[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