Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Experimental Removal of Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls, 14036-14039 [2012-5139]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14036
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices
Inc. (ACTP) Loxahatchee, FL; PRT–
62567A
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The applicant requests a permit to
export 15 live, captive-born St. Vincent
parrots (Amazona guildingii) to
Germany, for the purpose of
enhancement of the survival of the
species.
Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Billings, MT; PRT–59485A
The applicant requests a permit to
export 22 preserved juvenile pallid
sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)
hatched at the Gavins Point National
Fish Hatchery in Yankton, SD, for the
purpose of scientific research. This
notification covers activities to be
conducted by the applicant over a 5year period.
Applicant: Houston Zoo, Inc., Houston,
TX; PRT–64106A
The applicant requests a permit to
export two live, captive-born redcrowned cranes (Grus japonensis) to
Chile, for the purpose of enhancement
of the survival of the species.
Applicant: Adalgisa Caccone, Yale
University, New Haven, CT; PRT–
209142
The applicant requests a permit to
import biological samples of Galapagos
giant tortoises (Geochelone nigra) from
Galapagos, Ecuador, for the purpose of
enhancement of the survival of the
species through scientific research. This
notification covers activities to be
conducted by the applicant over a 5year period.
Applicant: Morani River Ranch, Uvalde,
TX; PRT–46687A
The applicant requests amendment of
their captive-bred wildlife registration
under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add scimitarhorned oryx (Oryx dammah), addax
(Addax nasomaculatus), and dama
gazelle (Nanger dama) to enhance their
propagation or survival. This
notification covers activities to be
conducted by the applicant over a 5year period.
Applicant: Morani River Ranch, Uvalde,
TX; PRT–49112A
The applicant requests amendment of
their permit authorizing interstate and
foreign commerce, export, and cull to
include scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx
dammah), addax (Addax
nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle
(Nanger dama) from the captive herds
maintained at their facility, for the
purpose of enhancement of the survival
of the species. This notification covers
activities to be conducted by the
applicant over a 5-year period.
Applicant: Donald Henderson,
Ijamsville, MD; PRT–061184
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Mar 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
The applicant requests renewal of
their captive-bred wildlife registration
under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated
tortoise (Astrochelys radiata), to
enhance their propagation or survival.
This notification covers activities to be
conducted by the applicant over a 5year period.
Applicant: Priour Brothers Ranch,
Ingram, TX; PRT–672849
The applicant requests amendment of
their captive-bred wildlife registration
under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add scimitarhorned oryx (Oryx dammah), addax
(Addax nasomaculatus), and dama
gazelle (Nanger dama) to enhance their
propagation or survival. This
notification covers activities to be
conducted by the applicant over a 5year period.
Applicant: Priour Brothers Ranch,
Ingram, TX; PRT–707102
The applicant requests amendment of
their permit authorizing interstate and
foreign commerce, export, and cull, to
include scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx
dammah,), and addax (Addax
nasomaculatus) from the captive herds
maintained at their facility, for the
purpose of enhancement of the survival
of the species. This notification covers
activities to be conducted by the
applicant over a 5-year period.
Applicant: H. Yturria Land and Cattle
Co., Brownsville, TX; PRT–179119
The applicant requests amendment of
their captive-bred wildlife registration
under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add scimitarhorned oryx (Oryx dammah), and addax
(Addax nasomaculatus), to enhance
their propagation or survival. This
notification covers activities to be
conducted by the applicant over a 5year period.
Applicant: H. Yturria Land and Cattle
Co., Brownsville, TX; PRT–179117
The applicant requests amendment of
their permit authorizing interstate and
foreign commerce, export, and cull to
include scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx
dammah), and addax (Addax
nasomaculatus) from the captive herds
maintained at their facility, for the
purpose of enhancement of the survival
of the species. This notification covers
activities to be conducted by the
applicant over a 5-year period.
Applicant: Michale Soupios, East
Northport, NY; PRT–042637
The applicant requests renewal of
their captive-bred wildlife registration
under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for Galapagos
tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra), to enhance
their propagation or survival. This
notification covers activities to be
conducted by the applicant over a 5year period.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Multiple Applicants
The following applicants each request
a permit to import the sport-hunted
trophy of one male bontebok
(Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled
from a captive herd maintained under
the management program of the
Republic of South Africa, for the
purpose of enhancement of the survival
of the species.
Applicant: John Lattimore, Bells, TX;
PRT–66322A
Applicant: Robert Shemonski,
Perkiomenville, PA; PRT–63858A
Applicant: Don Adams, Bloomington,
IN; PRT–61190A
Brenda Tapia,
Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch
of Permits, Division of Management
Authority.
[FR Doc. 2012–5643 Filed 3–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R1–ES–2011–
N259;FXES11130100000D2–123–
FF01E00000]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Experimental Removal of Barred
Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern
Spotted Owls
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability;
announcement of public meetings;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of a draft environmental
impact statement for experimental
removal of barred owls to benefit
threatened northern spotted owls. The
barred owl, a species recently
established in western North America,
is displacing the northern spotted owl
and threatening its viability. The draft
environmental impact statement
analyzes a no-action alternative and
seven action alternatives to
experimentally determine if removing
barred owls will benefit northern
spotted owl populations and to inform
decisions on whether to move forward
with future management of barred owls.
The action alternatives vary by the
number and location of study areas, the
type of experimental design, duration of
study, and method of barred owl
removal. We also announce plans for
public meetings and the opening of a
public comment period on the draft
environmental impact statement. All
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices
interested parties are invited to provide
information, data, comments or
suggestions.
To ensure consideration, we
must receive comments before close of
business (4:30 p.m.) on or before June 6,
2012. We will hold at least two public
meetings within the range of the
northern spotted owl. We will announce
meeting locations and times in local
newspapers and on the Internet at:
https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo.
ADDRESSES: To request further
information, obtain a copy of the draft
environmental impact statement (EIS),
or submit or view written comments,
please use one of the following methods
and clearly indicate that your request or
comment is in reference to the Barred
Owl EIS:
• Email: barredowlEIS@fws.gov.
• U.S. Mail: Paul Henson, State
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100,
Portland, OR 97266.
• In-Person Drop-off of Comments:
Comments can be delivered in person to
the above address during regular
business hours (Monday through Friday,
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.).
• Viewing Comments and Supporting
Materials, or Picking Up a Copy of the
Draft EIS: Call 503–231–6179 to make
an appointment to view received
comments or pick up a copy of the draft
EIS at the above address.
• Internet: The draft EIS is available
for review and downloading at https://
www.fws.gov/oregonfwo.
• Fax: Paul Henson, 503–231–6195,
Attn.: Barred Owl EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon Fish
and Wildlife Office, at 503–231–6179. If
you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf, please call the Federal
Information Relay Service at 800–877–
8339.
DATES:
We
announce the availability of a draft
environmental impact statement for
experimental removal of barred owls to
benefit threatened northern spotted
owls. We are publishing this notice in
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA)
and its implementing regulations at 40
CFR 1506.6. This continues the public
involvement process for our draft EIS,
which was initiated through a notice of
intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal
Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR
65546).
The draft EIS evaluates the impacts of
seven action alternatives and a no-
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Mar 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
action alternative related to: (1) Federal
involvement in barred owl removal
experiments, and (2) the possible
issuance of one or more scientific
collecting permits under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–712;
MBTA) for lethal and non-lethal take of
barred owls.
The northern spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis caurina) is listed as
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.;
Act). Competition from barred owls
(Strix varia) was identified as one of the
main threats to the northern spotted owl
in our 2011 Revised Northern Spotted
Owl Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan)
(USFWS 2011, p. III–62). To address
this threat, the Recovery Plan
recommended designing and
implementing large-scale controlled
experiments to assess the effects of
barred owl removal on spotted owl site
occupancy, reproduction, and survival
(USFWS 2011, p. III–65). The draft EIS
analyzes seven action alternatives and a
no-action alternative for conducting
experimental removal of barred owls
and assessing the effects on spotted owl
populations in specific study areas
within the range of the northern spotted
owl. Action areas may include from one
to several study areas in western
Washington, western Oregon, and
northwestern California. The action
alternatives vary by the number and
location of study areas, the type of
experimental design, duration of the
study, and the method of barred owl
removal.
Background
The Service listed the northern
spotted owl as a threatened species
under the Act in 1990, based primarily
on habitat loss and degradation (55 FR
26114). As a result, conservation efforts
for the northern spotted owl have been
largely focused on habitat protection.
While our listing rule noted that the
long-term impact of barred owls on the
spotted owl was of considerable
concern, the scope and severity of this
threat was largely unknown at that time
(55 FR 26114, p. 26190). The Recovery
Plan summarized information available
since our listing rule and found that
competition from barred owls poses a
significant and immediate threat to the
northern spotted owl throughout its
range (USFWS 2011, pp. B–10 through
B–12).
Historically, the barred owl and
northern spotted owl did not co-occur.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14037
have continued to expand southward
within the range of the northern spotted
owl, and were first documented in
Washington and Oregon in the early
1970s, and in 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 portions of the
northern spotted owl’s range (Pearson
and Livezey 2003, p. 272).
There is strong evidence to indicate
that barred owls are negatively affecting
northern spotted owl populations.
Barred owls displace spotted owls from
high-quality habitat (Kelley et al. 2003,
p. 51; Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 274;
Courtney et al., pp. 7–27 through 7–31;
Gremel 2005, pp. 9, 11, 17; Hamer et al.
2007, p. 764; Dugger et al. 2011, pp.
2464–1466), reducing their survival and
reproduction (Olson et al. 2004, p. 1048;
Anthony et al. 2006, p. 32; Forsman et
al. 2011, pp. 41–43, 69–70). In addition,
barred owls may physically attack
spotted owls (Gutierrez et al. 2007, p.
187). These effects may help explain
declines in northern spotted owl
territory occupancy associated with
barred owls in Oregon, and reduced
northern spotted owl survivorship and
sharp population declines in
Washington (e.g., in northern
Washington, spotted owl populations
declined by as much as 55 percent
between 1996 and 2006) (Anthony et al.
2006, pp. 21, 30, 32; Forsman et al.
2011, pp. 43–47, 65–66)). Without
management intervention, it is
reasonable to expect that competition
from barred owls may cause extirpation
of the northern spotted owl from all or
a substantial portion of its historical
range, reducing its potential for
recovery.
We are proposing to conduct
experiments to determine if removal of
barred owls would increase site
occupancy, survival, and reproduction,
and improve population trends of
northern spotted owls. Support for these
experiments has been expressed in the
scientific community. For example,
Gutierrez et al. (2007, p. 191) notes,
‘‘[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 Service 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
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
14038
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
regarding the magnitude of the Barred
Owl’s effect on Spotted Owls.’’
The methods for, and the effects of,
removing barred owls from northern
spotted owl habitat are not fully
understood. Three publications,
Buchanan et al. (2007, entire), Livezey
et al. (2007, entire), and Johnson et al.
(2008, entire), analyze and discuss
various methods of barred owl control.
The Service considered the information
in these documents as well as the
information gathered in the scoping
process in developing alternatives for
barred owl removal.
Purpose and Need for the Action
The need for the action is that we lack
desired information to:
• Determine the response of northern
spotted owl occupancy, survival,
reproduction, and population trend to
barred owl removal;
• Evaluate whether 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;
• Determine the cost of removal in
different types of forested landscapes to
inform future management decisions;
and
• Help inform timely decisions on
whether to move forward with future
barred owl management.
The purpose of the proposed action is
to contribute to fulfilling the intent of
the Act by rapidly implementing
experimental research necessary for
conservation of the northern spotted
owl in accordance with Recovery Action
29 of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011,
p. III–65). More specifically, the purpose
of the proposed action is 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;
• Determine the feasibility of
removing barred owls from an area and
the amount of effort required to
maintain reduced barred owl population
levels for the study period;
• Estimate the cost of barred owl
removal in different forested
landscapes; and
• Develop the information necessary
to make a future decision about the
management of barred owls as
expeditiously as possible.
Alternatives
The draft EIS describes and analyzes
seven action alternatives and a noaction alternative. The action
alternatives were developed to meet the
purposes and need for the proposed
action, with consideration given to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Mar 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
comments received during public
scoping. We received 54 written
comments from 29 different
organizations (including environmental,
conservation, animal welfare, and
industry groups; Tribes; professional
societies; government agencies; and
zoological parks) and 25 individuals.
The potential impacts of the
alternatives are assessed in the draft EIS.
The alternatives vary by the number and
location of study areas, the method of
barred owl removal (lethal, or a
combination of lethal and non-lethal),
and the type of study (demography vs.
occupancy).
All action alternatives are based on a
simple treatment and control study
design. Under this approach, study
areas are divided into two comparable
segments. Barred owls are removed from
the treatment area but not from the
control area. Spotted owl populations
are measured using the same
methodology on both areas, and the
population measures (occupancy,
survival, reproduction, and population
trend) are compared between the control
and treatment areas.
Experiments would occur over a
period of 3–10 years, varying by
alternative. The area affected by the
action alternatives ranges from
approximately 126,000 to 2,906,800
acres (51,000 to 1,176,000 hectares), or
from 0.2 to 5.1 percent of the northern
spotted owl’s range. A brief description
of each alternative follows.
Under the No-action Alternative, the
Service would not conduct
experimental removal of barred owls,
thus not implementing one of the
Recovery Actions designated in the
Revised Recovery Plan for the northern
spotted owl (USFWS 2001, p. III–65).
Data that would inform future barred
owl management strategies would not
be gathered.
Alternative 1 would consist of a
demography study in a single study
area. The study area would be located
within an existing spotted owl
demography study area where long-term
monitoring of northern spotted owl
populations has occurred (Lint et al.
1999, p. 17; Lint 2005, p. 7). Only lethal
removal would be applied in this
alternative.
Alternative 2 would consist of a
demography study in three study areas,
which would be located within existing
spotted owl demography study areas
and distributed across the range of the
northern spotted owl. Removal would
include a combination of lethal and
non-lethal methods.
Alternative 3 entails a demography
study in two study areas. Barred owl
removal would occur outside of existing
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
spotted owl demography study areas,
but within areas that have adequate data
to conduct pre-removal demography
analyses. A combination of lethal and
non-lethal removal methods would be
used.
Alternative 4 includes two
subalternatives, 4a and 4b. Both
subalternatives entail a demography
study in two study areas outside
existing spotted owl demography study
areas. Both subalternatives use a
combination of lethal and non-lethal
methods. Subalternatives 4a and 4b
differ in that 4a delays barred owl
removal to collect pre-treatment data for
comparison with treatment data,
whereas 4b starts removal immediately
and foregoes pre-treatment data
collection.
Alternative 5 employs an occupancy
study approach in three study areas.
The portion of the study areas where
barred owls would be removed is
outside existing spotted owl
demography study areas. Only lethal
removal would be applied in this
alternative.
Alternative 6 includes two
subalternatives, 6a and 6b. Both
subalternatives entail an occupancy
study in three study areas. The portion
of these study areas where barred owls
would be removed is outside existing
spotted owl demography study areas.
Both subalternatives use a combination
of lethal and non-lethal methods.
Subalternatives 6a and 6b differ in that
6a delays removal to collect pretreatment data for comparison with
treatment data, whereas 6b starts
removal immediately and foregoes pretreatment data collection.
Alternative 7 includes a combination
of demography and occupancy analyses
across 11 study areas, some of which
have current data while others do not.
Three existing spotted owl demographic
study areas would be included within
these study areas. A combination of
lethal and non-lethal methods would be
used.
Public Availability of the Draft EIS
The draft EIS is available for viewing
and downloading on our web site at
https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo.
Unbound paper copies and digital
copies on compact disk are available
upon request. Copies of the draft EIS
may also be picked up in person, by
appointment, during regular business
hours (9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) (see
ADDRESSES section to request a copy or
schedule a document pick-up time).
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we
will analyze comments and address
them in a final EIS.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Public Comments
We request data, comments, new
information, or suggestions from all
interested parties. We will consider
these comments in developing the final
EIS. We particularly seek comments on
the following:
• The barred owl and its population
status and trend;
• The northern spotted owl and its
population status and trend;
• Ongoing northern spotted owl
demography studies;
• Effects of the proposed removal
experiment on other wildlife species;
• Social and human value/ethics,
including the intrinsic value of spotted
and barred owls and human culpability
in the presence of barred owls in the
West;
• Economic effects of the alternatives;
• Cultural resources that may be
affected by the alternatives;
• Effects of the alternatives on visitor
use and recreation, and visitor
experience, especially in National Parks
and Recreation Areas and other
recreation sites; and
• Effects of the alternatives on
Wilderness Areas and wilderness
attributes.
You may submit your comments and
materials by one of the methods listed
in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing the draft EIS, will be
available for public inspection by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at our office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become
part of the public record associated with
this action. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comments, 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.
Public Meetings
We will hold at least two public
meetings at locations within the range of
the northern spotted owl (western
Washington, western Oregon, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Mar 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
northwestern California). We will
announce exact meeting locations and
times in local newspapers and on the
Internet at https://www.fws.gov/
oregonfwo.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this notice is available upon request
from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authority
We provide this notice under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), and its implementing regulations
in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6. We also publish
this notice under authority of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.
703–712) and its specific implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 10.13 and 50 CFR
21.23.
Dated: January 11, 2012.
Theresa E. Rabot,
Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–5139 Filed 3–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R3–ES–2012–N052:
FXES11130300000F3–123–FF03E00000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Permit Applications
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of permit
applications; request for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, invite the public to
comment on the following applications
to conduct certain activities with
endangered species. With some
exceptions, the Endangered Species Act
(Act) prohibits activities with
endangered and threatened species
unless a Federal permit allows such
activity. The Act requires that we invite
public comment before issuing these
permits.
SUMMARY:
We must receive any written
comments on or before April 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments by
U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn:
Lisa Mandell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, 5600
American Blvd. West, Suite 990,
Bloomington, MN 55437–1458; or by
electronic mail to permitsR3ES@fws.gov.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14039
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lisa
Mandell, (612) 713–5343.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We invite public comment on the
following permit applications for certain
activities with endangered species
authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and our
regulations governing the taking of
endangered species in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.
Submit your written data, comments, or
request for a copy of the complete
application to the address shown in
ADDRESSES.
Permit Applications
Permit Application Number: TE06778A
Applicant: USDA Forest Service,
Shawnee National Forest (Rod
McClanahan, P.I.), Vienna, IL.
The applicant requests a permit
renewal/amendment to take (capture
and release; salvage dead specimens)
Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and Gray
bats (Myotis grisescens) on federal lands
in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio.
Proposed activities are aimed at
enhancement of survival of the species
in the wild.
Permit Application Number: TE207526
Applicant: U.S. Geological Survey,
Columbia Environmental Research
Center (Mark Wildhaber, P.I.),
Columbia, MO.
The applicant requests a permit
renewal/amendment to take Pallid
Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus),
Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka), and
Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus).
Proposed activities include captive
propagation, reintroduction, scientific
study, field assessments, and other
recovery activities involving capture,
handling, and holding of fish in the
laboratory (hatchery) and in the wild.
Proposed field activities would occur in
the Missouri River, its tributaries, the
Middle Mississippi River, Neosho River
(KS) and Cottonwood River (KS).
Permit Application Number: TE06809A
Applicant: USDA Forest Service, North
Central Research Station (Sybill
Amelon, P.I.), Columbia, MO.
The applicant requests a permit
renewal to take Indiana bats, gray bats,
and Ozark big-eared bats (Corynorhinus
townsendii ingens) throughout the range
of the species in Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14036-14039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5139]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R1-ES-2011-N259;FXES11130100000D2-123-FF01E00000]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Experimental Removal of
Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; announcement of public meetings;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of a draft environmental impact statement for experimental
removal of barred owls to benefit threatened northern spotted owls. The
barred owl, a species recently established in western North America, is
displacing the northern spotted owl and threatening its viability. The
draft environmental impact statement analyzes a no-action alternative
and seven action alternatives to experimentally determine if removing
barred owls will benefit northern spotted owl populations and to inform
decisions on whether to move forward with future management of barred
owls. The action alternatives vary by the number and location of study
areas, the type of experimental design, duration of study, and method
of barred owl removal. We also announce plans for public meetings and
the opening of a public comment period on the draft environmental
impact statement. All
[[Page 14037]]
interested parties are invited to provide information, data, comments
or suggestions.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive comments before close
of business (4:30 p.m.) on or before June 6, 2012. We will hold at
least two public meetings within the range of the northern spotted owl.
We will announce meeting locations and times in local newspapers and on
the Internet at: https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo.
ADDRESSES: To request further information, obtain a copy of the draft
environmental impact statement (EIS), or submit or view written
comments, please use one of the following methods and clearly indicate
that your request or comment is in reference to the Barred Owl EIS:
Email: barredowlEIS@fws.gov.
U.S. Mail: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave.,
Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266.
In-Person Drop-off of Comments: Comments can be delivered
in person to the above address during regular business hours (Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.).
Viewing Comments and Supporting Materials, or Picking Up a
Copy of the Draft EIS: Call 503-231-6179 to make an appointment to view
received comments or pick up a copy of the draft EIS at the above
address.
Internet: The draft EIS is available for review and
downloading at https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo.
Fax: Paul Henson, 503-231-6195, Attn.: Barred Owl EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office, at 503-231-6179. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal
Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We announce the availability of a draft
environmental impact statement for experimental removal of barred owls
to benefit threatened northern spotted owls. We are publishing this
notice in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6. This continues the public involvement
process for our draft EIS, which was initiated through a notice of
intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on December 10, 2009
(74 FR 65546).
The draft EIS evaluates the impacts of seven action alternatives
and a no-action alternative related to: (1) Federal involvement in
barred owl removal experiments, and (2) the possible issuance of one or
more scientific collecting permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703-712; MBTA) for lethal and non-lethal take of barred
owls.
The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.;
Act). Competition from barred owls (Strix varia) was identified as one
of the main threats to the northern spotted owl in our 2011 Revised
Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) (USFWS 2011, p. III-
62). To address this threat, the Recovery Plan recommended designing
and implementing large-scale controlled experiments to assess the
effects of barred owl removal on spotted owl site occupancy,
reproduction, and survival (USFWS 2011, p. III-65). The draft EIS
analyzes seven action alternatives and a no-action alternative for
conducting experimental removal of barred owls and assessing the
effects on spotted owl populations in specific study areas within the
range of the northern spotted owl. Action areas may include from one to
several study areas in western Washington, western Oregon, and
northwestern California. The action alternatives vary by the number and
location of study areas, the type of experimental design, duration of
the study, and the method of barred owl removal.
Background
The Service listed the northern spotted owl as a threatened species
under the Act in 1990, based primarily on habitat loss and degradation
(55 FR 26114). As a result, conservation efforts for the northern
spotted owl have been largely focused on habitat protection. While our
listing rule noted that the long-term impact of barred owls on the
spotted owl was of considerable concern, the scope and severity of this
threat was largely unknown at that time (55 FR 26114, p. 26190). The
Recovery Plan summarized information available since our listing rule
and found that competition from barred owls poses a significant and
immediate threat to the northern spotted owl throughout its range
(USFWS 2011, pp. B-10 through B-12).
Historically, the barred owl and northern spotted owl did not co-
occur. 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 Washington and Oregon in the early 1970s, and in
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 portions of the
northern spotted owl's range (Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 272).
There is strong evidence to indicate that barred owls are
negatively affecting northern spotted owl populations. Barred owls
displace spotted owls from high-quality habitat (Kelley et al. 2003, p.
51; Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 274; Courtney et al., pp. 7-27 through
7-31; Gremel 2005, pp. 9, 11, 17; Hamer et al. 2007, p. 764; Dugger et
al. 2011, pp. 2464-1466), reducing their survival and reproduction
(Olson et al. 2004, p. 1048; Anthony et al. 2006, p. 32; Forsman et al.
2011, pp. 41-43, 69-70). In addition, barred owls may physically attack
spotted owls (Gutierrez et al. 2007, p. 187). These effects may help
explain declines in northern spotted owl territory occupancy associated
with barred owls in Oregon, and reduced northern spotted owl
survivorship and sharp population declines in Washington (e.g., in
northern Washington, spotted owl populations declined by as much as 55
percent between 1996 and 2006) (Anthony et al. 2006, pp. 21, 30, 32;
Forsman et al. 2011, pp. 43-47, 65-66)). Without management
intervention, it is reasonable to expect that competition from barred
owls may cause extirpation of the northern spotted owl from all or a
substantial portion of its historical range, reducing its potential for
recovery.
We are proposing to conduct experiments to determine if removal of
barred owls would increase site occupancy, survival, and reproduction,
and improve population trends of northern spotted owls. Support for
these experiments has been expressed in the scientific community. For
example, Gutierrez et al. (2007, p. 191) notes, ``[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 Service 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
[[Page 14038]]
regarding the magnitude of the Barred Owl's effect on Spotted Owls.''
The methods for, and the effects of, removing barred owls from
northern spotted owl habitat are not fully understood. Three
publications, Buchanan et al. (2007, entire), Livezey et al. (2007,
entire), and Johnson et al. (2008, entire), analyze and discuss various
methods of barred owl control. The Service considered the information
in these documents as well as the information gathered in the scoping
process in developing alternatives for barred owl removal.
Purpose and Need for the Action
The need for the action is that we lack desired information to:
Determine the response of northern spotted owl occupancy,
survival, reproduction, and population trend to barred owl removal;
Evaluate whether 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;
Determine the cost of removal in different types of
forested landscapes to inform future management decisions; and
Help inform timely decisions on whether to move forward
with future barred owl management.
The purpose of the proposed action is to contribute to fulfilling
the intent of the Act by rapidly implementing experimental research
necessary for conservation of the northern spotted owl in accordance
with Recovery Action 29 of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, p. III-65).
More specifically, the purpose of the proposed action is 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;
Determine the feasibility of removing barred owls from an
area and the amount of effort required to maintain reduced barred owl
population levels for the study period;
Estimate the cost of barred owl removal in different
forested landscapes; and
Develop the information necessary to make a future
decision about the management of barred owls as expeditiously as
possible.
Alternatives
The draft EIS describes and analyzes seven action alternatives and
a no-action alternative. The action alternatives were developed to meet
the purposes and need for the proposed action, with consideration given
to comments received during public scoping. We received 54 written
comments from 29 different organizations (including environmental,
conservation, animal welfare, and industry groups; Tribes; professional
societies; government agencies; and zoological parks) and 25
individuals.
The potential impacts of the alternatives are assessed in the draft
EIS. The alternatives vary by the number and location of study areas,
the method of barred owl removal (lethal, or a combination of lethal
and non-lethal), and the type of study (demography vs. occupancy).
All action alternatives are based on a simple treatment and control
study design. Under this approach, study areas are divided into two
comparable segments. Barred owls are removed from the treatment area
but not from the control area. Spotted owl populations are measured
using the same methodology on both areas, and the population measures
(occupancy, survival, reproduction, and population trend) are compared
between the control and treatment areas.
Experiments would occur over a period of 3-10 years, varying by
alternative. The area affected by the action alternatives ranges from
approximately 126,000 to 2,906,800 acres (51,000 to 1,176,000
hectares), or from 0.2 to 5.1 percent of the northern spotted owl's
range. A brief description of each alternative follows.
Under the No-action Alternative, the Service would not conduct
experimental removal of barred owls, thus not implementing one of the
Recovery Actions designated in the Revised Recovery Plan for the
northern spotted owl (USFWS 2001, p. III-65). Data that would inform
future barred owl management strategies would not be gathered.
Alternative 1 would consist of a demography study in a single study
area. The study area would be located within an existing spotted owl
demography study area where long-term monitoring of northern spotted
owl populations has occurred (Lint et al. 1999, p. 17; Lint 2005, p.
7). Only lethal removal would be applied in this alternative.
Alternative 2 would consist of a demography study in three study
areas, which would be located within existing spotted owl demography
study areas and distributed across the range of the northern spotted
owl. Removal would include a combination of lethal and non-lethal
methods.
Alternative 3 entails a demography study in two study areas. Barred
owl removal would occur outside of existing spotted owl demography
study areas, but within areas that have adequate data to conduct pre-
removal demography analyses. A combination of lethal and non-lethal
removal methods would be used.
Alternative 4 includes two subalternatives, 4a and 4b. Both
subalternatives entail a demography study in two study areas outside
existing spotted owl demography study areas. Both subalternatives use a
combination of lethal and non-lethal methods. Subalternatives 4a and 4b
differ in that 4a delays barred owl removal to collect pre-treatment
data for comparison with treatment data, whereas 4b starts removal
immediately and foregoes pre-treatment data collection.
Alternative 5 employs an occupancy study approach in three study
areas. The portion of the study areas where barred owls would be
removed is outside existing spotted owl demography study areas. Only
lethal removal would be applied in this alternative.
Alternative 6 includes two subalternatives, 6a and 6b. Both
subalternatives entail an occupancy study in three study areas. The
portion of these study areas where barred owls would be removed is
outside existing spotted owl demography study areas. Both
subalternatives use a combination of lethal and non-lethal methods.
Subalternatives 6a and 6b differ in that 6a delays removal to collect
pre-treatment data for comparison with treatment data, whereas 6b
starts removal immediately and foregoes pre-treatment data collection.
Alternative 7 includes a combination of demography and occupancy
analyses across 11 study areas, some of which have current data while
others do not. Three existing spotted owl demographic study areas would
be included within these study areas. A combination of lethal and non-
lethal methods would be used.
Public Availability of the Draft EIS
The draft EIS is available for viewing and downloading on our web
site at https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo. Unbound paper copies and digital
copies on compact disk are available upon request. Copies of the draft
EIS may also be picked up in person, by appointment, during regular
business hours (9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) (see ADDRESSES section to request
a copy or schedule a document pick-up time).
[[Page 14039]]
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we will analyze comments and
address them in a final EIS.
Public Comments
We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from all
interested parties. We will consider these comments in developing the
final EIS. We particularly seek comments on the following:
The barred owl and its population status and trend;
The northern spotted owl and its population status and
trend;
Ongoing northern spotted owl demography studies;
Effects of the proposed removal experiment on other
wildlife species;
Social and human value/ethics, including the intrinsic
value of spotted and barred owls and human culpability in the presence
of barred owls in the West;
Economic effects of the alternatives;
Cultural resources that may be affected by the
alternatives;
Effects of the alternatives on visitor use and recreation,
and visitor experience, especially in National Parks and Recreation
Areas and other recreation sites; and
Effects of the alternatives on Wilderness Areas and
wilderness attributes.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the draft EIS, will be available for
public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our
office (see ADDRESSES section).
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become part of the public record
associated with this action. Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other personal identifying information in
your comments, 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.
Public Meetings
We will hold at least two public meetings at locations within the
range of the northern spotted owl (western Washington, western Oregon,
and northwestern California). We will announce exact meeting locations
and times in local newspapers and on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this notice is available
upon request from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
We provide this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its implementing
regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6.
We also publish this notice under authority of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and its specific implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 10.13 and 50 CFR 21.23.
Dated: January 11, 2012.
Theresa E. Rabot,
Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-5139 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
