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

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 168/Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations 53217
Mountain. WUI project areas, State and
private lands are not designated as
critical habitat.
Unit UGM -15. Kaibab National Forest,
Coconino County, Arizona
This unit is located northwest of
Flagstaff, Arizona. The unit is located
west of U.S. Highway 180 and
encompasses the area from Kendrick
Peak northwest to Wild Horse Canyon.
State and private lands are not
designated as critical habitat.
Unit UGM -17. Kaibab National Forest,
Coconino County, Arizona
This unit is located north of Parks,
Arizona, and includes Sitgreaves
Mountain, RS Hill, and Government
Hill. State and private lands are not
designated as critical habitat.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
As we undertake the process of
designating critical habitat for a species,
we first evaluate lands defined by those
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species for inclusion in the designation
pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act.
We then evaluate lands defined by those
features to assess whether they may
require special management
considerations or protection. As
discussed elsewhere in this final rule,
the two primary reasons that are cited
for listing the owl as threatened in 1993
include: (1) historical alteration of its
habitat as the result of timber
management practices, specifically the
use of even -aged silviculture, and the
threat of these practices continuing; and
(2) the danger of catastrophic wildfire.
As discussed in the background section
above, the Forest Service in Arizona and
New Mexico have amended their Forest
Plans to address the threat of even -aged
silviculture, however, the risk of
catastrophic wildfire remains a
significant threat to the owl.
The Recovery Plan for the owl
outlines management actions that guide
land management agencies in efforts to
remove recognized threats and recover
the owl. The Service has an existing
policy for both owls and critical habitat
that identifies using the Recovery Plan
for section 7 consultations. Our policy
indicates that an action in critical
habitat that affects primary constituent
elements may affect critical habitat and,
therefore, must be consulted upon. In
general, if a proposed action is in
compliance with the Recovery Plan, we
consider the effects to be insignificant
and discountable and not likely to
adversely affect the species or its critical
habitat (i.e., an informal consultation).
Conversely, those activities not in
compliance with the Recovery Plan are
likely to adversely affect the species or
its critical habitat (i.e., formal
consultation). Actions on Federal lands
that we reviewed in past consultations
on effects to the owl include land
management plans; land acquisition and
disposal; road construction,
maintenance, and repair; timber harvest;
livestock grazing and management; fire/
ecosystem management projects
(including prescribed natural and
management ignited fire); powerline
construction and repair; campground
and other recreational developments;
and access easements. We expect that
the same types of activities will be
reviewed in section 7 consultations for
designated critical habitat. Thus, we
believe the areas being designated as
critical habitat will require some level of
management and /or protection to
address the current and future threats to
the owl and maintain the primary
constituent elements essential to its
conservation in order to ensure the
overall conservation of the species.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that
we designate critical habitat on the basis
of the best scientific information
available, and that we consider the
economic impact, National Security,
and any other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical
habitat. We may exclude areas from
critical habitat if the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
designation, provided the exclusion will
not result in the extinction of the
species. For the reasons discussed
below, our analysis of the following: (1)
Mescalero Apache, San Carlos Apache,
and Navajo Nation lands; and (2) 157
WUI project areas, including the Rio
Penasco lI vegetation management
project on the Sacramento Ranger
District, Lincoln National Forest
(discussed below), on FS lands that are
categorized as being "at imminent risk
of catastrophic wildfire ", concludes that
the benefits of excluding these areas
from the designation of critical habitat
for the owl outweigh the benefits of
including them. Therefore, we are not
including these lands within the critical
habitat designation for the owl.
We have also completed an analysis
of the economic impacts of designating
these areas as critical habitat. The
economic analysis was conducted in a
manner that is consistent with the
ruling of the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals in N.M. Cattle Growers Assn v.
USFWS, 248 F.3d 1277 (2001). It was
available for public review and
comment during the comment periods
for the proposed rule. The final
economic analysis is available from our
Web site at http: / /ifw2es fws.govlmsol
or by contacting our New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
As detailed below, we have excluded
157 WUI project areas and the Penasco
WUI project area,all Tribal lands, and
the majority of military lands. As such
we anticipate no impact to National
Security, Tribal lands, partnerships, or
habitat conservation plans from this
critical habitat designation.
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) on
Forest Service (FS) Lands
During the comment period we
received requests to exclude lands that
are included within WUI areas of
National Forests. Pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the Act, this request prompted
us to take into consideration the health
and human safety risk of State, private,
and Tribal lands adjacent to FS lands
that are at imminent risk of catastrophic
wildfire (FS 2001; Service 2001; 66 FR
43384). We consider the human health
and safety risk of these lands as an
"other relevant impact."
The WUI projects that we evaluated
are those that were identified in the
February 21, 2001, programmatic
biological assessment and evaluation for
WUI fuel treatment (programmatic BA)
(FS 2001; http: / /www.fs.fed.uslr3lwuil).
The programmatic BA analyzed effects
to 32 threatened, endangered, and
proposed species, including effects to
the owl and its habitat from 157 WUI
projects. The resulting April 10, 2001,
programmatic biological opinion
(programmatic BO) found that the WUI
projects would be individually
implemented by the FS during site -
specific (i.e., project - level) review of the
amount of material (i.e., fuels) that are
within a project and the potential of a
fire starting, as documented in their
NEPA analyses. Only those projects that
the FS documents as "at imminent risk
of catastrophic wildfire" are covered by
the programmatic BO (Service 2001).
The FS proposed treatments to keep
fires on the ground, where suppression
efforts can be more effective. These
activities were proposed to occur at two
intensity levels within owl habitat.
Treatments within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of
private lands may be intensive (e.g.,
reducing basal area in mixed conifer
habitat to between 40 to 60 ft2 (3.7 to 5.6
m2)), whereas treatments outside the 0.5
mi (0.8 km) buffer around private lands
must comply with the Recovery Plan
(Service 1995, 2001). Our analysis of the
database for the projects (http://
www.fs.fed.us 1r3 1wui/3 indicates that 26