INTERNATIONAL PAPER OPERATING COMPANY RED HILLS SALAMANDER HCP

Transcription

1 INTERNATIONAL PAPER OPERATING COMPANY RED HILLS SALAMANDER HCP Interviews: Will MacDearman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, USWFS-Jackson Office (1/8/98) Joe McGlincy, former Wildlife/Environment Section Leader, International Paper (1/19/98) Mark Bailey, Terrestrial Zoologist, Alabama Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy (1/22/98) Robert Mount, retired professor of Herpetology, Auburn University (2/3/98) Ray Vaughan, Environmental Lawyer, Wildlaw (2/3/98) I. BACKGROUND Participants: International Paper Timberlands Operating Company, Ltd. (IPTO), the sole applicant, worked with the USFWS office located in Jackson, Mississippi to negotiate this HCP. Mark Bailey of the Alabama Natural Heritage Program, under contract with IPTO, performed a portion of the fieldwork, specifically habitat inventory and status (HCP, Appendix 2). No formal peer review panel was assembled, but several experts on the Red Hills salamander reviewed and made comments on a draft of the plan. These include: 1) Robert Mount, an academic scientist not connected with IPTO or the USFWS, 2) Mark Bailey, and 3) Kenneth Dodd, formally with the USFWS (McGlincy). The USFWS also submitted the documents to the Alabama Department of Natural Resources. No other entities were involved in the process (MacDearman, McGlincy). Ray Vaughan is an environmental lawyer who closely follows HCPs in the Alabama area, and he simply reviewed the document upon completion. Stated Purpose: IPTO sought a permit for the incidental take of Red Hills salamanders (RHS) in connection with forest management activities (HCP, p.1), primarily habitat modification resulting from timber harvesting (HCP, p.24). Given the number and distribution of RHS burrows IPTO considers implementation of an HCP in connection with an incidental take permit to be the only effective way to reconcile immediate and long-term forest management plans with exposure under section 9 of the Act (Environmental Assessment, p.2). Status and Duration: The incidental take permit (ITP) was issued on October 21, 1993 for a period of 30 years. Location and Size: The 30,000 acre permit area covers sections of two rural counties in south central Alabama; the area is bordered on the west by the Alabama River and on the east by Interstate 65. According to the Implementation Agreement, about 6,400 acres of this area is considered to be occupied Red Hills salamander habitat. The total area is privately owned by IPTO. A-International Paper-1

2 Species Involved: The permit covers the incidental taking of one species, the threatened Red Hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti), which was listed in This salamander prefers forested, steep-sloped ravines, and bluff faces, and is subterranean, meaning that it rarely comes completely out of its burrow (HCP, p.1, 10) Its entire range is confined to a small area of southern Alabama (HCP, p. 1). Forest products companies currently own approximately 59% of Red Hills salamander suitable habitat; individuals, most of whom own less than 100 acres (HCP, p.4), own the remaining 41%. According to Mark Bailey s report to IPTO in 1992, Red Hills salamander habitat continued to be destroyed primarily by forestry practices despite federal listing in 1976 (HCP, Appendix 2, p.2). Major Elements of Plan: Three major components make up this HCP: 1) scope of the 10(a) permit, 2) mitigation measures, and 3) plan implementation and monitoring. The first component the scope of the permit is addressed above. According to the HCP (p.26-27), three mitigation measures were to be integrated with IPTO s forest management practices in 1993, and extend for the 30-year time frame of the permit. These include: 1) establishment of high-value habitat areas where no timber harvesting will occur, 2) establishment of forested buffers in conjunction with no harvest areas, and 3) employee training (HCP, p.26). The high value habitat consists of approximately 4,500 acres of optimal and suboptimal habitat; the buffers are maintained above and below these areas. Limited harvest can occur within these buffers about every 15 years. Employee training consists of workshops focusing on the various elements of the plan, including the ecology and conservation of the Red Hills salamander. Plan implementation and monitoring are funded by IPTO. According to the IA, IPTO must monitor the plan area using aerial photography and field observations, and submit both biennial reports to the USFWS and a contingency plan identifying actions to take if unforeseen events occur. The permittee must also conduct a 10-year comprehensive review and develop a procedure for addressing plan amendments. Causes/Catalysts: No specific event led IPTO to suddenly decide to develop a HCP for the Red Hills salamander. Rather, it was a combination of the company s action following listing in 1976 and the more recent pounding of the Fish and Wildlife Service s drum about the habitat conservation plans and how well they work (McGlincy). In 1977 in response to the listing of the salamander International Paper developed internal guidelines to ensure the protection and preservation of this species habitat on Company land (HCP, Appendix 1). International Paper Company voluntarily came out and did an HCP of sorts from the beginning (Mount). It was not very difficult then for IPTO to move from its early habitat protection measures to an HCP in At that time, no HCPs for the Red Hills salamander had been completed. We started down that road to one, test the process, and two, to tighten up the management on our lands that we had set aside (McGlincy). A-International Paper-2

3 II. DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS From start to finish, the HCP process for the Red Hills salamander took approximately two years. Like many timber company applicants in the Northwest, IPTO primarily negotiated with the USFWS to develop this HCP. Public participation consisted of peer review and the NEPA comment period. No public meetings or hearings took place. The independent scientific review took place very informally. Joe McGlincy (IPTO) said simply, I picked out two to three guys that I knew they were obviously very knowledgeable about Red Hills salamanders, and they agreed to review the draft of the HCP for me prior to it going to the Fish and Wildlife Service. These reviewers include Mark Bailey and Bob Mount. When the USFWS received the HCP, it was then reviewed by Kenneth Dodd, and as a part of standard operating procedure, the Alabama Department of Natural Resources. Following peer review and submittal of the documents to the USFWS, the standard 30-day NEPA comment period began. According to all interviewees, there were several articles in newspapers regarding the HCP, but very little public interest. This is revealed more tellingly in the public response to the comment period. Will MacDearman of USFWS did not recall receiving a single comment, while Joe McGlincy only recalls one. III. DISCUSSION Perceived Level of Public Interest/Controversy: According to interviewees, the level of interest in the Red Hills salamander and the Conservation Plan itself was minimal. Will MacDearman of the USFWS said, Its my impression, there s a very low public interest, and detailed that Environmental critics don t express concerns to us or just don t ask what is going on with recovery or anything never. This perceived low level of interest might be due in part to a lack of knowledge about the Red Hills salamander. I think most foresters are aware of it, but the average person in the five counties that the salamander occurs in [have] never heard of it (Bailey). But Bob Mount of Auburn University noted that the Red Hills salamander has gotten a fair amount of publicity more publicity than most other amphibians and reptiles in the state. Joe McGlincy of IPTO pointed to the salamander s behavior and habitat: Its just not one of those things that people get worked up about I think a lot of it is because of the critter itself [it] lives 99.9% of its life underground, and comes out through the mouth of these little holes to feed at night It s a damn little salamander that nobody ever sees. Several interviewees also mentioned the location of the permit area as a factor in both the public s lack of knowledge and their lack of interest. This particular area in Alabama is very rural. It s heavily forested. There are a lot of industrial landowners (McGlincy). A-International Paper-3

4 Interviewees shared two final possible reasons to explain the low public interest: the reputation of both International Paper and Mark Bailey (Alabama Natural Heritage Program), the scientist contracted to perform much of the company s fieldwork. IPTO s early actions to set aside habitat for the salamander may have helped to increase the public s trust of the company. Bob Mount, a retired herpetology professor, said, Since the controversy over the listing back in the 1970 s, they ve [IPTO] been cooperative They have a stronger environmental ethic than some of the others [timber companies] do I ve always been confident of International. Interviewees commented on the positive reputation of Mark Bailey, the biologist who performed fieldwork for IPTO (Mount, Vaughan). Ray Vaughan, and environmental lawyer, said, I personally know the fellow they [IPTO] went to have survey their property is a well respected biologist they didn t hire a biostitute. As may be expected from the discussion of public interest level, interviewees noted that the level of controversy over the completed HCP was almost non-existent (Mount, Vaughan, MacDearman). Of course, two possible reasons for this are addressed above: 1) the general lack of knowledge of/interest in the species and the HCP, and 2) the reputation of IPTO and Mark Bailey. But Joe McGlincy (IPTO) presented a third possible reason: his strategy to involve potential critics in the planning process. He did this through peer review. McGlincy asked three of the few Red Hills salamander experts to review the plan. I could anticipate that if we were going to get a whole lot of criticism, it would be from these two or three people, said McGlincy. He also added: It made them aware of what we were going to do as well as get them on board with us when it came out in the Federal Register for the general public review, those guys had already seen it, and there wouldn t be a big surprise in it for them. Effect of Peer Review on the HCP: Interviewees had very similar ideas on the degree to which peer reviewers comments and criticisms impacted the final plan. Most suggestions were incorporated into the HCP, but no one remembered the comments being of real substance. The USFWS received some verbal comments from Kenneth Dodd and a written letter from the Alabama Department of Natural Resources simply concurring with the content of the plan (MacDearman). Joe McGlincy stated: They [the peer reviewers] had a few comments and some were very good, and I tried to incorporate as much of their comments, criticisms, etc. into the draft as I could [their comments weren t] any real issues that were going to make or break the whole thing. Mark Bailey did not remember the extent to which his comments on the draft were incorporated, but Bob Mount who read and added to Bailey s comments believes most of the comments were included in the HCP. Neither Bailey, nor Mount, expressed problems with the plan. Ray Vaughan said he thinks the plan was pretty well done, pointing to Mark Bailey s work as the reason. Effect of NEPA Comments on the HCP: Only one letter was received during the NEPA comment period, and it had no effect on the HCP. McGlincy could not recall A-International Paper-4

5 who sent the letter, but stated that it addressed buffers for the protected area and was totally irrelevant. IV. CONCLUSION AND LESSONS International Paper Company, one of the first timber companies in the southeast to complete an HCP, followed a public participation model of peer review and the NEPA comment period. Despite the applicant s failure to involve the public in a greater way through hearings or informational sessions the public process used to create this HCP could be called a success. Peer reviewers feel that their comments were incorporated into the Plan (Bailey, Mount). Moreover, both feel the HCP is fairly strong in its protection of salamander habitat. And no public controversy has ensued over the granting of an incidental take permit. A lack of knowledge may be a key reason for the absence of conflict, but this case study reveals other key reasons as well. The following two lessons serve as explanation for this proclamation of success. Involving respected scientific experts on the species early in the process may increase the level of public acceptance of the HCP and strengthen the HCP s protection of the species. According to interviewees, the level of controversy over the completed HCP was extremely low. It is true there were a number of factors that could have affected public acceptance of the plan, but involving the experts early undoubtedly played a strong role. The applicant provided an opportunity for the potential critics those who have spent their lives studying the Red Hills salamander to comment on the document early in the process, and according to interviewees, most of those comments were incorporated into the plan. Early, proactive steps by future permit applicants to protect the species of concern may alleviate conflicts over an HCP. International Paper took steps to protect Red Hills salamander habitat a year following the listing of the species. According to one interviewee, other southeastern timber companies were dragging their heals on the issue (Mount). This action may have promoted trust of the company, thereby preventing great conflicts over the HCP years later. A-International Paper-5