RCWs; and (4) 
implementing the Guidelines on a smaller area of refuge land.
    You may obtain copies of the Strategy and Guidelines and the EA by 
making a request in writing to the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). 
This notice also advises the public that we have made a determination 
that issuing the Guidelines 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. We base the FONSI on an evaluation of the 
information contained in the Guidelines and provide this notice 
pursuant to NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

DATES: We plan to implement the strategy and Guidelines effective upon 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to obtain a copy of the Strategy and 
Guidelines, should submit a request in writing to: U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30345. (Attn: Assistant Regional Director, Refuges and 
Wildlife.) You may also obtain copies at the Southeast Regional Office 
(address above) and at the following locations: Office of the Red-
cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Clemson University, Department of Forest Resources, 261 
Lehotsky Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-1003, and Office of the Refuge 
Manager, Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Brooksville, MS 
39739.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ralph Costa, Red-cockaded 
Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator, Clemson Field Office, (see ADDRESSES 
above), telephone: 864/656-2432, or Mr. David Richardson, Biologist, 
Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge (see ADDRESSES above), 601/323-5548.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Service is the lead Federal agency responsible for preserving, 
protecting and enhancing nonmarine endangered species. We listed the 
RCW as an endangered species in 1970. In addition to responsibilities 
under the Endangered Species Act (Act), we administer National Wildlife 
Refuge system lands. There are an estimated 141,900 acres of pine and 
pine-hardwood habitat capable of supporting RCWs on 13 national 
wildlife refuges in the southeast United States.
    The RCW is a territorial, non-migratory cooperative breeding bird 
species. RCWs live in social units called groups or clans 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. 
We call the aggregate of cavity trees a cluster. RCWs forage almost 
exclusively on pine trees, and they generally prefer pines greater than 
10 inches in 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 
occurring in 13 southeastern states), but the remaining populations are 
highly fragmented and isolated. Presently, the largest known 
populations occur on federally owned lands such as military 
installations and national forests.
    The most recent estimate of the status of RCW populations on 
National Wildlife Refuge lands indicates that 237 to 242 active RCW 
clusters are present.
    The EA contains an evaluation of the environmental consequences of 
four alternatives, including the action to be implemented. This 
``action'' alternative would result in implementation of the Guidelines 
as prepared by the Service. The ``no action'' alternative would result 
in a continuance of the current management activities with no revision 
to the guidelines for management actions or recovery on refuge lands 
beyond the actions contained in the 1987 Guidelines and the recovery 
plan for this species. The third alternative is to implement the 
Guidelines and expand their application to include additional habitat 
on Alligator River, Piedmont and Santee National Wildlife Refuges. The 
fourth alternative would result in a 50% reduction in the managed area 
under the revised Guidelines and a reallocation of resources to other 
wildlife management needs.
    As stated above, we have made a determination that the issuance of 
the Guidelines is not a major Federal action significantly affecting 
the quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 
102(2)(C) of NEPA. We provide an excerpt from the FONSI reflecting our 
finding on the application below:
    Based on our analysis, we determined that:
    1. Issuance of the Guidelines would not have significant indirect 
or cumulative adverse effects on the human environment.
    2. Implementation of the Guidelines will contribute substantially 
to the recovery of the RCW by providing for consistent application of 
the most

[[Page 3960]]

appropriate forms of management available on all refuge lands. 
Application of the Guidelines will also assure that we accomplish 
forest management in a manner which will result in accelerated recovery 
of the species.
    3. Population goals contained in the Strategy and Guidelines are 
substantially higher than the current population levels and would 
represent a major positive step towards recovery of the RCW.
    We also have evaluated whether the issuance of the Guidelines 
complies with section 7 of the Act by preparing an intra-Service 
section 7 consultation. The results of the consultation in combination 
with the above findings, and public comment were used in the final 
analysis to make the decision to issue and implement the Guidelines.

Public Comments Received

    The proposal to issue the above Guidelines was announced in the 
Federal Register on March 13, 1998 (63 FR 12498). In addition to 
general notice in the Federal Register, the draft Guidelines were 
distributed widely internally and to Service partners when an 
expression of interest was made. Public comment was open from the date 
of issue until close of business on April 27, 1998.
    We received 36 requests for the Strategy and Guidelines and Draft 
Environmental Assessment and 4 sets of written comments. Respondents 
submitting written comments were: Mr. W. V. McConnel, Land Management 
Planner and Forester; Ms. Margaret S. Copeland, private citizen; Mr. 
Robert Bonnie, Economist, in the Wildlife Program of the Environmental 
Defense Fund; and Dr. Jerome A. Jackson, Professor of Biological 
Sciences, Mississippi State University. Many of the comments were 
editorial in nature, and we incorporated changes into the text. Other 
comments consisted of philosphical statements with no specific 
directions to amend the Guidelines or EA. Listed below are our 
responses to the substantive comments, summarized and grouped by 
subject matter category.
    All letters requesting copies of the Guidelines and EA as well as 
written comments are on file at the Southeast Regional Office of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service and are available for review on request.

A. General Comments

    1. The range of 60-90 million acres for the original extent of the 
longleaf pine forest seems rather imprecise. Don't we have better 
figures? If not, perhaps an explanation?
    Answer: Frost (1993) estimated that prior to European settlement 
the southern pine ecosystem covered 92 million acres. Longleaf pine 
dominate 74 million of these acres and longleaf pine mixed with other 
pines and hardwoods dominate the remaining 18 million acres.
    2. The figures presented on historic timberlands give no indication 
of habitat quality. The extent of old growth is what is important. Of 
the 4 million acres referred to as existing now, how much is old growth 
RCW habitat? See also Jackson 1988.
    Answer: An assessment of this type is beyond the scope of 
guidelines which focus on the management of refuge forest lands as they 
relate to the recovery and management of the RCW. We now consider none 
of the refuge forest old growth and believe an estimated 3-4000 acres 
of virgin long-leaf forest to be left.
    3. P. 26. ``Bluebook'' is not defined. Don't use in-house jargon 
that is meaningless to the reader.
    Answer: We made changes in text to clarify use of the term 
``Bluebook.''

B. Management Methods/Actions

    1. P. 4. First paragraph, last sentence. This sentence needs to be 
stronger and more clearly written. The commenter suggests something 
like the following: ``Efforts to accomplish Actions 1 and 2 should 
begin immediately if not already underway. Specific goals need to be 
set and a sustained action plan established and functioning within two 
years.''
    Answer: We made no changes; the statement in text is accurate.
    2. P. 12. Monumentation. The commenter recommended adding cavity 
start with some scale of the extent of the start to the list: surface = 
<2 inches deep; tunnel = >2 inches deep, but no downward excavation; 
incomplete chamber = not a completed cavity, but capable of offering 
shelter--a bird can turn around in it. Flagging used on cavity trees 
should not be left with ``long tails'' blowing in the wind. The 
commenter further was against red flagging because of its potential as 
a negative behavioral stimulus and feel strongly that numbered tags 
should be unique--i.e., tags that simply say `` 1,'' ``2,'' etc. should 
not be in every cluster. A system should be developed to identify 
individual nest trees by a unique number.
    Answer: Refuge procedures will assure that trees are individually 
identifiable although we have not yet worked out the specific methods. 
We noted other technical comments.
    3. P. 16. Lines 12, 13. The commenter sees no justification for 
using snake nets (SNETs) under any circumstances. They are a lethal and 
very cruel device and simply cannot be justified. A recent suggestion 
to lower the SNETs to near ground level is untenable--there is no 
evidence to suggest that they would not capture birds even at that 
level and there is a much greater chance that they would ensnare and 
cause the slow death of a wide range of species.
    Answer: We made changes in the text and will not authorize use of 
SNETS with the possible exception of research.
    4. P. 23. Banding and marking. Banding should be done only by 
experienced, well-trained personnel. The commenter's recommendation 
would be to have a crew of trained individuals travel from refuge to 
refuge to do the banding--especially of nestlings. Injuries are 
occurring as a result of carelessness and lack of experience by the 
banders. Trainees should not be capturing RCW nestlings, but should be 
getting experience by banding the nestlings of other woodpecker 
species.
    Answer: We already required this under section 10(a)1(A) of 
Endangered Species Act.
    5. P. 25. The mandate to color band all nestlings at all sites each 
year (MIL 4) is not reasonable. There needs to be a good reason to do 
this and there needs to be flexibility. Survival of nestlings is much 
more important than rushing to get all of them banded, or trying to 
band nestlings that already have their eyes open, or having someone who 
is inadequately trained attempt to band them. The commenter emphasized 
here too that ``training'' per se is not enough. The commenter has 
frequently had students who were very bright who simply did not have 
the dexterity and patience to competently band adults, let alone 
nestlings. He feels that whoever is sent for training gets certified--
and that not all of these individuals should really be attempting to 
band nestlings. It is not something that everyone can reasonably do. In 
addition to the mechanics of doing it, the disturbance of checking 
nests in small populations may not be justified. Some of the losses on 
the Daniel Boone NF may have been a result of disturbance as a result 
of too frequent nest checks.
    Answer: We require that all activities, including banding, be 
conducted in a manner that will not result in a detriment to RCW. The 
Guidelines do not authorize any activities that will result in take of 
RCW absent the required permits and review.
    6. P. 34. See discussion in Jackson et al. 1986 relative to 
management of RCWs in wilderness areas.

[[Page 3961]]

    Answer: We reviewed the discussion by Jackson and made no changes 
in text.
    7. P. 35. The commenter doesn't understand why a cooperative 
agreement should be necessary in order for there to be RCWs on 
Tombigbee National Forest; The Mississippi State University, John W. 
Starr Memorial Forest; and the State of Mississippi, Noxubee County 
School Board lands. In the case of the National Forest, that is Federal 
land with a clear obligation towards endangered species. There are 
recent historical records of the species from Tombigbee National 
Forest, and the species most likely disappeared from there as a result 
of inadequate management for the species--a potential violation of the 
ESA. Certainly Tombigbee National Forest has suitable habitat for the 
species and their stated goal should not be a population of zero RCWs--
which is their currently stated management goal! In the case of the 
other two properties, there are also recent historical records of the 
RCW from these properties--birds which disappeared directly as a result 
of management actions taken by those responsible for the properties. 
Such actions were also potentially--almost certainly--in violation of 
the ESA since Federal monies are involved with each property. They are 
also potentially (probably) in violation of state endangered species 
law. The commenter feels FWS should first of all be in the business of 
enforcing the law and protecting the species--not in the business of 
negotiating away habitat and management responsibilities for endangered 
species.
    Answer: The Guidelines presented here apply to the recovery and 
management of the RCW on national wildlife refuge lands. We noted the 
comments, but they are beyond the scope of these Guidelines.
    8. While Bienville National Forest has been designated the 
``recovery'' population in Mississippi, Noxubee NWR's contributions are 
too important to relegate to ``second class.'' RCW research potential 
at Noxubee is vital, too.
    Answer: We made changes in the text.
    9. Why aren't Barge and Georgia Pacific included in the listings?
    Answer: A Memorandum of Agreement is in effect with Georgia 
Pacific. We do not intend to exclude involvement of other private 
landowners by these Guidelines. In fact, we endorse and encourage such 
cooperation.
    10. Does the PVC pipe eliminate the Red-bellied Woodpecker's 
competition for a cavity?
    Answer: We do not believe that use of the pipe eliminates red-
bellied woodpecker use of cavities.
    11. A trained bander could readily travel from refuge to refuge 
(particularly all the smaller refuges) and band birds with less trauma 
to the RCWs and perhaps refuge personnel.
    Answer: We noted the comments.
    12. Some provision needs to be made to get RCWs, injured during 
banding, to trained people for rehabilitation and release. Probably the 
Forest Service needs that same type of help.
    Answer: We noted the comments. Efforts are underway, in cooperation 
with personnel at Fort Bragg, to identify veterinarians in each state 
who could act as rehabilitators.
    13. Cluster Survey/Inspection guidelines do not specifically 
require inspection with the ``peeper'' because a hole does not 
necessarily mean that a cavity is usable. The prime use of the 
``peeper'' is to determine the condition of the cavities. Knowing this 
is essential to providing the number of cavities needed to maximize 
productivity.
    Answer: We do not require cavity inspection with a peeper but 
recommend it as a useful tool to inspect cavities.
    14. Does the Service have standard reporting forms for all RCW 
monitoring, etc.? Could you quickly have statistics that will help in 
decision making once information is readily shared and accessible.
    Answer: We noted the comments, prepared forms, and will issue them 
in the near future.
    15. Goals in the plan should focus on doing the maximum for RCWs 
rather than establishing minimum standards. RCW management at Noxubee 
NWR has demonstrated what intensive management can do in a matter of a 
few years. Why can't we move in that direction across the board 
immediately?
    Answer: It is our intent to do the maximum extent of recovery and 
management for this species given habitat limitations, fund and staff 
resources, etc. In some instances other resource management efforts, 
including recovery of other threatened or endangered species, may limit 
efforts aimed exclusively at the RCW. We strive to take an ecosystem 
approach to management and recovery activities.
    16. It is stated in the Guidelines that ``The NWR System should set 
an example for proper RCW management through an aggressive program 
using all opportunities to enhance RCW populations.'' Firm timetables 
for this plan are needed. A greater than 10% increase (perhaps 20 to 
25%) for the smaller refuges would be a more reasonable goal in 
``setting an example'' with an aggressive program.
    Answer: We noted the comments. Based on recent studies we believe 
that the maximum annual increase in RCW populations is about 10%, 
regardless of population size. We base this on studies of numerous 
populations throughout the species range.
    17. Concern was expressed that the Service may be overlooking 
opportunities to manage for RCWs on several refuges in North Carolina 
and perhaps elsewhere. Pocosin Lakes NWR is listed in the draft NWR 
Guidelines as containing only one active cluster. The Service should 
conduct aerial surveys of Pocosin Lakes, Mattamuskeet, Cedar Island and 
Swanquarter NWRs if it has not already done so to better determine the 
extent of current use of these areas by RCWs.
    Answer: This year we plan Surveys at Alligator River National 
Wildlife Refuge. We acknowledge the need to conduct new surveys and 
will accomplish this as funds become available. Refuges with no known 
population of RCWs are not free from the responsibility to survey 
habitat prior to authorizing activities that may impact woodpecker 
populations. The refuges listed are those with known populations of 
RCWss. Future comprehensive conservation planning efforts should 
identify recovery and management needs for the RCW and other threatened 
or endangered species.
    18. Concerned was expressed that if the Service has neglected 
opportunities in these North Carolina refuges that it may have done the 
same for refuges in other states. Given the land management objectives 
of the National Wildlife Refuges (not to mention the fact that the 
Refuges are managed by the Service itself), the Service should pursue 
all opportunities to bolster recovery efforts on these lands.
    Answer: We agree and efforts are now underway, see answer B.17.
    19. The Service should seek to enter into safe harbor agreements 
with corporate and other private landowners in order to stabilize and 
increase available RCW habitat on lands surrounding refuges. This is 
especially important since several refuges have relatively small 
current and potential RCW populations. By stabilizing and perhaps 
increasing RCW numbers around refuges through safe harbor, this 
approach would in turn strengthen RCW populations on the refuges. Safe 
harbor agreements have been praised by both landowners and 
conservationists and offer a unique opportunity to build bridges with 
landowners surrounding refuges. Under the Service's proposed

[[Page 3962]]

national safe harbor policy, such agreements would not require 
completion of an HCP but could instead be done more easily through 
Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits. The Service could facilitate safe harbor 
agreements by using the expertise of refuge staff to assist landowners 
in baseline surveys and in undertaking proactive RCW management (such 
as artificial cavity construction).
    Answer: As we develop refuge comprehensive management plans, we 
will identify and evaluate these considerations. Safe harbor and other 
Section 10 activities are valuable management tools but are beyond the 
scope of management guidelines for federally owned lands.

C. Management of Understory/Midstory

    1. P. 4, paragraph 2, line 4. The commenter feels it is important 
not to give the impression that all hardwoods need to be eliminated 
from RCW habitat. Hardwoods mixed with pines provide habitat diversity 
that increases the diversity and stability of the bird's arthropod food 
supply and small strands of hardwoods often provide habitat barriers 
that separate adjacent RCW groups--for example, the boundaries among 
cavity clusters near refuge headquarters at Noxubee NWR. Do not destroy 
these natural barriers. Hardwoods need to be controlled, but not 
eliminated. They provide very important functions within the RCW's 
ecosystems. Furthermore, the importance of hardwoods likely varies from 
one geographic region to another--one across-the-range-of-the-species 
management plan for controlling hardwoods is not appropriate. 
Distinctions do need to be made between hardwoods in the proximity of 
cavity trees and hardwoods within foraging habitat, though both need to 
be controlled.
    Answer: The draft text indicates that some hardwoods will remain in 
RCW habitat. We further modified text to reflect retention of hardwood 
component in the understory and midstory.
    2. P. 12. Midstory Control. The statement ``The removal of within-
canopy hardwoods in the immediate vicinity of cavity trees is 
necessary'' is ambiguous and needs to be clarified. The commenter 
disagrees that all such hardwoods must be removed. Removal should be a 
site-specific decision. Pruning might be an appropriate alternative in 
some situations. They also disagree strongly with the removal of all 
hardwood stems within 50 feet of a cavity tree. This says that even 
trees like dogwood would have to be removed. Again, the commenter 
feels, hardwoods play a positive role in RCW ecology too. They agree 
completely with the statement regarding retention of hardwoods to 
protect the cluster from wind damage. Examples of where such damage has 
occurred as a result of overaggressive hardwood removal include the 
Daniel Boone National Forest and D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge.
    Answer: See answer C.2. We clarified the text to indicate that a 
hardwood component should remain.
    3. P. 20. Last paragraph, line 2. The continued reference to Henry 
1989 needs to be given further consideration. Henry's cookbook approach 
to habitat quality has no scientific basis as an ``across the range of 
the species'' management guideline. A 10-inch diameter tree in coastal 
South Carolina is considerably different from a 10-inch diameter tree 
in the Florida flatwoods. There are no data whatsoever that suggest 
they offer equivalent foraging opportunities for the RCW.
    Answer: Comments noted. The ``Henry Guidelines'' are standard 
guidance for Federal properties. Our policy provides for development of 
population specific foraging guidelines based on multiple years of 
monitoring data and analysis of habitat use by groups.
    4. P. 20. ``Midstory-free forested corridors'' absolutely not 
needed. A reduced midstory is needed, but not ``midstory-free.'' This 
cut-it-all mentality not only creates an environment that would not be 
found in a natural ecosystem, it adds greatly to management costs and 
level of disturbance in the forest.
    Answer: Changes made in text to reflect that the midstory will not 
be ``midstory-free.''
    5. The section on Midstory Control should have a sentence 
suggesting that some 12 inch diameter trees be left dead as snags for 
other cavity nesting birds. The recommended removal of hardwoods seems 
too harsh. For example, the Forest Service plan allows dogwood and 
persimmon trees to remain. Hardwood midstory may be used by RCWs for 
foraging and provides protection from predators. Have studies on the 
first flights of RCWs indicated the importance of hardwood midstory for 
protection from predators and for foraging habitat?
    Answer: We acknowledge the valid concern expressed but believe that 
the current text adequately addresses the concern.
    6. Firewood cutting is the ``best'' way to remove midstory without 
damaging the remaining pine trees and the land in the cluster. This 
method should be listed number one and should be used by the smaller 
refuges? The commenter realizes the shear V-blade is faster--but the 
tracks left by the equipment are horrible and the mess left behind is 
really a fire hazard during the prescribed burns.
    Answer: We determine the best method for midstory control on a 
case-by-case basis depending on stand characteristics, need, site 
conditions, administration factors and demand.

D. Forest Regeneration

    1. P. 4. Paragraph 3. The commenter believes really serious 
consideration needs to be given to the extent of regeneration needed to 
``mimic'' natural ecosystem processes. We have not eliminated southern 
pine beetles, thus they still function in the ecosystem--and often 
function in a positive way relative to the birds. We also can control 
fire in the ecosystem. In many cases regeneration is overdone and not 
needed to sustain the ecosystem. Nature provides regeneration and has 
done so without human assistance up until very recently.
    Answer: We agree and considered the factors discussed and addressed 
them in the text.
    2. P. 9. One commenter felt the maximum regeneration patch sizes 
are much too large for a National Wildlife Refuge--our refuges are not, 
and should not be, tree farms and there is no justification or need for 
such large regeneration areas. How about 5 and 10 acres? What 
justification is there for regular ``rotations'' at all--except 
commercial exploitation--which seems inappropriate for National 
Wildlife Refuges?
    Answer: The Guidelines allow for 5 and 10 acre clearings. We 
provide individual refuges flexibility to apply the guidelines in their 
particular area. All regeneration, except off site slash pine, requires 
retention of some seed trees. A forest modified through seed tree and 
Shelterwood regeneration cuts does not necessarily result in non-
woodpecker habitat.
    3. Natural disturbances (in particular lightening strikes and wind 
problems) seem to be prolific in most of the RCW clusters. Regeneration 
by nature seems to be more than enough without the removal of the older 
trees that are vital for RCW survival. Old growth trees are removed in 
the name of ``regeneration.'' Feeding ecology in old growth stands 
should be examined (i.e., time and quality of food offered to 
nestlings) prior to removal of mature trees. Have feeding studies 
(i.e., time and quality of food offered to nestlings) been conducted on

[[Page 3963]]

density, age, and type of habitat within/nearby the cluster? The 
vulnerability to lightening strikes within the cluster is increased 
with the removal of the surrounding large trees just outside the 
cluster.
    Answer: We acknowledge the value of natural regeneration. However, 
due to the even-aged structure of much of the RCW habitat on refuges, 
it is important to maintain balance in stand age to provide for future 
nesting and foraging habitat. Active, planned management will insure 
adequate distribution of habitats in the age classes needed at the time 
needed.

E. Land Acquisition

    1. P. 6. Paragraph 3, last line. This sentence does not follow from 
previous information provided. Why should priority for land acquisition 
be given to just those three refuges? On P. 5, four refuges are listed 
under the first goal--at the very least, St. Marks Refuge should be 
included for priority for land acquisition--or a reason stated as to 
why it shouldn't be included. On the other hand, the commenter suggests 
that D'Arbonne NWR should be a priority for land acquisition in order 
to assure adequate habitat for the species there for the short term. 
How about Santee and Upper Ouachita in that regard as well? These small 
populations can serve very important genetic reservoir functions--as 
well as important PR functions. They should be supported rather than 
written off.
    Answer: St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge is part of an adequate 
land base when coupled with adjacent publicly owned lands. Land 
acquisition at St. Marks is not a critical need at this time with 
regard to RCW recovery. The other populations, while significant, are 
not designated as recovery populations. We will address the need for 
land acquisition to aid in the recovery of the RCW at each refuge, 
based on RCW recovery and other management needs.

F. Population Management/Ecology

    1. P. 7. The commenter disagreed with the population delineation 
approach presented on this page. Citing the Forest Service as saying 
that ``it is so'' doesn't make it so. If you want ``population 
delineation,'' then base it on hard science. There are no consistencies 
here (If you're going to accept the Forest Service's ``18 miles,'' why 
does the Fish and Wildlife Service then use ``20 miles''?), and no 
scientific justification for what is provided. There are two sides to 
the coin here that need to be considered. Here the FWS argues that we 
need delineation of populations to prevent habitat fragmentation--which 
is good. But elsewhere, FWS uses the same figures to argue for not 
protecting ``demographically isolated populations''--which in my 
opinion is bad. Yes, we need to maintain corridors and the integrity of 
habitat, but no, we should not write off populations or move them just 
because they happen to be separated by 3.1 miles of unsuitable habitat 
from other clusters. The figures included in #1 at the bottom of this 
page are not reasonable considering what we know about the movements of 
these birds. In addition, with our abilities to move birds, we can as 
easily maintain these by occasionally moving birds into them as we can 
move the birds to a larger population. Annual evaluation of 
subpopulation delineation could appropriately be used to prevent 
habitat fragmentation--but it should not be used to write off clusters 
and justify moving birds to concentration centers. Unfortunately there 
seems to be a tendency to say the former and do the latter.
    Answer: We changed the standard of 18 miles in the text from 20 and 
use the standard identified in the Guidelines to delineate MILs to 
direct allocation of management and recovery resources. It is not our 
intention to ``write off'' populations.
    2. P. 16. Flying squirrel control. The commenter feels the use of 
the term ``kleptoparasite'' is misleading and a loaded term here. 
Southern flying squirrels are ``secondary cavity users'' and do not 
require an active RCW cavity in which to roost or nest. They often use 
natural cavities. A cavity that is actively being used by another 
species is generally left alone unless other cavities are not 
available. The case against flying squirrels is poorly documented and 
consists primarily of reports of their use of RCW cavities rather than 
documentation of reduced RCW fecundity. The commenter has no doubt that 
occasionally there may be reduced fecundity due to flying squirrels, 
but evidence to date suggests that it is the exception rather than the 
rule. We do not need language that encourages the old ``predator 
elimination'' mentality. Squirrel presence does not ``constitute a 
history of squirrel problems.'' We do need a better understanding of 
the interrelationships between these species.
    Answer: Additional research findings now indicate reduced fecundity 
due to flying squirrels which supports the current text. We believe 
elevating control of cavity competitors on a cluster-by-cluster basis 
when we document impacts on RCW productivity.
    3. P. 20. First paragraph. The commenter didn't understand the 
sentence. What does it mean that the Service requires them to 
``annually establish''? Presumably once recruitment clusters have been 
established they don't need to be reestablished each year--they're 
already there. Perhaps the Service means they should ``reevaluate'' 
recruitment clusters on an annual basis. If so, this has some 
drawbacks. Once established, recruitment clusters should not be subject 
to ``change.'' For example, the commenter can see a stand being labeled 
a recruitment cluster, then at age 60, have it ``delisted'' as one so 
that it can be cut, only to be replaced by a 20-year-old stand. The 
commenter feels the second paragraph helps to clarify this, but thinks 
clarification is needed in the first paragraph.
    Answer: We made changes in the text to clarify this.
    4. P. 22. Translocation of birds for reintroduction to unoccupied 
territories. The word reintroduction'' should be replaced with 
``introduction.''
    Answer: We made changes in the text.
    5. P. 22. Adult birds should not be moved. HCPs are not a valid 
excuse for moving them (see Jackson 1997).
    Answer: We made clarification in the text. We will respond to 
opportunities to move adults from private lands through the Habitat 
Conservation Planning process.
    6. P. 22. Juveniles, mid-paragraph. By definition, there can be no 
such thing as ``intra-population demographic isolation.''
    Answer: We made changes in the text.
    7. The use of ``important'' Service goal and ``second'' goal as 
used in the Population Objectives section do not represent the best 
choice of words? If these ``important'' goals for the four refuges are 
the primary or first goal, then those refuges should be managed at MIL 
4. Carolina Sandhills NWR should not have the option of selecting a MIL 
3 or 4 to assure that the maximum habitat for initial population growth 
is provided.
    Answer: We made changes made in the text. See comment B.8.

G. Harvest Management

    1. P. 10. Paragraph 2.
    2. The commenter felt log landings should not be adjacent to a 
cluster either and to better define this. The traditional 200 foot 
buffer is inadequate to protect a cluster from disturbance such as log 
landings. Doubling that would certainly be better.
    Answer: We are unaware of any factual basis for the recommendation 
and made no changes.

[[Page 3964]]

    3. Even if no other access exists, new roads, temporary or 
otherwise, should not be constructed--or used--through a cluster during 
the nesting season.
    Answer: We revised the text and agree that construction within 
clusters during the nesting season should not occur unless a Section 7 
review and concurrence has been obtained.
    4. No log landings are permitted within or adjacent to clusters. 
Please add: as the damage to tree trunks from bark scuffing in the 
cluster occurs due to carelessness of the loggers. In addition, the 
noise and activity can be detrimental.
    Answer: We noted the comments and believe the Guidelines provide an 
adequate explanation.
    5. Logging activities (outside of breeding season) near clusters 
should be allowed only after the RCWs leave the clusters in the morning 
and should cease prior to the time that RCWs will be returning to the 
cluster (approximately 1 hour before sundown).
    Answer: We noted the comments and believe the Guidelines provide an 
adequate explanation.
    6. If necessary, temporary roads should only be constructed on the 
edges of the cluster not ``through the cluster.'' If skidding is 
allowed, the cavity tree must be absolutely protected from scuff marks 
or debarking.
    Answer: See response G.3.
    7. Language should be inserted to the effect that the cavity tree 
and the area within its drip line should be totally protected from 
harvesting operations.
    Answer: See response G.4.
    8. Timber/pulpwood sales at refuges create a negative public image 
and should be difficult to justify given the foraging/habitat needs of 
RCWs.
    Answer: See response G.4.
    9. The draft NWR Guidelines appear to limit the use of clearcutting 
to areas of <25 acres, except for the Sandhills NWR which could utilize 
patch sizes of 40 acres if its RCW population expands. Clearcutting may 
be appropriate when re-establishing longleaf pine on sites currently 
occupied by off-site pine and/or hardwoods. However, other 
silvicultural options do exist to convert off-site pines to longleaf. 
For example, in many of these stands, the Service could reduce the 
basal area of the pine overstory substantially, and underplant 
containerized longleaf pine. The advantages of this approach are that: 
(1) it is more aesthetically pleasing; (2) it requires less disturbance 
of the ground cover; and (3) a few off-site pines can be left as future 
potential cavity trees.
    Answer: The Guidelines allow, i.e., do not limit, the type of 
management recommended by the commenter.
    10. The draft NWR Guidelines appear to allow clearcutting in 
longleaf pine stands (page 9 and 29), though page 10 of the FONSI 
suggests clearcutting will only be used in converting stands back to 
longleaf pine. The commenter would appreciate clarification of this 
issue. Clearcutting in longleaf is inappropriate on the National 
Wildlife Refuges. Longleaf naturally grows in an uneven-aged manner 
(Platt et al. 1988. The population dynamics of a long-lived conifer 
(Pinus palustris). The American Naturalist 131[4]: pp. 491-525), and, 
as has been demonstrated throughout the South, selective timber 
management in longleaf pine mimics natural stand dynamics and provides 
excellent RCW habitat. While narrow strip cuts or small patch 
regeneration can be used, clearcutting should be specifically 
prohibited in longleaf pine on the refuges. Further, clearcutting in 
longleaf has the potential to fragment RCW foraging habitat leading to 
increased energetic requirements for the bird and increased risk of 
predation.
    Answer: We will not generally use clearcuttting in regeneration of 
existing longleaf stands. Even aged regeneration systems most often 
used (irregular shelterwood and seed tree) require retention of a 
specified number of trees on each acre of forest in perpetuity.
    11. No guidance is provided regarding site preparation, which can 
be far more disruptive to pine ecosystems than clearcutting itself. 
Intensive site preparation can severely damage ground cover in fire-
maintained, southern pine ecosystems. This is an especially important 
consideration in longleaf pine and in stands that once were dominated 
by longleaf but now contain off-site pines. These stands may contain 
wiregrass or other natural vegetation depending upon past stand 
history. Such native vegetation is important to maintenance of the 
natural fire regime in southern pine and, thus, to the maintenance of 
RCW habitat. It also contributes significantly to the overall floral 
diversity of the forests. The Service should, therefore, protect such 
native ground cover. The commenter urges that the draft NWR Guidelines 
be amended to address protection of native ground cover during site 
preparation and/or reforestation.
    Answer: We agree and revised the text to recommend using the least 
disruptive means of site preparation.
    12. (page 25) Beyer et al, 1995 found that pine basal area (BA) had 
a high (R2 = .96) correlation with stem density. Requiring a minimum BA 
in addition to stem density seems to be redundant.
    Answer: Guidelines follow the current recovery plan. We believe it 
would be most appropriate to effect changes through the revision of the 
Recovery Plan now underway.
    13. (page 28) Minimum rotation ages of 100 years for slash and 
loblolly pine, especially for poorer sites, could result in mortality 
and beetle infestation. The May, 1986 Southern Forest Experiment 
Station publication. ``Long-term strategies and research needs for 
managing southern forests to reduce southern pine beetle impacts'' 
suggests rotations of 40 to 50 years. Refuge managers should be 
encouraged to set rotations based on prevailing sites and local 
conditions of beetle occurrence.
    Answer: We noted the comments. Managers have the leeway to adjust 
rotations on a site specific basis, however, rotations of 40-50 years 
are too short. Sites with rotations of 40-50 years do not typically 
support populations of RCWss.

H. Prescribed Burning

    1. P.10. Prescribed Burning: While prescribed burning may sometimes 
be used during the breeding season, it should definitely not be used at 
night in colony areas. Heat and smoke from night fires can force birds 
from their cavities at a time of day when they cannot see to avoid 
predators and such fires have been associated with bird loss/cluster 
abandonment. Burning during the nesting season should be avoided in 
colony areas under MIL 4 or 5 management.
    Answer: RCWs evolved with growing season burns. The Guidelines 
provide adequate information.
    2. P. 26. Prescribed Burning. The second paragraph is a bit 
distorted. The evidence suggests that natural fire would have been 
primarily during the breeding season and rarely during the dormant 
season.
    Answer: We noted the comments. The time of the burn is dependent on 
the habitat objectives to be met.
    3. Are dormant season burns really a contributing factor to the 
decline of RCWs? Would not a more likely cause simply be lack of burns? 
This sentence seems to require active-growing season burns. Why not 
recommend late July or August burns to avoid impacts on nesting species 
like Bachman's Sparrows? This would also avoid impacts on nesting RCWs. 
Even if this ``produces the best understory control'' this is not a 
good option for RCWs.
    Answer: We believe that we adequately addressed the concern in the 
Guidelines.
    4. A notation as to the acceptable intensity of the blaze and 
height of the flames might be needed to protect other trees in the 
cluster besides the cavity

[[Page 3965]]

trees. Often fires are too hot and seem to damage surrounding pines.
    Answer: We noted the comments and the text needed no changes.

I. RCW Ecology

    1. P. 11. A firm specified range of dates defining the extent of 
the breeding season is needed with the possibility of extension if 
needed--such as evidence of late summer or fall breeding. The commenter 
also disagreed with pine beetle control in a cavity cluster area during 
the nesting season. These can be important food resources for the birds 
at this time.
    Answer: We added the July 31st date to the Guidelines. There is no 
justification for a January-February time frame. The currently proposed 
time frames are adequate although we may need some site-specific 
review. We would apply and identify group/cluster specific restrictions 
on a case-by-case basis.
    2. P. 14. Inactive Clusters: While inactive clusters should be 
protected and managed and do have a higher rate of reoccupation, these 
need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. The first question to be 
asked is ``Why did abandonment occur?'' If abandonment was due to 
habitat loss (maybe on neighboring private property) or to demographic 
isolation (real demographic isolation), then management potential and 
intensity might be different than if abandonment was due to mid-story 
encroachment.
    Answer: We agreed and noted the comments.
    3. P. 14. Abandoned Clusters: At Noxubee we have had at least one 
abandoned cluster reactivated after >nine years. In general, the 
commenter concurs with recommendations here.
    Answer: We noted the comments.
    4. P. 14-15. Competition should not be assumed by the presence of 
these other species. These species are natural components of the RCW's 
ecosystem and should be treated as such. Technically competition occurs 
only when one species causes a reduction in the fecundity of the other 
as a result of the two using the same resource.
    Answer: We noted the comments.
    5. P. 25. The cookbook approach presented in Henry (1989) will 
result in differing quality habitats in different geographic locations. 
The commenter feels that just because it's in print doesn't make it so. 
The commenter also feels it is also important to not automatically 
assume that a clan's foraging habitat will be symmetrically centered on 
the cavity cluster. Shape of the foraging range will depend on many 
factors: terrain, forest type and age, neighboring groups, presence of 
various disturbances, etc. In some cases, foraging habitat may include 
a substantial amount of non-pine--for example, one group at Noxubee NWR 
uses cypress extensively.
    Answer: See our response to C.3.

J. Cavity Management

    1. The commenter disagrees with Harlow's definition of an active 
cluster as one with two or more cavity trees--saying they have known 
several colonies with only a single cavity tree with multiple cavities. 
Granted more than one cavity tree is desired--but doesn't want to 
write-off or ignore single active nest trees.
    Answer: We made changes in the text.
    2. P. 20. The number of cavities provided should be the number of 
``acceptable cavities'' provided. Some invariably are unacceptable 
because of gum, etc.--thus more need to be provided to compensate for 
those not useable by the birds.
    Answer: The changes suggested were not needed since we will not 
intentionally prepare unacceptable cavities. If we subsequently deem 
some cavities unacceptable, we will prepare additional cavities.
    3. Pileated woodpeckers seem to ``attack'' RCW cavity entrances 
following logging operations that remove the large trees near RCW 
clusters. Have their cavities been removed? Logging operations should 
consider the cavity trees that other species require to avoid 
enhancement of cavity competition.
    Answer: We made changes in the text and will give priority to 
hardwoods with cavities.
    4. The commenter feels artificial cavities should always be ready 
and available for use by the biologists. Artificial cavities should be 
available at the time cavity trees are removed because of pine beetles. 
There should not be a 24-hour period with no available cavities. If 
cavity trees for other species are also removed, there is the potential 
for real cavity competition. Therefore, extra suitable cavities would 
reduce the likelihood of competition.
    Answer: We believe that the Guidelines provide adequate 
information. Quick installation of cavities may result in installation 
in trees that will later die as a result of beetle infestation.
    5. In the firewood cuts at Noxubee NWR, the cavity trees for other 
species are marked and protected. This really seems to reduce RCW 
cavity competition following the removal of hardwood trees near 
clusters. Leaving cavity trees for other species should be addressed in 
the plan. Perhaps a paragraph needs to be added about cavity 
competition.
    Answer: See response J.2.
    6. Retention of cavity trees is encouraged. Other surrounding tall/
mature trees should also be kept since the retained cavity trees will 
simply be lightening rods or vulnerable to the wind and not survive.
    Answer: See response J.2.
    7. In several places, 4 cavities to a cluster are mentioned. 
Because some cavities are unsuitable/unusable, the commenter firmly 
believes that each cluster should have a minimum of 6 (or 8) usable 
cavities available. Usable cavities (ones without flying squirrels, 
other birds, reptiles, etc.) should always be available; thus, a 
statement that 2-3 more cavities available than the number of RCWs 
present in a cluster would better fit the needs of the birds.
    Answer: We made changes in the Guidelines to include a recommended 
4-8 usable cavities.
    8. When a breeding pair has a helper (3 adults in a cluster), the 
fledging rate is higher. Since many pairs will raise 3 young, a minimum 
of 6 cavities per cluster will insure maximum reproduction success and 
survival. In the smaller refuges this extra hour of time for insertion 
will repay dividends immediately in the survival of more fledglings--
which is your way to increase numbers quickly. In addition, capture for 
translocation is easier when the RCWs roost in inserts rather than 40 
to 60 feet in the air in a natural cavity. Those RCWs that have used 
inserts also more willingly occupy other inserts.
    Answer: See response J.7.

K. Southern Pine Beetle Management

    1. P. 11. Pine Beetle Suppression/Control: The number of artificial 
cavities installed should be greater than the number of cavities lost--
not all artificial cavities are acceptable. Also, cavities unsuitable 
to RCWs that are destroyed may force competition with other species. 
The commenter urges caution and restraint relative to cutting any 
cavity tree--even with beetles. They know of no case of ``control'' of 
southern pine beetle (SPB), etc. that has truly saved RCWs--but know of 
several cases where control activities have devastated RCW habitats. 
The commenter would like to see documentation of control ``successes 
relative to RCWs.''
    Answer: We believe the Guidelines provide adequate information.
    2. P. 27. Pine beetle suppression/control. Where is the evidence 
that any pine beetle suppression/control efforts have ever saved a RCW 
cavity tree

[[Page 3966]]

cluster? There is a lot of evidence to the contrary. Cutting trees will 
definitely destroy RCW habitat. SPB are a natural and important part of 
the ecosystem and should be treated as such on a National Wildlife 
Refuge. Suppression/control efforts seem to be primarily of economic 
importance. Saying ``spots that are active and growing'' is too loose. 
How big is too big? Time of year is important too. A spot in early 
spring should be considered differently than one in late fall. The 
commenter disagrees with the use of pesticides near RCW trees. We now 
have the ability to provide replacement cavity trees as needed.
    Answer: Documentation exists to support statements relative to 
Southern Pine Beetle control as helping RCWs on National Forest lands 
in Texas and on the Kisatchie National Forest in LA.
    3. Are records kept or studies done on the necessity of removing 
cavity trees for pine beetle control? Have entire clusters been lost to 
pine beetle or is this just a fear that perpetuates logging?
    Answer: See response K.2.

L. Forest Management

    1. P. 14. Snag Retention: The sentence beginning on line 5 is 
important, yet is in opposition to the Midstory Control section. If you 
remove all hardwood trees, there will never be dead hardwoods for other 
species to use.
    Answer: Guidelines included a discussion of midstory management 
including live trees. Removal of all midstory trees was not 
recommended. We will, therefore, produce/retain snags.
    2. P. 20. Last two lines. The commenter hopes that we truly mean 
``all relict trees''--but suspects that we meant ``all relict pines.'' 
Clarify.
    Answer: We changed the text to reflect that the reference is to 
relict pines.
    3. P. 20. Last sentence. ``Reduced to at least 20 BA'' is a bizarre 
way to state this. Do you mean no more than 20 BA'' or do you mean ``no 
less than 20 BA''? And how are you defining BA--are you counting only 
trees >2 inches dbh, 4 inches dbh, 10 inches dbh? Different people 
measure BA by different criteria.
    Answer: We made changes to clarify text.
    4. P. 25, bottom. #4. The specifications of stands ``greater than 
30 years of age and preferably >60 years of age'' is too loose. While 
one would assume management would be for the birds, there are those who 
would think 30 years of age is adequate. Management on a National 
Wildlife Refuge should be optimum and not leave room for minimums. As 
far as the preferable habitat for foraging, the commenter would say 
>100 would be preferable to >60 years of age. With uneven age 
management, some older trees could/should be on every acre of foraging 
habitat.
    Answer: The guidelines are consistent with the recovery plan and we 
made no changes.
    5. P. 26. Pine thinnings. Here the term BA is qualified--``60 to 80 
square feet of pine BA greater than 30 years old.'' It has not been 
qualified elsewhere and the reader is left not knowing what was 
intended. This needs to be clarified.
    Answer: We noted the comment and considered no changes in 
Guidelines necessary.
    6. P. 26. The commenter questions the statement that timber 
harvests may still be appropriate when foraging habitat is limiting 
except in extremely dense stands. The other reasons given here could 
easily wait until growth has brought the habitat to the point where 
foraging habitat is not limiting.
    Answer: We noted the comments and considered no changes in 
Guidelines necessary.
    7. P. 28 and following relating to silvicultural methods: See the 
commenters above observations relative to dispersion of older trees. 
The commenter feels even-aged management is inappropriate in that it 
does not provide the habitat mosaic and landscape stability that would 
be provided by uneven-aged management. A scattering of trees across the 
landscape should be allowed to reach their natural potential longevity.
    Answer: We noted the comments and believe the Guidelines will 
achieve this eventually through recommended management See G.10. Even 
aged regeneration systems that are used (irregular shelterwood and seed 
tree) require retention of trees on each acre in perpetuity.
    8. P. 33, Clearing of RCW habitat, line 4. The implication here 
seems to be that clearing of habitat for road construction does not 
affect the future ability of a refuge to support RCWs. The commenter 
strongly disagrees. A road could be anything from a logging road to a 
6-8-lane interstate--and anything approaching the latter could have 
very serious negative consequences for RCWs and their habitat. Such 
consequences could range from loss of acreage of forested area, to the 
function of a road as a barrier, to mortality of birds as a result of 
traffic, to reduction in the potential to use prescribed fire in 
management. The commenter agrees that potential RCW habitat on each 
refuge should not be reduced, but would add further that the reduction 
of any habitat on each refuge has the potential to influence the RCW. 
The commenter would also add that the tendency to ``round'' refuges by 
trading or selling peripheral lands in order to obtain more centralized 
in-holdings should be avoided. A refuge with a nice--perhaps more 
easily manageable compact boundary would likely support fewer RCWs than 
one that is more dispersed. Furthermore, the extension of fingers of 
habitat away from the refuge offers greater potential as dispersal 
corridors for birds to and from nearby forested areas on other lands.
    Answer: We noted the comments and revised the guidelines.
    9. The 40 BA of pine in regeneration areas must be allowed. Because 
Noxubee has the fourth highest current acreage and has the potential of 
working in cooperative agreements with several entities, their RCW 
population should not be relegated to ``short-term'' viability. 
Noxubee's third place in planned acreage also places this refuge higher 
in importance in its contributions to RCW sustainability and recovery.
    Answer: We do not understand the comment. We have not relegated 
Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge to third and have revised the text to 
reflect this.
    10. The commenter cannot understand any plan that removes old trees 
when these are the very trees that RCW's need the most at this critical 
time in their recovery. Minimum rotation age seems to be recommended 
and encouraged. Why is that? Isn't your goal maximum recovery 
potential? Then, encouragement of an even older rotation would allow 
trees to serve their function longer and the food potential would be 
maximized.
    Answer: See response L.7. The Guidelines attempt to direct 
maximization of the number of trees allowed regardless of MIL. Note 
that a minimum of 6 trees/acre will be left at the time of cutting in 
perpetuity.
    11. Also, page 22 of the FONSI states: ``Since most seedling stage, 
yellow pine species are intolerant of fire, uneven-aged silviculture 
would be used only for longleaf pine.'' While most yellow pine species 
are intolerant of fire, uneven-aged management nonetheless can and 
should be used with them. Potlatch's Habitat Conservation Plan 
(approved by the Service), for example, documents and prescribes 
uneven-aged management in loblolly and shortleaf pine forests. Uneven-
aged silviculture in loblolly/shortleaf forests has been well 
demonstrated elsewhere and has been the subject of numerous 
publications (e.g., James B. Baker. 1986). The Crossett farm forestry 
forties after 41 years of selection management. Southern Journal

[[Page 3967]]

of Applied Forestry 10:233-237). In addition, the above referenced 
sentence from the FONSI is not consistent with the draft NWR 
Guidelines, which specifically sanction the use of unevenaged 
management in all southern pine types managed for RCWs (see page 9).
    Answer: We modified the FONSI to incorporate these comments.
    12. (Page 32) The discussion of uneven-aged management does not 
address the problem of integrating fire with regeneration. As 
regeneration is standwide and as all southern pines, except long-leaf, 
are fire intolerant in the seedling and sapling stage, there appears to 
be no practical method of combining the practice of regular prescribed 
burning with all-age management, except in the longleaf type. The 
commenter knows of no research that has studied this problem, nor have 
they seen a proposed solution to the problem. It should also be noted 
that the research basis for the current proposals to use all-age 
management in longleaf pine consists of only 2 tracts, totaling 66 
acres and established in 1977-78 (Farrar and Boyer, ``Managing Longleaf 
Pine under the Selection System--Promises and Problems'' 6th Biennial 
Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Memphis TN, Oct. 1990).
    Using uneven aged management will generally require the combined 
use of fire and alternative methods of competition control.
    Answer: We added additional discussion of this issue to the 
Guidelines.

M. Foraging Habitat

    1. Page 25 of the draft NWR Guidelines defines the foraging habitat 
criteria for the refuges and states that ``foraging habitat must be 
greater than 30 years of age and preferably >60 years of age'' 
(emphasis added). This is not consistent with the RCW Recovery Plan 
which calls for at least 50 acres of foraging habitat per cluster 
greater than 60 years. Due to no fault of the Service, some areas on 
the National Wildlife Refuges may not have enough >60 year old habitat 
to meet the Recovery Plan's standards. However, the language in the 
draft NWR Guidelines should clearly state that at least 50 acres of >60 
year old habitat per cluster will be preserved whenever possible. 
Moreover, if a sufficient amount of >60 year old habitat is not 
available in a given refuge but can be produced, the refuge should 
immediately adjust harvest schedules to produce the requisite foraging 
habitat (the only possible exceptions are when dealing with southern 
pine beetle attacks or when undertaking management designed to achieve 
other ecological objectives).
    Answer: We made changes in the text.
    2. (page 25) The requirement of 6,350 stems >10''DBH within \1/2\ 
mile of the cluster is based on a single unpublished study by Hooper 
and Lennartz. The commenter knows of no peer-reviewed and published 
study which supports this figure. Recent peer-reviewed research raises 
serious doubts as to the validity of this study and suggests that this 
number may be in excess of the density ``optimum'' to clan vigor, 
(James et al. 1997, Beyer et al. 1996, Hooper and Lennartz 1995, 
DeLotelle and Epting 1992, Wood et al. 1985). See also attached 
reformulation and re-analysis of the Hooper and Lennartz (1985) data 
which indicates a critical equivalent stem density of 2500--3500 stems 
rather than 6350.
    Answer: We wrote the Guidelines to be consistent with the recovery 
plan. See also response I.5.

Authority

    The authorities for this action are the Endangered Species Act (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4321-4347) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 
1997 (Pub.L. 105-57 to be codified at 16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).

    Dated: January 11, 1999.
Sam D. Hamilton,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 99-1687 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P