Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Response to Court on Significant Portion of the Range, and Evaluation of Distinct Population Segments, for the Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi, 63123-63140 [E7-21902]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 216 (Thursday, November 8, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63123-63140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Response to Court 
on Significant Portion of the Range, and Evaluation of Distinct 
Population Segments, for the Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter 
gentilis laingi)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Response to court on significant portion of the range, and 
evaluation of distinct population segments.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 
response to the May 24, 2004, order of the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia in Southwest Center for Biological 
Diversity, et al. v. Norton, et al. (Civil Action No. 98-0934 (RMU)), 
directing the Service, on remand, to determine whether Vancouver Island 
constitutes a significant portion of the range of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) and whether the goshawk should be 
listed as threatened or endangered on Vancouver Island, in connection 
with our 1997 finding on a petition to list the Queen Charlotte Goshawk 
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best scientific and 
commercial data available, we conclude that Vancouver Island is a 
significant portion of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's range and that 
listing the subspecies on Vancouver Island is warranted.
    In addition to addressing the court's remand, we have assessed 
whether listing is warranted for the Queen Charlotte goshawk beyond 
Vancouver Island. Our review has indicated that the subspecies' 
populations in British Columbia and Alaska each constitute distinct 
population segments (DPSs) of the Queen Charlotte goshawk. Based on 
differences in forest management, with substantially greater existing 
and anticipated habitat loss in British Columbia than in Alaska, we 
find that we have sufficient information about biological vulnerability 
and threats to the goshawk to determine that the entire British 
Columbia DPS warrants listing as threatened or endangered. We find that 
the best available information on biological vulnerability and threats 
to the goshawk does not support listing the Alaska DPS as threatened or 
endangered at this time. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(B)(ii) we will 
promptly publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule to list the 
British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk. In that proposed 
rule we will indicate whether the British Columbia DPS and the 
Vancouver Island portion of the range should be listed as either 
endangered or threatened.

DATES: The finding in this document was made on November 8, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit data, information, comments, or questions regarding 
this finding to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office, 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201, 
Juneau, AK 99801-7125.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Halstead, Field Supervisor, U.S.

[[Page 63124]]

Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office, 3000 
Vintage Blvd., Suite 201, Juneau, AK 99801-7125; telephone 907-780-
1161; facsimile 907-586-7154. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) 
at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supporting file for this finding is 
available for inspection, by appointment during normal business hours, 
at the street address listed in the ADDRESSES section. The April 25, 
2007, status review for the Queen Charlotte goshawk, upon which much of 
this finding is based, and a list of all references cited in this 
finding are available online at https://alaska.fws.gov/.

Petition History and Previous Federal Actions

    On May 9, 1994, the Service received a petition from eight 
conservation groups and two individuals to list the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk as endangered and to designate critical habitat. Logging of 
old-growth forest, where the bird nests and forages, was the primary 
threat identified. On August 26, 1994, we published our 90-day finding 
that the petition presented substantial information indicating that 
listing may be warranted, opened a public comment period, and initiated 
a status review to determine whether listing the subspecies was 
warranted (59 FR 44124).
    Following our status review, we determined that listing the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk as threatened or endangered under the Act was not 
warranted and published our finding in the Federal Register on June 29, 
1995 (60 FR 33784). We expressed concern for long-term viability of the 
bird under the existing management plan for the Tongass National Forest 
(covering about 80 percent of Southeast Alaska), but we acknowledged 
that a new management plan was being drafted, and the new plan was 
expected to provide improved protection for the subspecies. The June 
1995 ``not warranted'' finding was challenged in the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia, in a suit filed on November 17, 
1995, by 8 of the original 10 petitioners, plus 2 additional 
conservation organizations and 1 additional individual. The district 
court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on September 25, 
1996, holding that the Service should not have relied on ``possible 
future actions'' described in a draft revision to the 1979 Tongass Land 
Management Plan (TLMP) ``to provide sanctuary for the goshawk.'' The 
decision was remanded to the Service with instructions to make a 
listing determination based on the existing 1979 TLMP (Southwest Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 939 F. Supp. 49 (D.D.C. 1996)). 
The district court established a deadline of May 31, 1997, for us to 
complete this analysis.
    On May 23, 1997, the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) released 
a new land management plan. Therefore, we requested and received an 
extension from the district court of August 31, 1997, to review the 
petitioned action and the status of the subspecies in light of the new 
plan. On August 28, 1997, we published our new finding that listing the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk as threatened or endangered was not warranted 
(62 FR 46710). In 1998, this finding was challenged in the same 
district court, and on July 20, 1999, the finding was remanded to us, 
with instructions to provide a more accurate and reliable population 
estimate, and to consider a 1999 revision of the 1997 TLMP. We appealed 
the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia. The court of appeals agreed with the Service and remanded 
the case back to the district court (Southwest Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F. 3d 58 (DC. Cir. 2000)).
    On July 29, 2002, a district court magistrate issued recommended 
findings that: (1) We had fulfilled our requirement to use the best 
scientific data available; (2) the ``not warranted'' determination was 
entitled to deference; (3) our determination that the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk would persist in Alaska and the Queen Charlotte Islands was not 
unreasonable; (4) Vancouver Island, which constituted one-third of the 
subspecies' geographic range, was a ``significant portion'' of the 
subspecies' range; and (5) our failure to make a specific finding as to 
the conservation status of the subspecies on Vancouver Island was a 
material omission. The magistrate recommended a remand to the Service 
to make a finding as to whether the Queen Charlotte goshawk should be 
listed based on its conservation status on Vancouver Island (Southwest 
Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, No. 98-934, 2002 U.S. Dist. 
LEXIS 13661, (D.D.C. July 29, 2002)).
    On May 24, 2004, a district court judge issued an order that 
adopted the magistrate's recommendations, except for the magistrate's 
finding that Vancouver Island constituted a significant portion of the 
range for the Queen Charlotte goshawk. Instead, the district court 
directed the Service upon remand to reconsider and explain any 
determination as to whether or not Vancouver Island is a significant 
portion of the subspecies' range, and assess whether the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk is endangered or threatened on Vancouver Island 
(Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, No. 98-0934 
(D.D.C. May 24, 2004)).
    In the ten years since the Service's 1997 determination on the 
petition to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk, the Service has obtained 
a substantial amount of new information and data relevant to the 
subspecies. Therefore, we updated our 1997 rangewide status review for 
the Queen Charlotte goshawk, to allow an evaluation of Vancouver 
Island's significance in the context of current knowledge of the 
subspecies' biology, habitat, and population status throughout its 
entire range. The updated status review (USFWS 2007) incorporates data 
and information on goshawks and forest management from a variety of 
sources including peer-reviewed scientific journals, agency reports, 
agency Web sites, public comments, and personal communications. 
Additional detail on many of the topics discussed below is available in 
the April 25, 2007, updated status review.
    In October 2005, we hosted a workshop of goshawk experts who 
presented recent findings and suggested updates for portions of the 
1997 status review. We also solicited input from the public through a 
December 15, 2005, notice in the Federal Register (70 FR 74284). We 
received and have evaluated information from 31 parties who commented 
during the 2005 notice's 60-day comment period. Comments were submitted 
by wildlife agencies in Alaska and British Columbia, several falconers 
and falconry groups, two conservation groups (including one of the 
plaintiffs), a forest industry group, and several private citizens. 
Peer reviews of an updated draft of our status review by experts at 
Brigham Young University, the U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Department of 
Fish and Game, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, and the 
British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range helped us improve the 
status review.
    Below, we summarize the Service's analysis of the best available 
data on the status of the Queen Charlotte goshawk. As directed by the 
court, we have evaluated whether Vancouver Island represents a 
significant portion of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's entire range, and 
whether listing the subspecies as threatened or endangered is warranted 
for Vancouver Island.
    We have also, of our own initiative, evaluated new information and 
data

[[Page 63125]]

relevant to the subspecies rangewide (described in the April 25, 2007, 
updated status review (USFWS 2007)) to determine whether listing is 
warranted. We conclude that there are two DPSs with different 
conservation status. As such, our finding includes a determination of 
the DPSs, and an evaluation of whether we have sufficient information 
on the biological vulnerability and threats to the subspecies to 
support listing the goshawk as threatened or endangered in all or a 
significant portion of the range of the DPSs.

Species Description

    The Queen Charlotte goshawk is a comparatively small, dark 
subspecies of northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) that lives in the 
temperate rainforest archipelagos of Southeast Alaska and British 
Columbia. Adults have blue-gray to nearly black backs and tails, and 
gray bellies and chests that are finely marked with dark gray bars and 
streaks. A bold white stripe above the eye accents the vivid orange to 
bright scarlet eye. Females are larger than males; a sample of male 
goshawks trapped in Southeast Alaska averaged 29 ounces (827 grams), 
and females averaged 38 ounces (1074 grams) (Titus et al. 1994, p. 46), 
while males on Vancouver Island averaged 25 ounces (710 grams) and 
females 34 ounces (952 grams) (McClaren 2003, p. 39). Variation in 
color (Taverner 1940, pp. 158-159; Webster 1988, pp. 46-47; Flatten and 
McClaren 2003, p. 40) and size (Beebe 1974, p. 54; Titus et al. 1994, 
pp. 10-12; Flatten and McClaren 2003, p. 40; Flatten et al. 2002, p. 2) 
has been noted across the range of the subspecies, with birds averaging 
largest in the northern portion of their range (Titus et al. 1994, p. 
12).

Taxonomy and Distribution

    The Queen Charlotte goshawk was initially described and proposed as 
a subspecies by Taverner (1940, pp. 158-160) based on its darker 
coloration and geographic discreteness (Queen Charlotte and Vancouver 
Islands, British Columbia). The proposed subspecies was accepted by the 
American Ornithologists' Union in 1957 (AOU 1957, p. 103). Subsequent 
analyses added Southeast Alaska to the range of the subspecies (Beebe 
1974, p. 54; Webster 1988, pp. 46-47) and established that the 
subspecies was smaller than goshawks elsewhere in North America, 
including those on the nearby British Columbia mainland (Johnson 1989, 
p. 638; Whaley and White 1994, pp. 179-181). Taxonomic treatments and 
reviews have generally accepted the Queen Charlotte goshawk (A. g. 
laingi) as distinct from the subspecies found across most of North 
America (A. g. atricapillus) (reviewed in USFWS 2007, pp. 11-13).
    Preliminary results of an investigation of genetic relationships 
among goshawks from within and around the reported range of the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk suggest that the birds on the Queen Charlotte Islands 
may be distinct from goshawks elsewhere (Talbot et al. 2005, p. 3), and 
that those on Vancouver Island are genetically closer to atricapillus 
than laingi (Talbot 2006, p. 1). To date, these potentially significant 
genetic data have not been reviewed by qualified taxonomists, and there 
have been no scientific publications or other reports proposing 
modification of currently accepted taxonomy for the species or 
subspecies. Accordingly, we continue to treat the birds on the Queen 
Charlotte Islands, Vancouver Island, and Southeast Alaska as within the 
range of the laingi subspecies.
    We interpret the morphological and genetic variation found on 
Vancouver Island and in Southeast Alaska as ``stable hybrid zones'' 
(Haig et al. 2006, p. 7), where the laingi subspecies contacts the 
larger, lighter-colored atricapillus subspecies that inhabits most of 
North America. Flatten et al. (2002, p. 2) found that most adult 
goshawks in Southeast Alaska and on Vancouver Island showed at least 
partial expression of the darker laingi form. While this suggests an 
indefinite boundary, for purposes of this decision we include the 
mainland and islands of Southeast Alaska south of the international 
border between Mount Fairweather and Mount Foster, and Vancouver Island 
and the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia, but not the 
British Columbia mainland (USFWS 2007, p. 14-21). This definition 
differs slightly from that used in our 1997 listing decision (62 FR 
46710) as it incorporates nests in northern Southeast Alaska reported 
in 1999 and 2001.
    For purposes of this finding, the term ``Southeast Alaska'' 
hereafter refers to the mainland and islands of Southeast Alaska south 
of the international border between Mount Fairweather and Mount Foster. 
``Vancouver Island'' refers to Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and 
the smaller islands surrounding it. ``Queen Charlotte Islands'' refers 
to the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, also known by the 
Haida (First Nation) name of Haida Gwaii.
    Some biologists believe that goshawks on the British Columbia 
coastal mainland, on Washington State's Olympic Peninsula, and in the 
Cascade Range of Washington and Oregon may be Queen Charlotte goshawks, 
based on proximity of similar habitat (USFWS 2007, pp. 17-21). No 
taxonomists or goshawk researchers, however, have included these areas 
within published range descriptions for the subspecies since Jewett et 
al. (1953, p. 162) included ``the Pacific slopes'' of Washington and 
Oregon in the range of the subspecies. Subsequent authors have not 
accepted Jewett et al.'s (1953, p. 162) range extension, which was 
based on isolated museum specimens believed to represent rare incursion 
migrants (Whaley 1988, p. 47). We recognize that some goshawks on the 
coastal mainland of British Columbia and the Olympic Peninsula may 
exhibit laingi characteristics, because similar rainforest habitat 
exists there and is close enough for birds from Vancouver Island to 
reach. The only examinations of these birds that we are aware of, 
however, indicate that coastal mainland birds are larger than those on 
Vancouver Island (Johnson 1989, pp. 637-638; Whaley and White 1994, pp. 
180-181; Flatten et al. 2002, p. 2). No analyses of plumage 
characteristics are available. Until data are available to demonstrate 
otherwise, we consider mainland British Columbia, Washington, and 
Oregon outside the range of the laingi subspecies.

Conservation Designations

    In Canada, the laingi subspecies has been federally listed as 
``Threatened'' under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) since 2002 (51 
Eliz. II, Ch. 29), following listings by the Committee on the Status of 
Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as ``Vulnerable'' in 1995 and 
``Threatened'' in 2000 (Cooper and Chytyk 2000, p. 23; COSEWIC 2005, p. 
1). British Columbia has included the subspecies on its ``Red List,'' 
indicating imperiled status, since 1998. In 2004, British Columbia 
designated the bird a Schedule 1 species at risk, indicating 
vulnerability to forest management and a need for protection beyond 
that provided by general forest management regulations (BCMSRM 2002, 
pp. 1-2; Barisoff 2004, p. 2; USFWS 2007, pp. 11-12).
    The State of Alaska designated the bird a ``species of concern'' in 
1998 due to threats to its nesting and foraging habitat, and the Forest 
Service designated it a ``sensitive species'' in 1994 (ADF&G 1998, pp. 
1-2; USDA Forest Service 1997, p. 3/232). State, Provincial, and 
international heritage programs (which maintain data on species of 
concern) list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as ``imperiled'' State- and 
Province-wide, nationally, and globally (NatureServe 2005, p. 1).

[[Page 63126]]

Habitat

    Queen Charlotte goshawks nest and forage in dense, wet, coastal 
rainforests. Goshawks in Southeast Alaska preferentially use medium and 
high volume forests for foraging and other daily activities and avoid 
non-forested and clear-cut areas. Young stands of regenerating forest 
(also called ``second growth'' or ``second-growth forest'') are 
avoided, probably because they are too dense for goshawks to 
effectively hunt.
    Second-growth stands reach economic maturity as their growth rates 
begin to slow. Typically, trees of this age have not reached maximum 
size and the canopy of these stands is usually uniformly dense. There 
is usually little understory unless the stand has been thinned. In this 
finding, we refer to such stands as ``mature'' or ``mature second 
growth''. Goshawks use such stands in proportion to their availability 
(Titus et al. 1994, pp. 19-24; Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 27-40), and may 
nest in mature stands where old growth is limited.
    ``Old growth'' or ``old forest'' refers to a structural stage of 
forest characterized by several age classes of trees, including 
dominant trees that have reached the maximum size typical for the site, 
accumulations of dead, dying, and decaying trees and logs, and younger 
trees growing in gaps between the dominant trees. Such stands are 
typically over 250 years old within the range of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk, and have not been previously harvested.
    The term ``productive forest'' typically describes forest land 
capable of producing stands of trees large enough to support commercial 
timber harvest. Productive forest may be of any age, from young second 
growth to old forest. Non-productive or ``scrub'' forest is land that 
supports over 10 percent cover by trees that are too small to be of 
commercial value. For purposes of this document, we use ``productive 
forest'', as defined by the U.S. Forest Service and the British 
Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range (USFWS 2007, pp. 32 and 139), as 
a reasonable approximation of goshawk habitat amount and distribution 
because goshawks have shown positive selection for such stands unless 
they have been converted to second growth. Low-productivity forests are 
used for foraging in proportion to their availability, indicating 
neither selection for, nor avoidance of, these habitats (Titus et al. 
1994, pp. 19-24; Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 27-40). Non-productive forest 
that has not been harvested is, by definition, old growth forest, but 
in this finding we use the terms old growth and old forest to describe 
only productive forest that has not been previously harvested.
    Nests are typically located in large trees within mature or old 
growth forest stands that have greater volume and canopy cover than the 
surrounding forest (Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 47-56; Flatten et al. 
2002, pp. 2-3; McClaren 2003, p. 12; McClaren and Pendergast 2003, pp. 
4-6; Doyle 2005, pp. 12-14; USFWS 2007, pp. 26-30). As with goshawks 
elsewhere, nesting pairs appear to be territorial, with nests spaced 
somewhat uniformly across available habitat. Thorough searches on 
Vancouver and the Queen Charlotte Islands have documented goshawk nest 
stands spaced 4 to 9 miles (7 to 15 kilometers (km)) apart, as compared 
to 2 to 5 miles (3 to 7 km) apart for goshawks outside the range of the 
Queen Charlotte subspecies (McClaren 2003, pp. 13 and 21; Doyle 2005, 
p. 15; USFWS 2007, pp. 45-47).
    Mature and old forest habitat provides productive habitat for prey 
species in a setting that goshawks can effectively hunt (see Food 
Habits). Such habitat appears to be critical in the vicinity of the 
nest (Ethier 1999, p. 31; Finn et al. 2002, pp. 270-271; McClaren 2003, 
pp. 11 and 16; Desimone and DeStefano 2005, pp. 317-318; Patla 2005, 
pp. 328-330), where it is used by fledglings learning to fly and hunt 
(Reynolds et al. 1992, pp. 15-16; Kennedy et al. 1994, p. 80; McClaren 
et al. 2005, pp. 260-261).
    Doyle (2005, p. 14) found that all 10 known nest territories on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands had at least 41 percent mature and old growth 
forest, and successful nest territories had at least 60 percent mature-
old growth forest, suggesting that about half of the territory must be 
mature or old forest to support nesting goshawks.

Food Habits

    Goshawks hunt primarily by flying between perches and launching 
attacks from those perches. They take a variety of medium-sized prey, 
depending largely on local availability (Squires and Reynolds 1997, p. 
1), which varies markedly among the islands in the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk's range. Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) and sooty 
grouse (Dendragopus fuliginosis) (formerly blue grouse, D. obscurus) 
form the bulk of the diet in many locations (although neither occur on 
Prince of Wales and nearby islands in southern Southeast Alaska), with 
thrushes, jays, crows, ptarmigan, and woodpeckers frequently taken as 
well (Ethier 1999, pp. 21-22 and 32-47; Lewis 2001, pp. 81-107; Lewis 
et al. 2004, pp. 378-382; Doyle 2005, pp. 30-31). During winter, many 
avian prey species migrate from the region, reducing the variety and 
abundance of prey available. Rabbits and hares are frequently taken by 
goshawks during winter elsewhere, but within the range of the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk, rabbits and hares are limited to portions of the 
mainland, Vancouver Island (BC), and Douglas Island (AK) (Ethier 1999, 
p. 22; MacDonald and Cook 1999, pp. 23-24; Nagorsen 2002, pp. 92-97; 
Doyle 2005, p. 31).
    Prey availability is defined by both prey abundance and suitability 
of habitat for successful hunting. Timber harvest typically results in 
prey declines because few potential prey species adapted to open and 
edge habitats exist within the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk 
(Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 59-61; Doyle and Mahon 2003, p. 39; USFWS 
2007, pp. 42-45). Goshawks hunt from perches and have limited ability 
to take prey far from forest cover (i.e., in large openings created by 
logging). Potential prey animals that use dense second-growth stands 
(which typically follow logging) are likely to be unavailable, because 
these stands do not offer adequate flight space for goshawks (DeStefano 
and McCloskey 1997, p. 38; Beier and Drennan 1997, p. 570; Greenwald et 
al. 2005, pp. 125-126; USFWS 2007, pp. 62-67).

Home Range and Seasonal Movements

    Breeding-season home ranges average about 11,000 acres (ac) (4,500 
hectares (ha)) for females and 15,000 ac (6,000 ha) for males. During 
winter, Queen Charlotte goshawks typically shift their activity centers 
and range farther, but remain in the region. Females often move more 
than males during winter, when use areas average about 84,000 ac 
(34,000 ha) for females and 47,000 ac (19,000 ha) for males. Males 
apparently remain within or near their nesting home ranges during 
winter, while some females leave their nesting areas altogether to 
winter elsewhere in the region (Flatten et al. 2001, pp. 9-11; Lewis 
and Flatten 2004, pp. 2-3; McClaren 2004, p. 6). Following winter, some 
females and apparently all surviving males return to their previously 
used nesting areas, while some females move to new nesting areas and 
pair with new mates (Flatten et al. 2001, p. 9-11).

Reproduction

    Nest occupancy (percentage of nest areas with adult goshawks 
present) and nesting activity (percentage of nest areas with eggs laid) 
appear to vary with habitat suitability (Ethier 1999, p. 31; Finn et 
al. 2002, pp. 270-271; McClaren 2003, pp. 11 and 16; Desimone and

[[Page 63127]]

DeStefano 2005, pp. 317-318; Patla 2005, pp. 328-330), prey 
availability (Doyle and Smith 1994, p. 126; McClaren et al. 2002, p. 
350; Ethier 1999, p. 36; Salafsky et al. 2005, pp. 242-244), and 
weather (Patla 1997, pp. 34-35; Finn et al. 1998, p. 1; McClaren et al. 
2002, p. 350; Fairhurst and Bechard 2005, pp. 231-232), with greater 
occupancy or activity in areas with less fragmented forest habitat and 
in years with higher prey abundance and with warmer, drier weather.
    Individual nests are frequently not used in subsequent years as 
pairs often move to an alternate nest. Most alternate nests are 
clustered within a few hundred hectares (McClaren 2003, p. 13; Flatten 
et al. 2001, p. 9), although females have been documented leaving the 
nesting area altogether and nesting in subsequent years with a new mate 
in a different territory up to 95 miles (152 km) away. Males have been 
documented moving up to 2 miles (3.2 km) between subsequent nests, but 
apparently remain in their nesting area in subsequent years (Flatten et 
al. 2001, pp. 9-10).
    When prey availability and weather are suitable and nesting is 
initiated, nest success (percent of active nests that fledge at least 
one young) is typically high (87 percent rangewide, 1991 to 2004), as 
is productivity (1.6 to 2.0 fledglings per active nest) (USFWS 2007, p. 
54), although Ethier (1999, p. 31) found higher productivity in 
contiguous old and mature second growth forests than in fragmented 
forest.
    Fledglings typically spend about 6 weeks within several hundred 
yards of their nests, in an area of 570 ac (230 ha) or less (average 
146 ac (59 ha)) learning flight and hunting skills before dispersing 
(McClaren et al. 2005, p. 257). Retention of mature forest structure 
near the nest is believed to be important for supporting this 
developmental stage (Reynolds et al. 1992, pp. 15-16; Kennedy et al. 
1994, p. 80; McClaren et al. 2005, pp. 260-261). Adults continue to 
feed the young and protect them from predators during this period. In 
Southeast Alaska, juveniles moved up to 100 miles (160 km) (some 
possibly farther as their radio-telemetry signals were lost) to areas 
where they either spent the winter or died (Iverson et al. 1996, p. 
30).

Survival Rates

    Annual survival rates for adult goshawks in Southeast Alaska were 
low for males (0.59) and for females that wintered in the same area 
where they nested (0.57), but high for females that left their breeding 
areas during the winter (0.96), with most mortality occurring in winter 
(Flatten et al. 2002, p. 3; Titus et al. 2002, p. 1; McClaren 2003, p. 
23).
    Life-table calculations using vital rates observed and inferred 
from Southeast Alaska suggest that juvenile survival must approach 50 
percent and a high proportion of adults must breed if goshawk 
populations are to remain stable in the region (USFWS 2007, pp. 58-59). 
Population viability analyses for goshawks on the Queen Charlotte 
Islands (approximately 12 percent of the subspecies' geographic range) 
estimate the probability of long-term population survival to be between 
0 and 31 percent, due primarily to stochastic effects on the small 
population likely to remain after projected logging occurs (Doyle and 
Holt 2005, p. 7). Data on juvenile survival, age at first breeding, and 
percent of adults breeding, however, are lacking for Queen Charlotte 
goshawks. Therefore, these demographic models are necessarily 
speculative, and of limited reliability.

Population Estimates

    Goshawk populations are difficult to census, but breeding pair 
populations have been estimated by adjusting habitat capability (number 
of potential territories) to reflect observed nest area occupancy 
rates. Marquis et al. (2005, pp. 22-26) calculated habitat capability 
for Vancouver Island by extrapolating mean nest spacing (4.3 mi (7 km) 
between adjacent nests) to determine that up to 126 territories could 
fit on the island. Potential territories were ranked by the percentage 
of suitable habitat (defined by stand age, tree species, biogeoclimatic 
subzone, and canopy closure). Only 103 territories had more than 25 
percent suitable habitat, 44 had more than 50 percent suitable habitat, 
and 6 had more than 75 percent suitable habitat.
    It is not known how much suitable habitat is required within a 
territory, and the amount probably varies depending on the prey 
community present in the area, but Doyle (2005, p. 14) found that all 
10 known nest territories (25,000-ac (10,000-ha) circles centered on 
the nests) on the Queen Charlotte Islands had at least 41 percent 
mature and old growth forest, and successful nests had at least 60 
percent mature-old growth forest. Iverson et al. (1996, p. 55) 
documented an average of 51 percent coverage by productive mature and 
old forest in 10,000-acre (4,000 ha) circles surrounding nests in 
Southeast Alaska, although coverage by productive forest ranged from 22 
to 89 percent. These observations suggest that territories composed of 
50 percent or more productive mature and old forest provide the best 
habitat, although some pairs will use territories with lesser amounts 
of this preferred habitat. We therefore conclude that Vancouver Island 
may support about 44 to 100 viable territories. Given recent nest 
occupancy rates of 55 percent on Vancouver Island (McClaren 2006, p. 
8), there may be only 24 to 45 breeding pairs on average. In years with 
abundant prey and good weather, nest activity is likely to be higher, 
but based on territory spacing, it seems unlikely that there could be 
more than about 100 pairs on Vancouver Island.
    McClaren (2006, p. 8) applied the observed 55 percent nest 
occupancy rate to Cooper and Chytyk's (2000, p. 19) less sophisticated 
estimate that Vancouver Island might have space for up to 300 
territories, to calculate an average of 165 breeding pairs on Vancouver 
Island.
    Marquis et al. (2005, pp. 27-28) plotted 53 potential nesting areas 
on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 47 of which contained more than 25 
percent suitable habitat and 9 of which contained more than 50 percent 
suitable habitat. Recent nest occupancy rates of 43 percent on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands (McClaren 2006, p. 8) suggest there may be only 
4 to 20 pairs on the Queen Charlotte Islands in average years.
    Doyle and Holt (2005, p. 4) plotted 61 potential territories on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands, 24 to 43 of which were thought to be viable 
based on the percentage of mature and old forest cover. McClaren (2006, 
p. 8) adjusted that estimate with recent nest area occupancy rates from 
the Queen Charlotte Islands (43 percent) to estimate that there may be 
10 to 18 breeding pairs. Doyle (2005, pp. 13-18) plotted 58 potential 
territories on the Queen Charlotte Islands, but only 10 to 25 had 
adequate habitat to support nesting. Doyle (2005, p. 18) used nest 
activity rates to estimate that 4 to 13 of those territories might 
support breeding. Cooper and Chytyk (2000, p. 20) estimated that the 
Queen Charlotte Islands might support 50 pairs, based on their analysis 
of relative size and perceived habitat quality compared to Vancouver 
Island. Doyle (2007, p. 6) documented 6 active nests on the Queen 
Charlotte Islands in 2006.
    An interagency modeling effort using observed home range sizes 
estimated that the Tongass National Forest (76 percent of the total 
area and 85 percent of the productive forest in Southeast Alaska) could 
hold 580 to 747 nesting territories, depending on how suitable habitat 
is defined (Schempf and Woods 2000, pp. 1-8; Schempf 2000, p. 1). 
Adjustment to reflect 45 percent territory occupancy observed in

[[Page 63128]]

Southeast Alaska, 1991 to 1999 (Flatten et al. 2001, p. 7) suggests 261 
to 336 breeding pairs on the Tongass National Forest. Extrapolation of 
this number suggests 300 to 400 pairs across Southeast Alaska. An 
earlier habitat capability model based on home range sizes suggested 
that Southeast Alaska may hold between 100 and 200 breeding pairs 
(Crocker-Bedford 1994, p. 4).
    We consider the habitat capability estimates by Marquis et al. 
(2005, pp. 22-28) to represent the best available data for Vancouver 
Island, those of Doyle and Holt (2005, p. 4) to be the best available 
for the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the interagency effort described 
by Schempf and Woods (2000, pp. 1-8) to be the best available for 
Southeast Alaska. These estimates are judged better than other 
available estimates because they were based on evaluation of territory-
sized arrangement of habitat, rather than region-wide estimates of 
habitat (e.g., Crocker-Bedford 1994, Cooper and Chytyk 200, p. 19). We 
favor Doyle and Holt's (2005, p. 4) estimate for the Queen Charlotte 
Islands over Marquis et al.'s (2005, p. 27-28) estimates for those 
islands because of Doyle's field experience with goshawks on those 
islands (which Marquis et al. lacked). Doyle and Holt's (2005, p. 4) 
effort represented a refinement of Doyle's (2005, p. 18) estimates, so 
we favor the former. None of the models have been verified, and we 
consider all to be of low precision. Based on these models, a review of 
the range of estimates available, and discussions with goshawk 
biologists, we estimate that Vancouver Island may have about 50 to 100 
pairs, the Queen Charlotte Islands 8 to 15 pairs, and Southeast Alaska 
300 to 400 pairs. We believe the rangewide population is approximately 
350 to 500 pairs, plus an unknown number of non-breeding juveniles and 
adults.
    Populations are believed to have declined, primarily due to timber 
harvest since the mid 1900s, although direct measures of goshawk 
populations and population trends are not available. Habitat models 
suggest that habitat capability has declined 30 percent in Southeast 
Alaska, 50 percent rangewide (Crocker-Bedford 1990, pp. 6-7), and by 57 
to 81 percent on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Doyle 2005, pp. 15-16). 
Further declines are projected on the Queen Charlotte Islands through 
year 2050 (Doyle and Holt 2005, p. 4). Habitat capability projections 
are not available for Vancouver Island.

Response to the District Court's Question on Vancouver Island

    In its May 24, 2004 order, the D.C. District Court directed the 
Service in connection with its 1997 12-month finding under 16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(3)(B), to reconsider and explain a determination as to whether 
or not Vancouver Island is a ``significant portion'' of the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk's entire range, and to assess whether the subspecies 
is endangered or threatened on Vancouver Island (Southwest Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Norton, No. 98-934, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 
13661, (D.D.C. July 29, 2002).
    The Act defines an endangered species as one ``in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range'', and 
a threatened species as one ``likely to become an endangered species 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range.'' The term ``significant portion of its range'' is not 
defined by the statute.
    For purposes of this finding, a significant portion of a species' 
(or subspecies') range is an area that is important to the conservation 
of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the 
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. Adequate 
representation insures conserving the breadth of the genetic makeup of 
the species needed to conserve its adaptive capabilities. Populations 
in peripheral areas, for example, may be important in this aspect. 
Resilience refers to the ability of a species to recover from periodic 
disturbances or environmental variability. In general, a species is 
usually most resilient in highest quality habitat. Redundancy of 
populations is needed to provide a margin of safety for the species to 
withstand catastrophic events. The contribution of the range portion 
must be at a level such that its loss would result in a decrease in the 
ability to conserve the species. It does not mean however, that if such 
portion of the range were lost, the species as a whole would be in 
danger of extinction immediately or in the foreseeable future; rather, 
that the ability to conserve the species would be compromised.
    We estimate that Vancouver Island once held approximately 37 
percent of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's habitat, yet due to 
disproportionate logging, now contains about 27 percent (USFWS 2007, 
pp. 99-101). Population estimates are uncertain, but there are probably 
only several hundred breeding pairs of Queen Charlotte goshawks 
throughout the entire range of the subspecies. Vancouver Island may 
support 50 to 100 breeding pairs, or about 15 to 20 percent of the 
rangewide population. Given the apparently low numbers of breeding 
pairs rangewide, loss of the Vancouver Island population would result 
in a meaningful decrease in redundancy and resilience of the rangewide 
goshawk population, and increase rangewide demographic vulnerability.
    Preliminary genetic results suggest that goshawks on Vancouver 
Island may be genetically distinct from goshawks on the Queen Charlotte 
Islands and in Southeast Alaska (Talbot et al. 2005, pp. 2-3; Talbot 
2006, p. 1). These potentially significant findings, if confirmed by 
peer review and/or corroborated by additional work, may provide 
additional indication of the significance of the Vancouver Island 
population because loss of genetic variability found there could reduce 
both representation and resilience of the subspecies, as defined above. 
This genetic diversity, for example, may help allow the subspecies to 
respond and adapt to future environmental changes, particularly as 
warmer-adapted forest communities move northward in response to climate 
change.
    In summary, the Queen Charlotte goshawk population on Vancouver 
Island contributes to the redundancy of the subspecies rangewide, as 
this area historically provided a significant amount of goshawk 
habitat, and continues to do so by supporting a significant proportion 
of the rangewide population. We therefore conclude that Vancouver 
Island is a significant portion of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's entire 
range. Further, genetic variation present in the goshawk population on 
Vancouver Island may be important to the long-term conservation of the 
species, and potentially provides additional (although unconfirmed at 
this time) support for Vancouver Island as a significant portion of the 
subspecies' range.
    The goshawk population on Vancouver Island lies within the British 
Columbia DPS, which we discuss in the next section (see Distinct 
Population Segments). As such, threats to the goshawk on Vancouver 
Island and elsewhere within the British Columbia DPS are evaluated in 
detail below (see British Columbia Distinct Population Segment). The 
court's question of whether listing is warranted for the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk on Vancouver Island, is addressed following our 
analysis of threats within the British Columbia DPS (see Significant 
Portions of the British Columbia DPS's Range).
    We ultimately conclude that we have sufficient information to 
support listing the subspecies as threatened or

[[Page 63129]]

endangered in the British Columbia DPS, which includes the Vancouver 
Island SPR (See British Columbia DPS Finding). Because this 
determination covers all of the Vancouver Island SPR, a separate 
listing determination for the Vancouver Island SPR is not needed at 
this time. As we formally propose to list the British Columbia DPS of 
the Queen Charlotte goshawk, we will make a separate determination of 
listing status for the Vancouver Island SPR.

Distinct Population Segments

    Section 2(16) of the Act defines ``species'' to include ``any 
distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' To interpret and implement the DPS 
provisions of the Act and Congressional guidance, the Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service published a Policy Regarding the 
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments in the Federal 
Register (DPS Policy) on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the DPS 
policy, three factors are considered in a decision concerning the 
establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These are applied 
similarly for additions to the list of endangered and threatened 
species. The first two factors--discreteness of the population segment 
in relation to the remainder of the taxon and the significance of the 
population segment to the taxon to which it belongs--bear on whether 
the population segment is a valid DPS. If a population meets both 
tests, it is a DPS and then the third factor is applied--the population 
segment's conservation status in relation to the ESA's standards for 
listing, delisting or reclassification (i.e., is the population segment 
endangered or threatened).

Discreteness Analysis

    Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon 
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either of the following 
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Queen Charlotte goshawks in British Columbia (on the Queen 
Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island) are separated from those in 
Southeast Alaska by an international border. The subspecies is listed 
as Threatened under the SARA by the Canadian Federal Government, and as 
a Species at Risk by the British Columbia Provincial Government. 
Management of habitat and the mechanisms that regulate that management 
differ substantially, with greater levels of habitat loss from logging 
in British Columbia than in Southeast Alaska. In Southeast Alaska, 
approximately 13 percent (880,000 ac (356,000 ha)) of the 6.4 million 
ac (2.6 million ha) of productive forest has been harvested to date, 
with another 15 percent (929,000 ac (376,000 ha)) expected to be 
harvested over the next 50 to 100 years (USFWS 2007, pp. 96-98, and 
Appendix A, Table A-9). In British Columbia, 45 percent (3.7 million ac 
(1.5 million ha)) of the 8.4 million ac (3.4 million ha) of productive 
forest has been harvested to date, with another 14 percent (1.2 million 
ac (480,000 ha)) expected to be harvested over the next 40 years (USFWS 
2007, pp. 96-98, and Appendix A, Table A-9). Designated parks, 
reserves, and other non-development designations protect about 55 
percent (3.5 million ac (1.4 million ha)) of the productive forest in 
Southeast Alaska and about 9 percent (776,000 ac (314,000 ha)) in 
British Columbia (USFWS 2007, pp. 96-98, and Appendix A, Table A-9).
    Based on the differences in conservation status, habitat 
management, and regulatory mechanisms (discreteness criteria 2), we 
conclude that the ``British Columbia'' population and the ``Southeast 
Alaska'' populations are each discrete.

Significance Analysis

    If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of 
the conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and 
ecological significance is to be considered in light of Congressional 
guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used ``sparingly'' while 
encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In carrying out this 
examination, we consider available scientific evidence of the 
population segment's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This 
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Its persistence 
in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence 
that its loss would result in a significant gap in the range of the 
taxon; (3) evidence that it is the only surviving natural occurrence of 
a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population 
outside its historic range; or (4)evidence that the discrete population 
segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its 
genetic characteristics. A population segment needs to satisfy only one 
of these criteria to be considered significant. Furthermore, the list 
of criteria is not exhaustive; other criteria may be used, as 
appropriate. Below, we consider the biological and ecological 
significance of the Southeast Alaska DPS, followed by the British 
Columbia DPS.
    Southeast Alaska: The ecological setting in Southeast Alaska 
encompasses the northernmost occurrences of the subspecies, where it 
confronts colder temperatures year-round and more snow at low elevation 
during winter, especially in the northern portion of the range. Loss of 
this segment would result in a significant gap in the subspecies 
distribution, as approximately two-thirds of the land area and about 60 
percent of the remaining habitat for the subspecies is in Southeast 
Alaska (USFWS 2007, Appendix A, Tables A-9 and A-12). Southeast Alaska 
formerly held 52 percent of the rangewide habitat for Queen Charlotte 
goshawks, but now has 61 percent and is projected to have 66 percent by 
2100 (USFWS 2007, pp. 99-101). This area supports most of the world's 
population of Queen Charlotte goshawks, without which the subspecies 
would be restricted to the heavily impacted and vulnerable forests of 
coastal British Columbia. Therefore, we conclude that the Southeast 
Alaska population of the Queen Charlotte goshawk is significant to the 
taxon to which it belongs.
    British Columbia: Loss of the Queen Charlotte goshawk from British 
Columbia would result in a significant gap in the subspecies' 
distribution, as approximately one-third of the land area and half of 
the productive forest (much of which has been harvested) is in British 
Columbia (USFWS 2007, Appendix A, Tables A-9 and A-12). As a result, we 
conclude that the British Columbia population of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk is significant to the taxon to which it belongs. Further, 
preliminary genetic results additionally suggest that goshawks on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island may be distinct from those 
in Southeast Alaska (Talbot et al. 2005, pp. 2-3; Talbot 2006, p.1), 
and appear to encompass much of the genetic diversity present in the 
taxa. These potentially significant findings, if confirmed by peer 
review and/or corroborated by additional work, may provide additional 
indication of the significance of the British Columbia population 
segment.

[[Page 63130]]

    Summary: As a result of the analysis described above, we find that 
the Southeast Alaska and British Columbia populations of Queen 
Charlotte goshawks are each discrete, as well as significant in 
relation to the remainder of the taxon; thus, are two separate, valid 
DPSs.

Factors Affecting Distinct Population Segments

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424) describe procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(a), we may list a species on the basis of any of five factors: (A) 
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
    An endangered species is defined by the Act, with exception, as 
``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' A threatened species is defined as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' A species is defined by the Act to include ``any subspecies of 
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.''
    Since we have identified Southeast Alaska and British Columbia as 
two separate, valid DPSs, we next evaluate each DPS with regard to its 
potential threatened or endangered status using the five listing 
factors enumerated in section 4(a) of the Act. Additional detail on our 
analyses of these factors is available in our updated status review 
dated April 25, 2007 (USFWS 2007, pp. 102-121).

Southeast Alaska Distinct Population Segment

    On May 24, 2004, the U.S. District Court ruled that the Service's 
1997 decision to not list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as endangered or 
threatened based on its status in Southeast Alaska was neither 
arbitrary nor capricious, and the court showed deference to the agency 
on the technical and scientific conclusions in this case (Southwest 
Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, No. 98-0934 (D.D.C. May 24, 
2004)). Below, we provide an updated analysis of factors affecting the 
subspecies in Southeast Alaska.

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

    Mature and old forest provides nesting and foraging habitat for 
goshawks, and supports populations of preferred prey (see Habitat and 
Food Habits sections, above). Logging within and near nest stands has 
been implicated in nest site abandonment, although effects of such 
logging on productivity have varied (Crocker-Bedford 1990, pp. 263-266; 
Penteriani and Faivre 2001, p. 213; Doyle and Mahon 2003, p. 39; Mahon 
and Doyle 2005, pp. 338-340; Doyle 2006, pp. 138-139). Clearcut logging 
also reduces prey populations (USFWS 2007, pp. 62-64) and negatively 
impacts foraging habitat by removing perches and hunting cover, 
creating openings and dense second-growth stands that are avoided by 
goshawks in Southeast Alaska (Iverson et al. 1996, p. 36).
    Timber harvest began in Southeast Alaska in the early 1900s and 
peaked in the 1970s. Since then, harvests have declined dramatically 
due primarily to declining market demand and other economic conditions 
(Brackley et al. 2006, pp. 11-15; USFWS 2007, p. 73). Approximately 13 
percent (880,000 ac (356,000 ha)) of the 6.4 million ac (2.6 million 
ha) of productive forest within the range of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk in Alaska has been harvested to date, with another 15 percent 
(929,000 ac (376,000 ha)) expected to be harvested over the next 50 to 
100 years (USFWS 2007, pp. 96-98, and Appendix A, Table A-9). 
Designated parks, reserves, and other non-development designations 
protect about 55 percent (3.5 million ac (1.4 million ha)) of the 
productive forest. Some productive forest outside designated reserves 
will be retained on either inoperable ground (e.g., too steep, 
unstable, or wet; 9 percent of the productive forest) or in retention 
areas designed to protect other resources (e.g., beach and stream 
buffers; 7 percent of the productive forest) on lands otherwise 
available for timber production (USFWS 2007, pp. 96-98, and Appendix A, 
Table A-9).
    Approximately 85 percent of the 6.4 million ac (2.6 million ha) of 
productive forest in Southeast Alaska is managed by the U.S. Forest 
Service (USFWS 2007, Appendix A, Table A-9) under the terms of the 
TLMP, which includes a conservation strategy intended to reduce impacts 
of forest management on vulnerable species. Included are old growth 
reserves and other Forest Service non-development land use designations 
(such as Wilderness, Remote Recreation, Municipal Watershed, etc.), 
corridors of unharvested forest linking reserves, goshawk nest buffers, 
canopy retention in harvest units on part of one island, and pre-
project goshawk surveys to locate nests prior to timber harvest.
    Details of the conservation strategy were developed collaboratively 
by a planning team consisting of managers, research scientists, and 
resource specialists from the Forest Service, Service, and 
Environmental Protection Agency (Everest 2005, p. 21). The Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game was also closely involved. During 
development of the conservation strategy, the Forest Service published 
a conservation assessment for goshawks in Southeast Alaska (Iverson et 
al. 1996, pp. 1-101), and hosted goshawk risk assessment panels in 1995 
and 1997 (Shaw 1999, p. 18). Biologists from the Forest Service, 
Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game were involved with 
the conservation assessment and the risk assessment panels.
    Existing standards and guidelines within the TLMP are projected to 
maintain approximately 66 percent of the 2 million ac (807,000 ha) of 
productive old growth forest in areas open to commercial timber harvest 
on the Tongass National Forest (USFWS 2007, Appendix A, Table A-9). 
Under the current TLMP, operability standards that define the physical 
limitations of timber harvest due to factors such as slope and soil 
stability are projected to protect 35 percent of the remaining old 
growth in areas otherwise available for harvest. Areas with such 
limitations are termed ``inoperable''. Retention of forest stands to 
protect non-timber resources (such as fish-bearing streams, marine 
shorelines, eagle nests, wolf dens, caves, and cultural sites) is 
expected to protect an additional 31 percent of the old growth in areas 
open to timber harvest (USFWS 2007, p. 72, Table 9).
    Small Old Growth Reserves or land use designations that prohibit 
timber harvest protect at least 16 percent of the land and at least 8 
percent of the productive forest in each Value Comparison Unit (VCU) 
open for timber harvest. VCUs vary from about 1,000 acres (400 ha) to 
nearly 9,000 acres (3,600 ha), and generally follow the boundaries of 
medium-order watersheds. Designation of Small Old Growth Reserves and 
other non-development designations in VCUs open to timber harvest is in 
addition to whatever inoperable and retention areas

[[Page 63131]]

exist within the timber production designation.
    There are approximately 3.7 million acres (1.5 million ha) open to 
logging on the Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1997, ROD 
p. 7), but only 2.0 million acres (0.8 million ha) support productive 
forest (USFWS 2007, Table A-9, p. 129); that is, lands open to logging 
are 54 percent forested. Retention of 66 percent of the productive old 
forest within the area open to timber harvest will therefore result in 
a landscape with an average of about 36 percent cover by old forest. 
Old Growth Reserves protect an additional 8 percent or more of the 
productive forest within each watershed otherwise open for timber 
harvest, and maturing second growth will provide additional habitat. We 
therefore expect that approximately 45 percent of the harvested 
landscape will support productive old or mature forest, once all forest 
available for harvest is converted to second growth.
    Across all ownerships in Southeast Alaska, approximately 41 percent 
of the vegetated landscape (i.e., ice, bare rock, water, and other non-
vegetated areas that are not goshawk habitat excluded) is covered by 
productive mature and old forest (Albert 2007, p. 2).
    Doyle (2005, p. 14) found that nest territories on the Queen 
Charlotte Islands had at least 41 percent mature and old forest, and 
successful nests had at least 60 percent mature and old forest in the 
25,000 ac (10,000 ha) surrounding the nest. Productive old and mature 
forest covered an average of 51 percent of each 10,000 ac (4,000 ha) 
circle surrounding 34 nests in Southeast Alaska (Iverson et al. 1996, 
p. 55). These observations lead us to believe that retention of 66 
percent of the existing productive old forest within the otherwise 
harvested matrix of the Tongass National Forest, in addition to Small 
Old Growth Reserves in every watershed open to logging, and larger 
reserves outside the harvested matrix, will provide adequate nesting 
and foraging habitat for goshawks on the Tongass National Forest.
    Nest trees discovered on the Tongass National Forest during pre-
project surveys are protected from harvest and disturbance with 100-ac 
(40-ha) buffers (USDA Forest Service 1997, pp. 4-89). Because goshawks 
are sometimes secretive at their nests and may not be detected during 
pre-project surveys (Boyce et al. 2005, pp. 296-302), we expect that 
some nest stands will be inadvertently harvested. We expect this to be 
a relatively rare event that would usually lead to reproductive failure 
for the affected pair that year. Occasional nest failures occur 
naturally for various reasons, and a small number of such failures 
resulting from timber harvest is not likely to jeopardize the 
population if suitable alternate nest sites are available for 
subsequent nesting seasons. In most cases we expect that suitable 
alternative nest stands will be available in nearby reserves, retention 
areas, or on inoperable lands. Thus, while we believe that surveys for 
Queen Charlotte goshawk nests prior to timber harvest are important to 
the conservation of the subspecies, we do not consider occasional 
failure of such surveys to detect goshawks that are present to be a 
significant threat to the continued existence of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk.
    In 1954, prior to large-scale industrial timber harvest, the 
Tongass National Forest had 416 watersheds (as approximated by VCUs) 
with greater than 48 percent mature and old forest. By 1995, logging 
had reduced this number to 347, a 17 percent decline. Projections of 
logging on the Tongass National Forest done in 1997, based on full 
implementation of the 1997 TLMP, predicted that watersheds with greater 
than 48 percent mature and old forest would decline to 294 by 2055 (a 
15% decrease from 1995 levels) and recover somewhat, to 338 by 2095 (3% 
decline from 1995) as second-growth matured (USFWS 2007, pp. 75-78). 
Since 1997, far less timber has been harvested than anticipated (30 to 
50 million board feet annually, rather than the 267 million board feet 
annually used in the projections), so we expect impacts to goshawk 
territories to be much lower than predicted in 1997. Current 
projections of timber harvests are quite uncertain, with estimates of 
annual demand ranging from 48 to 370 million board feet (Brackley et 
al. 2006, p. 2). Unless new processing facilities are developed, timber 
harvests on National Forest lands are likely to remain well below 267 
million board feet, as allowed under the TLMP (Brackley et al. 2006, 
pp. 24-27).
    Most or all of the Queen Charlotte goshawk territories in which 
timber harvest will occur will likely remain viable territories because 
the conservation strategy within the TLMP ensures adequate amounts of 
mature and old forest will be available to support nesting and 
foraging. Reduced demand for wood from the Tongass National Forest, as 
compared to the 50 years prior to 1997 when now-defunct pulp mills were 
operating, is expected to result in lower impacts than previously 
believed. Therefore, we believe that the conservation strategy 
contained in the TLMP will substantially reduce the impact of future 
harvest on the Queen Charlotte goshawks on the Tongass National Forest, 
as compared to timber harvest done without consideration for goshawk 
conservation.
    Approximately one-third of the timber harvested to date in 
Southeast Alaska has been on private land owned by Alaska Native 
corporations. Corporate lands, which cover only 3 percent of the total 
area of Southeast Alaska but include 7 percent of the region's 6.4 
million ac (2.6 million ha) of productive forest, are distributed 
throughout Southeast Alaska, with concentrations on and near Prince of 
Wales Island in southern Southeast Alaska. Approximately 285,000 ac 
(116,000 ha) of productive forest have been harvested on corporate 
lands to date, with another 104,000 ac (42,000 ha) likely to be 
harvested over the next few decades (USFWS 2007, pp. 81-82, and 
Appendix A, Table A-8 and A-9).
    Intensive logging on corporate lands has probably eliminated 
goshawk nesting and foraging habitat, and may have affected territories 
roughly in proportion to the percentage of region-wide productive 
forest that has been harvested. That is, we estimate that logging by 
native corporations has probably reduced the number of potential 
nesting territories by approximately 4 percent across Southeast Alaska. 
Future harvest on corporate lands may affect another 2 percent of the 
breeding territories. We believe that this proportionate relationship 
is reasonable because native logging has been concentrated rather than 
dispersed across the landscape thereby minimizing the number of 
potential territories affected. However, this logging has probably 
reduced mature and old forest representation to far below 50 percent in 
most of the territories affected, thus rendering such territories poor 
habitat.
    Loss of territories is potentially of concern to long-term 
population resilience. However, population-level impacts from the loss 
of 4 to 6 percent of potential goshawk territories to native logging in 
Southeast Alaska may affect population growth by a smaller increment 
than suggested by number of impacted territories because (1) in some 
cases, adults in impacted territories may establish new territories in 
otherwise vacant territories, and (2) impacted territories in the 
southern portion of Southeast Alaska (Prince of Wales and vicinity) 
where Native Corporation lands are concentrated, naturally lack key 
prey and have probably always had relatively low reproductive success 
compared to territories elsewhere in the

[[Page 63132]]

range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk. Surveys across the range of the 
goshawk have consistently documented a significant percentage of 
unoccupied territories (55 percent in Southeast Alaska, 21 to 46 
percent elsewhere in North America) (USFWS 2007, p. 48), suggesting 
that vacant territories are probably available for at least some 
displaced pairs.
    A variety of federal agencies, the State of Alaska, municipalities, 
and private owners other than the Forest Service and native 
corporations manage 8 percent of the productive forest in Southeast 
Alaska (USFWS 2007, pp. 81-82 and 128). Some of these lands are 
protected from harvest while other lands are available for various 
forms of development. We expect Queen Charlotte goshawks to continue to 
use many of these lands, because with minor exceptions, timber harvest 
and clearing for other purposes tends to be less intensive on these 
lands than on lands designated by the Forest Service for timber 
production, or on native corporation lands.
    To evaluate trends in habitat conditions across Southeast Alaska, 
the Service has developed a habitat v