Utah Northern Goshawk Habitat Management

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Utah Northern Goshawk Habitat Management

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposal to prepare management direction for Northern Goshawk

Habitat Management on the Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal, Uinta

and Wasatch-Cache National Forests in the Intermountain Region (R4),

USDA Forest Service.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Intermountain Region is

proposing to amend management direction in specific Forest Plans and/or

the Intermountain Regional Guide.

This notice describes the proposed management direction (in the

form of goals, standards and guidelines, and monitoring requirements),

a desired habitat condition statement giving a portrayal of land

conditions expected to result from the implementation of the proposed

management direction over time, information concerning public

participation, and the name and address of the agency official who can

provide additional information. The purpose of this notice is to begin

the scoping phase of public involvement in this process.

DATES: Written comments should be sent to the Utah Northern Goshawk

Project by March 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: USDA Forest Service, Utah Northen

Goshawk Project Team, c/o Uinta NF, PO Box 1428, Provo, UT, 84601, or

on-line at: www.fs.fed.us/r4/goshawk, or e-mail to: goshawk3/

[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Hayman, 801/342-5100 or 435/

865-3700; e-mail: goshawk3/[email protected].

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jack Blackwell, Intermountain Region Forester,

324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Intermountain Region of the Forest

Service filed a notice in the Federal Register (Vol. 63, No. 172, pages

47224-47225) on September 4, 1998 stating that the Forest Service, in

cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management and the USDI, Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS), was reviewing the latest Utah state-wide

information relating to the sustainability of habitat for the northern

goshawk (Northern Goshawk in Utah: Habitat Assessment and

Recommendations (Graham et al. 1999, in press)) and the USDI, FWS 12-

month finding on a petition to list the northern goshawk (FR, June 29,

1998, Vol. 63, No. 124, pages 35183-35184). This notice stated that the

Intermountain Region was proposing to amend regional direction,

Regional Guide, and/or Forest Plans to incorporate interim direction in

the form of goals and objectives, desired habitat conditions, standards

and guidelines, and monitoring requirements developed in response to

new scientific information concerning the management of forested

habitat for the northern goshawk and its prey in Utah. At that time,

the Forest Service expected the determination of proposed management

direction to be completed and available for public review by November

30, 1998. Due to unforeseen delays in the development of this

direction, the determination of proposed management direction was not

completed until now. The comments received in response to the prior

Federal Register notice were considered in the development of the

proposed management direction that follows.

The Forest Service, in accordance with 36 CFR Sec. 219.19, develops

land and resource management plans that, in part, manage fish and

wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native and

desired non-native vertebrate species in the particular planning area.

Forest Plans describe the long-term direction for managing National

Forests. Among other things, decisions in Forest Plans establish

multiple-use goals and objectives and establish forest-wide management

requirements (standards and guidelines). In compliance with their own

laws and regulations, and in accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, the Forest Service proposes to

amend specific Forest Plans and/or Intermountain Regional Guide.

The purpose and need for this new or revised management direction

is:

Purpose

The purpose of this action is to provide management direction that

maintains or restores functioning forested habitats for the northern

goshawk and its prey on National Forest system lands within the Ashley,

Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National

Forests. Functioning forested habitats are important in sustaining

viable populations of northern goshawk in Utah.

Need

A habitat assessment and management recommendations for the

northern goshawk and subsequent habitat conservation strategy were

developed for the State of Utah in response to suspected downward

trends

[[Page 5759]]

in goshawk habitat and/or populations. Because of the important role

National Forest System lands will play in restoring or maintaining

forested habitat for the northern goshawk, there is an immediate need

to incorporate the principles and recommendations in these documents

into management direction, for the reasons described below.

Changes in forest structure, especially large tree removal, and

other forest management activities singly or in combination may

negatively affect goshawk populations (Crocker-Bedford 1990). Perhaps

one of the greatest influences on habitat is fire exclusion from forest

and woodland ecosystems. Successful fire exclusion has altered native

successional pathways, resulting in the ingrowth of shade-tolerant tree

species throughout Utah. With these changes in habitat came suspected

declines in goshawk populations in much of the western United States

(Bloom and others 1986, Herron and others 1985, Kennedy 1989). [Graham

et al. 1999, in press]

In 1991, the goshawk was designated as a sensitive species in the

USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region (Region 4). In March 1997, the

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources classified the goshawk as a

sensitive species. This designation identifies species in the State

that are most vulnerable to population declines or habitat loss and

stimulates management actions for the conservation of the species. To

address the issue of declining goshawk habitat in Utah, a Northern

Goshawk Interagency Technical Team was created. This team was charged

with completing an assessment for the State of Utah.

The habitat assessment (Graham et al. 1999, in press) provided a

detailed description of current habitat conditions and capabilities and

found them adequate to support nesting goshawks at the current time and

at the scale analyzed. However, the scientists were not able to predict

future habitat conditions because of the great latitude in management

allowed by current land management plans and policies on state and

federal lands. Current management plans and policies are flexible

enough to both permit activities that address habitat needs for the

goshawk as well as allow those that do not.

In response to the findings in the habitat assessment, a team of

Forest Service biologists, supported by Utah Division of Wildlife

Resources, USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service and USDI, Bureau of Land

Management biologists, began the development of a Habitat Conservation

Strategy (HCS) for the northern goshawk. This strategy, completed in

September 1998, recommends additional site specific measures that, if

implemented, will ensure that habitat for the goshawk is managed

consistently across federal and state lands in Utah. By incorporating

the principles recommended in the HCS ``agencies will contribute to

sustaining short and long term habitat for goshawks which is important

to their overall viability across the state. * * * Consistency in

management of habitat is key to providing a reasonable probability of

goshawk persistence.'' [HCS, 1998]

All forested habitats in Utah are potentially suitable habitat for

the goshawk. This includes coniferous and aspen forests, but does not

include woodlands (e.g., pinyon/juniper). The assessment (Graham et al.

1999, in press) found that 84 percent of the medium and high valued

nesting habitat, and 81 percent of the optimum and high valued habitat

for the northern goshawk in Utah are found on National Forest System

lands. Due to the important role National Forest System lands will play

in restoring or maintaining habitat for the northern goshawk in Utah,

the Forest Service elected to take immediate action to determine how to

incorporate principles recommended in the HCS into management actions

proposed in the future.

To aid in this determination, each of the six National Forests in

Utah completed Supplemental Information Reports (SIRs). The SIRs

analyzed if the HCS represented significant new information or changed

conditions bearing on their current Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan) management direction or effects identified in the

accompanying Final Environment Impact Statement. Preliminary findings

in the SIRs indicated that amendments to current Forest Plans and/or

the Intermountain Regional Guide will be required to implement some

elements of the strategy.

This action will amend management direction in Forest Plans and/or

the Intermountain Regional Guide. When forest plans for the affected

National Forests are revised or suitably amended (estimated to be 2-4

years out), the management direction will be reviewed and updated as

needed. This immediate action will maintain habitat quantity, quality,

and distribution on National Forest System lands important to

supporting viable populations of goshawks in Utah for the remainder of

the current planning period. It will also provide consistency in

project design, implementation and monitoring where habitat for the

goshawk and its prey is involved within the Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake,

Manti-LaSal, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests. By taking

action now, options for future management direction that these National

Forests may want to consider during forest plan revision or amendment

efforts will be retained.

It is recognized that the northern goshawk ranges throughout much

of the western United States; however, this project only addresses

National Forest System lands for the six National Forests stated above.

The scope of this project is limited to this area because the

Conservation Strategy and Agreement, and the scientific assessment

supporting the strategy, only addressed northern goshawk habitat in the

State of Utah, ``Utah was the largest geographic area used for

assessing goshawk habitat. It would have been useful to look at a

regional scale to set the Utah assessment in context to explore how the

habitat in Utah is related to habitat in adjacent states. But, time,

budget, and personnel constraints, did not permit the wider analysis.

Only recommendations and inferences on the status of goshawk habitat

within Utah were requested by the involved and cooperating agencies.''

(Graham et al. 1999 (in press)).

Benefits of viewing habitat at larger scales were recognized.

However, the biologists involved in the development of the assessment

and strategy stated ``It is our belief that the use of the state scale

(i.e., its aggregation of landscapes) to conduct a habitat based

analysis for PVA'' [population viability analysis] ``will provide us

with the information needed to understand the different ecological

processes that influence the life histories of this far ranging,

broadly distributed species.'' [HCS]

The Intermountain Regional Forester (Region 4) assembled an

interdisciplinary team in October 1998 to begin the development of

proposed management direction that responded to the identified purpose

and need. The Team Leader is Peter Karp, Forest Supervisor, Uinta

National Forest. To help guide the development of the proposed

management direction, the team first generated a desired habitat

condition statement (DHC). The DHC is a portrayal of land conditions

expected to result from implementing the proposed management direction.

It describes the desired habitat quantity, quality and distribution for

the northern goshawk and its prey that the agency intends to

continuously strive for over time.

[[Page 5760]]

Desired Habitat Condition

The habitat assessment by Graham et al. (1999, in press) states

that all forested landscapes in Utah are potentially suitable as

goshawk habitat for some portion of their life cycle (Conservation

Strategy and Agreement for the Management of Northern Goshawk Habitat

in Utah (HCS), page 4). Forested landscapes include those areas

dominated by coniferous and aspen forest; but not woodlands such as

pinyon-juniper.

In general, when forested landscapes of Utah are in a properly

functioning condition they will provide excellent habitat for the

goshawk and its prey (Graham et al. 1999, in press). Desired habitat

attributes important to the home range of the goshawk and its prey, as

stated in the HCS, include:

1. Diverse forest cover types with strong representation of

early seral tree species dominate the landscape.

2. High quality habitat patches that are no more than 60 miles

apart, preferably less than 20 miles apart, exist throughout

landscapes (connected habitat).

3. Forested landscapes have 40% of the coniferous land area and

30% of the aspen land area dominated by large trees, well

distributed. Large trees are defined based on the average size of

trees found in the area and by the site potential.

4. Habitats for prey and other associated species are present to

meet their needs as described by Reynolds et al. 1992 and Graham et

al. 1999, in press (i.e., snags, down woody, cover, etc).

5. A variety of structural stages as recommended by Reynolds et

al. (1992) are present.

A balance of structural stages across the landscape is needed to

ensure that the larger structural stages are sustained over time. Trees

densities in the smaller structural stages should promote accelerated

tree growth into the larger structural stages and maintain crown

development important to meeting desired canopy closures in the larger

stages. Outside of nest areas, it is desired to have open understories

in the larger structural stages with trees irregularly spaced (Reynolds

et al. 1992; Graham et al. 1999, in press).

An essential component of goshawk home range is goshawk nesting

habitat. Nesting habitat and the associated post-fledgling family are

an important component in contributing to habitat connectivity across

landscapes. This habitat is also important for the continuous

recruitment of individuals (goshawks) into the population. Both habitat

connectivity and continuous recruitment are important components for

sustaining viable populations of the northern goshawk in Utah. Thus, it

is desirable to have nesting habitat and the associated post-fledgling

areas well-distributed within and across forested landscapes. Desired

nest area habitat varies from the overall home range habitat in that it

typically occurs in older-aged stands that have a higher density of

large trees, high tree canopy cover, and higher understory tree

density.

To understand relationships of these desired habitat conditions

they must be viewed in scales at tens of thousands of acres or larger.

Scales greater than hundreds of thousands of acres are too large to

ensure that desired habitat connectivity attributes are sufficiently

distributed.

Achieving desired habitat conditions requires the restoration and

protection of degraded habitats, protection of native processes (Graham

et al. 1999, in press), and maintenance of habitats already in desired

conditions. Vegetative management should emphasize managing forest

landscapes within their bio-physical limits and understanding how

disturbances influence the resulting stand composition and structures

(Graham et al. 1999, in press). Native species should be emphasized in

forest management activities. Their persistence in landscapes gives the

best indication of ecosystem sustainability because native species

evolved with the disturbance events of the preceding several thousand

years (USDA Forest Service, PFC, 1997).

The habitat outlook should be favorable for the goshawk and its

prey when forest management emphasizes properly functioning condition,

importance of large trees, maintenance and restoration of native

processes, adaptive management, and the role of fire (Graham et al,

1999, in press).

Where the Proposed Management Direction Will and Will Not Be

Applied

The proposed management direction will apply to National Forest

System lands within the Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal, Uinta,

and Wasatch-Cache National Forests found in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.

This direction will apply to forested habitats across these National

Forests except in the following areas:

(1) Designated wilderness areas;

(2) Administratively or Congressionally designated areas with a

defined purpose (e.g., Research Natural Areas, National Recreation

Areas, etc.);

(3) Areas currently managed or allocated for concentrated

recreation use and development;

(4) National Forest System lands that are significantly influenced

by lands in other ownership (e.g., high use urban interface areas); or,

(5) Areas currently managed or allocated for mining, special use

permits allowing vegetative disturbance or treatments (vegetation will

be managed to meet the intent of the permit), or administrative site

uses and development.

In these areas, current forest plan direction will still apply. In

addition, any valid, prior existing rights on National Forest System

lands will not be affected by this proposal.

The proposed direction will not apply in areas described above

because:

(a) The forested habitats in these areas are managed for other

purposes as defined by current policy and regulations; or,

(b) The use permitted under the existing forest plan would not

allow for the management of habitat as outlined in the proposed

management direction; or

(c) The degree of influence resulting from adjacent lands in other

ownership precludes application of this direction.

The agency believes that managing these areas consistent with

current management direction is important to meeting other goals and

objectives in the forest plan and that doing so would not result in the

loss of habitat needed to maintain viable populations of goshawks in

the State of Utah. A full disclosure of the effects of these exclusions

will be clearly articulated and documented during the environmental

analysis process.

While the proposed direction will not apply in these areas, their

contribution to sustaining habitat components for the goshawk and its

prey is still important and will need to be analyzed through the

landscape assessment process, and their influence evaluated. For

example, areas such as wilderness may provide suitable goshawk habitat

which may influence how habitat attributes in areas outside the

wilderness are managed through time. However, vegetation in the

wilderness is managed to meet the goals of the wilderness resource

which may or may not be contrary to suitable goshawk habitat.

Proposed Management Direction for Habitat of the Northern Goshawk

(Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal, Uinta, Wassatch-Cache

National Forests)

Note: (S)=Standard; (G)=Guideline

Home Range (Foraging, Nest and Post-Fledgling Areas)

Native Processes

Goal: Restore or emulate natural disturbance regimes and other

[[Page 5761]]

ecological processes to maintain or restore ecosystem integrity within

landscapes important to sustaining habitat for the northern goshawk and

its prey.

(G) Management actions should be designed to encourage conditions

that are within the historic range of variation (HRV), remaining within

the variability of size, intensity, and frequency of native disturbance

regimes characteristic of the subject landscape and ecological

processes.

(G) Within disturbed ecosystems, management action should be

designed to be consistent with restoration objectives.

Composition

Goal: Maintain or restore the native characteristics of ecosystem

composition important to sustaining habitat for the northern goshawk

and its prey.

(G) Native plant species from locally adapted seed sources are

preferred for use in all management activities. Non-native plant

species have the potential to cause systems to move outside of historic

range of variation (HRV), therefore the use of non-native species

should be justified to indicate how their use is important to maintain

or restore a cover type to functioning conditions.

(G) When initiating vegetative management treatments in forested

cover types, provide for a full range of seral stages, by forested

cover type, that achieve a mosaic of habitat conditions and diversity.

Each seral stage should contain a strong representation of early seral

tree species. Recruitment and sustainability of early seral tree

species in the landscape is needed to maintain ecosystem resilience to

perturbations. While species composition may vary by location, an

expected species mix is as follows:

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

Cover type Early seral Mid seral Late seral

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

Ponderosa Pine.............. PP=AS PP>AS PP>AS

Mixed Conifer (montane)..... PP=AS>DF>BS>TF PP=AS=DF>BS>TF DF>BS>TF=PP>AS

Mixed Conifer (boreal)...... LP>ESTF LP=ES>TF ES>LP>TF

Spruce/Fir.................. AS>ES>TF AS>ES>TF ES=TF>AS

Aspen....................... AS AS AS

Lodgepole Pine.............. LP LP LP>TF

Aspen/Lodgepole............. AS>LP LP=AS LP>AS=TF

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

PP = ponderosa pine; AS = aspen; DF = Douglas-fir, TF = white or subalpine fir; LP = lodgepole pine; BS = blue

spruce; ES = Engelmann spruce.

Equal sign (=): both species may be expected to be found within the cover type. Depending on site, either

species may dominate or both may co-dominate the site.

Greater than (>): the first species would normally be expected to be more prevalent than the second species.

Structure

Goal: Maintain or restore the mix of forest vegetative structural

stages needed to sustain the desired mature and old forest stages in a

landscape. The desired amount of mature and of is 40% in the portion of

the landscape covered by conifers and 30% in the portion covered by

aspen, well distributed. This is necessary to sustain habitat and

habitat connectively for the goshawk and its prey.

(G) Assess landscapes at the 5th-6th order Hydrologic Unit Code

(HUC) or equivalent ecological scale (tens of hundreds of thousands of

acres), to determine distribution of forest vegetative structural

classes. Use the best existing available information to complete this

assessment. These assessments should be used to describe the existing

structural conditions and then determine opportunities to move the

existing conditions toward the desired structural habitat conditions.

(G) Planned vegetative management treatments (excluding unplanned

and unwanted wildland fire) in the mature and/or old structural stages

in a landscape that is at or below the desired percentage of land area

in mature and old structural stages (40% conifer, 30% aspen), should be

designed to maintain or enhance the characteristics of these structural

stages. The percentage of land area in mature and old structural stages

treated should not move out of the mature and old structural stage.

Planned treatments may vary from this guideline if the action was

assessed through the biological evaluation (BE) process, and the BE

concluded that the action is consistent with the intent of the

Conservation Strategy and Agreement for Management of the Northern

Goshawk in Utah.

Goal: Manage forested cover types within landscapes to retain, and

sustain over time, standing dead trees (snags) and their distribution

important to the habitat needs of goshawk prey species and

characteristic of healthy, functioning ecosystems.

(G) When initiating vegetative management treatments in forested

cover types, leave the following minimum number and size of snags. If

the minimum number of snags is unavailable, green trees should be

substituted. If the minimum size is unavailable, then use largest trees

available on site. It is desirable to have snags represented in all

size classes above the minimum available on the site. The number of

snags should be present at the stand level on average and, where they

are available, distributed over each treated 100 acres. This

distribution is needed to meet the needs of prey species that utilize

this habitat.

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

Minimum snags

Cover type (per 100 Minimum preferred size

acres)

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

Ponderosa Pine................. 200 18''dbh/30'ht.

Mixed Conifer.................. 300 18''dbh/30'ht.

Spruce/Fir..................... 300 18''dbh/30'ht.

Aspen.......................... 200 8''dbh/15'ht.

Lodgepole Pine and Aspen/ 300 8''dbh/15'ht.

Lodgepole Pine.

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

[[Page 5762]]

Goal: Manage cover types within landscapes to retain down logs and

woody debris and their distribution characteristic of healthy,

functioning ecosystems. These habitat components are important to the

habitat needs of goshawk prey species.

(G) When initiating vegetative management treatments, prescriptions

should be designed to retain the following minimum amount and size of

down logs and woody debris. These habitat components should be present

at the stand level on average and, where they are available,

distributed over each treated 10 acres. This distribution is needed to

meet the needs of prey species that utilize this habitat.

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

Minimum down

logs (per 10 Minimum coarse

acres) (down Minimum log size (diameter/length) woody debris,

logs take (mid-point diameter; or if minimum 3''

Cover type precedence size not available, largest diameter (tons

over tons of available on the site) per 10 acres,

coarse woody inclusive of

debris) down logs)

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

Ponderosa Pine............................. 30 12''/8' 50

Mixed Conifer.............................. 50 12''/8' 100

Spruce/Fir................................. 50 12'/8' 100

Aspen...................................... 50 6'/8' 30

Lodgepole Pine and Aspen/Lodgepole Pine.... 50 8''/8' 50

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

Goal: In land areas dominated by mid-aged, mature, and old

structural stages (VSS 4,5,6) within a landscape, maintain or restore

canopy closure to provide habitat for the goshawk and its prey.

(G) When initiating vegetative management treatments in land areas

dominated by mid-aged, mature, and old structural stages (VSS 4,5,6)

within a landscape, treatments should be designed to maintain or

restore an average of 40% canopy closure. If 40% canopy

closure is not within the historic range of variation, manage for

canopy closures that are consistent with HRV.

Home Range (Nest and Post-Fledgling Areas Only)

Goal: Provide well distributed habitat for successful goshawk

nesting and brood rearing (post-fledgling area) within and across

landscapes (5th-6th order HUC or equivalent ecological scale). This

will provide for habitat connectivity across the state and continuous

recruitment of individuals into the population, both of which are

important to sustaining viable populations of goshawks.

(G) If a historic nest is not associated with an active nest area,

management direction for home range habitat should be applied.

(S) When an active nest area has been identified, identify 2

alternate nest areas and 3 replacement nest areas. The next two

guidelines provide recommended direction for implementation of this

standard.

(G) Each nest area (active, alternate and replacement) should be

approximately 30 acres (total of approximately 180 acres) in size when

sufficient suitable habitat exists. If sufficient amounts of suitable

habitat are not present, use existing suitable habitat that is

available.

(G) Alternate nest areas should be identified in suitable habitat

with similar vegetative structures as the active nest areas.

Replacement nest areas should be identified in habitat which will

develop similar vegetative structures as the active nest area at the

time the active and alternate nest areas are projected to no longer

provide adequate nesting habitat.

(S) Prohibit forest vegetative manipulation within active nest

areas during the active nesting period. The active nesting period will

normally occur between March 1st and September 30th.

(G) Restrict management activities and permitted human use (i.e.,

those activities for which a written permit is issued) in active nest

areas during the active nesting period unless it is determined that the

disturbance is not likely to result in nest abandonment. If the

disturbance is likely to result in abandonment, a biological evaluation

(BE) must be completed. To implement the action the BE must conclude

that the action is consistent with the intent of the Conservation

Strategy and Agreement for Management of the Northern Goshawk in Utah.

(G) Forest vegetative manipulation within active, alternate and

replacement nest areas should be designed to maintain or improve

desired nest area habitat. Use the active nest area habitat

characteristics as an indicator of the desired nest area habitat, and

as the best available information for nest area habitat for that cover

type.

(G) Identify a Post-Fledgling Area (PFA) which encompasses the

active, alternate and replacement nest areas and additional habitat

needed to raise fledglings. A PFA should be approximately 420 acres in

size (exclusive of nest area acres) when sufficient suitable habitat

exists. If sufficient amounts of suitable habitat are not present, use

existing suitable habitat that is available.

(G) Forest vegetative manipulation within the PFAs should be

designed to maintain or improve the same habitat features as discussed

for the goshawk home range (i.e., stand structure, snags, down logs,

nest trees important in the life histories of the goshawk and its prey

species common to the geographic location), except:

(a) In VSS 4,5,6, provide canopy closure in excess of 50% when

available. If 50% canopy closure is not within the historic range of

variation, manage for canopy closures that are consistent with HRV.

(b) Openings created as a result of mechanical vegetative

treatments should not exceed the following by cover type:

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

Maximum created opening

Cover type size

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

Ponderosa pine and Mixed conifer 2 acres.

Spruce/fir................................ 1 acre.

Aspen and Lodgepole pine.................. Follow current management

direction.

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

(c) Management activities should be restricted during the active

nesting period. The active nesting period will normally occur between

March 1st and September 30th.

(d) Where timber harvest is prescribed, plan a transportation

system to minimize disturbance.

[[Page 5763]]

Proposed Monitoring Requirements

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

Variation which would

cause further

Activities, effects and Monitoring method Precision/reliability Measurement Reporting period evaluation and/or

resources to be measured frequency change in management

direction

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

Goshawk territory occupancy Forest Level: Moderate/High............... Annually......... Every 3 years......... If monitoring reveals

Whichever is greater: a 20% decline in

Random sample of at territory occupancy

least 20 territories over a 3 year period.

or 50% of all known

territories

Goshawk habitat connectivity Forest Scale: Use GIS Moderate/High............... Completion or 5 years............... Forest Scale: If a

and Habitat diversity to track the spatial update of a landscape scale

location and size of landscape assessment finds that

the mature and old assessment less than 40% of the

forest structure coniferous or 30%

aspen forested area

are dominated by

mature and old

structure patches.

Goshawk habitat diversity Snag Project Scale: Monitor Moderate/Moderate........... Annually sample 5 years............... If 25% of the blocks

Management snag requirements for 25% of completed sampled do not meet

timber harvest and projects guideline

prescribed fire requirements.

projects affecting

forested habitat.

Random sampling of

100 acres blocks

which cover 10% or

more of a project

area

Goshawk habitat diversity Down Project Scale: Monitor Moderate/Moderate........... Annually sample 5 years............... If 25% of the blocks

Woody Material down woody 10% of complete sampled do not meet

requirements for projects guideline

timber harvest and requirements.

prescribed fire

projects affecting

forested habitat.

Random sampling of 10

acres blocks which

cover 5% or more of

the project area

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

Alternatives

A range of alternatives will be considered. One of these will be

the ``no-action'' alternative, which would continue current management

under the current forest plans. Other alternatives will examine the

effects of varying approaches that would maintain or restore

functioning forested habitats across the aforementioned National

Forests that are important to sustaining a viable population of the

northern goshawk in Utah.

Scope and Longevity

The proposed management direction will only apply to National

Forest System lands within the Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal,

Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests. New or revised management

direction will apply until forest plans for the aforementioned National

Forests are revised or suitably amended (projected to be 2-4 years).

The proposed direction will not apply to projects that have been

approved prior to the effective date of the amendments.

Involving the Public

During the scoping process, the Forest Service is seeking

information and comments from Tribal Governments, Federal, State, and

local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be

interested in or affected by the proposed action. Please note, comments

received in response to this solicitation, including names and

addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public

record on this proposed action and will be available for public

inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and

considered. Pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 1.27(d), any person may request the

agency to withhold submission from the public record by showing how the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons

requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA,

confidentiality may be granted only in limited circumstances, such as

to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester

of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and

when the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and

notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or

without name and address.

A series of open houses will be held across Utah in February, 1999,

to gain a better understanding of public issues and concerns, as

follows:

2/16/99....................... Provo....................... 12:00-2:00 pm.............. Historic County

Courthouse, Room

319, 51 S.

University Ave.

2/16/99....................... Richfield................... 6:00-8:00 pm............... Quality Inn, 540

South Main.

2/17/99....................... Panguitch................... 12:00-2:00 pm.............. Courthouse, Jeep

Posse Room, 55 East

Center.

2/17/99....................... Cedar City.................. 6:00-8:00 pm............... Sharwan Smith Ctr,

Cedar Breaks Room,

Southern Utah

University.

2/23/99....................... Vernal...................... 12:00-2:00 pm.............. Forest Supervisor's

Office, 355 N.

Vernal Ave.

2/24/99....................... Moab........................ 12:00-2:00 pm.............. Moab Information

Center, Center and

Main.

2/24/99....................... Price....................... 6:00-8:00 pm............... Prehistoric Museum,

Classroom, 155 East

Main.

2/25/99....................... Salt Lake City.............. 12:00-2:00 pm.............. Dept. of Natural

6:00-8:00 pm Resources,

Conference Room A-B,

1594 West North

Temple.

[[Page 5764]]

Release and Review of Environmental Document

It is anticipated that the environmental analysis will be completed

and available for public comment in May, 1999. The Forest Service will

publish a legal notice in the Utah papers of record announcing its

availability as well as a Notice of Availability in the Federal

Register. The comment period is expected to be 30 days. A final

decision is expected by late July, 1999. The decision on what

management direction will be implemented, and reasons for the decision,

will be documented in the decision document.

Information and updates concerning this proposal will be available

electronically on the Project's website at www.fs.fed.us/r4/goshawk.

Dated: January 28, 1999.

Jack G. Troyer,

Deputy Regional Forester, Intermountain Region.

[FR Doc. 99-2634 Filed 2-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M