[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 196 (Thursday, October 8, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63474-63499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21510]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0018; FXES11130900000-190-FF09320000]
RIN 1018-BE09


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 
of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker From Endangered to Threatened With a 
Section 4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
reclassify the red-cockaded woodpecker (Dryobates (= Picoides) 
borealis) as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) 
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. If we finalize 
this rule as proposed, it would reclassify the red-cockaded woodpecker 
from endangered to threatened on the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife (List). This proposal is based on a thorough review of the 
best available scientific and commercial data, which indicate that the 
species' status has improved such that it is not currently in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We are 
also proposing a rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act 
that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of the red-cockaded woodpecker. In addition, we 
correct the

[[Page 63475]]

List to reflect that Picoides is not the current scientifically 
accepted generic name for this species. We seek information, data, and 
comments from the public regarding this proposal.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
December 7, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0018, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the 
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by 
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0018, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and 
supporting documents (including the species status assessment report 
and references cited) are available at http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0018 and at the Southeast Regional Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Valenta, Chief, Division of 
Restoration and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast 
Regional Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345; telephone 
404-679-4144. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant 
reclassification from endangered to threatened if it no longer meets 
the definition of an endangered species. The red-cockaded woodpecker is 
listed as endangered, and we are proposing to reclassify it as 
threatened because we have determined it is no longer in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
However, we have determined that the species meets the definition of a 
threatened species, in that it is in danger of extinction in the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We may only list, 
reclassify, or delist a species by issuing a rule to do so; therefore, 
for the red-cockaded woodpecker, we must first publish a proposed rule 
in the Federal Register to reclassify the species and request public 
comments on the proposal. Furthermore, take prohibitions of section 9 
of the Act can only be applied to threatened species by issuing a 
section 4(d) rule. Finally, we are changing the scientific name of the 
red-cockaded woodpecker in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife from Picoides borealis to Dryobates borealis, and such action 
can only be taken by issuing a rule.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or a 
combination of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. The factors for downlisting a 
species (changing its status from endangered to threatened) are the 
same as for listing it. We have determined that the red-cockaded 
woodpecker is no longer at risk of extinction and, therefore, does not 
meet the definition of endangered, but it is still affected by the 
following current and ongoing stressors to the extent that the species 
meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act:
     Lack of suitable roosting, nesting, and foraging habitat 
due to legacy effects from historical logging, incompatible forest 
management, and conversion of forests to urban and agricultural uses 
(Factor A).
     Fragmentation of habitat, with resulting effects on 
genetic variation, dispersal, and connectivity to support demographic 
populations (Factor A).
     Stochastic events such as hurricanes, ice storms, and 
wildfires, exacerbated by the environmental effects of climate change 
(Factor E).
     Small populations (Factor E).
    We are also proposing a section 4(d) rule. When a species is listed 
as threatened, section 4(d) of the Act allows for the issuance of 
regulations that are necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the species. Accordingly, we are proposing a 4(d) rule 
for the red-cockaded woodpecker that would, among other things, 
prohibit incidental take associated with actions that would result in 
the further loss or degradation of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, 
including impacts to cavity trees, actions that would harass red-
cockaded woodpeckers during breeding season, and use of insecticides 
near clusters. The section 4(d) rule would also prohibit incidental 
take associated with the installation of artificial cavities and 
inspections of cavity contents, unless covered under a section 
10(a)(1)(A) permit. The section 4(d) rule would also, among other 
things, except from prohibitions incidental take associated with 
conservation or habitat restoration activities carried out in 
accordance with a Service- or State-approved management plan providing 
for red-cockaded woodpecker conservation, incidental take associated 
with red-cockaded woodpecker management and military training 
activities on Department of Defense installations with a Service-
approved integrated natural resources management plan, certain actions 
that would harm or harass red-cockaded woodpeckers during breeding 
season associated with existing infrastructure that are not increases 
in the existing activities, and activities authorized by a permit under 
Sec.  17.32.
    Peer Review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review 
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and 
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of 
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert 
opinions of six appropriate specialists regarding the species status 
assessment (SSA) report that informed this proposed rule. The purpose 
of peer review is to ensure that our reclassification determination is 
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer 
reviewers have expertise in: (1) The life history and population 
dynamics of the red-cockaded woodpecker; (2) fire ecology and forest 
habitat conditions; and (3) conservation management.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and

[[Page 63476]]

commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as 
possible. Therefore, we request comments and information from other 
concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this 
proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments on:
    (1) Information concerning the biology and ecology of the red-
cockaded woodpecker.
    (2) Relevant data concerning any stressors (or lack thereof) to the 
red-cockaded woodpecker, particularly the effects of habitat loss, 
small populations, habitat fragmentation, and hurricanes and other 
severe natural events.
    (3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
the red-cockaded woodpecker that may negatively impact or benefit the 
species.
    (4) Reasons why we should or should not reclassify the red-cockaded 
woodpecker from an endangered species to a threatened species under the 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    (5) Information about current or proposed land management plans and 
conservation plans for the red-cockaded woodpecker, and whether they 
may negatively impact or benefit the species, including the likelihood 
of such plans and their associated management activities persisting 
into the future.
    (6) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable for 
the conservation and management of the red-cockaded woodpecker and that 
the Service can consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species, 
including whether the measures outlined in the proposed 4(d) rule are 
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the red-cockaded 
woodpecker. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (a) The extent to which we should include any of the section 9 
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule, including whether there are additional 
activities or management actions that should be prohibited or excepted 
from the prohibitions for incidental take of the red-cockaded 
woodpecker;
    (b) Whether it is appropriate to prohibit use of insecticides and 
herbicides on standing pine trees within 0.50 mile from the center of 
an active cavity tree cluster, including whether the spatial area 
covered by this prohibition is appropriate;
    (c) Whether it is appropriate to prohibit operations conducted near 
active cavity trees that render cavity trees unusable to red-cockaded 
woodpeckers, and what types of operations and actions should be 
included in this prohibition;
    (d) Whether any other forms of take should be excepted from the 
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule, including activities that should be 
excepted from the prohibitions for incidental take of the red-cockaded 
woodpecker once a property is being managed in accordance with a 
Service- or State-approved management plan, and what factors should be 
included in a Service- or State-approved management plan;
    (e) What additional conditions, if any, should be placed upon 
State-approved management plans such that they provide adequate 
protection to red-cockaded woodpeckers, for example, the type and 
extent of monitoring and reporting to the Service;
    (f) Whether an exception should be made for habitat regeneration 
activities without a Service- or State-approved management plan, and 
what limiting conditions should be placed on such activities;
    (g) Whether it is appropriate to except from the prohibitions red-
cockaded woodpecker management and military training activities on 
Department of Defense installations with a Service-approved integrated 
natural resources management plan;
    (h) Whether the installation of artificial cavities should be 
excepted from the prohibitions for incidental take of red-cockaded 
woodpecker for individuals who have completed training and have 
achieved a certain level of proficiency, and what that training and 
proficiency should be; and,
    (i) Whether there are additional provisions the Service may wish to 
consider for the 4(d) rule in order to conserve, recover, and manage 
the red-cockaded woodpecker. Please include sufficient information 
(such as scientific journal articles, or other credible publications) 
to allow the Service to verify any scientific or commercial information 
you include.
    (7) Whether the red-cockaded woodpecker warrants delisting.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the listing action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via hard copy that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register at least 15 days before the hearing.

Previous Federal Actions

    The red-cockaded woodpecker was listed as endangered on October 13, 
1970 (35 FR 16047) under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 
1969, and received Federal protection with the passage of the 
Endangered Species Act in 1973. The most recent revision to the red-
cockaded woodpecker recovery plan was released on January 27, 2003 
(USFWS 2003, entire; see 68 FR 13710, March 20, 2003). The latest 5-
year review was completed on October 5, 2006 (USFWS 2006 entire); that 
5-year review did not recommend changing the classification of the red-
cockaded woodpecker. However, since the 5-year review, we have acquired 
new information and conducted a thorough analysis, documented in an SSA 
report (USFWS 2020, entire). We also initiated another 5-year review 
for the species on August 6, 2018 (83 FR 38320); because we have 
determined the species now meets the definition of a threatened species 
under the Act, this proposed rule will equate to our 5-year review.

[[Page 63477]]

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and 
overall viability of the red-cockaded woodpecker is presented in the 
SSA report (USFWS 2020, entire; available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2019-0018). Below is a summary of the information presented in the 
SSA report. For further details, please refer to the SSA report.

Species Description and Needs

    The red-cockaded woodpecker is a territorial, non-migratory bird 
species that makes its home in mature pine forests in the southeastern 
United States. Once a common bird distributed contiguously across the 
southeastern United States, the red-cockaded woodpecker's rangewide 
estimates made around the time of listing in 1970 indicated a decline 
to fewer than 10,000 individuals (approximately 1,500 to 3,500 active 
clusters; an aggregate of cavity trees used by a group of woodpeckers 
for nesting and roosting) in widely scattered, isolated, and declining 
populations (Jackson 1971, pp. 12-20; Jackson 1978, entire; USFWS 1985, 
p. 22; Ligon et al. 1986, pp. 849-850).
    Due to changes in how red-cockaded woodpecker populations have been 
defined and surveyed over the years and with more comprehensive surveys 
over time, it is difficult to make accurate comparisons today with the 
species' status when it was listed. The species continued to decline 
even after listing until the early-1990s. However, by 1995, the red-
cockaded woodpecker population had increased to about 4,694 active 
clusters or active territories rangewide (Costa and Walker 1995, p. 
86). Today, the Service's conservative estimate is about 7,800 active 
clusters rangewide (USFWS 2020, pp. 14, 106-108), between 2 and 5 times 
the number of clusters at the time of listing.
    Red-cockaded woodpeckers were once common throughout open, fire-
maintained pine ecosystems, particularly longleaf pine that covered 
approximately 92 million acres before European settlement (Frost 1993, 
p. 20). The birds inhabited the open pine forests of the Southeast from 
New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia to Florida, and west to Texas and 
north to portions of Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky 
(Jackson 1971, entire). Original pine forests were old and open, and 
contained a structure dominated by two layers, a canopy and diverse 
herbaceous ground cover, maintained by frequent low-intensity fire 
(Brockway et al. 2006, pp. 96-98). Both the longleaf pine and other 
open pine ecosystems were eliminated from much of their original range 
because of early (1700s) European settlement, widespread commercial 
timber harvesting, and the naval stores/turpentine industry (1800s). 
Early to mid-1900 commercial tree farming, urbanization, and 
agriculture contributed to further declines. Much of the remaining 
habitat is very different from the vast, historical pine forests in 
which the red-cockaded woodpecker evolved. The second growth longleaf 
pine forests of today, rather than being dominated by centuries-old 
trees as the original forests were, are just reaching that age (90-100 
years) required to meet all the needs of the red-cockaded woodpecker. 
Furthermore, in many cases, the absence of fire has caused the original 
open savannahs to degrade into dense pine/hardwood forest. Much of 
today's forest is young and dense, and dominated by loblolly pine, with 
a substantial hardwood component and little or no herbaceous 
groundcover (Noel et al. 1998, entire; Frost 2006, pp. 37-38).
    Nesting and roosting habitat of red-cockaded woodpeckers varies 
across the species' range. The largest populations tend to occur in the 
longleaf pine woodlands and savannahs of the East Gulf Coastal Plain, 
South Atlantic Coastal Plain, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, and Carolina 
Sandhills (Carter 1971, p. 98; Hooper et al. 1982, entire; James 1995, 
entire; Engstrom et al. 1996, p. 334). The shortleaf/loblolly forests 
of the Piedmont, Cumberlands, and Ouachita Mountain regions (Mengel 
1965, pp. 306-308; Sutton 1967, pp. 319-321; Hopkins and Lynn 1971, p. 
146; Steirly 1973, p. 80) are another important habitat type. Red-
cockaded woodpeckers also occupy a variety of additional pine habitat 
types at the edges of their range, including slash (Pinus elliottii), 
pond (P. serotina), pitch (P. rigida), and Virginia pines (P. 
virginiana) (Steirly 1957, entire; Lowery 1974, p. 415; Mengel 1965, 
pp. 206-308; Sutton 1967, pp. 319-321; Jackson 1971, pp. 12-20; Murphy 
1982, entire). Where multiple pine species exist, red-cockaded 
woodpeckers appear to prefer longleaf pine (Lowery 1974, p. 415; 
Hopkins and Lynn 1971, p. 146; Jackson 1971, p. 15; Bowman and Huh 
1995, pp. 415-416).
    The red-cockaded woodpecker is a relatively small woodpecker. 
Adults measure 20 to 23 centimeters (8 to 9 inches) and weigh roughly 
40 to 55 grams (1.5 to 1.75 ounces) (Jackson 1994, p. 3; Conner et al. 
2001, pp. 53-54). Both male and female adult red-cockaded woodpeckers 
are black and white with a ladder back and large white cheek patches. 
These cheek patches distinguish red-cockaded woodpeckers from all other 
woodpeckers in their range. The red ``cockade'' of the species' common 
name is actually a tiny red streak on the upper cheek of males that is 
very difficult to see in the field.
    Red-cockaded woodpeckers were first described as Picus borealis 
(Vieillot 1807, p. 66). The species' English common name is a reference 
to the several red feathers on the cheek of males, which are briefly 
displayed when the male is excited (Wilson 1810, p. 103). The original 
rule identifying the red-cockaded woodpecker as an endangered species 
(35 FR 16047; October 13, 1970) listed its scientific name as 
Dendrocopus borealis, based on the American Ornithological Union (AOU) 
1946 22nd supplement to the 4th AOU checklist edition (AOU 1947, p. 
449). The AOU 6th edition (AOU 1982, p. 10CC) classified the species as 
Picoides borealis, the scientific name under which the red-cockaded 
woodpecker is currently identified in the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife (List). The AOU has since merged with the 
Cooper Ornithological Society and is now known as the American 
Ornithological Society (AOS). In the recent 59th supplement to the AOS' 
checklist of North American birds, the AOS Committee on Classification 
and Nomenclature (Committee) changed the classification of Picoides 
borealis to Dryobates borealis (Chesser et al. 2018, pp. 798-800). In 
doing so, the Committee considered, among other data, results of 
phylogenetic analyses with nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (Weibel and 
Moore 2002a, entire; Weibel and Moore 2002b, entire; Winkler et al. 
2014, entire; Fuchs and Pons 2015, entire; Shakya et al. 2017, entire) 
indicating that the genus Picoides was not monophyletic (descended from 
a common evolutionary ancestor or ancestral group). As a result, the 
genus Picoides was retained for the American three-toed woodpecker (P. 
dorsalis) and the black-backed woodpecker (P. arcticus), but all other 
North American woodpeckers formerly in Picoides were transferred to 
Dryobates. We accept the change of the red-cockaded woodpecker's 
classification from Picoides borealis to Dryobates borealis, and in 
this rulemaking, we amend the scientific name to match the currently 
accepted AOS nomenclature.
    Red-cockaded woodpeckers live in groups that share, and jointly 
defend,

[[Page 63478]]

territories throughout the year. Group living is a characteristic of 
their cooperative breeding system. In cooperative breeding systems, 
some mature adults forego reproduction and instead assist in raising 
the offspring of the group's breeding male and female (Emlen 1991, 
entire). In red-cockaded woodpecker groups, these helpers are typically 
male, and participate in incubation, feeding, and brooding of nestlings 
and in feeding of fledglings, as well as territory defense, nest 
defense, and cavity excavation (Lennartz et al. 1987, entire). A 
potential breeding group may consist of zero to as many as five 
helpers, but most potential breeding groups consist of only a breeding 
pair plus one to two helpers. A red-cockaded woodpecker group occupying 
and defending its territory usually consists of a potential breeding 
group. A red-cockaded woodpecker group in about 10 percent of cases 
consists of single-male that defends its territory while awaiting an 
adult breeding female. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are highly monogamous 
(Haig et al. 1994b, entire). Group living, however, strongly affects 
population dynamics. While not actively breeding themselves, helpers 
provide a pool of replacement breeders and thereby act as a buffer 
between mortality and productivity. In other words, the number of 
groups within a red-cockaded woodpecker population is not strongly 
affected by either productivity or mortality in the previous year. 
Instead, the number of helpers is affected by these variables, while 
the number of potential breeding groups remain constant.
    Young birds either disperse in their first year or remain on the 
natal territory and become a helper. First-year dispersal is the 
dominant strategy for females, but both strategies are common among 
males (Walters et al. 1988, pp. 287-301; Walters and Garcia 2016, pp. 
69-72). Male helpers may become breeders by inheriting breeding status 
on their natal territory or by dispersing to fill a breeding vacancy at 
another territory (Walters et al. 1992, p. 625). When helpers move, it 
is usually to an adjacent or nearby territory; they rarely disperse 
across more than two territories (Kesler et al. 2010, entire). Female 
helpers almost never inherit the breeding position on their natal 
territory, instead relying on dispersal to neighboring territories to 
become breeders. Although some young birds disperse long distances 
(more than 100 kilometers (km) in a few cases; Conner et al. 1997c, 
entire; Ferral et al. 1997, entire; Costa and DeLotelle 2006, pp. 79-
83), typical dispersal distance of juvenile females is only two 
territories from the natal site, with 90 percent dispersing one to four 
territories from the natal site (Daniels 1997, pp. 59-61; Daniels and 
Walters 2000a, pp. 486-487; Kesler et al. 2010, entire). Juvenile males 
are even more sedentary; about 70 percent of males remain on their 
natal territory or an immediately adjacent territory at age one, mostly 
as helpers with a few as breeders (Walters 1991, pp. 508-510; Daniels 
1997, p. 66; Kesler et al. 2010, pp. 1339-1340; Conner et al. 2001 p. 
143).
    Red-cockaded woodpeckers are unique among North American 
woodpeckers in that they nest and roost in cavities they excavate in 
living pines (Steirly 1957, p. 282; Jackson 1977, entire). Cavities are 
an essential resource for red-cockaded woodpeckers throughout the year, 
because the birds use them for roosting year-round, as well as nesting 
seasonally. Each individual in a group has its own roost cavity, and 
the group usually nests in the breeding male's cavity. The aggregation 
of active and inactive cavity trees within the area defended by a 
single group is termed the cavity tree cluster (Conner et al. 2001, p. 
106). This aggregation of cavity trees is dynamic, changing in shape as 
new cavity trees are added through excavation and existing cavity trees 
are lost to death or a neighboring group. Excavation of cavities in 
live pines is an extremely difficult task, making a cluster of cavity 
trees an extremely valuable resource. Expansion into new territories, 
therefore, happens more frequently through ``budding,'' or the 
splitting of an existing territory with cavity trees into two, rather 
than ``pioneering,'' or the construction of a new cavity tree cluster.
    The development of techniques to construct artificial cavities 
(Copeyon 1990, entire; Allen 1991, entire) offset the lack of natural 
cavities and provided managers a new tool to greatly increase cavity 
availability, especially after storms. Red-cockaded woodpeckers readily 
adopt these artificial cavities. Thousands of artificial cavities have 
been installed since the early 1990s, and most populations are 
currently dependent on the installation and maintenance of artificial 
cavities for their viability.
    Red-cockaded woodpeckers require open pine woodlands and savannahs 
with large, old pines for nesting and roosting. Old pines are required 
as cavity trees because cavity chambers must be completely within the 
heartwood to prevent pine resin in the sapwood from entering the 
chamber (Conner et al. 2001, pp. 79-155); a tree must be old and large 
enough to have sufficient heartwood to contain a cavity. In addition, 
old pines have a higher incidence of the heartwood decay that greatly 
facilitates cavity excavation. Cavity trees must be in open stands with 
little or no hardwood midstory and few or no overstory hardwoods. 
Hardwood encroachment on cavity trees resulting from fire suppression 
is a well-known cause of cluster abandonment.
    Fire suppression also affects foraging. Over 75 percent of the red-
cockaded woodpecker's diet consists of arthropods. Individuals 
generally capture arthropods on and under the outer bark of live pines 
and in dead branches of live pines. A large proportion of the 
arthropods on pine trees crawl up into the trees from the ground, which 
implies the condition of the ground cover is an important factor 
influencing abundance of prey for red-cockaded woodpecker (Hanula and 
Franzreb 1998, entire). The density of pines has a negative 
relationship with arthropod abundance and biomass, likely due at least 
in part to the negative effect of pine density on ground cover, from 
which some of the prey comes (Hanula et al. 2000, entire). Arthropod 
abundance and biomass also increase with the age and size of pines 
(Hooper 1996, entire; Hanula et al. 2000, entire), which is another 
reason older pines are so critical to this species. Accordingly, 
suitable foraging habitat generally consists of mature pines with an 
open canopy, low densities of small pines, a sparse hardwood or pine 
midstory, few or no overstory hardwoods, and abundant native bunchgrass 
and forb groundcovers. Frequent fire likely increases foraging habitat 
quality by reducing hardwoods and by increasing the abundance and 
perhaps nutrient value of prey (James et al. 1997, entire; Hanula et 
al. 2000, entire; Provencher et al. 2002, entire). Thus, frequent 
growing season fire may be critical in providing red-cockaded 
woodpeckers with abundant prey.
    Home ranges of red-cockaded woodpeckers vary from 40.5 to 161.9 
hectares (ha) (100 to 400 acres (ac)) per group, depending on the 
quality of foraging habitat. Red-cockaded woodpecker groups in high-
quality habitat, particularly old growth or restored, fire-maintained 
habitat, exhibit much smaller home range and territory sizes than 
groups in fire-suppressed habitat (Nesbitt et al. 1983, entire; 
Engstrom and Sanders 1997, entire). The fitness of red-cockaded 
woodpecker groups also increases where foraging areas are burned 
regularly, resulting in sparse hardwood midstory and an abundant grass 
and forb groundcover.

[[Page 63479]]

Given the historical loss of significant portions of its native 
habitat, and generations of fire suppression degrading remaining old 
growth and new second-growth habitat, aggressive management of habitat 
through prescribed burning and other vegetation manipulation is key to 
the conservation strategy of red-cockaded woodpeckers. In addition, the 
small amount of old growth habitat that remains still has potential to 
attract woodpeckers if prescribed burning and other tools are deployed 
to reduce the midstory; therefore, these habitats should also be 
aggressively managed.
    Currently, red-cockaded woodpeckers are distributed largely as 
discrete populations, with large gaps of unoccupied land between. An 
improvement from the species' status at the time of listing, these 
gains are due to intensive management implemented beginning in the 
1990s. Except in rare instances, these populations remain dependent on 
conservation actions, such as prescribed fire, forest management with 
compatible silviculture, placement and maintenance of artificial 
cavities within existing clusters, creation of new recruitment clusters 
using artificial cavities and translocation, and monitoring of 
population and habitat conditions.

Summary of Stressors and Conservation Measures Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the Act directs us to determine whether any 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any 
of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. The factors for downlisting a 
species (changing its status from endangered to threatened) are the 
same as for listing it.
    In the SSA report, we review the factors (i.e., threats, stressors) 
that could be affecting the red-cockaded woodpecker now or in the 
future. However, in this proposed rule, we will focus our discussion on 
those factors that could meaningfully impact the status of the species. 
Below is a summary of those factors. The results of the SSA report are 
discussed later in this proposed rule. For further information, see the 
SSA report (USFWS 2020, entire).
    The primary risk factor (i.e., stressor) affecting the status of 
the red-cockaded woodpecker remains the lack of suitable habitat 
(Factor A). Wildfire, pine beetles, ice storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, 
and other naturally occurring disturbances that destroy pines used for 
cavities and foraging are stressors for the red-cockaded woodpecker 
(Factor E), especially given the high number of very small woodpecker 
populations (Factor E) (USFWS 2020, pp. 38-39, 81-83, 103, 119-127). 
Increases in number and severity of major hurricanes (Bender et al. 
2010, entire; Knutson et al. 2010, entire; Walsh et al. 2014, pp. 41-
42), is expected to increase in response to global climate change, and 
this could also disproportionately affect the smaller, less resilient 
woodpecker populations (Factor E). With rare exception, the vast 
majority of red-cockaded woodpecker populations remain dependent on 
artificial cavities due to the absence of sufficient old pines for 
natural cavity excavation and habitat treatments to establish and 
maintain the open, pine-savannah conditions favored by the species 
(Factor E). These populations will decline without active and 
continuous management to provide artificial cavities and to sustain and 
restore forest conditions to provide suitable habitat for natural 
cavities and foraging similar to the historical conditions (Conner et 
al. 2001, pp 220-239, 270-299; Rudolph et al. 2004, entire).

Habitat Loss and Degradation

    The primary remaining threats to the red-cockaded woodpecker's 
viability have the same fundamental cause: Lack of suitable habitat. 
Historically, the significant impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker 
habitat occurred as a result of clearcutting, incompatible forest 
management, and conversion to urban and agricultural lands uses. These 
impacts have been significantly curtailed and replaced by beneficial 
conservation management that sustains and increases populations; 
however, stressors caused by adverse historical practices still linger, 
including insufficient numbers of cavities, low numbers of suitable old 
pines, habitat fragmentation, degraded foraging habitat, and small 
populations. These lingering impacts can negatively affect the ability 
of populations to grow, even when populations are actively managed for 
growth, as the carrying capacity of suitable forest areas across much 
of the range can be quite low. However, restoration activities such as 
prescribed fire and strategic placement of recruitment clusters can 
reduce gaps between populations and increase habitat and population 
size toward current carrying capacity. These activities are occurring 
across the range of the red-cockaded woodpecker on properties actively 
managed for red-cockaded woodpecker conservation.
    Currently, stressors to the species resulting from exposure to 
habitat modification or destruction are minimal, especially when 
compared to historical levels. Periodically, military training on 
Department of Defense installations requires clearing of red-cockaded 
woodpecker habitat for construction of ranges, expansion of 
cantonments, and related infrastructure, but these installations have 
management plans to sustain and increase red-cockaded woodpecker 
populations. In addition, silvicultural management on Federal, State, 
and private lands also occasionally results in temporary impacts to 
habitat; for example, red-cockaded woodpecker habitat may be 
unavoidably, but temporarily, adversely affected in old, even-aged 
loblolly pine stands that require regeneration prior to stand 
senescence to sustain a matrix of future suitable habitat for a net 
long-term benefit. Similarly, red-cockaded woodpecker habitat may be 
temporarily destroyed in areas where offsite loblolly, slash, or other 
pines are removed and replaced by the more fire-tolerant native 
longleaf pine. However, the net result of these activities is a long-
term benefit, as the goal is to restore these areas to habitat 
preferred by woodpeckers.

Natural Disturbances

    Wildfire, pine beetles, ice storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes are 
naturally occurring disturbances that destroy pines used for cavities, 
with subsequent reductions to population size unless management actions 
are taken to reduce or ameliorate adverse impacts by providing 
artificial cavities, reducing hazardous fuels, and restoring forests to 
suitable habitat following these events. These disturbances can also 
destroy or degrade foraging habitat and cause direct mortality of 
woodpeckers. Small populations are the most vulnerable to these 
disturbances. See the SSA report for more information about these 
natural disturbances (USFWS 2020, pp. 119-127).
    Habitat destruction caused by hurricanes is the most acute and 
potentially catastrophic disturbance because hurricanes can impact 
entire populations. According to the SSA report, of the 124 current 
demographic populations, about 63 populations in the East Gulf Coastal 
Plain, West Gulf Coastal Plain, the lower portion of the Upper West 
Gulf Coastal Plain, and

[[Page 63480]]

Florida Peninsula ecoregions are vulnerable to potential catastrophic 
impacts of hurricanes, particularly major hurricanes. Most (56 
populations; 89 percent) of these 63 populations are identified as low 
or very low resiliency in the SSA report (see Summary of the SSA 
Report, below), which means they face a significant risk from 
hurricanes. In addition, the frequency and intensity of Atlantic basin 
hurricanes, particularly major Category 4 and 5 storms, are expected to 
increase in response to global climate change during the 21st century 
(Bender et al. 2010, entire; Knutson et al. 2010, entire; Walsh et al. 
2014, pp. 41-42), although the location and frequency of future storms 
affected by climate change relative to particular red-cockaded 
woodpecker populations cannot be precisely predicted. While larger 
populations (greater than 400 active clusters) are the most likely to 
withstand a strike by a major hurricane without extirpation (e.g., 
Hooper et al. 1990, entire; Hooper and McAdie 1995, entire; Watson et 
al. 1995, entire), smaller populations are more vulnerable to 
individual hurricanes, as well as to the effects of recurring storms 
depleting cavity trees and foraging habitat with reductions in 
population size. However, these populations may be able to withstand 
and persist after hurricanes if biologists and land managers implement 
prompt, effective post-storm recovery actions, such as installing 
artificial cavities, reducing hazardous fuels, and restoring forests to 
suitable habitat. Such actions have been occurring after storm events 
for managed populations, such as the quick response after Hurricane 
Michael in October 2018.

Conservation Management

    The reliance on artificial cavities and active habitat management 
is not just restricted to post-hurricane recovery efforts. With the 
potential exception of several ecologically unique populations in pond 
pine and related habitat on organic soils in northeast North Carolina, 
none of the current or estimated future populations is capable of 
naturally persisting without ongoing management, for reasons discussed 
previously. Fortunately, most sites have active management, such as 
prescribed fire, artificial cavity installation, and habitat 
restoration to maintain these populations across the range of the 
species.
    Other proactive management that must be maintained for the species 
to continue to persist and expand includes translocations into small 
populations. Most (108) of the current 124 demographic populations are 
small (fewer than 99 active clusters) with inherently very low or low 
resiliency. These are the most vulnerable to future extirpation due to 
stochastic demographic and environmental factors and inbreeding 
depression. Inbreeding depression in small, fragmented populations of 
up to 50 to 100 active clusters without adequate immigration can 
further increase the probability of decline and future extirpation; for 
these populations, red-cockaded woodpecker translocation programs 
reduce risks of adverse inbreeding impacts. In addition, as noted in 
the SSA report (see Summary of the SSA Report, below), while resiliency 
is moderate for 10 of the current populations with 100 to 249 active 
clusters and 6 populations exhibit high or very high resiliency, 
potential adaptive genetic variation is still expected to decline in 
all red-cockaded woodpecker populations (Bruggeman 2010, p. 22, 
appendix B pp. 39-42; Bruggeman et al. 2010, entire; Bruggeman and 
Jones 2014, pp. 29-33). This is because genetically effective 
(Ne) populations of 1,000 or more individuals are needed to 
avert the loss of genetic variation in a species (e.g., Lande 1995, 
entire; Allendorf and Ryman 2002, p. 73-76). These large population 
sizes do not exist in red-cockaded woodpecker populations because not 
all birds in an active cluster may be breeders (Reed et al. 1988, 
entire, 1993, entire). Possible exceptions may be the two largest 
current red-cockaded woodpecker populations at Apalachicola National 
Forest/St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge/Tate's Hell State Forest (858 
active clusters, ~764 potential breeding groups (PBG)) and North 
Carolina Sandhills (781 active clusters, ~695 PBGs). A PBG is a concept 
introduced in the 2003 recovery plan (see Recovery Plan and Recovery 
Implementation, below), to describe a cluster with a potentially 
breeding adult male and female, with or without adult helpers or 
successfully fledging young. An active cluster can be either a PBG or a 
single territorial bird. So, for example, a red-cockaded woodpecker 
population of 310-390 PBGs probably represents a genetically effective 
population of only 500 (Reed et al. 1993, p. 307). Effective management 
programs to sustain even the smallest populations are critical to 
reduce the risks of inbreeding, establish genetic connectivity among 
fragmented populations, and maintain ecological diversity and life-
history demographic variation as patterns of representation within and 
across broad ecoregions. Because of the outstanding work of our 
conservation partners, and their ongoing commitment to continue 
implementing proactive management to benefit the red-cockaded 
woodpeckers, we expect many of these activities, as articulated in 
individual management plans, to continue.

Conservation Measures That Benefit the Species

    As noted above, the red-cockaded woodpecker is a conservation-
reliant species and responds well to active management. The vast 
majority of properties on public lands harboring red-cockaded 
woodpeckers have implemented management programs to sustain or increase 
populations consistent with population size objectives in the recovery 
plan or other plans. Plans are specific to each property or management 
unit, but generally contain the same core features. The most 
comprehensive plans call for intensive cavity management with the 
installation of artificial cavities to offset cavity loss in existing 
territories, maintenance of sufficient suitable cavities to avoid loss 
of active territories, and creation of new territories with recruitment 
clusters and artificial cavities in restored or suitable habitat to 
increase population size. These cavity management activities are 
necessary until mature forests are restored with abundant old pines 65 
and more years of age for natural cavity excavation. Managers are also 
reducing fragmentation by restoring and increasing habitat with 
strategic placement of recruitment clusters to reduce gaps within and 
between populations. Furthermore, red-cockaded woodpecker subadults 
from large or stable donor populations are translocated to augment 
growth of small, vulnerable populations. Additionally, managers are 
implementing silviculturally compatible methods to sustain, restore, 
and increase habitat with an increased use of effectively prescribed 
fire. Finally, managers are implementing monitoring programs looking at 
both habitat and populations to provide feedback for effective 
management. The future persistence of the species will require these 
management actions to continue.
    In the SSA, we identified 124 current demographic populations with 
a total of 7,794 active clusters. Seventy-one of the 124 currently 
delineated red-cockaded woodpecker populations occur on lands solely 
owned and managed by Federal agencies with 4,033 current active 
clusters. Seven additional populations with 2,026 active clusters occur 
on lands that are under mixed Federal and State ownership but are 
predominately managed by Federal agencies. Thirty-one populations are 
on lands managed

[[Page 63481]]

solely by State agencies with 557 active clusters. Thus, 88 percent of 
delineated populations with 6,059 active clusters (78 percent of all 
7,794 active clusters in 124 populations) are on lands managed entirely 
by Federal and State agencies with statutes to require management plans 
addressing the conservation of natural resources. Two populations occur 
in a matrix of public and private lands, mostly Federal and State 
properties, with 816 active clusters. One population with 20 active 
clusters is managed by a State agency and private landowner. Twelve 
populations with 342 active clusters reside entirely on private lands, 
of which 10 populations with 295 active clusters are managed by 
landowners enrolled in the safe harbor program. Also, most of the 
private landowners are enrolled in the safe harbor program in the two 
previously described populations with a matrix of mostly public lands 
with some private lands. Landowners with safe harbor agreements (SHA) 
manage about 375 active clusters in all or parts of 12 populations. 
There are additional active clusters of red-cockaded woodpeckers on 
nongovernmental lands, enrolled in SHAs, but, as noted above, we did 
not have adequate data to spatially delineate all of these demographic 
populations on these lands. Of the 933 active clusters managed by safe 
harbor landowners in eight states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia), 
demographic populations with respective population sizes have not been 
delineated for about 558 active clusters.
    Below is a summary of the types of management plans that include 
elements directed at red-cockaded woodpecker management and 
conservation. Note that the numbers of populations below do not 
necessarily add up to the 124 current demographic populations 
identified in the SSA report, because some populations cross property 
boundaries and are managed by more than one landowner.
Department of Defense
    Within the range of the red-cockaded woodpecker, the Department of 
Defense (DOD) manages habitat for 14 populations, of which 5 are in the 
moderate to very high resiliency categories, and 9 low to very low 
resiliency. The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) requires DOD 
installations to conserve and protect the natural resources within 
their boundaries. Integrated natural resources management plans 
(INRMPs) are planning documents that outline how each military 
installation with significant natural resources will manage those 
resources, while ensuring no net loss in the capability of an 
installation to support its military testing and training mission. 
Within the range of the red-cockaded woodpecker, all DOD installations 
have current INRMPs that address protection and recovery of the 
species, both through broader landscape-scale ecosystem stewardship and 
more specific management activities targeted directly at red-cockaded 
woodpecker conservation. These activities include providing artificial 
cavities to sustain active clusters, installing recruitment clusters to 
increase population size, sustaining and increasing habitat through 
compatible forest management and prescribed fire, and increasing the 
number and distribution of old pines for natural cavity excavation. 
Each installation has a red-cockaded woodpecker property or population 
size objective with provisions for monitoring. For most installations, 
a schedule is available for reducing certain military training 
restrictions in active clusters in response to increasing populations 
and attaining population size thresholds.
U.S. Forest Service
    The U.S. Forest Service manages habitat for 49 red-cockaded 
woodpecker populations on 17 National Forests and the Savannah River 
Site Unit (owned by the Department of Energy but managed by the U.S. 
Forest Service). Of these populations, 10 have moderate to very high 
resiliency and 39 identified as having low or very low resiliency. 
Under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et 
seq.), National Forests are required to develop plans that provide for 
multiple use and sustained yield of forest products and services, which 
includes timber, outdoor recreation, range, watershed, fish and 
wildlife, and wilderness resources. These plans, called ``land and 
resource management plans'' (LRMPs) and their amendments, have been 
developed for every National Forest in the current range of the red-
cockaded woodpecker. However, LRMPs are not always up to date. The 
LRMPs for National Forests in three States (Louisiana, North Carolina, 
and Texas) predate the Service's 2003 recovery plan. Nevertheless, all 
National Forests (even those with outdated LRMPs) have implemented 
management strategies to protect and manage red-cockaded woodpecker 
habitat and increase populations. Current LRMPs approved prior to the 
2003 recovery plan were developed in coordination with the Forest 
Service's 1995 regional plan for managing the red-cockaded woodpecker 
on southern National Forests (U.S. Forest Service 1995, entire). The 
1995 regional plan includes most of the new and integrated management 
methods (Rudolph et al. 2004, entire) to sustain and increase 
populations as incorporated in the recovery plan. These include 
installing artificial cavities, increasing population size with 
recruitment clusters, and restoring suitable habitat with forest 
management treatments and prescribed fire. Some of the more recent 
LRMPs, such as for National Forests in Mississippi, are more broadly 
programmatic, but incorporate the 2003 recovery plan by reference for 
appropriate conservation methods and objectives.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    The National Wildlife Refuge System manages 10 National Wildlife 
Refuges with red-cockaded woodpeckers, which includes all or part of 19 
populations. We considered three of these populations to be moderate to 
very high resiliency in the SSA report, while 16 have low to very low 
resiliency. Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 
of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57), refuges prepare comprehensive conservation 
plans (CCPs), which provide a blueprint for how to manage for the 
purposes of each refuge; address the biological integrity, diversity, 
and environmental health of a refuge; and facilitate compatible 
wildlife-dependent recreation. National Wildlife Refuges have assigned 
population objectives from the 2003 recovery plan through their CCPs or 
as stepped down or modified in habitat management plans. Specific tasks 
in these plans include installation of artificial cavities; 
translocation; establishing recruitment clusters; population 
monitoring; prescribed fire; and silvicultural treatments, such as mid-
story removal, thinning of younger stands, and, where necessary, 
increasing stand age diversity with regeneration of pine stands.
National Park Service
    The National Park Service (NPS) manages two red-cockaded woodpecker 
populations, one with low and the other with very low resilience, on 
Big Cypress National Preserve (Preserve) in Florida. The NPS's plans do 
not include specific provisions for red-cockaded woodpecker management; 
however, at the Preserve, the NPS conducts prescribed fire to maintain 
and improve the south Florida slash pine forest communities that 
support the species. The NPS also allows Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission

[[Page 63482]]

biologists to conduct red-cockaded woodpecker surveys, monitor, 
periodically install a limited number artificial cavities, and conduct 
translocations on occasion. From surveys and monitoring by the Florida 
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 75 percent of all cavity 
trees within the Preserve consist of natural cavities, which is an 
unusually high number relative to other populations, reflecting the 
predominately old condition of the Big Cypress south Florida slash pine 
forests (Spikler 2019, pers. comm).
State Lands
    The States of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North 
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia have red-
cockaded woodpecker populations on State-owned lands. All or parts of 
40 currently delineated populations occur on State lands. Seven 
populations on or partially on State lands have moderate to very high 
resiliency, while 32 populations have low to very low resiliency. These 
properties range from State Forest Service or Forest Commission 
holdings to Department of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources, 
and State Park Service properties. The mission, and therefore the 
extent and type of management, of each unit varies. For example, some 
State lands are managed generally to provide ecosystem benefits, such 
as managing pine-dominated forests with prescribed fire. However, other 
State properties implement proactive conservation management 
specifically for the red-cockaded woodpecker. For example, the Florida 
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission manages all of its properties 
under the umbrella of the Florida Red-cockaded Woodpecker Management 
Plan, with other specific plans for the agency's wildlife management 
areas.
Other Lands
    Eight states have a Service-approved programmatic safe harbor 
agreement program with a section 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement of survival 
permit under the Act to enroll non-Federal landowners that voluntarily 
provide beneficial management. Of 459 enrolled non-federal landowners, 
one is for a State property and all others are private nongovernmental 
lands. All or parts of 12 currently delineated demographic populations 
are covered under a current SHA. Again, we are aware of additional 
active clusters covered under SHAs, but we lack the data to delineate 
them as demographic populations. Safe harbor agreements are 
partnerships between landowners and the Service involving voluntary 
agreements under which the property owners receive formal regulatory 
assurances from the Service regarding their management responsibilities 
in return for contributions to benefit the listed species. For the red-
cockaded woodpecker, this includes voluntary commitments by landowners 
to maintain and enhance red-cockaded woodpecker habitat to support 
baseline active clusters, which is the number of clusters at the time 
of enrollment, and additional above-baseline active clusters that 
increase in response to beneficial management. Beneficial management 
includes the maintenance and enhancement of existing cavity trees and 
foraging habitat through activities such as prescribed fire, mid-story 
thinning, seasonal limitations for timber harvesting, and management of 
pine stands to provide suitable foraging habitat and cavity trees. 
Because above-baseline active clusters and habitat covered under these 
plans can be returned to ``baseline'' conditions, any population growth 
on lands covered by SHAs may not be permanent. In addition, enrolled 
landowners can terminate their agreement at any time. However, fewer 
than 5 of the 459 enrolled landowners have ever used their permit 
authorities to return the number of active clusters to baseline 
conditions, and only 12 landowners have terminated their agreement. 
There currently are 241 active above-baseline clusters in the program.
    In summary, the red-cockaded woodpecker is a conservation-reliant 
species, but one that responds very well to active management. The 
majority of red-cockaded woodpecker populations are managed under plans 
that address population enhancement and habitat management to sustain 
or increase populations, and to meet the 2003 recovery plan objectives 
for primary core, secondary core, and essential support populations. We 
expect these property owners will continue to implement their 
respective management plans, partially because, even if we reclassify 
the red-cockaded woodpecker as a threatened species, the woodpecker 
would remain protected under the Act.

Summary of Biological Status

    As described in the preceding section, the Act directs us to 
determine whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species 
because of any of the factors listed in section 4(a)(1) affecting the 
species' continued existence. The SSA report documents the results of 
our comprehensive biological status review for the red-cockaded 
woodpecker, including an assessment of the potential stressors to the 
species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by the Service on 
whether the species should be listed as an endangered or a threatened 
species under the Act. It does, however, provide the scientific basis 
for our regulatory decision, which involves the further application of 
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. 
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the 
SSA report; the full SSA report can be found on the Southeast Region's 
website at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ or at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0018.

Summary of SSA Report

    To assess the red-cockaded woodpecker's viability, we used the 
three conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, 
and redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, random 
fluctuations in birth rates or annual variation in rainfall); 
representation supports the ability of the species to adapt over time 
to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate changes); 
and redundancy supports the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, hurricanes). In general, the more 
redundant and resilient a species is and the more representation it 
has, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under 
changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we 
identified the red-cockaded woodpecker's ecological requirements for 
survival and reproduction at the individual, population and species, 
and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. This process used the best 
available information to characterize viability as the ability of a 
species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We utilized this

[[Page 63483]]

information to inform our regulatory decision.
    For the red-cockaded woodpecker to maintain viability, its 
populations or some portion thereof must be resilient. The SSA assessed 
resiliency at the population level, primarily by evaluating the current 
population size as the number of active clusters and secondarily by the 
associated past growth rate. Red-cockaded woodpecker resiliency 
primarily depends upon a single factor: Amount of managed suitable 
habitat. Historically, impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker occurred 
as a result of clearcutting, incompatible forest management, and 
conversion to urban and agricultural lands uses. While these impacts 
have been significantly curtailed and replaced by beneficial 
conservation management, legacy stressors stemming from these 
historical impacts still remain, including: (1) Insufficient numbers of 
natural cavities and suitable, abundant old pines for natural cavity 
excavation; (2) habitat fragmentation and its effects on genetic 
variation, dispersal, and connectivity to support demographic 
populations; (3) lack of suitable foraging habitat for population 
growth and expansion; and (4) small populations. Intensive management 
is ongoing to ameliorate these threats.
    Representation can be measured by the breadth of genetic or 
environmental diversity within and among populations and gauges the 
probability that a species is capable of adapting to environmental 
changes. The SSA evaluated representation based on the extent and 
variability of habitat characteristics across the geographical range of 
the species and characterized representative units for the red-cockaded 
woodpecker using ecoregions. This analysis generally followed the 
approach to representation used in the species' recovery plan (USFWS 
2003, pp. 148, 152-155). A genetic analysis of material prior to 1970 
in eight ecoregions indicates the species appears to have been a single 
genetic unit or population without significant genetic structure or 
differentiation (Miller et al. 2019, entire). The best available 
rangewide genetic data indicate a loss of genetic variation after 1970 
with development of significant contemporary genetic structure among 
ecoregions. This structuring is most likely in response to 
fragmentation of this historically more widespread and abundant 
species, reduced dispersal between populations and regions, and genetic 
drift (Stangel et al. 1992, entire; Haig et al. 1994a, p. 590; Haig et 
al. 1996, p. 730; Miller et al. 2019, entire). However, the similarity 
of genetic parameters between the 1992-1995 and 2010-2014 periods 
indicates that a further significant loss of genetic diversity with an 
increase in differentiation among ecoregions may have been ameliorated 
by conservation management that began in the 1990s to rapidly increase 
populations and translocate individuals from large populations to 
augment small populations (Miller et al. 2019, entire). Mitochondrial 
DNA haplotype diversity has declined significantly since the pre-1970s, 
but not to extent of a loss of any phylogenetically distinct lineages 
that may represent evolutionarily significant units (Miller et al. 
2019, p. 9-10).
    For the red-cockaded woodpecker to maintain viability, the species 
also needs to exhibit some degree of redundancy. Measured by the number 
of populations, their resiliency, and their distribution, redundancy 
increases the probability that the species has a margin of safety to 
withstand, or can bounce back from, catastrophic events. The SSA 
reported redundancy for red-cockaded woodpeckers as the total number 
and resilience of population segments and their distribution within and 
among representative units.

Current Condition

Resiliency
    In the SSA report, we identified 124 demographic populations across 
the range of the red-cockaded woodpecker for which sufficient data were 
available to complete the SSA analyses for the recent past to current 
condition. We acknowledge there are other small occurrences of red-
cockaded woodpeckers, particularly on private lands; however, spatial 
data for these other occurrences were incomplete, so for purposes of 
the SSA analysis, and subsequently throughout this proposed rule, we 
focused only on these 124 demographic populations that could be 
spatially delineated. The SSA categorizes two important parameters 
related to current population resiliency: Current population size and 
associated population growth rate. Population resilience size 
categories are defined as follows: Very low (fewer than 30 active 
clusters); low (30 to 99 active clusters); moderate (100 to 249 active 
clusters); high (250 to 499 active clusters); and very high (greater 
than or equal to 500 active clusters).
    Population resilience size-classes were derived from spatially 
explicit individual-based models and simulations for this species 
(Letcher et al. 1998, entire; Walters et al. 2002, entire), the 
performance of which have been reasonably validated with reference to 
actual populations (Schiegg et al. 2005, entire; Walters et al. 2011, 
entire). We also considered subsequent modifications of these models 
and simulations that incorporated adverse effects of inbreeding 
depression on population persistence and growth (Daniels et al. 2000, 
entire; Schiegg et al. 2006, entire). These models were developed from 
extensive actual biological data and specifically designed to 
incorporate the dynamics of the red-cockaded woodpecker's cooperative 
breeding system that are not accurately represented in other types of 
population models (Zieglar and Walters 2014, entire). These models 
simulated populations of different initial sizes under natural 
conditions without any limiting habitat and cavity conditions that 
could impair population growth. We consider these results as indicators 
of inherent resilience because effects of conservation management 
actions to sustain and increase populations were not simulated. These 
beneficial management practices would include installation of 
recruitment clusters with artificial cavities to induce new red-
cockaded woodpecker groups and translocation to augment the size and 
growth of small populations. The vast majority of the 124 current 
populations have been and currently are subject to specific 
conservation management actions for this species, including recruitment 
clusters. Thus, the inherent resilience size-classes derived from 
population models and simulations have been further qualified by actual 
growth rates as indicators of effects of beneficial management for this 
conservation-reliant species.
    Populations with very low resiliency (fewer than 30 active 
clusters) are the most vulnerable to future extirpation following 
stochastic events with declining growth and future extirpation likely 
in 50 years. Populations with low resiliency (30 to 99 active clusters) 
are more persistent, but remain vulnerable to declining growth, 
inbreeding depression, and extirpation. Inbreeding depression reduces 
red-cockaded woodpecker egg hatching rates and survival of fledglings 
(Daniels and Walters 2000a, entire). Inbreeding in red-cockaded 
woodpeckers is a consequence of breeding among close relatives in 
response to naturally short dispersal distances of related birds among 
nearby breeding territories exacerbated by small populations and 
fragmentation among populations that reduce immigration rates of 
unrelated individuals (Daniels and Walters 2000a, entire; 2000b, 
entire; Daniels et al. 2000, entire; Schiegg et al. 2002, entire; 2006, 
entire). The consequences of inbreeding

[[Page 63484]]

depression further reduce population growth rates and increase the 
probabilities of extirpation in populations in sizes up to about 100 
active clusters (Daniels et al. 2000, entire; Schiegg et al. 2006, 
entire). The largest populations in this class may have long-term 
average growth rates ([lambda] or lambda) near 1.0 (a [lambda] of 1.00 
is considered stable, less than 1.00 is declining, and greater than 
1.00 is increasing), but with slow rates of decline and a high risk of 
inevitable future extirpation. The moderate resiliency category (100 to 
249 active clusters) is a large transitional class. Smaller populations 
without inbreeding likely will experience a slow decline, but without 
extirpation in 25 to 50 years because at least some territories will 
survive, although as much smaller and more vulnerable populations. The 
largest populations in this class may be relatively stable or nearly 
so. Populations with a high resiliency (250 to 499 active clusters) on 
average should be stable except perhaps for the very smallest that may 
have average growth rates slightly less than 1.00. In high resiliency 
populations, adverse demographic effects of inbreeding depression are 
not expected. Populations in the very high resiliency class (greater 
than or equal to 500 active clusters) are stable and the most 
resilient, with average growth rates of 1.0 or slightly greater. Based 
on the most recent data, 3 red-cockaded woodpecker populations fall 
within the very high category (totaling 2,143 clusters); 3 are high 
(1,364 total clusters); 10 are moderate (1,555 total clusters); 37 are 
low (1,923 total clusters); and 71 are very low (809 total clusters). 
In short, of the estimated 7,794 active clusters distributed among 124 
populations across the range of the species, 5,062, or 65 percent, are 
in 16 moderate to very high resiliency populations.
    The second resiliency parameter measured in the SSA was growth rate 
of the populations. For the SSA, there were only sufficient GIS data to 
delineate past demographic populations with population size data to 
compute past-to-current growth rates for 98 of the 124 populations. Of 
these 98 populations, the SSA determined that 13 (13.3 percent) were 
declining ([lambda] <1.00), 19 (19.4 percent) were stable ([lambda] = 
1.00-1.02), and 66 (67.3 percent) were increasing ([lambda] >1.02). 
Combining growth rates with population sizes of these 98 populations, 
growth rates have been stable to increasing for all of those moderate, 
high, and very high resiliency populations where growth rate could be 
measured. At the other end, of the 86 very low and low resiliency 
populations where growth rate could be measured, 73 populations 
demonstrated stable and positive growth rates, with several populations 
showing very high growth rates. This is indicative of the positive 
effects of red-cockaded woodpecker conservation management programs on 
these locations and the ability of such management to offset inherently 
low or very low population resilience. Growth rates are decreasing in 
only 13 (15 percent) of the low and very low resiliency populations 
where growth rate could be measured.
    Current population conditions in the SSA report were derived from 
the number and location of active clusters primarily in 2016 and 2017. 
These conditions did not take into account Hurricane Michael, which 
came ashore near Mexico Beach, Florida, on October 10, 2018, as a 
Category 4 storm. More than 1,500 cavity trees were blown down or 
damaged in populations in the Apalachicola National Forest, Silver Lake 
Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Jones Ecological Research Center, and 
Tate's Hell State Forest (Dunlap 2018, entire; McDearman 2018, entire). 
These represented three demographic populations: Apalachicola National 
Forest-St. Marks NWR-Tate's Hell State Forest, Jones Ecological 
Research Center, and Silver Lake WMA. The effects of Hurricane Michael 
did not change current conditions for these populations in terms of 
their resilience size-classes as described in the SSA report, and as 
summarized here.
    After this hurricane, 870 clusters were rapidly assessed in 
Apalachicola National Forest where 1,410 cavity trees were damaged or 
blown down, followed by the installation of 682 artificial cavities 
(Dunlap 2018, entire). In 2018, prior to this hurricane, the 
Apalachicola National Forest population survey estimate was 833 active 
clusters (Casto 2018, p. 4). After the hurricane, the 2019 survey 
estimate was 857 active clusters (Casto 2019, p. 9). At Silver Lake 
WMA, 154 cavity trees were damaged or lost; however, within two weeks 
of the storm more than 90 artificial cavities were installed (Burnham 
2019a, p. 9). The pre-storm population was 36 active clusters and 32 
potential breeding groups, with a post-storm decline to 33 active 
clusters and 28 potential breeding groups (Burnham 2019b, p. 6). About 
24 percent of all cavity trees at the Jones Ecological Research Center 
were damaged or destroyed (Rutledge 2019, p. 13). The pre-storm Jones 
Center population was 38 active clusters with 34 potential breeding 
groups (Henshaw 2019, p. 4). Post-storm, after installation of 
artificial cavities, there were 40 active clusters with 31 potential 
breeding groups (Henshaw 2019, p. 4). At Tate's Hell State Forest, 
about 23 of 527 cavity trees among 61 active clusters and 51 PBGs were 
blown down (Alix 2018, pers. comm.). After post-storm management, the 
Tate's Hell State Forest currently consists of 64 active clusters and 
54 PBGs (Alix 2019, pers. comm.). Overall, the total decline in number 
of active clusters from all of these properties is minor, demonstrating 
that with prompt, active management, the vulnerability of these 
populations to stochastic events can potentially be reduced. Additional 
intermediate and long-term habitat restoration treatments at these 
properties are still required to reduce hazardous fuels from large and 
small woody debris, restore habitat, and implement reforestation or 
regeneration in the most severely damaged pine stands. Overall, we do 
not anticipate that Hurricane Michael will affect long-term viability 
of these populations. However, we will continue to evaluate the success 
of the emergency, intermediate, and long-term response efforts.
    In summary, although most of red-cockaded woodpecker populations 
for which we have data are still small, and remain vulnerable to 
stochastic events and possibly inbreeding depression, the vast majority 
of populations are showing stable or increasing growth rates, and the 
majority of birds and clusters occur in a few large, resilient 
populations. Of the 98 populations for which trend data are available, 
only 13 percent are declining. In addition, over 65 percent of red-
cockaded woodpecker clusters are currently in moderate to very high 
resiliency populations.
Representation
    We evaluated representation based on the extent and variability of 
habitat characteristics across the species' geographical range. For the 
red-cockaded woodpecker, the SSA report characterizes representative 
units using ecoregions, which align with the recovery units identified 
in the recovery plan (USFWS 2003, pp. 145-161). These ecoregions are 
broad areas defined by physiography, topography, climate, and major 
historical and current forest types and thus serve as surrogates for 
the variability of habitat characteristics across the species' range, 
such as ecology, life history, geography, and genetics. There are 
currently 13 ecoregions containing at least one red-cockaded woodpecker 
population: (1) Cumberland Ridge and Valley; (2) Florida Peninsula (= 
South/Central Florida); (3) East Gulf Coastal Plain; (4) Mid-Atlantic 
Coastal Plain; (5) Ouachita

[[Page 63485]]

Mountains; (6) Piedmont; (7) South Atlantic Coastal Plain; (8) 
Sandhills; (9) Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain; (10) Upper West Gulf 
Coastal Plain; (11) West Gulf Coastal Plain; and (12) Gulf Coast 
Prairie and Marshes and (13) Mississippi River Alluvial Plain, two 
ecoregions that the SSA includes that were not represented in the 
recovery plan because they only have one small population each. In the 
SSA report, figures 20 and 24 provide maps illustrating the ecoregions 
(USFWS 2019, pp. 91, 109), and figure 25 includes the historical county 
records for the range of the species (USFWS 2020, p. 116).
    The historical range of the red-cockaded woodpecker included the 
entire distribution of longleaf pine ecosystems, but the species also 
inhabited open shortleaf, loblolly, slash pine, and Virginia pine 
forests, especially in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands and the southern 
tip of the Appalachian Highlands with occasional occurrences noted for 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio (Costa and Walker 1995, 
pp. 86-87). Red-cockaded woodpeckers no longer occur in six ecoregions 
(Ozarks, Central Mixed Grass Prairies, Cross Timbers and Southern Mixed 
Grass Prairies, Northern Atlantic Coast, Central Appalachian Forest, 
and Southern Blue Ridge). The recovery plan did not consider recovery 
in these areas to be essential to the conservation of the species.
    The remaining 13 ecoregions still contain red-cockaded woodpeckers. 
In these ecoregions, red-cockaded woodpeckers occupy a wide variety of 
pine-dominated ecological settings scattered across a broad geographic 
range. Considerable geographic variation in habitat types exists, 
illustrating the species' ability to adapt to a wide range of 
ecological conditions within the constraints of mature or old growth, 
southern pine ecosystems. However, of these 13 ecoregions, only 4 
currently have populations that are considered to have high or very 
high resiliency (East Gulf Coastal Plain, South Atlantic Coastal Plain, 
Sandhills, and Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain), and 6 have populations that 
are low or very low resiliency (Florida Peninsula, Ouachita Mountains, 
Cumberland Ridge and Valley, Piedmont, Gulf Coast Prairie and Marshes, 
and Mississippi River Alluvial Plain). Of those six, the latter four 
have only one or two populations each, meaning these ecoregions, and 
the ecology, life history, geography, and genetics they represent, are 
particularly vulnerable to stochastic events. However, five of the six 
populations in these four ecoregions all demonstrate stable or 
increasing growth rates (growth rate for the sixth, Mitchell Lake in 
the Piedmont Ecoregion, could not be measured), primarily because they 
are being actively managed.
    In summary, the species no longer persists in six ecoregions where 
it was historically present. However, it is still currently represented 
in the 13 remaining ecoregions, and this level of representation has 
not decreased further since the 2003 recovery plan revision, which did 
not consider the extirpated ecoregions necessary for recovery. 
Nevertheless, while populations persist in the 13 ecoregions, many of 
the ecoregions contain only populations that have low or very low 
resiliency, and four ecoregions only have one or two populations, which 
are all of low or very low resiliency, making them vulnerable to 
stochastic events.
Redundancy
    In the SSA report, redundancy for red-cockaded woodpeckers is 
characterized by the number of resilient populations and their 
distribution within each ecoregion. Of the 124 current populations, 
there are 3 populations that have very high resiliency, 3 with high, 10 
with moderate, 37 with low, and 71 with very low resiliency. As noted 
above, 4 of 13 ecoregions currently harbor high or very high resiliency 
populations: East Gulf Coastal Plain (2 populations), Mid-Atlantic 
Coastal Plain (1 population), Sandhills (2 populations), and South 
Atlantic Coastal Plain (1 population). In terms of redundancy, only two 
ecoregions, East Gulf Coastal Plain and Sandhills, have more than one 
population classified as having high or very high resiliency, and only 
these two ecoregions also have more than two populations classified as 
having moderate to very high resiliency. Redundancy of smaller 
populations is higher with a greater number of populations in the 
moderate, low, and very low resiliency categories within and across 
ecoregions. Four ecoregions (South Atlantic Coastal Plain, Mid-Atlantic 
Coastal Plain, West Gulf Coastal Plain, and Upper East Gulf Coastal 
Plain) have two populations exhibiting moderate to high resiliency, and 
thus some level of redundancy in terms of resilient populations. Most 
of the populations in these regions have moderately resiliency. The 
greatest number of current populations reside in the Mid-Atlantic 
Coastal Plain (24) and Florida Peninsula (22), although most of these 
are in the very low and low resiliency class. However, even for the 
more resilient populations, habitat fragmentation has resulted in wide 
gaps between forested areas, meaning there is little connectivity 
between populations.
    Across the range of the red-cockaded woodpecker, the populations 
with the most resiliency (high or very high) populations tend to be in 
the eastern half of the range and in coastal or near coastal ecoregions 
rather than interior. Florida Peninsula and the western ecoregions 
currently only have populations in the moderate to very low resiliency 
categories. This concentration of the more resilient populations in 
coastal and near coastal areas could affect the species' ability to 
withstand catastrophic events such as hurricanes. Particularly for 
these populations, post-storm management actions are critical, as they 
can mitigate cavity loss and reduce hazardous fire fuels.
    In summary, a species needs a suitable combination of all three 
characteristics (resiliency, representation, and redundancy) for long-
term viability. Based on our analysis of the three factors, the red-
cockaded demonstrates some degree of stability in all three factors. 
The species' viability is reduced over historical levels, but habitat 
conditions and population numbers are improving. In terms of 
resiliency, most of the populations are still quite small, but the vast 
majority are stable or even growing. The species has not lost any 
representative populations since the 2003 revised recovery plan, and 
while a few ecoregions still only contain one or two populations, most 
of these populations are stable or growing. Finally, there is a fair 
degree of redundancy within ecosystems across the range of the species, 
although, again, most of these populations are still quite small and 
are isolated from each other. The improving viability of the red-
cockaded woodpecker has been largely due to intensive, extensive 
management, including actions immediately after large storm events to 
offset cavity loss and reduce hazardous fuels. Without this 
intervention, many populations, especially the low and very low 
resilience populations, likely would have been extirpated.

Future Conditions

    Our analysis of stressors and risk factors, as well as the past, 
current, and future influences on what the red-cockaded woodpecker 
needs for long-term viability, revealed that the primary predictor of 
future viability of the species is the continuation of active 
management (including cavity management, midstory treatment such as 
prescribed fire, and translocation efforts).

[[Page 63486]]

    We assessed future red-cockaded woodpecker population growth, 
population size (active clusters), and resiliency by first modeling 
past trends and variation in population size of demographically 
delineated populations as affected by factors including management 
treatments (e.g., number of artificial cavities, recruitment clusters, 
birds received by translocations, and frequency of prescribed fire and 
mid-story hardwood control), dominant pine species, the density of 
active clusters, and parameters to account for unexplained sources of 
variation to population size by this procedure (USFWS 2020, chapter 6 
and appendix 2). We obtained historical information for 87 
demographically delineated populations and were also able to 
extrapolate missing data for certain populations by imputation with an 
expectation-maximization algorithm (USFWS 2020, appendix 1). 
Populations were separately modeled as small (6 to 29 clusters), medium 
(30 to 75 clusters), and large (more than 75 clusters) classes. 
Populations with fewer than six active clusters were not modeled 
because of high variation in growth rates.
    For past growth rate of small populations, the most important 
variables were the number of new recruitment clusters, number of new 
artificial cavities in previously existing clusters (cavity 
management), midstory treatments by prescribed fire or mechanical 
methods, number of red-cockaded woodpeckers translocated into the 
population, and dominant pine type. Translocation had the greatest 
positive effect on growth of any management technique. For medium 
populations, recruitment clusters and midstory treatments by prescribed 
fire were significant management covariates. The best model for large 
populations included recruitment clusters, cavity management, and 
spatial configuration of active clusters. In all cases, effects of 
recruitment clusters, cavity management, midstory treatment, and 
translocation were positive.
    We then used the best assessed future growth and conditions for 
each red-cockaded woodpecker population to assess viability under four 
future 25-year management scenarios: Low management, medium management, 
high management, and the ``Manager's Expectation.'' In the Manager's 
Expectation scenario, we elicited estimates for red-cockaded woodpecker 
conservation management treatments (e.g., number of artificial 
cavities, number of recruitment clusters, midstory treatments, 
prescribed fire frequency, translocation, etc.) from property 
biologists, foresters, and managers.
    For the low management scenario, values for each management 
covariate (e.g., cavity management, prescribed fire treatments, number 
of recruitment clusters, midstory hardwood treatment, translocation) 
were set to zero. However, this scenario does not reflect no 
management, but rather, the absence of management techniques specific 
to red-cockaded woodpeckers and instead a reliance on ecosystem 
management. Thus, some baseline habitat management, which would 
indirectly provide some nesting and foraging habitat, would be expected 
under the low management scenario. However, because most of the past 
populations for which we had sufficient data have been actively managed 
more aggressively than this scenario, we were unable to accurately 
model this type of minimal baseline habitat management. Therefore, 
future simulated population growth in the low management scenario is 
probably overestimated. Management covariate parameters for the medium 
management scenario assume the average of the past parameters employed 
to conserve red-cockaded woodpeckers over the past 20 years will 
continue into the future. For the high management scenario, management 
treatments for simulated populations reflect the parameter values in 
the 90th percentile of all past population treatments, as if 
populations were more intensely and extensively managed. The high 
management scenario thus represents projections of what might 
potentially be achieved should the species be systematically managed 
more intensively across its range than it has been in the past. The 
Manager's Expectation scenario was based on what the experts, described 
above, thought was the most likely annual future number of recruitment 
clusters, artificial cavities, prescribed fire treatments, and other 
management parameters at 5-year intervals for a 25-year period.
    We chose to project 25 years into the future because the 
combination of species' response to natural factors and management and 
the ability of managers to accurately predict future management 
treatments becomes highly uncertain at longer intervals. The red-
cockaded woodpecker is a conservation-reliant species of naturally 
fire-dependent, open, and mature to old southern pine forests. These 
forest conditions do not currently occur without management due to the 
history of fire-exclusion, incompatible forest management, and other 
land uses. Planning and successfully implementing management and 
treatments for each active cluster and population requires extensive 
resources that are difficult for managers to accurately predict for 
longer than 25 years. In addition to a population's response to 
management, there is natural variation in nest success, number of 
fledglings, survival of young-of-year and adults, and cooperative 
breeding dynamics with replacement of adult breeders by other birds 
dispersing from other territories. In turn, this affects annual 
variation in population size (active clusters) and patterns of 
population growth or decline. Simulations of future population 
conditions under different management scenarios included effects of 
some management treatments, though not all, as model parameters. 
However, effects of these management treatment parameters did not 
account for all sources of annual variation affecting population size 
that still occurred in the model and simulations. Because of the 
variation in future simulated population size at 25 years (USFWS 2020, 
appendix 2), future estimates of population size after 25 years are 
more uncertain.
    Table 1 summarizes the model outputs for the four scenarios at the 
end of the 25-year simulation period. Data from 106 of the 124 current 
populations were available for future simulations. Of those 106 
populations, initial populations with fewer than 6 active clusters were 
not simulated unless they demographically merged with other populations 
to create new, larger populations during the 25-year period. In 
addition, the total number of simulated future populations at year 25 
are not equal among management scenarios because of the different 
number of initial populations that demographically merge to establish 
new populations. In other words, a lower number of populations at the 
end than the start for each scenario does not mean that all those 
populations were extirpated, rather some of the populations increased 
and merged to create new, larger populations. Therefore, the initial 
starting number of populations, and predicted number of populations at 
the end of the simulation period, varied. We also compare the results 
of current and future population resiliency classes as percentages in 
this proposed rule rather than absolute numbers because of this 
variation. Furthermore, although the initial starting numbers varied 
for each of the scenarios for the reasons discussed above, we present 
the current condition of the 124 demographic populations as the 
starting place for each of these scenarios. The current condition 
(Past-to-Current in Table 1) for these

[[Page 63487]]

populations are: 57.3 percent have very low resiliency, 29.8 percent 
have low, 8.1 percent have moderate, 2.4 percent have high, and 2.4 
percent have very high. For more details on the model, please see the 
SSA report (USFWS 2020, pp. 130-136, appendix 1, appendix 2).

   Table 1--Resilience Summary Based on Current Condition and Population Simulations Under 4 Future Management
                                                    Scenarios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Population resilience category percentages
      Model series/scenario      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Very low           Low          Moderate          High          Very high
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Past-to-Current.................            57.3            29.8             8.1             2.4             2.4
Future Low......................            61.7            14.8            11.1             6.2             6.2
Future Medium...................            25.0            45.2            15.5             8.3             6.0
Future High.....................            22.2            39.5            21.0            11.1             6.2
Future Manager's................            28.6            42.9            14.3             8.3             5.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Low management scenario: At the end of the 25-year simulation 
period, the predicted resiliency for the resulting 81 simulated 
demographic populations are: 6.2 percent of populations (5) very high; 
6.2 percent (5) high; 11.1 percent (9) moderate; 14.8 percent (12) low; 
and 61.7 percent (50) very low. The low management scenario projects a 
modest increase in the percentage of current populations of moderate to 
very high resiliency from about 13 percent (16) to about 24 percent 
(19) of the 81 simulated populations compared to current conditions, 
but the majority of the populations that currently have low resiliency 
decline sufficiently to transition into the very low resiliency 
category. The projected outcome of this scenario clearly demonstrates 
the dependence of red-cockaded woodpecker population resiliency on 
intensive, species-specific management.
    Medium management scenario: At the end of the 25-year simulation 
period, the predicted resiliency for the resulting 84 simulated 
demographic populations are: 6.0 percent of populations (5) very high; 
8.3 percent (7) high; 15.5 percent (13) moderate; 45.2 percent (38) 
low; and 25.0 percent (21) very low. The medium management scenario 
projected a more substantial increase in the percentage of populations 
of moderate to very high resiliency from about 13 percent (16) to about 
30 percent (25) of the populations. At the other end, the percentage of 
low and very low resiliency populations decreased.
    High management scenario: At the end of the 25-year simulation 
period, the predicted resiliency for the resulting 81 demographic 
populations are as follows: 6.2 percent of populations (5) very high; 
11.1 percent (9) high; 21.0 percent (17) moderate; 39.5 percent (32) 
low; and 22.2 percent (18) very low. The high management scenario 
projected an even more substantial increase in the percentage of 
populations of moderate to very high resiliency, increasing to about 38 
percent (31) of the populations. However, the land base available for 
conservation has a substantial effect on the growth of these 
populations under this scenario. For example, none of the populations 
with low or very low resiliency in this scenario has the carrying 
capacity on their respective managed properties to transition to a 
higher resiliency category, regardless of the intensive management 
reflected in this scenario. Thus, there are 50 red-cockaded woodpecker 
populations that, in the absence of acquisition of additional habitat 
for population expansion, will always remain small regardless of the 
management efforts.
    Manager's Expectation scenario: At the end of the 25-year 
simulation period, the predicted resiliency for the resulting 84 
demographic populations are: 5.9 percent of the populations (5) very 
high; 8.3 percent (7) high; 14.3 percent (12) moderate; 42.9 percent 
(36) low; and 28.6 percent (24) very low. The results are very similar 
to the medium management scenario.
    Future Representation and Redundancy of the Species: Under all 
management scenarios, five populations in four ecosystems are predicted 
to have very high resiliency (East Gulf Coastal Plain (2), Sandhills 
(1), Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain (1), and South Atlantic Coastal Plain 
(1)). Under the Manager's Expectation and medium management scenarios, 
seven populations in five ecosystems are considered to have high 
resiliency (East Gulf Coastal Plain (2), South Atlantic Coastal Plain 
(1), Sandhills (2), Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain (1), and West Gulf 
Coastal Plain (1)). Also, compared to current conditions, the greater 
number of future high and very high resiliency populations are more 
widely distributed among ecoregions and include the western geographic 
range; however, over the whole range of the woodpecker, the occurrence 
of high and very high resiliency populations is most concentrated in 
the East Gulf Coastal Plain and Sandhills ecoregions.
    Only two ecoregions (Cumberland Ridge and Valley and Gulf Coast 
Prairie and Marshes) have no simulated populations of moderate to very 
high resiliency in the Manager's Expectation, medium management, and 
high management scenarios, compared to six ecoregions (Florida 
Peninsula, Ouachita Mountains, Cumberland Ridge and Valley, Piedmont, 
Gulf Coast Prairie and Marshes, and Mississippi River Alluvial Plain) 
that currently do not have moderate to very high resiliency 
populations. The one current population in the Mississippi River 
Alluvial Plain ecoregion was not simulated in the future. In the low 
management scenario, four ecoregions (Cumberland Ridge and Valley, Gulf 
Coast Prairie and Marshes, Ouachita Mountains, and Piedmont) that 
currently only have low or very low resiliency populations are not 
projected to gain any moderate to very high resiliency populations at 
25 years.
    Summary: The total number of simulated populations at 25 years 
varied slightly among the management scenarios because of a different 
number of initial populations that demographically merged during 
simulations to establish new and larger populations. Results of the 
Manager's Expectation and medium management scenarios were most 
similar, while the low management and high management scenarios 
represented more extreme future resiliency conditions. These 
simulations, particularly for the low management and high management 
scenarios, illustrate the extent to which the red-cockaded woodpecker 
is a conservation-reliant species that responds positively or 
negatively to management, and how successful management can sustain 
small populations with low or very low resiliency. In all scenarios, 
most populations at year 25 were still in the

[[Page 63488]]

very low, low, and moderate resiliency categories. However, the 
majority of populations were projected to be stable or increasing in 
all but the low management scenario, highlighting how successful 
management can sustain even small populations, albeit with a greater 
inherent risk in response to poor or insufficient management. The low 
management scenario illustrates that without adequate species-level 
management, in contrast to ecosystem management alone, very little 
increase in the number of moderate to very high resiliency populations 
can be expected and small populations of low or very low resiliency are 
unlikely to persist. The high management scenario represents the limit 
of what can be accomplished given the current land base and carrying 
capacity to support populations. However, management at current levels, 
as represented by the medium management scenario, further increases the 
number of moderate to very high resiliency populations and projects 
that small populations can be preserved. In addition, at current (or 
greater) levels of future management, redundancy and representation are 
expected to improve significantly in response to increasing 
populations. Because, if we reclassify the red-cockaded woodpecker as a 
threatened species, the woodpecker would remain protected under the 
Act, current levels of management are expected to continue into the 
future.

Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation

    The original red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan was first issued 
by the Service on August 24, 1979. A first revision was issued on April 
11, 1995, and the second, and current, revision on January 27, 2003. 
The 2003 recovery plan provided management guidelines fundamental to 
the conservation and recovery of red-cockaded woodpeckers. The Service 
continues to strongly encourage the application of these guidelines to 
the management of woodpecker populations on public and private lands. 
As explained in Conservation Measures that Benefit the Species, above, 
implementation of the recovery plan has been carried out through the 
incorporation of management guidelines into various Federal and State 
land management plans. In addition to the management guidelines, the 
2003 recovery plan provides guidelines to private landowners to follow 
on private lands occupied by red-cockaded woodpeckers. The 2003 
recovery plan provides guidelines for installing artificial cavities; 
management of cavity trees and clusters; translocation; silviculture; 
and prescribed fire under the management guidelines, and guidelines for 
managing foraging habitat on private lands are provided under the 
private land guidelines. After the issuance of the 2003 recovery plan, 
two additional sets of foraging guidelines were developed (USFWS 2005, 
entire). As described in the 2005 guidance, the recovery standard for 
good quality foraging habitat is intended for recovery management to 
sustain and increase populations.
    The recovery plan contains both downlisting and delisting criteria. 
The recovery criteria in the 2003 recovery plan are based on 39 
designated populations in different viability size classes. Although 
these were not the only red-cockaded woodpecker populations known at 
the time, they were selected as recovery populations because of 
anticipated future management by their management agencies or entities, 
the estimated future capacity of the properties, and their geographic 
distribution within and among recovery units (e.g., ecoregions). Each 
of these designated populations have a future population size objective 
with various potential roles toward achieving the downlisting and 
delisting criteria in the recovery plan. The populations are 
distributed within 11 recovery units or ecoregions that represent broad 
patterns of ecological and potential genetic variation and that enhance 
immigration to reduce the loss of genetic variation (e.g., 
representation), with multiple populations to reduce risks of 
catastrophic impacts of periodic hurricanes, and adverse stochastic 
demographic, environmental, and genetic factors (e.g., redundancy). The 
39 designated recovery populations are either primary core (13), 
secondary core (10), or essential support (16), according to recovery 
population size potential breeding group (PBG) objectives. As described 
above, a PBG is a cluster with a potentially breeding adult male and 
female, with or without adult helpers or successfully fledging young. 
An active cluster can be either a PBG or a single territorial bird. 
Further discussion of these terms, along with the rationale for each 
delisting and downlisting criterion, can be found in the recovery plan 
(USFWS 2003, pp. 140-145). Further detail on the specific populations 
required to meet each criterion can also be found in the recovery plan.
    Downlisting may be achieved by having a total of 20 designated 
recovery populations fulfilling the following criteria. Qualifying 
populations with the largest population sizes are listed for each 
criterion when a specific population is not required. No particular 
population may satisfy more than one criterion.
     Downlisting Criterion 1: There is one stable or increasing 
population of 350 PBGs (400 to 500 active clusters) in the Central 
Florida Panhandle. This criterion has been met. In our 2006 5-year 
review (USFWS 2006), we identified that part of one of the five 
properties (Apalachicola Ranger District-Apalachicola National Forest) 
comprising the Central Florida Panhandle Primary Core population alone 
had 451 PBGs. Now, there are 909 active clusters representing about 809 
PBGs for the Central Florida Panhandle Primary Core population. The 
average growth rate for this population is increasing.
     Downlisting Criterion 2: There is at least one stable or 
increasing population containing at least 250 PBGs (275 to 350 active 
clusters) in each of the six following recovery units: Sandhills, Mid-
Atlantic Coastal Plain, South Atlantic Coastal Plain, West Gulf Coastal 
Plain, Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain, and Upper East Gulf Coastal 
Plain. This criterion has been partially met. Currently, four of the 
six recovery units have a population that has reached the minimum 
required size to fulfill this criterion (Sandhills, North Carolina 
Sandhills East Primary Core; Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, Francis Marion 
Primary Core; South Atlantic Coastal Plain, Fort Stewart Primary Core; 
and Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain, Sam Houston Primary Core). The 
Vernon-Fort Polk primary core with 223 active clusters and 185 PBGs 
(West Gulf Coastal Plain) and Bienville Primary Core with 162 active 
clusters and 144 PBGs (Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain) have not 
fulfilled this criterion.
     Downlisting Criterion 3: There is at least one stable or 
increasing population containing at least 100 PBGs (110 to 140 active 
clusters) in each of the four following recovery units: Mid-Atlantic 
Coastal Plain, Sandhills, South Atlantic Coastal Plain, and East Gulf 
Coastal Plain. This criterion has been fulfilled by the following 
populations: Coastal North Carolina Primary Core (235 active clusters, 
209 PBGs, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain), South Carolina Sandhills 
Secondary Core (237 active clusters, 211 PBGs, Sandhills), Osceola/
Okefenokee Primary Core (212 active clusters, 189 PBGs, South Atlantic 
Coastal Plain), and Eglin Primary Core (526 active clusters, 462 PBGs, 
East Gulf Coastal Plain).
     Downlisting Criterion 4: There is at least one stable or 
increasing population containing at least 70 PBGs (75 to 100 active 
clusters) in each of the following

[[Page 63489]]

four recovery units: Cumberland Ridge and Valley, Ouachita Mountains, 
Piedmont, and Sandhills. In addition, in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal 
Plain, the Northeast North Carolina/Southeast Virginia Essential 
Support Population is stable or increasing and contains at least 70 
PBGs (75 to 100 active clusters). This criterion has been partially met 
by two populations: North Carolina Sandhills West Essential Support 
(187 active clusters, 166 PBGs, Sandhills) and Oconee/Piedmont 
Secondary Core (85 active clusters, 76 PBGs, Piedmont). Three of the 
five populations presently do not meet the required population size: 
Ouachita Secondary Core (73 active, 69 PBGs, Ouachita Mountains), 
Northeast North Carolina/Southeast Virginia Essential Support (68 
active clusters, 61 PBGs, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain), and Talladega/
Shoal Creek Essential Support (45 active clusters, 43 PBGs, Cumberland 
Ridge and Valley). The Ouachita Secondary Core population in the 
Ouachita Mountains recovery unit, with an estimated 69 PBGs, is on the 
threshold of achieving the size criterion.
     Downlisting Criterion 5: There are at least four 
populations each containing at least 40 PBGs (45 to 60 active clusters) 
on State and/or Federal lands in the South/Central Florida Recovery 
Unit. This criterion has been met by four populations: Big Cypress 
Essential Support, (88 active clusters, 78 PBGs); Goethe Essential 
Support (63 active clusters, 52 PBGs); Ocala Essential Support (123 
active clusters, 109 PBGs); Withlacoochee Citrus Tract (80 active 
clusters, 78 PBGs).
     Downlisting Criterion 6: There are habitat management 
plans in place in each of the above populations identifying management 
actions sufficient to increase the populations to recovery levels, with 
special emphasis on frequent prescribed burning during the growing 
season. This criterion has been mostly met. These 20 populations occur 
on properties owned by 6 Federal and 5 State agencies, and 2 
nongovernmental entities. Agency management plans meet this criterion 
for 18 of these 20 populations. The remaining two populations, the Big 
Cypress Essential Support population and the Northeast North Carolina/
Southeast Virginia Essential Support population, do not currently 
fulfill this management criterion for various reasons. The Big Cypress 
Essential Support population, on the Big Cypress National Preserve, has 
exceeded its recovery population size objective, and while the Preserve 
management plan doesn't mention species-specific management activities, 
appropriate habitat management is occurring along with a limited 
application of artificial cavity installation. In addition, because of 
the current distribution and number of natural cavities and continued 
excavation of natural cavities on the Preserve by woodpeckers, there 
may be sufficient old pines for natural cavity excavation to sustain 
this population even if the Preserve does not manage for artificial 
cavities in the future. The Northeast North Carolina/Southeast Virginia 
Essential Support population is spread over five properties with a 
mixture of management plans and management activities. For example, The 
Nature Conservancy does not have a management plan for the Piney Grove 
Preserve in Virginia; however, this population segment is intensively 
and successfully managed. Red-cockaded woodpeckers on the remaining 
four properties inhabit ecologically unique conditions that limit the 
application of the standard management techniques, and a management 
plan does not exist for one of these properties. In addition, the 
available management plans for these 20 populations include none to 
minimal provisions for post-hurricane or post-storm management, 
although such management generally does occur when needed.
    Delisting can be achieved with a minimum 29 populations that 
fulfill required size criteria in, when required, specific recovery 
units. As with downlisting, a population that fulfills one criterion 
cannot be applied to meet another criterion. All of these populations 
must exist with suitable natural cavities and without dependence on 
continued artificial cavity management. Sufficient management and 
monitoring plans must be available by respective management agencies to 
continue to sustain these populations. Finally, the recovery plan 
indicates that only 11 of the 13 primary core populations must meet the 
delisting criteria because at any time 2 may be recovering from adverse 
impacts of hurricanes. Similarly, the requirement for secondary core 
populations is 9 of 10, and the requirement for essential support 
populations is 9 of 16 to allow for hurricane impacts.
    Of the 29 populations required for delisting, only 12 (41.4 
percent) currently meet delisting population size requirements. Of the 
following four recovery criteria with delisting population size 
requirements, Delisting Criterion 3, concerning populations in the 
South/Central Florida recovery unit, is the only criterion in which all 
populations have attained minimum size attributes. All of these 29 
populations currently remain dependent on artificial cavities.
     Delisting Criterion 1: There are 10 populations of red-
cockaded woodpeckers that each contain at least 350 PBGs (400 to 500 
active clusters), and one population that contains at least 1,000 PBGs 
(1,100 to 1,400 active clusters), from among 13 designated primary core 
populations, and each of these 11 populations is not dependent on 
continuing installation of artificial cavities to remain at or above 
this population size. This criterion has not been met. Five of the 11 
primary core populations in this criterion have met or positively 
exceeded the minimum population size, but all populations remain 
dependent on artificial cavities and no population has reached at least 
1,000 PBGs: North Carolina Sandhills East Primary Core (520 active 
clusters, 514 PBGs), Fort Stewart Primary Core (504 active clusters, 
480 PBGs), Eglin Primary Core (526 active clusters, 462 PBGs), Francis 
Marion Primary Core (465 active clusters, 414 PBGs), Fort Benning 
Primary Core (400 active clusters, 387 PBGs) The Central Florida 
Primary Core is the closest to achieving the 1,000 PBG goal (858 active 
clusters, 764 PBGs). In addition, the following populations have not 
yet met the goal of 350 PBGs: Sam Houston Primary Core (289 active 
clusters, 257 PBGs), Coastal North Carolina Primary Core (235 active 
clusters, 209 PBGs), Osceola/Okefenokee Primary Core (212 active 
clusters, 189 PBGs), Vernon/Fort Polk Primary Core (223 active 
clusters, 199 PBGs), and Bienville Primary Core (162 active clusters, 
144 PBGs)
     Delisting Criterion 2: There are nine populations of red-
cockaded woodpeckers that each contain at least 250 PBGs (275 to 350 
active clusters) from among 10 designated secondary core populations, 
and each of these nine populations is not dependent on continuing 
installation of artificial cavities to remain at or above this 
population size. This criterion has not been met. None of the 10 
designated secondary core populations harbors 250 PBGs, which range in 
size from 69 PBGs in the Ouachita Secondary Core to 211 PBGs in the 
South Carolina Sandhills Secondary Core, and all of these populations 
remain dependent on artificial cavities.
     Delisting Criterion 3: There are at least 250 PBGs (275 to 
350 active clusters) distributed among designated essential support 
populations in the South/Central Florida Recovery Unit, and six of 
these populations (including at least two of the following: Avon Park, 
Big Cypress, and Ocala) exhibit a minimum population size of 40 PBGs

[[Page 63490]]

that is independent of continuing artificial cavity installation. This 
criterion has been partially met. The size of the six populations and 
total number of PBGs has been fulfilled: Babcock/Webb Essential Support 
(46 active clusters, 42 PBGs), Big Cypress Essential Support (88 active 
clusters, 78 PBGs), Goethe Essential Support (63 active clusters, 52 
PBGs), Ocala Essential Support (123 active clusters, 109 PBGs), Three 
Lakes Essential Support (48 active clusters, 45 PBGs), and 
Withlacoochee Citrus Tract Essential Support (80 active clusters, 78 
PBGs). All populations continue to be dependent on artificial cavities.
     Delisting Criterion 4: There is one stable or increasing 
population containing at least 100 PBGs (110 to 140 active clusters) in 
northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia, the Cumberland 
Ridge and Valley recovery unit (Talladega/Shoal Creek), and the 
Sandhills recovery unit (North Carolina Sandhills West), and these 
populations are not dependent on continuing artificial cavity 
installation to remain at or above this population size. This criterion 
has been partially met. Of these three populations, the size objective 
of the North Carolina Sandhills West Essential Support (187 active 
clusters, 166 PBGs) has been fulfilled, while the Northeast North 
Carolina/Southeast Virginia Essential Support (73 active clusters, 65 
PBGs) and the Talladega/Shoal Creek Essential Support (42 active 
clusters, 32 PBGs) have not achieved the population size objective. 
Also, all three populations continue to be dependent on artificial 
cavities.
     Delisting Criterion 5: For each of the populations meeting 
the above size criteria, responsible management agencies shall provide 
(1) a habitat management plan that is adequate to sustain the 
population and emphasizes frequent prescribed burning, and (2) a plan 
for continued population monitoring. This criterion has not been met. 
Once the populations required for delisting have achieved population 
size objectives and are not dependent on artificial cavities, this 
criterion requires adequate future management plans to continue to 
sustain habitat and populations with active habitat management and 
monitoring. Such management is essential to ensure populations do not 
decline and the species falls to an endangered or threatened status. 
These management and monitoring plans would represent post-delisting 
commitments by respective management entities for this conservation-
reliant species. Various management plans currently exist for these 
populations, but not as continued commitments upon recovery and 
delisting of the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Summary

    Since the recovery plan was last revised in 2003, the number of 
red-cockaded woodpecker active clusters has increased from 5,627 to 
over 7,800 (USFWS 2020, entire). The population size objectives to meet 
applicable downlisting criteria have been met for 15 of 20 designated 
populations. All of these designated populations show stable or 
increasing long-term population growth rates ([lambda] >= 1). However, 
not all of the designated recovery populations are demographically a 
single functional population as intended by the recovery plan. Nine of 
the 20 designated recovery populations toward fulfilling downlisting 
population size criteria consist of multiple smaller demographic 
populations. Based on the largest single demographic population for a 
designated recovery population, 14 of 20 designated recovery 
populations have achieved downlisting population size criteria. As to 
delisting criteria, because the delisting criteria all require all-
natural cavities, none of the delisting criteria have been fully met. 
With continued forest management to retain and produce sufficient old 
pines for natural cavity excavation, future populations would no longer 
be dependent artificial cavities. Regardless, there has been 
encouraging progress towards meeting the delisting criteria, as 12 of 
29 demographically delineated populations corresponding to designated 
recovery populations currently have achieved population sizes that meet 
the delisting criteria.
    While recovery plans provide important guidance to the Service, 
States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed 
species and measurable objectives against which to measure progress 
towards recovery, they are guidance and not regulatory documents. 
Revisions to the List, including downlisting or delisting a species, 
must reflect determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) 
and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary 
determine whether a species is an endangered species or threatened 
species due to threats to the species. Section 4(b) of the Act requires 
that the determination be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.'' Therefore, while it is 
valuable to consider the progress a species has made towards meeting 
downlisting or delisting criteria, the decision to reclassify an 
endangered species as threatened or to delist a species due to recovery 
does not rely on the recovery plan. For the red-cockaded woodpecker, 
although the population objectives from the recovery plan have yet to 
be reached, the primary recovery task of increasing existing 
populations on Federal and State lands has been successful, and the 
population growth rates indicate sufficient resiliency to stochastic 
disturbances with effective management. In addition, redundancy of 
moderate to very high resiliency populations suggests that risks from 
future catastrophic events to overall viability is low.

Determination of Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as 
any species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as a 
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the 
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because 
of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same five 
factors in reclassifying (e.g., changing a species status from 
endangered to threatened) or delisting a species.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    Red-cockaded woodpeckers were once considered a common bird across 
the southeastern United States. At the time of listing in 1970, the 
species was severely threatened by lack of adequate habitat due to 
historical logging, incompatible forest management, and conversion of 
forests to urban and agricultural uses. Fire-maintained old growth pine 
savannahs, on which the species depends, were extremely rare. What 
little habitat remained was mostly degraded due to fire suppression and 
silvicultural practices that hindered the development of older, larger 
trees

[[Page 63491]]

needed by the species for cavity development and foraging. Even after 
listing, the species continued to decline. However, new restoration 
techniques, such as artificial cavities, along with changes in 
silvicultural practices and wider use of prescribed fire to recreate 
open pine parkland structure, has led to stabilization of the species' 
viability and resulted in an increase in the number and distribution of 
populations. While most populations are still small and vulnerable to 
stochastic events, the majority of populations for which we were able 
to determine trends are stable or increasing ([lambda] = 1.0 or 
greater), and only 13 percent are declining. There are currently at 
least 124 populations across 13 ecoregions.
    When we modeled future scenarios, the majority of populations were 
projected to be stable or increasing in all but the low management 
scenario, highlighting how successful management can sustain even small 
populations, albeit with a greater inherent risk in response to poor or 
insufficient management. Future management at current and recent past 
levels, as represented by the medium management scenario, further 
increases the number of moderate to very high resiliency populations 
and projects that small populations can be preserved. In addition, at 
current (or greater) levels of management, redundancy and 
representation are expected to significantly improve because most 
populations are expected to increase in size across the ecoregions.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as the Services 
can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    We determined the foreseeable future to be 25 years from present, 
because it is a reasonable timeframe in which we can reasonably 
estimate population responses to natural factors and management. As 
discussed under Future Conditions above, in the SSA report, future 
population conditions under different management scenarios were 
simulated and modeled to 25 years into the future, and we determined 
that we can rely on the timeframe presented in the scenarios and 
predict how future stressors and management will affect the red-
cockaded woodpecker. It is the timeframe in which the 95 percent 
confidence intervals around the future scenario modeling have 
reasonable bounds of uncertainty. This timeframe, given the species' 
life history, is also sufficient to identify any effects of stressors 
or conservation measures on the red-cockaded woodpecker's viability at 
both population and species levels. Finally, 25 years represents 4 to 5 
generations of red-cockaded woodpecker, which would be sufficient time 
for population-level impacts from stressors and management to be 
detected.
    The red-cockaded woodpecker still faces a variety of stressors due 
to inadequate habitat across its range, but these are now mostly legacy 
stressors resulting from historical forest conversion and fire 
suppression practices rather than current habitat loss. These legacy 
stressors include insufficient numbers of cavities and suitable, 
abundant old pines for natural cavity excavation; habitat fragmentation 
and its effects on genetic variation, dispersal, and connectivity to 
support demographic populations; lack of suitable foraging habitat for 
population growth and expansion; and small populations. The species 
also still faces stress from natural events, especially hurricanes. 
Immediate management response after natural disasters is key to 
preventing cluster abandonment in all populations and is critical to 
keeping smaller populations from being extirpated altogether. More 
broadly, this species remains conservation-reliant throughout its 
range. Red-cockaded woodpeckers rely on, and will continue to rely 
almost completely on, active management by property managers and 
biologists to install artificial cavities and manage clusters, restore 
additional habitat and strategically place recruitment clusters to 
improve connectivity, control the hardwood midstory through prescribed 
fire and silvicultural treatments, and translocate individuals to 
augment small populations and minimize loss of genetic variation. In 
addition, emergency response after severe storms and other natural 
disasters will continue to be necessary to prevent cluster abandonment 
and minimize wildfire fuel loading. However, both the emergency 
response and routine management are well-understood and are currently 
being implemented across the range of the woodpecker. In addition, much 
of the red-cockaded woodpecker's currently occupied habitat is now 
protected under various management plans. As a conservation-reliant 
species, securing management commitments for the foreseeable future 
would ensure that red-cockaded woodpecker populations grow or are 
maintained. This conclusion is reinforced by the future scenario 
simulations, which indicate that management efforts equal to or greater 
than current levels will further increase the number of moderate to 
very high resiliency populations and preserve small populations.
    After evaluating the threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
find that, while the stressors identified above continue to negatively 
affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, new restoration techniques and 
changes in silvicultural practices has led to stabilization of the red-
cockaded woodpecker's viability and even resulted in a substantial 
increase in the number and distribution of populations. Thirteen 
percent of all current red-cockaded woodpecker clusters are within 
moderate, high, or very highly resilient populations, and populations 
are spread across multiple ecoregions, providing for redundancy and 
representation. However, the species remains highly dependent on 
continued conservation management and the majority of populations 
contain small numbers of clusters. Thus, after assessing the best 
available information, we conclude that the red-cockaded woodpecker is 
not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range; however, it is 
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range.
    However, if ongoing and future proactive red-cockaded woodpecker 
management were assured, the remaining negative factors identified 
above could be ameliorated. Therefore, in this proposed rule, we ask 
the public to provide comments regarding the adequacy of existing 
management plans for the conservation of the red-cockaded woodpecker, 
and the likelihood that those plans will continue to be implemented 
into the future (see Information Requested, above).

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. The court in Center

[[Page 63492]]

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 
2020) (Center for Biological Diversity), vacated the aspect of the 2014 
Significant Portion of its Range Policy that provided that the Services 
do not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species' 
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of 
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is 
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether 
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the 
portion is significant; and, (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for 
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question 
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of 
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with 
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to 
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity, 
we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the 
species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., 
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for the red-cockaded 
woodpecker, we choose to address the status question first--we consider 
information pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the 
species and the threats that the species faces to identify any portions 
of the range where the species is endangered.
    For the red-cockaded woodpecker, we considered whether the threats 
are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at 
a biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following stressors: 
Natural disasters such as hurricanes and vulnerability due to small 
population sizes and fragmentation. Other identified stressors, such as 
inadequate habitat, are uniform throughout the red-cockaded 
woodpecker's range. Although hurricanes may impact populations across 
the red-cockaded woodpecker's range, return intervals are shorter and 
impacts are more pronounced in near-coastal populations compared to 
inland populations (USFWS 2020, pp. 119-122). Furthermore, while small 
populations occur throughout the species' range, we found that there is 
a concentration of threats from the combination of both hurricanes and 
small population sizes in the Florida Peninsula, West Gulf Coastal 
Plain, and the southernmost near-coastal extension of the Upper West 
Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregions. This means these portions of the range 
together may constitute a portion of the species range where the 
species could have a different status because the threats are not 
uniform throughout the range and the species may face a greater level 
of imperilment where threats are concentrated.
    Having determined that these are portions of the range where the 
species may be in danger of extinction, we next examined the question 
of whether these portions may be significant. In undertaking this 
analysis for the red-cockaded woodpecker, we considered whether the 
portions of the species' range identified above may be significant 
based on their biological importance to the overall viability of the 
species. Although these areas contain 49 of the 124 demographic 
populations identified in the SSA (40 percent), only three populations 
currently have moderate resiliency and the remaining populations 
demonstrate low and very low resiliency. One of the moderate 
populations is projected to increase to high resiliency in the low 
management scenario and two of three moderate populations are projected 
to increase to high resiliency in the remaining future scenarios. 
However, the majority of the populations remain in the low or very low 
resiliency category and do not contribute significantly, either 
currently or in the foreseeable future, to the species' total 
resiliency at a biologically meaningful scale compared to other 
representative areas. Although the populations in these ecoregions are 
relatively small, the current and future redundancy suggests that 
hurricanes would be unlikely to extirpate red-cockaded woodpeckers in 
an entire ecoregion, thus overall representation should not be 
impacted. Even if some populations in these portions were to become 
extirpated, the species would maintain sufficient levels of resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy in the rest of these ecoregions and in 
other ecoregions across its range, supporting the species' viability as 
a whole. Thus, we do not find that these are portions of the red-
cockaded woodpecker's range that may be significant.
    In conclusion, we do not find any portions of the species' range 
may be significant based on their biological importance to the overall 
viability of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Therefore, no portion of the 
species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is in 
danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we 
determine that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This is 
consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department 
of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 
24, 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 
3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the red-cockaded woodpecker meets the 
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to reclassify 
the red-cockaded woodpecker as a threatened species in accordance with 
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Effects of This Proposed Rule

    This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to 
reclassify the red-cockaded woodpecker from endangered to threatened. 
This reclassification is due to the substantial efforts made by 
Federal, State, and private landowners to recover the species. Adoption 
of this proposed rule would formally recognize that this species is no 
longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range and, therefore, does not meet the definition of an 
endangered species. However, the species is still impacted by the 
effects of habitat loss and degradation, habitat fragmentation, and 
small populations such that it meets the Act's definition of a 
threatened species.

Proposed Section 4(d) Rule

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the ``Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation'' of species 
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that very 
similar statutory language like ``necessary and advisble'' demonstrates 
a large degree of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 
592 (1988)). Conservation is defined in the Act to mean ``the use of 
all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to [the Act] are no longer necessary.'' Additionally, 
the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the 
Secretary ``may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened 
species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 
or wildlife, or 9(a)(2), in the case of plants.'' Thus, regulations 
promulgated under section 4(d) of the Act provide the Secretary with 
wide latitude of discretion to select

[[Page 63493]]

appropriate provisions tailored to the specific conservation needs of 
the threatened species. The statute grants particularly broad 
discretion to the Service when adopting the prohibitions under section 
9.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules 
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority 
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife or included a 
limitated taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. 
Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. 
Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules 
that do not address all the threats a species faces (see State of 
Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the 
legislative history when the Act was initially enacted, ``once an 
animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite 
number of options available to him with regard to the permitted 
activities for those species. He may, for example, permit taking, but 
not importation of such species, or he may choose to forbid both taking 
and importation but allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. 
Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
    Exercising its authority under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service 
has developed a proposed 4(d) rule that is designed to address the red-
cockaded woodpeckers' specific threats and conservation needs. Although 
the statute does not require the Service to make a ``necessary and 
advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of specific 
prohibitions under section 9, we find that this rule as a whole 
satisfies the requirement in seciton 4(d) of the Act to issue 
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the red-cockaded woodpecker. As discussed above, the 
Service has concluded that the red-cockaded woodpecker is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future primarily 
due to threats stemming from lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, the 
provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule prohibit incidental take 
associated with actions that would result in the further loss or 
degradation of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, including damage to or 
loss of cavity trees. Maintaining and expanding existing populations is 
also vital to the conservation of the species; therefore, the proposed 
4(d) rule would also prohibit incidental take associated with actions 
that would harm or harass red-cockaded woodpeckers during breeding 
season as well as ban the use of insecticides and herbicides on 
standing pine trees in and around active cavity tree clusters (to 
provide for adequate foraging).
    The red-cockaded woodpecker relies, and will continue to rely, on 
artificial cavities until a sufficient number of large mature pines 
becomes widely available; the installation and maintenance of 
artificial cavities is an essential management tool to sustain 
populations until such time as there are adequate natural cavities. 
However, the proper techniques to install cavity inserts, drill 
cavities, or install cavity restrictor plates require training and 
experience; therefore, the proposed 4(d) rule would prohibit incidental 
take associated with these activities, so that they can be properly 
regulated under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. Similarly, inspecting 
cavities to monitor eggs and hatchlings, typically using a video scope, 
drop light, or mirror inserted into the cavity, could cause incidental 
take, through flushing of adult or subadult birds resulting in possible 
injury or even death, if not done correctly. Therefore, the proposed 
4(d) rule would prohibit incidental take associated with inspections of 
cavity contents, including the use of video scopes, drop lights, or 
mirrors, inserted into cavities; however, these activities could be 
covered under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit.
    The proposed 4(d) would also provide for certain exceptions to the 
prohibitions. In addition to certain standard exceptions, they include 
incidental take on Department of Defense installations under certain 
circumstances, incidental take associated with conservation and habitat 
restoration actions carried out in accordance with a Service- or State-
approved management plan, and certain actions that would harm or harass 
red-cockaded woodpeckers during breeding season associated with 
existing infrastructure that are not increases in the existing 
activities. All of these prohibitions and exceptions are discussed in 
more detail below.
    The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule are one of many tools 
that the Service would use to promote the conservation of the red-
cockaded woodpecker. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if and 
when the Service makes final the determination to reclassify the red-
cockaded woodpecker as a threatened species.

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule

    This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the 
red-cockaded woodpecker by prohibiting the following activities, except 
as otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting; take; 
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, 
receiving, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce 
in the course of commercial activity; and selling or offering for sale 
in interstate or foreign commerce. We also propose several standard 
exceptions to the prohibitions for the red-cockaded woodpecker, such as 
activities authorized by permits under Sec.  17.32 of these 
regulations; take by employees of State conservation agencies operating 
under a cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with 
section 6(c) of the Act; and take by an employee of the Service, 
Federal land management agency, or State conservation agency to aid 
sick or injured red-cockaded woodpeckers, which are set forth under 
Proposed Regulation Promulgation, below.
    Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined by 
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating 
intentional and incidental take would help preserve the species' 
remaining populations; enable beneficial management actions to occur; 
and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other stressors.
    In this 4(d) rule, we propose to prohibit intentional take, 
including capturing, handling, and similar activities, because these 
activities require training and experience. Such activities include, 
but are not limited to, translocation, banding, collecting tissue 
samples, and research involving capturing and handling red-cockaded 
woodpeckers. While these activities are important to red-cockaded 
woodpecker recovery, there are proper techniques to capturing and 
handling birds that require training and experience. Improper capture, 
banding, or handling can cause injury or even result in death of red-
cockaded woodpeckers. Therefore, to assure these activities continue to 
be conducted correctly by properly trained personnel, the proposed 4(d) 
rule would prohibit intentional take; however, these activities could 
be covered under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit.

[[Page 63494]]

    For the purposes of this rule, ``occupied habitat'' is defined as 
an active cavity tree cluster with surrounding suitable foraging 
habitat. An ``active cavity tree cluster'' is defined as the area 
delineated by a polygon of active cavity trees plus a 200-foot buffer, 
although there are some exceptions to this. Foraging habitat is 
delineated as surrogate foraging partitions according to described 
Service procedure and standard.
    As discussed above under Summary of Stressors and Conservation 
Measures Affecting the Species, the lack of suitable habitat is the 
primary factor continuing to affect the status of the red-cockaded 
woodpecker. Historical clearcutting, incompatible forest management, 
and conversion to urban and agricultural lands uses resulted in the 
loss of the majority of longleaf and other open-canopy pine habitat 
across the range of the species. While these impacts have been 
significantly curtailed and mostly replaced by beneficial conservation 
management, stressors caused by adverse historical practices still 
linger, such as insufficient numbers of cavities, low numbers of 
suitable old pines, and habitat fragmentation. In addition, these types 
of actions do still occur within red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, so 
maintaining existing habitat is essential. Therefore, in addition to 
the activities prohibited above, this proposed 4(d) rule would prohibit 
incidental take of any red-cockaded woodpecker: (1) Associated with 
damage or conversion of currently occupied red-cockaded woodpecker 
nesting and foraging habitat to other land uses that result in 
conditions not able to support red-cockaded woodpeckers; and (2) 
associated with forest management practices in currently occupied red-
cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat that result in 
conditions not able to support red-cockaded woodpeckers. Such actions 
could include, but are not necessarily limited to, timber harvesting 
for thinning or regeneration in occupied habitat that temporarily or 
permanently removes active cavity trees or suitable foraging habitat 
and renders the remaining habitat and timber insufficient for red-
cockaded woodpeckers, or actions that permanently convert currently 
occupied red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat to other 
non-forest land uses, such as real estate development, cultivation or 
crops, firing ranges on military installations, roads, rights-of-way, 
and pasture.
    However, under this 4(d) rule, we propose that habitat restoration 
activities that would sustain, improve, or increase quality and 
quantity of habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker would be excepted 
from incidental take prohibitions if they are conducted under a 
Service- or State-approved management plan that provides for the 
conservation of the red-cockaded woodpecker. The Service encourages 
landowners and managers to conduct activities that maintain and improve 
red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. These habitat restoration activities 
may include, but are not limited to, thinning overstocked stands; 
converting loblolly, slash or other planted pines to more fire-tolerant 
native pines such as longleaf pine; regeneration of stands to provide 
more sustainable future habitat; and prescribed fire. Current 
conditions in certain pine stands can limit the amount of red-cockaded 
woodpecker habitat. For example, foraging habitat dominated by even-
aged stands of old senescent pines may limit the ability of younger 
stands to grow and replace the future natural loss of older stands. 
Regeneration can be an important tool to provide a more sustainable 
future source of suitable red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging 
habitat with trees of sufficient size and age. However, harvesting 
occupied red-cockaded woodpecker habitat for regeneration in these 
conditions could result in loss of suitable habitat, resulting in a 
reduction to the red-cockaded woodpecker population. Under this 
proposed 4(d) rule, we would under certain conditions except incidental 
take associated with habitat restoration activities that have short-
term adverse effects to red-cockaded woodpecker, but that are intended 
to provide for improved habitat quality and quantity in the long term, 
with coinciding increase in numbers of red-cockaded woodpeckers. 
Current and future red-cockaded woodpecker habitat conditions that 
require such restoration can vary significantly among sites and 
properties, to the extent that it would be extremely difficult to 
prescribe a universal condition by which this exception would apply. 
Therefore, in this 4(d) rule we propose that these activities may 
proceed in compliance with a Service- or State-approved management 
plan, where the site-specific conditions can be strategically and 
accurately assessed. Suitable management plans may consist of stand-
alone documents, or may be tiered to other plans, such as U.S. Forest 
Service Land and Resource Management Plans, National Wildlife Refuge 
System Comprehensive Conservation Plans, and wildlife management area 
plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, or other State agency plans.
    Potentially, these management plans could cover more than just 
situations where land managers are seeking to alter habitat in the 
short term for long-term restoration of improved habitat. In this 4(d) 
rule we propose to except incidental take associated with other 
management activities conducted under Service- or State-approved red-
cockaded woodpecker management plans. Public agencies and private 
landowners prepare a variety of plans for different purposes. A 
Service- or State-approved plan in this regard would include a red-
cockaded woodpecker management component, whether as a part of a larger 
plan or a stand-alone plan, to address factors including, but not 
limited to, the red-cockaded woodpecker population size objective and 
how management for artificial cavities as needed and habitat management 
to sustain, restore, or increase habitat for foraging and cavity trees 
will attain population size objectives. For example, once certain 
population size objectives, such as those identified in the 2003 
recovery plan, are met, and other parameters are established (such as 
commitments relating to the amount, extent, and location of any future 
incidental take), a landowner following a Service- or State-approved 
management plan could be excepted from incidental take for red-cockaded 
woodpecker conservation activities or habitat restoration activities, 
including, but not limited to silviculture and prescribed fire, 
activities causing harm or harassment of red-cockaded woodpeckers, and 
use of insecticides or herbicides on their lands. Again, the Service 
seeks to encourage comprehensive, proactive management that results in 
red-cockaded woodpecker population growth and stability. Excepting 
incidental take once such targets are met will encourage these 
beneficial management activities. However, because of the differences 
in needed management across the range of the species, it is appropriate 
to identify these population targets and other parameters on a case-by-
case basis in a Service- or State-approved management plan, rather than 
in a blanket exception in this 4(d) rule. State agency Safe Harbor 
plans and agreements implemented for non-governmental landowners, as 
approved by the Service, do not need to be covered under this exception 
because they receive permits under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) 
of the Act that provides exemption from the prohibitions of incidental 
take.
    We acknowledge the critical role that the States play in the 
conservation of

[[Page 63495]]

the red-cockaded woodpecker. As described in Conservation Measures that 
Benefit the Species, above, States solely own and manage lands occupied 
by at least 31 demographic populations and oversee State-wide safe 
harbor agreements that have enrolled 459 non-Federal landowners 
covering approximately 2.5 million acres. Because of their authorities 
and their close working relationships with landowners, State agencies 
are in a unique position to assist the Services in implementing 
conservation programs for the red-cockaded woodpecker. We also 
acknowledge the workload that will be associated with the management 
plans as envisioned, and the limited resources the Service may have to 
participate fully in developing these plans, especially if multiple 
landowners were to request to develop such plans if and when this 4(d) 
rule is made final. Our intention is that these management plans would 
be developed in coordination with all affected entities--the Service, 
the landowner or manager, and the State conservation agency. However, 
because of the States' unique relationship with landowners, and their 
experience and sustained performance implementing conservation programs 
for red-cockaded woodpeckers in their States, in this rule, we propose 
that management actions implemented under red-cockaded woodpecker 
management plans developed with and approved by State conservation 
agencies and not necessarily the Service are excepted from the 
incidental take prohibitions. The Service seeks comment on what 
conditions, if any, should be placed upon State-approved management 
plans such that they would provide both protections to red-cockaded 
woodpeckers and incentives to landowners similar to a Service-approved 
plan (see Information Requested, above).
    The Service is also considering how to expand and provide further 
clarity regarding red-cockaded woodpecker conservation actions and 
habitat restoration activities that would be excepted from the 
incidental take prohibition in the 4(d) rule, and therefore we seek 
comment on our proposed provision excepting incidental take resulting 
from conservation or habitat management activities, including 
silviculture, prescribed fire, and use of insecticides or herbicides, 
with a Service- or State-approved management plan for red-cockaded 
woodpecker conservation (see Information Requested, above). In 
addition, we seek comment and information about the important factors 
that should be considered for these Service- or State-approved 
management plans. These factors may include the duration of the plan; 
personnel and funding for plan implementation; current habitat 
conditions and management limitations; the treatments to improve 
habitat and resolve limitations; desired future habitat conditions; and 
the past, current, and anticipated future size of the red-cockaded 
woodpecker population. In addition, these factors may include the role 
and extent of Service oversight of both Service- and State-approved 
plans, such as monitoring requirements and reporting to the Service any 
resulting take of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Continued conservation 
activities and beneficial land management are necessary to address 
habitat degradation and fragmentation, and it is the intent of this 
proposed rule to encourage these activities. We also seek comment on 
whether an exception could be made for beneficial long-term forest 
regeneration activities without a Service- or State-approved management 
plan, if limiting conditions were placed on the activities, such as 
red-cockaded woodpecker current population size and a future limit to 
the reduction of population size as a result of the restoration 
project, and what those limiting conditions should be.
    The use of insecticides and herbicides within or near an active 
cavity tree cluster could expose red-cockaded woodpeckers and their 
invertebrate prey to toxic chemicals, even when application follows 
labeling requirements. Depending on chemical ingredients, toxicity, and 
dose exposure, there is an ecological risk that foraging red-cockaded 
woodpeckers could be adversely exposed and injured (National Research 
Council 2013, p. 3-15). Adverse impacts to red-cockaded woodpeckers 
include reduced quantity of insects available for foraging or ingestion 
of contaminated prey (e.g., EPA 1993, p. 1-3; National Research Council 
2013, pp. 3-15). This proposed 4(d) rule would prohibit incidental take 
associated with using insecticides and herbicides on any standing pine 
tree in habitat occupied by red-cockaded woodpeckers within 0.50-mile 
from the center of an active cavity tree cluster, the area in which 
red-cockaded woodpeckers in an active territory are most likely to 
forage (Convery and Walters 2004, entire).
    This measure would not prohibit use of insecticides or herbicides 
in applications that do not result in an adverse chemical exposure to 
red-cockaded woodpeckers. The Service recognizes that herbicides can be 
safely applied in occupied habitat (McDearman 2012, entire). For 
example, hand application of herbicides by direct foliar spray in 
occupied habitat to control undesirable shrubs or hardwoods may not 
result in incidental take if no chemicals are applied--either directly 
or inadvertently--to standing pine trees where red-cockaded woodpeckers 
are expected to forage on uncontaminated invertebrates within the 0.50-
mile radius of the center of the active cavity tree cluster. The use of 
insecticides or herbicides within these areas could be permitted under 
a Service- or State-approved management plan, as described above, with 
an appropriate toxicological risk analysis of the likelihood of an 
adverse oral, dermal or respiratory exposure to the red-cockaded 
woodpecker, and incidental take could be excepted when adverse short-
term impacts are essential or unavoidable for a long-term benefit. We 
seek comment from the public on the spatial area covered by this 
prohibition, and whether the prohibition should apply to other 
vegetation, such as the herbaceous ground layer in addition to standing 
pine trees, within 0.50-mile from the center of an active cavity 
cluster, as well as the clarity of the prohibition, (see Information 
Requested, above).
    The proposed 4(d) rule would also prohibit incidental take of 
actions that would render cavity trees unusable to red-cockaded 
woodpeckers. This could result from activities such as parking 
vehicles, stacking pallets, or piling logging slash or logging decks, 
pine straw, or other material near active cavity trees; activities that 
damage active cavity trees; and accidently-set wildfires, because such 
activities could render the cavity trees unusable to red-cockaded 
woodpeckers. This prohibition is intended to prevent incidental take 
resulting from operations in the vicinity of active cavity trees that 
may damage the trees through, for example, collision or compaction of 
tree roots. This prohibition would also apply to activities that result 
in damage to cavity trees, rendering them unusable to red-cockaded 
woodpeckers. For example, incidental take caused by accidently started 
fires that damage cavity trees or a small- or large-arms munitions 
ricochet that hit a cavity tree, causing damage that ultimately kills 
the tree, would be prohibited.
    Within the range of the species, all Department of Defense Army, 
Air Force, and Marine Corps installations have red-cockaded woodpecker 
management plans and guidelines incorporated into their Service-
approved INRMPs to

[[Page 63496]]

minimize the adverse effects of military training and to achieve 
recovery objectives. These plans and guidelines include red-cockaded 
woodpecker conservation and population size objectives, management 
actions to achieve conservation goals, monitoring and reporting, and 
specific training activities that are allowed or restricted within 
clusters and near cavity trees. Under the Sikes Act (16.U.S.C. 670 et 
seq.), the Service is required to review and approve INRMPs, when they 
are revised, at least every 5 years, and participate in annual reviews. 
As a result of these conservation programs under Service-approved 
INRMPs, red-cockaded woodpecker populations have increased on all 
installations. In fact, Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart, Eglin Air Force Base, 
Fort Benning, and Camp Blanding all have achieved or surpassed their 
red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan population size objectives and 
are expected to continue to manage towards larger populations. Active 
and beneficial red-cockaded management to increase population sizes on 
military installations has been an essential component of sustaining 
the species, and it offsets the adverse effects of training. Therefore, 
the proposed 4(d) rule would except incidental take resulting from red-
cockaded woodpecker management and military training activities on 
Department of Defense installations with a Service-approved INRMP. Any 
incidental take resulting from new proposed training or construction 
activities that is not incorporated into a Service-approved INRMP would 
not be excepted under this proposed rule, but could be excepted through 
an incidental take statement associated with a biological opinion 
resulting from section 7 consultation under the Act. The Service seeks 
comments on this exception (see Information Requested, above).
    During the breeding season in particular, vehicles and equipment, 
floodlights, other construction activities, extraction activities, 
military maneuvers, or even just human presence can potentially harass 
breeding red-cockaded woodpeckers, resulting in nest failure. 
Therefore, this proposed 4(d) rule would also prohibit incidental take 
associated with the operation of vehicles or mechanical equipment, the 
use of flood lights at night, activities with a human presence, 
(including military activities), other actions associated with 
construction or repair, or extraction activities in an active cavity 
tree cluster during the breeding season. The breeding season for red-
cockaded woodpeckers can vary across the latitudinal range and, 
depending on location, the season can start as early as March and end 
as late as July; therefore we do not propose specific dates for this 
prohibition in this rule. We furthermore acknowledge that incidental 
take from such activities can also occur outside of the breeding 
season, so we seek comments from the public about whether this 
prohibition should encompass the whole year, and not just during the 
breeding season (see Information Requested, above).
    We acknowledge that there are active cavity tree clusters within 
areas with existing human presence, activities, and infrastructure, 
including Federal, State, and county roads, private forest access roads 
and trails, military installations, nature trails, golf courses, and 
residential areas. We also recognize the use of vehicles and mechanical 
equipment may need to be used for maintenance requirements to ensure 
safety and operational needs of existing infrastruture, including 
maintaining existing infrastructure such as firebreaks, roads, rights-
of-way, fence lines, and golf courses, and we understand that these 
maintenance requirements to ensure human safety may need to take place 
during the breeding season. Incidental take resulting from these 
ongoing activities are excepted from this prohibition. In addition, we 
recognize there is existing human presence, activities, and 
infrastructure within active cavity tree clusters and that red-cockaded 
woodpeckers have demonstrated tolerance, or an ability to habituate, to 
these stressors without adversely affecting essential feeding, 
breeding, or sheltering behaviors. Therefore, for continuation of 
ongoing activities, as long as there is no increase in the frequency, 
intensity, duration, pattern, or extent of existing operations, use, or 
activities, such that red-cockaded woodpeckers would negatively respond 
to the stressor, the activities may continue (i.e., are not 
prohibited), and any incidental take, although unlikely, resulting from 
existing operation of vehicles or mechanical equipment, use of lights 
at night, or activities with human presence are excepted from the 
incidental take prohibitions. An example of an activity that would be 
excepted from the incidental take prohibitions would be routine, 
ongoing road maintenance, such as mowing rights-of way or trimming back 
vegetation, during the breeding season on a forest road that bisects an 
active cavity tree cluster. Other examples of ongoing activities 
include a continuation of recreation at golf courses and parks and 
driving vehicles on existing highways and roads. On the other hand, new 
activities, or ongoing activities that increase in frequency, 
intensity, duration, or extent would not be excepted. For instance, new 
road construction initiated during the breeding season in an active 
cavity tree cluster would potentially increase the extent or duration 
of stressors beyond existing, routine operations, and therefore would 
be prohibited.
    However, there are also operations conducted near active cavity 
trees that render the tree unusable to red-cockaded woodpeckers, 
through sustained harassment that prevents individual birds from using 
cavities. For example, staging and use of equipment such as generators 
and floodlights within an active cavity tree cluster can cause birds to 
roost outside of their cavities and become exposed to predation, 
disrupt incubation and kill eggs, or alter feeding of nestlings, which 
could result in their death. We seek comment on whether this 
prohibition should also apply to these situations where harassment is 
likely (see Information Requested, above).
    Red-cockaded woodpeckers must have sufficient nesting and foraging 
habitat to survive. Maintaining an adequate number of suitable cavities 
in each woodpecker cluster is fundamental to the conservation of the 
species. Loss of natural cavity trees was a major factor in the 
species' decline, and availability of natural cavity trees currently 
limits many populations. Until a sufficient number of large, old pines 
become widely available, installation and maintenance of artificial 
cavities is an essential management tool to sustain populations and 
bring about population increases, and the Service continues to 
encourage the installation of artificial cavities. However, we also 
acknowledge that there are proper techniques to install cavity inserts, 
drill cavities, or install cavity restrictor plates, and these 
techniques require training and experience. Improperly installed 
artificial cavities can cause injury or even result in death of red-
cockaded woodpeckers attempting to roost or nest in them. Therefore, to 
assure artificial cavities continue to be installed correctly by 
properly trained personnel, the proposed 4(d) rule would prohibit 
incidental take associated with the installation of artificial cavity 
inserts, drilled cavities, or cavity restrictor plates; however, these 
activities could be covered under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit.
    We acknowledge that many of our partners have the training and 
extensive experience in installing artificial

[[Page 63497]]

cavities. We, therefore, ask the public to comment regarding whether 
the installation of artificial cavities should be excepted from the 
incidental take prohibitions for individuals who have completed 
training and have achieved a certain level of proficiency, and what 
that training and proficiency should be (see Information Requested, 
above).
    Similarly, we encourage monitoring of red-cockaded woodpecker 
clusters and populations, including inspecting cavities to monitor eggs 
and hatchlings, typically using a video scope, drop light, or mirror 
inserted into the cavity. However, these inspections can cause 
incidental take if not done correctly, as red-cockaded woodpeckers 
sometimes will flush from the cavity chamber and injure themselves 
trying to escape past the probe. Therefore, the proposed 4(d) rule 
would prohibit incidental take associated with inspections of cavity 
contents, including the use of video scopes, drop lights, or mirrors, 
inserted into cavities. These activities could be covered under a 
section 10(a)(1)(A) permit.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, 
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under 
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued 
for the following purposes: Scientific purposes, to enhance propagation 
or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 
educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes 
consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain 
statutory exceptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 
9 and 10 of the Act.
    The Service recognizes the special and unique relationship with our 
State conservation agency partners in contributing to conservation of 
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and 
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, 
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State 
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working 
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique 
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act. 
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall 
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying 
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee 
or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a 
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) 
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, 
would be able to conduct activities designed to conserve the red-
cockaded woodpecker that may result in otherwise prohibited take 
without additional authorization, including installation of artificial 
cavities.
    Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the 
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of 
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and 
protection of the red-cockaded woodpecker. However, interagency 
cooperation may be further streamlined through planned programmatic 
consultations for the species between Federal agencies and the Service. 
We ask the public, particularly State agencies and other interested 
stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to provide 
comments and suggestions regarding additional guidance and methods that 
the Service could provide or use, respectively, to streamline the 
implementation of this proposed 4(d) rule (see Information Requested, 
above).

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Proposed Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined in the 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes. As we move forward with this 
reclassification process, we will continue to consult with tribes on a 
government-to-government basis as necessary.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0018 and 
upon request from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, above.

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the 
Service's Southeastern Region, Division of Conservation and 
Classification.

Signing Authority

    The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this 
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document 
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as 
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Aurelia 
Skipwith, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this 
document on September 24, 2020, for publication.


[[Page 63498]]


    Dated: September 24, 2020.
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk 
Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Woodpecker, red-
cockaded'' under BIRDS in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
              Birds
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Woodpecker, red-cockaded........  Dryobates borealis  Wherever found....  T              35 FR 16047, 10/13/
                                                                                          1970; [Insert Federal
                                                                                          Register citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.41(h).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.41 by adding a paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.41   Special rules--birds.

* * * * *
    (h) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Dryobates borealis).
    (1) Definition. Under this paragraph (h), an ``active cavity tree 
cluster'' means the area delineated by a polygon of red-cockaded 
woodpecker active (i.e., occupied) cavity trees with a 200-foot buffer.
    (2) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions in this paragraph 
(h)(2) that apply to endangered wildlife also apply to red-cockaded 
woodpecker. Except as provided under paragraph (h)(3) of this section 
and Sec. Sec.  17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, 
to solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any of the 
following acts in regard to this species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(b).
    (ii) Intentional take, including capturing, handling, or other 
activities, except as set forth in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) and (iii) of 
this section.
    (iii) Possession, sale, delivery, carrying, transportation, or 
shipment, by any means whatsoever, of any red-cockaded woodpecker taken 
in violation of paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, except 
as set forth in paragraph (h)(3)(iv) of this section.
    (iv) Incidental take resulting from the following activities:
    (A) Damage or conversion of currently occupied red-cockaded 
woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat to other land uses that results 
in conditions not able to support red-cockaded woodpeckers.
    (B) Forest management practices in currently occupied red-cockaded 
woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat, including, but not limited to, 
timber harvesting for thinning or regeneration, that result in 
conditions not able to support red-cockaded woodpeckers.
    (C) Operation of vehicles or mechanical equipment, the use of 
floodlights, activities with a human presence, other actions associated 
with construction and repair, or extraction activities in an active 
cavity tree cluster during the red-cockaded woodpecker breeding season, 
except as set forth under paragraph (h)(3)(v)(C) of this section.
    (D) Installation of artificial cavity inserts, drilled cavities, or 
cavity restrictor plates.
    (E) Inspecting cavity contents, including, but not limited to, use 
of video scopes, drop lights, or mirrors inserted into cavities.
    (F) Activities that render active cavity trees unusable to red-
cockaded woodpeckers.
    (G) Use of insecticide or herbicide on any standing pine tree 
within 0.50-mile from the center of an active cavity tree cluster of 
red-cockaded woodpeckers.
    (iv) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1).
    (v) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e).
    (vi) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(f).
    (3) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you 
may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit issued under Sec.  
17.32.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for 
endangered wildlife, and (c)(6) and (c)(7) for endangered migratory 
birds.
    (iii) Take as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken red-
cockaded woodpeckers, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) through (d)(4) 
for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
    (A) Red-cockaded woodpecker management and military training 
activities on Department of Defense installations with a Service-
approved integrated natural resources management plan.
    (B) Habitat restoration activities carried out in accordance with a 
management plan providing for red-cockaded woodpecker conservation 
developed in coordination with, and approved by, the Service or a State 
conservation agency.
    (C) Operation of vehicles or mechanical equipment, the use of 
lights at night, or activities with a human presence in active cavity 
tree cluster during the red-cockaded woodpecker breeding season 
provided that they:

[[Page 63499]]

    (1) Are maintenance requirements to ensure safety and operational 
needs of existing infrastructure, including maintaining existing 
infrastructure such as firebreaks, roads, rights-of-way, fence lines, 
and golf courses; and
    (2) Do not increase the frequency, intensity, duration, pattern, or 
extent of existing operation, use, or activities.

[FR Doc. 2020-21510 Filed 10-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P