2013-02-05_REVISION - M1985043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

53184 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 168/Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations (Microtus spp.) (Service 1995; Young et al. 1997; Delaney et al. 1999; Seamans and Gutierrez 1999). Mexican woodrats (N. me)dcana) are typically found in areas with considerable shrub or understory tree cover and high log volumes, or rocky outcrops associated with pinyon - juniper woodlands (Sureda and Morrison 1998 and Ward 2001). Sureda and Morrison (1998) and Ward (2001) found deer mice (P. maniculatus) to be more abundant and widespread in the 60 to 100 year old stands of mixed - conifer forests. Mexican voles (M. mexicanus) are associated with mountain meadows and high herbaceous cover, primarily grasses; whereas, long- tailed voles (M. longicaudus) are found in dry forest habitats with dense herbaceous cover, primarily forbs, many shrubs, and limited tree cover (Ward 2001). High levels of owl reproductive success and production may be due to prey abundance (Delaney et al. 1999). Ward and Block (1995) documented an increase in owl production when moderate to high levels of woodrats, peromyscid mice, and voles, were consumed. A diverse prey base is dependant on availability and quality of diverse habitats. Owl prey species need adequate levels of residual plant cover, understory cover, and high log volume. Therefore, a wide variety of forest and vegetative conditions are important to the owl and its prey. Historic population size estimates and range of the owl are not known; however, present population size and distribution are thought to be similar (Service 1995). Ninety-one percent of known owls existing in the United States between 1990 and 1993 occurred on land administered by the FS, the primary administrator of lands supporting owls (Service 1995). Most owls have been found within the 11 National Forests of Arizona and New Mexico. It is unknown why Colorado and Utah support fewer owls. In 2002, FS reported 987 PACs in Arizona and New Mexico (FS 2002). Additional surveys are likely to document more owls on FS and other lands. For example, Geo- Marine (2004) reported an additional 26 activity centers not previously designated by the Gila National Forest. Current information suggests there are 15 PACs in Colorado, 105 PACs in Utah, and 43 PACs on National Park Service (NPS) lands in Arizona, therefore, 1,176 PACs have been identified. Based on this number of owl sites, we believe that the total known owl numbers on Federal lands in southwestern United States range from 1,176 or 2,352, depending on whether one bird or a pair occupies the PAC. Seamans et al. (1999) reported evidence of 10 percent or greater population declines in central Arizona and west - central New Mexico. Both populations experienced lower survival rates in the late 1990s. Gutierrez et al. (2003) concluded that with four additional years of data on these same populations, the decline observed by Seamans et al. (1999) on the Arizona study area was temporary, whereas the decline in New Mexico appeared to be continuing. Wide population fluctuations may be common for populations of owls (Gutierrez et al. 2003). The final listing rule for the owl stated that the Southwestern Region of the FS managed timber primarily under a shelterwood harvest regime. A shelterwood cut is an even -aged regeneration cutting in which new tree seedlings are established under the partial shade of remnant seed trees. Thus, this harvest method produces even -aged stands rather than the uneven -aged, multi- layered stands most often used by the owl for nesting and roosting. In addition, at the time of the listing, the shelterwood silviculture system called for even -aged conditions in perpetuity. In 1996, the Southwest Region of the FS incorporated'the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan guidelines as management direction into their Forest Plans. Thus, the management plans for the Southwestern Region of the FS include biological goals consistent with the Recovery Plan for the owl, thereby eliminating one of the primary threats to the owl on FS lands identified in the final listing rule. Another primary reason cited for listing the owl as threatened in 1993 was the danger of catastrophic wildfire. Bond et al. (2002) described short-term effects of wildfires on spotted owls throughout the species' range. The authors reported that relatively large wildfires that burned nest and roost areas appeared to have little short-term (1 -year) effect on survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success of spotted owls, as rates were similar to estimates independent of fire. However, Elliot (1995), MacCracken et al. (1996), and Gaines et al. (1997) reported in some cases, large stand replacing wildfires appeared to have a negative effect on owls. Jenness (2000) reported low- to moderate - severity fires did not adversely affect owls. Bond et al. (2002) hypothesized that spotted owls may withstand the immediate, short-term effects of fire occurring at primarily low to moderate severities within their territory. The USDA Forest Service (FS) reported similar results following the 2002 Lakes Fire in the Jemez Mountains of north - central New Mexico. Thus, prescribed burning and other forest management activities could be an effective tool to reduce fire risk and restore forests to natural conditions with perhaps short-term impacts to owls. For example, prescribed fire may prove useful in the creation or maintenance of habitat for owls or their prey (Gutierrez et a/. 2003). Bond et al. (2002) cautioned that programmatic prescribed burning in owl territories could not be justified solely on their observations. Manipulative experiments are needed to evaluate effects of fire (or other forest management activities) on owls (Bond et al. 2002). Previous Federal Actions We published a final rule listing the owl as a threatened species on March 16, 1993 (58 FR 14248). For more information on the previous critical habitat designations and other actions related to the owl, refer to the final rule published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2001 (66 FR 8530). The final rule excluded all National Forest Service (FS) lands in Arizona and New Mexico and certain Tribal lands and designated critical habitat on approximately 1.9 million ha (4.6 million ac). On August 27, 2001, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint challenging our decision to exclude these lands from the final designation of critical habitat for the owl. On January 13, 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, (Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. 01-409 TUC DCB), ruled that our final designation of critical habitat for the owl violated the Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). The Court ordered us to repropose critical habitat within 3 months and finalize within 6 months from the date of the order. The Court also stated that the current critical habitat designation for the owl (i.e., that promulgated by 66 FR 8530 and codified at 50 CFR 17.95) shall remain in effect and be enforced until such time as we publish a new final designation of critical habitat for the owl. In a subsequent order, on February 18, 2003, the original deadlines were extended to allow until October 13, 2003, to repropose critical habitat for the owl and until April 13, 2004, to publish a new final designation of critical habitat. On October 10, 2003, the Court ruled that it would permit a limited extension and ordered the parties to meet and confer within 15 days of the order to prepare a reasonable