Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act, 56757-56770 [E9-26154]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 3, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56757-56770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26154]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R7-ES-2009-0049]
[MO 9221050083-B2]
[RIN 1018-AW32]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the 
British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen Charlotte 
Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the British Columbia distinct population segment (DPS) of the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) as threatened, 
except on the Queen Charlotte Islands (a significant portion of the 
DPS's range), where we propose to list the goshawk as endangered, under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This proposal, if 
made final, would extend the Act's protection to this subspecies in 
British Columbia, Canada, on Vancouver Island and the surrounding 
smaller islands, the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the coastal mainland 
west of the Coast Mountains. The Service seeks data and comments from 
the public on this proposal.

DATES: We will consider comments received on or before January 4, 2010. 
We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the 
address shown in the ADDRESSES section by December 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R7-ES-2009-0049; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Brockmann, Juneau Fish and 
Wildlife Field Office, 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201, Juneau, AK 99801; 
telephone (907) 780-1181; fax (907) 586-7154.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as 
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments 
or suggestions from other government agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this 
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments regarding:
    (1) Biological information, population status, commercial trade, or 
other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this 
subspecies,
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which 
are:
    (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.
    (3) The appropriate conservation status for the British Columbia 
DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, and
    (4) Specific information on the areas identified as significant 
portions of the

[[Page 56758]]

range in this proposed rule, including threats.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the website. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal 
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 3000 Vintage Blvd, Suite 201, Juneau, AK 99801.
    Final promulgation of the regulations concerning the listing of 
this subspecies will take into consideration all comments and 
additional information that we receive, and may lead to a final 
regulation that differs from this proposal.

Queen Charlotte Goshawk Biology

    The Queen Charlotte goshawk is a comparatively small, dark 
subspecies of northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) that nests and 
forages in the temperate, rainforest-dominated archipelagos and coastal 
mainland of southeast Alaska and British Columbia. Natural history and 
threats to the subspecies are described in detail in our status review 
(USFWS 2007; USFWS 2008) and evaluated in our most recent finding, 
published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2007 (72 FR 63123). 
Below, we briefly summarize key aspects of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk's biology.
    Goshawks typically nest and forage in old-growth forest, but use 
mature second-growth (previously harvested, regenerating stands that 
have developed adequate structure) where old-growth forest is limited 
(Titus et al. 1994, pp. 19-24; Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 27-40; McClaren 
and Pendergast 2003, pp. 4-6). Non-forested land, recently clear-cut 
areas, and young second-growth stands are avoided (Iverson et al. 1996, 
pp. 27-40).
    Forest regeneration following timber harvest usually results in 
dense second-growth stands that may support populations of some prey 
species, but goshawks avoid these habitats, presumably because they are 
too dense for the hawks to effectively hunt (DeStefano and McCloskey 
1997, p. 38; Beier and Drennan 1997, p. 570; Greenwald et al. 2005, pp. 
125-126; USFWS 2007, pp. 62-67).
    As second-growth stands approach economic maturity, the forest 
structure develops adequately to allow goshawks to forage below the 
canopy. Second growth reaches economic maturity when its growth rate 
begins to slow. Trees of this age typically have not reached maximum 
size. Canopies of these stands are usually uniformly dense unless the 
stand was harvested in a multi-age system or has been thinned. We refer 
to such stands as ``mature'', or ``mature second growth.'' In this 
document, ``young second growth'' refers to second growth that has not 
yet reached maturity. Mature forest with structure suitable for goshawk 
nesting and foraging may develop as early as 45 to 50 years following 
harvest on the most productive sites in the southern portion of the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk's range (Doyle 2004, pp. 27-28; McClaren 2003, 
p. 19), but may take over 100 years on less productive sites (Iverson 
et al. 1996, p. 71). These stands are typically harvested within a 
decade or two of reaching economic maturity, if they are in an area 
currently open to logging. On lands managed for sustained-yield timber 
harvest, approximately 10 to 20 percent of the second growth is 
typically mature and suitable as goshawk habitat, although this 
percentage varies with harvest history, stand treatments, and current 
demand for timber (Daniel et al. 1979, pp. 304-344). Unharvested 
retention areas (e.g., stream buffers) provide old-growth habitat in 
addition to any mature second growth in harvested landscapes.
     ``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.
    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, 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 (Ethier 1999, p. 22; MacDonald and Cook 1999, pp. 23-24; 
Nagorsen 2002, pp. 92-97; Doyle 2005, p. 31). Winter diets of the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk are largely unknown.
    Prey availability is defined by prey abundance and suitability of 
habitat for successful hunting. Commercial logging can reduce both. 
Mature and old-growth forest habitat provides productive habitat for 
prey species in a setting where goshawks can effectively hunt. Timber 
harvest typically results in prey population declines because few 
potential prey species within the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk 
are adapted to open and edge habitats (Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 59-61; 
Doyle and Mahon 2003, p. 39; USFWS 2007, pp. 42-45). Where those logged 
areas grow into dense second-growth stands, hunting is impaired because 
these stands do not offer adequate flight space (DeStefano and 
McCloskey 1997, p. 38; Beier and Drennan 1997, p. 570; Greenwald et al. 
2005, pp. 125-126; USFWS 2007, pp. 62-67).
    Queen Charlotte goshawk 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). Nesting pairs appear to be territorial, with nests spaced somewhat 
uniformly across available habitat. Nesting density, as measured by 
mean distance between adjacent nesting areas, appears to vary with 
habitat quality (primarily prey availability). Queen Charlotte goshawks 
appear to nest at lower densities than northern goshawks studied 
elsewhere (McClaren 2003, pp.13 and 21; Doyle 2005, p. 15; USFWS 2007, 
pp. 45-47).
    The best available information suggests that viable nesting 
territories (which are approximately 24,700 acres (10,000 hectares) 
each) contain at least 40 percent mature and old-growth forest (Doyle 
2005, p. 14; USFWS 2007, pp.

[[Page 56759]]

75-78). However, goshawks may nest in areas with lower proportions of 
mature and old-growth forest where prey adapted to more open habitats 
is abundant (Doyle 2006, pp. 135-140; Iverson et al. 1996, p. 55; USFWS 
2007, p. 36).
    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 acres (200 to 500 hectares) (McClaren 
2003, p. 13; Flatten et al. 2001, pp. 9-11), 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 kilometers) away. Males have been documented moving up to 2 
miles (3.2 kilometers) between subsequent nests, but apparently remain 
in their nesting area in subsequent years (Flatten et al. 2001, pp. 9-
10).
    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, prey availability, and 
weather, with greater occupancy or activity in areas with less 
fragmented forest habitat and in years with higher prey abundance and 
warmer, drier weather (Desimone and DeStefano 2005, pp. 317-318; Doyle 
and Smith 1994, p. 126; Ethier 1999, pp. 31 and 36; Fairhurst and 
Bechard 2005, pp. 231-232; Finn et al. 1998, p. 1; Finn et al. 2002, 
pp. 270-271; McClaren 2003, pp. 11 and 16; Patla 1997, pp. 34-35; Patla 
2005, pp. 328-330; McClaren et al. 2002, p. 350; Salafsky et al. 2005, 
pp. 242-244).
    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). Fledglings typically spend about 6 weeks within several hundred 
yards (several hundred meters) of their nests 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; Ethier 1999, p. 31; Finn 
et al. 2002, pp. 270-271; McClaren 2003, pp. 11 and 16; Desimone and 
DeStefano 2005, pp. 317-318; McClaren et al. 2005, pp. 260-261; Patla 
2005, pp. 328-330).

Range

    In our previous status reviews and findings, we identified the 
range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk as the islands and mainland of 
southeast Alaska, and the Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island 
in British Columbia (60 FR 33784; 62 FR 46710; 72 FR 63123; USFWS 
2007). In April 2008, the ``Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis 
laingi) Recovery Team'' (NGRT) in Canada released a draft recovery 
strategy for the Queen Charlotte goshawk. The NGRT reviewed 
morphometric and radio-telemetry data, and distribution of coastal 
habitat and prey, and determined that, in addition to Vancouver Island 
and the Queen Charlotte Islands, the coastal mainland of British 
Columbia west of the Coast Range (including the Coastal Douglas-fir 
biogeographic zone and wet Coastal Western Hemlock subzones and 
variants) is also within the range of the subspecies (NGRT 2008, pp. 3-
6). We believe that the NGRT's determination is the best available 
information on the range of the bird in Canada, and so for purposes of 
this listing, we propose to adopt the range definition used by the NGRT 
to define the range of the subspecies in British Columbia.

Previous Agency Action

    On November 8, 2007, we published our ``Response to Court on 
Significant Portion of the Range, and Evaluation of Distinct Population 
Segments, for the Queen Charlotte Goshawk'' (72 FR 63123) (Response to 
Court). That document contains a discussion of all previous Federal 
actions relating to the petition to list the subspecies. In the 
Response to Court, we found that Vancouver Island is a significant 
portion of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's range, that southeast Alaska 
and British Columbia each support distinct population segments, and 
that listing is warranted for the British Columbia DPS, but not for the 
southeast Alaska DPS. We indicated that we would publish a proposed 
rule to list the British Columbia DPS as either threatened or 
endangered. This proposal is the result.

New Information

    Since our November 8, 2007, Response to Court, new information 
relevant to goshawk conservation has become available. Specifically, a 
draft recovery strategy for the Queen Charlotte goshawk in British 
Columbia (NGRT 2008) defined the range of the subspecies to include the 
coastal mainland west of the Coast Mountains, in addition to Vancouver 
Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands. The strategy also reviewed 
threats to the subspecies and identified potential strategies and 
actions to recover populations in British Columbia.
    Additionally, a new land use agreement was signed by the Haida 
Nation and the Province of British Columbia. The agreement designates 
new protected areas on the Queen Charlotte Islands and commits the 
Province to ``Ecosystem Based Management'' of forest resources. Details 
about how the of the Ecosystem Based Management scheme will be 
implemented are currently being developed and are not yet available.
    Finally, the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan, which defined 
management for most of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's habitat in 
adjacent Southeast Alaska, was revised and replaced with a new forest 
plan in January 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2008). The new 2008 forest 
plan retains most of the Conservation Strategy set forth in the 1997 
plan for the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska, while 
modifying some standards and guidelines related to goshawk nest 
buffers, partial harvest requirements, and areas that would be 
available for timber harvest (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Review of the British Columbia DPS

    Section 3(16) of the Act defines ``species'' to include ``any 
distinct population segment of and species 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 
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (DPS policy) in the Federal Register 
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. 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, we consider it a DPS and then the third 
factor--the population segment's conservation status in relation to the 
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification, i.e., 
whether the population segment is endangered or threatened--is applied.
    In our Response to Court (72 FR 63128), we determined that Queen 
Charlotte goshawks in British Columbia were distinct from those in 
southeast Alaska, with differences in conservation status, habitat 
management, and

[[Page 56760]]

regulatory mechanisms. We also found that the population segments in 
British Columbia and southeast Alaska were both significant as defined 
by our DPS policy, and concluded that two valid DPSs exist.
    We have estimated the effects of new protected areas on the Queen 
Charlotte Islands, and inclusion of the mainland coast of British 
Columbia, on future landscape condition in British Columbia (USFWS 
2008), and have considered the modifications made to the 1997 Tongass 
Land Management Plan, as reflected in the 2008 forest plan. Significant 
differences in management regimes remain. For example, we estimate that 
approximately 31 percent of the remaining old growth will ultimately be 
harvested and thereby converted to second growth in British Columbia, 
while only 12 percent of the remaining old growth will be harvested and 
converted to second growth in Southeast Alaska (USFWS 2008, Table A-
17). When considered together with areas already harvested, we estimate 
that 59 percent of the original productive old growth will ultimately 
be harvested in British Columbia, but only 28 percent will be harvested 
in Southeast Alaska (USFWS 2008, Table A-9). We conclude that 
management of forest habitat remains sufficiently different between 
Alaska and British Columbia to support our previous conclusion that the 
international border separates two discrete populations based on 
differences in habitat management and regulatory mechanisms. We also 
conclude that the British Columbia population remains biologically and 
ecologically significant within the meaning of the DPS policy, for the 
reasons set forth in the Response to Court. Thus, we conclude that the 
British Columbia population remains a distinct population segment under 
the DPS policy.

Factors Affecting the British Columbia DPS

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations 
at 50 CFR 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the 
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species on the basis of any 
of five factors, as follows: (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. Information regarding the status of, 
and threats to, the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk 
in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act 
is discussed below.
    This proposed rule addresses the finding in our Response to Court 
(72 FR 63128) that listing as threatened or endangered is warranted for 
the British Columbia DPS. Below, we provide a summary of our analysis 
of threats to the British Columbia DPS from the Response to Court, 
along with a new analysis of threats to the DPS in light of relevant 
new information. We have included statistics on habitat availability 
and forest management where they are available. Our primary sources of 
forest data include the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range 
(especially Niemann 2006 for Vancouver Island and the coastal mainland) 
and Leversee (2006) for the Queen Charlotte Islands. Our analysis of 
forest statistics is detailed in an updated appendix to our status 
review (USFWS 2008), in which our data sources, assumptions, and 
calculations are described. We also rely on the NGRT evaluation of the 
threats discussed below (NGRT 2008, pp. 16-21).

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

    Mature and old-growth forest provides nesting and foraging habitat 
for goshawks, and supports populations of preferred prey (Iverson et 
al. 1996, pp. 16-18 and 41-44; Ethier 1999, pp. 61-68; McClaren 2004, 
pp. 6-7). Logging within and near nest stands has been implicated in 
nest site abandonment, although effects of such logging have varied 
from nest area abandonment in some study areas to no effect on 
productivity elsewhere (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 generally 
reduces prey populations (USFWS 2007, pp. 62-64), although, in some 
cases, sooty grouse populations may increase temporarily following 
logging (Hartwig 2003). Logging also impacts foraging habitat by 
removing perches and hunting cover, creating openings and dense second-
growth stands that are avoided by goshawks (Iverson et al. 1996, p. 
36).
    ``Productive forest'' is defined by the British Columbia Ministry 
of Forest and Range as forest capable of producing trees large enough 
to be commercially viable as timber (i.e., ``merchantable'') (Niemann 
2006, p. 1). Such forests, when mature, provide suitable structure for 
goshawk nesting and foraging. We, therefore, use the British Columbia 
Ministry of Forest and Range's definition of, and statistics on, 
productive forest as a measurable approximation of goshawk habitat. 
Unless otherwise specified, discussions of mature, old-growth, and 
second-growth forests below refer to productive forest only. Areas of 
non-productive (or ``scrub'') forest of smaller trees (which are not 
included in the cited forest statistics) may be used by goshawks for 
foraging or other activities, but are generally not used for nesting 
(Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 41-44).
    Studies of goshawk habitat within and outside the range of the 
Queen Charlotte subspecies suggest that landscape with at least 40 to 
60 percent mature or old forest are favored for nesting (Patla 1997, 
pp. 71-72; Finn et al. 2002, pp. 434-435, Doyle 2005, pp. 12-18). For 
example, each of the 10 nesting territories known on the Queen 
Charlotte Islands in 2004 contained at least 41 percent mature and old-
growth forest, although only 4 territories (each containing at least 60 
percent mature and old-growth forest) were successful during the 
preceding 3-year period (2002-2004)(Doyle 2005, p. 14). Reynolds et al. 
(1992, p. 27) recommended at least 40 percent of goshawk home ranges be 
maintained in mature or old forest cover in the southwest United 
States, with another 20 percent in middle-aged forest cover. Given 
these observations, we consider landscapes on the coastal islands with 
less than 40 percent cover by mature and old-growth forest to be poor-
quality habitat, those with 40 to 60 percent mature and old-growth 
forest moderate-quality habitat, and those with greater than 60 percent 
mature and old-growth habitat high-quality habitat.
    Goshawks may nest successfully in areas with lower proportions of 
mature and old-growth forest where prey adapted to more open habitats 
is available, or during years with high prey populations (Doyle 2006, 
pp. 138-139; Doyle 2007, p. 2; Doyle and Mahon 2003, p. 1; Iverson et 
al. 1996, p. 55; USFWS 2007, p. 36). Snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), 
an important prey species for the goshawk in some areas, are found 
along edges and in open habitats on the mainland coast (Nagorsen 2002, 
pp. 92-93), so lower proportions of mature and old-growth forest may be 
suitable there, depending on availability of prey. Cottontail rabbits 
(Syvilagus floridans), a potential prey species that occurs along edges 
of open habitats, have recently been introduced on Vancouver Island 
(Nagorsen 2002, p.

[[Page 56761]]

96), but they are restricted to the southern edge of the island, and 
have not been documented in the goshawk's diet there.
    No studies definitively establish the amount of mature and old-
growth forest required where prey adapted to more open habitats are 
available, but we expect it to be lower than where such prey are not 
available, and we expect it to depend largely on prey density, which 
varies spatially (across the landscape) and temporally (from year to 
year). Snowshoe hares likely add flexibility to goshawk diets on the 
mainland, especially during the winter, and probably allow nesting in 
some areas where it may not otherwise occur, although this effect is 
probably negligible during years of low hare populations. We conclude, 
based on the available information, that on average, landscapes on the 
mainland with less than 30 percent mature and old-growth forest cover 
are poor habitat, 30 to 50 percent mature and old-growth forest 
moderate habitat, and greater than 50 percent mature and old-growth 
forest high-quality habitat.
    Productive forest (capable of producing commercially viable timber) 
covers approximately 45 percent of the 42-million-acre (ac) (17-
million-hectare (ha)) Coast Forest Region delineated by the British 
Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, which approximates the range of 
the Queen Charlotte goshawk in Canada (USFWS 2008, Table A-20). 
Therefore, on average, habitat was probably only of moderate quality 
for goshawks (30 to 50 percent mature and old growth) prior to wide-
scale timber harvest, although some areas would have been, and remain, 
unsuitable (e.g., large alpine areas), while other areas had extensive 
tracts of high-quality habitat before logging began.
    Industrial-scale logging began in the coastal rainforests of 
British Columbia in the early 1900s, peaked in the 1980s, and has 
remained relatively high since then (USFWS 2007, pp. 89-90). By 2002, 
timber harvest had converted approximately 5.2 million ac (2.1 million 
ha) (28 percent) of the 19 million ac (7.6 million ha) of productive 
forest in coastal British Columbia to second growth. This has reduced 
mature and old forest cover to approximately 34 percent of the 
landscape (USFWS 2008, Table A-20). This percentage translates, on 
average, to poor-quality habitat on the islands (less than 40 percent 
cover by mature and old-growth forest), and of moderate quality on the 
mainland (30 to 50 percent mature and old-growth forest). Again, 
naturally non-forested areas have always been unsuitable or poor-
quality habitat, and some areas likely still provide high-quality 
habitat, but in general, habitat quality has declined and is probably 
moderate-to-poor quality in many areas, due to timber harvest.
    More than 100 new protected areas totaling approximately 3 million 
ac (1.2 millon ha) were established on the British Columbia mainland 
coast in 2006 (BCMAL 2006, p. 1). This was followed by a December 2007 
land use agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the 
Haida Nation, designating new protected areas totaling 628,000 ac 
(254,000 ha) on the Queen Charlotte Islands (BCOP 2007, pp. 1-2). 
Approximately 5.6 million ac (2.2 million ha) of the 42-million-ac (17-
million-ha) Coast Forest Region is now in protected status, where 
timber harvest is not allowed. We estimate that protected areas include 
approximately 2.9 million ac (1.2 million ha) of productive forest 
(USFWS 2008, Table A-19). Most of this is likely old growth, although 
statistics on forest age within the new protected areas are not 
available.
    Our status review in 2007 indicated that continued logging on the 
coastal islands of British Columbia would convert another 1.2 million 
ac (480,000 ha) (26 percent) of the remaining productive old-growth 
forest to second growth over the next 50 years (USFWS 2007, Appendix A, 
Tables A-9 and A-15). Future timber harvest in three of the seven 
Forest Districts in the Coast Forest Region (North Coast, Central 
Coast, and Queen Charlotte Islands Districts) will be planned using 
``Ecosystem Based Management.'' Although the requirement is intended to 
support a sustainable economy while protecting a healthy ecosystem, no 
specifics have been released (BCMAL 2006, pp. 2-3; BCOP 2007, pp. 1-2, 
BC 2008, p. 1). In the absence of any details about implementation of 
this management scheme, we rely on data and projections currently 
available based on existing management practices (summarized in USFWS 
2007, pp. 82-101; USFWS 2008, Tables A-1 to A-20; NGRT 2008, pp. 6-23; 
see also Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 939 
F.Supp. 49 (D.D.C. 1996)). Future harvest levels are uncertain, but 
additional conversion of old-growth forest to second growth is expected 
to continue throughout the DPS.
    For the purposes of evaluating threats and recovery strategies, the 
NGRT has divided the British Columbia range of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk into four Conservation Regions: Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte 
Islands), Vancouver Island, North Coast, and South Coast (NGRT 2008, 
pp. 4-6). They reviewed the best-available scientific information and, 
where data were unavailable, used expert opinion and data-derived 
estimates (NGRT 2008, p. 16). They consider threats to the goshawk from 
habitat loss and fragmentation to be low to moderate in the North Coast 
region, moderate in the South Coast region, and moderate to high on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island (NGRT 2008, pp. 16-17). 
These conclusions are consistent with our understanding of the habitat 
threats faced by goshawks in British Columbia. Thus, while some risk is 
present throughout the DPS's range, habitat on the mainland coast, 
particularly the North Coast, appears to be more secure than on the 
islands.
    In general, although new protected areas should help conserve some 
of the remaining goshawk habitat, significant degradation has occurred, 
and we expect continued decline in habitat quality within the range of 
the British Columbia DPS as old-growth forest available for harvest is 
converted to second growth. Ultimately, most of the harvested landscape 
is likely to become low-quality or poor-quality habitat. Reductions in 
prey populations and loss of perches and hunting cover are likely to 
have increasingly negative effects on goshawks' ability to hunt prey 
and feed their young. Based on the available information, we conclude 
that habitat loss is likely to contribute substantially to loss of 
long-term viability of Queen Charlotte goshawks in British Columbia. 
Therefore, we conclude that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a significant 
threat to the British Columbia DPS of the subspecies.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    In Canada, the laingi subspecies has been federally listed as 
``Threatened'' under the Species at Risk Act since 2002 (51 Eliz. II, 
Ch. 29). British Columbia has included the subspecies on its ``Red 
List,'' indicating imperiled status, since 1994 (Cooper and Stevens 
2000, pp. 3 and 14). 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). Each of these designations provides some 
protection from harvest. Birds may be taken illegally on occasion, but 
we have no indication that such activity is common, or that it poses 
any threat to the subspecies. We do not expect

[[Page 56762]]

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes to contribute to population declines or extinction 
risk. The NRGT considers the threat of human persecution to be low to 
none (NGRT 2008, pp. 17 and 21). We conclude that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes does not 
now, or in the foreseeable future, pose a significant threat to the 
British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    Disease and predation associated with Queen Charlotte goshawks are 
not well documented, but small populations such as those on Vancouver 
Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands can be vulnerable to diseases, 
particularly when simultaneously stressed by other factors such as prey 
shortages. The NGRT considers the threat from disease low, but has 
expressed concern that emerging diseases such as West Nile virus may be 
difficult to mitigate, if outbreaks occur (NGRT 2008, pp. 16 and 21).
     Predation can also suppress small populations, leaving them 
vulnerable to other population stress factors. Goshawk predators within 
the British Columbia DPS include great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), 
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American marten (Martes 
americana), wolverine (Gulo gulo), and black bear (Ursus americanus). 
Raccoons (Procyon lotor), which could take eggs or nestlings, have also 
been introduced on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Golumbia et al. 2003, 
pp. 13-15). The NGRT considers predation risk low across the range of 
the DPS (NGRT 2008, pp. 16-20).
    No information suggests that disease or predation currently put 
Queen Charlotte goshawks in danger of extinction in the British 
Columbia DPS, but either disease or predation may contribute to 
extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see Foreseeable Future 
section below) if their effects are exacerbated by other population 
stressors such as prey shortages, habitat limitations, or unfavorable 
weather (which affect nesting effort). We conclude that disease and 
predation do not currently put the Queen Charlotte goshawk at risk of 
extinction, although there is moderate risk that either could affect 
population viability in the foreseeable future.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Direct Take: Throughout Canada, the Species at Risk Act protects 
the Queen Charlotte goshawk from direct harm, harassment, and take on 
Federal lands. Individuals, eggs, and occupied nests are protected on 
all jurisdictions in British Columbia under the provincial Wildlife Act 
(RSBC 1996, section 34). Possession and trade in the subspecies is 
forbidden throughout Canada, as is destruction of nests. Based on the 
available information, regulation of direct take appears to be adequate 
throughout the DPS.
     Habitat Protection: Two mechanisms exist to protect habitat under 
the Federal Species at Risk Act in Canada: (1) Identification of 
critical habitat, which may not be destroyed; and (2) conservation 
agreements, which may be negotiated with any entity or individual. 
Other mechanisms have been used by the Provincial government to protect 
goshawk habitat (discussed below), but critical habitat has not yet 
been formally designated under the Species at Risk Act (NGRT 2008, p. 
31).
    The Species at Risk Act requires development of a recovery 
strategy, which identifies the scientific framework for recovery. The 
NGRT, which includes experts from Provincial and Federal (U.S. and 
Canadian) government agencies, private consultants, non-government 
organizations, industry, and First Nations, has produced a draft 
recovery strategy summarizing natural history, threats, knowledge gaps, 
and recovery approach (NGRT 2008). A recovery action plan, to define 
and guide implementation of the recovery strategy, is expected within 2 
years after the recovery strategy is finalized (NGRT 2008, pp. i and 
34).
    The recovery strategy identifies many legal mechanisms for 
protecting habitat at various scales. Land use planning is perhaps the 
most broad-scale method used by the British Columbia Provincial 
Government for establishing protected areas and limits on development 
to conserve biodiversity across the Province. Approximately 13 percent 
of the landscape across coastal British Columbia is protected from 
logging in various parks and reserves. These reserves average 
approximately 50 percent cover by productive forest (USFWS 2008, Table 
A-23), so on average they appear to provide moderate- to high-quality 
habitat. Special management zones, where timber harvest is allowed but 
non-timber values such as wildlife and recreation are given additional 
consideration, are also designated in some areas (BC 2000, p. 30).
    Logging on Crown (Provincial) lands is regulated by the Forest and 
Range Practices Act. This statute and its companion regulations set 
objectives for many resources, and require timber harvest plans 
describing how each objective will be met. Integrated with the Forest 
and Range Practices Regulations is the Identified Wildlife Management 
Strategy (IWM Strategy), which was developed by the British Columbia 
Government to provide additional protection for species requiring 
specific measures beyond the ``coarse filter'' system of protected 
areas and the various regulations governing timber harvest generally. 
The IWM Strategy provides for establishment of Wildlife Habitat Areas 
around known goshawk nests, and allows prescription of management 
measures within those areas (BCMWLAP 2004, pp. 1-4). Where nests are 
identified, Wildlife Habitat Areas are proposed, usually by Provincial 
biologists, although anyone may make a proposal. The proposed Area is 
reviewed and may be modified by the Ministry of Environment, comments 
are solicited from affected parties, a Timber Supply Impact Analysis is 
conducted, the proposal is reviewed by a Provincial Committee, and a 
final decision is made by the Ministry of Environment (BCMWLAP 2004, 
pp. 4-10). The final decision may reflect compromises intended to 
reduce impacts on timber operators or others.
    Once a Wildlife Habitat Area is designated for goshawks, timber 
harvest is not allowed in a core area of approximately 500 ac (200 ha) 
to protect the active nest, alternate nests, and post-fledging habitat. 
A management plan must be developed for timber harvesting and road 
construction in the surrounding management zone of about 5,000 ac 
(2,000 ha) to protect foraging habitat. Non-binding recommendations 
have been developed to help guide these management plans (McClaren 
2004, pp. 10-11). To date, at least 28 Wildlife Habitat Areas covering 
36,470 ac (14,765 ha) have been designated for laingi goshawks in 
British Columbia (USFWS 2007, p. 113).
    Provincial policy limits the amount of land that may be protected 
under the IWM Strategy (in Wildlife Habitat Areas or other such 
mechanisms) to one percent of the short-term timber supply in each 
Forest District, for all Identified Wildlife species combined. This 
limitation may be waived with adequate justification, and does not have 
legal force of law, but is considered a goal of government (BCMWLAP 
2004, p. 4; FPB 2004, pp. 7-8). Because the one percent cap is on 
impacts to the ``short-term'' timber supply, rather than the long-term 
supply, calculations must be based on mature forest stands. In the 
South Island Forest District (which covers southern Vancouver Island), 
less than one-third

[[Page 56763]]

of the productive forest is at or near economic maturity, so Wildlife 
Habitat Areas and other such retentions for Identified Wildlife are 
limited to approximately one-third of 1 percent of the productive 
forest in the Timber Harvesting Land Base. Similar situations exist 
wherever past harvest is extensive, yet these areas have the greatest 
need for conservation (FPB 2004, pp. 7-8).
    Another potential limitation of the one percent cap on goshawk 
conservation is apparent in areas with high numbers of other at-risk 
species and continuing threats to those species (Wood and Flahr 2004, 
pp. 394-395). Southern Vancouver Island, for example, is a biodiversity 
``hot spot,'' with a large number of rare and endemic species (Scudder 
2003). Some of these species have habitat needs that differ from those 
of the goshawk, yet their legitimate conservation needs must be 
accommodated along with the goshawk within the one percent limit. In 
the South Island Forest District, Wildlife Habitat Areas are 
approaching, and may have already exceeded, the one percent cap (Wood 
et al. 2003, p. 53).
    In 2004, the British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource 
Management established ``Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Objectives'' 
that must be addressed in Forest Stewardship Plans (Abbott 2004, pp. 1-
6). The order established ``Landscape Units'' and old growth forest 
retention objectives for each of those units. Individual Landscape 
Units are assigned to low, intermediate, or high biodiversity emphasis, 
with lower percentages of old-growth retention identified for lower-
emphasis units. The exact amount of old growth that must be retained 
depends on the forest type (biogeoclimatic zone) and the ``natural 
disturbance regime'' identified for each biogeoclimatic zone variant. 
Within the Coastal Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) Zone, old 
growth retention objectives range from 9 to 13 percent; in the Mountain 
Hemlock (T. mertensiana) Zone, objectives range from 19 to 28 percent; 
and in the Coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Zone, 9 to 13 
percent. The objectives are termed ``non-spatial'' because they 
describe amounts but not specific areas to be retained, unlike other 
orders that establish protection of specified areas. In order to meet 
the non-spatial, old-growth objectives, tenure-holders and Timber 
Supply Area managers can rely on existing protected areas such as 
Wildlife Habitat Areas, riparian reserves, inoperable lands, and other 
designations that result in retention of old-growth stands.
    The Province of British Columbia has made significant progress in 
implementation of several elements of their conservation program for 
goshawks, as described above. A draft recovery strategy has been 
released. Several of the actions identified in the draft strategy have 
begun; others are likely to be implemented once the Recovery 
Implementation Group completes an action plan (NGRT 2008, pp. 21-32). 
It is likely that the identified strategies will assist in long-term 
conservation of the subspecies in British Columbia. The strategy, 
however, is currently in draft form with an action plan not anticipated 
for 2 years (NGRT 2008, p. 34).
    In summary, the Province's Protected Area Strategy protects 13 
percent of the land area, and 13 percent of the productive forest, in 
parks and other reserves within the range of the British Columbia DPS. 
We believe that this is inadequate, by itself, to support a viable 
population of goshawks because much of the protected land is not 
forested, and because goshawks are dispersed at low densities across a 
vast landscape and are likely to need more than 13 percent of the 
landscape in suitable condition (specifically, mature and old-growth 
forest). Management of timber lands within the province continues to 
evolve with increasing emphasis on conservation of non-timber values 
associated with forests, including goshawks. However, the Province's 
Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, which allows for designation 
and protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas around goshawk nests, is 
limited by a policy-level cap of one percent of the short-term timber 
supply. We acknowledge that much work is underway in the Province to 
address the threats and conservation needs of Queen Charlotte goshawks. 
Because much of the regulatory framework is relatively new, some key 
elements of the recovery effort have not yet been fully developed or 
implemented, so it is difficult at this time to assess their potential 
effectiveness (see Conservation Efforts, below).
    We conclude that continued development and implementation of 
regulatory mechanisms will be required to minimize the risk of 
extinction for the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk. 
Existing regulatory mechanisms do not appear to adequately reduce the 
threat posed to goshawk habitat from timber harvest at this time.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' 
Continued Existence

    We are not aware of current population-level threats to Queen 
Charlotte goshawks due to competition for either prey or nest sites. 
The NGRT rates this threat as low across the DPS (NGRT 2008, p. 16). 
Competition among herbivores has been implicated in grouse declines on 
the Queen Charlotte Islands, however, where introduced deer have 
reportedly overbrowsed blueberries and other important grouse foods, 
resulting in grouse population declines (Golumbia et al. 2003, pp. 10-
11; Doyle 2004, pp. 15-16). This has probably reduced goshawk nesting 
effort (number of pairs attempting to nest) on the Queen Charlotte 
Islands during periods of low squirrel density, when goshawks might 
otherwise have nested if grouse had been more abundant. Predation on 
sooty grouse eggs and nestlings by introduced raccoons may also be a 
factor contributing to grouse population declines on the Queen 
Charlotte Islands (Golumbia et al. 2003, pp. 13-15).
    Threats due to low prey diversity are considered low on the 
mainland, moderate on Vancouver Island, and high on the Queen Charlotte 
Islands (NGRT 2008, pp. 16 and 18) (see previous discussion under 
Factor A).
    We know of no contaminants that pose current or potential future 
threats to goshawks within the British Columbia DPS.
    Natural disasters such as windstorms, landslides, avalanches, 
earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions could affect localized 
areas within the British Columbia DPS, but are not believed to pose 
population-level threats, either now or in the foreseeable future. 
Large, landscape-altering forest fires, insect infestations, or tree 
diseases could pose population-level threats to Queen Charlotte 
goshawks in the British Columbia DPS if they affect major portions of 
either Vancouver Island or the Queen Charlotte Islands, both of which 
support contiguous blocks of forest habitat on one or two large 
islands, rather than on many islands as in the southeast Alaska DPS. 
Global climate change could increase the frequency and severity of 
large fires, forest pests, or forest diseases (Bachelet et al. 2005, 
pp. 2244-2248), but we do not know how likely such events might be. 
Increases in forest cover, as cool-adapted species invade alpine areas 
and plant communities generally shift northward (Hamann and Wang 2006, 
pp. 2780-2782), could increase the amount of habitat available to 
goshawks,

[[Page 56764]]

but such gains could be offset by loss of forest cover elsewhere. We 
conclude that climate change is likely to have mixed effects on 
goshawks. The possibility exists that landscape-level changes due to 
climate change could negatively affect the British Columbia DPS of the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk, but these threats do not currently place the 
DPS in danger of extinction, nor do we expect them to in the 
foreseeable future.
    The small goshawk population on the Queen Charlotte Islands appears 
to be genetically distinct from goshawks elsewhere and may be 
genetically isolated (Gust et al. 2003, p. 22; Talbot et al. 2005, pp. 
2-3; Talbot 2006, p. 1). Isolated populations such as the one on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands are typically at greater risk of extinction or 
genetic problems such as inbreeding depression and loss of genetic 
diversity, particularly where populations are small (Lande 1988, pp. 
1456-1457; Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 312-317). Inbreeding depression is 
a reduction in viability and fecundity that occurs as large populations 
decline and rapid inbreeding produces increased prevalence of harmful 
genes that are typically rare in larger populations (Lande 1988, p. 
1456). Loss of genetic diversity occurs as populations are reduced, and 
can diminish future adaptability to a changing environment. The NGRT 
considers threats from genetic isolation to be high for the Queen 
Charlotte Islands, and low to none elsewhere in British Columbia (NGRT 
2008, pp. 16, 18-19). We concur with this assessment.
    Hybridization can be a threat when related species or subspecies 
interbreed, diluting the genetics of the smaller population. 
Populations on Vancouver Island apparently interbreed with the 
subspecies of goshawk that inhabits much of mainland North America, 
Accipiter gentilis atricapillus (Gust et al. 2003, p. 22; Talbot et al. 
2005, pp. 2-3; Talbot 2006, p. 1). This seems likely given the 
proximity of Vancouver Island to the mainland. On the mainland, the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk (A. g. laingi) inhabits wet coastal forests, 
but likely interbreeds with the interior subspecies (A. g. 
atricapillus) within the drier coastal western hemlock zones between 
coastal and interior forests. The NGRT considers this a transition zone 
between the two subspecies, but concludes, based on limited sampling, 
that ``Vancouver Island and (coastal) mainland B.C. populations (of A. 
g. laingi) do not appear to be interbreeding with interior B.C. 
populations (of A. g. atricapillus) (NGRT 2008, pp. 3, 6, and 18). We 
have no information indicating that A. g. atricapillus goshawks are 
expanding into the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, and we 
consider the transition zones between the subspecies to be stable. We 
therefore conclude that hybridization does not pose a significant 
threat to the continued survival of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, now or 
in the foreseeable future.
    The breeding population across the British Columbia DPS appears to 
be about 352 to 374 pairs (NGRT 2008, p. 8). Small populations such as 
this are at greater risk of extinction than larger populations from 
environmental stochasticity (random or otherwise unpredictable events 
such as disease epidemics, prey population crashes, or environmental 
catastrophes), which can reduce the population to a density at which it 
is vulnerable to demographic stochasticity (fluctuations in birth and 
mortality rates) (Engen et al. 2001, p. 794; Adler and Drake, 2008, p. 
192).
    We conclude that the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk is not currently in danger of extinction due to other natural 
and manmade factors (Factor E) such as competition, contaminants, 
natural disasters, climate change, or genetic problems resulting from 
hybridization or isolation. However, due to its small population size, 
this DPS is likely to be vulnerable to prey fluctuations, hybridization 
(on Vancouver Island), or inbreeding depression (on the Queen Charlotte 
Islands) in the foreseeable future. Each of these potential threats 
would likely become more important if habitat modification causes 
population declines, exacerbating the impact of the threats.

Conservation Efforts

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to determine if a species 
should be listed ``after taking into account those efforts, if any, 
being made...to protect such species, whether by predator control, 
protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation 
practices.'' We consider existing regulatory mechanisms and other 
efforts underway in British Columbia to conserve goshawks and goshawk 
habitat in our analysis of the five listing factors, above. In many 
cases, conservation actions are planned, but have not yet been 
implemented. In other cases, conservation efforts may be underway, but 
their effectiveness is uncertain. To help guide evaluation of such 
efforts, the Service published a ``Policy for Evaluation of 
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions'' (PECE Policy) (68 
FR 15100, March 28, 2003). The PECE Policy ``applies to those 
formalized conservation efforts that have not yet been implemented or 
have been implemented, but have not yet demonstrated whether they are 
effective at the time of a listing decision.'' For efforts meeting 
these criteria, the policy directs us to consider (1) the certainty 
that a conservation effort will be implemented, and (2) the certainty 
that the effort will be effective.
    British Columbia's draft Recovery Strategy identifies several broad 
strategies and recommended approaches to address threats to the 
goshawk, with specific actions listed to address each approach (NGRT 
2008, pp. 26-30). Because the recovery strategy itself is draft, it 
does not meet the PECE Policy's definition of a formalized conservation 
effort (68 FR 15104, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Response 17). Many of 
the actions listed in the draft recovery strategy, however, have 
already been implemented and warrant evaluation as formalized 
conservation efforts. We also evaluate actions identified in the draft 
recovery strategy that have not yet been implemented, because we 
believe that the NGRT intends to pursue them.
    Among the actions that have not yet been implemented are 
predictions of habitat changes resulting from climate change, 
monitoring and modeling of West Nile Virus impacts, and monitoring of 
edge-adapted competitors and predators. The draft Recovery Strategy is 
a broad-scale document that does not provide details on who would be 
responsible for implementing the identified actions, the source and 
security of funding, legal authorities, procedural and legal 
requirements (permits, authorizations and permissions, etc.), and 
volunteer (e.g., landowner or timber tenure holder) participation 
necessary to implement the actions, as required for us to conclude with 
a high level of certainty that the actions will be implemented (PECE 
Policy, 68 FR 15114-15115).
    Among the actions identified in the draft strategy that have 
already begun, the most highly developed is protection of habitat using 
existing authorities and mechanisms. These are described in NGRT (2008) 
Appendix 1, and are evaluated above under Factor D (inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms). We consider habitat protection an 
effective strategy, but cannot conclude that implementation under 
existing mechanisms adequately removes the threat posed to the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk from habitat loss.
    Other actions listed in the draft Recovery Strategy have been 
implemented (or have begun and are ongoing), but have not yet been 
proven effective. Included in this category are:

[[Page 56765]]

     Development of general wildlife measures to ensure 
sufficient foraging habitat outside Wildlife Habitat Areas,
     Landscape modeling to identify habitat availability,
     Research and implementation of silviculture methods to 
promote prey populations,
     Development and implementation of management plans for 
introduced species,
     Development and implementation of outreach and education 
for landowners and resource managers,
     Effectiveness monitoring of habitat management,
     Development and use of spatially explicit population 
models and genetic samples to define population and distribution 
objectives,
     Use of habitat conservation tools to conserve and recover 
populations in each conservation region, and
     Identification and monitoring of prey populations.
    The PECE Policy lists six criteria necessary to establish that a 
conservation effort will be effective in adequately reducing threats to 
a level that listing a species as threatened or endangered is not 
necessary. These criteria include (1) a description of the threats 
addressed by the conservation effort, (2) explicit, incremental 
objectives for the conservation effort and dates for achieving the 
objectives, (3) the steps necessary to implement the conservation 
effort, (4) quantifiable measures to demonstrate progress toward, and 
achievement of, objectives, (5) provisions for monitoring and reporting 
progress on implementation and effectiveness, and (6) incorporation of 
adaptive management principles (68 FR 15115). The draft Recovery 
Strategy is a broad-level planning document that describes threats to 
the goshawk and provides recommendations for addressing those threats. 
It lacks detail on implementation of the recommended actions. A 
recovery action plan, which will likely provide much of the detail 
described in the PECE Policy, is expected within 2 years of finalizing 
the draft Recovery Strategy. Meanwhile, we are not aware of currently 
available documents that provide the information (criteria 1 through 6, 
immediately above) necessary to ascertain with a high level of 
certainty that the actions will be effective.
    A major conservation effort recently announced by the Province of 
British Columbia is Ecosystem Based Management for lands managed for 
multiple uses in the Central Coast, North Coast, and Haida Gwaii 
regions (BCMAL 2006, pp. 1-3; BCOP 2007, pp. 1-2). Ecosystem Based 
Management ``is a new adaptive approach to managing human activities 
that ensures the coexistence of healthy ecosystems and communities. The 
intent is to support a sustainable economy while protecting a healthy 
ecosystem'' (BCMAL 2006, p. 2). Key elements include establishment of 
protected areas; higher standards for key environmental values; use of 
traditional, local, and scientific knowledge to develop management 
targets; recognition of Aboriginal and other local interests in land 
use planning and management; and promotion of stability, certainty, and 
long-term resource use (BCMAL 2006, p. 2).
    The British Columbia government has moved to implement Ecosystem 
Based Management on the mainland coast and, more recently, the Queen 
Charlotte Islands. Land use agreements have been reached with various 
First Nations, and efforts are underway to identify lands for 
protection. We have a high level of certainty that Ecosystem Based 
management will be implemented in some form, although details of which 
lands will be protected, and how timber harvest will be regulated, are 
not yet available. We expect that protection of additional areas will 
result in reduced logging overall, although the rate of logging on the 
remaining lands is not known. We therefore cannot be sufficiently 
certain that the program will reduce threats to goshawks to a level 
that listing as threatened or endangered is no longer necessary.

Foreseeable Future

    The term ``threatened species'' means any species (or subspecies 
or, for vertebrates, distinct population segments) that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the 
term ``foreseeable future.'' However, in a January 16, 2009, memorandum 
addressed to the Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, concluded, ``. 
. . as used in the ESA, Congress intended the term `foreseeable future' 
to describe the extent to which the Secretary can reasonably rely on 
predictions about the future in making determinations about the future 
conservation status of the species.'' In a footnote, the memorandum 
states, ``In this memorandum, references to `reliable predictions' are 
not meant to refer to reliability in a statistical sense. Rather, I use 
the words ``rely'' and ``reliable'' according to their common, non-
technical meanings in ordinary usage. Thus, for the purposes of this 
memorandum, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to depend upon 
it in making decisions'' (M-37021, January 16, 2009).
    We assess foreseeable future in terms of the threats to the species 
in question. Threats to the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk are primarily related to habitat loss. Other threats are likely 
to be significant only if populations decline to critically low levels. 
We expect the amount of suitable goshawk habitat to continue to decline 
until all the old growth available for harvest has been converted to 
second growth. At that time, we expect the amount of habitat to 
stabilize, with less habitat than is available today. Thereafter, 
logging will be limited to the second growth, which we expect will be 
harvested on a sustained-yield basis. Because second-growth stands 
provide suitable goshawk habitat for only the final 10 to 20 percent of 
each timber harvest rotation (USFWS 2007, pp. 62-67), we estimate that 
approximately 15 percent of the second growth will be mature, at any 
given time, and will provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat, 
while 85 percent will be younger, and provide largely unsuitable 
habitat (USFWS 2007, pp. 99 and 131). While we recognize that ongoing 
changes in management regimes, market conditions and technology may 
affect the intensity and pace of habitat loss, we consider logging 
projections provided by the BC Ministry of Forests and Range, and by 
the individual Tree Farm License holders, to be the best information 
available at this time for evaluating habitat trends and threats into 
the future. In our review, we used such projections to estimate how 
much old-growth and mature second-growth forest would be available 
after all available old growth has been converted to second growth, 
which we expect to occur in approximately 50 years (USFWS 2007, pp. 85-
91 and pp. 103-104; USFWS 2008, Tables A-1 and A-10 to A17).
    Wildlife populations typically continue to decline for several 
generations after habitat loss has occurred, as the populations reach 
equilibrium with their habitat and competitors (Tilman et al. 1994, pp. 
65-66). Therefore, extinction may occur many years after habitat loss 
has ceased. We do not know precisely how long it will take before the 
population stabilizes or goes extinct following habitat loss, but we do 
expect the goshawk population to continue to decline for several 
generations after habitat loss peaks in about 50 years. We therefore 
define foreseeable future for the British Columbia DPS as approximately 
50 years plus a period of

[[Page 56766]]

up to several generations for the population to adjust.

Conclusion

    Our analysis of threats suggests that as additional forest is 
logged, habitat quality will continue to decline for the British 
Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk and its prey. With reduced 
prey populations, and less favorable habitats in which to hunt, we 
expect that Queen Charlotte goshawks within the British Columbia DPS 
would have reduced nesting success. Ultimately, this is expected to 
result in even smaller populations than currently occur (352 to 374 
breeding pairs). Smaller p