2013-02-05_REVISION - M1985043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

53226 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 168/Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations conferencing with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat include those that alter the primary constituent elements to an extent that the value of critical habitat for the conservation of the owl is appreciably reduced. We note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species. A number of Federal agencies or departments fund, authorize, or carry out actions that may affect the owl and its critical habitat. Among these agencies are the FS, BIA, BLM, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, NPS, and Federal Highway Administration. We have reviewed and continue to review numerous activities proposed within the range of the owl that are currently the subject of formal or informal section 7 consultations. 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. Actions that would be expected to both jeopardize the continued existence of the owl and destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat would include those that significantly and detrimentally alter the species' habitat over an area large enough that the likelihood of the owls' persistence and recovery, either range -wide or within a RU, is significantly reduced. Thus, the likelihood of an adverse modification or jeopardy determination would depend on the baseline condition of the RU and the baseline condition of the species as a whole. Some RUs, such as the Southern Rocky Mountains -New Mexico and Southern Rocky Mountains - Colorado, support fewer owls and owl habitat than other RUs and, therefore, may be less able to withstand habitat- altering activities than RUs with large contiguous areas of habitat supporting higher densities of owls. Actions not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include activities that are implemented in compliance with the Recovery Plan, such as thinning trees less than 9 inches (23 centimeters) in diameter in PACs; fuels reduction to abate the risk of catastrophic wildfire; "personal use" commodity collection such as fuelwood, latillas and vigas, and Christmas tree cutting; livestock grazing that maintains good to excellent range conditions; and most recreational activities including hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, cross - country skiing, off -road vehicle use, and various activities associated with nature appreciation. We do not expect any restrictions to those activities as a result of this critical habitat designation. In addition, some activities may be considered to be of benefit to owl habitat and, therefore, would not be expected to adversely modify critical habitat. Examples of activities that could benefit critical habitat may include some protective measures such as fire suppression, prescribed burning, brush control, snag creation, and certain silvicultural activities such as thinning. In 2001, the Recovery Team noted that there is currently not enough information to provide specific targets or quantities for the retention of key habitat components during fuels reduction activities in restricted habitat (Service 2001). However, current research is increasing our knowledge (e.g., see Ganey et al. 2003; May and Gutierrez 2002). Consequently, managers should use their discretion and site - specific information to balance fuels management prescriptions with the conservation of the owl. Nevertheless, we are aware that some activities, such as prescribed burns, have been conducted and data indicate that primary constituent elements have been retained (e.g., see Service 2002; Grand Canyon National Park Prescribed Fire). If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will likely constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the State Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). If you would like copies of the regulations on listed wildlife or have questions about prohibitions and permits, contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505 - 248 -6920; facsimile 505 - 248 - 6788). Effects on Tribal Trust Resources From Critical Habitat Designation on Non - Tribal Lands In complying with our Tribal trust responsibilities, we communicated with all tribes potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat for the owl. We solicited and received information from the tribes (see discussion above) and arranged meetings with the tribes to discuss potential effects to them or their resources that may result from critical habitat designation. Please refer to the economic analysis and environmental assessment where the potential impacts are reviewed. Economic Analysis Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat. We based this designation on the best available scientific information, and believe it is consistent with the Recovery Plan and recommendations of those team members. We utilized the economic analysis, and took into consideration comments and information submitted during the public hearing and comment periods to make this final critical habitat designation. We may exclude areas from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. The economic effects already in place due to the listing of the owl as threatened is the baseline upon which we analyzed the economic effects of the designation of critical habitat. The critical habitat economic analysis examined the potential economic effects of efforts to protect the owl and its critical habitat. The economic effects of a designation were evaluated by measuring changes in national, regional, or local indicators. A draft analysis of the economic effects of the proposed owl critical habitat designation was prepared and made available for public review (65 FR 63047; March 26, 2004). Because of the regulatory history, additional consultations resulting from this rulemaking are expected to be minimal. The Recovery Plan, providing extensive guidance on owl conservation, was published in 1995. Thus, as discussed in our economic analysis, action agencies have been aware of the owl and are already consulting on a