2013-02-05_REVISION - M1985043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

53198 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 168/Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations addressed in Section 7.1, Impacts to Recreational Activities. (68) Comment: One commenter states that the economic analysis consistently overstates costs to an extent considered arbitrary and capricious. Other commenters believe that the costs are understated because the analysis fails to consider impacts beyond section 7. Our Response: The methodology and assumptions used to arrive at estimates of economic impacts are detailed in the report in Section 1, Exhibit ES-6, and Exhibit 3 -14. Due to uncertainties regarding impacts, a range of estimates is presented, based on the best scientific and commercial information available at the time the analysis was being conducted. The data sources utilized in the report are discussed in Section 1.4 and specific citations are provided throughout the report and in the Reference list. In addition, the report has been reviewed by three independent technical advisors, all of whom found the approaches used to analyze impacts were appropriate. (69) Comment: One commenter questions the method for determining "co- extensive" costs. The commenter is unclear if costs defined as co- extensive would necessarily be required under critical habitat alone. The commenter raises two examples of types of costs that it did not feel should be considered co- extensive, including costs related to FS measures for implementing Recovery Plan and costs related to Tribe's management plans. In particular, the commenter believes that because the Tribes' management plans will remain in place whether or not critical habitat is designated on Tribal lands, these costs should not be considered co- extensive with the designation. Our Response: In order to comply with direction from the New Mexico Cattle Growers Assn v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (248 F.3d 1277), the economic analysis addresses "co- extensive" effects of this designation. The economic analysis considers all impacts that result from efforts to protect owl and its habitat (referred to as `owl conservation activities "). As stated on page ES-1, "Actions undertaken to meet the requirements of other Federal, State, and local laws and policies may afford protection to the owl and its habitat, and thus contribute to the efficacy of critical habitat - related conservation and recovery efforts. Thus, the impacts of these activities are relevant for understanding the full impact of the proposed critical habitat." The scope of the analysis is discussed in Section 1.2 of the report. Costs related to implementation of the Recovery Plan, such as impacts resulting from owl- related standards and guidelines included in the Forest Service's Land and Resource Management Plans, are considered "co- extensive" because they result directly from the listing of the species. These impacts are addressed in Sections 3 and 4 of the report. In addition, the Tribe's owl management plans were likely created as a result of the listing of the species and the previous designations, and therefore are considered co- extensive effects of critical habitat for the purposes of this analysis. Impacts related to Tribe's owl management plans are addressed in Section 6 of the economic analysis. (70) Comment: A commenter suggests that the phrase "owl conservation efforts" be defined in the Executive Summary. Our Response: The phrase 'owl conservation activities" is defined in Section 1 of the report as "efforts to protect owl and its habitat." The phrase "owl conservation efforts" is used interchangeably with'owl conservation activities' in the report. Text has been added to the final economic analysis to clarify these phrases at the beginning of the Executive Summary. (71) Comment: A commenter questions the appropriate baseline for the statement in the report that additional impacts due to critical habitat are unlikely. This commenter believes impacts from previous designation should not be included in the baseline. Another commenter thought that the economic analysis should consider the devastating impacts that have already occurred within the Lincoln National Forest as a result of "ongoing attempts at critical habitat designation that started in 1980s "; this commenter also provides estimates of present value revenue from forest products for south central New Mexico from the 1930s through the 1960s. Our Response: This comment refers to the following statement on page ES -5 of the economic analysis: "For the most part, this analysis does not anticipate that designation of critical habitat for the owl will result in additional economic impacts above and beyond the current regulatory burden." This statement relates to impacts from this rulemaking specifically. The final economic analysis is not limited to quantifying the incremental, or "additional" impacts of critical habitat. Instead, in order to comply with direction from New Mexico Cattle Growers Assn v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277, the results presented in the economic analysis include "co- extensive" effects of designation, as discussed in Response #3 and in Section 1 of the report. Impacts on the timber industry related to past designations were included in the past and ongoing impacts addressed in Section 3 of the final economic analysis. With regard to the figures on present value of revenues from forest products for south central New Mexico, these estimates are for time periods prior to the listing of the owl. As the commenter notes, the industry experienced marked declines in revenues during this period. The economic analysis provided a similar discussion of the historical context for the timber industry in the southwest in Section 2.5. (72) Comment: One commenter raises a number of questions with regard to the structure and content of the final economic analysis, including the following: How many economic statistics were sampled? What was the sampling intensity? What was the level of replication? What is the statistical design? What hypotheses are being tested? What variables were statistically significant between costs and impacts? Our Response: The models used to calculate economic impacts related to owl conservation activities are based on a reliable sample of economic data. For example, the final economic analysis utilizes a software package called IMPLAN to estimate the total economic effects of the reduction in economic activity in the timber, grazing, and oil and gas industries in the study area. IMPLAN is commonly used by State and Federal agencies for policy planning and evaluation purposes. The model draws upon data from several Federal and State agencies, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In addition, a wide range of statistical data were utilized in order to gain an understanding of the economic environment in the areas and industries affected by this designation. The data sources relied upon are detailed in the references at the end of the report, and discussed in Section 1.4 Information Sources. Factors that may introduce uncertainty and bias into the analysis (i.e., level of confidence in the results) are discussed throughout the report, and are summarized in Exhibit ES-6. (73) Comment: One commenter raises a number of questions with regard to the structure and content of the final economic analysis, including the following: Were private stakeholders and communities solicited for input throughout the study period? How long was the study period? Our Response: Private stakeholders _ have been solicited for input throughout the preparation of the economic