[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3151-3152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1332]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Availability of an Environmental Assessment, Finding of No
Significant Impact, and Receipt of an Application for an Incidental
Take Permit by International Paper Company for Timber Management
Practices on its Lands in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: International Paper Company (Applicant) seeks an incidental
take permit (ITP) from the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant
to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), as amended (Act). The permit would apply to all of the
applicant's land holdings in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina that contain the
federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis).
The applicant has a total of 18 known active clusters in Alabama (2),
Georgia (2), South Carolina (9), and Louisiana (5). The applicant wants
to eventually transfer its baseline responsibility of 18 RCW clusters
to its Southlands Experimental Forest (SEF) in Bainbridge, Georgia
where there are currently two active RCW clusters. This ITP would
authorize take of the existing 16 RCW groups in Alabama, South
Carolina, and Louisiana incidental to timber management activities,
plus any clusters in excess of the baseline at SEF.
The Service also announces the availability of an environmental
assessment (EA) and Habitat Conservation Plan/Application for
Incidental Taking (HCP). Copies of the EA and/or HCP may be obtained by
making a request to the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests must
be in writing to be processed. This notice also advises the public that
the Service has made a preliminary determination that issuing the ITP
is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. The
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is based on information
contained in the EA and HCP. The final determination will be made no
sooner than 30 days from the date of this notice. This notice is
provided pursuant to Section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR
1506.6). The Service specifically requests comment on the
appropriateness of the ``No Surprises'' assurances should the Service
determine that an ITP will be granted and based upon the submitted HCP.
Although not explicitly stated in the HCP, the Service has, since
August 1994, announced its intention to honor a ``No Surprises'' Policy
for applicants seeking ITPs. Copies of the Service's ``No Surprises''
Policy may be obtained by making a written request to the Regional
Office (see ADDRESSES). The Service is soliciting public comments and
review of the applicability of the ``No Surprises'' Policy to this
application and HCP.
DATES: Written comments on the permit application, EA, and HCP should
be sent to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) and should be
received on or before February 20, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application, HCP, and EA may
obtain a copy by writing the Service's Southeast Regional Office,
Atlanta, Georgia. Documents will also be available for public
inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Regional
Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(Attn: Endangered Species Permits), or Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Brunswick Field Office, 4270 Norwich Street,
Brunswick, Georgia 31520. Written data or comments concerning the
application, EA, or HCP should be submitted to the Regional Office.
Requests for the documentation must be in writing to be processed.
Comments must be submitted in writing to be processed. Please reference
permit number PRT-833203 in such comments, or in requests of the
documents discussed herein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Rick G. Gooch, Regional Permit Coordinator, (see ADDRESSES above),
telephone: 404/679-7110; or Mr. Robert Brooks, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, Brunswick Field Office, (see ADDRESSES above), telephone:
912/265-9336.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Picoides borealis (or RCW) is a non-
migratory species that once was common in the southern Coastal Plain
from east Texas to Florida and north to Maryland,
[[Page 3152]]
Missouri, and Kentucky. RCWs nest in cavities constructed in living
mature (typically > 60 years old) pine trees. The RCW is a cooperative
breeder living in groups of one to nine birds with each bird nesting in
a cavity; the aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster. RCWs
prefer longleaf pine forests, but it will also utilize loblolly, pond,
slash, shortleaf, and even Virginia pines. Without periodic fire to
control hardwoods, RCWs will abandon cluster sites. The decline of the
RCW has resulted primarily from loss of its mature southern pine
habitat from logging and conversion to non-forest and from fire
exclusion.
Recovery activities for the RCW are focused on public lands.
However, private lands are also important for the RCW in the Service's
recovery strategy by: (1) Providing supplement habitat where the
federal land base is insufficient to support recovery; (2) establishing
and maintaining connection between and within populations on public
lands; and/or, (3) providing a supply of juvenile RCWs for
translocation into defined recovery populations. Unfortunately, RCWs on
private lands have fared poorly because landowners are not inclined to
manage their lands for RCW habitat because the bird's presence might
impose restrictions on timber harvesting and development. The Service
believes the private land RCW clusters that are geographically isolated
will eventually cease to exist if private landowners are not encouraged
to manage their lands for these birds.
The applicant, International Paper Company, proposes to sustain
RCWs on its lands through the creation of a migration bank on its SEF
property in Bainbridge, Georgia. This proposed mitigation bank at SEF
currently contains 5300 acres of contiguous forests and the applicant
proposes to establish and keep 3000 acres of high quality RCW habitat
at this site. This would be enough habitat to eventually support about
25-30 RCW groups. Currently there are about 1500 acres of high quality
RCW habitat and two RCW groups at SEF. The applicant is proposing
translocation, cavity augmentations, and intensive habitat management
at the SEF site to increase the RCW population. The applicant currently
has 18 known RCW groups on its lands in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia,
and South Carolina, and they will keep their baseline responsibility of
18 RCW groups at the proposed mitigation bank at SEF, with the Service
and state concurrence. The Service believes the applicants' extant RCW
population will ultimately benefit from this proposed mitigation bank
in that a more stable RCW population will be created and the applicant
will be better able to intensively manage the RCWs at SEF.
The EA considers the environmental consequences of three
alternatives, in addition to the proposed action. The no action
alternative may result in loss of habitat and individual groups of
Picoides borealis due to fragmented habitat, geographic isolation of
the groups, and lack of intensive management. The proposed action
alternative is issuance of the ITP with mitigation on the applicant's
property. To compensate for the proposed taking of RCW groups, the
applicant proposes to establish RCW groups on SEF before any taking
occurs. The applicant also proposes to sell mitigation credits to third
parties seeking incidental take permits for RCW on other private lands
should additional groups above baseline be created during the life of
the mitigation bank. The third alternative is to issue the ITP and
mitigate for the taking of RCW groups on federal, state, or other
private lands. The fourth alternative is for the Service to provide
financial incentives to the applicant to intensively manage the RCW
clusters on their lands.
As stated above, the Service has made a preliminary determination
that the issuance of the ITP is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. This preliminary information may
be revised due to public comment received in response to this notice
and is based on information contained in the EA and HCP. An appropriate
excerpt from the FONSI reflecting the Service's finding on the
application is provided below:
Based on the analysis conducted by the Service, it has been
determined that:
1. Issuance of an ITP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of the affected species in the wild.
2. This HCP contains provisions which sufficiently minimize and
mitigate the impacts to the extent practicable.
3. Issuance of an ITP would not have significant effects on the
human environment in the project area.
4. The proposed take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
5. Adequate funding will be provided to implement the measures
proposed in the submitted HCP.
The Service will also evaluate whether the issuance of a Section
10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with Section 7 of the Act by conducting an
intra-Service Section 7 consultation. The results of the biological
opinion, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the
final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP.
Dated: January 13, 1998.
H. Dale Hall,
Deputy Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 98-1332 Filed 1-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
