2013-02-05_REVISION - M1985043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 168/Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations 53219 intensity stand- replacing fires affected 84 PACs from 1995 to 2002 (Service 2004). One fire in particular, the 2002 Rodeo - Chediski, burned 55 PACs (Service 2002). The 157 WUI projects and the Penasco WUI project involve reducing fuel loads to protect human life, property, and natural resources (FS 2001). These project areas include critical communications sites, municipal watersheds, high voltage transmission lines, observatories, church camps, scout camps, research facilities, and other structures. The areas also include residential communities at imminent risk from wildfire (FS 2001). As noted below, by excluding these project areas from the designation of critical habitat, the programmatic BO and the Penasco BO will not have to be reinitiated and will not require any additional compliance with section 7 consultation. Thus, this exclusion will allow the FS to proceed without any delays associated with the FS having to reinitate consultation on the programmatic BO and Penasco BO. We believe it is extremely important to allow these project to proceed due to the fact that these areas have been identified as areas at risk of moderate -to -high fire severity with severe consequences to the ecosystem and human life and property (FS 2001). Loss of habitat from catastrophic wildfire is also one of the two main threats to the owl. Consequently, management actions taken to reduce risk and potential size of high- severity wildfires are recognized as a vital component of owl recovery (Service 1995). For example, the Recovery Plan includes guidelines for both mechanical thinning and prescribed fire in protected and restricted habitat (Service 1995). The Recovery Team has also refined guidelines to assist land managers implementing fuel management activities to reduce the risk of stand - replacing wildfires (Service 2001). We also have developed alternative approaches to streamlining section 7 consultation for hazardous fuels treatment projects (Service 2002), including a consideration of the benefits of these activities to the owl and its habitat (Service 2002a). We believe the exclusion of these 157 WUI project areas and the Penasco WUI project area from critical habitat for the owl is consistent with these recovery guidelines. Following these guidelines, we balanced the anticipated effects of the projects against the effects that will result if no action is taken. For example, we analyzed these projects in the programmatic BO and Penaco BO because we anticipated short-term adverse effects to the owl, but believe that the proposed actions will result in long -term benefits by reducing the risk of wildfire on these and adjacent lands. The economic analysis concluded that impacts on fire management activities are likely to be greatest in areas where WUI lands overlap with owl critical habitat. Our economic analysis found that there may be a decrease in effectiveness of actions taken to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire in WUI areas due to: (1) Possible delays of fuel reduction treatments in PACs (i.e., breeding season restrictions); (2) avoiding the 100 -ac (40.5 -ha) core area of PACs; and (3) reduced thinning in PACs. Breeding season restrictions, avoidance of the 100 -ac (40.5 -ha) core area, and reduced thinning in PACs are recommendations made under the jeopardy standard when a project is proposed in a PAC; however, because consideration was given collectively to all `owl conservation activities" in the economic analysis these costs were also analyzed. Using the programmatic BO, this overlap was estimated to be about 4 percent (134,000 ac [54,228 ha)). By excluding these project areas from the designation of critical habitat, the programmatic BO and Penasco BO will not have to be reinitiated and will not require any additional compliance with section 7 consultation. Thus, exclusion of these areas from the designation will avoid any delays associated with the FS having to reinitate consultation on the programmatic BO and Penasco BO or having to reiniate consulation on a project by project basis on these completed section 7 consulations. Critical habitat is often viewed negatively by the public since it is not well understood and there are many misconceptions about how it affects private landowners (Patlis 2001). During the public comment period, one of the most common issues was that designation of critical habitat could impede efforts to reduce the risk of wildfire on National Forest lands and surrounding communities. The development of the forest restoration projects often involves a variety of stakeholders, including private landowners. Throughout the stakeholder -based planning process, Federal land managers must build trust among diverse and competing interests by encouraging open dialogue regarding various forest management issues. If these 157 WUI project areas and the Penasco WUI project area were included in the critical habitat designation, we conclude that the introduction of additional Federal (e.g., a new regulation from the Service) influence could jeopardize the trust and spirit of cooperation that has been established over the last several years. The designation of critical habitat would be expected to adversely impact our, and possibly other Federal land managers ", working relationship with private landowners, and we believe that additional Federal regulation of these high -fire risk areas through critical habitat designation would be viewed as an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion. We believe it is important for recovery of this species that the public understand that the conservation- related activities for the owl that are proposed by Federal agencies are complementary with forest restoration activities to reduce threats to public and private lands (e.g., see Carson Forest Watch 2004). Additionally, the support of the public will also be required as Federal land managers propose fuels reduction activities that will alter the current structure of forests while reducing the threats from stand - replacing wildfires. For example, in many places throughout the southwest, people are often opposed to forest restoration activities if it alters their aesthetic views of forested lands. To this end, as Federal land managers develop treatments to reduce this risk (i.e., prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, etc.), it is critical that the public understand and support such activities. We find that the exclusion of these WUI project areas from the designation will improve public support for overall forest restoration activities, which will provide benefits to the owl. For these reasons, we find that significant benefits result from excluding these 157 WUI project areas and the Penasco WUI project area from designation of critical habitat. In summary, we believe that the benefits of excluding the 157 WUI project areas and the Penasco WUI project area from critical habitat for the owl outweigh the benefits of their inclusion in critical habitat. Including these areas may result in some benefit through additional consultations with FS, whose activities may affect critical habitat. However, overall this benefit is minimal because evaluation of affects to the critical habitat would result in the same conservation recommendations as the programmatic BO and Penasco BO which have already been completed. On the other hand, an exclusion will greatly benefit the overall recovery of the owl by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire, one of the greatest threats to the species. An exclusion would also assist Recovery efforts by garnering greater public acceptance of owl conservation activities. Thus, we believe that an exclusion of these 157 WUI