[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5758-5764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2634]


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

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