[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