|
53186 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 168/Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations
<br />therefore, the areas should be mapped
<br />more accurately. Some commenters also
<br />questioned whether 13.5 million acres
<br />are needed for owls. Including areas not
<br />essential to the owl in designated
<br />critical habitat limits management
<br />options and diverts scarce resources
<br />from meaningful tasks, including efforts
<br />which will benefit the recovery of the
<br />owl, such as fire abatement projects.
<br />Our Response: All of the areas that are
<br />designated as critical habitat contain
<br />primary constituent elements and are
<br />considered essential for the
<br />conservation the species. We clarified
<br />the primary constituent element
<br />descriptions to assist landowners and
<br />managers in identifying areas containing
<br />these elements. However, a lack of
<br />precise habitat location data and the
<br />massive scope of the designation did not
<br />allow us to conduct the fine -scale
<br />mapping necessary to physically
<br />exclude all of the areas that do not
<br />contain primary constituent elements of
<br />critical habitat. Nevertheless, we
<br />worked with a variety of stakeholders to
<br />refine the critical habitat boundaries in
<br />many areas (see "Summary of Changes
<br />From Proposed Rule" section below).
<br />Changes in this final rule that decrease
<br />the boundaries of many units are based
<br />on additional information received
<br />during the public comment period.
<br />Critical habitat is defined as those areas
<br />within the mapped boundaries.
<br />However, as described in the "Section 7
<br />Consultation" section below,
<br />consultation would occur when the
<br />action agency determines that activities
<br />they sponsor, fund, or authorize may
<br />affect areas defined as protected or
<br />restricted habitat that contain one or
<br />more of the primary constituent
<br />elements.
<br />(3) Comment: Lack of forest
<br />management has resulted in
<br />successional and structural changes to
<br />forests throughout the range of owl.
<br />Designation and management of critical
<br />habitat will place an additional burden
<br />on land management agencies, further
<br />inhibiting their ability to prevent or
<br />suppress catastrophic wildfire, one of
<br />the greatest threats to the forest types
<br />this species inhabits. The risk and
<br />intensity of wildfire will increase.
<br />Therefore, designating critical habitat
<br />seems contradictory to the owl's
<br />recovery. A prohibition on forest
<br />management activities will also reduce
<br />the amount of water runoff from the
<br />watershed.
<br />Our Response: We concur with the
<br />commenter that loss of habitat from
<br />catastrophic wildfire is one of the main
<br />threats to the owl. Consequently,
<br />management actions taken to reduce the
<br />risk and potential size of high- severity
<br />wildfires are recognzed as a vital
<br />component of owl recovery (Service
<br />1995). The economic analysis
<br />concluded that some projects proposed
<br />within the wildland urban interface
<br />(WUI) may be delayed because of the
<br />Recovery Plan recommendation that
<br />fuel treatments occur during the non -
<br />breeding season (September 1 to
<br />February 28). For this and other reasons,
<br />we are excluding from this final
<br />designation of critical habitat for the
<br />owl lands defined by the 157 WUI
<br />projects and the Penasco WUI project
<br />area identified by the FS as the highest
<br />priority for fuel treatments because they
<br />are "at imminent risk of catastrophic
<br />wildlife." These 157 WUI projects were
<br />evaluated by us in our programmatic
<br />biological opinion and the Penasco WUI
<br />project area was evaluated by us under
<br />a separate opinion (Service 2001 and
<br />Service 2002) (see "Exclusions under
<br />Section 4(b)(2) of Act" section). For the
<br />areas within the designation that may
<br />also be considered for fuel treatment
<br />projects, as described in the economic
<br />analysis and environmental assessment,
<br />critical habitat designation may delay
<br />some projects, but has not and is not
<br />anticipated to prevent actions that
<br />alleviate the risk of wildfire, nor will it
<br />have an effect on suppression activities
<br />because the Recovery Plan supports and
<br />provides guidance on fuel reduction
<br />activities. In addition, we also have
<br />developed alternative approaches to
<br />streamlining section 7 consultation for
<br />hazardous fuels treatment projects
<br />(Service 2002), including a
<br />consideration of the benefits of these
<br />activities to the owl and its habitat
<br />(Service 2002a).
<br />The maintenance of mature forest
<br />attributes in mixed conifer and pine -oak
<br />habitat types over a portion of the
<br />landscape and in areas that support
<br />existing owl territories is important to
<br />the recovery of the owl; however,
<br />critical habitat designation does not
<br />emphasize the creation of these features
<br />where they do not currently exist. It also
<br />does not preclude the proactive
<br />treatments necessary to reduce the risk
<br />of catastrophic fire. Clearly, the loss of
<br />owl habitat by catastrophic fire is
<br />counter to the intended benefits of
<br />critical habitat designation.
<br />Section 7 prohibits actions funded,
<br />authorized, or carried out by Federal
<br />agencies from jeopardizing the
<br />continued existence of a listed species
<br />or destroying or adversely modifying the
<br />listed species' critical habitat. Activities
<br />that may result in the destruction or
<br />adverse modification of critical habitat
<br />may also jeopardize the continued
<br />existence of the species. Due to the
<br />reliance on guidelines from the
<br />Recovery Plan for section 7 consultation
<br />standards, it is anticipated that the
<br />designation of critical habitat likely will
<br />not require any additional restrictions as
<br />a result of section 7 consultations,
<br />including projects designed to reduce
<br />the risk of wildfire (see "Effects of
<br />Critical Habitat Designation" section
<br />below). Furthermore, we expect that
<br />some activities may be considered to be
<br />of benefit to owl habitat and, therefore,
<br />would not be expected to adversely
<br />modify critical habitat or place an
<br />additional burden on land management
<br />agencies. Examples of activities that
<br />could benefit critical habitat may
<br />include some protective measures such
<br />as fire suppression, prescribed burning,
<br />brush control, snag creation, and certain
<br />silvicultural activities such as thinning.
<br />We note that fires are a natural part of
<br />the fire- adapted ecosystem in which the
<br />owl has evolved. The owl Recovery
<br />Team and numerous others have
<br />recognized the importance of allowing
<br />fire to return to southwestern forests,
<br />and the policy of widespread fire
<br />suppression is well documented as a
<br />source of declining forest health.
<br />We agree that many plant
<br />communities have undergone
<br />successional and structural changes as a
<br />result of past and current management
<br />practices. These practices include, to
<br />varying degrees, the combined effects of
<br />long -term and widespread fire
<br />suppression, reduction in surface fuels,
<br />rates of tree overstory removal and
<br />regeneration treatments on cycles
<br />shorter than those found in natural
<br />disturbance regimes, inadequate control
<br />of tree densities responding to fire
<br />suppression and tree harvest, and in
<br />xeric forest types, decreases in the
<br />proportion of the landscape in stands
<br />composed of more fire resistant large -
<br />diameter trees. We also agree that
<br />vegetative structural and landscape
<br />changes may require proactive
<br />management to restore an appropriate
<br />distribution of age classes, control
<br />regeneration densities, and reintroduce
<br />some measure of natural disturbance
<br />processes such as fire events. This may
<br />include prescribed fire and thinning
<br />treatments, restoration of the frequency
<br />and spatial extent of such disturbances
<br />as regeneration treatments, and
<br />implementation of prescribed natural
<br />fire management plans where feasible.
<br />We consider use of such treatments to
<br />be compatible with the ecosystem
<br />management of habitat mosaics and the
<br />best way to reduce the threats of
<br />catastrophic wildfire. We will fully
<br />support land management agencies in
<br />addressing the management of fire to
<br />
|