REV93314 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pose 8536 (19) Comment; How will the exclusion of certain lands (e.g., State, private, Tribal) affect recovery and delisting of the Mexican spotted owl? Our Response.' In accordance with section 3(S)(A)(i)of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we aze required to base critical habitat designation on the best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that are essential to conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. We designated critical habitat for those lands we determined are essential to conservation of the Mexican spotted owl. We did include certain lands (e.g., State, private, and Tribal) because we determined these lands are either not essential to the recovery of the Mexican spotted owl or are already managed in a manner compatible with Mexican spotted owl conservation. The exclusion of State, private, and tribal lands in the designation of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl will not affect the recovery and future delisting of the species. Pose 8537 (25) Comment; Explain the rationale for excluding, by definition, State and private lands from the proposed designation; there are documented nesting sited for the Mexican spotted owl in Colorado located on State-leased land; State and private lands should be included: the majority of owl locations are from Federal lands because no one is doing surveys on private and State lands. Out Response: Although we are aware of some Mexican spotted owl locations on State and private lands, the majority of owl locations are from Federal and Tribal lands. Thus, we believe that Mexican spotted owl conservation can best be achieved by management of Federal and Tribal lands, and determined that State and private lands are not essential to the species' recovery. Pose 8538 (31) Comment.' Several commenters questioned the adequacy of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and other aspects of our compliance with NEPA. They believe the Fish and Wildlife Service should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this action. Our Response: The commenters did not provide sufficient rationale to explain why they believed the EA was inadequate and an E[S necessary. An EIS is required only in instances where a proposed Federal action is expected to have a significant impact on the humane environment. In order to determine whether designation of critical habitat would have such an effect, we prepared an EA of the effects of the proposed designation. We made the draft EA available for public comment on October 20, 2000, and published notice of its availability in the Federal Register (65 FR 63047). Following consideration of public comments, we prepared a final EA and determined that critical habitat designation does not constitute a major Federal action having a significant impact on the human environment. That determination is documented in our Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Both the final EA and FONSI are available for public review (see ADDRESSES section).