|
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 168/Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations 53197
<br />project modifications that would be
<br />required by consultation. The final
<br />economic analysis provides a detailed
<br />study concerning the potential effects of
<br />the designation of critical habitat for the
<br />owl, and we believe it is in compliance
<br />with the Tenth Circuit's decision in New
<br />Mexico Cattle Growers Assn v. U.S.
<br />Fish and Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d
<br />1277.
<br />(65) Comment: One commenter notes
<br />that the "national perspective" example
<br />of efficiency effects discussed in the text
<br />box on page 1-4 could be used as an
<br />excuse not to analyze the economic
<br />impact of critical habitat designation on
<br />local areas. In addition, this commenter
<br />suggests that the report should include
<br />both regional economic and efficiency
<br />impacts for all economic sectors affected
<br />by the owl from a critical habitat
<br />designation. Another commenter
<br />suggested that regional economic
<br />impacts should have been calculated for
<br />impacts related to the oil and gas
<br />industry.
<br />Our Response: As noted in the
<br />referenced text box on page 1-4, there
<br />are several valid measures of economic
<br />impact. These include efficiency effects,
<br />which consider changes in national
<br />economic well- being, and distributional
<br />effects, including impacts to the
<br />economies of specific regions. Both
<br />efficiency effects and distributional
<br />effects are considered in the economic
<br />analysis. Specifically, impacts to the
<br />timber industry were measured as
<br />regional economic impacts (as discussed
<br />in the text box on page 3 -2), while
<br />impacts to the grazing industry were
<br />measured as efficiency effects. In the
<br />economic analysis, regional economic
<br />impacts were not calculated for the
<br />grazing industry since the magnitude of
<br />expected impacts from owl- related
<br />restrictions on grazing was modest
<br />relative to the size of the grazing
<br />industry in the affected regions.
<br />Specifically, the forecast impact on
<br />grazing represents a loss of less than
<br />one - quarter of one percent of the grazing
<br />activity in New Mexico and Arizona.
<br />This is based on the loss of animal unit
<br />months (AUMs) calculated in the
<br />analysis compared to the total number
<br />of AUMs grazed in New Mexico and
<br />Arizona. However, in response to
<br />comments received and in order to
<br />provide additional information to
<br />interested parties, in the final economic
<br />analysis, the grazing section (Section 4)
<br />has been revised to include a discussion
<br />of regional economic impacts.
<br />Similarly, the economic analysis did
<br />not calculate regional economic impacts
<br />related to the oil and gas industry
<br />because the magnitude of potential
<br />impacts was small in relation to the
<br />regional oil and gas economic activity.
<br />However, the analysis has been revised
<br />to include further discussion of
<br />economic impacts resulting from delays
<br />of oil and gas activities for owl
<br />conservation. Further research suggests
<br />that before drilling can commence, two
<br />years of surveys must be completed,
<br />which may delay drilling activities.
<br />While operators may sometimes be able
<br />to plan ahead, often it is difficult to
<br />build two years into the planning
<br />process, so drilling may effectively be
<br />delayed, depending on when owl
<br />surveys are completed and drilling can
<br />commence. This postponement may
<br />result in regional economic impacts.
<br />Based on available information, past
<br />impacts due to drilling delays have been
<br />limited, and the extent to which delays
<br />will result in impacts in the future is
<br />subject to a variety of uncertainties.
<br />Future impacts will depend on the
<br />number of wells delayed by owl
<br />conservation efforts, the production and
<br />success rates of future wells, and future
<br />costs to develop wells, all of which are
<br />not known with certainty. Discussion of
<br />potential future regional economic
<br />impacts from delays to oil and gas
<br />activities has been added to Section 7.2
<br />of the final economic analysis.
<br />(66) Comment: Several commenters
<br />ask how the economic analysis could be
<br />used to determine areas that might be
<br />excluded, stating that the level of
<br />aggregation of results doesn't allow for
<br />decision - making and "distorts the
<br />analysis." In addition, commenters note
<br />that the analysis does not break down
<br />the impacts to the county level.
<br />Our Response: Given the nature of the
<br />designation (including only Federal and
<br />Tribal lands) and the data available to
<br />estimate economic impacts, results were
<br />presented at the management unit level
<br />(for example, by National Forest for FS
<br />lands, see Exhibits ES -2, ES-3, 3 -3, 3-
<br />10, 3 -11, 3 -13, 4 -5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-81 5-
<br />5, 5 -6, 7 -7, 7-8). This level of detail
<br />allows for direct comparison of
<br />economic impacts with biological
<br />benefits, and thus the information
<br />presented can be considered, along with
<br />other factors, in deciding whether to
<br />exclude an area from the designation.
<br />While results are not given for each
<br />county individually, in the summary of
<br />results (Exhibits ES -2 and ES-3), the
<br />counties in which each unit is located
<br />are listed. Therefore, the report does
<br />provide information for parties
<br />interested in impacts at the county
<br />level.
<br />(67) Comment: Several commenters
<br />believe that the economic analysis
<br />focused on section 7 consultations and
<br />therefore failed to disclose true impacts.
<br />One of these commenters states that the
<br />report fails to discuss "listing of the owl
<br />and attendant section 9 protections,"
<br />Another commenter believes that the
<br />Service only addressed incremental
<br />economic costs to Federal Agencies
<br />involved in section 7 consultations and
<br />failed to analyze "impacts of critical
<br />habitat designation to current cultural or
<br />historical land management practices
<br />involving agriculture, silviculture or
<br />recreation." Another commenter states
<br />that it is misleading to discuss impacts
<br />from 1992 since primary economic
<br />impacts stem from the listing of the owl,
<br />not the designation of critical habitat.
<br />Our Response: The commenters are
<br />incorrect in stating that the analysis
<br />focused on section 7 consultation and
<br />incremental impacts and failed to
<br />discuss impacts that stem from listing
<br />and other protections. The
<br />methodological approach and scope of
<br />the economic analysis is presented in
<br />Section 1 of the report. As this section
<br />details, the economic analysis complies
<br />with direction from New Mexico Cattle
<br />Growers Assn v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
<br />Service, 248 F.3d 1277 that, when
<br />deciding which areas to designate as
<br />critical habitat, the economic analysis
<br />informing that decision should include
<br />"co- extensive" effects. As such, the
<br />economic analysis does not focus only
<br />on section 7 impacts. As stated on page
<br />ES -1, "This analysis considers the
<br />potential economic effects of owl
<br />conservation activities in the proposed
<br />critical habitat designation. Actions
<br />undertaken to meet the requirements of
<br />other Federal, State, and local laws and
<br />policies may afford protection to the
<br />owl and its habitat, and thus contribute
<br />to the efficacy of critical habitat - related
<br />conservation and recovery efforts. Thus,
<br />the impacts of these activities are
<br />relevant for understanding the full
<br />impact of the proposed critical habitat
<br />designation." The inclusion of impacts
<br />related to listing and provisions of the
<br />Act other than section 7 are discussed
<br />in Section 1.2, Scope of the Analysis.
<br />The past and ongoing, and future costs
<br />related to owl conservation activities
<br />that have been quantified in the final
<br />economic analysis include co- extensive
<br />costs as well as costs related to the
<br />previous and current designations. Past
<br />costs resulting from owl conservation
<br />efforts are included since they represent
<br />co- extensive effects of critical habitat
<br />designation that have occurred since the
<br />listing of the species.
<br />In addition, the report addresses
<br />impacts to agriculture in Section 4,
<br />Economic Impacts to Livestock Grazing
<br />Activities. Silviculture is addressed in _
<br />Section 3, Economic Impacts to the
<br />Timber Industry, and recreation is
<br />
|