Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Related to Experimental Removal of Barred Owls for the Conservation Benefit of Threatened Northern Spotted Owls, 65546-65548 [E9-29447]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
65546
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 236 / Thursday, December 10, 2009 / Notices
review of and comment on these
applications by local, State, and Federal
agencies and the public.
Permit No. TE–225693
Applicant: Amy B.H. Greenwell
Ethnobotanical Garden, Captain Cook,
Hawaii.
The applicant requests a permit to
remove and reduce to possession
Prithchardia affinis (loulu) in
conjunction with seed collection and
phenology studies on National Park
Service land on the island of Hawaii in
the State of Hawaii, for the purpose of
enhancing its survival.
Permit No. TE–003483
Applicant: U.S. Geological Survey,
Biological Resources Division, Pacific
Island Ecosystems Research Center,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
The permittee requests a permit
amendment to remove and reduce to
possession (collect) Cyanea glabra
(haha) and Pritchardia affinis (loulu) in
conjunction with assessing genetic
diversity and population structure on
the islands of Hawaii and Maui in the
State of Hawaii for the purpose of
enhancing their survival.
Public Comments
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Please refer to the permit number for
the applications when submitting
comments.
We are soliciting public review and
comment on these recovery permit
applications. Before including your
address, phone number, e-mail address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
All comments and materials we
receive in response to this request will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
Dated: November 16, 2009.
David J. Wesley,
Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9–29433 Filed 12–9–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Dec 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R1–ES–2009–N188; 10120–1113–
0000–D2]
Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement
Related to Experimental Removal of
Barred Owls for the Conservation
Benefit of Threatened Northern
Spotted Owls
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
SUMMARY: Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), this notice advises the public
that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), intend to gather
information necessary to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
for barred owl (Strix varia) removal
experiments designed to determine if
the species’ presence is affecting
northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis
caurina) population stability and
growth, and to test the feasibility of
removing barred owls from specific
locations. We furnish this notice to
advise other agencies and the public of
our intentions, and to obtain suggestions
and information on the scope of issues
to include in the EIS.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please
send your written comments by January
11, 2010. Interested parties may contact
us for more information at the addresses
and phone numbers listed in
ADDRESSES.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
1. You may mail written comments
and information to Paul Henson, Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave., Ste. 100,
Portland, OR 97266.
2. You may hand-deliver written
comments to the above address.
3. You may send comments by
electronic mail (e-mail) to
BarredOwlEIS@fws.gov. Please see the
‘‘Request for Information’’ section below
for file format and other information
about electronic filing.
4. You may fax your comments to
503–231–6195.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robin Bown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave., Ste. 100,
Portland, OR 97266; telephone, 503–
231–6179; facsimile, 503–231–6195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
We listed the northern spotted owl as
threatened in June 1990 under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
based primarily on the loss and
degradation of suitable habitat by
human activity and natural events (55
FR 26114). Conservation efforts for the
northern spotted owl since the species’
listing have focused mainly on securing
forest habitat with characteristics
essential for its survival and
conservation. The 1989 Status Review
Supplement for the northern spotted
owl indicated that the long-term impact
of the expansion of the barred owl into
the range of the spotted owl was
unknown, but of concern (USFWS 1989,
p. 3.15). This assessment was mirrored
in the listing rule for the northern
spotted owl, which noted that the longterm impact of barred owls on the
spotted owl was unknown but of
considerable concern (55 FR 26114, p.
26190). However, the best available
information now suggests that
competition from barred owls poses a
significant threat to the northern spotted
owl, because barred owls have
continued to expand and saturate their
range throughout the listed range of the
northern spotted owl. Therefore,
securing habitat alone may not result in
the recovery of the northern spotted
owl.
In the past century barred owls have
expanded their range westward,
reaching the range of the northern
spotted owl in British Columbia by
about 1959. Barred owl populations
have continued to expand southward
within the range of the northern spotted
owl, and were first documented in that
portion of Washington in 1973, Oregon
in 1972, and California in 1976 (Livezey
et al. 2007, p. 49; Sharp 1989, p. 179).
The population of barred owls behind
the expansion front continues to
increase, and they now outnumber
spotted owls in many of the northern
portions of the northern spotted owl’s
range (Pearson and Livezey 2003, p.
272).
Competition and predation from
barred owls may cause direct and
indirect negative effects to the northern
spotted owl. This threat could result in
extirpation of the northern spotted owl
from a substantial portion of its
historical range and severely reduce the
likelihood of its recovery, even if other
known negative effects are eliminated.
Potential direct negative effects
include declines in site occupancy by
northern spotted owls resulting from
their exclusion from high-quality habitat
by barred owls. This exclusion drives
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 236 / Thursday, December 10, 2009 / Notices
northern spotted owls from forests that
contain characteristics necessary for
breeding, feeding, and sheltering,
reducing the potential for northern
spotted owl survival and reproduction
and contributing to a declining
population. In addition, barred owls
may physically attack spotted owls
during interactions between individuals
(Gutierrez et al. 2007, p. 187). These
effects may help explain declines in
northern spotted owl territory
occupancy associated with barred owls
in Oregon, where they are recent
invaders, and reduced northern spotted
owl survivorship and sharper
population declines in Washington,
where barred owls have been present
the longest and in the greatest densities
(Anthony et al. 2006, pp. 21, 30, 32).
Indirect effects may also occur if the
presence of barred owls suppresses the
response of northern spotted owls to
surveys conducted prior to forest
management activities. In some
situations, the presence of northern
spotted owls detected during pre-project
surveys results in changes to
management activities, thus protecting
habitat and northern spotted owls.
Current research shows a suppression
effect in northern spotted owl responses
to surveys when barred owls are
present, which could cause many
northern spotted owls to go undetected
(Crozier et al. 2006, p. 767). Thus,
occupied habitat could end up being
modified or destroyed, thereby reducing
site occupancy, survival, and
reproduction of northern spotted owls.
We are proposing to conduct
experiments to determine if the removal
of barred owls would increase the site
occupancy, survival, reproduction, and
population trends of northern spotted
owls. Support for these experiments has
been expressed in the scientific
community, as indicated in the
following examples. Gutierrez et al.
(2007, p. 181) stated ‘‘only through
carefully designed experiments
involving removal of barred owls will
we be able to determine if recent
declines in spotted owl populations are
caused by barred owls or by other
factors.’’ Gutierrez et al. (2007, p. 191)
goes on to state ‘‘[c]orrectly executed
removal experiments should provide an
unambiguous result regarding the effect
of barred owls on spotted owl
population declines.’’ The Wildlife
Society sent a letter to the Director of
the USFWS stating ‘‘experiments to
remove and control barred owls * * *
[are] appropriate’’ (The Wildlife Society
2008, p. 11). Buchanan et al. (2007, p.
683) state ‘‘[d]espite the potential for
confounding effects, appropriately
designed removal experiments should
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Dec 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
provide the strongest inference
regarding the magnitude of the Barred
Owl’s effect on Spotted Owls.’’
The methods for, and effects of,
removing barred owls from northern
spotted owl habitat are not fully
understood. Two publications provide
discussion and analysis of various
methods of barred owl control: ‘‘A
synopsis of suggested approaches to
address potential competitive
interaction between Barred Owls (Strix
varia) and Spotted Owls (Strix
occidentalis)’’ (Buchanan et al. 2007)
and ‘‘Considering control of invasive
barred owls to benefit California spotted
owls: possible justification and draft
methods,’’ in Managing Vertebrate
Invasive Species: Proceedings of an
International Symposium (Livezey et al.
2007). The USFWS will consider the
information in these documents in
developing any experimental design for
barred owl removal.
The experimental design for removal
studies would likely consider multiple
experimental sites and a paired sample
design, including treatment areas where
barred owls are removed and
appropriate control areas where they are
not. Experimental sites would likely
include 1 or more of the 14
demographic study areas where
existing, long-term studies of northern
spotted owl population dynamics have
been under way for nearly two decades
(Anthony et al. 2006). This would allow
us to compare northern spotted owl
population data before and after
experimental barred owl removal.
Paired samples (i.e., treatment and
control areas) allow us to evaluate and
address natural variation that might
otherwise obscure the results potentially
requiring longer or more extensive
experiments to detect meaningful
changes. Barred owl removal could
involve lethal methods (killing),
nonlethal methods (capture and
relocation), or a combination of these,
all of which will be considered in the
NEPA process. Implementation of the
experiments would likely occur over a
period of approximately 3 to 10 years,
beginning in 2010 or later and would
require a permit under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704).
Environmental Review of this Proposal
Prior to conducting this research, we
will review the likely environmental
effects and document the information in
an EIS. A first step in preparing an EIS
is to clearly identify the purpose(s) and
need(s) for the proposed action. Our
proposed research has the following
three purposes:
(1) To contribute to fulfilling the
intent of the ESA so ultimately, the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65547
protections afforded by the ESA are no
longer necessary and the northern
spotted owl may be removed from the
list of threatened and endangered
species;
(2) To obtain information regarding
the effects of barred owls on northern
spotted owl vital rates of occupancy,
survival, reproduction, and population
trend through experimental removal;
and
(3) To determine the feasibility of
removal of barred owls.
The need for the proposed research is
to:
(1) Evaluate the response of northern
spotted owl occupancy, survival,
reproduction, and population trend to
barred owl removal;
(2) Determine if barred owls can be
effectively removed from an area and
how much follow-up effort is required
to maintain low population levels of
barred owls; and
(3) Determine the cost of removal in
different types of landscapes.
We will analyze a full range of
reasonable alternatives meeting the
purpose and need and the associated
impacts of each. Potential alternatives
considered to date for analysis in the
EIS include, but are not limited to: (1)
No experimental removal of barred
owls, the No Action Alternative; (2)
lethal experimental removal of barred
owls; and (3) nonlethal experimental
removal of barred owls, through
relocation or captivity.
The environmental review of this
project will be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of NEPA, the
National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508), other
appropriate Federal laws and
regulations, and policies and procedures
of the USFWS for compliance with
those laws and regulations.
Request for Information
Comments and suggestions are invited
from all interested parties to ensure
consideration of a full range of
alternatives related to the purpose and
need and identification of all significant
issues. We request that comments be as
specific as possible in regard to the
above-mentioned purposes and needs.
We also request that comments include
information, issues, and concerns
regarding:
(1) The direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects that implementation
of one of the listed alternatives could
have on endangered and threatened
species and their habitats;
(2) Other possible alternatives and
their associated effects;
(3) Potential adaptive management or
monitoring provisions;
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
65548
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 236 / Thursday, December 10, 2009 / Notices
(4) Baseline environmental conditions
within the range of the northern spotted
owl;
(5) Other plans or projects that might
be relevant to this project;
(6) Measures that would minimize
and mitigate potentially adverse effects
of the proposed project;
(7) Considerations for the ethical and
humane treatment of barred owls
removed during the experiments; and
(8) Any other information pertinent to
evaluating the effects of this project on
the human environment.
The environmental review will
analyze and document the effects the
considered alternatives would have on
barred owls and northern spotted owls,
as well as other components of the
human environment, including but not
limited to cultural resources, social
resources (including public safety),
economic resources, and environmental
justice.
If you wish to comment, you may
submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of
several methods (see ADDRESSES). Please
submit e-mail comments to
BarredOwlEIS@fws.gov. Please also
include ‘‘Attn: Barred Owl EIS’’ in your
e-mail subject header and your name
and return address in the body of your
message. If you do not receive a
confirmation from the system that we
have received your e-mail message,
contact us directly by calling our
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office at
phone number 503–231–6179. Please
note that the e-mail address will be
closed at the end of the public comment
period.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. Comments and materials we
receive will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request from
our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Dec 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
Dated: December 3, 2009.
David Wesley,
Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. E9–29447 Filed 12–9–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R8–ES–2009–N255; 81420–1113–
0000–F3]
Proposed Pacific Gas and Electric Safe
Harbor Agreement for Interior Dune
Species Located in Antioch Dunes in
Contra Costa County, CA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; receipt of
application.
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public
that Pacific Gas and Electric (Applicant)
has applied to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for an
Enhancement of Survival permit under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The permit application
includes a proposed Safe Harbor
Agreement (Agreement) between the
Applicant and the Service for the
federally endangered Lange’s metalmark
butterfly (Apodemia mormo langei),
Antioch Dunes evening primrose
(Oenothera deltoids ssp. howellii), and
the Contra Costa wallflower (Erysimum
capitatum var. angustatum)
(collectively referred to as the Covered
Species). The Agreement is available for
public comment.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please
send your written comments by January
11, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Mr. Rick
Kuyper, via U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W–
2605, Sacramento, California 95825, or
via facsimile to (916) 414–6713.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Rick Kuyper, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES);
telephone: (916) 414–6600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Documents
You may obtain copies of the
document for review by contacting the
individual named above. You may also
make an appointment to view the
document at the above address during
normal business hours.
Background
Under a Safe Harbor Agreement,
participating landowners voluntarily
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
undertake management activities on
their property to enhance, restore, or
maintain habitat benefiting species
listed under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). Safe Harbor Agreements, and the
subsequent enhancement of survival
permits that are issued pursuant to
Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, encourage
private and other non-Federal property
owners to implement conservation
efforts for listed species by assuring
property owners that they will not be
subjected to increased property use
restrictions as a result of their efforts to
attract listed species to their property, or
to increase the numbers or distribution
of listed species already on their
property. Application requirements and
issuance criteria for enhancement of
survival permits through Safe Harbor
Agreements are found in 50 CFR
17.22(c) and 17.32(c). These permits
allow any necessary future incidental
take of covered species above the
mutually agreed upon baseline
conditions for those species in
accordance with the terms and
conditions of the permits and
accompanying agreements.
The Agreement would cover two 6acre parcels (Enrolled Property) that are
located along the south shore of the San
Joaquin River in Contra Costa County,
California, in an area that was once part
of an expanse of riverine sand dunes.
The two parcels are located adjacent to,
and on either side of, the 14-acre Sardis
Unit of the Antioch Dunes National
Wildlife Refuge (‘‘Refuge’’). Two
transmission towers are located on the
Enrolled Property—one 115 kV tower on
the west parcel and one 230 kV tower
on the east parcel. The Applicant relies
on graveled and dirt access roads to
reach all of its facilities on the Enrolled
Property. Each tower has an established
work area that is utilized for
maintenance and operation activities.
The purpose of this Agreement is for
the Service and the Applicant to
collaborate and implement conservation
measures for the Covered Species. This
will be accomplished by restoring and
maintaining suitable habitat within the
Enrolled Property within the Antioch
Dunes system. Restoration actions will
primarily involve controlling invasive
plant species. Such eradication
techniques employed by the Applicant
may involve the use of herbicides to be
applied around host plants for the
Lange’s metalmark butterfly, as well as
Antioch Dunes evening primrose and
Contra Costa wallflower. The Service
will provide the Applicant with a list of
chemicals that are safe to use around
host plants and that are not harmful to
Lange’s metalmark butterflies. Other
weed eradication techniques may
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 236 (Thursday, December 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65546-65548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29447]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R1-ES-2009-N188; 10120-1113-0000-D2]
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
Related to Experimental Removal of Barred Owls for the Conservation
Benefit of Threatened Northern Spotted Owls
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
this notice advises the public that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), intend to gather information necessary to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) for barred owl (Strix varia)
removal experiments designed to determine if the species' presence is
affecting northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) population
stability and growth, and to test the feasibility of removing barred
owls from specific locations. We furnish this notice to advise other
agencies and the public of our intentions, and to obtain suggestions
and information on the scope of issues to include in the EIS.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by
January 11, 2010. Interested parties may contact us for more
information at the addresses and phone numbers listed in ADDRESSES.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
1. You may mail written comments and information to Paul Henson,
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave., Ste. 100, Portland, OR 97266.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to the above address.
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
BarredOwlEIS@fws.gov. Please see the ``Request for Information''
section below for file format and other information about electronic
filing.
4. You may fax your comments to 503-231-6195.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Bown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave., Ste. 100,
Portland, OR 97266; telephone, 503-231-6179; facsimile, 503-231-6195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We listed the northern spotted owl as threatened in June 1990 under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), based primarily on the loss and degradation of suitable habitat
by human activity and natural events (55 FR 26114). Conservation
efforts for the northern spotted owl since the species' listing have
focused mainly on securing forest habitat with characteristics
essential for its survival and conservation. The 1989 Status Review
Supplement for the northern spotted owl indicated that the long-term
impact of the expansion of the barred owl into the range of the spotted
owl was unknown, but of concern (USFWS 1989, p. 3.15). This assessment
was mirrored in the listing rule for the northern spotted owl, which
noted that the long-term impact of barred owls on the spotted owl was
unknown but of considerable concern (55 FR 26114, p. 26190). However,
the best available information now suggests that competition from
barred owls poses a significant threat to the northern spotted owl,
because barred owls have continued to expand and saturate their range
throughout the listed range of the northern spotted owl. Therefore,
securing habitat alone may not result in the recovery of the northern
spotted owl.
In the past century barred owls have expanded their range westward,
reaching the range of the northern spotted owl in British Columbia by
about 1959. Barred owl populations have continued to expand southward
within the range of the northern spotted owl, and were first documented
in that portion of Washington in 1973, Oregon in 1972, and California
in 1976 (Livezey et al. 2007, p. 49; Sharp 1989, p. 179). The
population of barred owls behind the expansion front continues to
increase, and they now outnumber spotted owls in many of the northern
portions of the northern spotted owl's range (Pearson and Livezey 2003,
p. 272).
Competition and predation from barred owls may cause direct and
indirect negative effects to the northern spotted owl. This threat
could result in extirpation of the northern spotted owl from a
substantial portion of its historical range and severely reduce the
likelihood of its recovery, even if other known negative effects are
eliminated.
Potential direct negative effects include declines in site
occupancy by northern spotted owls resulting from their exclusion from
high-quality habitat by barred owls. This exclusion drives
[[Page 65547]]
northern spotted owls from forests that contain characteristics
necessary for breeding, feeding, and sheltering, reducing the potential
for northern spotted owl survival and reproduction and contributing to
a declining population. In addition, barred owls may physically attack
spotted owls during interactions between individuals (Gutierrez et al.
2007, p. 187). These effects may help explain declines in northern
spotted owl territory occupancy associated with barred owls in Oregon,
where they are recent invaders, and reduced northern spotted owl
survivorship and sharper population declines in Washington, where
barred owls have been present the longest and in the greatest densities
(Anthony et al. 2006, pp. 21, 30, 32).
Indirect effects may also occur if the presence of barred owls
suppresses the response of northern spotted owls to surveys conducted
prior to forest management activities. In some situations, the presence
of northern spotted owls detected during pre-project surveys results in
changes to management activities, thus protecting habitat and northern
spotted owls. Current research shows a suppression effect in northern
spotted owl responses to surveys when barred owls are present, which
could cause many northern spotted owls to go undetected (Crozier et al.
2006, p. 767). Thus, occupied habitat could end up being modified or
destroyed, thereby reducing site occupancy, survival, and reproduction
of northern spotted owls.
We are proposing to conduct experiments to determine if the removal
of barred owls would increase the site occupancy, survival,
reproduction, and population trends of northern spotted owls. Support
for these experiments has been expressed in the scientific community,
as indicated in the following examples. Gutierrez et al. (2007, p. 181)
stated ``only through carefully designed experiments involving removal
of barred owls will we be able to determine if recent declines in
spotted owl populations are caused by barred owls or by other
factors.'' Gutierrez et al. (2007, p. 191) goes on to state
``[c]orrectly executed removal experiments should provide an
unambiguous result regarding the effect of barred owls on spotted owl
population declines.'' The Wildlife Society sent a letter to the
Director of the USFWS stating ``experiments to remove and control
barred owls * * * [are] appropriate'' (The Wildlife Society 2008, p.
11). Buchanan et al. (2007, p. 683) state ``[d]espite the potential for
confounding effects, appropriately designed removal experiments should
provide the strongest inference regarding the magnitude of the Barred
Owl's effect on Spotted Owls.''
The methods for, and effects of, removing barred owls from northern
spotted owl habitat are not fully understood. Two publications provide
discussion and analysis of various methods of barred owl control: ``A
synopsis of suggested approaches to address potential competitive
interaction between Barred Owls (Strix varia) and Spotted Owls (Strix
occidentalis)'' (Buchanan et al. 2007) and ``Considering control of
invasive barred owls to benefit California spotted owls: possible
justification and draft methods,'' in Managing Vertebrate Invasive
Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium (Livezey et al.
2007). The USFWS will consider the information in these documents in
developing any experimental design for barred owl removal.
The experimental design for removal studies would likely consider
multiple experimental sites and a paired sample design, including
treatment areas where barred owls are removed and appropriate control
areas where they are not. Experimental sites would likely include 1 or
more of the 14 demographic study areas where existing, long-term
studies of northern spotted owl population dynamics have been under way
for nearly two decades (Anthony et al. 2006). This would allow us to
compare northern spotted owl population data before and after
experimental barred owl removal. Paired samples (i.e., treatment and
control areas) allow us to evaluate and address natural variation that
might otherwise obscure the results potentially requiring longer or
more extensive experiments to detect meaningful changes. Barred owl
removal could involve lethal methods (killing), nonlethal methods
(capture and relocation), or a combination of these, all of which will
be considered in the NEPA process. Implementation of the experiments
would likely occur over a period of approximately 3 to 10 years,
beginning in 2010 or later and would require a permit under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704).
Environmental Review of this Proposal
Prior to conducting this research, we will review the likely
environmental effects and document the information in an EIS. A first
step in preparing an EIS is to clearly identify the purpose(s) and
need(s) for the proposed action. Our proposed research has the
following three purposes:
(1) To contribute to fulfilling the intent of the ESA so
ultimately, the protections afforded by the ESA are no longer necessary
and the northern spotted owl may be removed from the list of threatened
and endangered species;
(2) To obtain information regarding the effects of barred owls on
northern spotted owl vital rates of occupancy, survival, reproduction,
and population trend through experimental removal; and
(3) To determine the feasibility of removal of barred owls.
The need for the proposed research is to:
(1) Evaluate the response of northern spotted owl occupancy,
survival, reproduction, and population trend to barred owl removal;
(2) Determine if barred owls can be effectively removed from an
area and how much follow-up effort is required to maintain low
population levels of barred owls; and
(3) Determine the cost of removal in different types of landscapes.
We will analyze a full range of reasonable alternatives meeting the
purpose and need and the associated impacts of each. Potential
alternatives considered to date for analysis in the EIS include, but
are not limited to: (1) No experimental removal of barred owls, the No
Action Alternative; (2) lethal experimental removal of barred owls; and
(3) nonlethal experimental removal of barred owls, through relocation
or captivity.
The environmental review of this project will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of NEPA, the National Environmental
Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), other appropriate Federal
laws and regulations, and policies and procedures of the USFWS for
compliance with those laws and regulations.
Request for Information
Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to
ensure consideration of a full range of alternatives related to the
purpose and need and identification of all significant issues. We
request that comments be as specific as possible in regard to the
above-mentioned purposes and needs. We also request that comments
include information, issues, and concerns regarding:
(1) The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that
implementation of one of the listed alternatives could have on
endangered and threatened species and their habitats;
(2) Other possible alternatives and their associated effects;
(3) Potential adaptive management or monitoring provisions;
[[Page 65548]]
(4) Baseline environmental conditions within the range of the
northern spotted owl;
(5) Other plans or projects that might be relevant to this project;
(6) Measures that would minimize and mitigate potentially adverse
effects of the proposed project;
(7) Considerations for the ethical and humane treatment of barred
owls removed during the experiments; and
(8) Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of
this project on the human environment.
The environmental review will analyze and document the effects the
considered alternatives would have on barred owls and northern spotted
owls, as well as other components of the human environment, including
but not limited to cultural resources, social resources (including
public safety), economic resources, and environmental justice.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES).
Please submit e-mail comments to BarredOwlEIS@fws.gov. Please also
include ``Attn: Barred Owl EIS'' in your e-mail subject header and your
name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not
receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-
mail message, contact us directly by calling our Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office at phone number 503-231-6179. Please note that the e-
mail address will be closed at the end of the public comment period.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so. Comments and materials we receive will be available for
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Dated: December 3, 2009.
David Wesley,
Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1,
Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. E9-29447 Filed 12-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
