Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designates

critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis

lucida), a subspecies federally listed as threatened under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Mexican spotted

owl, also referred to herein as spotted owl or owl, inhabits canyon and

montane forest habitats across a range that extends from southern Utah

and Colorado, through Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas, to the

mountains of central Mexico. The designation includes 107 units

totaling 1,874,935 ha (4,632,901 acres) in Arizona, Colorado, New

Mexico, and Utah.

This critical habitat designation provides additional protection

requirements under section 7 of the Act with regard to activities that

are funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. As

required by section 4 of the Act, the Service considered economic and

other impacts of designation prior to making a final decision on the

size and scope of critical habitat. Critical habitat is located

primarily on Federal and Tribal land and, to a lesser extent, on state

and private lands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes effective July 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The complete administrative record for this rule is on file

at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services

State Office, 2105 Osuna N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113;

telephone: (505) 761-4525. The complete file for this rule will be

available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Fowler-Propst, State

Supervisor, at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Mexican spotted owl is a medium-sized bird ranging from parts

of central Colorado and Utah, south through Arizona, New Mexico, and

western Texas, then south through Mexico to the States of Michoacan and

Puebla. Mexican spotted owl habitat typically consists of dense, multi-

storied, montane forests with closed canopies, and deep, cool,

fractured canyons. Analysis by the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Team

has determined that the owl is threatened primarily by modification of

habitat caused by commercial timber harvest methods and wildfires.

Previous Federal Actions

The entire spotted owl species (Strix occidentalis) was classified

on the Service's 1989 Animal Notice of Review (54 FR 554, January 6,

1989) as a category 2 species. A category 2 species is one for which

listing may be appropriate, but for which additional biological

information is needed to support a proposed rule. The northern spotted

owl subspecies (S. o. caurina) was listed as a threatened species on

June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26194), and critical habitat was designated for it

on January 15, 1992 (57 FR 1796). The California spotted owl subspecies

(S. o. occidentalis) remains a category 2 candidate.

On December 22, 1989, the Service received a petition submitted by

Dr. Robin D. Silver requesting the listing of the Mexican spotted owl

as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On February 27,

1990, the Service found that the petition presented substantial

information indicating that listing may be warranted and initiated a

status review. In conducting its review, the Service published a notice

in the Federal Register (55 FR 11413) on March 28, 1990, requesting

public comments and biological data on the status of the Mexican

spotted owl. On December 6, 1990, the Mexican Spotted Owl Status Review

Team completed a draft report, and on February 20, 1991, the Service

made a finding, based on the contents of the report, that listing the

Mexican spotted owl pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Act was

warranted. Notice of this finding was published in the Federal Register

on April 11, 1991 (56 FR 14678). A proposed rule to list the Mexican

spotted owl as threatened without critical habitat was published in the

Federal Register on November 4, 1991 (56 FR 56344).

In the November 4, 1991, proposed rule and associated

notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual

reports or information regarding whether the Mexican spotted owl should

be listed. The comment period was reopened from May 11, 1992, to

September 1, 1992 (57 FR 20073, May 11, 1992) to allow submission of

additional comments. Appropriate Federal and state agencies, and Tribal

and county governments, organizations, and other interested parties

were directly contacted and requested to comment, and newspaper notices

inviting public comment were published in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah,

and Colorado. The Service held six public hearings, which were

announced in the proposed rule. A notice of the hearing dates and

locations was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 1992 (57

FR 35), and in notices published in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and

Colorado newspapers. Interested parties were directly contacted and

notified of the hearings.

After a review of all comments received in response to the proposed

rule, the Service published a final rule to list the Mexican spotted

owl as a threatened species on March 16, 1993 (58 FR 14248). Section

4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time a

species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The Service's

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat is not

determinable if information sufficient to perform required analyses of

the impacts of the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of

the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of

an area as critical habitat. At the time of listing, the Service found

that, although considerable knowledge of Mexican spotted owl habitat

needs had been gathered in recent years, habitat maps in sufficient

detail to accurately delineate these areas were not available.

Subsequent to listing, the Service began gathering the data necessary

to develop a proposed rule. On March 17, 1993, letters requesting

information on owl habitat and distribution were sent to 14 Federal

agencies. On April 14, 1993, letters requesting information on owl

habitat and distribution were sent to 37 Tribal agencies.

On June 25, 1993, and again on August 16, 1993, the Service

received petitions to remove the Mexican spotted owl from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. In subsequent petition findings

published in the Federal Register (58 FR 49467, 59 FR 15361) the

Service addressed the issues raised in the petitions and determined

that the delisting petitioners did not present substantial information

indicating that the delisting of the Mexican spotted owl was warranted.

[[Page 29915]] The petitioners have challenged this decision in Federal

District Court in New Mexico in Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico

Counties for Stable Economic Growth v. United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, et al., CIV 94-1058-MV.

On February 14, 1994, a lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court

in Arizona against the Department of the Interior for failure to

designate critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (Dr. Robin

Silver, et al. v. Bruce Babbitt, et al., CIV-94-0337-PHX-CAM). On

October 6, 1994, the Court ordered the Service to * * * ``publish a

proposed designation of critical habitat, including economic exclusion

pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2), no later than December 1, 1994, * * *

(and) publish its final designation of critical habitat, following the

procedure required by statute and Federal regulations for notice and

comment,'' by submitting the final rule to the Federal Register no

later than May 30, 1995. Pursuant to an extension granted by the court,

the Service issued the proposal rule to designate critical habitat on

December 7, 1994 (59 FR 63162).

Prior to issuance of the proposed rule, the Service held a press

briefing in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on November 30, 1994, announcing

the proposal, and issued a press release to major regional newspapers.

In addition, the proposed rule was sent to affected Federal, Tribal,

state, county, and local agencies and governments, and notice of the

availability of the rule were sent to all interested parties on the

Service mailing list. Public legal notices of the proposal were also

sent to 18 newspapers in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah on

December 5, 1994. The general and newspaper notices requested data and

comments from the government and public on all aspects of the proposal,

including data on the economic impacts of the designation. The notice

also announced a 90-day comment period open until March 7, 1995.

On December 19, 1994, the Service sent a request for information on

the potential economic impacts of designating critical habitat to 13

Federal, 12 Tribal, and 10 state agencies, and 4 Governors' and 42

county government offices. A Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) was prepared

based on the information received and notice of its availability was

published in the Federal Register on March 8, 1995 (60 FR 12728, 60 FR

12730). The publication also proposed several revisions to the original

proposal, solicited additional information and comments, opened an

additional 60-day comment period extending to May 8, 1995, and

announced the schedule and location of public hearings. More than 700

parties on the Service's mailing list also received an announcement of

the above subjects. On February 23, 1995, the Service also sent for

publication as legal notices in 36 regional newspapers an announcement

of the availability of the DEA, solicitation for additional information

and comments, the opening of the additional comment period, and the

schedule and location of public hearings. Public hearings were held in

Santa Fe and Socorro, New Mexico, on March 22 and 23, 1995, and Tucson

and Flagstaff, Arizona, on March 29 and 30, 1995. Comments from the

public on the critical habitat proposal and DEA were recorded and

evaluated for input to the final designation. More than 800 letters

addressing the proposal were received during the comment periods. The

correspondence and comments have been evaluated in the decision whether

to designate critical habitat. Numerous other Federal actions have

occurred in relation to the Mexican spotted owl, including the

Service's recovery planning effort, plus management actions by other

Federal agencies. Those topics are discussed under ``Management

Considerations'', below.

Habitat Characteristics

The physical and biological habitat features essential to the

conservation of the Mexican spotted owl, referred to as the primary

constituent elements, include those that support nesting, roosting, and

foraging. These elements were determined from studies of Mexican

spotted owl behavior and habitat use throughout the range of the owl.

The vegetative communities and structural attributes used by the

owl vary across the range of the subspecies. The vegetative communities

consist primarily of warm-temperate and cold-temperate forests, and, to

a lesser extent, woodlands and riparian deciduous forests. The mixed-

conifer community appears to be most frequently used throughout most

portions of its range (Skaggs and Raitt 1988; Ganey and Balda 1989,

1994; Service 1995).

Mixed-conifer forests contain several species of overstory trees.

The most common are white fir (Abies concolor), Douglas fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Less

common species are southwestern white pine (P. strobiformis), limber

pine (P. flexilis), aspen (Populus tremuloides), and corkbark fir

(Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica). The understory within mixed-conifer

communities provides important roosting sites for Mexican spotted owls.

The understory usually contains the same conifer species found in the

overstory, with Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), maples (Acer

grandidentatum and A. glabrum), and New Mexico locust (Robinia

neomexicana) also present. Montane riparian canyon bottoms used by owls

in the mixed-conifer zone may contain box elder (Acer negundo),

narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), maples (Acer spp.), and

alders (Alnus spp.).

In southeastern Arizona, owl habitat types include mixed-conifer

and Madrean Evergreen Forest and Woodland (Ganey and Balda 1989a;

Duncan and Taiz 1992). Below the mixed-conifer vegetative zone are

found two series of Madrean Evergreen Woodland: the upper oak-pine

occurs at 1,675 to 2,200 meters (5,500 to 7,200 feet), and the lower

evergreen oak (encinal) occurs at 1,525 to 1,980 meters (5,000 to 6,500

feet). Within these vegetative zones, and particularly at lower

elevations, Mexican spotted owls are usually found in steep, forested

canyons with rocky cliffs.

At the northern edge of their range in northeastern Arizona,

southwestern Colorado, and southern Utah, Mexican spotted owls occur

during the breeding season between 1,340 to 2,160 meters (4,400 to

7,100 feet) in canyon habitats within pinyon-juniper woodland (Pinus

edulis and Juniperus osteosperma) or mixed-conifer forests. Canyon

habitat is characterized by the cool, humid conditions found in the

deep, steep-walled, fractured structures of sandstone slickrock.

Canyons frequently contain riparian and conifer pockets, and adjacent

slopes and mesa tops are vegetated by a variety of plant associations.

Although no studies have been completed, preliminary studies show most

Mexican spotted owl activity during the breeding season to occur within

and in proximity to canyons. Owls roost in the riparian and coniferous

pockets of canyon bottoms, on ledges, or in cavities in the slickrock

canyon walls (Gutierrez and Rinkevich 1991; van Riper and Willey 1992).

Structural characteristics associated with forested Mexican spotted

owl habitat vary depending on the behavioral function it supports.

Although Mexican spotted owl habitat is also regionally variable, some

general attributes are common to the subspecies' life-history

requirements throughout its range. Studies of nest and roost habitat

use at both stand and site scales indicate that areas selectively used

by owls contain attributes typically associated with older forest

stands (Service 1995 and references therein). The attributes of

[[Page 29916]] forested nesting and roosting habitat typically include

a high basal area of large diameter trees; a moderate to high canopy

closure; a pronounced large-tree component; a wide range of tree sizes

suggestive of uneven-age stands; a multi-layered canopy with large

overstory trees of various species; high plant species richness; high

snag basal area; and high volumes of fallen trees and other woody

debris. These attributes usually develop with increasing forest age,

but their occurrence may vary by location, past forest management

practices or disturbance events, forest type, and productivity. These

characteristics may also develop in younger stands, especially when the

stands contain remnant large trees or patches of large trees from

earlier stands. Certain forest management practices may also enhance

tree growth and mature stand characteristics where the older, larger

trees are allowed to persist.

Spotted owls apparently use a wider array of habitat types for

foraging than for nesting and roosting, including fairly open and non-

contiguous forest, small openings, pure ponderosa pine stands,

woodland, and rocky slopes. Ganey and Balda (1994) found a greater

selectivity in forested habitat used for foraging than for random

sample sites. As for roosting sites, foraging areas had larger logs,

greater canopy cover, and higher densities and basal areas of both

trees and snags than random sites. Owls also appeared to avoid foraging

in stands in which the overstory had been partially harvested. However,

the significance of this analysis may be low because of the limited

sample size.

Little is known about the habitat requirements for dispersal.

Habitat that meets the subspecies' needs for nesting and roosting may

also provide for foraging and dispersal. The definition of the term

``dispersal'' is frequently limited to post-fledging movements of

juveniles. For the purposes of this rule, the Service considers the

term to include all movement, including winter shifts in territory and

dispersal from natal areas, and to encompass the important biological

concepts of connectivity within and between clusters of Mexican spotted

owl territories. Although habitat that allows for dispersal may be

marginal or unsuitable for nesting or roosting, it provides

connectivity between blocks of nesting habitat both locally and over

the Mexican spotted owl's range that is essential to demographic

interaction and genetic flow. Thus, dispersal habitat includes

unoccupied habitat of varying quality that may support intermittent use

as a ``stepping stone'' between occupied areas.

Mexican spotted owls occur in relatively isolated mountain ranges,

often separated by wide expanses of Sonoran, Chihuahuan, and Great

Basin desert and other nonforested lands. Preliminary studies of

juvenile owl dispersal in southern Utah (Willey 1993) and New Mexico

(Peter Stacey, University of Nevada, Reno, in litt., 1993) have shown

movements across a wide variety of habitat types, including both

riparian areas and vegetation types considered too open for consistent

use by Mexican spotted owls.

The results of a 3 year telemetry study of owls and habitat in

southern Utah have shown seasonal shifts in habitat use (van Riper and

Willey 1992, Willey 1993). During the breeding season, up to 25 percent

of adult owl locations occurred outside of steep canyon terrain. During

the fall and winter seasons, about half of the locations occurred on

mesa-tops, benches, and warm slopes above the canyons. Movements out of

the summer home ranges during the winter season were highly variable. A

few owls moved completely out of their summer ranges, several shifted

into adjacent areas with some overlap of seasonal ranges, and others

remained within the same area year round.

Current Situation

Federal, state, Tribal, and private lands contain habitat for the

owl. The Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park

Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Department of

Defense are the Federal land managing agencies for much of the lands

harboring owl habitat and known owl sites. Efforts to estimate habitat

acreage and survey efforts for owls have varied between agencies, with

the most intensive work being done by the Forest Service.

Currently, most land-managing agencies characterize Mexican spotted

owl habitat under the term ``suitable.'' Suitable habitat is often only

applied to habitat able to sustain the combined nesting, roosting, and

foraging needs of the Mexican spotted owl's life history. The

definition often excludes additional habitat utilized only for

foraging, and may underestimate the total habitat available within an

owl territory and across the subspecies' range.

The Forest Service estimates that it manages about 1,853,000 ha

(4,579,000 acres) of suitable owl habitat on 18 national forests in

Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado (Fletcher and Hollins 1994).

Forest Service land in Arizona and New Mexico contains 1,161,000 ha

(2,869,000 acres) of this total, with an additional 432,400 ha

(1,068,500 acres) described as being ``capable'' of returning to

suitable habitat condition. Colorado national forests are estimated to

have about 355,300 ha (878,000 acres) and Utah national forests are

estimated to have about 336,700 ha (832,000 acres) of forested suitable

habitat. However, under a narrower set of definitions, a second recent

estimate places suitable canyon habitat in Utah national forests at

about 58,000 ha (143,000 acres) (Kate Grandison, Dixie National Forest,

in litt., 1994). No capable acreage figure is available for Utah and

Colorado. Addition of the capable habitat figure yields a total owl

habitat acreage of 1,593,500 ha (3,937,500 acres) for Forest Service

lands in Arizona and New Mexico.

Forest Service inventories through 1994 resulted in the

establishment of 841 management territories (MTs) in Arizona and New

Mexico (Fletcher and Hollis 1994). Four MTs have been established from

the six sites with owl detection records in Utah (K. Grandison, pers.

comm., 1994). No MTs have been established from the six owl sites in

Colorado (John Verner, Pike/San Isabel National Forests, pers. comm.,

1994). Each MT represents the occurrence of either a single owl or pair

of owls, and was either established from confirmed nest or roost

locations, or from nighttime calling responses.

There are potentially up to 435,000 ha (1,075,000 acres) of

Mexican spotted owl habitat on Indian reservations. The actual amount

of habitat may be lower because estimates may be developed from forest

cover timber-type maps containing little information about understory

conditions or slope. On the other hand, the estimates may also omit

minimally or non-forested canyon habitat acreage. Complete information

is not available on owl survey efforts or results from several Tribes.

As of the end of 1992, seven owl sites (three pairs and four singles)

have been located on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation (White Mountain

Apache Tribe, in litt., 1993). No recent estimates were made available

by the Tribe. Owl surveys on the Navajo Reservation have resulted in

the confirmation of owls at 26 sites (13 pairs and 13 singles) (John

Nysted, Navajo Fish and Wildlife Department, pers. comm., 1994). The

Jicarilla and the Hualapai wildlife departments have conducted owl

surveys; however, no owls have been detected. Current owl records

exist, but only limited information is available on population

estimates for the San Carlos Apache and Mescalero Apache Indian

Reservations. [[Page 29917]] Only limited information specific to the

Southern Ute Indian Reservation is available; however, presently the

are no known owls, although occupied habitat on adjacent lands indicate

owls may occur on Reservation land.

A total of 297,000 ha (734,000 acres) of potential owl habitat

occurs on BLM lands in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico (BLM,

Colorado State Office, in litt. 1990; BLM, Utah State Office, in litt.

1990; BLM, New Mexico State Office, in litt. 1990; Ted Cordery, Arizona

BLM, pers. comm., 1992). In 1993, a total of 25 owl locations were

known from BLM lands. There were 15 locations in Utah, 7 locations in

Colorado, and 1 location in New Mexico. There are several historical

records and two current records for sites on BLM lands in Arizona.

Most Mexican spotted owl habitat on national parks and monuments

consists of minimally forested, steep, shaded canyons in the northern

part of the owl's range. It is difficult to estimate acreage for this

type of habitat. The NPS estimated that 23 parks and monuments in the

southwest contained between 96,000 and 177,000 ha (238,000 to 438,000

acres) of Mexican spotted owl habitat (NPS, Southwest Region, in litt.

1990; NPS, Rocky Mountain Region, in litt. 1990; J. Ray, NPS, Grand

Canyon National Park, pers. comm., 1990). As of 1995, the NPS had

records for a total of 37 sites in Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico (NPS,

unpublished data). No recent records were available for NPS land in

Arizona.

Between 72,000 and 82,000 ha (177,000 to 202,000 acres) of New

Mexico and Arizona State lands contain forests and canyons that could

be suitable Mexican spotted owl habitat. Several historical and recent

records exist for New Mexico State lands. In Arizona, surveys conducted

by the Arizona State Land Department and the Coconino National Forest

resulted in the establishment of three MTs. No information was

available on suitable Mexican spotted owl habitat on State lands in

Utah and Colorado. However, a single owl was recorded on Utah State

lands in 1992.

Private lands in Arizona and New Mexico are currently estimated to

contain up to 53,000 ha (130,000 acres) of owl habitat (Service 1994).

No estimates exist for owl habitat acreage on private lands in Colorado

and Utah. This is partly due to the difficulty in assessing the extent

of existing canyon habitat in the Colorado Plateau physiographic

province, and partly a result of the insufficient amount of owl surveys

currently accomplished to accurately determine the limit of the

subspecies' range.

The estimates, as reported by individual land managing agencies, of

Mexican spotted owl suitable habitat within the United States total

about 2,959,400 ha (7,312,500 acres). These estimates of habitat

available for nesting and roosting activity are derived from median

figures where estimates were given as an acreage range, include capable

habitat estimates where available, and include the lower estimate for

suitable habitat on Forest Service land in Utah. The approximate

proportion of habitat for the Forest Service is 68 percent; Tribal, 15

percent; BLM, 10 percent; NPS, 5 percent; the States of Arizona and New

Mexico, 1 percent; and private lands, 2 percent.

The proportion of total habitat for each landowner is probably

fairly accurate. However, the total acreage of owl habitat is likely

overestimated. The error is a result of inadequate information on land

status and disagreement about the types of vegetative communities that

provide owl habitat. For instance, the Forest Service included many

acres of the ponderosa pine community type in its estimate of suitable

and capable habitat. Several agencies expressed uncertainty about the

accuracy of their habitat estimates.

Ninety-one percent of Mexican spotted owls known at the end of 1990

occurred on national forests, 4 percent on Indian reservations, 4

percent on national parks, and 1 percent on BLM lands. Because the

Service has received incomplete 1991 to 1994 survey data, it is not

possible to identify exact percentages since 1990.

Definition of Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as: ``(i)

the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species * *

* on which are found those physical and biological features (I)

essential to the conservation of the species, and (II) that may require

special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific

areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time

it is listed, upon determination that such areas are essential for the

conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation,'' as defined in

section 3(3) of the Act, means ``* * * to use and the use of all

methods and procedures which are necessary to bring an endangered

species or threatened species to the point at which the measures

provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary,'' i.e., the

species is recovered and removed from the list of endangered and

threatened species.

The Service is required to base critical habitat designations upon

the best scientific and commercial data available (50 CFR 424.12) after

taking into account economic impacts and other relevant data. In

designating critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, the Service

has reviewed the overall approach to the conservation of the Mexican

spotted owl undertaken by land management agencies since its proposed

listing in 1991. The Service has also reviewed available information

that pertains to the habitat requirements of this subspecies, including

material received during the public comment periods from state and

Federal agencies, and other entities. Finally, the Service considered

the economic and other relevant impacts of designation prior to making

this final determination.

Role in Species Conservation

The use of the term ``conservation'' in the definition of critical

habitat indicates that its designation should identify lands needed for

a species' eventual recovery and delisting. However, when critical

habitat is proposed or designated at the time a species is listed, the

Service frequently does not know precisely what may be needed for

recovery. In this regard, critical habitat serves to preserve options

for a species' eventual recovery.

The designation of critical habitat will not, in itself, lead to

recovery, but, through regulations under section 7 of the Act, may

assist the Service and all Federal agencies in preventing the further

deterioration of habitat and, in this way, contributing toward a

species' conservation. Critical habitat helps focus conservation

activities by identifying areas that contain essential habitat features

(primary constituent elements), regardless of whether they are

currently occupied by the listed species, thus alerting the public and

land managing agencies to the importance of an area in the conservation

of a listed species. Critical habitat also identifies areas that may

require special management or protection. Critical habitat receives

protection from destruction or adverse modification through required

consultation under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried

out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Aside from the added

protection provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other

forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. The added

protection of these areas may shorten the time needed to achieve

recovery.

[[Page 29918]]

Designating critical habitat does not create a management plan for

a listed species. Designation does not establish numerical population

goals, prescribe specific management actions (inside or outside of

critical habitat), nor does it have a direct effect on areas not

designated as critical habitat. Recovery planning and critical habitat

designation are different processes. Specific management

recommendations for critical habitat are most appropriately addressed

in recovery plans, management plans, and through section 7

consultation.

Critical habitat identifies specific areas essential to the

conservation of a species. Areas not currently containing all of the

essential features, but with the capability to do so in the future, may

also be essential for the long-term recovery of the species,

particularly in certain portions of its range, and may be designated as

critical habitat. However, not all areas containing the features of a

listed species' habitat are necessarily essential to the species'

survival. Areas not included in critical habitat that contain one or

more of the primary constituent elements are still important to a

species' conservation and may be addressed under other facets of the

Act, and other conservation laws and regulations.

Primary Constituent Elements

In identifying areas as critical habitat, the Service considers

those physical and biological attributes that are essential to a

species' conservation. In addition, the Act stipulates that the areas

containing these elements may require special management considerations

or protection. Such physical and biological features, as outlined in 50

CFR 424.12, include, but are not limited to, the following:

--Space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior;

--Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

--Cover or shelter;

--Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and

--Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of

the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the

Mexican spotted owl include, but are not limited to, those habitat

components providing or with the potential to provide for nesting,

roosting, or foraging activities. Forested habitats used for nesting

and roosting are typically characterized as supporting mature stand

attributes including high canopy closure, multi-canopied structure,

coniferous vegetation (sometimes including a hardwood understory),

large diameter trees, high basal areas of live trees and snags, and

high log volumes. Nesting and roosting habitat also supports owl

foraging activity; however, a wider array of habitat attributes may be

found in areas used solely for foraging, including fairly open and non-

contiguous forest, small openings, woodland, and rocky slopes. Canyon

habitat is typically characterized by the cool, humid conditions found

in deep, steep-walled, fractured structures. Canyons frequently contain

riparian and conifer pockets, and adjacent slopes and mesa tops are

vegetated by a variety of plant associations. Owl habitat may also

exhibit a combination of attributes between the forested and canyon

habitat types. Habitat that meets the subspecies' needs for nesting,

roosting, and foraging also provides for dispersal. However, habitat

that provides for dispersal may not support the other primary

constituent elements. Currently, little is known about the habitat

requirements for foraging or dispersal.

Areas of designated critical habitat include both ``suitable'' and

``unsuitable'' forest and canyon habitat. Several definitions of

``suitable'' are currently used by different land managing agencies;

however, the term ``suitable'' generally refers to habitat that

supports the combined activities of nesting, roosting, and foraging.

This critical habitat designation is not limited to habitat that meets

``suitable'' definitions, but includes habitat with any of the primary

constituent elements described above.

Criteria for Identifying Candidate Critical Habitat Units

The primary objective in designating critical habitat is to

identify existing and potential Mexican spotted owl habitat considered

essential for the conservation of the subspecies, and to highlight

specific areas where management considerations should be given highest

priority. The Service focused on available nesting and roosting habitat

to identify locales that provide a nucleus for delineation of critical

habitat units. Additional habitat was added as needed to develop units

based on the criteria described below. In the designation of critical

habitat, the Service has considered all habitat types needed by the

subspecies through its definition of the primary constituent elements.

The Service used owl habitat and territory maps, vegetation maps,

aerial photography, and field verification to identify areas for

designation as critical habitat. Because habitat maps available to the

Service were generally based on the varying definitions of ``suitable

habitat'' used by the agencies, the major focus was on habitat that

provides nesting, roosting, and some foraging attributes. To assist in

these determinations, the Service relied upon the following principles

developed by the Interagency Scientific Committee (Thomas et al. 1990)

for the northern spotted owl, and by others working in the field of

conservation biology:

--Develop and maintain large contiguous blocks of habitat to support

multiple reproducing pairs of owls;

--Minimize fragmentation and edge effect to improve habitat quality;

--Minimize distance between blocks to facilitate dispersal among blocks

of breeding habitat; and

--Maintain range-wide distribution of habitat to facilitate recovery.

Several qualitative criteria were considered when determining

identification of critical habitat. The following discussion describes

the criteria and provides an explanation of their use in selecting and

designating specific areas.

(1) Currently Suitable Habitat: The Service concentrated on the

existence of currently suitable Mexican spotted owl forested and canyon

habitat (primarily nesting and roosting, but also foraging) that

contained one or more of the primary constituent elements. The Service

evaluated the quality of existing habitat based on available habitat

maps and delineated the best available habitat (i.e., the least

fragmented, most contiguous forest habitat areas; areas showing

characteristic topographic features of canyon habitat) in the critical

habitat units.

(2) Large Contiguous Blocks of Habitat: The Service identified,

where available, large, contiguous blocks of habitat or areas that

mostly consist of Mexican spotted owl habitat. In forested habitat,

areas were selected so that critical habitat units would include as

little low quality habitat as possible. In canyon habitat, drainage

systems and adjacent terrain determined the branching shape of critical

habitat units.

(3) Occupied Habitat: In evaluating potential critical habitat

units, the Service gave primary consideration to habitat currently

occupied by pairs or resident singles; however, some unoccupied areas

were selected if they were important for other reasons (e.g., territory

cluster contiguity). Some habitat within units was selected based on

suitability although no surveys were yet conducted. All areas selected,

[[Page 29919]] however, have potential for supporting the territorial

needs of Mexican spotted owls.

(4) Rangewide Distribution: The Service is designating critical

habitat units well distributed within the existing United States range

of the Mexican spotted owl to maintain demographic connectivity and

genetic variation between territory clusters.

(5) Special Management or Protection: The Service evaluated the

need for special management because of the existing situation (e.g.,

current quality of existing habitat), low population density, the

relative importance of territory clusters, or management activities and

threats. All areas were selected because of their need for special

management or protection.

(6) Adequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms: The Service

considered the existing legal status of areas (i.e., reserved areas

such as wilderness or parks) and, with few exceptions, has not

designated reserved areas as critical habitat. In general, the current

classification of wilderness areas and parks provides adequate

protection against potential habitat-altering activities because they

are primarily managed as natural ecosystems. These lands are often

essential to the conservation of the subspecies, as they provide

important links and contain large areas of habitat in relatively

pristine condition. However, these lands by themselves do not provide

adequate habitat to support a viable range-wide Mexican spotted owl

population. The Service considered their relative contribution to the

Mexican spotted owl's conservation but did not include them in critical

habitat because of the protection afforded by their current

classification unless there was a threat of significant impacts to

habitat in these areas or they were inclusions within larger

surrounding critical habitat units.

Critical Habitat Designation

The designation includes 107 critical habitat units totaling

1,874,935 ha (4,632,901 acres) in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and

Colorado. The approximate acreage of critical habitat by land ownership

is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.--Critical Habitat Acreage by Land Ownership and State

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arizona New Mexico Colorado Utah Total

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forest Service................................ 1,510,148 a 1,848,351 34,500 188,386 a 3,581,385

Bureau of Land Management..................... 0 10,743 562 72 11,377

National Park Service......................... 45,892 0 0 0 45,892

Department of Defense......................... 2,013 0 0 0 2,013

State......................................... 3,333 5,847 620 20 9,820

Tribal........................................ 401,829 b 407,604 61,531 0 b 870,964

Private....................................... 28,396 b 75,621 6,890 543 a 111,450

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Total..................................... 1,991,611 a b

2,348,166 104,103 189,021 a b

4,632,901

=================================================================

Total critical habitat units.............. 38 62 7 1 c 107

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a Includes a correction to acreages cited in the proposed rule.

b Includes changes to ownership and deletion of Jicarilla Apache acreages cited in the proposed rule.

c One critical habitat unit overlaps two States.

Management Considerations

Forest Practices

Management direction for lands with Mexican spotted owl habitat

varies within and between agencies. A multiple-use management emphasis

is in effect on much of Forest Service and Tribally managed land. Much

BLM Mexican spotted owl habitat is managed primarily for natural

resources extraction, including oil, gas, minerals, and timber, but is

still available for wildlife and recreation. National Park Service

lands are managed for recreation and preservation of natural values.

State lands within owl habitat are typically intermingled with Federal

lands and are usually not large enough to support owl territories of

their own. State lands are managed to generate maximum financial return

to the State trusts. Management emphasis on private lands providing

Mexican spotted owl habitat varies.

Current Forest Service management plans call for harvestable timber

land in Arizona and New Mexico to be primarily managed under even-aged

shelterwood systems. Commercial forests on the Navajo Indian

Reservation are being converted to shelterwood management (James

Carter, BIA, pers. comm., 1990). Other commercial forests on Indian

lands in the Southwest are managed primarily as uneven-aged stands by

selective logging. Under the shelterwood system, a stand is scheduled

for a series of harvests culminating in a full rotation cycle in 120

years or less. This cycle maximizes timber production, but does not

provide enough time for stands to reach the mature to old-growth

conditions characteristic of most forested Mexican spotted owl habitat,

and results in forest age distributions unnaturally skewed toward

younger stands. The past and threatened conversion of complex

structured forest stands to even-aged stands was identified by the

Service (Service 1991, 1993, 1995) as the greatest threat facing the

Mexican spotted owl.

Half of all shelterwood management on national forests has been

occurring in forest habitat suitable for nesting and foraging. The

Service has determined habitat loss trends from current national forest

plans, which provide the only available data on timber harvest trends

into the future. An estimated 0.4 percent of Mexican spotted owl

habitat is projected to be made unsuitable for breeding each year in

the future if timber extraction continues as outlined under current

forest plans.

Region 3 of the Forest Service is currently in the process of

amending forest plans to incorporate the recommendations contained in

the Service's draft Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (Service 1995),

and to change the dominant silvicultural system in the southwest from

even- to uneven-age management. Uneven-aged management maintains and

promotes development of complex forest structures. Methods include

individual tree selection and group selection. Individual tree

selection entails the harvest of trees selected from a size-

distribution curve appropriate for forest type, site conditions, and

desired regeneration levels. Trees of various size and age classes are

retained, and multi-storied attributes and vertical diversity are

maintained. Group selection creates [[Page 29920]] openings in the

forest stand from a fraction to a hectare (\1/4\ to 2.5 acres) in size,

developing small even-aged clumps of trees and within-stand horizontal

diversity. The Service considers the use of uneven-age management the

silvicultural method most compatible with maintenance of Mexican

spotted owl habitat.

Previous Management Attempts

Prior to listing, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) provided the

only Federal statutory protection for the Mexican spotted owl. Under

the provisions of the MBTA, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take,

capture, or kill in any manner any migratory bird unless permitted by

regulations. Although the Mexican spotted owl typically remains in its

summer range throughout the year, it is included on the list of birds

protected under the MBTA.

An interagency agreement with the purpose of ensuring population

viability of the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), including the

Mexican spotted owl, was signed by the Service, BLM, NPS, and Forest

Service on August 12, 1988 (U.S. Department of Interior 1988). Under

this agreement, each agency agreed to manage its lands to provide owl

habitat, to carry out habitat and population inventories sufficient to

indicate long term trends, and to carry out research activities

sufficient to provide empirical information on the validity of planning

assumptions. The degree to which this agreement has been implemented

has varied within and among agencies.

The States of Arizona, Utah and Colorado list the Mexican spotted

owl as a threatened species. Capture, handling, transportation, and

take of the Mexican spotted owl are regulated by game laws and special

licenses for live wildlife. Thus, the States only regulate hunting,

recreation, and scientific investigation. Habitat management is not

considered.

Most Federal agencies have policies to protect State threatened or

endangered species, and some agencies also protect species that are

candidates for Federal listing. The NPS Organic Act protects all

wildlife on national parks and monuments. However, these general

policies lack standards and guidelines that can be used to measure

policy success. The Service believes that until agencies develop

specific protection guidelines, evaluate them for adequacy, and test

them through implementation, it is uncertain whether any general agency

policies will adequately protect the Mexican spotted owl.

Specific management policies for the Mexican spotted owl have been

developed by BLM in Colorado and New Mexico. The policy in Colorado

states, ``In areas with a confirmed nest or roost site, surface

management activities will be limited and will be determined on a case

by case basis to allow as much flexibility as possible outside of the

core area.'' Management policy in New Mexico states that habitat core

areas and territories of appropriate size will be established and

preserved wherever owls are found. The Service believes these policies

are likely to be too general to ensure the Mexican spotted owl will be

adequately protected on BLM lands.

Mexican spotted owl protection guidelines have been developed by

the White Mountain Apache, Mescalero Apache, and Jicarilla Apache

Tribes. The White Mountain Apache Mexican Spotted Owl Management Plan

was discussed in some detail in the proposed rule for critical habitat

designation. Details of the Mescalero Apache conservation plan are

considered proprietary by the Tribe and are not available for release

by the Service. The Jicarilla Apache conservation plan addresses the

identified threats to owl habitat by maintaining sufficient suitable

habitat across the landscape and the site-specific retention of complex

forest structure following timber harvest. Nest/roost habitat,

primarily mixed conifer and steep slope areas, are not managed for

timber extraction and are to remain in suitable nest-roost condition.

Foraging habitat consisting of ponderosa pine is to be managed almost

entirely by uneven-aged methods. Timber harvest may lower the quality

of a fraction of the foraging habitat base, but adequate residual

structure remains such that the habitat rapidly reattains suitable

condition. At any point in time the majority of foraging habitat

remains in suitable foraging condition across the landscape. Site-

specific management of territories address both habitat conditions and

behavioral disturbance within owl territories. Territorial management

includes the establishment of 300-acre protected activity centers

around nest-roost sites. No timber, and oil and gas development is to

occur within these areas, and no behaviorally disturbing activities are

permitted within \1/4\ mile of any nest or roost site during the

breeding season. Habitat in the areas surrounding the protected

activity centers are to be managed as described above.

Detailed guidelines for Mexican spotted owl management have been

developed by the Forest Service Southwest Region. The guidelines were

first issued as Mexican spotted owl Interim Directive (ID) No. 1 in

June 1989, and reissued as Mexican spotted owl ID No. 2 in June 1990.

Utah and Colorado national forests adopted ID No. 2 in 1991. The

guidelines expired December 26, 1991, but the Forest Service is

continuing to manage under ID No. 2. The IDs require establishment of a

Mexican spotted owl MT around each nest or roost site. Each MT has a

core area of 182 ha (450 acres) and an overall size of 810 ha (2,000

acres). Activities within the core area are limited to road

construction. Within the MT, activities, including timber harvest, are

limited to a maximum of 314 ha (775 acres). The intent of the

guidelines is to retain at least 405 ha (1,000 acres) of suitable

habitat within the MT after proposed management activities are

identified and located. Forest Service estimates indicate that suitable

habitat within MTs currently averages 466 ha (1,150 acres) for

territories in New Mexico and Arizona. In Utah, MTs encompass 1,340 ha

(3,350 acres) with a core of 350 ha (875 acres) (K. Grandison, pers.

comm., 1994). The IDs provide no protection for unoccupied suitable

Mexican spotted owl habitat, nor do they address forest activities not

related to timber harvest.

In March of 1995, the Service released for public review the draft

Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (Service 1995). That plan, when

finalized, will become the Service's policy on recommendations for

managing Mexican spotted owls in the southwest. As previously

mentioned, the Forest Service has shown interest in adopting the

recommendations in the recovery plan by amending forest plans for

National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico. It is the Service's hope

that other involved Federal agencies, including other regions of the

Forest Service, will adopt the Service's final recovery recommendations

as spotted owl management policy.

Summary of Economic Impacts

The Act requires that critical habitat be designated after

consideration of the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of

specifying any specific area as critical habitat. An area may be

excluded from designation if the benefits of its exclusion outweigh the

benefits of its inclusion in critical habitat, unless failure to

designate the area would result in extinction of the species concerned.

The Service has analyzed the probable impacts of designating critical

habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. Availability of a draft economic

analysis was announced in the Federal Register on March 8, 1995 (60 FR

12730), simultaneous with publication of a supplementary

[[Page 29921]] proposed rule that proposed to exclude certain areas

from critical habitat on economic grounds (60 FR 12728). Pursuant to an

order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

issued December 30, 1994, the Service was required to publish any

proposed exclusions from the critical habitat for the Mexican spotted

owl in the Federal Register and provide a 60-day comment period on

them. Consequently, the only areas potentially subject to economic

exclusion from this final designation are those treated in the

supplementary proposal.

A final economic analysis has now been completed and will soon be

made available to the public. Its principal findings are summarized

below.

The study estimates the incremental economic effects of designating

critical habitat for the owl. It does not estimate the economic

benefits and costs related to other conservation measures in place as a

result of listing the owl, or the economic effects of actions taken by

other Federal or state agencies. The study assesses impacts on

activities that occur on Federal land or are authorized, funded, or

carried out by agencies of the Federal government. Activities that

occur on private lands and that do not involve Federal authorization,

funding, or assistance are not affected by critical habitat

designation.

Analytical Methodology

The economic region described in the study includes 28 counties in

four states that contain land proposed for designation as critical

habitat for the owl. The subregions are groups of counties that allow

evaluation of economic impacts in a smaller area. The Northeast

subregion contains 2 counties in Colorado (Archuleta and La Plata) and

9 in New Mexico (Colfax, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San

Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, Torrance). The Southeast subregion comprises

two counties in southern New Mexico (Lincoln and Otero). The West

subregion is the largest and most populated, and includes 7 counties in

Arizona (Apache, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo, and

Yavapai), 7 counties in New Mexico (Catron, Cibola, Grant, McKinley,

San Juan, Sierra, and Socorro), and 1 in Utah (San Juan).

The economic subregions are defined by county boundaries, which are

the smallest economic divisions available for analysis with the

database used in the study. The subregions approximate as nearly as

possible the counties in which critical habitat has been proposed. The

profile of the economy of the region describes economic activity in

1991, prior to Federal listing of the owl and the proposal to designate

critical habitat. The economic descriptions and the modeling of

economic impacts were conducted primarily with Micro IMPLAN (Taylor et

al. 1993) and the Micro IMPLAN database.

The economic analysis is restricted to effects anticipated in the

foreseeable future within proposed CHUs. The effects of the proposed

action on Federal agencies and other entities were estimated using data

requested by the Service from Federal, state, county, and Tribal

entities known to be involved in land management or ownership within

the counties containing proposed critical habitat. The agencies were

asked to estimate current and planned timber harvest that involved

modification or destruction of owl habitat and that would be affected

by the proposed action.

The economic effects of designation include those that result in

changes in social welfare. Regional (distributional) economic impacts

may include household income foregone from employees permanently

displaced through critical habitat designation; changes in specific

county tax revenues due to changes in land use; regional social costs

and benefits from factors such as transient unemployment, job training,

or redistribution of existing job-mix categories. The analysis of

effects of critical habitat designation considers both national

economic efficiency effects and regional (distributional) impacts when

possible. These include effects on the changes in total employment,

changes in household income, and the effects on local communities.

Regional Demographic Profile

Land Ownership

More than three-fourths of the acres proposed for critical habitat

designation are federally owned, primarily under jurisdiction of the

Forest Service. Much of the remaining land is within the boundaries of

Tribal Reservations (20 per cent).

Critical habitat designation for the owl was proposed on 922,600

acres of Native American Tribal lands including land owned by five

Tribes: Jicarilla Apache, Mescalero Apache, Navajo, San Carlos Apache,

and Southern Ute. Tribal lands are included in CHUs in all three

subregions, and represent 17 percent of the total proposed designated

critical habitat in the Northeast and West subregions, and 38 percent

of the Southeast subregion.

Human Population

The 1990 census reported the region's residents numbered 1,054,800,

20 percent higher than a decade earlier and double the population of

1960. The 1990 census reported 19 counties in the region that each had

fewer than 50,000 residents; population exceeded 100,000 in one of the

28 counties in the region.

The region includes six incorporated communities with populations

that exceeded 25,000 in 1990, including Flagstaff and Prescott,

Arizona; and Alamogordo, Farmington, Rio Rancho, and Santa Fe, New

Mexico. Santa Fe was the largest community in the region, reporting a

1990 census of 55,900 residents. The Arizona counties containing

Phoenix (Maricopa County) and Tucson (Pima) and the New Mexico county

containing Albuquerque (Bernalillo) are excluded from the region

defined for this impact analysis because their large economies would

substantially deemphasize the economic impacts in the remainder of the

region. Pima County, which includes the Tucson metropolitan area,

contains almost 34,000 acres proposed for critical habitat designation;

however, current Forest Plans do not include timber harvest from the

CHUs in Pima County.

Native Americans account for 24 percent of the population in the

region, and the 250,000 residents of Native American descent represent

13 percent of the Native Americans in the United States. Residents of

Hispanic descent account for 24 percent of the 1990 population in the

region, or 258,000 residents.

Regional Economic Profile

Employment

Employment in the Mexican spotted region totaled 451,000 full- and

part-time workers in 1991. The most striking characteristic of the

region's employment base is the predominance of government employment.

Nearly one-quarter (23.7 percent) of all jobs in the region in 1991

were based on Federal, State, and local governments--much higher than

the rate of government employment in the national economy. Relative to

the national economy, the region provided a higher proportion of

employment in the Government, Retail Trade and Mining sectors, and a

lower proportion of jobs in the Manufacturing and Services sectors.

Employment in the Solid Wood & Paper sector represented 1.1 percent of

the region's total job base, nearly matching the national rate of 1.2

percent. [[Page 29922]]

Household Income

Household income totaled $13.9 billion in the region in 1991. The

largest proportion of household income, $5.7 billion or 40.8 percent,

was provided by sources outside the region, including pensions,

government support payments, other ``unearned'' income, and wages paid

by firms outside the region (e.g., wages paid to a resident of Sandoval

County who works in Bernalillo County). The Government sector generated

the second largest proportion of household income in the region (20.1

percent), followed by Services (12.8 percent). The Solid Wood & Paper

sector provided $107.9 million in household income (0.8 percent of

total) in the region in 1991.

Sales Revenues

Gross sales revenues (including resale of domestic and foreign

imports and excepting the Trade sector which reports value added) in

the region totaled $27.2 billion in 1991. The Mining sector generated

about $4.5 billion in sales (16.6 percent of total), followed by the

Services sector, the sales from which totaled $4.3 billion (15.8

percent). The Solid Wood & Paper sector generated $516 million (1.9

percent) of sales revenues in the region in 1991.

Role of Forests in the Region

Forests in the owl's range contribute to the regional economy as

timber, a commodity input to the Solid Wood & Paper sector, and

nontimber, a recreation resource and contributor to quality of life.

The impacts created by commodity uses are market-based and measurable.

The second set of impacts are partially nonmarket in nature, and are

acknowledged to exist but often are difficult to quantify.

Timber Resources

Few timber harvest data are available for non-Federal lands in the

region. The following analysis relates to timber harvest from Forest

Service land, unless otherwise noted. Forest Service timber statistics

for the Southwestern Region (includes all of Arizona and New Mexico)

were used, and thus reflect an area slightly different than the region

included in critical habitat. (The Southwestern Region statistics

exclude the three counties in Colorado and Utah, and they include more

than a dozen counties in Arizona and New Mexico outside the region).

During the last 20 years, timber harvest in the Southwestern Region

exhibited two distinct periods, punctuated by the national recession in

the early 1980s. From 1975 to 1980, harvest of all timber species

averaged 378 million board feet (MMBF) annually. From 1983 to 1989,

annual harvest averaged 460 MMBF. Timber harvests declined sharply in

1990 and again in 1993 as changes in forest management policies

occurred. In 1990, the Forest Service projected a peak in employment in

softwood lumber and plywood industries in the Rocky Mountain region

(includes 12 States from Montana to New Mexico) by the turn of the

century, with a steady decline in employment thereafter. The Forest

Service forecast identified reduced harvest potential and the continued

implementation of labor-saving technology as bases for the decline.

Timber harvest from the Southwestern Region totaled 141 MMBF in 1993.

The Southwestern Region supplied about 5.0 percent of the volume of

timber harvested from the western U.S. during the last decade, ranging

from 3.5 percent in 1993 (141 MMBF harvested from Arizona and New

Mexico) to 5.9 percent in 1992.

The average price of timber harvested from Forest Service land has

varied widely since 1975, but it has risen since 1990 (prices not

adjusted for inflation). Timber price averaged $48/thousand board feet

(MBF) from 1975 to 1990, before doubling to $103/MBF in 1993. Through

the first nine months of 1994, 133 MMBF had been harvested with an

average price of $113/MBF.

Employment

Timber cutting in the region directly provides employment in timber

harvesting and processing industries. Employment also is generated

indirectly in firms providing services and supplies to timber-related

industries and their employees.

State-wide direct employment in wood industries in Arizona and New

Mexico totaled 9,800 jobs in 1990. Direct employment in Solid Wood and

Paper industries in the region totaled nearly 4,800 full- and part-time

workers in 1991, just over one percent of the total jobs in the region.

Sawmills provided the most jobs among Wood industries in 1991, followed

by Logging Camps.

Household Income

Household income generated by the Solid Wood and Paper sector in

the region totaled approximately $108 million in 1991, less than one

percent of the $13.9 billion total household income in the region.

Sawmills provided $40 million in household income in 1991 (37 percent

of the Solid Wood and Paper sector's total in the region), followed by

paper mills with $29 million (27 percent). Logging camps and millwork

industries each provided about $11 million in household income in 1991.

Nontimber Forest Uses

Forests in the region support a variety of uses in addition to

providing raw materials for wood and paper industries. Recreation,

biological diversity, water quality protection, and intrinsic benefits

all are generated by forests in the owl range. Some of these activities

contribute directly to the regional economy; others are nonmarket

impacts that benefit the public without affecting the market economy.

Reduced timber harvest on Federal land may improve natural

resource-based recreational opportunities in the owl range if public

access is not significantly affected. Recreation activities that depend

on water quality (fishing, swimming, and boating), the presence and

abundance of wildlife (wildlife viewing and nature study), and the

general quality of forest surroundings (motorized and nonmotorized

travel for sightseeing, camping, and picnicking) may increase in

frequency and value with improved forest quality.

Spending on outdoor recreation by nonresidents brings money into

the economy of the region. If the quality of natural resources

declines, total spending by residents of the region is unlikely to

change significantly; rather, spending will be redistributed from

recreation to nonrecreation activities, or residents may increase

recreation outside the region. In either case, the reduced quality of

natural resources is likely to result in lower recreation expenditures

in the region. That portion of spending that relocates outside the

region represents a loss of economic activity due to the degradation of

natural resources.

Recreational fishing occurred frequently throughout the region in

1991. Approximately 639,000 anglers fished in the region in 1991,

recording nearly 4.9 millon angler days. These anglers spent about

$50.42 per day, or $245.3 million in the region in 1991. About 196,000

anglers (31 percent) were nonresidents who fished 1.2 million angler

days (24 percent) and spent about $88.17 per day, or $104.1 million (44

percent). More than 440,000 resident anglers averaged about $38.32

spending per day during 3.7 million angler days to record $141.2

million total spending.

Net benefits due to recreational fishing can be estimated for these

fishing trips. Walsh et al. (1990) summarized net economic benefits for

39 coldwater fishing trips and found [[Page 29923]] these averaged

about $30.62 per day in 1988. Assuming a per-day value of $36.69

($30.62 adjusted for inflation to 1991 dollars), the 4.9 million

fishing-days provided an estimated annual consumer surplus to anglers

of $179.8 million in 1991.

Recreational hunting was pursued by 240,000 participants during

1991. These hunters recorded about 1.9 million days while hunting in

the region, and spent about $29.49 per day, or $56.0 million during the

year. About 48,000 participants (20 percent of total) were nonresidents

who hunted 278,000 days (15 percent), averaging about $85.93 per day in

expenditures, or $23.9 million annually (43 percent). The 192,000

resident hunters recorded 1.6 million days and spent $19.71 per day, or

$31.6 million for the year.

Net benefits from recreational hunting can be estimated for these

trips. Walsh et al. (1990) summarized net economic benefits for big-

game and small-game hunting. Big-game hunting estimates in 1990 for net

value per person per day averaged $45.47 while small-game hunting

averaged $30.82. Assuming a daily value for hunting of $49.37

(inflation-adjusted weighted average of big- and small-game hunting),

the 1.9 million days provided an estimated annual consumer surplus to

hunters of $93.8 million.

Throughout the region in 1991, 884,000 participants observed,

photographed, and fed wildlife. Nonresident participants numbered

340,000 (38 percent), while 544,000 participants lived in the region.

In total, 4.6 million trips occurred during 7.1 million days in 1991

involving nonconsumptive wildlife activities.

These 884,000 participants spent an average $57.62 per day on

nonconsumptive wildlife activities, for a total $50.9 million in 1991.

These expenses included items such as field guides, binoculars and

spotting scopes, cameras and accessories, bird seed, and feeder boxes.

Net benefits can be estimated using the average of $22.20 per person

per day obtained by Walsh et al. (1990) for wildlife observation. In

1991, the 7.1 million participant-days, at $26.60 per day ($22.20

adjusted for inflation to 1991 dollars) generated total net benefits

for the region of $188.9 million.

A national survey sponsored by the Forest Service in April 1994

found there is strong support for conservation of public forests and

preservation of threatened and endangered species. The survey results

indicate the public's support for reduced commercial and recreation

uses and increased conservation uses of national forests. When asked

whether ``threatened and endangered species in American public forests

and grasslands should be protected even if it has a negative economic

impact on U.S. citizens,'' 61 percent of the survey respondents agreed

or strongly agreed, while 24 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. A

larger majority (79 percent) agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement ``(l)ong term health of public forest land should not be

compromised by the short term need for natural resources.''

The survey indicates the environmental importance of the public

lands over commercial uses and concern for future impacts of public

forest uses. Eighty-two percent of respondents agreed that ``(t)he

primary purpose of managing public forests is to maintain a healthy

environment.'' The statement ``(t)he consumer needs of the American

public should be satisfied even if the natural resources on public

forests are eventually depleted'' elicited disagreement from 73 percent

of respondents. Ninety percent of survey participants agreed or

strongly agreed that ``(t)he Federal government has the responsibility

of conserving public forest resources for future generations,'' and 80

percent agreed that ``(t)he need for the conservation of natural

resources on public forest lands will increase in the 21st century.''

Economic Consequences of Designating Critical Habitat for the Mexican

Spotted Owl

The Service has identified commercial timber harvest as the primary

activity to be curtailed by proposed critical habitat designation, and

concluded that activities such as recreational uses, cutting firewood

for personal use, and surface disturbances (e.g., minerals extraction)

that do not affect standing timber will not be affected by the proposed

action. The time constraints under which the Economic Analysis was

conducted allowed no independent estimates of timber harvest and little

verification of agency responses. With few exceptions, therefore, the

economic consequences are based on projections from the respondents

outlined below.

Agency Responses

Three scenarios were presented to more than 80 Federal, State,

county, and Tribal agencies by the Service in the request for

information on economic impacts resulting from the proposed critical

habitat designation. Two of the three centered on impacts resulting

from changes to timber harvest volumes. ``Alternative 1'' was defined

as the current management guidelines or baseline harvest, ``Alternative

2'' described the implementation of the draft Recovery Plan, and

``Alternative 3'' defined additional restrictions associated with the

proposed designation of critical habitat above those described in the

draft Recovery Plan. Therefore, the Economic Analysis estimates the

reduction in timber harvest and accompanying costs in incremental

steps, first from baseline harvest to allowable harvest under the draft

Recovery Plan and then from that level to allowable harvest with

critical habitat designation in place. The Economic Analysis also

includes a measurement of impacts that would result from the critical

habitat designation if the draft Recovery plan were not implemented,

which essentially are the combined impacts on timber harvest under the

draft Recovery Plan and critical habitat designation. This range of

alternatives was presented to allow the Economic Analysis to fully

consider the entire range of economic impacts that could result from

the various management approaches to timber harvest.

During the comment period following publication of the proposed

rule, there were numerous discussions within and between the Service

and the Forest Service regarding various criteria to be used to

determine potential effects to the owl and its critical habitat from

timber harvest. As a result, Region 2 of the Service issued an interim

policy on April 14, 1995, to clarify how section 7 consultations would

be conducted. The interim policy stated, ``* * * any activity in

compliance with the draft recovery plan should be considered

insignificant in terms of effects on the species' recovery and

survival.'' and therefore would not be required to undergo formal

section 7 consultation. In essence, the policy made protective measures

under the draft Recovery Plan and the proposed critical habitat

designation equivalent; no additional restrictions would be applied

within critical habitat units. Therefore, in the economic analysis, the

costs attributable to critical habitat designation in areas managed to

implement the Recovery Plan reflect a worst-case scenario, and are

greater than what is expected under the interim policy. The costs

resulting from the critical habitat designation are expected to be

equivalent to those predicted under the draft Recovery Plan. The

impacts on timber harvest within the region from the proposed action

are presented in Table 2.

[[Page 29924]]

Table 2.--Reductions in Timber Harvest (in Thousand Board Feet) From Management Alternatives

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Critical

habitat habitat

Enactionof after without

Baseline the enaction enaction

level proposed of the of the

recovery proposed proposed

plan recovery recovery

plan plan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Tribal Timber Harvest:

Northeast........................................................ 14,800 (3,400) (3,400) (6,800)

Southeast........................................................ 1,500 (800) (0) (800)

West............................................................. 57,700 (42,200) (6,800) (49,000)

--------------------------------------------

Total........................................................ 74,000 (46,400) (10,200) (56,000)

============================================

Tribal Timber Harvest:

Northeast........................................................ 3,600 (2,700) (500) (3,200)

Southeast........................................................ 6,100 (4,400) (700) (5,100)

West............................................................. 18,700 (10,800) (7,700) (17,800)

--------------------------------------------

Total........................................................ 28,400 (17,900) (8,200) (26,100)

============================================

Total Timber Harvest:

Northeast........................................................ 18,100 (6,100) (3,900) (10,000)

Southeast........................................................ 7,600 (5,200) (700) (5,900)

West............................................................. 76,400 (53,000) (13,800) (66,800)

--------------------------------------------

Total........................................................ 102,400 (64,300) (18,400) (82,700)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following Federal agencies and Tribes responded to the

Service's request to estimate impacts resulting from designating

critical habitat as proposed.

The Acting Area Director of the Phoenix office of the Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) objected to the proposal to designate critical

habitat on Tribal lands as ``contrary to policy direction and

principles'' of standing agreements. Information he provided regarding

possible impacts to the San Carlos Apache Tribe is described below.

The Acting Area Director of the Albuquerque office of the BIA

objected to the proposal to designate critical habitat on Tribal lands

for several primarily biological reasons. He estimated the impacts of

the proposed critical habitat designation on the Jicarilla Apache,

Mescalero Apache, and Southern Ute Tribes. His reply regarding timber

harvest levels is also described below.

The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) State offices in Arizona and

New Mexico did not foresee economic or other impacts due to the

proposed critical habitat designation. The BLM'S Colorado State office

identified one area of potential timber harvest, but stated ``there are

no current or future plans to harvest or conduct forest operations in

the area.'' The area, if accessible, could yield 1.2 MMBF of timber.

Because there are no plans to harvest this timber due to access

problems, this timber volume was not included in the impact modeling.

The Utah State office did not respond to the Service's request for

data.

The NPS administers two sites (Canyon de Chelly and Walnut Canyon

National Monument) in its Southwest Region that may be affected by the

proposed critical habitat designation. The NPS Regional Director

identified potential impacts to Native American residents at Canyon de

Chelly, but was unable to quantify the effects or estimate the

probability of the impacts being realized.

As requested, the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service

provided three levels of timber harvest for each National Forest

affected by the proposed critical habitat designation.

The Regional Forester from the Rocky Mountain Region (includes

Colorado) foresaw no impacts due to critical habitat designation as

proposed because no harvest is planned in CHUs.

The Intermountain Region of the Forest Service (includes Utah) did

not expect Alternative 2 to impact timber sales, except in very limited

areas (along the mesa rims) where mixed conifer occurs. With respect to

Alternative 3, an Acting Forest Supervisor responded ``it is difficult

to determine the costs and benefits from implementing these

prescriptions because similar guidelines are already being considered

in order to maintain ecosystem complexity and other rare species.''

The Acting Area Director of the Albuquerque Office of the BIA

estimated the effect of the proposed designation on the Jicarilla

Apache, Mescalero Apache, and Southern Ute Tribes. The BIA estimated

that, currently, 23.5 MMBF are harvested annually from 9,700 acres

(2,400 BF/acre), with a value of $7.8 million ($332/MBF). He stressed

that Tribes have high unemployment and low per capita annual income,

and that 60 percent of the jobs generated by timber harvest on the

Reservations are held by Tribal members.

The BIA estimated that 184 jobs and $3.7 million in annual payroll

($20,100 per job annually) would be lost by implementing the proposed

Recovery Plan and the proposed designation of critical habitat. The

BIA's estimate of harvest quantity impacts to the three Tribes was

difficult to evaluate for several reasons: (1) Alternative 1 was

defined as the current management, yet the BIA predicted a reduction of

harvest from present levels; (2) harvest levels under each alternative

were not specified--impacts were stated in terms of protected activity

centers (PACs), but the number of PACs was not specified; and (3) the

effects for all three Tribes were aggregated. Timber harvests under

each alternative were based on reduction patterns derived from other

respondents (primarily the Forest Service).

The Southern Ute Tribe's timber harvest averaged about 1.6 MMBF

during the last six years. Based on the Tribe's estimate of seven jobs

per MMBF, just over 11 jobs per year were [[Page 29925]] created in the

Solid Wood & Paper sector. Administration and reclamation efforts

employ another six to nine persons annually, several of whom are Tribal

members. For this analysis these are treated as direct jobs in the

Solid Wood & Paper sector. The Tribe estimates critical habitat

designation will affect about 75 percent of the Southern Ute timber

harvest, impacting 1.4 MMBF (allowable harvest) and presumably a

similar portion of jobs. This represents a slight increase of job

losses (and a corresponding impact to income and revenues) from impacts

originally estimated using data from the BIA.

The impact analysis assumes the timber harvested was processed in

the counties according to the BIA reply. Two of the mills were located

in Otero County, at which the timber (13.5 MMBF) from the Mescalero

Apache Reservation was assumed to be processed. The remaining 10 MMBF

were processed in Rio Arriba County and assumed to be harvested from

the Southern Ute or Jicarilla Apache Reservations.

The current timber program of the Navajo Nation produced 12.4 MMBF

in 1994 from the Chuska/Tsaile forest (within proposed critical

habitat), and 6.7 MMBF from the Defiance Plateau forest (outside

proposed critical habitat). This 19.1 MMBF of annual timber harvest was

processed by the Navajo Forest Products Industry (NFPI) mill in Navajo,

New Mexico, which provided 130 direct jobs before its temporary closure

in July 1994 (approximately seven jobs per MMBF). The NFPI mill closed

in July 1994 because the Navajo Nation Ten Year Forest Management Plan

[FMP] was not complete. All timber harvest on the Navajo Nation has

ceased until the FMP is complete, which is estimated to be around June

or July 1996. The Navajo Nation reports that ``18 million board feet is

needed for NFPI to operate feasibly'' and that critical habitat

designation would reduce timber harvest below this level. The NFPI

attempted to remain open (prior to closing in mid-1994) by purchasing

timber outside of the Navajo Nation, but was unable to do so. Current

Navajo Nation policies prohibit selling timber off the Reservation.

The Navajo Nation estimated that implementing the proposed Recovery

Plan (Alternative 2) would reduce timber harvest from the Chuska/Tsaile

forest to 6.2 MMBF (50 percent reduction), reducing potential timber

harvest to 12.9 MMBF annually (including the undiminished harvest from

the Defiance Plateau), a harvest level too low for the NFPI mill to

operate. According to the Tribe, designating critical habitat as

proposed will eliminate all harvest from the Chuska/Tsaile forest,

thereby reducing the Nation's potential timber harvest to 6.7 MMBF (the

harvest from the Defiance Plateau), also too low for the NFPI mill to

operate profitably.

Per capita income in the Navajo Nation totaled $5,300 in 1994, much

lower than the national average of $18,700 in 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the

Census 1994). Unemployment in the Navajo Nation measured nearly 39

percent in 1992, sharply higher than the 28 percent rate in 1990, and

matching the 39 percent unemployment in 1980. The Solid Wood & Paper

sector provided 1.5 percent of employment to the Navajo Nation in 1992,

a level slightly higher than regional (1.1 percent) and national (1.2

percent) proportions of the preceding year. Information provided by the

Navajo Nation indicates the proportion of employment of wood-related

employment was considerably lower by 1994. The NFPI mill was the 10th

largest employer in the Navajo Nation before its temporary closure in

mid-1994.

For purposes of the analysis, the sequence of implementation of

management alternatives is essential to estimating the effects of

critical habitat designation to the Navajo Nation. If the Recovery Plan

is implemented before critical habitat designation (Alternative 2), the

Nation's timber harvest already will have fallen to 12.9 MMBF,

resulting in the closure of NFPI. Because the mill already will have

closed (or not reopened) due to insufficient harvest, and timber is not

sold off the Reservation, there would be no incremental effect of the

designation. However, if critical habitat were designated first, the

Navajo Nation timber harvest would fall from 19.1 MMBF to 6.7 MMBF--and

the effects of the mill closure (or failure to reopen) would be

attributable to the designation. These scenarios assume the mill's

closure is temporary and will reopen upon approval of the FMP.

The proposed designation was estimated to disrupt timber

availability to the San Carlos Apache sawmill, thereby possibly causing

the enterprise's closure and loss of 31 Tribal jobs. Closing the

sawmill would ``impair economic development [of the Tribe] beyond the

sawmill enterprise.'' Neither the BIA nor the San Carlos Apache Tribe

provided estimates of timber harvest under the three scenarios. The

impact analysis assumes that harvest levels on the San Carlos

Reservation are affected in proportions similar to those in other

forests in the region.

Several state or county agencies provided information to the

Service, as described below.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department concluded that it would not be

affected by the proposed action.

The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) identified four timber

product sales that might be affected by designating critical habitat as

proposed for the owl, one of which is planned for sale in 1995 and

three of which will be sold in consecutive years beginning in 2007.

According to the ASLD, none of the sales is ``likely to adversely

affect the MSO.'' The impact analysis reflects the ASLD response that

designating critical habitat for the owl will not affect timber harvest

on Arizona State lands.

Graham County, Arizona estimated direct, indirect, and induced

impacts totaling nearly $37 million due to factors ranging from reduced

Federal timber harvest to decreased livestock grazing to canceled

campground expansions. The impacts identified by the County included

effects from spending multipliers, lost wages from displaced workers,

and forfeited county share of Federal receipts. Because most impacts

were site-specific the Arizona Ecological Services State Office

reviewed the County's projections, and provided the following comments:

(1) The County estimated impacts of $24 million due to canceling

construction-expansion on 8.6 acres at the Steward Observatory.

Informal consultations in November 1993 on a portion of the 24-acre

Observatory site had resulted in a ```not likely to adversely affect'''

finding for the owl. If the Service conducted a section 7 consultation

on the Steward Observatory project, it would be highly unlikely that an

``adverse modification'' determination would be made for these proposed

actions; therefore only discretionary recommendations would be given by

the Service. The action agency may choose whether or not to implement

these recommendations.

(2) The County estimated impacts of $12 million due to canceling

construction activities at Discovery Park, including a new visitor

center and its access road. The visitor center is understood to be

planned outside forested habitat, however, and therefore will not have

an effect on proposed critical habitat. Repaving Discovery Trail in its

existing road bed would not cause direct loss of critical habitat,

while widening or realignment of the road would likely cause some

habitat loss, but it is highly unlikely that enough habitat would be

affected for [[Page 29926]] adverse modification to occur. Thus, only

discretionary recommendations would likely be given.

(3) Impacts to timber harvesting (Federal timber and firewood use)

will cost Graham County $78,000 annually in gross timber sale revenues,

according to the County. Federal impacts are discussed above. Firewood

harvest should not be impacted by designating critical habitat, and

extractive use of small and mid-diameter trees is not a component that

has been limited as a result of Service review and recommendations. In

fact, projects (such as thinning and prescribed fire) that have sought

to address some of the structural changes resulting in increased fire

danger have been strongly encouraged by the Service.

(4) Graham County estimated impacts of $179,000 annually to

electronic sites at Heliograph Peak due to the ``potential to adversely

affect the communications industry.'' The existing electronic sites at

Heliograph Peak are on a small unforested site, however, and given the

site characteristics it would appear that no habitat modifying activity

would be necessary to continue to operate this facility. There thus

should be no effect attributable to critical habitat.

(5) The County estimated impacts to grazing would cost Graham

County $445,000 annually. However, at this time there is no direct

evidence that grazing adversely affects Mexican spotted owl critical

habitat, and thus grazing allotments should not be affected by critical

habitat designation. Further, the Service has not required

discontinuation of grazing to protect the owl in any action related to

critical habitat designation.

(6) The County estimated canceling expansions at three campgrounds

would cause impacts of more than $120,000 annually. The sites may be

affected by critical habitat designation, depending on their location

and size. One of the three campgrounds identified by the County was

issued an incidental take permit during previous formal consultations.

The other two campgrounds could, but are not likely to, adversely

modify critical habitat.

Graham County likely will incur added costs due to project

redesigns or added costs of consultation, but these presently are not

quantifiable. The impact to Graham County from reduced commercial

timber harvest on Federal land as identified by the Forest Service is

described below under ``Economic Impacts and Effects.''

Assessing the potential impacts to private landowners requires

separation of the effects due to listing the owl and those of

designation of critical habitat. Activities on private lands are

affected by the designation only when a Federal nexus exists, such as

mandatory authorization or permits, or when Federal funding is

involved. Given that commercial timber harvest is the primary activity

affected by the designation, private landowners are unlikely to be

impacted by the proposal. None of the Federal agencies contacted by the

Service identified ways in which private landowners might be affected

indirectly by the proposed action.

Economic Impacts and Effects

The following are estimates of short-term consequences of the

proposed designation of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl.

Economic costs are created when the losses of income and employment are

not temporary. Historically, a number of small communities in the

region have received substantial employment and income generated by

timber industries. Reducing a community's reliance on timber as a

commodity to one based on other economic activity may negatively impact

some communities.

From the agencies' responses, two levels of employment impacts were

estimated: (1) Job losses attributable to implementing the proposed

Recovery Plan, and (2) job losses attributable to the proposed critical

habitat designation following the enactment of the proposed Recovery

Plan. If the proposed Recovery Plan is not implemented the impacts from

critical habitat designation as proposed would be the combined impacts

of Alternatives 2 and 3. Once again, these estimates are based on an

assumption that critical habitat designation has effects over and above

those of implementing a recovery plan. Under current consultation

policies, this assumption causes an overestimate of the impacts of

designation. Short-term regional economic consequences are presented in

Table 3.

Employment

Curtailing timber harvest due to the proposed designation of

critical habitat will result in job losses in the short run, primarily

in the timber industry. In addition to those jobs ``directly'' affected

by reduced timber harvest, others will lose employment ``indirectly''

due to the reduced spending by employees and firms in the Solid Wood

and Paper sector. To gauge the proportional impact, direct employment

losses should be compared to employment in the Solid Wood and Paper

sector, while total impacts (direct plus indirect) should be compared

to employment in all sectors (Table 3).

The economy of the region would lose 366 jobs (0.08 percent of

total regional employment) from implementation of the draft Recovery

Plan. Of these, 271 jobs are direct employment in the Solid Wood and

Paper sector (5.7 percent of 1991 employment in wood industries) and 94

are jobs in other sectors. Reduced Tribal timber harvest would account

for the loss of 156 jobs of the 271 jobs lost in the Solid Wood and

Paper sector (58 percent of direct employment losses), and 26 of 94

jobs lost in other sectors (28 percent of indirect employment losses).

The economy of the region would lose 147 jobs (0.03 percent of

total regional employment), if the proposed critical habitat

designation follows implementation of the proposed Recovery Plan. Of

these, 120 jobs are direct employment in the Solid Wood and Paper

sector (2.5 percent of 1991 employment in wood industries), and 27 are

jobs in other sectors. Reduced Tribal timber harvest would account for

the loss of 95 of 120 jobs lost in the Solid Wood and Paper sector (80

percent of direct employment losses), and 12 of 27 jobs lost in other

sectors (44 percent of indirect employment losses).

The economy of the region would lose 513 jobs (0.11 percent of

total regional employment), if critical habitat is designated without

the proposed Recovery Plan having been implemented. Of these, 391 jobs

are direct employment in the Solid Wood and Paper sector (8.1 percent

of 1991 employment in wood industries), and 121 are jobs in other

sectors. Reduced Tribal timber harvest would account for the loss of

250 of 391 jobs in the Solid Wood and Paper sector (64 percent of

direct employment losses), and 37 of 121 jobs lost in other sectors (30

percent of indirect employment losses).

Household Income

The household income of some residents in the region will decline

in the short run due to the proposed action. The households at greatest

risk of income loss are those of employees of the timber industries. As

timber industries reduce spending, the employment and income levels of

other nontimber firms will also be negatively affected. Household

income totaled $13.9 billion for the region in 1991 (Table 3).

[[Page 29927]]

Table 3.--Region-Wide Short-Term Employment Losses and Reductions in

Household Income and Sales Revenues From Management Alternatives

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Critical

habitat habitat

Enaction of after without

Baseline the enaction of enaction of

level proposed the the

recovery proposed proposed

plan recovery recovery

plan plan

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Employment (in full-

and part-time

jobs):

All sectors..... 451,050 (366) (147) (513)

Solid wood and

paper sectors.. 4,770 (271) (120) (391)

Household Income (in

$ million):

All sectors..... 13,939 (4.7) (1.3) (6.0)

Solid wood and

paper sectors.. 108 (3.3) (0.9) (4.2)

Sales revenues (in $

million):

All sectors..... 27,189 (20.7) (5.9) (26.5)

Solid wood and

paper sectors.. 516 (15.9) (4.5) (20.4)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The economy of the region would lose $4.7 million in household

income (0.03 percent of total regional household income) from

implementation of the proposed Recovery Plan. Of this amount, $3.3

million would be lost from the Solid Wood and Paper sector (3.0 percent

of regional household income from the sector), and $1.4 million from

other sectors. The loss of household income due to reduced Tribal

timber harvest would total $1.4 million (30 percent of tribal household

income lost).

The economy of the region would lose $1.3 million household income

(0.01 percent of total regional household income), if the proposed

critical habitat designation follows implementation of the proposed

Recovery Plan. Losses from the Solid Wood and Paper sectors would total

$0.9 million (0.8 percent of sector total), and $0.4 million from other

sectors. Reduced Tribal timber harvest would account for the loss of

$0.7 million (50 percent of tribal household income lost).

The economy of the region would lose $6.0 million household income

(0.04 percent of total regional household income) from designating

critical habitat if the proposed Recovery Plan has not been

implemented. Of this amount, $4.2 million (3.8 percent of sector total

household income) would be from the Solid Wood and Paper sector, and

$1.8 million from nonwood industries. The household income lost from

reduced Tribal timber harvest would total $2.0 million in (33 percent

of tribal household income lost).

Sales Revenues

As timber harvests are curtailed throughout the region, business

activity dependent on timber industries will slacken in the short run

as well. Local governments' tax receipts may fall accordingly in the

short-term. Total gross sales in the region totaled $27,189 million in

1991 (excepting the Trade sector, which reports value added), including

gross sales revenues in the Solid Wood and Paper sector totaling $516

million (Table 3).

Gross sales revenues in the region economy would fall $20.7 million

(0.08 percent of total regional sales revenues) from implementation of

the proposed Recovery Plan. Of this, $15.9 million revenues would be

lost from the Solid Wood and Paper sector (3.1 percent of 1991 sales by

wood industries), and $4.8 million would be lost from other sectors.

Gross sales revenues in the economy of the region would fall $5.9

million (0.02 percent of total regional sales revenues), if the

proposed critical habitat designation follows implementation of the

proposed Recovery Plan. Of this, $4.5 million revenues would be lost

from wood industries (0.9 percent of 1991 sales revenues by the Solid

Wood and Paper sector), and $1.4 million of the reduction would be

borne by nonwood sectors.

The economy of the region would experience a loss of $26.5 million

of gross sales revenues (0.10 percent of total regional gross sales) if

critical habitat is designated without enacting the proposed Recovery

Plan. Of this amount, gross sales in the Solid Wood and Paper sector

would fall by $20.4 million (3.9 percent of 1991 sales revenues in wood

industries), and $6.1 million would be lost from other sectors.

Impacts to Local Communities and Counties

The proposed action could affect smaller communities and counties

whose economies are closely tied to timber harvests. Most of the

impacts that will occur from efforts to protect the owl probably have

occurred already, brought about by listing of the owl and other species

and by other management changes within the Forest Service. Nonetheless,

the proposed critical habitat designation can further impact these

counties by reducing taxable sales revenues and curtailing payments

from Federal agencies.

Forest Service payments to counties may be reduced by the proposed

critical habitat designation. The Forest Service pays 25 percent of its

timber and other receipts to counties for support of county roads and

schools. Most of the receipts in the region are from timber harvest.

Forest Service receipts from timber harvest totaled about $32 million

in 1989 and dropped to $22 million in 1993. Counties' shares totaled

about $8 million in 1989 and about $5.4 million in 1993.

However, the actual impact to communities from reductions in Forest

Service payments may be less than it seems at first. For most

communities, reductions in payments from the Forest Service are offset

by increases in other payments. Counties receive funds from the Federal

government through payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). Among the factors

that determine the amount of PILT paid to counties is Forest Service

receipts. As Forest Service receipts decline, PILT payments increase.

The impact on most counties is small, although a few counties in the

region receive a substantial share of funds from the Forest Service and

decreased timber receipts may not be offset entirely by higher PILT

payments.

Catron County is one of the counties that receive a substantial

share of Forest Service payments. In 1993, Catron County received

$209,000 in county road and school funds from the Forest Service, an

amount which would not be fully compensated for by PILT if it is lost.

While it is unlikely that all of the Forest Service payments would be

[[Page 29928]] eliminated, this amount is at risk in Catron County.

Coconino County also is at risk from reduced timber harvests. The

county received about $2.5 million in 1993 from Forest Service timber

sales receipts. As with Catron County, a portion of these payments is

at risk of not being replaced with PILT increases.

Nonmarket Benefits and Costs

Society stands to realize benefits and costs from the proposed

designation of critical habitat for the owl. Economic benefits and

costs are created when the effects of designation are not temporary, or

do not adjust after the economy's transition. Benefits may include

sustained biodiversity of the region, heightened intrinsic benefits

from ensuring future environmental quality, and increases in the value

of recreation opportunities. According to the Forest Service, ``Areas

managed for Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat will have

beneficial effects on the soil, water, and air resources due to

restrictions on ground-disturbing activities.'' Costs may include

increased expenses related to fire danger from limitations on some

timber harvest activities, reduction of income to some sectors of the

economy, and impact on tax receipts.

Arguments persist as to the economic sustainability of Federal

timber programs in Arizona and New Mexico: critics point to Forest

Service reports that show timber harvests in the region are conducted

below cost, and claim harvest reductions will reduce losses to the U.S.

Treasury. Supporters counter that Federal timber programs sustain the

economies of rural communities and reduce the risk of stand replacing

forest fires. An independent evaluation was not conducted for this

analysis.

The nonmarket benefits accruing to society from species

preservation are sometimes costly to quantify. Costs, in contrast, are

more easily estimable and attract notice because effects often are

market-based and localized. To properly compare benefits and costs, the

full range of each must be considered. Benefits such as preserving

species and increased environmental quality accrue to a large regional

or national constituency. Costs follow an opposite trend; they are most

significant locally but diminish rapidly as the focus becomes more

national in scale. Data are not available at this time to estimate

specifically the nonmarket costs and benefits of the designation.

One nonmarket benefit of the proposed action is the complementary

impact on other listed and candidate species. The New Mexico Ecological

Services State Office of the Service has described the benefits related

to biological diversity that may result from the proposed critical

habitat designation for the owl. The description is provided in the

complete Economic Analysis.

Valuing Species and Their Habitat

Nonmarket economic benefits stemming from ecological preservation

have not been quantified for the proposed action. However, other

research has estimated benefits gained from preserving rare or

endangered species and their habitat.

Estimates of species and habitat values, usually stated in terms of

``willingness to pay per household,'' range from $5.55/year per

household (1984 dollars) for preserving habitat of the striped shiner

to $86.32/year per household (1991 dollars) to preserve northern

spotted owls and their old-growth habitat in the Pacific Northwest.

These figures could be extrapolated from their sample sizes to a range

of between $12 million per year for the striped shiner to residents of

Wisconsin, and $8.287 billion per year for the northern spotted owl to

households nationwide. Residents might be expected to be willing to pay

within this range to preserve the Mexican spotted owl and its habitat.

Other empirical research offers evidence of nonmarket benefits of

preserving components of ecological systems, including preventing

forests from being developed, preserving air quality in parklands in

the American Southwest, protecting spotted owls and old-growth forests

in the Pacific Northwest, preserving river basins and preserving open

space and ranchland from urbanization. These studies provide insights

about public values for the presence (existence value), availability

for future use (option value), and ability to preserve the resource for

future generations (bequest value).

Nonconsumptive and recreation uses of the owl, such as viewing and

photography, may be limited due to its nocturnal nature. However,

protection of the owl's habitat may provide for recreation uses in the

region, including increased enjoyment of a nonlogged environment and

enhanced hiking and camping, photography, bird watching, and similar

nonconsumptive uses.

Fishing, picnicking, horseback riding, and backpacking are examples

of outdoor recreation that may be enjoyed in the range of the owl.

These activities are not always sold in identifiable markets and thus

their value must be quantified indirectly. Increased economic value

from recreation can be observed from their contributions to sales and

employment in sectors that provide outdoor recreationists with goods

and services. In addition, ``net value'' to the consumer measures

additional economic value after all costs to the consumer are

subtracted. One survey-based study has estimated values on these types

of outdoor recreation at between $17 and $49 per person per day (Walsh

et al. 1990). These studies conclude that millions of dollars of net

benefits are created annually for participants in these recreational

activities.

The increased threat of fire is a potential cost of designation.

Curtailing timber harvest within CHUs may cause an increase in tree

density and fuel loads within the forest. This can increase fire

danger, decreasing the value of the forests and increasing the threat

to those living or recreating in or near forests. This threat may be

mitigated in part through removal of the timber creating the danger.

According to the Forest Service (USDA 1994) fire suppression has

allowed buildup of natural fuels, increasing the probability of fire

spread and intensity. The Forest Service states that fire potential is

affected by management activities--changing the age, distribution,

density, and species selection can impact how fire affects the forest

and habitat for the owl. The Forest Service supports proactive

management practices such as prescribed fire and thinning treatments. A

major obstacle preventing thinning may be the cost, as thinning has

been supported by receipts from timber harvest.

The Service expressed concern for fire and other forest health

issues when the owl was listed, and acknowledged that fire suppression

has resulted in large tracts of small trees at high densities that are

now susceptible to wildfires. The Service supports thinning and

prescribed fire used to control the increased fire danger. The

increased threat of fire danger is a factor related to forest

management practices of the past, including fire suppression and timber

harvest regimes in the region. The analysis does not assess

specifically the economic consequences of increased fire threat.

The total value of social benefits of species preservation has been

shown to be substantial in a variety of studies. The value of these

benefits is expected to continue to rise over time as the number of

households, relative to species and natural areas, increases. Given the

information at hand, and without better understanding the network of

consequences from management alternatives, it is not possible to

disaggregate the sum of [[Page 29929]] benefits to identify that

portion directly attributable to the designation.

Exclusion Process and Indian Lands

The maintenance of stable, self-sustaining, and well-distributed

populations of Mexican spotted owls throughout their range is dependent

upon habitat quality and its ability to support clusters of

successfully reproducing owls that are sufficiently integrated to avoid

or reduce demographic and/or genetic problems through time. Native

American lands upon which units of critical habitat were designated

were considered in a hierarchial fashion, first in terms of the quality

of habitat and size of the cluster of owl territories, then for their

relationship to surrounding units, and ultimately for their

contribution to groups of units in larger, regional populations.

Native American lands occur in four general areas within the range

of the Mexican spotted owl: the Four Corners Area where the states of

Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado meet; the Mogollon Rim Area

extending in an arc across Arizona and New Mexico; the Western Basin

and Range encompassing a small portion of southwestern New Mexico and

the majority of southern Arizona; and the Eastern Basin and Range of

central and eastern New Mexico.

The majority of the Four Corners Area is dominated by Great Basin

desert scrub, grassland and woodland at lower elevations, and Petran

montane conifer forests at higher elevations. Riparian vegetation is

primarily confined to a relatively narrow band along water courses and

is most apparent along major streams. Owl habitat is found in both

montane forests and minimally or non-forested canyon habitats.

Navajo Nation

The habitat of the Mexican spotted owl on lands of the Navajo

Reservation lie within the Chuska and Carrizo mountains. This region

has had very limited survey work, and current records are restricted to

9 locales. The region may be an important demographic link between the

subpopulations of owls to the east and southeast, and those owl

clusters in the Colorado Plateau further to the northwest.

Due to rugged terrain, habitat in much of the forested and non-

forested canyon habitat is expected to be in good condition. The more

accessible forested areas on the mesas, the above-canyon flats, and

foothills have had considerable overstory removal and are primarily

second-growth, particularly on the Defiance Plateau. Even-aged

silvicultural management across large management units has resulted in

fairly extensive modifications of habitat (typically to those areas

most likely to be utilized as foraging habitat).

Continued adverse modification of forest habitat is the greatest

threat to habitat occupancy. Thorough application of even-age

silviculture to large management units may result in extensive areas

lacking minimal amounts of habitat able to sustain occupancy.

Demographic persistence and connectivity between the smaller CHUs in

the area may be hindered by the compounding factors of naturally

disjunct habitat, the potential decrease in immigrants from larger

neighboring clusters (AZ-NAIR-1), and the (primarily foraging) forest

habitat being converted to young/mid-age and even-age/even-structure

condition. The risk of catastrophic habitat loss due to fire at the

lower and middle elevations is moderately high.

Critical Habitat Units

AZ-NAIR-1, AZ-NAIR-2, AZ-NAIR-3, AZ-NAIR-4, and AZ-NAIR-5

The CHUs comprise a chain of forested montane and canyon habitats

in the Chuska Mountains and the adjacent Carrizo Mountains to the

north; additionally units are located at the upper reaches of the

Canyon de Chelly drainage system, and the Defiance Plateau.

Voluntary Tribal Conservation Measures

The Service is currently working with the Navajo Nation in the

development of a Habitat Conservation Plan and the tribe and BIA are

currently working on a 10-year management plan. However, these efforts

have not yet culminated in planning documents. Although the Navajo

Nation has not provided information concerning management and/or

conservation of the Mexican spotted owl on the Reservation, the service

understands that no timber harvesting will take place until those

documents and the associated NEPA processes are completed, which is

estimated to occur in June or July 1996.

Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe

The Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe

are also located in the Four Corners Area, in close proximity to the

Santa Fe National Forest, Carson National Forest, and San Juan National

Forest.

The region spans a large area at the interface of the Colorado

Plateau and the Southern Rocky Mountains. Habitat ranges from heavily

forested canyons and mesas, to rocky canyons with thin conifer/riparian

stringers. Many of the territories have a high component of pinyon-

juniper woodland in the more xeric areas. Rocky exposures may be an

important component of owl habitat even at the close proximity to and

influence of Southern Rocky Mountains. Habitat conditions vary between

landownership. The habitats in the Southern Ute and the Jicarilla

Apache Indian Reservations are managed with selective logging methods

in the ponderosa pine stands, and minimal use is made of the mixed

conifers that typically occurs on steep slopes. The CHUs on the San

Juan and Santa Fe National Forests exhibit even-age/size and minimal

mature overstory structure in most of the accessible, lower elevation

forest stands. CHUs on the Carson National Forest are not exploited for

timber, but are heavily roaded and have a high density of oil and gas

well pads in many areas.

The region supports a long string of habitat and CHUs, it is

directly connected by mostly forest and woodland habitat to the Jemez

Mountains (Santa Fe National Forest) to the south, and less directly

connected by woodland and grassland to Bureau of Land Management lands

in Utah and Colorado.

Continued adverse modification of forest habitat and high levels of

oil and gas development are the greatest localized threats to

sustaining or recovering the subpopulation in the region. Demographic

recovery and connectivity within the region and between this region and

other critical habitat may be hindered by the compounding factors of

naturally disjunct habitat, long dispersal distances, and much of the

inter-CHU forest habitat being in generally young/mid-age and even-age/

even-structure condition. The risk of catastrophic habitat loss due to

fire is moderately high at lower and middle elevations.

Critical Habitat Units

NM-JAIR-1, NM-JAIR-2, NM-JAIR-3, NM-JAIR-4, and NM-JAIR-5

The five CHUs within the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation run

north-south along a series of canyon incised mesas, and lie between the

CHUs in the Santa Fe National Forest to the south and the Colorado-New

Mexico State line. A parallel north-south series of CHUs in the

Jicarilla Ranger District of the Carson National Forest lie 5 to 18

kilometers to the west. The majority of the high-potential breeding

habitat (steep slope, mixed conifer) receives little or no timber

management, and the [[Page 29930]] surrounding foraging habitat is

managed primarily under uneven-age silviculture. The habitat within the

Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation has had limited survey to date.

There are no known owls; however, two historical records exist for the

Reservation, and territories and records exist for habitat to the north

in Colorado, in the nearby Jicarilla Ranger District of the Carson

National Forest, and on the adjacent Archuleta Mesa in NM-BLM-5. NM-

JAIR-1 is contiguous to CO-SUIR-3.

Voluntary Tribal Conservation Measures

Informal discussions between the Service and the Jicarilla Game and

Fish Department on owl-related issues were initiated during the data

collection period for critical habitat development in early summer

1993. Continued discussions led to a mutual recognition of the

significant differences between resource management and habitat

conditions on federally administered lands and Jicarilla Reservation

lands. These differences afforded an opportunity to address the threats

identified in the listing proposal through the development of a tribal

management plan for the owl. Working independently, the Jicarilla Game

and Fish Department developed a draft ``Conservation Plan for the

Mexican Spotted Owl on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation, New Mexico''

and requested review of the document by the Service at a meeting on

November 21, 1994. Reviews were conducted and recommendations provided

by the Service at that meeting and during subsequent telephone

conversations with representatives of the Tribe. On December 16, 1994,

the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council approved the plan and formally

submitted it to the Service.

The plan fully incorporates the Service's recommendations for

management of critical habitat. These recommendations were adopted, in

part, from the recommended guidelines outlined in the Draft Recovery

Plan prepared by the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Team. In addition,

the Jicarilla plan has increased protection in ponderosa pine foraging

habitat above those levels identified in the Draft Recovery Plan.

Based on the removal of identified threats to the Mexican spotted

owl and on the commitment of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe to enforce the

Conservation Plan, the Service has proposed that the lands of the

Jicarilla Reservation (101,923 acres within 5 critical habitat units)

be deleted from further consideration for designation.

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

CO-SUIR-1, CO-SUIR-2, and CO-SUIR-3

The CHUs comprise a series of mesas with incised canyons. The

habitat ranges from minimally forested canyon stringers to heavily

forested slopes and mesa-tops. CO-SUIR-1 is contiguous and

complementary to habitat in CO-SJNF-1; CO-SUIR-2 is contiguous and

complementary to CO-SJNF-2; and CO-SUIR-3 is contiguous and

complementary to NM-JAIR-1 and CO-BLM-4. The areas encompassed by the

CHUs have not been surveyed, and no owls are known on the Reservation;

however, a current record exists on BLM land (NM-BLM-5) across the

Colorado-New Mexico State line in contiguous habitat.

Voluntary Tribal Conservation Measures

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is engaged in continuing discussions

with the Service. One of the goals of the discussions has been the

development of a Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate cooperation

between the Tribe and the Service. In a letter of April 28, 1995, on

the proposal to designate critical habitat, the Southern Ute Tribe

stated that, once a Memorandum of Understanding is in place, it is

anticipated that cooperative efforts can be undertaken to develop

mutually acceptable conservation plans for threatened and endangered

species. At this time, no conservation plan for the Mexican spotted owl

has been provided by the Tribe to the Service.

San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation

Owl habitat on the San Carlos Apache Reservation is located

primarily in the Western Basin and Range province, and a portion of the

Mogollon Rim area. The province is characterized by numerous mountain

ranges that rise abruptly from broad plain-like valleys and basins.

Within southern Arizona the mountain ranges are sometimes referred to

as the ``Sky Islands'', and include the Mazatzal Mountains and the

Natanes Plateau on the San Carlos Indian Reservation.

The isolated mountain ranges are vegetated by Madrean evergreen/oak

woodland and chaparral, Madrean pine/oak forest, and mixed conifer

forest; the mountains are surrounded by Sonoran and Chihuahuan desert-

scrub.

Other CHUs of this region are administered by the Prescott, Tonto,

Apache-Sitgreaves, and Coronado National Forests. The Army administers

the lands within Fort Huachuca in the Huachuca Mountains. Although not

included within critical habitat units, the Saguaro and the Chiricahua

National Monuments also harbor some owl habitat.

Forested owl habitat on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation is

predominately inaccessible and is in mostly suitable condition.

Demographic persistence and connectivity may be hindered by the

compounding factors of naturally disjunct habitat and the potential

decrease in immigrants from larger neighboring clusters. The risk of

catastrophic habitat loss due to wildfire is moderately high throughout

the region.

Critical Habitat Units

AZ-SCIR-1, AZ-SCIR-2, and AZ-SCIR-3

The CHUs include fairly rugged forested and canyon habitats.

Portions are contiguous with and complementary to habitat in AZ-FAIR-1

and AZ-ASNF-2. The habitat is mostly timber-unsuitable and in suitable

habitat condition.

Voluntary Tribal Conservation Measures

Discussions between the Service and the San Carlos Apache Tribe are

ongoing but have not yet resulted in the formulation of a conservation

plan. Although there is good forested habitat on the reservation, much

is inaccessible to timber harvest.

Mescalero Apache Indian Tribe

The Mescalero Indian Reservation encompasses a portion of the

Sacramento Mountains, within the Eastern Basin and Range province that

includes much of central and eastern New Mexico. The area is

characterized by broad, flat basins and relatively isolated mountain

ranges. The province includes the Manzano, San Andres, Sacramento, and

Guadalupe mountains. The vegetation in the majority of this province is

Chihuahuan desert scrub and Great Basin grasslands, with Great Basin

woodland and Petran montane conifer forest at higher elevations. The

Mescalero Indian Reservation borders sections of the Lincoln National

Forest and includes a large area of critical habitat.

Forest habitat within the majority of the Sacramento Mountains had

been railroad logged in the early part of the century. The high site

productivity of the montane forests allowed for rapid regeneration of

much of the owl habitat within 70 to 90 years. Currently, the majority

of habitat is in suitable breeding and foraging condition. Habitat on

the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation is managed primarily under an

uneven-age (selective) silviculture system. In general, most habitat on

the [[Page 29931]] Reservation appears in suitable breeding habitat

condition. In some areas, however, the widely applied uneven-age

harvest methods appear to have resulted in homogenous stand conditions

across the forested landscape. Large areas appear ``thinned'' and show

little structural variance between stands. Stands may retain adequate

structure and remain suitable for foraging, and be able to return

rapidly to a suitable nesting condition, but at any one time, the lack

of any significant amount of suitable nesting habitat may result in

large areas subject to intermittent owl occupancy and unable to support

breeding pairs.

The Sacramento Mountains support one of the largest owl clusters in

the Southwest. Currently, there are 123 established territories on the

Lincoln National Forest. There very limited available data on

population size or owl occupancy for the Mescalero Apache Indian

Reservation; however, the proximity of the Reservation lands to the

Lincoln National Forest would lend support to the expectation of a

significant number of territories (approximately 100) on the

Reservation. Applying to this figure the average occupancy rates from

the Lincoln National Forest gives an estimate of about 58 territories

occupied by pairs, 21 territories occupied by single adults, and 21

unoccupied territories. This figure may be an overestimate, as

occupancy rates are expected to be somewhat lower for the habitat

patches at the northern end of the range (NM-LINF-1, NM-LINF-2, NM-

LINF-3, and NM-LINF-4) due to disjunct habitat patches, small patch

size, and relatively greater inter-habitat distances, and perhaps

poorer habitat quality.

Continued adverse modification of forest habitat is the greatest

threat to habitat occupancy. The area may also play an important role

in source/sink dynamics with neighboring clusters. Diminished emigrant

rates from the Sacramento Mountains may threaten the viability of the

smaller, proximate clusters. The risk of catastrophic habitat loss due

to fire at the lower and middle elevations is moderately high.

Critical Habitat Unit

NM-MAIR-1

The CHU is a large block of habitat comprising most of the northern

half of the Sacramento Mountains. It is contiguous to NM-LINF-10 to the

south, and NM-LINF-8, NM-LINF-6, and the White Mountain Wilderness to

the north. There are no available data on owl occupancy; however,

extrapolation of occupied habitat patterns to the north and south of

the Reservation permits an estimate of about 100 territories for the

CHU.

Voluntary Tribal Conservation Measures

The Service has met with representatives of the Tribe to discuss

conservation planning for the Mexican spotted owl. The Mescalero Apache

Tribe provided a rough draft (without biological or management details)

of a conservation plan on May 3, 1995, for review by the Service.

However, insufficient time remained in the comment period on the

proposed designation of critical habitat to discuss Service

recommendations for the document with the Mescalero Apache Tribe.

Delineation Criteria Applied to Indian Lands

Over and above the biological criteria used to delineate all areas,

regardless of ownership, to be included in the proposal to designate

critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, the Service also

addressed the following considerations in determining to either retain

or delete Native American lands in the final designation.

The restrictions are reasonable and necessary for the conservation

of the Mexican spotted owl; and are the least restrictive available to

achieve the conservation purpose.

The inclusion of Indian lands within critical habitat units was

based solely on biology and the contribution of those lands to the

conservation of the species. Where determined to be unnecessary, as

with the removal of threats to the owl by the implementation of

conservation plans by the White Mountain and Jicarilla Apache Tribes,

the lands were either not proposed, or have been deleted from the final

designation.

The interdependence of critical habitat and the recovery goals and

management recommendations in the draft Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery

Plan also present reasonable and necessary restrictions for the

conservation of the species. The Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Team has

assembled and analyzed the best available data on the species, which

were issued in the March 1995 publication of the Draft Recovery Plan.

The goals are flexible and the guidelines for owl habitat management

are considered the least restrictive for achieving recovery. The

guidelines primarily limit management to protection of occupied sites

and the highest quality nest/roost habitat. These are the minimum

needed to ensure stable populations for the time necessary to assess

population trends.

The restrictions do not discriminate against Indian activities.

The restrictions of critical habitat derive from the obligation,

under the Endangered Species Act, of Federal agencies to ensure that

their actions do not result in the destruction or adverse modification

of critical habitat. The identified range-wide threat to the Mexican

spotted owl is timber management relying on harvest methodologies that

convert habitat that supports Mexican spotted owl to habitat that

cannot. There is no prohibition of timber activities, nor of any other

activity upon which the Indian Tribes might rely.

The Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Team has a representative selected

by the Tribal land management agencies. In addition, the Recovery Team

frequently communicated with and solicited information from the Tribal

land management agencies and governments. Tribal input was actively

sought and received throughout the process.

The selection of Tribal lands for critical habitat was based on the

biological significance of the contribution of those lands to the

conservation of the Mexican spotted owl. The threats and the

opportunities for recovery were considered on a range-wide basis and

were not identified to discriminate or favor particular land owners.

The restrictions are necessary because current voluntary tribal

conservation measures are not adequate to achieve the conservation

purpose.

The proposed rule to designate critical habitat stated that ``If

agreements can be reached (with the Tribes) and implementation ensured

so that special protection is not necessary, the Service may consider

excluding those areas from critical habitat.'' Conservation or

management plans have been developed by the Jicarilla Apache and the

White Mountain Apache tribes that meet these conservation objectives.

Discussions are ongoing with several other tribes to develop

conservation plans. However, at this time, implementation of those

remaining plans under discussion is not ensured, and there are no final

commitments that insure that owl populations and habitat will be

managed to contribute to the survival and recovery of the species.

Consideration of Exclusions

Based on the analysis described above, the Service has considered

whether the benefits of excluding any area proposed as critical habitat

exceed the benefits of including it in the final designation. In

particular, the areas proposed for potential exclusion in the

[[Page 29932]] March 8, 1995, supplemental proposal have been

considered for exclusion. At that time, lands of the Navajo Nation, and

the Southern Ute, Mescalero Apache, and San Carlos Apache Tribes were

proposed for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act contingent upon

receipt and review by the Service of specific economic information

pertinent to these lands and biological data concerning the presence,

distribution, and habitat use of owls on these lands.

As described above, the data concerning the lands proposed for

exclusion are presently inconclusive, and at this time do not provide

an adequate basis upon which to exclude them from designation as

critical habitat. Consequently, they have been retained within the

critical habitat designated in this final rule. The Service will

continue to provide technical assistance to the Tribes to develop an

adequate database upon which to determine whether the benefits of their

exclusion would exceed the benefits of including them in the

designation.

The March 8 supplemental proposal also proposed to exclude lands of

the Jicarilla Apache Tribe from final designation, not under section

4(b)(2) of the Act, but because that Tribe's Mexican Spotted Owl

Conservation Plan, approved by the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council,

adequately addressed the conservation needs of the species and rendered

these lands no longer in need of special management consideration or

protection as specified in the Act's definition of critical habitat.

The Service continues to consider the existing management of lands of

the Jicarilla Apache Tribe to disqualify them from designation as

critical habitat, and consequently critical habitat units NM-JAIR-1,

NM-JAIR-2, NM-JAIR-3, NM-JAIR-4, and NM-JAIR-5 have been excluded from

the final designation on these grounds.

The Service will continue to provide assistance to and cooperate

with the other tribes on whose land critical habitat is being

designated, with the goal of developing acceptable Mexican spotted owl

conservation plans. When effective management regimes are developed for

these lands as was done for those on the White Mountain Apache and

Jicarilla Apache lands, the Service will propose revision of critical

habitat to remove them from designation.

The final rule includes several revisions to the acreage indicated

in the proposed rule. The change in the Forest Service acreage reflects

a correction to an error in acreage accounting. The changes to BLM,

Tribal, and private acres reflects a change in ownership for an area

initially incorporated into critical habitat on the Jicarilla Apache

Indian Reservation and subsequently removed from the final designation.

The revisions are tabulated below in Table 4.

Table 4.--Revisions to Critical Habitat Acreage by Land Ownership

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed rule Final rule Revision

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forest Service.......... 3,616,366 a 3,581,385 -34,981

Bureau of Land

Management............. 11,424 11,377 -47

National Park Service... 45,892 45,892 0

Department of Defense... 2,013 2,013 0

State................... 9,820 9,820 0

Tribal.................. 962,694 b 870,964 -91,730

Private................. 122,014 b 111,450 -10,564

-----------------------------------------------

Total............. 4,770,223 a b 4,632,901 -137,322

------------------------------------------------------------------------

a Includes a correction to acreages cited in the proposed rule.

b Includes changes to ownership and deletion of Jicarilla Apache

acreages cited in the proposed rule.

Available Conservation Measures

Recovery Planning

Recovery planning under Section 4(f) of the Act provides the

guidance for the Act's activities and promotes a species' conservation

and eventual delisting. Section 4(f)(1) requires the Secretary of

Interior (usually delegated to the Director of the Service) to ``* * *

develop and implement (recovery) plans for the conservation of

endangered species and threatened species * * *'' Recovery plans may

include population and habitat trend objectives, habitat management

recommendations, and the steps necessary to remove a species from the

List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants.

The Service appointed the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Team (Team)

in March 1993. Since that time, the Team has assembled all available

data on Mexican spotted owl biology, the threats faced across the

subspecies' range, current protection afforded the subspecies, and

other pertinent information. Using that information, the Team developed

the draft Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (Service 1995)(Plan or

Recovery Plan) that outlines an initial short-term management strategy.

If made final, the Plan will guide management until long-term

guidelines are developed prior to delisting. The Plan recommends a

short-term landscape management strategy to conserve the subspecies as

population and habitat trends are assessed. Although a recovery plan is

not a regulatory document, management recommendations outlined in the

Plan are considered for application to critical habitat. The Forest

Service Southwest Region has informally communicated its intent to

incorporate the Plan's recommendations into all 11 national forests'

Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans).

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations found at 50 CFR 402.02

define destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as a

direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of

critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed

species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations

that adversely modify any of those physical or biological features that

were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical. This Federal

responsibility accompanies, and is in addition to, the requirement in

section 7(a)(2) of the Act that Federal agencies ensure their actions

do not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. As

required by 50 CFR 402.14, a Federal agency must consult with the

Service if it determines an action may affect a listed species or

critical habitat. Thus, the requirement to consider adverse

modification of critical habitat is an incremental section 7

consideration above and beyond section [[Page 29933]] 7 review to

evaluate jeopardy and incidental take of the species. Regulations

implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are

found at 50 CFR part 402.

The Act's definition of critical habitat indicates that its purpose

is to contribute to a species' conservation, which by definition is the

process of bringing a species to the point of recovery and removal from

the lists of endangered an threatened species. Section 7 prohibitions

against the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat

apply to actions that would impair survival and recovery of a listed

species, thus providing a regulatory means of ensuring that Federal

actions within critical habitat are considered in relation to the goals

and recommendations of a recovery plan. As a result of the direct link

between critical habitat and recovery, the prohibition against

destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat should

provide for the protection of the critical habitat's ability to

contribute fully to a species' recovery.

A number of Federal agencies or departments fund, authorize, or

carry out actions that may affect lands the Service is designating as

critical habitat. Among these agencies are the Forest Service, BIA,

BLM, Department of Defense, Bureau of Mines, and Federal Highway

Administration. The Service has identified numerous activities proposed

within the range of the Mexican spotted owl that are currently the

subject of formal or informal section 7 consultations.

Examples of Proposed Actions

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires, for any proposed or final

regulation to designate critical habitat, a brief description of those

activities (public or private) that may adversely modify such habitat

or may be affected by such designation. Activities that would have no

effect on the critical habitat's primary constituent elements would not

adversely affect critical habitat. However, although an action may not

adversely affect critical habitat, it may still affect individual

spotted owls (e.g., through disturbance) and, therefore, be subject to

consultation under the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act.

An activity cannot cause adverse modification of critical habitat

in an area that does not contain or have the potential to contain the

physical and biological features comprising the primary constituent

elements. Due to the limitations in the fineness of the mapping data

and the interspersed nature of suitable and unsuitable habitat types,

some such areas are incidentally included in the designation.

Activities that disturb or remove the primary constituent elements

within designated critical habitat units may adversely modify the owl's

critical habitat. These activities may include actions that reduce the

canopy closure of a forest stand, reduce the density or the average

diameter of the trees in a stand, modify the multi-layered structure of

a stand, reduce the availability of nesting structures and sites,

reduce regeneration or modify the structure of riparian habitat, reduce

the suitability of the landscape to provide adequate cover, or reduce

the abundance or availability of prey species.

Areas designated as critical habitat for the spotted owl support a

number of existing and proposed commercial and noncommercial

activities. Some of the commercial activities that may affect spotted

owl critical habitat include timber harvest, timber salvage, tree

density control activities such as thinning, insect and disease

suppression activities, snag removal, livestock grazing in riparian

habitat, certain fire suppression activities such as fire break

construction and use of chemical fire retardants. Additional actions

include land disturbance activities such as those associated with oil

and gas leases, sand and gravel extraction, mining, military maneuvers,

road development, construction of hydroelectric facilities, geothermal

development, and construction of campgrounds, ski areas and associated

facilities. However, whether the above activities would be prohibited

or require modification under section 7(a) of the Act would depend on

their magnitude of effects.

Actions not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat

include livestock grazing in upland habitats, ``personal use''

commodity production such as fuelwood, latilla and viga, and Christmas

tree cutting, and most recreational activities including hiking,

camping, fishing, hunting, cross-country skiing, off-road vehicle use,

and various activities associated with nature appreciation. The Service

does not expect any restrictions to those activities as a result of

critical habitat designation.

Some activities may be considered to be of benefit to Mexican

spotted 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.

Consultation Process

Federal agencies are responsible for determining the effects of an

action and whether or not to consult with the Service. When requested,

the Service will review the action agency's determination on a case-by-

case basis to determine concurrence on whether the action is or is not

likely to adversely affect critical habitat. Section 7 consultation on

critical habitat focuses on the effects of actions on owl habitat

regardless of occupancy. The presence or absence of individual or pairs

of spotted owls does not factor into the determination on whether an

action does or does not initiate section 7 consultation on effects to

critical habitat. The trigger initiating consultation on critical

habitat is the action agency's determination that a project may affect

any of the primary constituent elements of critical habitat or reduce

the potential of critical habitat to develop these elements, and is

independent from any action that would affect known individuals.

Federal project assessments should also take into consideration actions

outside critical habitat that may affect areas within critical habitat.

In section 7 evaluation of proposed activities within critical

habitat, the Service uses project descriptions and biological

assessments provided by the action agency. Proposed actions are

individually examined in terms of site-specific impacts to the primary

constituent elements and the reasons for which the critical habitat

unit has been designated. In addition to assessment of individual

proposed actions, the Service also considers the additive effects of

past, on-going, and proposed actions. Proposed projects within critical

habitat are also examined spatially to determine adverse effects to

habitat across the surrounding landscape. The additive effects of

actions in proximity to the proposed project may collectively result in

the appreciable reduction of the value of a critical habitat unit.

Conversely, an isolated proposed action within a large expanse of

unmodified habitat may not adversely affect the function for which a

critical habitat unit was designed.

The range of the owl is subdivided into a number of provincial

areas discussed in the Recovery Unit (RU) section of the draft Recovery

Plan (Service 1995), which constitute the demographic units by which

recovery is to be measured. These geographic subdivisions are based

partly on physiographic and biotic factors, and patterns of owl

distribution. The provinces and local sub-populations of owls are for

the most part interrelated [[Page 29934]] and interconnected.

Provinces, subprovinces, and individual critical habitat units are all

part of a habitat network important to maintaining a stable and well-

distributed population over the range of the owl. The loss of one or

more provinces, or even a major part of a province, could lead to

genetic and demographic isolation of parts of the subspecies' range.

Potential isolation could have a greater near-term effect on some areas

(e.g., the Southern Rocky Mountains--New Mexico and Colorado RU)

because of the present status of owl numbers and distribution within

those areas, than on other areas (e.g., Upper Gila Mountain RU).

Population stability for the owl may depend on the relative location of

large stable population reserves that act as sources for areas where

mortality exceeds recruitment, or where owls are subject to population

fluctuation, or exhibit low reproductive success (Thomas et al. 1990;

Service 1995).

For a wide-ranging subspecies such as the Mexican spotted owl,

where multiple critical habitat units are designated, each unit has

both a local, regional, and rangewide role in contributing to the

conservation of the subspecies. The loss of a single unit may not

jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies, but may result in

local demographic instability and declines in local population trends.

This may affect dispersal and connectivity, and thus, have a

detrimental effect on the stability of the regional population or at

the least on that portion of the region's population where the loss

occurred. This, in turn, may have an adverse effect on linkage to other

provinces leading to further isolation and instability, and reduce the

likelihood of survival of the subspecies. Section 7 analysis of

proposed activities should assess the baseline condition and expected

role of the unit at several scales to determine whether any particular

action would appreciably diminish the value of a critical habitat unit

for the survival and recovery of the owl. These scales should include

the management area and immediate surroundings, and the individual

critical habitat unit and collective units that constitute a recovery

unit.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives and Conservation Recommendations

Where a proposed action is likely to result in the destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat, the Service is required to

provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed action, if

any, in its biological opinion. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are

designed to allow the intended purpose of the proposed action to go

forward, and to remove or mitigate the conditions that would adversely

modify critical habitat. The Service recommends that an action agency

initiate discussions early enough in the planning process to reduce the

likelihood that an action may result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat, and to ensure that the planning

process is not to the point where the development of alternatives is

infeasible. Reviewing widespread and long-term actions such as timber

sale and forest health programs on a programmatic basis would

facilitate this process.

For actions that result in adverse effects but do not result in the

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, the Service

may provide discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize or

avoid the adverse effects of a proposed action. The Service may suggest

minor modifications to a proposed action that results in moderate

impacts to critical habitat. For projects that may result in more

severe impacts, more substantial project changes may be recommended.

For example, in the case of a timber sale, the Service may recommend

that certain cutting units be reduced in size, reconfigured, relocated,

or dropped altogether to avoid impacts to primary constituent elements.

The Service may also recommend alternate timber harvest prescriptions,

or that specific features such as a minimum of large diameter live

trees be retained for snag recruitment.

Other Conservation Measures

To the maximum extent possible, state and private lands were

excluded from the delineation and designation of critical habitat. If

an action carried out by a non-Federal entity affects spotted owls,

that action would be subject to the prohibitions under section 9 of the

Act, that prohibit intentional and non-intentional ``take'' of listed

species and applies regardless of whether or not the lands are within

critical habitat. The term ``take'', as defined by the Act, means to

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or

collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.

There may be some instances where activities on non-Federal lands

may be subject to section 7 requirements. For example, a private party

may require a right-of-way permit through critical habitat on Federal

lands for an action on private lands. In this type of case a section 7

consultation may be required on the Federal land right-of-way permit

because the action requires Federal involvement. The Service does not

expect that there will be many of these types of situations and most

may be handled through informal consultation. However, if a biological

opinion is required, recommendations will be provided to help avoid

impacts to critical habitat consistent with those examples identified

in the previous section.

Frequently actions taken on Indian lands are authorized, funded or

carried out by a federal agency. In those circumstances, that federal

agency, which is frequently the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is required

to consult under section 7 to insure that the action does not

jeopardize a protected species or adversely modify or destroy critical

habitat. However, a number of Tribes (and federal agencies as well)

have begun working with the Service early in their resource management

planning stage to insure that the plan builds in protections for listed

and candidate species and their protected habitat. Although section 7

consultations may still be necessary, sound resource development/

conservation plans minimize the need for additional mitigation

measures.

Section 7 and section 10(a)(1)(B) authorize the Service to permit

the taking of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities

such as timber harvesting. Biological opinions completed as part of

formal section 7 consultation may authorize a set amount of incidental

take associated with Federal activities. For non-Federal actions,

incidental take permit applications must be supported by a Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the

permittee agrees to implement to conserve the species, usually on the

permittee's lands. A key element of the Service's review of an HCP is a

determination of the plan's effect upon the long-term conservation of

the species. An HCP would be approved and a section 10(a) permit issued

if it would minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking and would

not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of

that species in the wild.

The Service expects limited Federal involvement for projects on

state lands and, therefore, few formal section 7 consultations on state

lands that are included in designated critical habitat. For those areas

of private land within critical habitat, section 7 would apply only for

actions that are funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal

agency. The states and private individuals are still subject to the

``take'' prohibitions under section 9 of the Act,

[[Page 29935]] however, and may enter into the section 10 HCP process

where appropriate.

Other Federal laws, such as the National Forest Management Act, the

Federal Land and Policy Management Act, the National Environmental

Policy Act, and various other state and Federal laws and regulations,

also require the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

Summary of Comments

The final rule listing the Mexican spotted owl as threatened was

published in the Federal Register on March 16, 1993 and announcements

of the listing and availability of the final rule were mailed to

Federal, Tribal, state, county, and local agencies and governments, and

all interested parties on the Service mailing list. The rule announced

that the Service had concluded that designation of critical habitat was

prudent, but found that critical habitat was not presently

determinable, and was initiating the gathering of information and the

studies needed to ascertain critical habitat areas. Based on the

information received, the Service issued the proposal rule to designate

critical habitat on December 7, 1994. The proposed rule was sent to

affected Federal, Tribal, state, county, and local agencies and

governments, and notices of the availability of the rule was sent to

all interested parties on the Service's mailing list. Public notices of

the proposal for publication as legal notices were also sent to 18

newspapers throughout the four-state region on December 5, 1994. The

general mailing and newspaper notices requested data and comments from

the government and public on all aspects of the proposal, including

data on the economic impacts of the designation. The notice also

announced a 90-day comment period open until March 7, 1995. On December

19, 1994, the Service sent a request for information on the potential

economic impacts of designating critical habitat to 13 Federal, 12

Tribal, and 10 state agencies, and 4 Governor's and 42 county

government offices. A Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) was prepared based

on the information received and a notice of the availability of that

draft was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 1995 (60 FR

12728; 60 FR 12730). The publication also proposed several revisions to

the original proposal, solicited additional information and comments,

opened an additional 60-day comment period extending to May 8, 1995,

and announced the schedule and location of public hearings. More than

700 parties on the Service's mailing list also received an announcement

of the above subjects. On February 23, 1995, the Service also sent for

publication as legal notices in 36 regional newspapers, an announcement

of the availability of the DEA, solicitation for additional information

and comments, the opening of the additional comment period, and the

schedule and location of public hearings.

Because of anticipated widespread public interest, the Service held

4 public hearings. Approximately 532 people attended the hearings.

About 23 people attended the hearing in Santa Fe, New Mexico; 138 in

Socorro, New Mexico; 46 in Tucson, Arizona; and 325 in Flagstaff,

Arizona. Transcripts of these hearings are available for inspection by

appointment (see ADDRESSES).

A total of 844 written comments were received at the Service's

Ecological Services State Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico: 25

supported the proposed listing; 249 opposed the proposed listing; 9

either commented on information in the proposed rule but expressed

neither support nor opposition, provided additional information only,

or were non-substantive or irrelevant to the proposed listing; and 561

form letters expressed opposition to the designation. Oral or written

comments were received from 158 parties at the hearings: 10 supported

the proposed listing, 146 opposed the proposed listing, and 2 expressed

neither support nor opposition.

In total, oral or written comments were received from 29 Federal,

Tribal, and state agencies and offices; 31 local government offices;

and 172 private organizations, universities, companies, and

individuals. All comments, both oral and written, received during the

comment period are addressed in the following summary. Comments of a

similar nature are grouped into a number of general issues. These

issues and the Service's response to each, are discussed below. Issues

that were addressed in the final rule to list and the petition findings

to remove the owl from the list of threatened species have not been

reiterated and may be found in those Federal Register publications.

General Issues

Issue 1: The Service has characterized owl nesting and roosting

habitat as having a high incidence of large trees with various

deformities but has not quantified these attributes. In addition, the

term old-growth is not properly used or defined when describing owl

habitat and does not correspond to the definition used by the Forest

Service. These inaccuracies preclude the inclusion of this habitat in

critical habitat.

Service Response: The owl uses a variety of forest types, including

deciduous riparian woodlands, pinyon-juniper, pine-oak, mixed conifer,

and spruce-fir. The features and proportion of habitat serving the

various life history needs of the owl also vary throughout the range of

the subspecies and upon vegetation type. However, forested habitat used

for nesting and roosting often contains mature or old-growth stands

with complex structure (Skaggs and Raitt 1988; Ganey and Balda 1989a,

1989b; Kroel and Zwank 1991; Service 1995 and other references

therein). The characteristics typically include a significant component

of mature trees, high basal area, high canopy closure, multi-storied

forest structure, and abundant dead and down woody material.

The commenter is correct in noting that old-growth definitions are

often not quantified when used and may vary among both agencies and

individuals using the term. However, the Service's use of the term has

been limited to noting the incidence of specific attributes in mature

and old-growth habitat, and summarizing the conclusions reached by

studies that may use the term. Quantification of these attributes is

not necessary for qualitative or summary descriptions of owl habitat,

and detailed definitions and methodology may be found in the original

literature source. Features such as large diameter trees, multi-layered

canopy, and snags, may be found in any of numerous definitions of

mature and old-growth conditions. Furthermore, the identification of

owl habitat areas considered for inclusion in critical habitat did not

depend on the identification of old-growth. Identification of habitat

was based primarily on the owl habitat information provided b

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.