[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51678-51680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26125]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Availability of an Application Submitted by South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources for a Statewide Incidental
Take Permit Associated With Implementation of a ``Safe Harbor'' Program
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (Applicant)
has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an
incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The proposed ITP
would authorize the incidental take of a federally endangered species,
the red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis (RCW). The permit would
authorize incidental take only on land that is enrolled in the proposed
``safe harbor'' program. (See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.)
The Service also announces the availability of an environmental
assessment (EA) and habitat conservation plan (HCP) for the incidental
take application. Copies of the EA and/or HCP may be obtained by making
a request to the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). 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 effecting the quality of the
human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 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. An excerpt of the
FONSI appears in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act and
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Although an EA has been prepared for this permit application, the
Service is considering a Categorical Exclusion on the action (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). The Service is soliciting public comments
and review on the applicability of a Categorical Exclusion to this
application and HCP.
The Service specifically requests comment on the appropriateness of
the ``No Surprises'' assurances should the Service determine that an
ITP will be granted based upon the submitted HCP. Although not
explicitly stated in the Service's EA or 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).
DATES: Written comments on the permit application, EA/FONSI, and HCP
should be sent to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) and
should be received on or before November 3, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application, HCP, and EA may
obtain a copy by writing the Service's Southeast Regional Office,
Atlanta, Georgia. Documents will also be available for public
inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Regional
Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(Attn: Endangered Species Permits), or at the following Field Offices:
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Post Office Box
12559, Charleston, South Carolina 29422-2559 (telephone 803/727-4707);
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
[[Page 51679]]
Service, College of Forest and Recreational Resources, 261 Lehotsky
Hall, Box 341003, Clemson, South Carolina 29634-1003 (telephone 864/
656-2432). Written data or comments concerning the application, EA, or
HCP should be submitted to the Regional Office. Comments must be
submitted in writing to be processed. Please reference permit number
PRT-834071 in such comments, or in requests of the documents discussed
herein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick G. Gooch, Regional Permit
Coordinator, (see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 404/679-7110; or Ms.
Lori Duncan, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Charleston Field Office, (see
ADDRESSES above), telephone: 803/727-4707 ext. 21.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RCW is a territorial, nonmigratory
cooperative breeding bird species. RCWs live in social units called
groups which generally consist of a breeding pair, the current year's
offspring, and one or more helpers (normally adult male offspring of
the breeding pair from previous years). Groups maintain year-round
territories near their roost and nest trees. The RCW is unique among
the North American woodpeckers in that it is the only woodpecker that
excavates its roost and nest cavities in living pine trees. Each group
member has its own cavity, although there may be multiple cavities in a
single pine tree. The aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster.
RCWs forage almost exclusively on pine trees and they generally prefer
pines greater than 10 inches diameter at breast height. Foraging
habitat is contiguous with the cluster. The number of acres required to
supply adequate foraging habitat depends on the quantity and quality of
the pine stems available.
The RCW is endemic to the pine forests of the Southeastern United
States and was once widely distributed across 16 States. The species
evolved in a mature fire-maintained ecosystem. The RCW has declined
primarily due to the conversion of mature pine forests to young pine
plantations, agricultural fields, and residential and commercial
developments, and to hardwood encroachment in existing pine forests due
to fire suppression. The species is still widely distributed (presently
occurs in 13 southeastern States), but remaining populations are highly
fragmented and isolated. Presently, the largest known populations occur
on federally owned lands such as military installations and national
forests.
In South Carolina, there are an estimated 1,000 active RCW clusters
as of 1992; 53 percent are on Federal lands, 7 percent are on State
lands, and 40 percent are on private lands.
There has not been a complete inventory of RCWs in South Carolina
so it is difficult to precisely assess the species' overall status in
the State. However, the known populations on public lands are regularly
monitored and generally considered stable. While several new active RCW
clusters have been discovered on private lands over the past few years,
many previously documented RCW clusters have been lost. It is expected
that the RCW population on private lands in South Carolina will
continue to decline, especially those from small tracts isolated from
other RCW populations.
The Service and several other agencies/organizations are working
cooperatively to develop an overall conservation strategy for the RCW
population and the ecosystem upon which it depends. One component of
this strategy is the proposed HCP that will implement the ``safe
harbor'' program. The Service recognizes that landowners presently have
no legal or economic incentive to undertake proactive management
actions, such as hardwood midstory removal, prescribed burning, or
protecting future cavity trees, that will benefit and help recover the
RCW. Indeed, landowners actually have a disincentive to undertake these
actions because of land use limitations that could result if their
management activities attract RCWs. However, some of South Carolina's
private landowners may be willing to take or permit actions that would
benefit the RCW on their property if the possibility of future land use
limitations could be reduced or eliminated.
Thus, the Service is proposing the ``safe harbor'' program, which
is designed to encourage voluntary RCW habitat restoration or
enhancement activities by relieving a landowner who enters into a
cooperative agreement with the Service from any additional
responsibility under the Act beyond that which exists at the time he or
she enters into the agreement; i.e., to provide a ``safe harbor.'' The
cooperative agreement will identify any existing RCW clusters and will
describe the actions that the landowner commits to take (e.g., hardwood
midstory removal, cavity provisioning, etc.) or allows to be taken to
improve RCW habitat on the property, and the time period within which
those actions are to be taken and maintained. Participating landowners
who enter into cooperative agreements with the Service will be included
within the scope of the ITP by Certificates of Inclusion administered
by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. A participating
landowner must maintain the baseline habitat requirements on his/her
property (i.e., any existing RCW groups and associated habitat), but
will be allowed to incidentally take RCWs at some point in the future
on other habitat on the property if RCWs are attracted to the site by
the proactive management measures undertaken by the landowner. No
incidental taking of any existing RCW group is permitted under this
program except under the special circumstances that are described in
the HCP. Further details about this program are found in the HCP.
The EA considers the environmental consequences of three
alternatives, including the preferred alternative--to implement the
``Safe Harbor'' program. The likely effects of the no-action
alternative are the continued decline of the RCW on private land and
the continued lack of management of many of the natural pine stands
that remain in the State. The third alternative involves offering
interested landowners financial, rather than regulatory, incentives to
undertake the desired land management activities for RCWs. This
alternative is not being pursued because the Service is presently
unable to fund such a program. The proposed action alternative is the
issuance of an incidental take permit and implementation of the ``Safe
Harbor'' program.
On Thursday, January 16, 1997, the Service published a notice in
the Federal Register announcing the Final Revised Procedures for
implementation of NEPA (NEPA Revisions), (62 FR 2375-2382). The NEPA
Revisions update the Service's procedures, originally published in
1984, based on changing trends, laws, and consideration of public
comments. Most importantly, the NEPA Revisions reflect new initiatives
and Congressional mandates for the Service, particularly involving new
authorities for land acquisition activities, expansion of grant
programs and other private land activities, and increased Endangered
Species Act permit and recovery activities. The revisions promote
cooperating agency arrangements with other Federal agencies; early
coordination techniques for streamlining the NEPA process with other
Federal agencies, Tribes, the States, and the private sector; and
integrating the NEPA process with other environmental laws and
executive orders. Section 1.4 of the NEPA Revisions identify actions
that may qualify for Categorical Exclusion. Categorical exclusions are
classes of
[[Page 51680]]
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Categorical exclusions are not the
equivalent of statutory exemptions. If exceptions to categorical
exclusions apply, under 516 DM 2, Appendix 2 of the Departmental
Manual, the departmental categorical exclusions cannot be used. Among
the types of actions available for a Categorical Exclusion is for a
``low effect'' HCP/incidental take permit application. A ``low effect''
HCP is defined as an application that, individually or cumulatively,
has a minor or negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP
[Section 1.4(C)(2)].
The Service may consider the Applicant's project and HCP such a
Categorical Exclusion. The Service is soliciting for public comments on
this determination. Based upon public comments, the Service may make a
final determination that this action is categorically excluded.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the issuance
of the ITP is not a major Federal action significantly effecting the
quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section
102(2)(C) of NEPA. This preliminary information may be revised due to
public comment received in response to this notice and is based on
information contained in the EA and HCP. An appropriate excerpt from
the FONSI reflecting the Service's finding on the application is
provided below:
Based on the analysis conducted by the Service, it has been
determined that:
1. Issuance of an ITP would not have significant effects on the
human environment in the project area.
2. The proposed take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
3. The Applicant has minimized impacts on the project site to the
extent practicable.
4. Other than impacts to the threatened species as outlined in the
documentation of this decision, the indirect impacts which may result
from issuance of the ITP are addressed by other regulations and
statutes under the jurisdiction of other government entities. The
validity of the Service's ITP is contingent upon the Applicant's
compliance with the terms of the permit and all other laws and
regulations under the control of State, local, and other Federal
governmental entities.
The Service will also evaluate whether the issuance of a Section
10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with Section 7 of the Act by conducting an
intra-Service Section 7 consultation. The results of the biological
opinion, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the
final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP.
Dated: September 25, 1997.
Judy L. Jones,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 97-26125 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
