|
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 168/Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations 53199
<br />analysis, as evidenced by various
<br />costs to the private sector related to
<br />Given the nature of the analysis,
<br />communications and data sources relied
<br />section 7 or section 10 are not explained
<br />however, the use of published data
<br />upon in the report. The data sources
<br />or analyzed. For example, one
<br />sources is not always possible. The
<br />relied upon are detailed in the
<br />commenter states that non - Federal
<br />economic analysis has been based on
<br />references at the end of the report, and
<br />landowners who voluntarily 1 nt
<br />e€ `�} _'`
<br />the best scientific and commercial
<br />information, includes
<br />discussed in Section 1.4, Information
<br />ow .re a ;" m age
<br />which
<br />Sources. The Service undertook variou
<br />a din now
<br /><. .
<br />discussions with informed parties and
<br />efforts to solicit public comment from
<br />five a ne In a dition; this
<br />stakeholders, as well as published data
<br />the general public and stakeholders in
<br />commenter states that several counties
<br />sources. In addition, the report has been
<br />particular. This included meetings held
<br />will have more than 90 percent of their
<br />reviewed by three independent
<br />with Action agencies in Albuquerque
<br />private land with critical habitat
<br />reviewers, including specialists in
<br />and Phoenix, to provide information to
<br />management impositions. Another
<br />southwestern resource economics,
<br />the economic consultants. In addition,
<br />commenter believes that the report
<br />timber issues, and livestock grazing
<br />the economic consultants met with each
<br />should address the impacts of
<br />issues.
<br />of the Tribes whose lands were included
<br />development of private land around the
<br />(78) Comment: Several commenters
<br />in the proposed designation.
<br />designation if rancher forced to sell due
<br />note the economic analysis should
<br />(74) Comment: One commenter raises
<br />to AUM restrictions on Federal lands.
<br />assess social impacts associated with
<br />a number of questions with regard to the
<br />Also, one commenter commends the
<br />the designation. Commenters are
<br />structure and content of the final
<br />Service for including impacts on HCPs
<br />concerned that the analysis did not
<br />economic analysis, including the
<br />or other section 10 permit efforts.
<br />mention social impact to rural areas or
<br />following: How were impacts
<br />OuRespgnse P ate.property is
<br />discuss the social benefits of grazing.
<br />determined? What economic and social
<br />specificallq excluded from the :..
<br />Our Response: The economic analysis
<br />parameters are being measured? What
<br />designation. However, the analysis does
<br />is focused on analyzing the costs
<br />methods were used to analyze the
<br />consider the impacts of private entities
<br />associated with owl conservation
<br />economic and social data? What
<br />developing Habitat Conservation Plans
<br />activities and is not intended to provide
<br />additional assumptions of critical
<br />(HCP) under section 10 of the Act.
<br />an analysis of social or cultural impacts.
<br />habitat economic impacts beyond the
<br />Based on available data, there are no
<br />However, the environmental assessment
<br />assumed direct relationship of Federal
<br />HCPs in placeor,the owl, however,
<br />did address social impacts (please refer
<br />agencies were used? What are the direct,
<br />ther *b' is one development by
<br />the environmental assessment).
<br />induced and indirect economic cost
<br />a priva�e p o,rgrave mining
<br />(79) Comment: One commenter raises
<br />impacts to affected communities from
<br />activities ut Colorado. Impacts related to
<br />a number of questions with regard to the
<br />owl critical habitat designation? What
<br />this HCP'are discussed in Section 7.3.1
<br />structure and content of the final
<br />were the results? How much variability
<br />of the final economic analysis. In
<br />economic analysis and environmental
<br />was explained by the data?
<br />addition, to the extent that private
<br />assessment including the following:
<br />Our Response: The final economic
<br />parties involved in grazing or timber
<br />What are the cumulative socioeconomic
<br />analysis discusses in detail how impacts
<br />activities on Federal lands are affected
<br />and cultural impact costs to affected
<br />were determined, the economic
<br />by owl related conservation activities,
<br />communities from owl critical habitat
<br />parameters measured, the analytical
<br />these impacts have been captured in the
<br />designation? What disproportionate
<br />methods used, the assumptions
<br />regional impact analyses of the timber
<br />burdens on affected minorities were
<br />underlying the analysis, and the results;
<br />and grazing industries. These analyses
<br />identified and analyzed?
<br />please refer to the report for this
<br />are presented in Sections 3 and 4 of the
<br />Our Response: Cumulative effects are
<br />information.
<br />final economic analysis, respectively.
<br />defined as "the impact on the
<br />(75) Comment: One commenter
<br />The report also analyzes direct ranch
<br />environment which results from the
<br />questions what the peer review process
<br />level income effects resulting from
<br />incremental impact of the action when
<br />is with regard to the final economic
<br />reductions in permitted or authorized
<br />added to other past, present, and
<br />analysis.
<br />AUMs on Federal lands. These effects
<br />reasonably foreseeable future actions
<br />Our Response: The report was
<br />are summarized in Section 4 of the
<br />regardless of what agency (Federal or
<br />reviewed by three independent
<br />economic analysis. As noted in Section
<br />non - Federal) or person undertakes such
<br />technical advisors: Dr. Delworth
<br />1.2.3 of the final economic analysis,
<br />other actions" (40 CFR § 1508.7).
<br />Gardner, Resource & Agricultural
<br />because the designation excludes
<br />Cumulative effects are disclosed in
<br />Economics Specialist, Brigham Young
<br />private property, significant changes to
<br />section 3.11, where it is stated that:
<br />University (Livestock Grazing), Dr.
<br />private property values associated with
<br />"Effects of proposed critical habitat
<br />David Brookshire, Natural Resource and
<br />public attitudes about critical habitat
<br />designation on most resource areas are
<br />Environmental Economics Specialist,
<br />designation (known as "stigma"
<br />generally similar under each of the
<br />University of New Mexico
<br />impacts) are not expected.
<br />action alternatives, and vary only in
<br />(southwestern U.S. resource economics),
<br />(777) Comment: Two commenters
<br />terms of potential area of effect. These
<br />and Dr. Roger Sedjo, Resources for the
<br />question the validity of personal
<br />effects consist primarily of the potential
<br />Future (Timber). These reviewers were
<br />communications as a data source.
<br />for minor changes to projects resulting
<br />each asked to read sections of the draft
<br />Our Response: A wide variety of data
<br />from reinitiation of consultation and
<br />report, based on their expertise, and to
<br />sources are utilized in the economic
<br />implementation of discretionary
<br />provide feedback on the analytical
<br />analysis. The report provides clear
<br />conservation recommendations. These
<br />methodology and the validity of the
<br />referencing of the data relied upon for
<br />potential impacts are not likely to result
<br />results. This feedback was then
<br />the analysis. The data sources relied
<br />in any cumulative effects, when added
<br />incorporated into the final draft report,
<br />upon are detailed in the references at
<br />to the effects of existing section 7
<br />as ap ropriate.
<br />(76� Comment: Several commenters
<br />the end of the report, and discussed in
<br />Section 1.4, Information Sources.
<br />consultations for other species and
<br />existing land management plans and
<br />state that private property issues are not
<br />Wherever possible, information
<br />policies." The cumulative effects
<br />addressed in the economic analysis. In
<br />provided by informed parties was
<br />analysis was clarified that critical
<br />particular, one commenter states that
<br />confirmed by published data sources.
<br />habitat designation is unlikely to result
<br />
|