Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment and the Strategy and Guidelines for the Recovery and Management of the Red- cockaded Woodpecker and Its Habitat on National Wildlife Refuges

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment and

the Strategy and Guidelines for the Recovery and Management of the Red-

cockaded Woodpecker and Its Habitat on National Wildlife Refuges

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) announces the

availability of a finalized Strategy and Guidelines for the Recovery of

the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) and Its Habitat on National Wildlife

Refuges (Guidelines). Included in the Guidelines are population

management objectives for 644-654 active clusters of RCWs on

approximately 141,900 acres of pine and pine hardwood forest on 13

refuges in the southeastern United States. We will implement actions

directed at protection of clusters, management of nesting habitat,

population management, management of foraging habitat, forest

management (including silvicultural activities), and management of RCWs

in federally designated Wilderness.

We also announce the availability of a final environmental

assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA

includes an evaluation of the environmental impact of four

alternatives: (1) implementing the Guidelines as proposed; (2) taking

no action to comprehensively implement revised recovery guidelines and

strategies; (3) implementing the Guidelines, intensifying management

efforts and expanding the area to be managed for RCWs; and (4)

implementing the Guidelines on a smaller area of refuge land.

You may obtain copies of the Strategy and Guidelines and the EA by

making a request in writing to the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

This notice also advises the public that we have made a determination

that issuing the Guidelines 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. We base the FONSI on an evaluation of the

information contained in the Guidelines and provide this notice

pursuant to NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

DATES: We plan to implement the strategy and Guidelines effective upon

publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to obtain a copy of the Strategy and

Guidelines, should submit a request in writing to: U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, 1875 Century Boulevard,

Atlanta, Georgia 30345. (Attn: Assistant Regional Director, Refuges and

Wildlife.) You may also obtain copies at the Southeast Regional Office

(address above) and at the following locations: Office of the Red-

cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Clemson University, Department of Forest Resources, 261

Lehotsky Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-1003, and Office of the Refuge

Manager, Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Brooksville, MS

39739.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ralph Costa, Red-cockaded

Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator, Clemson Field Office, (see ADDRESSES

above), telephone: 864/656-2432, or Mr. David Richardson, Biologist,

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge (see ADDRESSES above), 601/323-5548.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Service is the lead Federal agency responsible for preserving,

protecting and enhancing nonmarine endangered species. We listed the

RCW as an endangered species in 1970. In addition to responsibilities

under the Endangered Species Act (Act), we administer National Wildlife

Refuge system lands. There are an estimated 141,900 acres of pine and

pine-hardwood habitat capable of supporting RCWs on 13 national

wildlife refuges in the southeast United States.

The RCW is a territorial, non-migratory cooperative breeding bird

species. RCWs live in social units called groups or clans 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.

We call the aggregate of cavity trees a cluster. RCWs forage almost

exclusively on pine trees, and they generally prefer pines greater than

10 inches in 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

occurring in 13 southeastern states), but the 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 RCW populations on

National Wildlife Refuge lands indicates that 237 to 242 active RCW

clusters are present.

The EA contains an evaluation of the environmental consequences of

four alternatives, including the action to be implemented. This

``action'' alternative would result in implementation of the Guidelines

as prepared by the Service. The ``no action'' alternative would result

in a continuance of the current management activities with no revision

to the guidelines for management actions or recovery on refuge lands

beyond the actions contained in the 1987 Guidelines and the recovery

plan for this species. The third alternative is to implement the

Guidelines and expand their application to include additional habitat

on Alligator River, Piedmont and Santee National Wildlife Refuges. The

fourth alternative would result in a 50% reduction in the managed area

under the revised Guidelines and a reallocation of resources to other

wildlife management needs.

As stated above, we have made a determination that the issuance of

the Guidelines is not a major Federal action significantly affecting

the quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section

102(2)(C) of NEPA. We provide an excerpt from the FONSI reflecting our

finding on the application below:

Based on our analysis, we determined that:

1. Issuance of the Guidelines would not have significant indirect

or cumulative adverse effects on the human environment.

2. Implementation of the Guidelines will contribute substantially

to the recovery of the RCW by providing for consistent application of

the most

[[Page 3960]]

appropriate forms of management available on all refuge lands.

Application of the Guidelines will also assure that we accomplish

forest management in a manner which will result in accelerated recovery

of the species.

3. Population goals contained in the Strategy and Guidelines are

substantially higher than the current population levels and would

represent a major positive step towards recovery of the RCW.

We also have evaluated whether the issuance of the Guidelines

complies with section 7 of the Act by preparing an intra-Service

section 7 consultation. The results of the consultation in combination

with the above findings, and public comment were used in the final

analysis to make the decision to issue and implement the Guidelines.

Public Comments Received

The proposal to issue the above Guidelines was announced in the

Federal Register on March 13, 1998 (63 FR 12498). In addition to

general notice in the Federal Register, the draft Guidelines were

distributed widely internally and to Service partners when an

expression of interest was made. Public comment was open from the date

of issue until close of business on April 27, 1998.

We received 36 requests for the Strategy and Guidelines and Draft

Environmental Assessment and 4 sets of written comments. Respondents

submitting written comments were: Mr. W. V. McConnel, Land Management

Planner and Forester; Ms. Margaret S. Copeland, private citizen; Mr.

Robert Bonnie, Economist, in the Wildlife Program of the Environmental

Defense Fund; and Dr. Jerome A. Jackson, Professor of Biological

Sciences, Mississippi State University. Many of the comments were

editorial in nature, and we incorporated changes into the text. Other

comments consisted of philosphical statements with no specific

directions to amend the Guidelines or EA. Listed below are our

responses to the substantive comments, summarized and grouped by

subject matter category.

All letters requesting copies of the Guidelines and EA as well as

written comments are on file at the Southeast Regional Office of the

Fish and Wildlife Service and are available for review on request.

A. General Comments

1. The range of 60-90 million acres for the original extent of the

longleaf pine forest seems rather imprecise. Don't we have better

figures? If not, perhaps an explanation?

Answer: Frost (1993) estimated that prior to European settlement

the southern pine ecosystem covered 92 million acres. Longleaf pine

dominate 74 million of these acres and longleaf pine mixed with other

pines and hardwoods dominate the remaining 18 million acres.

2. The figures presented on historic timberlands give no indication

of habitat quality. The extent of old growth is what is important. Of

the 4 million acres referred to as existing now, how much is old growth

RCW habitat? See also Jackson 1988.

Answer: An assessment of this type is beyond the scope of

guidelines which focus on the management of refuge forest lands as they

relate to the recovery and management of the RCW. We now consider none

of the refuge forest old growth and believe an estimated 3-4000 acres

of virgin long-leaf forest to be left.

3. P. 26. ``Bluebook'' is not defined. Don't use in-house jargon

that is meaningless to the reader.

Answer: We made changes in text to clarify use of the term

``Bluebook.''

B. Management Methods/Actions

1. P. 4. First paragraph, last sentence. This sentence needs to be

stronger and more clearly written. The commenter suggests something

like the following: ``Efforts to accomplish Actions 1 and 2 should

begin immediately if not already underway. Specific goals need to be

set and a sustained action plan established and functioning within two

years.''

Answer: We made no changes; the statement in text is accurate.

2. P. 12. Monumentation. The commenter recommended adding cavity

start with some scale of the extent of the start to the list: surface =

2 inches deep, but no downward excavation;

incomplete chamber = not a completed cavity, but capable of offering

shelter--a bird can turn around in it. Flagging used on cavity trees

should not be left with ``long tails'' blowing in the wind. The

commenter further was against red flagging because of its potential as

a negative behavioral stimulus and feel strongly that numbered tags

should be unique--i.e., tags that simply say `` 1,'' ``2,'' etc. should

not be in every cluster. A system should be developed to identify

individual nest trees by a unique number.

Answer: Refuge procedures will assure that trees are individually

identifiable although we have not yet worked out the specific methods.

We noted other technical comments.

3. P. 16. Lines 12, 13. The commenter sees no justification for

using snake nets (SNETs) under any circumstances. They are a lethal and

very cruel device and simply cannot be justified. A recent suggestion

to lower the SNETs to near ground level is untenable--there is no

evidence to suggest that they would not capture birds even at that

level and there is a much greater chance that they would ensnare and

cause the slow death of a wide range of species.

Answer: We made changes in the text and will not authorize use of

SNETS with the possible exception of research.

4. P. 23. Banding and marking. Banding should be done only by

experienced, well-trained personnel. The commenter's recommendation

would be to have a crew of trained individuals travel from refuge to

refuge to do the banding--especially of nestlings. Injuries are

occurring as a result of carelessness and lack of experience by the

banders. Trainees should not be capturing RCW nestlings, but should be

getting experience by banding the nestlings of other woodpecker

species.

Answer: We already required this under section 10(a)1(A) of

Endangered Species Act.

5. P. 25. The mandate to color band all nestlings at all sites each

year (MIL 4) is not reasonable. There needs to be a good reason to do

this and there needs to be flexibility. Survival of nestlings is much

more important than rushing to get all of them banded, or trying to

band nestlings that already have their eyes open, or having someone who

is inadequately trained attempt to band them. The commenter emphasized

here too that ``training'' per se is not enough. The commenter has

frequently had students who were very bright who simply did not have

the dexterity and patience to competently band adults, let alone

nestlings. He feels that whoever is sent for training gets certified--

and that not all of these individuals should really be attempting to

band nestlings. It is not something that everyone can reasonably do. In

addition to the mechanics of doing it, the disturbance of checking

nests in small populations may not be justified. Some of the losses on

the Daniel Boone NF may have been a result of disturbance as a result

of too frequent nest checks.

Answer: We require that all activities, including banding, be

conducted in a manner that will not result in a detriment to RCW. The

Guidelines do not authorize any activities that will result in take of

RCW absent the required permits and review.

6. P. 34. See discussion in Jackson et al. 1986 relative to

management of RCWs in wilderness areas.

[[Page 3961]]

Answer: We reviewed the discussion by Jackson and made no changes

in text.

7. P. 35. The commenter doesn't understand why a cooperative

agreement should be necessary in order for there to be RCWs on

Tombigbee National Forest; The Mississippi State University, John W.

Starr Memorial Forest; and the State of Mississippi, Noxubee County

School Board lands. In the case of the National Forest, that is Federal

land with a clear obligation towards endangered species. There are

recent historical records of the species from Tombigbee National

Forest, and the species most likely disappeared from there as a result

of inadequate management for the species--a potential violation of the

ESA. Certainly Tombigbee National Forest has suitable habitat for the

species and their stated goal should not be a population of zero RCWs--

which is their currently stated management goal! In the case of the

other two properties, there are also recent historical records of the

RCW from these properties--birds which disappeared directly as a result

of management actions taken by those responsible for the properties.

Such actions were also potentially--almost certainly--in violation of

the ESA since Federal monies are involved with each property. They are

also potentially (probably) in violation of state endangered species

law. The commenter feels FWS should first of all be in the business of

enforcing the law and protecting the species--not in the business of

negotiating away habitat and management responsibilities for endangered

species.

Answer: The Guidelines presented here apply to the recovery and

management of the RCW on national wildlife refuge lands. We noted the

comments, but they are beyond the scope of these Guidelines.

8. While Bienville National Forest has been designated the

``recovery'' population in Mississippi, Noxubee NWR's contributions are

too important to relegate to ``second class.'' RCW research potential

at Noxubee is vital, too.

Answer: We made changes in the text.

9. Why aren't Barge and Georgia Pacific included in the listings?

Answer: A Memorandum of Agreement is in effect with Georgia

Pacific. We do not intend to exclude involvement of other private

landowners by these Guidelines. In fact, we endorse and encourage such

cooperation.

10. Does the PVC pipe eliminate the Red-bellied Woodpecker's

competition for a cavity?

Answer: We do not believe that use of the pipe eliminates red-

bellied woodpecker use of cavities.

11. A trained bander could readily travel from refuge to refuge

(particularly all the smaller refuges) and band birds with less trauma

to the RCWs and perhaps refuge personnel.

Answer: We noted the comments.

12. Some provision needs to be made to get RCWs, injured during

banding, to trained people for rehabilitation and release. Probably the

Forest Service needs that same type of help.

Answer: We noted the comments. Efforts are underway, in cooperation

with personnel at Fort Bragg, to identify veterinarians in each state

who could act as rehabilitators.

13. Cluster Survey/Inspection guidelines do not specifically

require inspection with the ``peeper'' because a hole does not

necessarily mean that a cavity is usable. The prime use of the

``peeper'' is to determine the condition of the cavities. Knowing this

is essential to providing the number of cavities needed to maximize

productivity.

Answer: We do not require cavity inspection with a peeper but

recommend it as a useful tool to inspect cavities.

14. Does the Service have standard reporting forms for all RCW

monitoring, etc.? Could you quickly have statistics that will help in

decision making once information is readily shared and accessible.

Answer: We noted the comments, prepared forms, and will issue them

in the near future.

15. Goals in the plan should focus on doing the maximum for RCWs

rather than establishing minimum standards. RCW management at Noxubee

NWR has demonstrated what intensive management can do in a matter of a

few years. Why can't we move in that direction across the board

immediately?

Answer: It is our intent to do the maximum extent of recovery and

management for this species given habitat limitations, fund and staff

resources, etc. In some instances other resource management efforts,

including recovery of other threatened or endangered species, may limit

efforts aimed exclusively at the RCW. We strive to take an ecosystem

approach to management and recovery activities.

16. It is stated in the Guidelines that ``The NWR System should set

an example for proper RCW management through an aggressive program

using all opportunities to enhance RCW populations.'' Firm timetables

for this plan are needed. A greater than 10% increase (perhaps 20 to

25%) for the smaller refuges would be a more reasonable goal in

``setting an example'' with an aggressive program.

Answer: We noted the comments. Based on recent studies we believe

that the maximum annual increase in RCW populations is about 10%,

regardless of population size. We base this on studies of numerous

populations throughout the species range.

17. Concern was expressed that the Service may be overlooking

opportunities to manage for RCWs on several refuges in North Carolina

and perhaps elsewhere. Pocosin Lakes NWR is listed in the draft NWR

Guidelines as containing only one active cluster. The Service should

conduct aerial surveys of Pocosin Lakes, Mattamuskeet, Cedar Island and

Swanquarter NWRs if it has not already done so to better determine the

extent of current use of these areas by RCWs.

Answer: This year we plan Surveys at Alligator River National

Wildlife Refuge. We acknowledge the need to conduct new surveys and

will accomplish this as funds become available. Refuges with no known

population of RCWs are not free from the responsibility to survey

habitat prior to authorizing activities that may impact woodpecker

populations. The refuges listed are those with known populations of

RCWss. Future comprehensive conservation planning efforts should

identify recovery and management needs for the RCW and other threatened

or endangered species.

18. Concerned was expressed that if the Service has neglected

opportunities in these North Carolina refuges that it may have done the

same for refuges in other states. Given the land management objectives

of the National Wildlife Refuges (not to mention the fact that the

Refuges are managed by the Service itself), the Service should pursue

all opportunities to bolster recovery efforts on these lands.

Answer: We agree and efforts are now underway, see answer B.17.

19. The Service should seek to enter into safe harbor agreements

with corporate and other private landowners in order to stabilize and

increase available RCW habitat on lands surrounding refuges. This is

especially important since several refuges have relatively small

current and potential RCW populations. By stabilizing and perhaps

increasing RCW numbers around refuges through safe harbor, this

approach would in turn strengthen RCW populations on the refuges. Safe

harbor agreements have been praised by both landowners and

conservationists and offer a unique opportunity to build bridges with

landowners surrounding refuges. Under the Service's proposed

[[Page 3962]]

national safe harbor policy, such agreements would not require

completion of an HCP but could instead be done more easily through

Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits. The Service could facilitate safe harbor

agreements by using the expertise of refuge staff to assist landowners

in baseline surveys and in undertaking proactive RCW management (such

as artificial cavity construction).

Answer: As we develop refuge comprehensive management plans, we

will identify and evaluate these considerations. Safe harbor and other

Section 10 activities are valuable management tools but are beyond the

scope of management guidelines for federally owned lands.

C. Management of Understory/Midstory

1. P. 4, paragraph 2, line 4. The commenter feels it is important

not to give the impression that all hardwoods need to be eliminated

from RCW habitat. Hardwoods mixed with pines provide habitat diversity

that increases the diversity and stability of the bird's arthropod food

supply and small strands of hardwoods often provide habitat barriers

that separate adjacent RCW groups--for example, the boundaries among

cavity clusters near refuge headquarters at Noxubee NWR. Do not destroy

these natural barriers. Hardwoods need to be controlled, but not

eliminated. They provide very important functions within the RCW's

ecosystems. Furthermore, the importance of hardwoods likely varies from

one geographic region to another--one across-the-range-of-the-species

management plan for controlling hardwoods is not appropriate.

Distinctions do need to be made between hardwoods in the proximity of

cavity trees and hardwoods within foraging habitat, though both need to

be controlled.

Answer: The draft text indicates that some hardwoods will remain in

RCW habitat. We further modified text to reflect retention of hardwood

component in the understory and midstory.

2. P. 12. Midstory Control. The statement ``The removal of within-

canopy hardwoods in the immediate vicinity of cavity trees is

necessary'' is ambiguous and needs to be clarified. The commenter

disagrees that all such hardwoods must be removed. Removal should be a

site-specific decision. Pruning might be an appropriate alternative in

some situations. They also disagree strongly with the removal of all

hardwood stems within 50 feet of a cavity tree. This says that even

trees like dogwood would have to be removed. Again, the commenter

feels, hardwoods play a positive role in RCW ecology too. They agree

completely with the statement regarding retention of hardwoods to

protect the cluster from wind damage. Examples of where such damage has

occurred as a result of overaggressive hardwood removal include the

Daniel Boone National Forest and D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge.

Answer: See answer C.2. We clarified the text to indicate that a

hardwood component should remain.

3. P. 20. Last paragraph, line 2. The continued reference to Henry

1989 needs to be given further consideration. Henry's cookbook approach

to habitat quality has no scientific basis as an ``across the range of

the species'' management guideline. A 10-inch diameter tree in coastal

South Carolina is considerably different from a 10-inch diameter tree

in the Florida flatwoods. There are no data whatsoever that suggest

they offer equivalent foraging opportunities for the RCW.

Answer: Comments noted. The ``Henry Guidelines'' are standard

guidance for Federal properties. Our policy provides for development of

population specific foraging guidelines based on multiple years of

monitoring data and analysis of habitat use by groups.

4. P. 20. ``Midstory-free forested corridors'' absolutely not

needed. A reduced midstory is needed, but not ``midstory-free.'' This

cut-it-all mentality not only creates an environment that would not be

found in a natural ecosystem, it adds greatly to management costs and

level of disturbance in the forest.

Answer: Changes made in text to reflect that the midstory will not

be ``midstory-free.''

5. The section on Midstory Control should have a sentence

suggesting that some 12 inch diameter trees be left dead as snags for

other cavity nesting birds. The recommended removal of hardwoods seems

too harsh. For example, the Forest Service plan allows dogwood and

persimmon trees to remain. Hardwood midstory may be used by RCWs for

foraging and provides protection from predators. Have studies on the

first flights of RCWs indicated the importance of hardwood midstory for

protection from predators and for foraging habitat?

Answer: We acknowledge the valid concern expressed but believe that

the current text adequately addresses the concern.

6. Firewood cutting is the ``best'' way to remove midstory without

damaging the remaining pine trees and the land in the cluster. This

method should be listed number one and should be used by the smaller

refuges? The commenter realizes the shear V-blade is faster--but the

tracks left by the equipment are horrible and the mess left behind is

really a fire hazard during the prescribed burns.

Answer: We determine the best method for midstory control on a

case-by-case basis depending on stand characteristics, need, site

conditions, administration factors and demand.

D. Forest Regeneration

1. P. 4. Paragraph 3. The commenter believes really serious

consideration needs to be given to the extent of regeneration needed to

``mimic'' natural ecosystem processes. We have not eliminated southern

pine beetles, thus they still function in the ecosystem--and often

function in a positive way relative to the birds. We also can control

fire in the ecosystem. In many cases regeneration is overdone and not

needed to sustain the ecosystem. Nature provides regeneration and has

done so without human assistance up until very recently.

Answer: We agree and considered the factors discussed and addressed

them in the text.

2. P. 9. One commenter felt the maximum regeneration patch sizes

are much too large for a National Wildlife Refuge--our refuges are not,

and should not be, tree farms and there is no justification or need for

such large regeneration areas. How about 5 and 10 acres? What

justification is there for regular ``rotations'' at all--except

commercial exploitation--which seems inappropriate for National

Wildlife Refuges?

Answer: The Guidelines allow for 5 and 10 acre clearings. We

provide individual refuges flexibility to apply the guidelines in their

particular area. All regeneration, except off site slash pine, requires

retention of some seed trees. A forest modified through seed tree and

Shelterwood regeneration cuts does not necessarily result in non-

woodpecker habitat.

3. Natural disturbances (in particular lightening strikes and wind

problems) seem to be prolific in most of the RCW clusters. Regeneration

by nature seems to be more than enough without the removal of the older

trees that are vital for RCW survival. Old growth trees are removed in

the name of ``regeneration.'' Feeding ecology in old growth stands

should be examined (i.e., time and quality of food offered to

nestlings) prior to removal of mature trees. Have feeding studies

(i.e., time and quality of food offered to nestlings) been conducted on

[[Page 3963]]

density, age, and type of habitat within/nearby the cluster? The

vulnerability to lightening strikes within the cluster is increased

with the removal of the surrounding large trees just outside the

cluster.

Answer: We acknowledge the value of natural regeneration. However,

due to the even-aged structure of much of the RCW habitat on refuges,

it is important to maintain balance in stand age to provide for future

nesting and foraging habitat. Active, planned management will insure

adequate distribution of habitats in the age classes needed at the time

needed.

E. Land Acquisition

1. P. 6. Paragraph 3, last line. This sentence does not follow from

previous information provided. Why should priority for land acquisition

be given to just those three refuges? On P. 5, four refuges are listed

under the first goal--at the very least, St. Marks Refuge should be

included for priority for land acquisition--or a reason stated as to

why it shouldn't be included. On the other hand, the commenter suggests

that D'Arbonne NWR should be a priority for land acquisition in order

to assure adequate habitat for the species there for the short term.

How about Santee and Upper Ouachita in that regard as well? These small

populations can serve very important genetic reservoir functions--as

well as important PR functions. They should be supported rather than

written off.

Answer: St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge is part of an adequate

land base when coupled with adjacent publicly owned lands. Land

acquisition at St. Marks is not a critical need at this time with

regard to RCW recovery. The other populations, while significant, are

not designated as recovery populations. We will address the need for

land acquisition to aid in the recovery of the RCW at each refuge,

based on RCW recovery and other management needs.

F. Population Management/Ecology

1. P. 7. The commenter disagreed with the population delineation

approach presented on this page. Citing the Forest Service as saying

that ``it is so'' doesn't make it so. If you want ``population

delineation,'' then base it on hard science. There are no consistencies

here (If you're going to accept the Forest Service's ``18 miles,'' why

does the Fish and Wildlife Service then use ``20 miles''?), and no

scientific justification for what is provided. There are two sides to

the coin here that need to be considered. Here the FWS argues that we

need delineation of populations to prevent habitat fragmentation--which

is good. But elsewhere, FWS uses the same figures to argue for not

protecting ``demographically isolated populations''--which in my

opinion is bad. Yes, we need to maintain corridors and the integrity of

habitat, but no, we should not write off populations or move them just

because they happen to be separated by 3.1 miles of unsuitable habitat

from other clusters. The figures included in #1 at the bottom of this

page are not reasonable considering what we know about the movements of

these birds. In addition, with our abilities to move birds, we can as

easily maintain these by occasionally moving birds into them as we can

move the birds to a larger population. Annual evaluation of

subpopulation delineation could appropriately be used to prevent

habitat fragmentation--but it should not be used to write off clusters

and justify moving birds to concentration centers. Unfortunately there

seems to be a tendency to say the former and do the latter.

Answer: We changed the standard of 18 miles in the text from 20 and

use the standard identified in the Guidelines to delineate MILs to

direct allocation of management and recovery resources. It is not our

intention to ``write off'' populations.

2. P. 16. Flying squirrel control. The commenter feels the use of

the term ``kleptoparasite'' is misleading and a loaded term here.

Southern flying squirrels are ``secondary cavity users'' and do not

require an active RCW cavity in which to roost or nest. They often use

natural cavities. A cavity that is actively being used by another

species is generally left alone unless other cavities are not

available. The case against flying squirrels is poorly documented and

consists primarily of reports of their use of RCW cavities rather than

documentation of reduced RCW fecundity. The commenter has no doubt that

occasionally there may be reduced fecundity due to flying squirrels,

but evidence to date suggests that it is the exception rather than the

rule. We do not need language that encourages the old ``predator

elimination'' mentality. Squirrel presence does not ``constitute a

history of squirrel problems.'' We do need a better understanding of

the interrelationships between these species.

Answer: Additional research findings now indicate reduced fecundity

due to flying squirrels which supports the current text. We believe

elevating control of cavity competitors on a cluster-by-cluster basis

when we document impacts on RCW productivity.

3. P. 20. First paragraph. The commenter didn't understand the

sentence. What does it mean that the Service requires them to

``annually establish''? Presumably once recruitment clusters have been

established they don't need to be reestablished each year--they're

already there. Perhaps the Service means they should ``reevaluate''

recruitment clusters on an annual basis. If so, this has some

drawbacks. Once established, recruitment clusters should not be subject

to ``change.'' For example, the commenter can see a stand being labeled

a recruitment cluster, then at age 60, have it ``delisted'' as one so

that it can be cut, only to be replaced by a 20-year-old stand. The

commenter feels the second paragraph helps to clarify this, but thinks

clarification is needed in the first paragraph.

Answer: We made changes in the text to clarify this.

4. P. 22. Translocation of birds for reintroduction to unoccupied

territories. The word reintroduction'' should be replaced with

``introduction.''

Answer: We made changes in the text.

5. P. 22. Adult birds should not be moved. HCPs are not a valid

excuse for moving them (see Jackson 1997).

Answer: We made clarification in the text. We will respond to

opportunities to move adults from private lands through the Habitat

Conservation Planning process.

6. P. 22. Juveniles, mid-paragraph. By definition, there can be no

such thing as ``intra-population demographic isolation.''

Answer: We made changes in the text.

7. The use of ``important'' Service goal and ``second'' goal as

used in the Population Objectives section do not represent the best

choice of words? If these ``important'' goals for the four refuges are

the primary or first goal, then those refuges should be managed at MIL

4. Carolina Sandhills NWR should not have the option of selecting a MIL

3 or 4 to assure that the maximum habitat for initial population growth

is provided.

Answer: We made changes made in the text. See comment B.8.

G. Harvest Management

1. P. 10. Paragraph 2.

2. The commenter felt log landings should not be adjacent to a

cluster either and to better define this. The traditional 200 foot

buffer is inadequate to protect a cluster from disturbance such as log

landings. Doubling that would certainly be better.

Answer: We are unaware of any factual basis for the recommendation

and made no changes.

[[Page 3964]]

3. Even if no other access exists, new roads, temporary or

otherwise, should not be constructed--or used--through a cluster during

the nesting season.

Answer: We revised the text and agree that construction within

clusters during the nesting season should not occur unless a Section 7

review and concurrence has been obtained.

4. No log landings are permitted within or adjacent to clusters.

Please add: as the damage to tree trunks from bark scuffing in the

cluster occurs due to carelessness of the loggers. In addition, the

noise and activity can be detrimental.

Answer: We noted the comments and believe the Guidelines provide an

adequate explanation.

5. Logging activities (outside of breeding season) near clusters

should be allowed only after the RCWs leave the clusters in the morning

and should cease prior to the time that RCWs will be returning to the

cluster (approximately 1 hour before sundown).

Answer: We noted the comments and believe the Guidelines provide an

adequate explanation.

6. If necessary, temporary roads should only be constructed on the

edges of the cluster not ``through the cluster.'' If skidding is

allowed, the cavity tree must be absolutely protected from scuff marks

or debarking.

Answer: See response G.3.

7. Language should be inserted to the effect that the cavity tree

and the area within its drip line should be totally protected from

harvesting operations.

Answer: See response G.4.

8. Timber/pulpwood sales at refuges create a negative public image

and should be difficult to justify given the foraging/habitat needs of

RCWs.

Answer: See response G.4.

9. The draft NWR Guidelines appear to limit the use of clearcutting

to areas of nine years. In general, the

commenter concurs with recommendations here.

Answer: We noted the comments.

4. P. 14-15. Competition should not be assumed by the presence of

these other species. These species are natural components of the RCW's

ecosystem and should be treated as such. Technically competition occurs

only when one species causes a reduction in the fecundity of the other

as a result of the two using the same resource.

Answer: We noted the comments.

5. P. 25. The cookbook approach presented in Henry (1989) will

result in differing quality habitats in different geographic locations.

The commenter feels that just because it's in print doesn't make it so.

The commenter also feels it is also important to not automatically

assume that a clan's foraging habitat will be symmetrically centered on

the cavity cluster. Shape of the foraging range will depend on many

factors: terrain, forest type and age, neighboring groups, presence of

various disturbances, etc. In some cases, foraging habitat may include

a substantial amount of non-pine--for example, one group at Noxubee NWR

uses cypress extensively.

Answer: See our response to C.3.

J. Cavity Management

1. The commenter disagrees with Harlow's definition of an active

cluster as one with two or more cavity trees--saying they have known

several colonies with only a single cavity tree with multiple cavities.

Granted more than one cavity tree is desired--but doesn't want to

write-off or ignore single active nest trees.

Answer: We made changes in the text.

2. P. 20. The number of cavities provided should be the number of

``acceptable cavities'' provided. Some invariably are unacceptable

because of gum, etc.--thus more need to be provided to compensate for

those not useable by the birds.

Answer: The changes suggested were not needed since we will not

intentionally prepare unacceptable cavities. If we subsequently deem

some cavities unacceptable, we will prepare additional cavities.

3. Pileated woodpeckers seem to ``attack'' RCW cavity entrances

following logging operations that remove the large trees near RCW

clusters. Have their cavities been removed? Logging operations should

consider the cavity trees that other species require to avoid

enhancement of cavity competition.

Answer: We made changes in the text and will give priority to

hardwoods with cavities.

4. The commenter feels artificial cavities should always be ready

and available for use by the biologists. Artificial cavities should be

available at the time cavity trees are removed because of pine beetles.

There should not be a 24-hour period with no available cavities. If

cavity trees for other species are also removed, there is the potential

for real cavity competition. Therefore, extra suitable cavities would

reduce the likelihood of competition.

Answer: We believe that the Guidelines provide adequate

information. Quick installation of cavities may result in installation

in trees that will later die as a result of beetle infestation.

5. In the firewood cuts at Noxubee NWR, the cavity trees for other

species are marked and protected. This really seems to reduce RCW

cavity competition following the removal of hardwood trees near

clusters. Leaving cavity trees for other species should be addressed in

the plan. Perhaps a paragraph needs to be added about cavity

competition.

Answer: See response J.2.

6. Retention of cavity trees is encouraged. Other surrounding tall/

mature trees should also be kept since the retained cavity trees will

simply be lightening rods or vulnerable to the wind and not survive.

Answer: See response J.2.

7. In several places, 4 cavities to a cluster are mentioned.

Because some cavities are unsuitable/unusable, the commenter firmly

believes that each cluster should have a minimum of 6 (or 8) usable

cavities available. Usable cavities (ones without flying squirrels,

other birds, reptiles, etc.) should always be available; thus, a

statement that 2-3 more cavities available than the number of RCWs

present in a cluster would better fit the needs of the birds.

Answer: We made changes in the Guidelines to include a recommended

4-8 usable cavities.

8. When a breeding pair has a helper (3 adults in a cluster), the

fledging rate is higher. Since many pairs will raise 3 young, a minimum

of 6 cavities per cluster will insure maximum reproduction success and

survival. In the smaller refuges this extra hour of time for insertion

will repay dividends immediately in the survival of more fledglings--

which is your way to increase numbers quickly. In addition, capture for

translocation is easier when the RCWs roost in inserts rather than 40

to 60 feet in the air in a natural cavity. Those RCWs that have used

inserts also more willingly occupy other inserts.

Answer: See response J.7.

K. Southern Pine Beetle Management

1. P. 11. Pine Beetle Suppression/Control: The number of artificial

cavities installed should be greater than the number of cavities lost--

not all artificial cavities are acceptable. Also, cavities unsuitable

to RCWs that are destroyed may force competition with other species.

The commenter urges caution and restraint relative to cutting any

cavity tree--even with beetles. They know of no case of ``control'' of

southern pine beetle (SPB), etc. that has truly saved RCWs--but know of

several cases where control activities have devastated RCW habitats.

The commenter would like to see documentation of control ``successes

relative to RCWs.''

Answer: We believe the Guidelines provide adequate information.

2. P. 27. Pine beetle suppression/control. Where is the evidence

that any pine beetle suppression/control efforts have ever saved a RCW

cavity tree

[[Page 3966]]

cluster? There is a lot of evidence to the contrary. Cutting trees will

definitely destroy RCW habitat. SPB are a natural and important part of

the ecosystem and should be treated as such on a National Wildlife

Refuge. Suppression/control efforts seem to be primarily of economic

importance. Saying ``spots that are active and growing'' is too loose.

How big is too big? Time of year is important too. A spot in early

spring should be considered differently than one in late fall. The

commenter disagrees with the use of pesticides near RCW trees. We now

have the ability to provide replacement cavity trees as needed.

Answer: Documentation exists to support statements relative to

Southern Pine Beetle control as helping RCWs on National Forest lands

in Texas and on the Kisatchie National Forest in LA.

3. Are records kept or studies done on the necessity of removing

cavity trees for pine beetle control? Have entire clusters been lost to

pine beetle or is this just a fear that perpetuates logging?

Answer: See response K.2.

L. Forest Management

1. P. 14. Snag Retention: The sentence beginning on line 5 is

important, yet is in opposition to the Midstory Control section. If you

remove all hardwood trees, there will never be dead hardwoods for other

species to use.

Answer: Guidelines included a discussion of midstory management

including live trees. Removal of all midstory trees was not

recommended. We will, therefore, produce/retain snags.

2. P. 20. Last two lines. The commenter hopes that we truly mean

``all relict trees''--but suspects that we meant ``all relict pines.''

Clarify.

Answer: We changed the text to reflect that the reference is to

relict pines.

3. P. 20. Last sentence. ``Reduced to at least 20 BA'' is a bizarre

way to state this. Do you mean no more than 20 BA'' or do you mean ``no

less than 20 BA''? And how are you defining BA--are you counting only

trees >2 inches dbh, 4 inches dbh, 10 inches dbh? Different people

measure BA by different criteria.

Answer: We made changes to clarify text.

4. P. 25, bottom. #4. The specifications of stands ``greater than

30 years of age and preferably >60 years of age'' is too loose. While

one would assume management would be for the birds, there are those who

would think 30 years of age is adequate. Management on a National

Wildlife Refuge should be optimum and not leave room for minimums. As

far as the preferable habitat for foraging, the commenter would say

>100 would be preferable to >60 years of age. With uneven age

management, some older trees could/should be on every acre of foraging

habitat.

Answer: The guidelines are consistent with the recovery plan and we

made no changes.

5. P. 26. Pine thinnings. Here the term BA is qualified--``60 to 80

square feet of pine BA greater than 30 years old.'' It has not been

qualified elsewhere and the reader is left not knowing what was

intended. This needs to be clarified.

Answer: We noted the comment and considered no changes in

Guidelines necessary.

6. P. 26. The commenter questions the statement that timber

harvests may still be appropriate when foraging habitat is limiting

except in extremely dense stands. The other reasons given here could

easily wait until growth has brought the habitat to the point where

foraging habitat is not limiting.

Answer: We noted the comments and considered no changes in

Guidelines necessary.

7. P. 28 and following relating to silvicultural methods: See the

commenters above observations relative to dispersion of older trees.

The commenter feels even-aged management is inappropriate in that it

does not provide the habitat mosaic and landscape stability that would

be provided by uneven-aged management. A scattering of trees across the

landscape should be allowed to reach their natural potential longevity.

Answer: We noted the comments and believe the Guidelines will

achieve this eventually through recommended management See G.10. Even

aged regeneration systems that are used (irregular shelterwood and seed

tree) require retention of trees on each acre in perpetuity.

8. P. 33, Clearing of RCW habitat, line 4. The implication here

seems to be that clearing of habitat for road construction does not

affect the future ability of a refuge to support RCWs. The commenter

strongly disagrees. A road could be anything from a logging road to a

6-8-lane interstate--and anything approaching the latter could have

very serious negative consequences for RCWs and their habitat. Such

consequences could range from loss of acreage of forested area, to the

function of a road as a barrier, to mortality of birds as a result of

traffic, to reduction in the potential to use prescribed fire in

management. The commenter agrees that potential RCW habitat on each

refuge should not be reduced, but would add further that the reduction

of any habitat on each refuge has the potential to influence the RCW.

The commenter would also add that the tendency to ``round'' refuges by

trading or selling peripheral lands in order to obtain more centralized

in-holdings should be avoided. A refuge with a nice--perhaps more

easily manageable compact boundary would likely support fewer RCWs than

one that is more dispersed. Furthermore, the extension of fingers of

habitat away from the refuge offers greater potential as dispersal

corridors for birds to and from nearby forested areas on other lands.

Answer: We noted the comments and revised the guidelines.

9. The 40 BA of pine in regeneration areas must be allowed. Because

Noxubee has the fourth highest current acreage and has the potential of

working in cooperative agreements with several entities, their RCW

population should not be relegated to ``short-term'' viability.

Noxubee's third place in planned acreage also places this refuge higher

in importance in its contributions to RCW sustainability and recovery.

Answer: We do not understand the comment. We have not relegated

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge to third and have revised the text to

reflect this.

10. The commenter cannot understand any plan that removes old trees

when these are the very trees that RCW's need the most at this critical

time in their recovery. Minimum rotation age seems to be recommended

and encouraged. Why is that? Isn't your goal maximum recovery

potential? Then, encouragement of an even older rotation would allow

trees to serve their function longer and the food potential would be

maximized.

Answer: See response L.7. The Guidelines attempt to direct

maximization of the number of trees allowed regardless of MIL. Note

that a minimum of 6 trees/acre will be left at the time of cutting in

perpetuity.

11. Also, page 22 of the FONSI states: ``Since most seedling stage,

yellow pine species are intolerant of fire, uneven-aged silviculture

would be used only for longleaf pine.'' While most yellow pine species

are intolerant of fire, uneven-aged management nonetheless can and

should be used with them. Potlatch's Habitat Conservation Plan

(approved by the Service), for example, documents and prescribes

uneven-aged management in loblolly and shortleaf pine forests. Uneven-

aged silviculture in loblolly/shortleaf forests has been well

demonstrated elsewhere and has been the subject of numerous

publications (e.g., James B. Baker. 1986). The Crossett farm forestry

forties after 41 years of selection management. Southern Journal

[[Page 3967]]

of Applied Forestry 10:233-237). In addition, the above referenced

sentence from the FONSI is not consistent with the draft NWR

Guidelines, which specifically sanction the use of unevenaged

management in all southern pine types managed for RCWs (see page 9).

Answer: We modified the FONSI to incorporate these comments.

12. (Page 32) The discussion of uneven-aged management does not

address the problem of integrating fire with regeneration. As

regeneration is standwide and as all southern pines, except long-leaf,

are fire intolerant in the seedling and sapling stage, there appears to

be no practical method of combining the practice of regular prescribed

burning with all-age management, except in the longleaf type. The

commenter knows of no research that has studied this problem, nor have

they seen a proposed solution to the problem. It should also be noted

that the research basis for the current proposals to use all-age

management in longleaf pine consists of only 2 tracts, totaling 66

acres and established in 1977-78 (Farrar and Boyer, ``Managing Longleaf

Pine under the Selection System--Promises and Problems'' 6th Biennial

Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Memphis TN, Oct. 1990).

Using uneven aged management will generally require the combined

use of fire and alternative methods of competition control.

Answer: We added additional discussion of this issue to the

Guidelines.

M. Foraging Habitat

1. Page 25 of the draft NWR Guidelines defines the foraging habitat

criteria for the refuges and states that ``foraging habitat must be

greater than 30 years of age and preferably >60 years of age''

(emphasis added). This is not consistent with the RCW Recovery Plan

which calls for at least 50 acres of foraging habitat per cluster

greater than 60 years. Due to no fault of the Service, some areas on

the National Wildlife Refuges may not have enough >60 year old habitat

to meet the Recovery Plan's standards. However, the language in the

draft NWR Guidelines should clearly state that at least 50 acres of >60

year old habitat per cluster will be preserved whenever possible.

Moreover, if a sufficient amount of >60 year old habitat is not

available in a given refuge but can be produced, the refuge should

immediately adjust harvest schedules to produce the requisite foraging

habitat (the only possible exceptions are when dealing with southern

pine beetle attacks or when undertaking management designed to achieve

other ecological objectives).

Answer: We made changes in the text.

2. (page 25) The requirement of 6,350 stems >10''DBH within \1/2\

mile of the cluster is based on a single unpublished study by Hooper

and Lennartz. The commenter knows of no peer-reviewed and published

study which supports this figure. Recent peer-reviewed research raises

serious doubts as to the validity of this study and suggests that this

number may be in excess of the density ``optimum'' to clan vigor,

(James et al. 1997, Beyer et al. 1996, Hooper and Lennartz 1995,

DeLotelle and Epting 1992, Wood et al. 1985). See also attached

reformulation and re-analysis of the Hooper and Lennartz (1985) data

which indicates a critical equivalent stem density of 2500--3500 stems

rather than 6350.

Answer: We wrote the Guidelines to be consistent with the recovery

plan. See also response I.5.

Authority

The authorities for this action are the Endangered Species Act (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4321-4347) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997 (Pub.L. 105-57 to be codified at 16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).

Dated: January 11, 1999.

Sam D. Hamilton,

Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 99-1687 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P