Jump to main content.

Incidental Take Permit for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in Association With Timber Management Activities on Two Properties in Alachua and Citrus Counties, Florida; Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Receipt of a Joint Application

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: June 6, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 109)]
[Notices]               
[Page 31125-31127]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06jn97-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

 
Incidental Take Permit for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in 
Association With Timber Management Activities on Two Properties in 
Alachua and Citrus Counties, Florida; Availability of an Environmental 
Assessment and Receipt of a Joint Application

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Holnam, Inc., Crystal River Limestone Mine and Carl L. 
Johnson, Trustee, Eric Parker Realtor Kallman

[[Page 31126]]

tract (Applicants) have jointly 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 (Act), as 
amended. The proposed permit would authorize the incidental take of a 
federally endangered species, the red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides 
borealis (RCW), known to occur on the two tracts of lands owned by the 
Applicants. The Holnam, Inc., Crystal River Limestone Mine ownership 
(HCR Tract) is located in Citrus County, Florida. The Eric Parker 
Realtor Kallman ownership (Kallman Tract) is located in Alachua County, 
Florida. The Applicants are requesting an ITP in order to harvest the 
timber on their respective properties for economic reasons. The 
proposed ITP would authorize incidental take of a single RCW on the 
Kallman Tract and up to two groups of RCWs on the HCR Tract, in 
exchange for mitigation elsewhere as described further in 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 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 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 July 7, 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 Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, South, Suite 310, 
Jacksonville, Florida 32216-0912. 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-829937 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. 
Dawn Zattau, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Jacksonville Field Office, 
(see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 904/232-2580, extension 120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RCW is a territorial, non-migratory 
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.
    The most recent estimate of the status of the State of Florida's 
RCW population is 1995. Data indicates that 1,285 active RCW clusters 
occur, of which 1,063 (82.7 percent) exist on Federal lands, 128 (10 
percent) exist on State-owned lands, and 94 (7.3 percent) exist on 
private lands.
    Both the RCWs on both the Kallman and HCR Tracts exist in a highly 
fragmented landscape. As indicated in the accompanying HCP, data 
suggests that the RCW population on both tracts are experiencing a 
long-term decline that will result in local extirpation at some point 
in the near future. The nearest known RCWs to the Kallman property 
occur at Camp Blanding (15 miles away) and some isolated scattered 
groups in western Putnam County (15 miles away). Few suitable RCW 
habitats and groups located in region of the HCR Tract are scattered 
among predominately agricultural lands. Thirty RCW groups occur within 
13 miles of the HCR Tract at the Goethe State Forest and vicinity, 1 
group on private lands 10 miles to the southeast, and 58 groups 
approximately 17 miles away at Withlacoochee State Forest.
    One family of the threatened Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma 
coerulescens coerulescens) occur on the HCR Tract but will not be 
affected by the proposed timber harvesting activities and are not 
subject to the ITP request from the Applicants.
    The HCP provides mitigation measures for the proposed incidental 
taking including habitat enhancement and translocation of the remaining 
RCWs during a 3-year mitigation period, or until success is achieved, 
whichever is shorter. The HCP provides a funding mechanism for these 
mitigation measures.

HCR Tract

    The conservation measures proposed to offset impacts are:
     The Applicant will construct and install a minimum of four 
(4) completed

[[Page 31127]]

artificial cavity inserts within three (3) selected recruitment 
clusters within the Osceola National Forest (OSNF). The recruitment 
cluster locations will be determined in cooperation with the Applicant, 
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Service.
     Artificial cavity inserts will be screened for two (2) 
weeks and checked twice for leakage and cracks.
     Once the artificial cavities are in place, the single male 
RCW will be translocated to one of the newly-created recruitment sites. 
Work within the occupied RCW habitat onsite will be restricted until 
the single male RCW is translocated. Temporary foraging and roosting 
habitat will be provided, at a quantity consistent with Service 
guidelines.
     Monitoring will be conducted for three (3) years or until 
success is achieved, whichever is less. Success is defined as 
establishment of new breeding group in any of the newly-created 
recruitment sites. Two (2) visits to the receiving site will be made 
weekly for the first two (2) months following translocation of the 
single male RCW. Surveys of the remaining newly-created recruitment 
sites will take place four (4) times during the following nesting 
season to monitor reproductive status and success.

Kallman Tract

    The conservation measures proposed to offset impacts are:
     The Applicant will construct and install a minimum of four 
(4) completed artificial cavity inserts within one (1) selected 
recruitment clusters within the OSNF. The recruitment cluster location 
will be determined in cooperation with the Applicant, the USFS, and the 
Service.
     Artificial cavity inserts will be screened for two (2) 
weeks and checked twice for leakage and cracks.
     Once the artificial cavities are in place, the single male 
RCW will be translocated to an existing cluster site at the Ocala 
National Forest (ONF). Work within the occupied RCW onsite will be 
restricted until the single male RCW is translocated. Temporary 
foraging and roosting habitat will be provided, at a quantity 
consistent with Service guidelines.
     Monitoring of the translocated male RCW will take place 
the morning following release. Subsequent monitoring will take place 
one (1) week later. Four (4) visits will be made during the following 
nesting season, coordinated with ONF staff. Any other monitoring data 
collected by ONF staff will be reported to the Applicant.
    More details on the mitigation and minimization measures are 
outlined in the Applicants' HCP.
    The EA considers the environmental consequences of two 
alternatives, including the proposed action. The proposed action 
alternative is issuance of the incidental take permit and 
implementation of the HCP as submitted by the Applicants.
    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 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 ensured that adequate funding will be provided 
to implement the measures proposed in the submitted HCP.
    4. Other than impacts to endangered and 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.
    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 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 Applicants' ITP request and HCP such a 
Categorical Exclusion. The Service is soliciting for public comments on 
this determination. The Service is announcing the availability of the 
EA since the project's environmental documents were finalized shortly 
after the NEPA Revisions were released. However, the Service may make a 
final determination that this action is categorically excluded.

    Dated: May 28, 1997.
Noreen K. Clough,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 97-14785 Filed 6-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.