2013-02-05_REVISION - M1985043

• Permit No: M1985043
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 2/5/2013
• Doc Name: FEDERAL REGISTER - HIGHLIGHTED
• From: OPERATOR
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: TC1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

53200 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 168/Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations
in additional project modifications
compared to the existing condition (i.e.
project modification resulting from
consultation on effects to the species).
Cumulative effects from any of the
critical habitat designation alternatives
are therefore improbable.
The heading of section 3.10 was
changed to Environmental Justice and
Social Conditions. In fact, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's checklist for
social impacts was used in preparation
of the EA (http://www..ftvs.govl
r9esnepa/
NEPA%20Handbook %20TOC.pdf). The
EA was edited to specifically list the
concerns outlined in the checklist and
briefly discuss those that were
considered relevant. Impacts to minority
and low income populations were
disclosed in section 3.10 of the draft EA.
The economic analysis considered
impacts resulting from all activities
related to conservation of the owl.
However, the EA found that these
impacts would occur regardless of
critical habitat designation because all
suitable habitat outside of PACs (is
already considered in consultations on
effects to the species.
(80) Comment: One commenter is
concerned that the socioeconomic
statistics presented in the economic
analysis do not include production
agriculture. The commenter notes that
the data used in the analysis were
derived from County Business Patterns
data that does not accurately portray the
role of the agricultural production
sector. The commenter suggests using
data from the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis' Regional Economic
Information System.
Our Response: The commenter is
referring to data presented in Exhibits
2-4 and 2 -5 of the report for the
counties within the critical habitat
designation. These data are presented to
give the reader an overview of the
economy in the region affected by the
designation. These data were considered
the best scientific and commercial data
available for the purpose of providing a
general overview. The Agriculture,
Forestry, Hunting, and Fishing category
in these tables is defined by the U.S.
Census Bureau as consisting of
establishments primarily engaged in
growing crops, raising animals,
harvesting timber, and harvesting fish
and other animals from a farm, ranch, or
their natural habitats (NAICS Code 11).
The commenter is correct that these
figures do not include agricultural
production. However, a more detailed
overview of agriculture production in
the region focusing on livestock grazing
is presented in Section 2.3 of the report.
While the Regional Economic
Information System provides earnings
by industry data, this information is not
reported consistently for the counties
within the study area for the most recent
time period. Many of the county
industry earnings are not reported for
2001 to avoid disclosing confidential
information, or because the data was not
available. The County Business Pattern
data was more consistently available for
the counties within the study period for
the most recent time period; thus, this
data was presented in the report.
(81) Comment: One commenter
requests further information regarding
the citation in footnote 41, especially
with regard to data on earnings and total
employment.
Our Response: This comment refers to
a reference included in the discussion of
the regional agriculture industry in
Section 2.6 of the report. The reference
is correct for data on earnings, based on
livestock receipts as a share of total
commodity receipts, which was
obtained from the USDA National
Agricultural Statistics Service for
Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and
Utah. However, as the commenter notes,
the employment data referred to in the
text is from a different data source.
Statements about employment in the
livestock industry are based on data
from the U.S. Census Bureau's County
Business Patterns. The footnote has
been revised in the final report to more
accurately cite the basis for the
statements regarding earnings and
employment.
(82) Comment: Several commenters
question how timber impacts could be
analyzed when there is no longer any
timber industry in the region. Another
commenter notes that many of the mills
cited as being in operation are
processing firewood and pellets, and
operate on wood from WUI projects that
have minimal if any impact on owls.
Our Response: As discussed in
Section 2.5 of the economic analysis,
the number of mills in operation and the
amount of timber harvested from
National Forests in the region have both
declined significantly over the past 10
years. However, the analysis of impacts
on the timber industry is based on a
range of estimates of National Forest
areas where timber harvest is restricted
as a result of owl conservation efforts.
For the upper -bound estimate, the
analysis considers a scenario under
which the industry would be capable of
harvesting and processing timber from
these lands. Thus, the impacts represent
timber - related economic output and jobs
that would have been available if owl
conservation efforts did not occur.
Results of the timber industry analysis
are presented in Section 3 of the
economic analysis.
Data on mills operating in the region,
some of which are producing fuelwood
and pellets, was provided by FS Region
2 and is included in the analysis in
Exhibit 2 -9. The commenter correctly
notes that WUI projects are providing a
source of supply for operating mills in
the region.
(83) Comment: One commenter
discusses how the cessation of logging
activities has impacted taxpayers and
social structure in affected communities
in New Mexico. The commenter
believes that the study minimizes the
local impacts by averaging the damage.
Our Response: Clearly the decline of
the timber industry has had significant
economic impacts on local communities
in New Mexico and Arizona. The report
is focused on the impacts of owl
conservation activities, rather than the
overall impacts of the decline of the
timber industry. As a result, the
economic analysis quantifies the
regional economic impacts associated
with restrictions on logging in National
Forests due to owl conservation efforts.
The results of the regional economic
impact analysis of the timber industry is
presented in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 of
the report.
(84) Comment: One commenter states
that Tribes outside designation could be
affected by owl conservation efforts, and
these impacts should be included in the
analysis. For example, the commenter
believes Tribes outside of the
designation could be affected by
increased wildfire risk and secondary
impacts affecting the regional economy.
Another commenter states that they did
not see where economic impacts were
evaluated for the Ute Tribe.
Our Response: Tribes located outside
of the proposed designation were not
expected to experience direct economic
impacts related to the designation, and
therefore these Tribes are not
specifically addressed in the analysis.
However, to the extent that there are
regional economic impacts related to
restrictions on timber and grazing
activities, if impacts to Tribes are likely,
these have been captured in the regional
economic impact analyses of these
industries. These analyses are presented
in Sections 3 and 4 of the final
economic analysis, respectively. In
addition, Section 5 presents an analysis
of impacts to fire management activities
that may result from owl conservation
activities, including a discussion of the
potential for increased wildfire risk.
(85) Comment: One commenter states
that the Navajo sawmill— Navajo Forest
Products Industries (NFPI) was not
shutdown in July of 1994 due to issues