Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, 47326-47522 [E8-17866]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47326-47522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17866]



[[Page 47325]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 47326]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R1-ES-2008-0051; 92210-1117-0000-FY08-B4]
RIN 1018-AU37


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising 
currently designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl 
(Strix occidentalis caurina) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act). In 1992, we designated critical habitat for the 
northern spotted owl on 6, 887, 000 acres (ac) (2, 787, 070 hectares 
(ha)) of Federal lands in California, Oregon, and Washington. In this 
document we finalize revised critical habitat for the northern spotted 
owl on a total of approximately 5, 312, 300 acres (ac) (2, 149, 800 
hectares (ha)) of Federal lands in California, Oregon, and Washington.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on September 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: This final rule and its associated economic analysis are 
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://
www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/. Supporting documentation we used in 
preparing this final rule will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave, 
Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone 503-231-6179; facsimile 503-
231-6195.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office, (see ADDRESSES); Ken Berg, Field Supervisor, 
Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Lacey, 
WA 98503 (telephone 360-753-9440); Michael Long, Field Supervisor, 
Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521 
(telephone 707-822-7201). Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TTD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the revised designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more 
information on the northern spotted owl and critical habitat, please 
refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on June 
12, 2007 (72 FR 32450).
    Prior and subsequent to the listing of the northern spotted owl in 
1990 (55 FR 26114), many committees, task forces, and work groups were 
formed to develop conservation strategies for the northern spotted owl. 
Information on these efforts can be found in the proposed critical 
habitat rule (72 FR 32450). We recently released the final Recovery 
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008), which incorporates the 
best available scientific information regarding the conservation of the 
northern spotted owl. The final recovery plan recommends a the network 
of habitat blocks, or managed owl conservation areas (MOCAs), in the 
westside provinces in the range of the northern spotted owl, and a 
broader landscape-based habitat management approach (without MOCAs) for 
the dry forest eastside provinces in Washington and Oregon. The 
westside provinces include the Olympic Peninsula, Western Washington 
Lowlands, Western Washington Cascades, Oregon Coast Range, Willamette 
Valley, Western Oregon Cascades, and California Coast. The Willamette 
Valley and Western Washington Lowland provinces are excluded from the 
MOCA network because, given their low population numbers and isolation 
from other populations, the recovery plan assumed that these areas 
could not play an essential role in the recovery of the species (USFWS 
2008, pp. 14 to 15). The Oregon Klamath and California Klamath are 
currently included in the MOCA network of the westside provinces; 
however, the recovery plan notes that this is an interim strategy for 
the complex habitat in these provinces (USFWS 2008, p. 24), which are 
also largely considered fire-prone similar to the eastside provinces. 
Hence when we refer to the ``fire-prone'' provinces, we include the 
Oregon Klamath and California Klamath with the dry forest eastside 
provinces. The eastside provinces refer to the Eastern Washington 
Cascades, Eastern Oregon Cascades, and California Cascades.
    We believe the recovery strategy described in the final recovery 
plan will be effective, and therefore the MOCAs delineated in that plan 
and identified as essential to the conservation of the species serve as 
the basis for this critical habitat designation in the westside 
provinces. The landscape management approach for the eastside 
provinces, identified in the 2008 final recovery plan (USFWS 2008) and 
by the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI) Scientific Panel (SEI 
2008) as the most effective approach for managing northern spotted owl 
habitat in dry forests, was not incorporated into this rule because it 
cannot be translated into critical habitat at this time, until the new 
approach called for by the recovery plan is further defined. In the 
eastside provinces the areas identified for designation in the proposed 
critical habitat (72 FR 32450), based on the Option 1 MOCAs in the 2007 
draft recovery plan, are finalized in this rule. These MOCAs represent 
the most current delineation of specific areas that provide the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
northern spotted owl in that region, as required by our regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12.
    Here we provide detailed background information on this most recent 
recovery planning process, as understanding the science and strategy 
behind the habitat network recommended in the recovery plan is integral 
to understanding the revised critical habitat designation.

2006 to 2008 Recovery Planning Process for the Northern Spotted Owl

    In April 2006, we convened an interdisciplinary, interagency 
Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Team (Recovery Team) to incorporate the 
most recent scientific information into a final recovery plan for the 
species. The Recovery Team sought input from northern spotted owl 
experts on the main threats to the northern spotted owl population; 
these experts identified three primary threats to the species: 
competition from barred owls, past habitat loss, and current habitat 
loss. The Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl was released 
in April 2007 (72 FR 20865). Following a 90-day public comment period 
and a series of public meetings in California, Oregon, and Washington, 
we received more than 75, 000 public comments. In addition, we 
collaborated with the American Ornithologists' Union and the Society 
for Conservation Biology to conduct two sets of blind peer reviews, and 
requested and received additional independent peer reviews of the 2007 
draft recovery plan from scientists with expertise regarding the 
northern spotted owl and its habitat. We initiated the revisions to the 
draft recovery plan in October 2007, and contracted a consultant, SEI, 
to assist with review of

[[Page 47327]]

the science and peer review comments on the recovery plan, and convened 
expert panel workgroups on barred owls, habitat issues, and fire 
ecology to evaluate and respond to technical issues and to evaluate the 
recommendations of SEI. The final recovery plan, substantially revised 
from the original draft, was released in May 2008. Revisions from the 
draft recovery plan included the elimination of Option 2, the ``rule 
set'' option for siting of conservation areas, as well as the addition 
of more recent modeling work to evaluate the size and spacing criteria 
of the recommended reserve network.
    The final recovery plan identifies competition with the barred owl, 
ongoing loss of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvest and 
catastrophic fire, and loss of amount and distribution of suitable 
habitat as a result of past activities and disturbances as the most 
important rangewide threats to the northern spotted owl. The final 
recovery plan describes a variety of recovery actions to address these 
threats and recover the species, concentrating primarily on habitat 
conservation, habitat management, and barred owl control (USFWS 2008, 
p. 12), following a strategy designed for evaluation and adaptive 
management over the next 10 years (USFWS 2008, pp. VIII to IX). Of 
these actions, it is Recovery Action 4 that forms the foundation of 
this critical habitat designation: ``Establish a network of MOCAs (as 
presented in Appendices C and D) that are of sufficient size and 
spacing to achieve long-term recovery of spotted owls'' (USFWS 2008, p. 
20). Although the recovery plan speaks to the potential contributions 
of various lands to the conservation of the owl, it is the MOCA network 
that is specifically identified as representing those ``areas that 
contain or will develop suitable habitat considered essential for 
spotted owl recovery'' (USFWS 2008, p. 13). As section 3(5)(A) of the 
Act defines critical habitat, in part, as those specific areas that 
provide the physical and biological features determined to be essential 
to the conservation of the species, we have designated critical habitat 
for the northern spotted owl on the basis of the MOCA network.
    The 2008 final recovery plan specifically delineates MOCAs in the 
westside provinces occupied by the northern spotted owl (Western 
Washington Cascades, Western Oregon Cascades, Western Washington 
Lowlands, Olympic Peninsula, and Oregon Coast Range) and adopts a 
broader scale landscape management strategy without defined boundaries 
in the eastside provinces (USFWS 2008; p. 9, p. 14, Appendices C and 
D). The recovery plan recognized the need for an adaptive management 
approach in the Klamath provinces, but recommends a MOCA network for 
these provinces as an interim strategy that isexpected to change 
following the work of the Dry Forest Landscape Workgroup (USFWS 2008, 
p. 24).
    The MOCA network is a set of large habitat blocks, each capable of 
supporting 20 or more breeding pairs of owls (MOCA 1s), and smaller 
habitat blocks capable of supporting up to 19 breeding pairs of owls 
(MOCA 2s). The MOCA strategy is founded on the concepts and information 
first presented in ``A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted 
Owl, compiled by the Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the 
Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl'' (hereafter ``ISC Report''; 
Thomas et al. 1990). The 1992 Final Draft Recovery Plan for the 
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 1992) reflected the ISC Report in its focus 
on managing large blocks of suitable habitat throughout the range of 
the northern spotted owl that could support self-sustaining populations 
of 20 breeding pairs, and spacing the blocks and managing between them 
to permit movement between the blocks. The ISC Report initially 
delineated and mapped a network of Habitat Conservation Areas, which 
were modified into Designated Conservation Areas (DCAs) in the 1992 
final draft recovery plan. In 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) 
amended 26 land resource management plans (LRMPs) of the Forest Service 
and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to provide a network of land-use 
allocations identified as Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) to provide 
habitat for multiple late-successional forest species, including the 
northern spotted owl. In 2004, a comprehensive scientific review 
confirmed that this reserve strategy designed for the northern spotted 
owl is based on sound scientific principles that have not substantially 
changed since the species was listed (Courtney et al. 2004). 
Additionally, more recent modeling by Marcot et al. (2008) has 
reaffirmed the size and spacing criteria utilized in the final MOCA 
network (summarized in USFWS 2008, pp. 76 to 81).
    One of the significant departures in the 2008 final recovery plan, 
as revised from the 2007 draft recovery plan, is that it eliminates the 
MOCA system on the dry forest provinces east of the Cascade Mountain 
crest in Washington and Oregon where habitat loss from stand-replacing 
fires has been relatively high. These areas have a natural pattern of 
frequent, natural disturbances that preclude the long-term persistence 
and effectiveness of any static habitat management areas (Agee 2003; 
Spies et al. 2006). An independent scientific panel advised that a 
simple reserve network of MOCAs failed to adequately address the 
eastside fire threats and the maintenance of spotted owl habitat in dry 
forests cannot rely on static reserves in such a high-risk landscape 
(USFWS 2008, p. 108; see also Courtney et al. 2008, pp. 53 to 72). 
Consequently, in the Eastern Washington Cascades, Eastern Oregon 
Cascades, and California Cascades provinces, the 2008 final recovery 
plan describes a habitat management strategy that seeks to identify and 
maintain well-distributed, spatially dynamic patches of high quality 
habitat, manage the lands outside of high quality patches to restore 
ecological processes and functions, and reduce the potential of stand-
replacement fires and insect and disease outbreaks; the plan does not 
delineate specific, mapped conservation areas (USFWS 2008, p. 21). The 
recovery plan also calls for a study of how to best address the fire-
prone, but more complex habitat, of the Klamath province (USFWS 2008, 
pp. 23 to 25).
    The landscape strategy of moving habitat patches recommended for 
the eastside provinces does not translate easily into critical habitat, 
which is defined by statute as ``specific areas'' and which, per our 
implementing regulations, must ``be defined by specific limits using 
reference points and lines as found on standard topographic maps of the 
area'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A) and 50 CFR 424.12(c)). Consequently, the 
areas identified for designation in the proposed critical habitat (72 
FR 32450), which were based on the MOCAs identified for that region in 
the 2007 draft recovery plan, are finalized in this rule. These areas 
meet the criteria regarding contiguity, habitat quality, size, spacing, 
and distribution used to identify critical habitat within the range of 
the northern spotted owl, and represent the most current specific areas 
designed for the conservation of the northern spotted owl that also 
meet the delineation requirements for critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12). 
Many of these areas have been designated as LSRs, or are managed under 
LRMPs to develop the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of northern 
spotted owl habitat. However, as the Service, land management agencies, 
and scientists work together to implement the landscape-based habitat 
management strategy described in the 2008 final recovery plan for the 
fire-prone

[[Page 47328]]

provinces, we may consider adjustments to critical habitat to better 
reflect the results of that effort.
    The MOCA network identified in the 2008 Recovery Plan for the 
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008), and the MOCAs identified for the 
eastside provinces under Option 1 of the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for 
the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2007), serve as the basis for this 
revised critical habitat designation. The 2008 final recovery plan 
concludes that the habitat needs for recovery of the northern spotted 
owl in the United States can be achieved by managing for appropriate 
habitat on Federal lands within the range of the species, with 
voluntary recovery measures on intervening non-Federal lands. As in the 
1992 designation, we have included only Federal lands in the revised 
designation. The 2008 final recovery plan focuses on managing large 
blocks of habitat in designated conservation areas (MOCAs) on Federal 
lands in the westside provinces throughout the range of the spotted owl 
and spacing the blocks and managing the areas between them to permit 
movement of spotted owls between and among the blocks (USFWS 2008, p. 
70).
    The Federal lands comprising the MOCA network of the final recovery 
plan include areas of congressionally-reserved lands, such as 
designated wilderness areas; these areas were therefore included in the 
recovery plan's assessment that the MOCA network is sufficient to 
achieve the recovery of the northern spotted owl As in the 1992 
designation of critical habitat, congressionally-reserved lands such as 
wilderness areas and national parks are not included within the 
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. However, the 
contribution of these congressionally-reserved areas must be considered 
in any evaluation of the sufficiency of the overall conservation 
habitat network for the recovery of the northern spotted owl.

Previous Federal Actions

    A description of previous Federal actions up to the time of listing 
on June 26, 1990, can be found in the final rule listing the northern 
spotted owl (55 FR 26114). On January 15, 1992, we published a final 
rule designating 6, 887, 000 acres (2, 787, 000 ha) of Federal lands in 
Washington, Oregon, and California as critical habitat for the northern 
spotted owl (57 FR 1796). In December 1992, we completed the Final 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl in Washington, Oregon, 
and California (USFWS 1992). This plan was never finalized, however, 
and a new draft recovery plan was released in April of 2007 (USFWS 
2007; 72 FR 20865). The final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted 
Owl was released on May 16, 2008 (USFWS 2008).
    On January 13, 2003, we entered into a settlement agreement with 
the American Forest Resources Council, Western Council of Industrial 
Workers, Swanson Group Inc., and Rough & Ready Lumber Company to 
conduct a 5-year status review of the northern spotted owl and consider 
potential revisions to its critical habitat. On April 21, 2003, we 
published a notice initiating the 5-year review of the northern spotted 
owl (68 FR 19569). We then published a second information request for 
the 5-year review on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 44093). We contracted a 
comprehensive status review of the northern spotted owl to provide the 
best available scientific information for the 5-year review. The status 
review report was completed in September 2004 and continues to serve as 
the most current comprehensive summary of scientific information on the 
northern spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004). We completed the 5-year 
review on November 15, 2004, concluding that the northern spotted owl 
should remain listed as a threatened species under the Act (USFWS 
2004).
    As amended, the settlement agreement called for the Service to 
submit any proposed revised critical habitat designation we deemed 
appropriate to the Federal Register by June 1, 2007, and to submit any 
final revised critical habitat designation, as appropriate, to the 
Federal Register by July 30, 2008. The settlement agreement required 
that the review of critical habitat would include a revised 
consideration of economic and other impacts. The proposed revised 
critical habitat rule was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 
2007 (72 FR 32450). On May 21, 2008, we published a notice announcing 
the availability of a draft economic analysis and the reopening of the 
public comment period on the proposed revised critical habitat 
designation (73 FR 29471). This notice also alerted the public of the 
opportunity to comment on the proposed revision of critical habitat in 
the context of the recently released final recovery plan. The comment 
period closed on June 20, 2008.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
revision of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl in the 
proposed rule published on June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32450). We also 
contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; tribes; 
scientific organizations; and other interested parties, and invited 
them to comment on the proposed rule.
    We conducted two comment periods that resulted in 1, 413 comments 
directly addressing the proposed revised critical habitat designation. 
Of these, 1, 138 were template or form letter responses. During the 
comment period that opened for the draft economic analysis on May 21, 
2008, and closed on June 20, 2008, we received seven additional 
comments directly addressing the proposed revised critical habitat 
designation.
    Comments received were grouped into related topics specific to the 
proposed critical habitat revision for the northern spotted owl and are 
addressed in the following summary and incorporated in the final rule 
as appropriate. We received one request for a public hearing, but this 
was later withdrawn.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), and current Departmental guidance, we solicited expert 
opinions from nine knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise 
that included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in 
which the species occurs, and/or conservation biology principles. We 
received responses from six of these individuals. We reviewed all 
comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and 
new information regarding northern spotted owl critical habitat, and 
address them in the following summary.

Peer Review Comments

    (1) Comment: Three peer reviewers recommended that the Service not 
rely on the 2007 draft recovery plan as the basis for critical habitat 
designation. One reviewer notes that we continue to rely on the 2007 
draft recovery plan as the best scientific information available, 
stating that it is the most current assessment and conservation 
guidance, but not necessarily the best. Two reviewers questioned 
whether the reduction of more than 1.5 million acres was consistent 
with the best scientific understanding of the species' conservation 
needs, and asked how we can justify dropping critical habitat from the 
current designation when the species is continuing to decline. One 
reviewer pointed to the work of Carroll and Johnson (in press), which 
indicates the current proposal will result in reduced habitat as well 
as reduced abundance of owls.

[[Page 47329]]

    Our Response: The revised critical habitat is based on the final 
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (with the exception of 
critical habitat in the eastside provinces, which are based on the 
Option 1 MOCAs of the draft recovery plan (USFWS 2007), for reasons 
detailed in the Background section), which describes the habitat needed 
to recover the species using the best available scientific information 
integrated with an assessment of the needs for recovery of the northern 
spotted owl (USFWS 2008). This final plan reflects substantial 
revisions to the 2007 draft plan made in response to public and peer 
review comments, as well as additional independent scientific review. 
The network of habitat blocks recommended by the recovery plan 
represents the habitat component of the recovery strategy for the 
northern spotted owl and serves as the foundation of this critical 
habitat designation. The MOCA 1s are designed to provide for the 
management of large blocks of habitat throughout the range of the owl 
sufficient to each support self-sustaining populations of at least 20 
pairs of spotted owls, while the MOCA 2s are designed for smaller 
populations. The spacing of the blocks and management of the areas 
between them are intended to permit the movement of spotted owls 
between these habitat blocks (USFWS 2008, Appendix C). These areas were 
identified based on the best available information, including modeling 
conducted for the 1992 draft recovery plan (published subsequently as 
Lamberson et al. 1994) and more recent habitat modeling conducted 
specifically for the 2008 final recovery plan, which estimated 
occupancy levels given habitat sizing and spacing variations (Marcot et 
al. 2008). Based on this scientific data and modeling, we believe the 
recovery strategy described in the final recovery plan will be 
effective, and the habitat conservation areas delineated in that plan 
and identified as essential to the conservation of the species serve as 
the basis for this critical habitat designation.
    Similar to the reserve network of the Northwest Forest Plan, the 
MOCAs delineated in the final recovery plan include congressionally-
reserved areas, such as wilderness areas and national park lands. These 
areas were considered in evaluating the effectiveness of the MOCA 
network in providing the habitat component of recovery for the northern 
spotted owl, but consistent with the Secretary's decision in our 1992 
critical habitat designation, these congressionally-reserved areas are 
not included in this designation. For this reason, the acreage in 
designated critical habitat will be less than that in the MOCA network.
    It is important to note that this critical habitat reflects only 
the habitat element of the final recovery plan, i.e., the establishment 
of the MOCA network under Recovery Action 4 (USFWS 2008, p. 20). Other 
factors that may play a role in achieving the recovery of the northern 
spotted owl, such as management of barred owls, are not necessarily 
reflected in this critical habitat designation. The recovery plan 
identifies several threats that may be contributing to the ongoing 
decline of the northern spotted owl, including barred owls and avian 
disease. In addition to the establishment of the MOCA network, the 
final recovery plan describes 33 additional recovery actions to address 
a variety of threats (USFWS 2008, pp. 17 to 35). Critical habitat 
represents one component of recovery.
    The work of Carroll and Johnson (in press) evaluated, in part, the 
proposed revision of critical habitat, which in turn was based on the 
habitat network recommended in the 2007 draft recovery plan (USFWS 
2007). This final revision of critical habitat is based upon the MOCA 
network recommended in the final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted 
Owl (USFWS 2008). We acknowledge that the final MOCAs cover fewer acres 
than the LSRs in the same provinces, as Carroll and Johnson point out. 
We note that LSRs were delineated for multiple late-successional 
species, and not just the northern spotted owl. However, the key 
question is whether the final MOCAs (and the critical habitat 
designation based on those MOCAs) are sufficient to provide the habitat 
component of recovery for the species.
    The size and spacing of the final MOCAs are derived from 
consideration of the collective work of several authors (e.g., Thomas 
et al. 1990; USDA et al. 1993; Lamberson et al. 1994; Noon and McKelvey 
1996; Forsman et al. 2002) and on more recent modeling work (Marcot et 
al. 2008) contracted specifically for the final northern spotted owl 
recovery plan. Our consideration of all of the modeling data evaluating 
the likelihood of long-term persistence of the northern spotted owl 
population across its range, as well as plan feasibility and likelihood 
of implementation, led the final recovery plan to the recommendation of 
the final MOCA network in westside provinces and landscape management 
strategy in the fire-prone eastside provinces. These are considered 
sufficient to achieve the recovery of the northern spotted owl, in 
conjunction with the other recovery actions identified in the recovery 
plan (USFWS 2008, p. VIII).
    (2) Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that the proposed revised 
critical habitat rule ignored a large number of scientific papers on 
the northern spotted owl published since the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 
1990), and specifically overlooked the work of Noon and McKelvey (1996) 
suggesting that managing for clusters of 20 pairs of spotted owls is 
not sufficient for long-term population stability.
    Our Response: The revised critical habitat is based on the 2008 
final recovery plan, which is based on the consideration of all of the 
best available science, including recent studies on spotted owl habitat 
size, spacing and occupancy modeling, and all other documents published 
since the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990), either through specific 
analysis or through the work of recent reviews (e.g., status review 
(Courtney et al. 2004), northern spotted owl 5-year review (USFWS 
2004)). We contracted with SEI for a detailed scientific review of the 
2007 draft recovery plan, as well as to provide assistance with 
responses to specific public comments and peer review comments on 
scientific and technical issues. This information, as well as other 
scientific information and comments received on the 2007 draft recovery 
plan, was used in the development of the 2008 final recovery plan.
    Relative to the specific paper mentioned, Noon and McKelvey (1996), 
the authors state that their recent modeling data support perhaps 30 to 
40 spotted owl pairs per conservation area. The data supporting this 
statement were never published, however. The final recovery plan did, 
to the extent possible, consider the work of Noon and McKelvey (1996) 
amongst all of the modeling efforts evaluated in the delineation and 
evaluation of the MOCA network (USFWS 2008, pp. 74 to 75, p. 81). We 
contracted more recent modeling of the block size and spacing necessary 
for spotted owl recovery (Marcot et al. 2008), which included the most 
recent spotted owl dispersal data (see ``2008 Modeling of Size of MOCAs 
and Distances Between MOCAs, '' USFWS 2008, pp. 76 to 81). Based on the 
best available data on block size and spacing, including the results of 
Noon and McKelvey (1996) and Marcot et al. (2008), we believe a level 
of population persistence reasonable to achieve recovery is attained by 
habitat blocks large enough for at least 20 reproducing spotted owl 
pairs. The 2008 final recovery plan, on which critical habitat is 
based, does provide more than the

[[Page 47330]]

minimum level of habitat for 20 pairs in some areas, with 23 MOCAs 
(over half of the MOCA 1s) large enough to support at least 30 spotted 
owl pairs, as recommended by Noon and McKelvey (1996) (using the 
calculation from the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990) and final recovery 
plan (USFWS 2008)). The critical habitat designation includes both the 
MOCA 1s and MOCA 2s identified in the final recovery plan.
    It is important to note that the goal of the most recent modeling 
efforts by Marcot et al. (2008) was not to identify the number of owl 
pairs needed per habitat block, but rather to identify the amount and 
relative configuration of habitat that would be needed to maintain a 
stable population of spotted owls over the long term. To answer this 
question, they modeled several different numbers of owl pairs, from 4 
to 49 per habitat unit, with those habitat units at various distances 
from one another (USFWS 2008, pp. 76 to 81). The hexagonal design of 
the model limited the numbers of pairs that could be evaluated such 
that the simulation of round numbers, such as 10 or 20 pairs, was not 
possible; this modeling effort was therefore limited to assessments of 
4, 9, 25, 36, and 49 pairs of owls per habitat block. Accordingly, to 
evaluate the results of the model for the target number of 20 owl 
pairs, the recovery plan concludes that simple interpolation suggests 
that a cluster size of 20 territories per cluster would fare only 
slightly worse than that of 25 territories per cluster (USFWS 2008, p. 
77). This assumption led to the final determination that, given a 
population with a finite rate of population growth ([lgr]) equal to 1, 
clusters of 20 pairs of owls in habitat blocks of the size and spacing 
recommended in the final MOCA network had a high likelihood of 
remaining stable over a time period of 100 years. Examination of the 
modeling data shows that at the spacing of habitat blocks recommended 
in the final recovery plan (12 miles (mi) (19 kilometers (km)) for 
large habitat blocks, or MOCA 1s), the likelihood of long-term 
persistence of owls in habitat blocks was essentially the same whether 
they supported 25, 36, or 49 pairs of owls (Figures C1, C2, and C3, 
USFWS 2008, pp. 79 to 81). In other words, at the spacing recommended 
by the recovery plan, there did not appear to be any significant 
benefit to managing for more than 20 pairs of owls per habitat block in 
terms of achieving long-term persistence of populations.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that Zielinski et al. 
(2006) describe an approach to finding an optimal reserve network that 
would be appropriate to use over the entire range of the northern 
spotted owl.
    Our Response: The revised critical habitat is based on the habitat 
reserve system in the 2008 final recovery plan, which is in turn based 
on the 1992 draft recovery plan reserve system that covers the entire 
U.S. range of the northern spotted owl. The Zielinski et al. (2006) 
model has been applied to only a limited portion of the range of the 
species, which is inadequate for the critical habitat effort. We 
believe the reserve network recommended in the 2008 final recovery 
plan, as revised from the 2007 draft plan, is based on the best 
available science, including recent information on spotted owl habitat 
size, spacing, and occupancy from modeling.
    (4) Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned the scientific basis for 
changing the boundaries of existing reserves on BLM lands and 
questioned whether habitat quality was considered when DCA boundary 
adjustments were made.
    Our Response: The revised critical habitat is based on the MOCA 
reserve system in the 2008 final recovery plan, which describes the 
habitat areas and amount believed to be essential to the recovery of 
the northern spotted owl. The MOCAs were based on the DCAs from the 
1992 draft recovery plan, with some modifications. A key criterion for 
these DCAs, which formed the starting place for the final MOCA network, 
was the inclusion of as much high-quality habitat as possible, as well 
as maximizing the number of known spotted owl sites, within an 
effective and efficient system of habitat blocks (USFWS 2008, p. 69). 
Modifications to the boundaries were largely an effort to better align 
MOCAs with the reserve allocations in the BLM and U.S. Forest Service 
land use plans, to meet or maintain the spacing requirements, or to 
include areas where BLM modeling demonstrated future habitat was most 
likely to form into large or small blocks of habitat capable of 
supporting larger clusters of reproducing spotted owls (USFWS 2008, pp. 
82 to 83). During all of these modifications we attempted to maximize 
the amount and quality of existing spotted owl habitat in any added 
areas, and we maintained the size and spacing parameters of the ISC 
Report (Thomas et al. 1990). The recovery team worked with maps of 
spotted owl habitat produced by Biomapper, which include lands that 
meet the criterion of providing habitat with a suitability score equal 
to or greater than that used by 90 percent of known spotted owl pairs 
(Davis and Lint 2005, p. 41). In addition, we contracted to have the 
size and spacing criteria reanalyzed (Marcot et al. 2008) using the 
most recent spotted owl dispersal data and demographic parameters. 
Based on these results, we believe that the size and spacing of the 
habitat blocks that comprise the MOCA network, on which the critical 
habitat units are based, are sufficient to achieve the habitat 
component of the recovery strategy for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 
2008, p. 81).
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we use predictive 
habitat modeling to determine areas of high value to owls (especially 
for nesting and roosting) that may not currently be surveyed.
    Our Response: The critical habitat units are based on the MOCA 
system from the 2008 final recovery plan (or, in the eastside 
provinces, the Option 1 MOCAs from the 2007 draft recovery plan), which 
was established and modified to include spotted owl habitat and known 
historic spotted owl locations. By trying to maximize spotted owl 
habitat within the MOCAs, and therefore also within the critical 
habitat units, we believe we have effectively maximized the acres of 
PCEs present within each critical habitat unit. In addition, forest age 
and composition information has been collected in many of the areas 
identified as MOCAs. We also used the latest habitat models available, 
such as those described by Davis and Lint (2005) and the models 
developed by BLM for their Western Oregon Plan Revision analyses, to 
predict those areas of habitat that are of high value to owls, even if 
not currently surveyed.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that there was no 
scientifically valid justification for continuing to rely only on 
Federal lands for recovery of the northern spotted owl, especially in 
the face of continuing population declines despite the 1992 critical 
habitat designation and 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 
1994), and with no concomitant increase in habitat quality.
    Our Response: The revised designation of northern spotted owl 
critical habitat is based on the MOCAs from the 2008 final recovery 
plan, which form a habitat network designed to contribute to the 
recovery of spotted owl populations through rangewide distribution and 
connectivity of blocks of habitat. The 2008 final recovery plan is 
based on the best available science, including recent information on 
spotted owl habitat size, spacing, and occupancy modeling and provides 
for a level of owl dispersal and persistence within a Federal land-
based MOCA system that is expected to contribute to

[[Page 47331]]

the habitat component requisite for the recovery of the species (USFWS 
2008, p. 18). It has long been recognized that the vast majority of 
remaining suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl, over 90 
percent in Oregon and Washington, is on Federal lands (e.g., Thomas et 
al. 1990, p. 65; USFWS 1992, p. 31); thus conservation actions have 
focused on these areas.
    Non-federal lands, described as Conservation Support Areas in the 
2008 final recovery plan, are recognized as providing additional 
habitat contributions and support to the MOCA system; although 
recognized as potentially helpful in achieving recovery plan goals, 
these areas were not considered essential to the conservation of the 
species (USFWS 2008, p. 14). The recovery plan identifies only the 
specific areas of the MOCA network, which is entirely based on Federal 
lands, as essential to the conservation of the species (USFWS 2008, p. 
13); thus the MOCA network serves as the basis of this critical habitat 
designation. In addition, the recovery criteria set forth in the 
recovery plan consider the successful performance of the MOCA network 
as one of the indicators that recovery has been achieved, but do not 
require the contributions of Conservation Support Areas as an essential 
component of recovery (USFWS 2008, p. 18). That Conservation Support 
Areas were not considered strictly essential to the conservation of the 
species should not be interpreted as meaning that these areas are 
unimportant for the species; these lands simply did not meet the more 
exacting statutory definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) 
of the Act, which specifies that areas designated as critical habitat 
must have the physical and biological features which are essential to 
the species' conservation.
    We believe that the habitat network recommended in the final 
recovery plan will be sufficient to recover the northern spotted owl, 
assuming the currently observed negative population trend has been 
addressed. As noted in the recovery plan, if negative population growth 
continues, the population will continue to decline regardless of how 
much habitat is available (USFWS 2008, p. 77). Population declines have 
been attributed to a variety of factors in addition to loss of habitat 
from wildfire and timber harvest, including barred owls, poor weather 
conditions, and forest defoliation caused by insect infestations 
(Anthony et al. 2006, p. 33). Thus one key to recovery is to reverse 
the current population trend, which is one of the goals of the recovery 
plan, and which will require actions to address a variety of threats in 
addition to habitat loss or degradation. The evidence thus far points 
to low adult survivorship as the most likely contributor to the 
declining population trend (Anthony et al. 2006, p. 30, and references 
therein), and the most recent scientific review points to the barred 
owl as a plausible cause of low survivorship in many parts of the 
northern spotted owl's range, while noting that there is no evidence 
that actions such as increasing the size of habitat reserves would 
increase survivorship (Courtney et al. 2008, pp. 120 to 121). At 
present the best available scientific information indicates that the 
revised critical habitat designation provides the network of large 
blocks of habitat called for by the recovery plan; we consider these 
areas sufficient to achieve the recovery of the northern spotted owl, 
in conjunction with the other recovery actions in the final recovery 
plan (USFWS 2008, pp. VII to VIII)
    (7) Comment: Three peer reviewers expressed concern about several 
aspects of Option 2 of the draft recovery plan, including the lack of 
specificity on the rule set for small blocks, the need for a more 
specific description of suitable habitat, and concerns about the 
clarity of the rule set.
    Our Response: Option 2 has been deleted from the 2008 Recovery Plan 
for the Northern Spotted Owl. This final revised critical habitat 
designation does not rely on any aspect of Option 2 presented in the 
2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl.
    (8) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the implication of 
deviating from ISC Report principles (Thomas et al. 1990) in terms of 
amounts and location of habitat in the proposed critical habitat and 
stated that the proposal did not provide additional modeling or further 
analysis to justify the change. He also cautioned that the viability 
conclusions from the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990) may not hold for 
the current proposed critical habitat.
    Our Response: This critical habitat designation is based on the 
recovery plan MOCA system, which was delineated starting with the 
location and size of the DCAs from the 1992 draft recovery plan, which 
in turn applied the principles of the ISC Report (USFWS 2008, Appendix 
C). As part of establishing the MOCA network, some modifications were 
made to the DCAs to better align them with the reserve allocations in 
the BLM and U.S. Forest Service land use plans (e.g., LSRs), to meet or 
maintain the spacing requirements, or to include areas where BLM 
modeling demonstrated future habitat was most likely to form into large 
or small blocks of habitat capable of supporting larger clusters of 
reproducing spotted owls. In the process of making these modifications 
the recovery team attempted to maximize the amount of existing spotted 
owl habitat in any added areas, while maintaining the size and spacing 
parameters of the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990).
    After publication of the proposed critical habitat revision in 
2007, we contracted to have the size and spacing criteria reanalyzed 
using the most recent spotted owl dispersal and demographic data in the 
course of revising the draft recovery plan (Marcot et al. 2008). The 
subsequently revised habitat network of the final recovery plan served 
as the basis for this final revision of critical habitat. Based on this 
most recent analysis, in conjunction with consideration of all other 
available data (e.g., Thomas et al. 1990; USFWS 1992; Lamberson et al. 
1994; USDA and USDI 1994; Noon and McKelvey 1996; Forsman et al. 2002), 
we believe that the specific habitat component of recovery is 
achievable through the MOCA network on which this revised critical 
habitat designation is based (USFWS 2008, p. 81).
    (9) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that the critical 
habitat proposal did not include an analysis of the value of the 
habitat being designated. He stated that we could not justify reduction 
in habitat unless we can demonstrate a clear increase in quality of 
that habitat.
    Our Response: The original critical habitat designation was based 
on the information in the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990), and was 
designated early in the process of determining how to best implement 
the concepts in that report. As described in the rule, the 1992 
critical habitat included not only the reserves identified in the ISC 
Report (Thomas et al. 1990), but also included additional areas outside 
of these reserves. These additions included areas of better quality 
suitable habitat, as well as areas designed to support connectivity and 
habitat linkages between and within provinces, and were expanded to 
section lines to facilitate legal descriptions. The MOCAs in the 2008 
final recovery plan represent the application of the same concepts, but 
with better information on habitat, habitat use, and known sites, 
including the results of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment 
Team (USDA et al. 1993) that informed the Northwest Forest Plan. While 
this final critical

[[Page 47332]]

habitat contains less area than the 1992 critical habitat designation, 
we believe it represents the application of the same conservation 
principles necessary for achieving the recovery of the northern spotted 
owl. Furthermore, recent modeling work (Marcot et al. 2008) indicates 
that the size and spacing criteria utilized in the final recovery plan 
should be sufficient to achieve the recovery criterion set forth for 
the MOCA network (Recovery Criterion 2), assuming the root cause of 
negative population growth has been addressed (USFWS 2008, p. 18).
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the proposed revision of 
critical habitat does not define the quality of habitat for owls, which 
may vary by forest condition. He recommended that the Service clarify 
that, while northern spotted owls do not exclusively require old-
growth, they do preferentially select old-growth forest.
    Our Response: Numerous studies and reviews over the past decades 
describe how spotted owls generally rely on older forested habitats 
(e.g. Carroll and Johnson, in press; Courtney et al. 2004) because such 
forests contain the structures and characteristics required for 
nesting, roosting, and foraging, and the recent SEI review notes that 
there is an association between demographic performance of northern 
spotted owls and the availability of late successional old-growth 
forest (SEI 2008, p. 11). However, because northern spotted owls also 
use mature and structurally diverse forests, we did not limit our 
discussion to strictly old-growth. Old-growth forests meet the 
description of PCEs (i), (ii), and (iii), and would be included in any 
analysis of effects of actions to critical habitat.
    (11) Comment: One peer reviewer notes that there is not a clear 
relationship between habitat quality and demographic performance; 
therefore the amount of critical habitat may have little impact on the 
long-term viability of the owl population.
    Our Response: It is clear that without a sufficient area of habitat 
the spotted owl will not reach recovery (e.g., Courtney et al. 2008, p. 
16; USFWS 2008, p. VII). Therefore, we have used all the best 
scientific information available since the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 
1990) to establish a system of critical habitat units designed to 
provide sufficient habitat, representing all of the PCEs, well-
distributed across the range of the spotted owl to ensure its survival 
and recovery. Other actions, such as potential control of barred owls, 
will also play a role in improving the demographic performance of the 
species. Such actions do not, however, preclude the need for management 
of sufficient suitable habitat in dynamic dry forest landscapes and the 
establishment of the MOCA network as essential elements of the recovery 
strategy for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2008, p. 12). We believe 
that the habitat network recommended in the final recovery plan will be 
sufficient to recover the northern spotted owl, assuming the currently 
observed negative population trend has been addressed. As noted in the 
recovery plan, if negative population growth continues, the population 
will continue to decline regardless of how much habitat is available 
(USFWS 2008, p. 77). Population declines have been attributed to a 
variety of factors in addition to loss of habitat from wildfire and 
timber harvest, including barred owls, poor weather conditions, and 
forest defoliation caused by insect infestations (Anthony et al. 2006, 
p. 33). Thus one key to recovery is to stabilize population growth, 
which is one of the goals of the recovery plan, and which will require 
actions to address a variety of threats in addition to habitat loss or 
degradation. The evidence thus far points to low adult survivorship as 
the most likely contributor to the declining population trend (Anthony 
et al. 2006, p. 30, and references therein), and the most recent 
scientific review points to the barred owl as a plausible cause of low 
survivorship in many parts of the northern spotted owl's range, while 
noting that there is no evidence that actions such as increasing the 
size of habitat reserves would increase survivorship (Courtney et al. 
2008, pp. 120 to 121). In sum, at present the best available scientific 
information indicates that the revised critical habitat designation 
provides the network of large habitat blocks called for in the recovery 
plan; however, to be fully effective this habitat network must operate 
in conjunction with the implementation of all recovery actions 
identified in the recovery plan (USFWS 2008, pp. VII to VIII).
    (12) Comment: Three peer reviewers questioned how, if northern 
spotted owl populations are declining across its range, can reducing 
the amount of critical habitat, as proposed, lead to recovery?
    Our Response: In determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat within the area occupied by the species at the time of listing, 
we consider the physical and biological features (i.e., PCEs) that are 
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations and protection. Critical habitat 
addresses one component of spotted owl recovery, but it is not intended 
to be the only tool for recovery. The species may continue to face non-
habitat threats regardless of how much critical habitat is designated 
(e.g., Courtney et al. 2008, p. 120; USFWS 2008, p. VII). Population 
modeling indicates that the maintenance and restoration of habitat as 
described in the 2008 final recovery plan, upon which this critical 
habitat revision is based, is adequate to support well-distributed 
populations of reproducing spotted owl pairs over the long term to 
achieve recovery of the species (Marcot et al. 2008). An important 
element of the model for this reserve system is that it must assume a 
stable population (a finite rate of population growth, or [lgr], of 1), 
otherwise a declining population will eventually proceed to extinction 
no matter how large the reserves are (USFWS 2008, p. 77). Increasing 
adult survivorship appears to be the key factor in achieving population 
stability for the northern spotted owl (Anthony et al. 2006, p. 30; 
Courtney et al. 2008, p. 120; USFWS 2008, p. 47, p. 77). The most 
recent scientific review of the draft recovery plan acknowledges that 
there is no evidence to suggest that increasing the size of habitat 
reserves would alter adult survivorship, and points to control of 
barred owls as a more likely means of increasing the survivorship of 
spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2008, pp. 120 to 121). Reducing the 
currently observed population decline of the northern spotted owl is 
one of the key short-term strategies of the final recovery plan, which 
invokes recovery actions such as potential control of barred owls in 
addition to the protection of habitat to achieve this goal (USFWS 2008, 
pp. 12 to 15).
    (13) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the requirement of 
adequate habitat for dispersal is not very useful without some 
quantification of what is `adequate.'
    Our Response: In the revision of northern spotted owl critical 
habitat, we state that ``...the provision of adequate habitat to 
provide for successful dispersal is essential to the conservation of 
the species.'' This is not a description of the PCE or a requirement of 
critical habitat, but rather a description of the general function of 
the PCE. We have made some changes in the regulatory language 
describing the PCEs to clarify the habitat components necessary to this 
PCE. In addition, whether there is adequate dispersal habitat would be 
a determination made during an Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.) section 7 consultation and would be based, in part, on the 
baseline

[[Page 47333]]

condition of critical habitat and any noted deficiencies in dispersal 
condition.
    (14) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that although the 
critical habitat rule describes one of the PCEs to include the 
appropriate amount and spatial arrangement of nesting habitat, we never 
described what that amount and arrangement is.
    Our Response: We used the best available scientific information to 
determine the PCEs for northern spotted owl critical habitat. Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) require us to list the 
known PCEs for the species; we have listed and described those PCEs to 
the best of our understanding. PCEs in critical habitat can include a 
variety of types and scales of features. Because the individual 
components of forest stands that serve as northern spotted owl habitat 
vary across the range, we could not describe each potential combination 
that would lead to habitat supporting territorial and dispersing 
northern spotted owls. As noted repeatedly in the recent Scientific 
Review of the Draft Northern Owl Recovery Plan, there is tremendous 
regional variation in the ecology of the northern spotted owl and the 
importance of various factors determining the viability of the species 
throughout its range (Courtney et al. 2008, p. 16); thus prescriptions 
for recovery of the northern spotted owl must of necessity be locally 
specific (Courtney et al. 2008, p. 22). However, we have revised the 
final rule to clarify the PCEs where possible.
    (15) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the reasons for the 
reduction in relatively large areas of the designated critical habitat 
in some areas (e.g., eastern Washington and western Oregon Cascades) 
because it was not clear how the reasons for changes described in the 
rule apply to these areas. The areas are not above the elevation limit 
of the species and contain habitat for the spotted owl.
    Our Response: The 1992 critical habitat rule was completed without 
the benefit of a final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl and 
drew heavily on the concepts from the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990) 
and its recommended reserves. In the 1992 rule, we expanded the 
application of the ISC reserve concept to address uncertainties 
relative to connectivity, include larger areas of fairly unfragmented 
existing habitat and areas of high quality habitat within or adjacent 
to the ISC reserves, and facilitate legal boundary descriptions. This 
resulted in the designation of more than 1 million acres of critical 
habitat beyond the initial ISC reserve boundaries. Over the past 
decades, we have benefited from additional information and experience 
with the application and implementation of the large block concepts of 
the ISC strategy, thereby reducing the previous uncertainty and 
improving our understanding of the areas essential for the conservation 
of the northern spotted owl. The amount of habitat in this final rule 
is based upon the best available information, including the modeling 
conducted for the 1992 draft recovery plan (Lamberson et al. 1994) as 
well as more recent habitat modeling estimating occupancy levels given 
habitat sizing and spacing variations conducted for the 2008 final 
recovery plan (Marcot et al. 2008).
    (16) Comment: Two peer reviewers requested a clarification of the 
role of various habitats, pointing out that nesting and roosting 
habitat also provide for foraging and dispersal, foraging habitat also 
provides for dispersal, and dispersal habitat is primarily limited to 
dispersal only.
    Our Response: We have clarified this in the preamble to the final 
rule.
    (17) Comment: One peer reviewer asked if dispersal habitat would be 
considered critical habitat, given that dispersal habitat was not 
mapped and distances between blocks were increased to the maximum.
    Our Response: Spotted owl dispersal habitat is described in PCE 
(iii) and is critical habitat where it occurs within the critical 
habitat unit boundaries described in the rule. Habitat described in PCE 
(ii) will also function for dispersal. Dispersal habitat outside of the 
designated areas is not critical habitat because it is not essential to 
the conservation of the species. This is because the recovery plan 
provides for northern spotted owl dispersal through the appropriate 
spacing of MOCAs. The distances between critical habitat units were 
designed to be within 12 mi (19 km) for large critical habitat units 
(those capable of supporting 20 or more spotted owl pairs) and within 7 
mi (11 km) for small critical habitat units (those capable of 
supporting fewer than 20 spotted owl pairs), as outlined in the ISC 
Report (Thomas et al. 1990). As part of the most recent recovery 
planning process, we reanalyzed those dispersal distances using updated 
dispersal data (USFWS 2008, p. 75) and found no basis for modifying 
those distances. Dispersal between critical habitat units is 
anticipated to occur under current forest management; thus we did not 
consider it necessary to designate these areas as critical habitat. The 
dispersal habitat identified here under PCE (iii) occurs within the 
critical habitat units with those physical and biological features 
determined to be essential to the conservation of the species.
    (18) Comment: One peer reviewer asked if the habitat quality 
criteria were applied to congressionally-reserved or administratively 
withdrawn lands in the selection process. Many such areas at high 
elevations are of relatively little value to spotted owls.
    Our Response: When the MOCAs were established, the recovery team 
attempted to maximize the amount of habitat-capable acres and acres of 
existing spotted owl habitat, even when including areas that were 
congressionally-reserved (e.g., wilderness areas) or administratively 
withdrawn (e.g., recreational areas not scheduled for timber harvest). 
We also limited critical habitat to areas within the anticipated 
elevation limit of spotted owls. In designating critical habitat based 
on the MOCAs, we did not include congressionally-reserved lands within 
the MOCAs, as in our 1992 designation, but did include administratively 
withdrawn areas.
    (19) Comment: Three peer reviewers wrote that the critical habitat 
designation should incorporate the potential effects of barred owls, 
which reduce or eliminate the value of habitats for the spotted owl. 
The feasibility of managing barred owls may impact the location and 
amount of critical habitat. One reviewer suggested that the 1992 
critical habitat units should be maintained, even if this exceeds the 
current MOCA network, to allow northern spotted owls within currently 
reserved areas to compete with barred owls.
    Our Response: We agree that the feasibility of managing barred owls 
may affect the recovery of the spotted owl. The 2008 final recovery 
plan reaffirmed that the barred owl poses one of the most important 
threats to the northern spotted owl, and considered whether additional 
habitat may be needed to address the barred owl threat. The final 
recovery plan recommended the establishment of the MOCA network, which 
serves as the basis of this critical habitat designation, in addition 
to potential barred owl control and management of the dry-forest 
landscape in the eastside provinces, as essential elements of the 
recovery strategy for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2008, p. 12). The 
MOCAs represent the habitat that the recovery plan recognized as 
essential for the recovery of the species (USFWS 2008, p. 13); hence 
this critical habitat designation is based on that reserve network. 
Although the larger MOCAs (MOCA 1s) are designed to support a minimum 
of 20 pairs of owls,

[[Page 47334]]

nearly half of the large MOCAs are large enough to support over 30 
pairs of spotted owls, providing for some level of exclusion by barred 
owls while still meeting the size necessary for 20 or more spotted owl 
pairs.
    Recovery Action 32 of the final recovery plan also called for a 
short-term strategy of maintaining substantially all of the older and 
more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests outside of 
MOCAs in the westside provinces of the spotted owl's range, allowing 
for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by 
restoration management actions. Providing habitat for the northern 
spotted owl may then lend itself to provide additional support for 
reducing the threat from the barred owl (USFWS 2008, pp. 34 to 35). 
However, the recovery plan acknowledges that forest stands that may 
potentially meet the intent of this short-term management strategy have 
not yet been defined or identified (USFWS 2008, p. 34). Whether any of 
this habitat should be designated as critical habitat may be further 
considered as it is delineated.
    (20) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned statements in the 
proposed revision of northern spotted owl critical habitat that 
enhancing juvenile survivorship would play an important role in 
maintaining stable populations of spotted owls, when all evidence 
points to adult survivorship as most sensitive life history parameter.
    Our Response: While adult survival has greater impact on 
demographic modeling of spotted owl populations, dispersal is a very 
important component of the life history of the species. Dispersal 
allows for the mixing of genes, recolonization of areas with deficit 
populations, and replacement of territorial spotted owls that die. Our 
consideration of dispersal and the survival of dispersing juveniles 
does not detract from the importance of adult survival. However, 
maintaining stable populations also depends on the adults producing 
enough young that survive to territorial status to replace themselves. 
Increasing juvenile survival should add support to overall population 
stability.
    (21) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned how the owl habitat 
value of wilderness areas and national parks was evaluated.
    Our Response: In delineating the MOCAs, only congressionally-
reserved areas that were capable of supporting spotted owl habitat were 
included in the recovery plan; this was based on habitat mapping and 
elevation limits on habitat suitability. This critical habitat rule is 
based on these MOCAs, and although, as in our 1992 designation, 
congressionally-reserved areas within MOCAs are not being designated as 
critical habitat, these areas were included in the recovery plan's 
evaluation of the adequacy of the MOCA network. Thus we consider that 
such congressionally-reserved areas included in the MOCAs would 
function in concert with critical habitat to support clusters of owls.
    (22) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that the critical 
habitat proposal did not provide a specific discussion of the concept 
of habitat fitness, and more particularly, how management in the 
northern part of the range (flying squirrel habitat) may differ from 
that in the southern part o