Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis, 29886-29908 [06-4695]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29886-29908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4695]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding 
for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis 
occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the California spotted owl 
(Strix occidentalis occidentalis) under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. After reviewing the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that the petitioned action is not 
warranted. However, we will continue to seek new information

[[Page 29887]]

on the biology of the species as well as potential threats. We ask the 
public to submit to us any new information that becomes available 
concerning the status of, or threats to, the species. This information 
will help us monitor the status of this species.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on May 15, 2006. 
You may submit new information concerning this species for our 
consideration at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may send data, information, comments, or questions 
concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor (Attn: CALIFORNIA 
SPOTTED OWL), Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825 
or via fax at 916/414-6710. You may inspect the petition, 
administrative finding, supporting information, and comments received 
during normal business hours by appointment at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Roessler or Jan Knight at the 
above address (telephone: 916/414-6600; fax: 916/414-6712).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition 
to revise the List of Threatened and Endangered Species that contains 
substantial scientific and commercial information that the petitioned 
action may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date 
of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is: (a) 
Not warranted, or (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but that the 
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action 
is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether any 
species is threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being 
made to add or remove qualified species from the List of Threatened and 
Endangered Species. Such 12-month findings are to be published promptly 
in the Federal Register. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a 
petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but 
precluded shall be treated as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, i.e., requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months.
    On April 3, 2000, we received a petition to list the California 
spotted owl (spotted owl) as a threatened or endangered species 
submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Nevada 
Forest Protection Campaign (Center for Biological Diversity 2000), on 
behalf of themselves and 14 other organizations. Along with listing, 
the petition also requested the concurrent designation of critical 
habitat, emergency listing, and emergency designation of critical 
habitat. On October 12, 2000, we published a 90-day finding on that 
petition in the Federal Register (65 FR 60605). In that notice, we 
found that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that listing the California spotted owl may be 
warranted, and we initiated a status review of the taxon. On February 
14, 2003, we published a 12-month finding on the petition in the 
Federal Register (68 FR 7580). In that notice, we found that the 
petitioned action was not warranted because the overall magnitude of 
threats to the species did not rise to the level requiring protection 
under the Act.
    On May 11, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity and five other 
groups filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the Northern 
District of California (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. 
Norton et al., No. C-04-1861) alleging that our 12-month finding 
violated the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 706). 
On September 1, 2004, we received an updated petition, dated September 
2004, to list the California spotted owl as a threatened or endangered 
species and to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing 
based, in part, on information that was not available to us at the time 
we made our original 12-month finding (Center for Biological Diversity 
2004). The updated petition was submitted by the Center for Biological 
Diversity and the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, acting on 
behalf of themselves and six other organizations. The submission 
clearly identified itself as a petition, and included the requisite 
identification information of the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 
424.14(a).
    In view of the new petition, on March 8, 2005, the District Court 
in Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton issued an Order to Show 
Cause why it should not stay the litigation pending the Service's 
action on the new petition. In response to that Order, on March 14, 
2005, we submitted a declaration to the Court stating that: (1) We 
could submit for publication in the Federal Register a 90-day finding 
on the new petition by June 13, 2005, and (2) if we found that the 
information presented in the petition was substantial, we could submit 
for publication in the Federal Register a 12-month finding by March 14, 
2006. At a hearing on March 17, 2005, the Court stayed the case for 90 
days, directed us to report to the Court and the parties concerning the 
status of our review of the petition by June 13, 2005, and continued 
the hearing on pending cross-motions for summary judgment to June 23, 
2005. On April 4, 2005, the Court concurred with the parties' requests 
to continue the hearing date until June 30, 2005, and to allow the 
Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Defendants (American Forest and Paper 
Association, California Forestry Association, and Sierra Pacific 
Industries) until June 23, 2005, to file any responses to our June 13, 
2005, filing. On June 13, 2005, we submitted our 90-day finding to the 
Federal Register, which published the finding on June 21, 2005 (70 FR 
35607). In that finding, we found that the petition presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that 
listing the California spotted owl may be warranted, we initiated a 
status review of the taxon, and we solicited comments and information 
to be provided in connection with the status review by August 22, 2005. 
In light of the June 21, 2005, finding and pursuant to a joint 
stipulation of dismissal by the parties to the litigation, the Court 
dismissed the above case on July 25, 2005.
    On October 14, 2005, we published in the Federal Register a notice 
reopening the public comment period through October 28, 2005 (70 FR 
60051). On February 14, 2006, we filed with the Court our intention to 
deliver the 12-month finding to the Federal Register by May 15, 2006, 
to enable us to incorporate results from the most recent meta-analysis 
of California spotted owls that was delivered to us on February 21, 
2006.

The Petition

    The 2004 petition (Center for Biological Diversity 2004) states 
that historical and recent wildfires, historical logging, drought, 
diseases, insect pests, and other factors resulted in habitat loss and 
fragmentation, which negatively affected spotted owl numbers, 
distribution, and dispersal. The petition describes how fuels build-up 
and changes in forest structure have put some stands at increased risk 
of stand-replacing fire, and that increased risk is considered a threat 
to existing owl pairs across the range of the California spotted owl.
    The petition cites results from the meta-analysis of population 
dynamics of California spotted owls up through 2000 (Franklin et al. 
2004) as evidence that spotted owl populations are declining and that 
management of forests may be a cause of these declines. The petition

[[Page 29888]]

claims that we did not adequately address reported declines in our 2003 
12-month finding (68 FR 7580) due to our heavy reliance on lambda (the 
finite rate of population change), 95-percent confidence intervals, and 
uncertainty.
    The petition contends that the SNFPA (USFS 2004a) does not 
adequately protect large trees, high canopy closure, multiple-canopy 
layers, snags, and downed wood, that it does not provide limits on the 
proportion of areas that can be degraded through logging, and that it 
allows for treatment in more spotted owl Protected Activity Centers 
than does the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (USFS 2001). The petition 
further states that logging under the SNFPA both within and outside of 
the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot 
Project area threatens to further degrade and destroy California 
spotted owl habitat. The petition states that timber harvest on private 
lands threatens to further degrade and destroy spotted owl habitat, 
resulting in continued declines in numbers of spotted owls. The 
petition also states that the California State Forest Practices Code 
provides almost no specific protections for the spotted owl or its 
habitat.
    The petition states that development on private lands in the Sierra 
Nevada and southern California presents a significant threat to the 
California spotted owl, particularly in low elevation riparian hardwood 
habitats. The petitioners further expressed concern that development in 
southern California could prevent dispersal between spotted owl 
populations in southern California, as mountain ranges occupied by 
spotted owls probably act as habitat islands with limited dispersal 
between them.
    The petition states that recreation potentially affects spotted 
owls in several ways, including noise disturbance, construction of 
roads and trails, and expansion of ski resorts. The petition also 
states that grazing is likely to indirectly affect the owl by reducing 
or eliminating riparian vegetation, altering forest structure and fire 
regimes, and reducing prey density. The petition expresses concern that 
West Nile Virus presents a serious potential threat to California 
spotted owls, and recommends that its effects on spotted owls be 
monitored closely. The petition mentions concern that weather poses a 
threat to California spotted owls, and that threats from hybridization 
and site competition with the barred owl (Strix varia) have increased 
in recent years.
    In this finding, we re-analyzed issues raised in the 2000 petition 
(Center for Biological Diversity 2000) and included a new analysis of 
concerns presented for the first time in the 2004 petition (Center for 
Biological Diversity 2004). In our 90-day finding of June 21, 2005 (70 
FR 35607), we briefly analyzed the concerns as described in the 
petition. We stated that five changes that had taken place since our 
2003 finding constituted substantial information that may affect the 
status and distribution of the California spotted owl or change our 
understanding of possible declines in California spotted owl 
populations and thus justified further detailed analysis in a status 
review and 12-month finding. These changes were: (1) Revisions to the 
2001 SNFPA (USFS 2001) in the 2004 SNFPA (USFS 2004a); (2) revisions to 
the California State Forest Practices Code; (3) possible changes to the 
draft meta-analysis of the population dynamics of the California 
spotted owl in the final, published meta-analysis (Franklin et al. 
2004); (4) impacts of recent fires and anticipated future fires in 
spotted owl habitat; and (5) further range expansion of the barred owl. 
In this finding, we analyze these five changes, other concerns 
expressed in the petition, and other pertinent information relative to 
whether the California spotted owl should be listed. Specific concerns 
included in the petition are noted and addressed under each of the 
factors presented below.

Taxonomy and Description

    A summary of taxonomy and description of the California spotted owl 
can be found in the 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580) and is hereby 
incorporated by reference (68 FR 7580).

Genetics

    A discussion of population genetics of the California spotted owl 
can be found in the 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580) and is hereby 
incorporated by reference (68 FR 7580). Subsequent studies analyzing 
mtDNA sequences (Haig et al. 2004; Chi et al. 2005; Barrowclough et al. 
2005) and microsatellites (Henke 2005) confirmed the validity of the 
current subspecies designations for northern (Sq. o. caurina) and 
California spotted owls.

Life History

    Spotted owls in conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada, especially 
above mid-elevation mixed-conifer forests located at about 4,000 to 
5,000 feet (ft)) (1,200 to 1,525 meters (m)), feed primarily on 
northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) (Verner et al. 1992b). 
Spotted owls in the mid-to lower elevations of the mixed-conifer zone 
and the upper elevations of the ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)/
hardwood belt of the Sierras prey primarily on both flying squirrels 
and dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) (Verner et al. 1992b), 
while spotted owls in southern California feed mostly on woodrats 
(Thrailkill and Bias 1989). Flying squirrels typically use older mature 
forests because they provide suitable nest sites, including snags, and 
abundant sources of food including arboreal lichens and truffles, which 
are associated with an abundance of soil organic matter and decaying 
logs (Verner et al. 1992b). In second-growth forests in Oregon, 
northern flying squirrels were found in younger forests if large snags 
and downed logs remained from earlier stands (Carey and Peeler 1995). 
Woodrats and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) accounted for 29 and 16 
percent, respectively, of the total prey items in one study in an 
industrially managed forest in the Sierra Nevada (Clark 2002). 
According to Verner et al. (1992b:69), ``spotted owls in the Sierran 
foothills and throughout southern California, even at high elevations, 
obtain 79 to 97 percent of their energy from woodrats.'' Woodrats are 
most abundant in younger forest and in shrubby habitats and are 
uncommon in pure conifer forests or forests with little shrub 
understory (Williams et al. 1992; Ward et al. 1998).
    A more-complete discussion of California spotted owl life history 
characteristics including dispersal, reproduction, interactions with 
other species, and food habits can be found in the 2003 12-month 
finding (68 FR 7580) and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Distribution and Range

    A discussion of range and distribution can be found in the 2003 12-
month finding for the California spotted owl (68 FR 7580) and is hereby 
incorporated by reference. Since publication of the 2003 finding, 
Gutierrez and Barrowclough (2005:185) noted that the range descriptions 
of the northern and California spotted owl subspecies in American 
Ornithologists' Union (1957) did not include the area between Mt. 
Shasta and Mt. Lassen because spotted owls were not known to occur in 
that area at that time, and that ``the geographic scope of the listing 
was correct'' to use the Pit River as the boundary between the two 
subspecies. Also since the publication of the 2003 finding, we gathered 
information concerning records of spotted owls in Baja California, 
Mexico. In 1887, A.W. Anthony reported seeing a spotted owl in the 
Sierra San Pedro Martir of northern Baja California, Mexico (Bryant 
1889), and, a few years later, may have had a second sighting in the 
same area (Anthony 1893). Wilbur (1987) stated

[[Page 29889]]

that the only other records of spotted owls in Baja California were 
from the La Grulla area, also in northern Baja California, in 1925 and 
1972.

Numbers and Connectivity

    There are no reliable total population estimates for the California 
spotted owl. The number of California spotted owl territories has been 
used as an index to illustrate the range of the species and 
jurisdictions in which it occurs. This number is actually a cumulative 
total of all territories known to be historically or currently occupied 
by at least one spotted owl. This total increases over time as spotted 
owls move to new territories and as researchers survey new areas, even 
though many territories with sufficient suitable habitat may not be 
occupied in years following their initial discovery and some 
territories may no longer have sufficient suitable habitat to support 
spotted owls due to logging or fires. Thus, the number of territories 
should not be viewed as a population estimate for the taxon.
    A total of 2,306 California spotted owl territories has been 
documented, 1,865 (81 percent) of which are in the Sierras (Service 
2002). National forests in the Sierras contain a total of 1,399 
territories: Modoc (3), Lassen (138), Plumas (254), Tahoe (173), Lake 
Tahoe Basin Management Unit (14), El Dorado (202), Stanislaus (234), 
Humboldt-Toiyabe (2), Inyo (5), Sierra (226), and Sequoia (148). 
National parks in the Sierras have 129 territories: Lassen Volcanic 
(6), Sequoia/Kings Canyon (69), and Yosemite (54). Fourteen territories 
in the Sierras are on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in the 
Sierra Nevada, four are on California State Lands Commission Land, 
three are in State Parks, one is on California Department of Forestry 
(CDF) land, one is on Native American land, and 314 are on private 
lands (Service 2002).
    Estimates for total number of spotted owl territories in southern 
California include 440 (Service 2002), 547 (Verner et al. 1994a), and 
578 (Beck and Gould 1992). In southern California, spotted owls occupy 
``islands'' of high-elevation forests separated by lowlands of 
chaparral, desert scrub, and, increasingly, human development (Noon and 
McKelvey 1992, LaHaye et al. 1994). The islands comprise 15-20 
populations with 3-270 individuals per population. Islands are 
separated from each other by 10-72 kilometers (km) (6 to 45 miles (mi)) 
(Verner et al. 1992a, Guti[eacute]rrez 1994, LaHaye et al. 1994). These 
populations appear to be isolated from one another; no inter-mountain 
movements were documented for any of the 478 juvenile California 
spotted owls banded in the San Bernardino Mountains (LaHaye et al. 
2001). Using our most-recent estimate of 440 total territories for 
southern California, the known territories on national forests are as 
follows: 109 on the Los Padres, 64 on the Angeles, 138 on the San 
Bernardino, and 18 on the Cleveland (Service 2002). There are two 
territories known on BLM land, eight on State park lands, six on Native 
American lands, and 95 on private lands. In addition, there is one 
known territory in Mexico (Service 2002). These 441 territories in 
southern California and Mexico comprise 19 percent of the total 2,306 
California spotted owl territories.
    Since publication of the 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580), we 
obtained additional information regarding spotted owl numbers on 
private lands in the Sierras. Six timber companies (W.M. Beaty and 
Associates, Inc.; Collins Pine Company; Fruit Growers Supply Co.; 
Roseburg Resources Co.; Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI); Soper-Wheeler 
Co.) own or manage the vast majority of California spotted owl habitat 
in private lands in the Sierra Nevada. SPI lands include more than 200 
California spotted owl territories (Steve Self, SPI, in litt. 2005). 
There are 36 records of nest sites within 4.8 km (3 mi) of W.M. Beaty-
managed lands, and three nest sites either on or immediately adjacent 
to W.M. Beaty-managed lands (Bob Carey, W.M. Beaty, in litt. 2005). 
There are no known spotted owl territory-centers or nests on lands 
owned by Fruit Growers (John Eaker, Fruit Growers, in litt. 2006). 
(spotted owl territory-centers are typically the locations of nest 
trees, but if that information is unavailable, they can be the 
locations where fledgling owls were found, locations where a pair was 
detected, or locations where a single owl was detected) There are 40 
spotted owl territory-centers situated either on or within 1.6 km (1 
mi) of the land owned by Soper-Wheeler (Paul Violett, Soper-Wheeler, in 
litt. 2006). There are no known California spotted owl territory-
centers or nests on lands owned by Collins Pine, and there are fewer 
than 10 territory-centers or nests immediately adjacent to their lands 
on national forest land (Jay Francis, Collins Pine, in litt. 2006). 
There are no known California spotted owl territory-centers or nests on 
Roseburg Resources lands, but there are four territory-centers or nests 
within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of their boundaries (Rich Klug, Roseburg, in 
litt. 2006).

Habitat Use

    Suitable habitat for spotted owls includes nesting, roosting, and 
foraging habitats. Nesting and roosting habitat of spotted owls 
typically includes many large trees (e.g., Call 1990; Zabel et al. 
1992a, b; Moen and Guti[eacute]rrez 1997; North et al. 2000; USFS 
2001a). For example, mean ( standard deviation) diameter at 
breast height (dbh) of the nest trees in Guti[eacute]rrez et al. (1992) 
were: 115.6  37.3 cm (45.5  14.7 in) (sample 
size = 81) in northern Sierran conifer forests; 118.6  49.8 
cm (46.7  19.6 in.) (sample size = 41) in southern Sierran 
conifer forests; 94.0  35.3 cm (37.0  13.9 in.) 
(sample size = 139) in southern California conifer forests; and 74.9 
 42.2 cm (29.5  16.6 in.) (sample size = 13) in 
riparian/hardwood forests. They found that the ``dbh of nest trees in 
our current sample was significantly greater than that of conifers in 
the Sierra Nevada even in 1900'' (Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1992:92; 
emphasis in text). Mean diameters of nest trees in Blakesley (2003) 
were 117  0.29 cm (46.1  0.1 in.) (sample size 
= 132). Basal areas of nesting and roosting sites have been shown to be 
greater than those in random sites in the Sierras and in southern 
California (Bias 1989 in Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1992; Laymon 1988 in 
Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1992; LaHaye et al. 1997). Spotted owls nest in 
a variety of species of live trees and snags in pre-existing structures 
including cavities, broken top trees, and platforms such as mistletoe 
brooms, debris platforms and old raptor or squirrel nests; therefore 
nesting habitat includes more large live, decadent, and dead trees than 
do forests not used for nesting (Laymon 1988; Call 1990; Bias and 
Guti[eacute]rrez 1992; Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1992, 1995; LaHaye et 
al. 1997).
    High amounts of canopy closure and structural diversity (multi-
layered canopy) are typical of nesting and roosting stands used by 
spotted owls in the Sierras and in southern California (e.g., Laymon 
1988; Call et al. 1992; LaHaye et al. 1992, 1997; Zabel et al. 1992a; 
Moen and Guti[eacute]rrez 1997; North et al. 2000; Seamans 2005). 
Nesting and roosting stands often have mean canopy closures of greater 
than 75 percent (Bias and Guti[eacute]rrez 1992; Guti[eacute]rrez et 
al. 1992). Verner et al. (1992b:60; emphasis in text) summarized: 
``Habitats used for nesting typically have greater than 70 percent 
total canopy cover (all canopy above 7 feet [2.1 m]), except at very 
high elevations where canopy cover as low as 30-40 percent may occur 
(as in some red fir stands of the Sierra Nevada). Nest stands typically 
exhibit a mixture of tree sizes and usually at least two canopy layers, 
with some very large, old trees usually present. * * * Stands used for 
roosting are similar to those used for nesting, with relatively high 
canopy

[[Page 29890]]

cover, dominated by older trees with large diameters, and with at least 
two canopy layers * * *''
    Spotted owls forage in forests with ample open flying space within 
and beneath the canopy, so extremely dense stands typically are not 
used for foraging (Verner et al. 1992b; Gutierrez et al. 1995). Verner 
et al. (1992b:60) summarized: ``Foraging habitats include suitable 
nesting and roosting sites as well as more open stands, regularly down 
to 40-50 percent canopy cover, that are generally similar in structure 
and composition to nesting and roosting habitat.'' Foraging habitat in 
conifer forests is enhanced by the presence of hardwoods, and foraging 
habitat at lower elevations in the Sierras and in southern California 
tend to have less downed woody debris and be less multi-layered (Verner 
et al. 1992b).
    In the study area with largest sample sizes in Zabel et al. 
(1992a), 24 spotted owls during the breeding season spent 69 percent of 
their time in forests with 40-69 percent canopy closure and 22 percent 
of their time in forests with greater than 70 percent canopy closure. 
During the non-breeding season, 18 spotted owls spent 64 percent of 
their time in suitable-habitat forests with 40-69 percent canopy 
closure and 22 percent of their time in forests with greater than 70 
percent canopy closure (Zabel et al. 1992a). California spotted owls 
avoid open areas (0-30 percent canopy cover; Gutierrez et al. 1992) and 
recently logged forests (Call 1990; Zabel et al. 1992b; Gutierrez and 
Pritchard 1990). As previously mentioned, suitable habitat includes 
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. In light of the typical canopy 
cover in these habitats (>70 percent for nesting/roosting and >40 
percent for foraging), 40 percent canopy cover is a minimum threshold 
for suitable habitat. Other studies also support this 40-percent 
canopy-cover threshold for suitable habitat (e.g., Call et al. 1992; 
Verner et al. 1992b; Zabel et al. 1992; Moen and Gutierrez 1997).
    The Forest Service defines spotted owl habitat by using California 
Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) classes. In the CWHR system, tree-
dominated habitats are classified relative to six tree size classes and 
four canopy-closure classes. Size class 1 (seedling tree) areas are 
comprised of trees less than 2.5 cm (1 in.) dbh, size class 2 (sapling 
tree) areas are of trees 2.5-15 cm (1-6 in.) dbh, size class 3 (pole 
tree) stands are of trees 15-28 cm (6-11 in.) dbh, size class 4 (small 
tree) stands are of trees 28-61 cm (11-24 in.) dbh, sizes class 5 
(medium/large tree) stands are of trees greater than 61 cm (24 in.) 
dbh, and size class 6 (multi-layered tree) stands have class 5 trees 
over a distinct layer of class 4 or 3 trees and have more than 60 
percent canopy closure (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Canopy-closure 
classes are: S (sparse; 10-24 percent closure), P (open; 25-39 percent 
closure), M (moderate; 40-59 percent closure), and D (dense; 60-100 
percent closure) (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). The Forest Service 
considers suitable California spotted owl habitat as forest stands 
represented by CWHR classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 (Mayer and 
Laudenslayer 1988) in mixed conifer, red fir, ponderosa pine/hardwood, 
foothill riparian/hardwood, and east-side pine forests, and considers 
nesting habitat as forest stands represented by CWHR classes 5M (with 
at least 50 percent canopy closure), 5D, and 6 (USFS 2004a). The 
Service agrees with this classification depending on the structural 
condition of 4M and 4D stands. For a complete description of habitat 
use and home range of California spotted owls, see our 2003 12-month 
finding (70 FR 35607) and Service (2006), both of which are hereby 
incorporated by reference. We supplement information in that finding 
with the following discussion of habitat use by spotted owls.
    Habitat modeling of northern spotted owls in California (Franklin 
et al. 2000) and Oregon (Olson et al. 2004) showed that survival was 
maximized when northern spotted owl territories included large blocks 
of mid- and late-seral forests with some edge, but that fecundity was 
maximized with small blocks of northern spotted owl habitat and large 
amounts of edge between spotted owl habitat and other habitats. This 
difference was due, presumably, to the presence of woodrat prey in 
brushy clearcuts and forest edges (Franklin et al. 2000; Olson et al. 
2004). Conversely, population analysis of California spotted owls in 
the central Sierra Nevada with habitat covariates at the territory 
scale indicated there was no relationship between fecundity and habitat 
heterogeneity (Seamans 2005). However, survival rate and territory 
occupancy in that study were positively related to the amount of mid- 
and late-seral forests (Seamans 2005). Further, it was estimated that 
reproductive output was strongly influenced by weather, and it was 
hypothesized that reproductive output by California spotted owls at an 
individual territory was conditional on the territory being occupied 
during years when weather conditions were conducive to successful 
reproduction (Seamans 2005). Reproduction of spotted owls in the 
southern Sierra Nevada increased with canopy closure because more pairs 
successfully nested, not due to the production of more young per pair 
(Lee and Irwin 2005; Lee in litt. 2005). This increase in canopy 
closure appeared to be more of a minimum threshold requirement than a 
trend, with only marginal increases in spotted owl reproduction as 
canopy closure increased past the minimum. The minimum appeared to 
require that at least 44 percent of the 430-ha (1,063-ac) immediately 
surrounding the territory-center was forest with greater than 40 
percent canopy cover. Once this minimum was met, the relative amount of 
forests with intermediate (40-70 percent) and dense (greater than 70 
percent) canopy cover had little measurable effect on reproduction of 
spotted owls. These findings were conditional on having a suitable nest 
tree in the stand and are, therefore, not applicable to fire-suppressed 
stands with heavy ladder fuels in which such trees would be lost in a 
fire (Lee and Irwin 2005; Lee in litt. 2005).
    Additional information concerning habitat use and home range of 
California spotted owls can be found in our 2005 90-day finding (70 FR 
35607) which is incorporated by reference.

Habitat Condition

Changes to Habitat
    Our 2003 12-month finding (70 FR 35607) included a lengthy 
discussion of historic changes to California spotted owl habitat which 
is hereby incorporated by reference. Below, we supplement that 
discussion with additional information related to wildfires and timber 
harvest.
    The petition states that historic and recent wildfires, as well as 
more than 100 years of logging in the Sierras, resulted in habitat loss 
and fragmentation, which negatively affected spotted owl numbers, 
distribution, and dispersal (Center for Biological Diversity 2004). 
Suppression of wildland fires, established in California as State and 
Federal policy by the early 20th century, virtually eliminated forest 
fires. Up to the 1990s, it was estimated that only 269 ha (664 ac) 
burned annually in the 237,146-ha (586,000-ac) Eldorado National 
Forest, whereas approximately 11,736 ha (29,000 ac) burned annually 
before European arrival (Weatherspoon et al. 1992). Due to the lack of 
frequent fires, many forested areas have grown dense layers of 
understory trees and have accumulated large amounts of woody debris on 
the forest floor, thereby increasing the chances of high-intensity, 
stand-replacing crown fires in the

[[Page 29891]]

Sierras and in the mountains of southern California (Kilgore and Taylor 
1979; McKelvey and Weatherspoon 1992; Weatherspoon et al. 1992; 
Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). The species composition of these 
forests has shifted from fire-hardy species to more shade-tolerant, 
fire-sensitive species such as white fir and incense-cedar (Verner et 
al. 1992; Weatherspoon et al. 1992). Additionally, in areas throughout 
the range of the California spotted owl, trees that are dead or dying 
due to disease add to the already dense accumulations of woody debris. 
One of the challenges in assessing the effects of fire management in 
the habitat of California spotted owls is the need to weigh the long-
term benefits of reducing the risk of catastrophic fires against any 
potential short-term effects on the quality or quantity of spotted owl 
habitat. In southern California, fire history records since 1910 
indicate that the average patch-size of large fires has varied little 
over the years, but the occurrence of small fires has increased every 
year (Keeley et al. 1999 in USFS 2005a). The total acres burned in the 
four national forests of southern California have increased during each 
of the last three decades (USFS 2005a).
    Selective harvest of merchantable trees in the Sierras--often old-
growth trees--was the norm during the late 1800s through the 1970s, 
resulting in the loss of much suitable habitat and the production of 
forests with younger average tree ages. From the 1970s onward, clearcut 
harvests became increasingly more common, which resulted in patchworks 
of spatially heterogeneous forests (McKelvey and Johnston 1992). ``The 
mixed-conifer zone of the Sierra Nevada, therefore, has few or no 
stands remaining that can be described as natural or pristine'' 
(McKelvey and Johnston 1992:241). These activities ``undoubtedly 
impacted spotted owl habitat, though we cannot determine the extent of 
that impact. In general, the proportion of the area supporting conifer 
forests appears to have been reasonably static over the last 90 years'' 
(McKelvey and Johnston 1992:246). From the late 1980s onward, cutting 
was increasingly based on salvaging timber damaged or killed by fires 
or disease (salvage harvests) (McKelvey and Johnston 1992). Annual 
total volume of timber cut in the Sierras decreased from approximately 
1.6 to 1.9 billion board feet during the late 1940s to early 1950s to 
approximately 1.3 to 1.5 billion board feet from the mid 1950s to the 
late 1970s (McKelvey and Johnston 1992:Fig. 11U). Levels of timber 
harvest on national forest lands declined sharply after implementation 
of the California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines in 
1993 (USFS 2001). From 1993 through 2004, annual harvest in national 
forests dropped over 80 percent from 450 to 86 million board feet 
(mmbf); similarly, annual timber harvest from 1993 to 2004 on private 
lands in the Sierras declined 37 percent from about 1 billion board 
feet to 632 mmbf (California Board of Equalization 2006). The average 
annual harvest from 1993 to 2004 was 188.5 mmbf (California Board of 
Equalization 2006). Currently, all cutting of timber in the national 
forests in the Sierra Nevada is conducted as part of the implementation 
of the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot 
Project (Pilot Project) and fire-fuel reductions via the SNFPA (USFS 
2004a); the amounts and placements of these harvests, and how they are 
anticipated to affect spotted owls, are presented in other sections 
below.
    The petition states that historical logging, drought, diseases, 
insects, and other factors have contributed to the loss of habitat for 
the isolated populations of spotted owls in southern California (Center 
for Biological Diversity 2004). Timber harvest in southern California 
was never as extensive as that in the Sierra Nevada. Harvest volume in 
Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties was about 10 to 20 times higher 
in the 1960s than in the early 1980s, and the decline has continued 
since the 1980s (McKelvey and Johnston 1992). Timber harvest in the 
four national forests of southern California only occurred during 2 
years from 1993 to 2004. In 2001, harvest volume was 1 mmbf, and in 
2003, harvest volume was 390,000 board feet (California Board of 
Equalization 2006). Harvests in national forests of southern California 
in recent years have primarily been salvage and hazard trees along 
roads and near administrative sites (Mike Gertsch, USFS, in litt. 
2002). In 2005, sales of saw timber in the national forests of southern 
California increased to approximately 10 mmbf due to salvage-harvesting 
of trees that had died from drought, insects, and fires (Loe in litt. 
2006). Similarly, private-land harvests in southern California from 
1993 to 2002 averaged only 130,000 bf annually, but increased to 7 mmbf 
in 2003 and 1.4 mmbf in 2004 (California Board of Equalization 2006) 
due to an increase in salvage-harvesting. Tree mortality and salvage 
harvesting likely had some adverse effects on spotted owls in southern 
California. The extent of this effect is unknown, but the quantity 
harvested is a small fraction of that removed decades earlier (27.4 
mmbf was cut in 1963 in southern California alone; McKelvey and 
Johnston 1992).
    Forest types important to spotted owls in southern California 
include lower montane forests and bigcone-Douglas fir stands, which are 
patchy in nature and often located within expanses of chaparral. The 
Forest Service indicates that stand-replacing fires in southern 
California forests are still relatively uncommon; the few fires that 
have occurred have either been wind-driven fires in steep terrain or 
have spread into forests from lower elevations, most often from 
chaparral. However, in the San Bernardino Mountains, stand-replacing 
fires resulted in a net loss of 18 percent of the bigcone-Douglas fir 
stands between 1938 and 1978. Furthermore, recent history in other 
areas suggests that such fires will become more common (USFS 2005a).
    Large-scale fires have occurred in spotted owl habitat in recent 
years in southern California. For example, in the Los Padres National 
Forest, wildfires burned to some extent 42,986 ha (106,220 ac) or 18 
percent of California spotted owl habitat since 1989. In the Monterey 
Ranger District, where most of the California spotted owl habitat in 
Los Padres National Forest is located, 34 percent of 61,625 ha (152,280 
ac) of California spotted owl habitat burned to some extent since 1989. 
The intensities and effects of these fires on spotted owl habitat are 
unknown, but many of these areas probably burned only lightly (Kevin 
Cooper, USFS, in litt. 2005). In San Bernardino National Forest, five 
spotted owl territories in the San Diego Ranges were completely burned 
in 2003, and nine territories in the San Gabriel Mountains were burned 
so heavily in 2002 and 2003 that it is doubtful that they can support 
spotted owls at this time (USFS 2004b, Steve Loe, USFS, in litt. 2005). 
In Cuyamaca State Park, which is located in the Laguna Mountains 
adjacent to the Descanso Ranger District of Cleveland National Forest, 
the 2003 Cedar Fire completely burned approximately six spotted owl 
territories (Kirsten Winter, USFS, in litt. 2005). These 20 territories 
that were completely burned during recent years comprise 4.5 percent of 
the 440 total territories known for southern California. These fires 
had a negative impact on spotted owls, but we anticipate that fuels-
reduction activities in southern California will decrease the frequency 
of fires in the future.
Present Habitat in the Sierra Nevada
    Approximately 2,024,000 ha (5 million ac) of suitable habitat for

[[Page 29892]]

California spotted owls (defined as CWHR classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6) are 
located within national forests in the Sierra Nevada, which is about 43 
percent of the area managed under the SNFPA (Tom Efird, USFS, in litt. 
2006). Additionally, Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks, Yosemite 
National Park, and Lassen Volcanic National Park collectively include 
approximately 186,676 ha (461,286 ac) of suitable habitat for spotted 
owls (Beck and Gould 1992).
    National forests in the Sierra Nevada include approximately 560,000 
ha (1.4 million ac) of private land within their administrative 
boundaries. Private land inholdings are much greater in extent in the 
northern national forests (especially the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe) 
than in the southern Sierra Nevada forests. Much of the private land 
within the boundary of the Lassen and Plumas national forests is in 
contiguous blocks, leaving national forest lands also fairly 
contiguous. Most private land on the Tahoe National Forest is in 
checkerboard ownership, and the Eldorado National Forest has a 
combination of checkerboard ownership and large contiguous blocks of 
inholdings.
    SPI is the largest private landowner in the range of the California 
spotted owl. SPI characterizes its timberland based upon an intensive 
set of measured inventory plots (1 plot every 1.6 ha (4 ac)) and does 
not categorize its inventory directly in terms of CWHR types. SPI owns 
433,000 ha (1,070,000 ac) of land within the range of the California 
spotted owl, of which 370,000 ha (913,000 ac) are classified by SPI to 
be nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat (CWHR 3D, 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 
6), and the remainder is classified as prey-producing, non-forest, or 
plantation (Ed Murphy, SPI, in litt. 2006). (The SPI suitable-habitat 
class includes the smaller tree-size class CWHR class 3D, unlike the 
USFS and the Service.) Data provided by SPI indicate that many areas 
considered suitable habitat are of high quality. Of the nesting, 
roosting, or foraging habitat, 108,000 ha (267,000 ac) contain ``nest-
site characteristics'' (with approximately 50 trees at least 56 cm dbh 
per ha (20 trees at least 22 in. dbh per ac) and a canopy closure at 
least 60 percent), and 260,000 ha (642,000 ac) are considered nesting/
roosting habitat (CWHR 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6) (Murphy in litt. 2006). SPI's 
``nest-site characteristics'' type is derived from measurements at 38 
reproductive northern spotted owl (sample size = 22) and California 
spotted owl (sample size = 16) nest sites. During the next 100 years, 
SPI estimates that, as their forests mature, habitat with nest-site 
characteristics will more than double from 25 to 53 percent of all 
California spotted owl habitat on SPI land. Other habitat types will 
also change proportionally through time: From 29 to 15 percent for 
nesting/roosting habitat (excluding nest-site habitat); from 29 to 13 
percent for foraging habitat; and from 12 to 16 percent for prey-
producing habitat (SPI 1999a, b; Murphy in litt. 2006).
    W.M. Beaty manages approximately 69,565 ha (171,900 ac) within the 
range of the California spotted owl. Of this total, 6,235 ha (15,408 
ac) are considered suitable habitat for California spotted owls using 
the criteria used in CDF (2005) (quadratic mean diameter (QMD) at least 
27.9 cm (11 in) and overstory canopy closure at least 40 percent) and 
1,384 ha (3,420 ac) are considered suitable habitat using more-
conservative criteria for northern spotted owls developed by W.M. Beaty 
and the Service (QMD at least 30.5 cm (12 in) and overstory canopy 
closure at least 50 percent) (Carey in litt. 2005). Fruit Growers owns 
approximately 44,515 ha (110,000 ac) acres of forest in the range of 
the California spotted owl (Eaker in litt. 2006). Soper-Wheeler owns 
approximately 25,900 ha (64,000 ac) of land within the range of the 
California spotted owl, of which approximately 15 percent is in what 
they define as nesting/roosting habitat (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6), 65 
percent is what they define as foraging habitat (CWHR 3S, 3P, 3M, 3D, 
4S, 4P, 5S, 5P) and 20 percent is non-habitat (CWHR 2S, 2P, 2M, 2D) 
(Ryan McKillop, Soper-Wheeler, in litt. 2006). Within the western 
Sierras, approximately 93 percent of the 16,997 ha (42,000 ac) owned by 
Soper-Wheeler is timbered (Violett in litt. 2006). Collins Pine owns 
approximately 38,040 ha (94,000 ac) in the range of the California 
spotted owl, approximately 95 percent of which is timbered (Francis in 
litt. 2006). Roseburg Resources has 50,000 to 70,000 timbered acres in 
the range of the California spotted owl, but they have not classified 
their lands relative to spotted owl habitat (Klug in litt. 2006).
Present Habitat in Southern California
    There are approximately 473,473 ha (1,170,000 ac) of general 
habitat types where spotted owls were known to reproduce within the 
range of spotted owl in southern California and the central Coast 
Ranges (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). However, the total amount of 
suitable habitat in southern California is likely lower than that 
amount because habitat types are a broad generalization of what 
California spotted owls actually require for habitat to be suitable 
(for example, a minimum canopy cover is a requisite for suitable 
habitat, but is not captured in characterization of habitat types). A 
discussion of spotted owl habitat in southern California can be found 
in the 2003 12-month finding for the California spotted owl (68 FR 
7580) and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Population Trends

    The petition cites results from the meta-analysis of population 
dynamics of California spotted owls up through 2000 (Franklin et al. 
2004) as evidence that spotted owl populations are declining and that 
management of forests may be a cause of these declines (Center for 
Biological Diversity 2004). This meta-analysis analyzed demographic 
data of spotted owls on the Lassen (1990 to 2000), Eldorado (1986 to 
2000), Sierra (1990 to 2000), and San Bernardino (1987 to 1998) 
national forests and in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks (1990 
to 2000). The petition claims that we did not adequately address 
reported declines in our 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580) due to our 
heavy reliance on the finite rate of population change (lambda), 95-
percent confidence intervals, and scientific uncertainty (Center for 
Biological Diversity 2004). Our analysis of more-recent data up through 
2005 (Blakesley et al. 2006) indicates more-positive trends for spotted 
owls in the Sierras and is discussed at length below.
    Spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada may have undergone at least three 
periods of decline due to: Elimination of prey species by intensive 
livestock grazing and burning in the 1800s; logging beginning in the 
late 1800s, which removed basic structural elements of spotted owl 
habitat; and logging of stands in recent decades that regenerated 
following initial entry (Gutierrez 1994). However, causal mechanisms of 
negative effects to spotted owls ascribed to the high levels of timber 
harvest circa 1990 have been substantially reduced as timber harvest 
levels dropped and increased protection measures were instituted in the 
mid- and late-1990s.
    A discussion of studies concerning population trends of California 
spotted owls can be found in the 2003 12-month finding for the 
California spotted owl, and that information is incorporated by 
reference (68 FR 7580). Early population studies used an analysis 
called a ``projection matrix'' to estimate population trend, and many 
of these early studies showed declining California spotted owl 
populations.

[[Page 29893]]

However, projection matrices were determined to bias results of spotted 
owl population trends because they do not account for movement of 
spotted owls in and out of the population (Franklin et al. 2004). With 
the exception of the San Bernardino study area, California spotted owl 
study areas were considered ``open,'' (owls moved in and out of the 
study areas) and, as stated by Franklin et al. (2004:53), ``we do not 
expect [traditional projection matrices] to yield useful inferences for 
geographically open systems.'' Thus, we place greater weight on results 
of more recent meta-analyses (Franklin et al. 2004; Blakesley et al. 
2006), which estimated growth rates for each study area using the 
``Pradel'' method, than on methods that employed the projection matrix. 
The Pradel method avoids potential biases that cause uncertainty in 
estimating population trend using the projection matrix because it 
incorporates emigration and immigration rates (Franklin et al. 2004). 
In our 2003 finding, we included a discussion of the results of a meta-
analysis using the Pradel method for five California spotted owls 
demographic study areas--Lassen (LAS), Eldorado (ELD), Sierra (SIE), 
Sequoia/Kings Canyon (SKC), and San Bernardino (SAB)--using a draft 
manuscript of data that was collected from 1990 to 2000 for the ELD, 
SIE, and SKC study areas, and from 1990-1998 for the SAB study area 
(later published in Franklin et al. 2004).
    A more-recent draft meta-analysis report was submitted to the 
Service on February 21, 2006 (Blakesley et al. 2006) for data collected 
from 1990 to 2005 in four study areas in the Sierras. The San 
Bernardino study area was not included in this report because there 
were no survey data after 1998. This new meta-analysis used methods 
that were very similar to those used in Franklin et al. (2004), but 
incorporated many improvements; methods used in this new meta-analysis 
are described in Blakesley et al. (2006). At the request of the 
Service, this new analysis also included population viability analyses 
(PVAs). Overall, results of the new meta-analysis (Blakesley et al. 
2006) reported more positive indications of population trends for the 
spotted owls of the Sierra than did the older analysis, as summarized 
below.
    In the meta-analysis of all four study areas, survival rates of 
adult spotted owls (territorial owls at least 3 years old) were 
estimated to have increased through time (Blakesley et al. 2006). This 
result is important because ``spotted owl population growth is most 
sensitive to changes in adult survival'' (Blakesley et al. 2006:27). 
Analysis of reproductive output on individual study areas showed 
varying degrees of an even-odd year effect (with good reproduction in 
even years, poor reproduction in odd years) for the four study areas. 
As with the earlier meta-analysis, lambda, or the finite rate of 
population change, was calculated as an annual estimate to determine if 
the population increased, decreased, or remained stationary. In the 
earlier meta-analysis (Franklin et al. 2004), lambda for LAS showed no 
trend (was stationary), lambda for SKC decreased and then increased 
over time, and lambdas for ELD and SIE decreased through time, with 
that of the ELD being especially steep. With the additional years' data 
included in the new meta-analysis, no strong evidence was found for 
decreasing linear trends in lambda on any of the study areas. Lambda 
for SKC decreased then increased over time, lambdas for LAS and SIE 
were relatively stationary, and lambda for the ELD showed decreases 
through the 1999 time period, and then subsequent increases (Blakesley 
et al. 2006).
    Mean lambdas estimated for the ELD (1.007) and SKC (1.006) were 
greater than 1.0, indicating possible increasing populations, the mean 
lambda estimated for the SIE (0.992) was nearly 1.0, indicating a 
possible stationary population, and the mean lambda estimated for LAS 
(0.973) was less than 1.0, indicating a possible declining population. 
Because these values for lambdas were estimates (it is not possible to 
calculate the exact value), confidence intervals were calculated to 
provide an understanding of how close the estimated mean was to the 
true mean. For example, if a 95-percent confidence interval for an 
estimated mean lambda of 0.98 was between 0.96 and 1.02, this would 
tell us that even though our estimated mean lambda was 0.98, we are 95 
percent confident that the true lambda is between 0.96 and 1.02. In 
this example, the confidence interval included 1.0, which means we are 
95 percent confident that the true lambda is not statistically 
different from a stationary population. In the meta-analysis results, 
the 95-percent confidence intervals for estimates of mean lambda for 
all four study areas in the Sierras included 1.0, indicating that 
statistically the populations were not different from stationary 
populations. The confidence interval for LAS barely included 1.0, 
however, suggesting that the spotted owls in that study area may have 
been declining (Blakesley et al. 2006).
    Using annual lambda estimates calculated in the meta-analysis, 
Blakesley et al. (2006) evaluated the trajectory of each study 
population through time. This exercise used a hypothetical starting 
population of 100 owls on each study area, and calculated the number of 
owls that would remain over the study period (start and end years 
differed for some study areas depending on survey effort (Blakesley et 
al. 2006)). As presented in the report, if there were 100 spotted owls 
in SKC in 1993, hypothetical trajectory estimated that there would be 
113 spotted owls in 2003. Similarly, for a 1992-2004 study period for 
the other study areas, if there were 100 spotted owls in each of these 
areas in 1992, there would be 69 in LAS, 127 in ELD, and 95 in SIE in 
2004. To better understand this exercise as it related to the entire 
population of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, we noted that there 
were 400 spotted owls to start (100 owls per study area), and a 
projected end population of 404 spotted owls (by summing 113, 69, 127, 
and 95).
    Finally, for each population, a PVA was produced on predictions of 
declines in the population greater than 10, 20, and 30 percent for 2-20 
years into the future (Blakesley et al. 2006). In a PVA, the 
probability of a certain decline happening in a certain timeframe can 
range from 0.0 to 1.0 (i.e., 0 percent to 100 percent). Ninety-five-
percent confidence intervals on probabilities of declines greater than 
10 percent were 0.0 to 1.0 within 5-10 years for all four study areas. 
Because these probabilities were so imprecise (i.e., the confidence 
interval covered from 0-100 percent probabilities of decline), 
inferences were restricted to 7 years into the future. Even after this 
restriction, predictions had very imprecise confidence intervals. PVAs 
indicated that the probabilities of observing declines of greater than 
10 percent in 7 years were 0.64 (95 percent confidence interval = 0.27 
to 0.94) for LAS, 0.23 (95 percent confidence interval = 0.00 to 0.92) 
for ELD, 0.41 (95 percent confidence interval = 0.09 to 0.78) for SIE, 
and 0.25 (95 percent confidence interval = 0.00 to 0.89) for SKC. The 
large confidence intervals indicate that these probabilities still were 
inexact, making inference from these estimates difficult. In addition, 
the study modeled the probability of observing declines and increases 
of greater than 10, 20, and 30 percent at 7 years in the future for a 
hypothetical population with lambda = 1.0 and temporal process standard 
deviation (estimated from these spotted owl studies) = 0.082. This 
hypothetical population exhibited 0.31, 0.15, and 0.05 probability of 
declining by greater

[[Page 29894]]

than 10, 20, and 30 percent, respectively, and 0.33, 0.20, and 0.11 
probability of increasing by greater than 10, 20, and 30 percent, 
respectively (Blakesley et al. 2006).
    To summarize the recent meta-analysis results for spotted owl 
populations in the Sierras: Adult survival increased through time; most 
populations demonstrated an increasing or stationary trend; there was 
no strong evidence for decreasing linear trends in lambda on any of the 
study areas; modeling of four study areas demonstrated that total 
hypothetical spotted owl numbers did not decrease over time; and the 
PVA results appeared to be somewhat equivocal because of the 
imprecision of the estimates in the real populations and because the 
modeled probabilities of increase and decrease in the hypothetical 
populations were very similar. We find that with the exception of the 
LAS study area, California spotted owl populations in the Sierras show 
little evidence of a decline, and attempts to model future population 
trends are too imprecise to provide an accurate projection.
    In southern California, approximately 71 percent of past or current 
territories of spotted owls are located on public lands, virtually all 
of which are within four national forests (Los Padres, Angeles, San 
Bernardino, and Cleveland). Other than a few project-specific surveys, 
there have been no surveys for spotted owls in the Los Padres National 
Forest since 1991 (Cooper in litt. 2005) or in the Cleveland National 
Forest since 1995 (Winter in litt. 2005), and results from surveys in 
the Angeles National Forest since 1994 have not been compiled (Ann 
Berkley and Leslie Welch, USFS, in litt. 2005). We have the most 
information for spotted owls in the San Bernardino National Forest, 
which contains the largest population of spotted owls in southern 
California. Early modeling conducted for spotted owls in the San 
Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains area indicated possible 
substantial declines (LaHaye et al. 1994). Using different methods and 
analyzing more years of data than those in LaHaye et al. (1994), the 
2004 meta-analysis reported that the mean lambda for the San Bernardino 
study area up through 1998 was less than 1.0 (0.978), but was not 
statistically different from that of a stationary population (Franklin 
et al. 2004). Surveys in the San Bernardino were not conducted from 
1999 to 2002. Surveys of many of the territories in the San Bernardino 
Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains were resumed in 2003 and 2004 
(LaHaye et al. 2003, 2004), but these surveys were not included in the 
recent meta-analysis (Blakesley et al. 2006) due to the lack of surveys 
from 1999 to 2002. Identifying trends from southern California data is 
confounded by factors including: Surveying of additional territories 
through time (from 42 territories in 1987 to 148 territories in 1998); 
surveying only approximately one-half of the San Bernardino territories 
in 2003 (63 territories) and 2004 (77 territories) that were surveyed 
in 1998; lack of separate analysis of occupancy of the same individual 
territories from 1987 to 1998; and high number of occupied territories 
near the end of the survey period (i.e., 100-109 occupied territories 
in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1995) (LaHaye et al. 2001).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424, set forth procedures for adding species to 
the Federal endangered and threatened species list. In making this 
finding, information regarding the status and threats to this species 
in relation to the five factors in section 4 of the Act is summarized 
below. In this evaluation, we confine the scope of our judgment of the 
future actions and programs to reasonably foreseeable outcomes of 
established management direction, rather than a more speculative 
assessment of possible future management scenarios.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

Stand-replacing Fires
    Existing habitat used by California spotted owls appears to be 
vulnerable to stand-replacing catastrophic fire. As described in the 
2003 12-month finding (70 FR 35607) (which we hereby incorporate by 
reference) and above in ``Changes to Habitat,'' removal of large 
overstory trees by logging in conjunction with decades of fire 
suppression has produced forests that are denser, composed of more 
small and medium-sized trees that are more fire-prone than those 
historically in the Sierras and in southern California. The petition 
discusses how changes in forest structure and fuels build-up have put 
some stands at increased risk of stand-replacing fire, and that 
increased risk is considered a threat to existing owl pairs across the 
range of the California spotted owl (Center for Biological Diversity 
2004). Dense stand conditions in California forests have increased tree 
mortality due to drought, and insect and disease outbreaks (University 
of California 1996). Cumulatively, these conditions have increased the 
magnitude of the threat of catastrophic stand-replacing fires to 
nesting and roosting habitats used by spotted owls.
    According to the Forest Service, the greatest continuing threat to 
spotted owls is loss of habitat and subsequent population losses of 
spotted owls due to stand-replacing fire in unnaturally dense forest 
stands (USFS 2004a; 2005a). During the past 30 years, an average of 
17,400 ha (43,000 ac) of wildfire burned annually in the Sierras; in 
the past 10 years, this average has increased to about 25,500 ha 
(63,000 ac) annually (USFS 2004a). The Forest Service believes that it 
will take at least 20 years of fuels treatments before significant 
changes in fire behavior are achieved (USFS 2004a). They estimate that 
about 24,281 ha (60,000 ac) of forests in the Sierras will be burned 
annually in wildfires over the next 20 years (USFS 2004a), which totals 
485,622 ha (1,200,000 ac) or 10.9 percent of the 4.5 million ha (11 
million ac) within these national forests. They estimate that about 25 
percent of these fires will be high-intensity fires, which would affect 
2.7 percent of all of their lands. They also estimate that 
approximately 90 spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) (6.8 
percent of 1,321 total PACs) would be ``lost to wildfire'' during that 
time (USFS 2004a:278) (This 6.8 percent of total PACs lost is less than 
the 10.9 percent of total forest lost above because many acres 
anticipated to be burned would be outside of PACs in non-suitable 
habitat.) They further estimate that 50 years from now, after 
implementation of the SNFPA, the area burned in the Sierras would drop 
to about 19,830 ha (49,000 ac) annually (USFS 2004a). Recent fires in 
southern California, as presented above in ``Changes to Habitat,'' are 
indicative of anticipated fire-frequencies and fire-intensities 
anticipated for the near future.
Fuels-Reduction Activities
    The petition (Center for Biological Diversity 2004) contends that 
the SNFPA (USFS 2004a) does not adequately protect large trees, high 
canopy closure, multiple-canopy layers, snags, and downed wood, that it 
does not provide limits on the proportion of areas that can be degraded 
through logging, and that it allows for treatment in more PACs than 
does the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (USFS 2001). The petition 
further states that logging under the SNFPA both within and outside of 
the Pilot Project area threatens to further degrade and destroy 
California spotted

[[Page 29895]]

owl habitat. Below, we discuss how guidelines in the SNFPA strive to 
maintain spotted owl habitat while reducing the threat of wildfire, and 
we provide details regarding the many restrictions and guidelines that 
limit the proportion of areas that can be logged in spotted owl 
habitat.
    Concern over potential disastrous wildfire effects on human 
communities has strongly influenced management direction toward 
reducing fuels in proximity to human communities in the forested 
interface between wildlands and urban areas. Response to this concern 
is manifested in nationwide activities under the National Fire Plan of 
2000 which established general guidance and funding for land-management 
agencies and communities involved in fire suppression and fuels 
reduction. To reduce the risk of wildfire to communities while 
modifying fire behavior over the broader landscape, the Forest Service 
is conducting a fuels-reduction treatment program (the SNFPA) 
throughout National Forest System lands in the Sierras (USFS 2004a; 
guidelines and regulations most pertinent to this finding are presented 
in Factor D).
    The SNFPA addresses fuels treatments in two areas: The Pilot 
Project area within the Lassen and Plumas national forests and the 
Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest; and all other 
national forest lands in the Sierras. In Factor D, we discuss the 
regulations, standards, and guidelines that govern fuels reductions and 
timber harvests in the Pilot Project area. In brief, within the Pilot 
Project area, all fuels-reduction and timber-harvest activities are 
prohibited within the 411 PACs and spotted owl habitat areas (404.7 ha, 
1,000ac) surrounding all known territory-centers; suitable nesting 
habitat (CWHR 5M, 5D, 6) is managed in Defensible Fuel Profile Zones to 
provide for at least 40 percent canopy cover, retain all trees greater 
than 76.2 cm (30 in) dbh, and to retain at least 40 percent of the 
basal area (generally in the largest trees); and there are specific 
retention requirements in Defensible Fuel Profile Zones and areas 
thinned using individual-tre