2013-02-05_REVISION - M1985043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 53187 protect and enhance natural resources under their stewardship. (4) Comment: The designation of critical habitat for the owl will conflict with the management objectives of other animal and plant species and ecosystem management. The designation of critical habitat will surely have an impact on many other species of wildlife. Our Response: Critical habitat management primarily focuses on the maintenance of habitat features in mixed conifer (forest stands with the overstory generally composed of white fir, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, limber pine, blue spruce, white pine, and quaking aspen) and pine -oak habitat types (forest stands that generally exhibit a ponderosa pine or Chihuahua pine overstory and a Gamble's oak understory) that support owls, and the maintenance of good riparian forests (Service 1995). It does not require the creation of these features where they do not currently exist. The methods conserve the desired measure of diversity vary, but are designed to maintain existing mature /old forest characteristics while allowing some degree of timber harvest and management of other objectives such as tree density control and prescribed fire. Older forests provide favorable environments for diverse assemblages of plants and animals. The maintenance of the primary constituent elements of critical habitat will provide and enhance biological diversity. Therefore, critical habitat management does not preclude managing for other objectives or other species. In addition, critical habitat does not preclude adaptive management or the incorporation of new information on the interaction between natural disturbance events and forest ecology. We continue to support sound ecosystem management and the maintenance of biodiversity. As outlined in our final environmental assessment, in areas that contain owl habitat, native fish, wildlife, and plants may directly or indirectly benefit as a result of ecosystem protections provided through the conservation of the owl and the associated requirements of section 7 of the Act. (5) Comment: How does the critical habitat designation correspond to the reasons why the owl is listed? Our Response: The two primary reasons for listing the owl as threatened were historical alteration of its habitat as the result of timber management practices, and the threat of these practices continuing; and the risk of catastrophic ywildfire (58 FR 14248). The F Recovery Plan outlines management actions that land managers should NOa�d �,ioveLtll�oThis critical habitat gnatf 'Waiinsistent with the Recovery Plan's goals, and therefore contributes to the reduction in the threats that necessitated listing the owl. (6) Comment: Your list of constituent elements and condemnation of even - aged silviculture suggests that the constituent elements must occur on every acre of the 13.5 million acres. There appears to be an attempt to idealize and maximize owl populations over a very large area. The owl is flexible, adaptable, and capable of doing well and surviving with less. Our Response: The determination of primary constituent elements and designation of critical habitat is consistent with the purposes of critical habitat provisions in the Act and the Recovery Plan's goals. In the Recovery Plan, we outline steps necessary to remove the owl from the list of threatened species. The Recovery Plan recognizes that owls nest, roost, forage, and disperse in a diverse array of biotic communities. The Recovery Plan provides realistic goals for the recovery of the species (including a significant increase in owl population numbers), and these goals are flexible in that they provide local land managers discretion to make site - specific decisions, including silviculture management. Nevertheless, critical habitat does not create the requirement to create primary constituent elements outside of where they currently occur. (7) Comment: Designation of critical habitat is not needed to conserve the owl, because there is information that shows the spotted owl is doing very well; a year ago you were in the process of delisting the spotted owl, because it was doing well. What happened to that activity? Our Response: We never proposed nor began the process of delisting the owl. In fact, some populations of owl may be declining (Seamans et al. 1999). Guitierrez (2003) found that the owl population studied by Seamans et al. (1999) in Arizona may be stable, but the New Mexico population in the same study was likely declining. On September 23, 1993, and April 1, 1994, we announced separate 90 -day findings on two petitions to remove the owl from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife (FR 58 49467 and FR 59 15361, respectively). We found that the petitions did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting the owl was warranted. However, should sufficient information become available to us that warrants a status review or a change in status, we will undertake such efforts as ap ropriate. (8) Comment: The designation of critical habitat will not provide any additional conservation benefit to the owl, which is already protected under section 7. Several commenters also questioned whether the designation of critical habitat will improve conservation of the owl because the current Recovery Plan is being implemented. Our Response: We agree that designation of critical habitat provides little to no additional regulatory benefit in areas already managed compatibly with owl recovery (see "Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection to Species "). The Recovery Plan for the owl was finalized in December 1995 (Service 1995). This plan recommends recovery goals, strategies for varying levels of habitat protection, population and habitat monitoring, a research program to better understand the biology of the owl, and implementation procedures. In addition, we have continued working with the owl Recovery Team since the plan was finalized. We believe this critical habitat designation is consistent with the Recovery Plan and recommendations of those team members. Nevertheless, many land managers are currently following the Recovery Plan that provides guidance for conserving habitat of the owl. Thus, the designation may provide little regulatory benefit to the species. (9) Comment: One commenter stated that not enough information is known about the total habitat requirements of the species to define critical habitat. Further study of population trends, habitat requirements, and comprehensive monitoring are necessary to promote long -term conservation and recovery. Other commenters suggested that the designation is based upon flawed and outdated information, and that we should have relied upon recent models that predict owl habitat. Our Response: Section 4(b) of the Act states "The Secretary shall make determinations [of critical habitat] * * * solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available * * "We considered the best scientific information available to us at this time, as required by the Act. This designation is based upon a considerable body of information on the biology of the owl, as well as effects from land -use practices on their continued existence. Based upon newly available information, coordination with land managers and stakeholders, and input received during the public