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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-13606

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** June 6, 1995
- **Citation:** 60 FR 29914

## Text

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
woodl

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-13606. Public record. Not legal advice.