[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55591-55592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26998]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Receipt of
an Application for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the Red-Cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW) by Potlatch Corporation for Timber Harvesting and
Management in Calhoun, Cleveland, and Bradley Counties in South-Central
Arkansas
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Potlatch Corporation (Applicant) is seeking an ITP from the
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Endangered Species Act (Act), as amended. The permit would
authorize the take of the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis),
an endangered species, in Calhoun, Cleveland, and Bradley Counties in
south-central Arkansas, for a period of 30 years. The proposed
incidental take would be the inadvertent harvest of an unknown RCW
cavity tree during forest management on land owned by the Applicant or
other privately owned land where the Applicant has purchased timber.
The Service also announces the availability of a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) and EA. The Applicant's HCP describes
conservation measures that will be taken to avoid accidentally
harvesting cavity trees. Also, the HCP delineates other measures to
conserve cavity trees, cavity tree clusters, and RCW foraging habitat.
The EA prepared by the Service describes the environmental consequences
of issuing or denying the ITP. As stated in the EA, the Service
proposes to issue the requested permit. This proposal is based on a
preliminary determination that the Applicant has satisfied the
requirements for permit issuance and that the HCP provides conservation
benefits to RCWs that exceed the impact of inadvertently harvesting
cavity trees. Copies of the EA and HCP may be obtained by making a
written request to the Regional Office [See ADDRESSES below]. This
notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act and National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
DATES: Written comments on the permit application, EA, and HCP should
be received on or before December 1, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application, HCP, and EA may
obtain a copy by writing the Service's Southeast Regional Office,
Atlanta, Georgia. Requests for the documents must be in writing to be
processed. Documents will also be available for public inspection by
appointment during normal business hours at the Regional Office, or the
Jackson, Mississippi, Field Office. Written data or comments concerning
the application, EA, or HCP should be submitted to the Regional Office.
Please reference permit under PRT-807952 in such comments:
Regional Permit Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875
Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (404-679-7110, fax
404-679-7081)
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View
Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, Mississippi 39213 (601-965-4900, fax 601-
965-4340)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will McDearman, Jackson, Mississippi,
Field Office or Rick Gooch at the Atlanta, Georgia, Regional Office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
(Act), and implementing regulations, prohibits the take of RCWs. Take,
in part, is defined as an activity that kills, injures, harms, or
harasses a listed endangered or threatened species. Section 10(a)(1)(B)
of the Act provides an exemption, under certain circumstances, to the
Section 9 prohibition if the taking is incidental to, and not the
purpose of otherwise lawful activities.
The RCW is the only woodpecker in North America that excavates its
roosting and nesting cavities in live pine trees. Cavities are located
in heartwood that is usually infected and softened by the red-heart
fungus (Phellinus pini). Mature trees usually 80 or more years old are
typically selected for cavities because the heartwood is sufficiently
large for a cavity and the incidence of red-heart fungus is greater in
older trees. RCWs do not excavate and place cavities in sapwood.
RCWs are non-migratory, territorial, and live in family units that
are called groups. A group usually consists of a breeding pair,
offspring of the current year, and one or more male helpers that are
offspring from previous years. Each bird has a roost cavity that,
collectively,
[[Page 55592]]
comprise a cluster of cavity trees occupied by the group. Other
cavities that are abandoned, inactive, or under construction may also
occur in the cluster. RCWs forage for invertebrates on pine trees
within and surrounding the cluster. Birds usually forage on larger and
older pines. The foraging area will vary in size depending upon habitat
quality, but birds generally forage within a one-half mile radius of
the cluster.
Suitable habitat in the southern pine forest also consists of a
vegetation structure affected by and maintained by fire. Encroachment
of fire intolerant hardwoods into the forest midstory, particularly
within clusters, can cause RCWs to abandon cluster and foraging
habitat.
The number of RCW groups persisting today represents about 1
percent of the historical population that occupied the pre-Columbian
southern pine forest. The decline of the RCW was initiated by the
deforestation of the fire-maintained southern pine ecosystem at the
turn of this century. Subsequent habitat loss and fragmentation has
been caused by urbanization, fire exclusion, and forest management
practices. Where forests exist today, most are either unsuitable or
uninhabited by RCWs due to short harvest rotations, clear cutting,
infrequently prescribed fire, and insufficient cluster and foraging
habitat.
About 44 RCW groups inhabit land owned by the Applicant in south-
central Arkansas. In the Draft RCW Procedures Manual for Private Lands
(Draft Manual), the Service has proposed minimum forest management
guidelines to avoid taking RCWs. The Draft Manual's recommendations
provide the minimum quantitative and qualitative standards to avoid
harm and harassment as a result of modifying RCW foraging and cluster
habitat. The Applicant's HCP will provide cluster and foraging habitat
in excess of that minimally recommended in the Draft Manual. Minimum
foraging habitat guidelines recommend 3,000 ft\2\ of pine basal area
( 10'' DBH) within a 0.5 mile radius area of each active
cluster. The Applicant's plan, which relies on uneven-aged forest
management and select harvesting, currently provides an average of
8,188 ft\2\ pine basal area for each RCW cluster. This quantity is
about 2.7 times the minimum recommendation, and is about 96 percent of
the amount (8,490 ft\2\) the Service has established for foraging
habitat on Federal lands at the higher standard of RCW recovery-level
management. As the Applicant's foraging stands become fully stocked by
the all-aged management objective, a target of 14,596 ft\2\ of basal
area may be obtained, about 1.7 times the amount recommended in the
Service's RCW recovery plan.
Cluster management in the HCP involves measures to identify, mark,
and map cavity trees, using an integrated Geographic Information
System. Within each cluster, the Applicant will control hardwood
encroachment, provide suitable replacement cavity trees, and prohibit
the cutting of any active or inactive cavity tree. Active cavity trees
lost due to natural factors such as lightning and wind will be replaced
using artificial cavity inserts. Also, cavity restrictor plates will be
installed when cavities are threatened by pileated woodpecker activity.
The number of breeding pairs and the status of each cavity tree and
cluster (active vs. inactive) will be determined every 3 years by the
Applicant's monitoring and survey program.
The HCP also establishes annual employee training to effectively
implement all elements of the plan. Such training includes the field
identification of cavity trees, the provisions of records and
monitoring, and all other elements of cluster and foraging habitat
management.
An accidental harvest of a cavity tree associated with an unknown
cluster is possible, though the Service believes the HCP minimizes such
a chance. Even so, the net expected effect of the HCP and ITP is that
the RCW population will either be sustained or increased. The EA
considers the environmental consequences of two alternatives; issue the
requested permit as conditioned by the HCP, or take no action (deny
permit). The Service finds the greatest conservation benefits accompany
the HCP and proposed permit. RCW management according to minimum
private landowner guidelines, accompanying permit denial, would provide
less conservation benefit. The Service's proposed alternative is to
issue the requested ITP, based upon the submitted HCP. The principal
environmental consequence of permit issuance is to sustain or enhance
the status of the RCW, via implementation and funding the mitigation
and minimization measures as outlined above.
Dated: October 23, 1995.
Noreen K. Clough,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 95-26998 Filed 10-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
