Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act, 45869-45893 [2012-18211]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45869-45893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18211]



[[Page 45869]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 148

August 1, 2012

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 45870]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2009-0049; MO 9221050083-B2]
RIN 1018-AY 43


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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hereby list the 
British Columbia distinct population segment (DPS) of the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This final rule 
implements the Federal protections provided by the Act for this 
subspecies in British Columbia, Canada, on Vancouver Island and the 
surrounding smaller islands, the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the 
coastal mainland and adjacent islands west of the crest of the Coast 
Mountains. Because the British Columbia DPS is entirely outside the 
United States, we are not designating critical habitat.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective August 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2009-0049 and comments and 
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the 
preparation of this rule, will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 
400, Arlington, VA 22203.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

Previous Agency Action

    On May 9, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
received a petition from eight conservation groups and two individuals 
to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as endangered, and to designate 
critical habitat. Logging of old-growth forest, where the bird nests 
and forages, was the primary threat identified. On August 26, 1994, we 
published our 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted, opened a public 
comment period, and initiated a status review to determine whether 
listing the subspecies was warranted (59 FR 44124).
    Following our status review, we determined that listing the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk as threatened or endangered under the Act was not 
warranted and published our finding in the Federal Register on June 29, 
1995 (60 FR 33784). We expressed concern for long-term viability of the 
bird under the existing management plan for the Tongass National Forest 
(covering about 80 percent of Southeast Alaska), but we acknowledged 
that a new management plan was being drafted, and the new plan was 
expected to provide improved protection for the subspecies. The June 
1995 ``not warranted'' finding was challenged in the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia, in a suit filed on November 17, 
1995, by 8 of the original 10 petitioners, plus 2 additional 
conservation organizations and 1 additional individual. The district 
court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on September 25, 
1996, holding that the Service should not have relied on ``possible 
future actions'' described in a draft revision to the 1979 Tongass Land 
Management Plan (TLMP) ``to provide sanctuary for the goshawk.'' The 
decision was remanded to the Service with instructions to make a 
listing determination based on the existing 1979 TLMP (Southwest Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 939 F. Supp. 49 (D.D.C. 1996)).
    On September 4, 1997, we published our new finding that listing the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk as threatened or endangered was not warranted 
(62 FR 46710). In 1998, this finding was challenged in the same 
district court, and on July 20, 1999, the finding was remanded to us, 
with instructions to provide a more accurate and reliable population 
estimate, and to consider a 1999 revision of the 1997 TLMP. We appealed 
the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia. The court of appeals agreed with the Service and remanded 
the case back to the district court (Southwest Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F. 3d 58 (D.C.C. 2000)).
    On July 29, 2002, a district court magistrate issued recommended 
findings that: (1) We had fulfilled our obligation to use the best 
scientific data available; (2) the ``not warranted'' determination was 
entitled to deference; (3) our determination that the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk would persist in Alaska and the Queen Charlotte Islands was not 
unreasonable; (4) Vancouver Island, which constituted one-third of the 
subspecies' geographic range, was a ``significant portion'' of the 
subspecies' range; and (5) our failure to make a specific finding as to 
the conservation status of the subspecies on Vancouver Island was a 
material omission. The magistrate recommended a remand to the Service 
to make a finding as to whether the Queen Charlotte goshawk should be 
listed based on its conservation status on Vancouver Island (Southwest 
Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, No. 98-934, 2002 U.S. Dist. 
LEXIS 13661, (D.D.C. July 29, 2002)).
    On May 24, 2004, a district court judge issued an order that 
adopted the magistrate's recommendations, except for the magistrate's 
finding that Vancouver Island constituted a significant portion of the 
range for the Queen Charlotte goshawk. Instead, the district court 
directed the Service upon remand to reconsider and explain any 
determination as to whether or not Vancouver Island is a significant 
portion of the subspecies' range, and assess whether the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk is endangered or threatened on Vancouver Island 
(Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, No. 98-0934 
(D.D.C. May 24, 2004)).
    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). In the Response to Court, we found that Vancouver Island was a 
significant portion of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's range, that 
Southeast Alaska and British Columbia each supported distinct 
population segments, and that listing was warranted for the British 
Columbia DPS, but not for the Southeast Alaska DPS.
    On November 3, 2009, we published a proposed rule to list the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk as threatened on Vancouver Island and the 
surrounding, smaller islands, and on the mainland coast of British 
Columbia. We also proposed to list the subspecies as endangered on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands (74 FR 56757). Upon publication, we initiated a 
60-day public comment period, and requested information and comments, 
particularly on threats to the subspecies. We also solicited peer 
reviews from individuals with expertise in Queen Charlotte

[[Page 45871]]

goshawk biology and/or forest management in British Columbia.

Queen Charlotte Goshawk Biology and Habitat

    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. Taxonomic treatments 
and reviews have generally accepted the Queen Charlotte goshawk (A. g. 
laingi) as distinct from the subspecies found across most of North 
America (A. g. atricapillus) (reviewed in USFWS 2007a, pp. 12-13). For 
purposes of the Species at Risk Act, the Government of Canada has 
dropped the common name ``Queen Charlotte goshawk'' in favor of 
``Northern Goshawk laingi subspecies'' (Canada Gazette II, 
2005:139(2):p. 79). In British Columbia, the recovery team working on 
the subspecies has adopted this protocol (NGRT 2008, p. vii).
    Natural history and threats to the subspecies are described in 
detail in our status reviews (USFWS 2007; USFWS 2010) 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 natural history.
    Goshawks typically nest and forage in old-growth forest, but use 
mature second-growth (previously harvested, regenerating stands that 
have developed adequate structure) for either purpose 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).
    ``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.
    Forest regeneration following timber harvest usually results in 
dense second-growth stands that may support populations of some prey 
species, but research across North America suggests that goshawks avoid 
these habitats, presumably because they are too dense for the hawks to 
effectively hunt (Iverson et al. 1996, p. 64; DeStefano and McCloskey 
1997, p. 38; Beier and Drennan 1997, p. 570; reviewed by Greenwald et 
al. 2005, pp. 125-126 and USFWS 2007, pp. 62-67). Goshawks, however, 
have been observed hunting in 10-20-year-old second-growth stands by 
flying above the forest canopy (Bloxton 2002, pp. 42-43).
    As second-growth stands approach economic maturity, the forest 
structure develops adequately to allow goshawks to nest and 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 economic 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 2003a, 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 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.
    Goshawks hunt primarily by flying between perches and launching 
attacks from those perches. They take a variety of medium-sized birds 
and mammals, 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; Doyle 2006, pp. 138-
139; Lewis et al. 2006, pp. 1154-1156). 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, although Titus et al. (2003, p. 
49) used stable isotopes from feathers to characterize diets of 
individual birds, and suggested that squirrels, passerines, and for 
some goshawks, ``intertidal marine birds'' and ptarmigan may be 
important prey outside the nesting season. Doyle (2004, p. 27; 2006, 
pp. 138-139) suggested that red squirrels and grouse are likely to be a 
key year-round prey, where they exist, since they remain active during 
the winter.
    Prey availability is defined by prey abundance and suitability of 
habitat for successful hunting. Commercial logging can reduce both. 
Studies in coastal British Columbia have documented that density of 
important prey species including varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), hairy 
woodpecker (Picoides villosus), and red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus 
ruber) are reduced by clearcut logging (Savard et al. 2000, pp. 59-63). 
Species consistently favored by clearcut logging tended to be small 
birds such as sparrows and warblers (Savard et al. 2000, pp. 32-33), 
which are not a major component of goshawk diets (Lewis et al. 2006, 
pp. 1153-1156). Red squirrel densities on the Queen Charlotte Islands 
were low in young second growth stands, but increased with age, peaking 
in 40 to 49-year-old stands (Doyle 2004, p. 23).
    Old growth and mature second-growth forests provide productive 
habitat for prey species in a setting where goshawks can effectively 
hunt. Timber harvest is believed to result in prey population declines 
because few potential prey species within the range of the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk are adapted to open and edge habitats (Doyle 2006, 
pp. 138-139; Doyle and Mahon 2003, p. 1; reviewed by Iverson et al. 
1996, pp. 59-61; USFWS 2007, pp. 42-45). Goshawk researchers have 
suggested that when and where logged areas grow into dense second-
growth stands, hunting is impaired because these stands do not offer 
adequate flight space (e.g., Iverson et al. 1996, p. 71; DeStefano and 
McCloskey 1997, p. 38; Beier and Drennan 1997, p. 570; reviewed by 
Greenwald et al. 2005, pp. 125-126; USFWS 2007, pp. 62-67), although 
goshawks in coastal forests of western Washington have been observed 
hunting over dense second-growth stands (Bloxton 2002, pp. 42-43). 
Outside the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, where prey adapted

[[Page 45872]]

to open habitats are more common, goshawks have been observed hunting 
forest edges and openings (e.g., Kenward 1982, pp. 69-79; Kenward 2006, 
pp. 155-165.).
    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 2003a, 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). Mean distance between 
nesting areas ranged from 4.3 miles (mi) (6.9 kilometers (km)) on 
Vancouver Island (McClaren 2003a, p. 13) to 6.7 mi (10.8 km) on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands (NGRT 2008, p. 8), yielding average nesting 
territories (circular plots centered on the nest area) of approximately 
10,000 acres (ac) (3,700 hectares (ha)) on Vancouver Island and 25,000 
ac (10,000 ha) on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Queen Charlotte goshawks 
appear to nest at lower densities than northern goshawks studied 
elsewhere (reviewed by McClaren 2003a, pp. 13 and 21; Doyle 2005, p. 
15; and USFWS 2007, pp. 45-47).
    Studies of northern goshawks across the western United States 
suggest that successful goshawk home ranges typically contain between 
40 and 60 percent suitable foraging habitat (mature and old-growth 
forest) (e.g., Reynolds et al. 1992, p. 27; Patla 1997, pp. 71-74; 
Patla and Trost 1997, p. 34; Finn et al. 2002, pp. 431-433). These 
observations are consistent with findings for Queen Charlotte goshawks 
(Doyle 2005, p. 14; Iverson et al. 1996, p. 55; USFWS 1997, pp. 36-38). 
Goshawks in Southeast Alaska have been documented using landscapes with 
as little as 23 percent cover by old forest (Iverson et al. year, p. 
55).
    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 ha) (McClaren 2003a, 
p. 13; Flatten et al. 2001, pp. 9-11), although females have been 
documented leaving the nesting area altogether, nesting in subsequent 
years with a new mate in a different territory up to 95 mi (152 km) 
away. Males have been documented moving up to 2 mi (3.2 km) between 
subsequent nests, but apparently remain in their nesting territory 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 (Doyle and Smith 1994, p. 126; Patla 1997, pp. 
34-35; Finn et al. 1998, p. 1; Ethier 1999, pp. 31 and 36; Finn et al. 
2002, pp. 270-271; McClaren et al. 2002, p. 350; McClaren 2003a, pp. 11 
and 16; Desimone and DeStefano 2005, pp. 317-318; Fairhurst and Bechard 
2005, pp. 231-232; Patla 2005, pp. 328-330; 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 2003a, 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 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. Therefore, for purposes of this listing, we define 
the range of the DPS to include that portion of British Columbia that 
includes Vancouver Island and its surrounding islands, the mainland 
coast west of the crest of the Coast Range and adjacent islands, and 
the Queen Charlotte Islands (see map at https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/goshawk/Goshawk_2.pdf).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion on our proposed rule from 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included 
familiarity with the Queen Charlotte goshawk and its habitat, 
biological needs, and threats, and from forest managers familiar with 
forest conditions and management in British Columbia. We contacted five 
experts, and received responses from British Columbia Ministry of 
Environment (two reviewers), British Columbia Ministry of Forests and 
Range (two reviewers), and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (one 
reviewer). These were the only comments provided by State or Provincial 
government agencies, and are considered recommendations from the 
States.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed listing 
of the subspecies. The reviewers made several suggestions to improve 
the accuracy and completeness of the rule, including new information 
that was not available when we completed our status review. Most 
reviewers stated that our conclusions appeared to be reasonable; one 
believed that our conclusions may be reasonable, with clarification of 
a few key, technical points. Peer review comments are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: Scientific uncertainty is not clearly expressed.
    Our Response: We have carefully reviewed the proposed rule, and 
modified the language to be less assertive where uncertainty exists. 
For example, we have added qualifying language such as ``may be,'' 
``suggests,'' ``appears to be,'' or ``is likely to'' where data or 
logic suggest an interpretation that is equivocal. Where appropriate, 
we

[[Page 45873]]

have added discussions of alternative explanations or interpretations.
    Our analyses of forest resources rely on data sets compiled from 
various sources. We made several assumptions and adjustments to produce 
estimates of habitat availability across land ownerships and 
jurisdictions, and to make projections of future conditions. These 
assumptions and adjustments are described in our status review (USFWS 
2007) and updated appendices (USFWS 2010), and are not repeated in 
detail in this final rule. We have added text acknowledging that the 
various sources of data for forest cover vary in their reliability.
    (2) Comment: Use of literature to support specific points is 
inconsistent, inappropriate, or incomplete.
    Our Response: We have used a wide variety of literature to support 
this rule. In doing so, we have endeavored to use peer-reviewed, 
published literature reporting on work from within the range of the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk whenever possible, as our first choice. Where 
such literature was not available, we have relied on unpublished 
reports and abstracts from scientific meetings that report on Queen 
Charlotte goshawks. We have also used many publicly available forest 
management documents, including plans, reports, agreements, and 
official agency news releases.
    We have used peer-reviewed publications on goshawks from outside 
the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk when deemed necessary to show 
consistency or diversity of findings across broad geographic areas, 
such as North America or western North America. In some cases, we have 
reported (or added) observations from coastal forests adjacent to the 
range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, where we believe those 
observations offer useful insight. We have, in a few cases, used more 
general references, such as textbooks, when summarizing topics 
peripheral to the subject of goshawk biology and conservation. We have 
relied on draft documents only if they were available to the public, 
through agency Web sites, for example. We have avoided draft 
manuscripts that were in preparation and not generally available to the 
public. In a few cases, we have cited preliminary research results 
released openly at interagency meetings, but have characterized these 
as preliminary and unconfirmed.
    Reviewers have suggested several additional references, most of 
which were not available when we prepared our status review (USFWS 
2007) or the proposed rule. These have been incorporated into the final 
rule where appropriate.
    (3) Comment: The Service's Queen Charlotte Goshawk Status Review 
(USFWS 2007) is primarily a literature review which does not present 
original field data so should not be cited as a reference; nor should 
other literature reviews.
    Our Response: The final rule includes a summary of goshawk biology 
and habitat relations, but it is not intended to be an exhaustive 
treatise on the topic. More detail on many of the topics discussed in 
the final rule is available in our status review (USFWS 2007). Where 
that document contains a review of relevant literature, we refer the 
reader to it, with the phrase ``reviewed by USFWS 2007, pp. * * *'' We 
use the phrase ``reviewed by * * *'' to identify other literature 
reviews used in preparation of this rule, as well.
    The status review and its companion (updated) appendices (USFWS 
2010) also contain compilations and original analyses of unique data 
sets on forest resources across the range of the goshawk, drawn from a 
variety of sources. These data and the assumptions associated with them 
have been reviewed by the U.S. Forest Service and the British Columbia 
Ministry of Forests and Range. These analyses are central to our 
findings, and are cited throughout the final rule.
    (4) Comment: Science, conservation, judgment, speculation, opinion, 
policy, law, and rulemaking are not clearly separated in the proposed 
rule.
    Our Response: The final rule is a blend of scientific reporting, 
synthesis and interpretation, application of policy, and legal 
findings. This is inescapable. We have endeavored to clearly delineate 
among these categories in the final rule. Scientific results are 
typically identified by words such as ``documented,'' ``reported,'' or 
``found,'' followed by, or preceded by, a citation. Where we relate 
interpretations by those scientists, as are often found in the 
discussion sections of scientific papers and reports, we typically use 
phrases such as ``interpreted,'' ``believed,'' or ``concluded.'' Our 
interpretations and conclusions are identified similarly, for example, 
``we interpret this as * * *,'' ``we consider this * * *,'' or ``we 
conclude * * *.'' Where we discuss specific policies, we generally 
describe the policy, often with a list of relevant considerations, and 
then discuss the application of the policy, in this case. Conclusions 
related to our legal authorities are typically stated as findings, for 
example, ``we find that * * *'' or ``we conclude that * * *.''
    (5) Comment: The link between loss of mature/old forest and goshawk 
population declines should be more clearly described.
    Our Response: We have modified the text in several places to 
explain the basis of our conclusion that reduction of forest cover has 
reduced the ability of the landscape to support breeding goshawks, 
primarily through alteration of hunting habitat. No study has 
documented population declines as a direct result of logging, likely 
due, in part, to the difficulty in directly censusing goshawk 
populations. There is evidence from outside the range of the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk that logging reduces nest activity, which is believed 
to have reduced nesting populations (e.g., Crocker-Bedford 1990, pp. 
263-267). Several investigators from across the range of the northern 
goshawk have concluded that prey availability, as controlled largely by 
forest structure, is more likely than nest site availability to limit 
goshawk populations (Doyle and Smith 1994, p. 126; Widen 1997, pp. 110-
112; Reynolds and Joy 1998, p. 2; Reynolds et al. 2006, pp. 264-268 and 
271-273). Within the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, models that 
estimate habitat capability and management recommendations to conserve 
goshawk habitat are based largely on observation and measurement of 
areas where goshawks successfully nest, and where they do not. These 
observations are supported by additional observations on distribution 
and availability of prey. Together, this body of knowledge represents 
the best available information on landscape management for conservation 
of goshawks. Our charge under the Act is to use the best available data 
to support our listing decisions.
    (6) Comment: References should be cited to support the statement 
that commercial logging reduces prey.
    Our Response: Text has been added that describes studies from 
British Columbia that address changes in bird communities with clearcut 
logging, and use of second-growth forest stands by red squirrels.
    (7) Comment: Prey populations may be more stable within the range 
of the Queen Charlotte goshawk than elsewhere, so discussions of 
fluctuations in nest activity due to fluctuations in prey do not apply 
to the subspecies.
    Our Response: We are aware of no data that show prey populations in 
the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk are more stable than 
elsewhere, and the reviewer provided no information to support the 
statement. In contrast, prey fluctuations in coastal British Columbia 
are specifically discussed by Doyle

[[Page 45874]]

(2003), and Doyle (2007, p. 2), particularly as related to squirrel 
population response to fluctuations in cone crops.
    (8) Comment: Snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) and hoary marmots 
(Marmota caligata) are unlikely to be significant prey species because 
hares are not common along the mainland coast and adult marmots are too 
large for goshawks.
    Our Response: We have deleted the discussions of both snowshoe 
hares and hoary marmots as potentially significant prey resources for 
goshawks along the mainland coast. We previously believed that snowshoe 
hares might provide prey for goshawks in recently logged areas along 
the mainland coast because Nagorsen (2002, p. 93) described the range 
of the species as ``the entire mainland of British Columbia but absent 
from coastal islands.'' The reviewer points out a more recent work by 
Nagorsen (2005, pp. 85-91) which indicates that snowshoe hares are not 
common along the coastal mainland. We simply misjudged the size 
differential of adult hoary marmots as potential prey.
    (9) Comment: The proposed rule suggests that goshawks do not use 
young second growth for hunting, but Bloxton (2002, pp. 42-43) 
presented telemetry data suggesting that goshawks will hunt in some 
second-growth stands, to some degree.
    Our Response: We have modified the text to acknowledge Bloxton's 
observations from western Washington.
    (10) Comment: Unpublished literature on the morphology of Queen 
Charlotte goshawks has been made available to the Service, but has not 
been referenced or used. This information could be used to support an 
alternative approach to understanding subspecies concepts, or as 
evidence of hybridization, and to help evaluate distinctiveness of 
goshawks on the Queen Charlotte Islands.
    Our Response: We addressed size and color (i.e., morphology) of 
Queen Charlotte goshawks in relation to other purported subspecies, and 
in relation to range boundaries, in our status assessment (USFWS 2007, 
pp. 13-19) and in our Response to Court (72 FR 63125). Among the 
recent, unpublished reports and conference abstracts that we have 
evaluated and cited in these reviews are Titus et al. (1994), Flatten 
et al. (1998, 2001b, 2002), and Flatten and McClaren (2003). We are in 
possession of one additional, draft manuscript by two of these same 
authors that to our knowledge has not been submitted for publication, 
and has not been otherwise released for general distribution. Its 
findings are generally consistent with the work reported in the other 
references named above. For these reasons, we have not cited it.
    These reports describe size and color variation among goshawks on 
Vancouver Island and in Southeast Alaska, but not the Queen Charlotte 
Islands or mainland British Columbia. The findings are largely 
consistent with published subspecies descriptions, but with much larger 
sample sizes. The authors suggest that the observed variation in size 
and color may represent a clinal variation, with smaller birds to the 
south and larger birds to the north. We have added text to the final 
rule describing this work, as an alternative approach to understanding 
subspecies concepts, and as possible evidence of hybridization along 
the margins of the subspecies' range. We have not used these references 
in our evaluation of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a significant 
portion of the range because birds from these islands were not included 
in the analyses.
    (11) Comment: Several terms in the proposed rule are undefined. A 
glossary would be useful.
    Our Response: We have provided definitions of all technical terms 
upon their first use, in the text. Some discussions have been reworded 
to minimize technical terms and eliminate jargon.
    (12) Comment: Discussions of forestry and forest management should 
be removed from the section on goshawk biology and moved into a (new) 
section on conservation/management.
    Our Response: We have chosen to leave our discussions of forest 
succession and forest management in the section on goshawk biology and 
habitat because it is relatively brief and is directly relevant to 
understanding goshawk habitat limitations in areas where forests are 
managed for timber production.
    (13) Comment: The Service should consider noting that active 
research and monitoring of goshawk nests has not occurred in Southeast 
Alaska since about 2000, so status of the bird is less certain than it 
was 6 to 9 years ago.
    Our Response: This rule implements our 2007 finding that listing is 
warranted for the British Columbia DPS, but not Southeast Alaska (72 FR 
63123). We, therefore, focus on threats in British Columbia, and do not 
address Southeast Alaska, except to describe previous agency actions. 
We have not added the suggested note because it does not provide 
information useful to our decision for British Columbia.
    (14) Comment: The final rule should include discussions of clinal 
variation and breeding dispersal in the discussion of hybridization as 
a threat.
    Our Response: We have added discussions on both of these topics.
    (15) Comment: The discussion of Foreseeable Future fails to address 
uncertainty and does not adequately link habitat change to goshawk 
viability.
    Our Response: We have revised the discussion of foreseeable future 
to better describe the data sources we used to estimate the amount of 
suitable goshawk habitat we believe will be available in the future, 
and the uncertainty associated with those estimates. We have repeated 
our understanding of the relationship between timber harvest, forest 
regeneration, and goshawk habitat, to clarify the basis for our 
inferences about the quantity and quality of goshawk habitat likely to 
exist in the future, given the timber harvest regimes currently 
envisioned.
    (16) Comment: The basis for determining that Queen Charlotte 
goshawks in British Columbia are a DPS is not clear in the proposed 
rule. Is it based on a geopolitical boundary or is it based on biology 
and population ecology?
    Our Response: We have added text that clarifies the two-part test 
defined by our DPS policy--first, that the populations are distinct, 
and second that they are significant. In this case we establish (1) 
that the population segments are distinct because they are separated by 
an international border across which habitat management and other 
regulatory mechanisms differ. Then we establish (2) that the population 
segment in British Columbia is significant to the taxon because it 
occupies approximately two thirds of the land area and three quarters 
of the productive forest habitat in the range of the subspecies, and 
may contain important genetic diversity for the subspecies.
    (17) Comment: The description of how ``significant portion of the 
range'' is defined is rather general and not particularly useful.
    Our Response: The Act defines an endangered species as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a threatened species as ``any 
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term ``significant portion of the range'' 
is not defined in the Act or its implementing regulations.
    In the proposed rule, we defined a significant portion of a 
species' range as an area important to conservation of the species 
because it contributed

[[Page 45875]]

meaningfully to representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the 
species. Representation, resiliency, and redundancy were discussed as 
general concepts; specific circumstances of each potentially 
significant portion of the British Columbia DPS's range were examined 
to evaluate how each area contributed to conservation of the DPS. In 
the final rule, we retain our focus on a given area's contribution to 
conservation of the DPS through redundancy, resiliency, and 
representation, but set a threshold for ``significant'' in terms of 
extinction risk. As described in the rule, a portion of the range is 
significant if the DPS would be in danger of extinction without the 
portion in question. This approach recognizes the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk itself as the reference point for determining whether a portion 
of the range is ``significant,'' and is consistent with recent case law 
on the matter (see Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, 672 F. 
Supp. 2d. 1105,1124 (D. Mont. 2009)).
    Since publication of the proposed rule, two district court 
decisions have influenced our interpretation of how to proceed if a 
portion of the range is deemed significant, and the goshawk is found to 
be either endangered or threatened within that portion of the range. In 
Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar (729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010)) 
and in WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar (2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 105253 (D. 
Ariz. Sept 30, 2010)), the courts ruled that the term ``significant 
portion of the range'' helps to define the circumstances under which a 
species should be listed as endangered or threatened. The courts ruled 
that the term does not, however, provide a basis for listing a species 
in only a portion of its range. Rather, if the Service determines that 
a species is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its 
range, the species must be listed throughout its range. Because the Act 
defines ``species'' to include ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or 
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of 
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature,'' the same 
logic applies to both subspecies and distinct population segments 
(e.g., a subspecies or DPS found to be endangered in a significant 
portion of its range must be listed as endangered throughout its 
range). This interpretation is consistent with the somewhat ambiguous 
language of the Act, appears to implement Congressional intent, and is 
consistent with previous listing actions by the Service. We, therefore, 
adopt this interpretation in the final rule.
    (18) Comment: Goshawks have been extirpated from urbanized areas 
such as Victoria on Vancouver Island, and that range is now occupied by 
Cooper's hawks. Scientific rationale should be provided to explain why 
such areas are considered part of the range of the listed subspecies.
    Our Response: Goshawks are highly mobile and have established nests 
near human habitation in some situations. We believe that they could 
move through, and possibly nest near, any urbanized area within the 
range of the DPS, on Vancouver Island or elsewhere. In such cases, the 
birds themselves would remain listed entities. The Service does not 
designate critical habitat in foreign countries (50 CFR 424.12(h)), so 
inclusion of any area within our defined range of the DPS would create 
no additional restrictions or regulatory burdens under the Act.
    (19) Comment: Discussions of potential impacts from disease should 
be supported by references.
    Our Response: We have expanded our discussion of disease risks, 
with citation of relevant literature.
    (20) Comment: The discussion of inbreeding depression as a risk to 
small populations such as the one on the Queen Charlotte Islands should 
consider how this topic has been dealt with for other small raptor 
populations.
    Our response: The rule now mentions managed captive breeding and 
translocation as potential methods for mitigating the effects of low 
genetic diversity, as these methods have been used for other small 
populations, including raptors such as peregrine falcons and Mauritius 
kestrels.
    (21) Comment: Several reviewers commented that the quality of 
second growth stands as potential habitat for goshawks in the future is 
under-represented.
    Our Response: As we discuss in the rule under ``Queen Charlotte 
Goshawk Biology and Habitat,'' second-growth stands develop structure 
suitable to support nesting and foraging as the stands approach 
``economic maturity,'' which is the age at which average annual growth 
of individual trees in a second-growth stand begins to slow. This may 
occur as early as 45 to 50 years on the most productive sites, but may 
take more than 100 years on less productive sites. We use the term 
``mature'' or ``mature second growth'' to identify stands with suitable 
nesting and foraging structure that have regenerated following timber 
harvest or other forest disturbance. Throughout the rule, we use the 
phrase ``mature and old-growth habitat'' or ``mature and old forest'' 
to describe suitable goshawk nesting and foraging habitat, explicitly 
acknowledging the value of second-growth forests as goshawk habitat. 
Our analyses of forest cover assume that where second-growth stands 
will continue to be managed for timber production, approximately 15 
percent of the second-growth forest will be of a structural stage that 
would support goshawk nesting at any given time, although this is 
likely to vary with harvest history, site productivity, and 
silvicultural treatments. Where second-growth stands will be protected 
from logging in the future, our analyses assume that previously 
harvested stands will provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat.
    (22) Comment: The final rule should include updated information on 
the status of Land Use Planning processes for coastal mainland British 
Columbia and Haida Gwaii.
    Our Response: As we acknowledge in this final rule, Land Use 
Planning continues to evolve in coastal British Columbia. We have used 
the most current information on the status of Land Use Planning 
processes available to us.
    (23) Comment: There is too much emphasis placed on the South Island 
Forest District, which is only a portion of the goshawk's range in 
British Columbia.
    Our Response: We necessarily focus on Vancouver Island as a 
potential ``significant portion of the range'' of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk because we have been directed to do so by the District Court of 
the District of Columbia (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Norton, No. 98-0934 (D.D.C. May 24, 2004)). The South Island Forest 
District covers the southern half of Vancouver Island plus several 
adjacent islands. The District includes some of the highest 
productivity forests in the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, and 
has some of the greatest challenges to conservation from timber 
harvesting, other competing land uses, and other species of 
conservation concern. The northern half of Vancouver Island and 
portions of the mainland are included in two other forest districts. 
These districts both have substantially lower levels of human impact, 
but are also managed for timber production. Our explicit consideration 
of the South Island Forest District (now called South Island Resource 
District) is limited to a brief discussion of the overlap between high 
levels of endemism and human impacts there.
    (24) Comment: Results of spatially explicit modeling of goshawk 
habitat in

[[Page 45876]]

coastal British Columbia are now available to estimate the number of 
goshawk territories that might have been supported historically, 
currently, and in the future (Smith and Sutherland 2008).
    Our Response: Although the cited reference is dated 2008, it was 
used internally by the NGRT and not available for public use when we 
wrote the proposed rule in 2009. Now that the document has been 
released, we have incorporated this important work into the final rule.
    (25) Comment: Definitions and criteria used to evaluate habitat 
quality based on the percentage of mature/old forest are confusing and 
habitat quality classes appear to overlap.
    Our response: One of the statistics we use to evaluate habitat 
quality is percentage of the landscape covered by mature and old 
forest, based on evaluations of goshawk habitat by Doyle and others in 
coastal British Columbia. In the proposed rule, we defined landscapes 
on Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands differently than 
landscapes on the mainland, based on perceived differences in prey 
communities (see comment concerning snowshoe hares and marmots, above). 
Because we no longer believe that prey communities on the mainland are 
significantly more diverse than on the islands, we have eliminated this 
difference, and now consider landscapes with less than 40 percent cover 
by mature and old forest low-quality habitat and landscapes with 
greater than 40 percent cover by mature and old forest high-quality 
habitat, across the range of the DPS. A discussion of supporting 
literature is included in the rule.
    (26) Comment: Since your analyses were completed in 2007, there 
have been reallocations of lands from 6 of the 11 Tree Farm Licenses on 
Vancouver Island to create a new Timber Sale Area, and private lands 
have been removed from three of the Tree Farm Licenses. Timber Supply 
Analyses have been updated for two of the three Timber Sale Areas on 
Vancouver Island.
    Our Response: Timber supply analyses and logging projections by the 
Ministry of Forests and Range and timber tenure holders in British 
Columbia, which formed the basis of our 2007 analyses, are dynamic. We 
have not attempted to reanalyze these data because we do not believe 
that the reallocations will substantially alter the results or our 
conclusions. We base this on the fact that the lands removed from the 
Tree Farm Licenses appear to remain primarily in timber production 
status. They are, therefore, unlikely to provide significant additional 
protection for goshawk habitat.
    (27) Comment: Approximately 27 percent of Vancouver Island is in 
private ownership. Forest cover data are not available for these lands, 
so habitat availability is underestimated in the proposed rule. These 
lands are believed to be very productive for goshawks. The Government 
of British Columbia has little influence on management of private lands 
to conserve goshawk habitat.
    Our Response: We used estimates of forest cover on private lands 
provided by Neimann (2006). These data are designated ``BTM/BEC'' 
(Baseline Thematic Mapping/Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification) in 
Niemann's (2006) tables, and total 939,000 ha, or 27 percent of 
Vancouver Island (matching the reviewer's estimate), including 
approximately 791,000 ha of forest. Of this total, 77 percent (609,000 
ha) is second growth. We have acknowledged the Government of British 
Columbia's limited ability to manage timber harvest and goshawk habitat 
conservation on private lands in this final rule.
    (28) Comment: Data on forest cover used in the rule come from a 
variety of sources of varying dates and of variable reliability. The 
limitations of these data are not well expressed, potentially leading 
readers to believe the data are more complete and accurate than they 
really are, especially for private land.
    Our Response: Sources of data on forest and other land covers, and 
assumptions we made in developing various statistics, are listed 
primarily as footnotes in the tables of our updated appendices (USFWS 
2010). The base data were gleaned from many sources. We endeavored to 
ensure the data were as comparable as possible, but as the reviewer 
notes, current, consistent data across ownerships do not exist. We 
acknowledge that there are several potential sources of error in these 
data, including differences in how forest covers were defined and 
categorized, harvest and growth that has occurred since the data were 
developed, and misclassifications of land cover. We have not provided 
definitive descriptions of the statistical error associated with these 
error sources primarily because no such estimates are available, to our 
knowledge. We continue to believe that our rangewide and regional 
estimates of forest cover and composition are the best available.
    (29) Comment: Some of the statistics on forest cover in the 
appendix tables cited (USFWS 2008) do not sum across columns correctly.
    Our Response: We have reviewed the data summaries in question and 
have corrected arithmetic errors. The updated information used in the 
final rule is presented in USFWS (2010). We have not updated tables A-
10 through A-15, which present ``Habitat Value'' modeling discussed in 
our status review (USFWS 2007, pp. 99-101) because we do not use these 
analyses in the final rule.
    (30) Comment: ``Productive forest'' is defined differently in 
Alaska than it is in British Columbia, potentially biasing comparisons 
between the two jurisdictions.
    Our Response: This rule focuses on conditions within British 
Columbia, rather than comparing conditions in British Columbia to those 
in Southeast Alaska, so the issue is largely moot for purposes of this 
rulemaking. For our status review (USFWS 2007, 2010) and rangewide 
finding in our Response to Court (72 FR 63123), we developed estimates 
of productive forest across coastal British Columbia and Southeast 
Alaska. We relied on definitions used by the U.S. Forest Service and 
the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, which do indeed 
differ. The definition used by the Ministry was qualitative (``capable 
of producing a merchantable stand within a defined period of time''), 
while the Forest Service's was quantitative (``capable of producing at 
least 20 cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year, or having greater 
than 8,000 board feet per acre''). Goshawks rely on mature forest 
structure, rather than forest volume, so the difference is probably not 
critical for purposes of characterizing goshawk habitat, as long as the 
low-end productive forest by British Columbian standards is 
structurally similar to low-end productive forest by Alaskan standards. 
We assumed that they are because both agencies use these definitions to 
differentiate forests that produce enough wood volume to support 
commercial timber harvest from those that do not.
    (31) Comment: Statistics in Table A-9 of the Service's updated 
appendices (USFWS 2008) do not account for old-growth forest that will 
not be harvested to protect non-timber values such as ``Identified 
Wildlife'' habitat, riparian retention, unstable ground, etc.
    Our Response: Estimates of the amount and percentage of forest that 
will not be harvested within areas otherwise open to timber harvest, to 
protect non-timber values, are displayed in Table A-9 in the column 
labeled ``Retention.'' Forest that will not be harvested because it is 
too steep, wet, unstable, etc., is displayed in the column labeled 
``Inoperable.'' These estimates come from Timber Supply

[[Page 45877]]

Analysis Reports provided by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests 
and Range.
    (32) Comment: The proposed rule assumes that all old growth will be 
logged before second-growth logging begins, but 35 percent of the 
current harvest comes from second growth. This percentage is expected 
to rise over the next 50 years.
    Our Response: We discussed the mix of old growth and second growth 
in the current harvest, and as an increasing percentage of the harvest, 
in our status review (USFWS 2007, pp. 90-91). We reviewed Timber Supply 
Analysis Reports for each timber tenure in the Coast Forest Region to 
determine the rate at which second growth would replace old growth in 
the harvest. We did not assume that all old growth would be logged 
before second growth logging begins, and none of our analyses or 
conclusions depends on such an assumption.
    (33) Comment: There is inadequate discussion of emerging tools, 
techniques, and policies to minimize impacts to goshawks from timber 
harvest in British Columbia.
    Our Response: The broad and expanding suite of forest management 
tools and restrictions used by the province of British Columbia is 
discussed under ``Factor D--Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms'' and 
under ``Evaluation of Conservation Efforts.''

Public Comments

    In the proposed rule published on November 3, 2009, we requested 
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by 
December 8, 2009. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State 
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested 
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We did not receive 
any requests for a public hearing.
    During the comment period, we received comments from five parties, 
including a falconer's group, an environmental education center, the 
Canadian Wildlife Service, and two individuals. Two commenters 
supported our proposal to list the subspecies, one opposed the 
proposal, and two expressed no preference. All substantive information 
provided during the comment periods is addressed below, and has been 
incorporated into this final determination as appropriate.
    (34) Comment: Listing the British Columbia DPS as threatened or 
endangered is inappropriate because (a) there is no evidence of 
significant range contraction or population declines, (b) only 3 to 5 
percent of the forest habitat has been permanently lost to urbanization 
and agriculture, and (c) approximately half of the estimated population 
and nearly two thirds of the geographic area occupied by the DPS are on 
the mainland coast, where threats due to logging are believed to be 
``low to moderate.'' Instead, more careful and comprehensive forest 
management planning is appropriate, especially in the Vancouver Island 
Conservation Region.
    Our Response: The Act lists five threats or ``factors'' that we are 
to base our listing decisions upon. These include (A) the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting the species continued existence. For a species to be listed 
under of the Act, documentation of either range contraction or 
population decline is not required. Instead, the Act is intended to 
address threats that either have caused, or are expected to cause, such 
effects.
    Our review considers threats to habitat broader than conversion of 
forest to urban or agricultural uses. As we explain in this rule, 
clearcut logging is believed to be a threat because it creates openings 
with few suitable prey, and results in dense stands of second-growth 
forest that goshawks tend to avoid until those stands approach 
maturity. Habitat modeling recently released by the NGRT suggests that 
across British Columbia, habitat capability (the number of goshawk 
territories that could be supported) has declined by approximately 33 
percent since industrial logging began approximately 100 years ago. 
Threats from logging appear to be somewhat lower on the mainland coast 
than they are on either the Queen Charlotte Islands or Vancouver 
Island. Still, our analyses indicate that habitat loss on the mainland 
coast is likely to contribute to declines and increased vulnerability 
of the small mainland population, which the NGRT estimates to be 
approximately 177 to 191 breeding pairs, based on habitat capability 
modeling and observed territory occupancy rates (NGRT 2008, p. 8).
    (35) Comment: The Queen Charlotte Islands should not be considered 
a significant portion of the DPS's range because these islands provide 
only 9 percent of the area and support only about 3 to 5 percent of the 
breeding population. Further, the islands are only about 5 percent of 
the subspecies' entire range, and support only about 2 percent of the 
entire population. Therefore, listing goshawks on the Queen Charlotte 
Islands differently from how the subspecies is classified elsewhere 
within the DPS is not warranted.
    Our Response: This rule addresses whether the Queen Charlotte 
Islands (and other such portions of British Columbia) constitute a 
significant portion of the range of the British Columbia DPS. It does 
not address whether the Queen Charlotte Islands (or any other areas) 
are a significant portion of the subspecies' entire range, which 
includes Southeast Alaska. The statistics provided by the commenter 
about percentages of the subspecies' entire range are, therefore, not 
relevant to this inquiry.
    Our evaluation of significance, as related to ``significant portion 
of the range,'' is based on contribution of the area toward 
conservation of the DPS through representation, resiliency, and 
redundancy. The standard used in this rule differs from the standard we 
proposed in 2009 (74 FR 56757), as described below. We believe that 
this approach appropriately focuses on the biology and conservation 
status of the bird, best conforms to the purposes of the Act, and is 
consistent with judicial interpretations of the phrase ``significant 
portion of the range.''
    (36) Comment: Because nesting habitat and prey numbers may limit 
goshawk populations in fragmented landscapes, goshawk habitat should be 
managed at varying scales to ensure adequate nesting and foraging 
habitat at the population level, as done through the Tongass 
Conservation Strategy in Southeast Alaska. Proper habitat management, 
not listing under the Act, is the key to species conservation.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that appropriate habitat 
management at various scales is necessary to conserve goshawks where 
forests are managed for timber production and other values. However, 
when our analyses indicate that a species is in danger of extinction or 
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future, we are obligated to 
add it to the list of endangered or threatened species, as appropriate. 
With foreign species as considered in this rule, we have no authority 
to implement management and recovery efforts after listing. In this 
case we have, however, been working with the Provincial government and 
contributing to these efforts through membership on the NGRT and 
through exchange of information and draft document reviews, and intend 
to continue doing so.

[[Page 45878]]

    (37) Comment: Consider supplementing the limited genetic diversity 
on the Queen Charlotte Islands by translocating birds from nearby 
island populations.
    Our Response: This management recommendation is beyond the scope of 
this rule, and our authority. The NGRT has considered the issue of 
genetic isolation, and potential strategies to address it. We will 
ensure that the recovery team in British Columbia is aware of this 
recommendation.
    (38) Comment: The Service should exercise due caution and all 
appropriate scientific skepticism in evaluating claims regarding the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk to avoid using the Act as a tool to curtail 
logging if the subspecies is not facing the threat of possible 
extinction.
    Our Response: We have conducted a thorough assessment of the status 
of the Queen Charlotte goshawk (USFWS 2007). We have evaluated the best 
available data and other information and carefully considered the 
issues confronting the subspecies. Our analyses and findings have been 
published and independently reviewed. We have concluded that while 
recent and ongoing changes in forest management in British Columbia are 
encouraging, they have yet to fully demonstrate that they will be 
effective at protecting goshawk populations from ongoing threats 
related primarily to habitat loss from timber harvesting. We are, 
therefore, obligated under the Act to list the subspecies. We note, 
however, that neither the Service nor any other agent of the United 
States Government has authority to modify forest management in British 
Columbia. Our intent is to continue to assist when requested, and to 
encourage collaboration to affect rangewide conservation of the 
subspecies.
    (39) Comment: If goshawks are listed in British Columbia, legal 
take of goshawks should not be affected outside the area in which they 
are listed, under ``similarity of species'' authorities.
    Our Response: Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the Service 
Director to designate non-listed species that closely resemble listed 
species as Threatened or Endangered for purposes of take, possession, 
transport, trade, export or import. In determining whether a species 
should be designated under this similarity of appearance authority, we 
must consider (1) the degree of difficulty enforcement personnel would 
have in distinguishing the species from a listed species, (2) the 
additional threat posed to the listed species by the loss of control 
occasioned because of the similarity of appearance, and (3) the 
probability that so designated a similar species will substantially 
facilitate enforcement and further the purposes and policy of the Act 
(50 CFR 17.50).
    Although Queen Charlotte goshawks in British Columbia are 
essentially indistinguishable from those in Southeast Alaska, and 
difficult to tell from goshawks outside the range of Queen Charlotte 
goshawks, we do not believe that goshawks outside coastal British 
Columbia need to be designated under section 4(e) of the Act as 
threatened or endangered because we do not consider direct take for 
falconry or any other purpose to be a threat. Direct take is discussed 
further below under the heading ``Factor B. Overutilization for 
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes.''

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In the proposed rule, we determined that Vancouver Island (and 
surrounding smaller islands), the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the 
coastal mainland of British Columbia were each significant portions of 
the Queen Charlotte goshawk's range, and that the subspecies should be 
listed as endangered on the Queen Charlotte Islands and threatened 
elsewhere in British Columbia. For this final rule, we have modified 
our method for defining ``significant portion of the range'' to be more 
consistent with recent court rulings, as described below under 
``Significant Portions of the British Columbia DPS's Range.'' As a 
result of this modified definition, Vancouver Island and the mainland 
coast of British Columbia are considered significant portions of the 
range, but the Queen Charlotte Islands are not. Because it is no longer 
considered a significant portion of the range, we no longer consider 
listing the population on the Queen Charlotte Islands as endangered to 
be warranted.
    In both the proposed and final rules, we have used percentages of 
the landscape covered by mature second-growth and old-growth forest to 
define quality of the habitat. In the proposed rule, we used different 
standards for the mainland than we did for the islands, based on what 
we believed were differences in prey species availability, with 
snowshoe hares and marmots available to goshawks on the mainland but 
not on the islands. Information provided through our peer review 
indicates that snowshoe hares are not common along the coast, and adult 
marmots are too large for goshawks to regularly prey upon. We have, 
therefore, modified our indicators of high- and low-quality landscapes 
to be consistent across the DPS.

Review of the British Columbia DPS

    Section 3(15) of the Act defines ``species'' to include ``any 
distinct population segment of any 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, (1) 
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 
the taxon and (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
taxon to which it belongs, bear on whether the population segment is a 
valid DPS.
    Under the DPS policy, a population may be considered discrete if 
(1) it is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon 
as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental 
boundaries with differences in control of exploitation, management of 
habitat, conservation status, or relevant regulatory mechanisms. 
Significance in the context of the DPS policy is considered in relation 
to the population segment's importance to the taxon to which it 
belongs. This consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Its 
persistence in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; 
(2) evidence that its loss would result in a significant gap in the 
range of the taxon; (3) evidence that it is the only surviving natural 
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an 
introduced population outside its historic range; or (4) evidence that 
the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations 
of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    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., should the population segment be listed as endangered or 
threatened)--is applied.
    In our Response to Court in 2007 (72 FR 63128-63129), we determined 
that Queen Charlotte goshawks in British Columbia were distinct from 
those in Southeast Alaska, with differences in conservation status, 
habitat

[[Page 45879]]

management, and 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. Because forest management in both jurisdictions continues 
to evolve, we briefly review validity of the separate British Columbia 
DPS below.
    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 and updated 
our analyses of forest resources across the range of the subspecies 
(USFWS 2010). We have considered modifications made to the 1997 Tongass 
Land Management Plan, as reflected in the 2008 forest plan. Significant 
differences in management regimes between Alaska and British Columbia 
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 2010, 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 2010, Table A-9). Other differences between the jurisdictions 
noted in our Response to Court (72 FR 63129), including conservation 
status of the subspecies and regulatory mechanisms, remain. 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 with 
significant differences in habitat management and regulatory 
mechanisms.
    In our Response to Court, we concluded that the British Columbia 
population was biologically and ecologically significant within the 
meaning of the DPS policy because it occupied approximately one third 
of the land area and half of the productive forest in the range of the 
subspecies. Preliminary, unconfirmed results also suggested that the 
province may contain a significant amount of the genetic diversity of 
the subspecies (Talbot 2006, p. 1). With inclusion of mainland British 
Columbia (which was not considered part of the range in our Response to 
Court), the province now provides approximately two thirds of the land 
area and about three quarters of the productive forest for the species, 
rangewide (USFWS 2010, Table A-9). We conclude that the British 
Columbia population segment is discrete and significant, and that it 
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 part 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 final 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. These data sets 
have been compiled from a variety of sources, which vary in their 
reliability. Our analyses of forest statistics is detailed in an 
updated appendix to our status review (USFWS 2010), 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), and results of habitat modeling done to assist the NGRT in 
recovery planning (Smith and Sutherland 2008 pp. 1-88).

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

    Mature second-growth 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 (reviewed by USFWS 2007, pp. 62-64), 
although, in some cases, sooty grouse populations may increase 
temporarily following logging (Zwickel and Bendell 1985, pp. 185-187). 
Logging may also impact foraging habitat by removing perches and 
hunting cover, and by 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 
nonproductive (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).
    Goshawks nest and forage in a wide variety of settings, with 
varying amounts of forest cover, across North America, Europe and Asia 
(reviewed by Kenward 2006, pp. 293-294, Squires and Kennedy 2006, pp. 
21-31). In the rainforest habitats of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, 
there are few prey species adapted to open habitats (Doyle and Mahon 
2003, pp. 39; reviewed by Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 59-61 and USFWS 
2007, pp. 42-45). For example, snowshoe hares and cottontail rabbits 
(Sylvilagus spp.) use forest edges and

[[Page 45880]]

open habitats and are important prey in some areas, but are not present 
across most of the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk (Nagorsen 2002, 
pp. 92-96; Nagorsen 2005, pp. 89). Ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) 
are similarly missing (Nagorsen 2002, pp. 106-109; Nagorsen 2005). 
American robins (Turdus migratorius) use open habitats including 
clearcuts within the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, but Lewis 
(2001, pp. 113) found that robins made up only three percent of prey 
deliveries at nests in Southeast Alaska, even where timber harvest was 
heaviest.
    Because Queen Charlotte goshawks rely primarily on forest-dwelling 
prey, adequate amounts of suitable forest cover appear to be critical 
(Doyle 2006, pp. 138-139; Doyle 2007, p. 2; Doyle and Mahon, 2003, p. 
1). Iverson et al. (1996, p. 66) believed that goshawks likely require 
some unknown amount of productive old-growth forest at large spatial 
scales (e.g., greater than 10,000 ac (4,000 ha)), and that below that 
level goshawk abundance would decline. Doyle (2005, p. 14) investigated 
known goshawk territories on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and found 
that all 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, pp. 13-19) used these observations to 
estimate the number of potential territories that could support nesting 
goshawks on the Queen Charlotte Islands. (See also Doyle and Holt 
(2005, pp. 2.5-3 to 2.5-5) for further development of this model).
    Percentages of the landscape in forest cover have also been used to 
define habitat quality in Finland (Byholm and Kekkonen 2008, pp. 1696-
1700). Several studies of northern goshawk habitat elsewhere in western 
North America suggest that landscapes with 40 to 60 percent mature or 
old forest are either favored by goshawks for nesting and foraging, or 
should be maintained to support goshawks (Reynolds et al. 1992, p. 27; 
Patla 1997, pp. 71-72; Finn et al. 2002, pp. 434-435, Doyle 2005, pp. 
12-18; reviewed by USFWS 1997, pp. 36-38).
    Given these observations, we consider landscapes with less than 40 
percent cover by mature and old-growth forest to be low-quality 
habitat, and those with greater than 40 percent mature and old-growth 
forest high-quality habitat. Some Queen Charlotte goshawk territories 
likely include less than 40 percent mature forest (Iverson et al. 1996, 
p. 55), so we do not consider this criterion an absolute minimum. The 
true minimum likely varies depending on other factors such as prey 
diversity and density. There is evidence, however, that Queen Charlotte 
goshawks are particularly sensitive to loss of mature forest because of 
a lack of prey adapted to open habitats (Doyle 2006, pp. 138-139, Doyle 
and Mahon 2003, p. 1). While uncertainty remains over how much mature 
and old forest is required to maintain productive goshawk nesting and 
foraging habitat, we consider a standard incorporating the proportion 
of the landscape in mature and old forest appropriate, and, based on 
the best available information, 40 percent a reasonable standard.
    Productive forest (capable of producing commercially viable timber) 
covers approximately 52 percent of the 42-million-acre (17-million-
hectare) 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 2010, Table A-20). Therefore, 
on average, habitat was probably high quality for goshawks (greater 
than 40 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 7.9 million ac (3.2 million 
ha) (36 percent) of the 21 million ac (8.8 million ha) of productive 
forest in coastal British Columbia to second growth. This has reduced 
mature and old forest cover to approximately 37 percent of the 
landscape (USFWS 2010, Table A-20). This percentage translates, on 
average, to low-quality habitat (less than 40 percent cover by mature 
and old-growth forest). Again, naturally nonforested areas have always 
been unsuitable or low-quality habitat. Alpine areas (i.e., above 
timberline), for example, cover 19 percent of the landscape. Below 
timberline, approximately 46 percent of the landscape supports mature 
and old forest (USFWS 2010, Table A-20), so habitat as of 2002 (the 
most recent rangewide data available) appears to be suitable, on 
average, despite declines from historic levels. We do not know how much 
has been harvested since 2002, but we expect that old forest cover has 
been reduced by several percentage points since then.
    Habitat modeling developed by the NGRT suggests that British 
Columbia supported approximately 1,060 suitable goshawk territories 
prior to initiation of industrial logging. Currently, the model 
predicts habitat capability of 708 territories, a 33 percent decline 
(Smith and Sutherland 2008, pp. 22, 29, 33, 65).
    More than 100 new protected areas totaling approximately 3 million 
ac (1.2 million 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).
    In March, 2009, the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and 
Lands announced an agreement with a broad range of stakeholders to 
designate protected areas and development lands across the coastal 
mainland, now known as the ``Great Bear Rainforest.'' Within this area, 
approximately 5.7 million ac (2.3 million ha) are now protected from 
logging (Armstrong 2009, pp. 4, 29; BCMAL 2009, pp. 1-2). An additional 
land use class, ``Biodiversity, Tourism and Mining Areas,'' covering 
approximately 741,000 ac (300,000 ha) where commercial forestry is now 
prohibited, was also announced in 2009. We estimate that protected 
areas include approximately 2.9 million ac (1.2 million ha) of 
productive forest (USFWS 2010, Table A-19 and Table A-23). These 
estimates are based largely on the Ministry of Forest and Range's 
evaluation of proposed protected areas in 2002, which were similar, but 
not identical, to areas finally designated in 2007 (Niemann 2006, p. 
1). These are the best available data on forest cover in the protected 
areas that we are aware of.
    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,'' which is intended to support a sustainable economy while 
protecting a healthy ecosystem. No specifics on how timber harvests 
will change 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 based on 
existing management practices (summarized in USFWS 2007, pp. 82-101; 
USFWS 2010, Tables A-1 to A-24; NGRT 2008, pp. 6-23; see also Southwest 
Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 939 F.Supp. 49 (D.D.C. 
1996)).

[[Page 45881]]

    Based on our updated analyses, we estimate that approximately 5.2 
million ac (2.1 million ha) of the remaining old growth forest are 
likely to be harvested in British Columbia (USFWS 2010, Table A-9). We 
predict that this would result in a landscape with only 26 percent 
coverage by mature second growth and old forest. If we disregard alpine 
areas, mature and old forest would cover 32 percent of the area below 
timberline (USFWS 2010, Table A-24). In either case, we expect this to 
be low-quality habitat (i.e., less than 40 percent mature and old 
forest).
    There are many policies and land use restrictions available to 
facilitate conservation of goshawks and other non-timber values within 
the areas otherwise open to timber harvest. These regulations governing 
timber harvest, and other emerging land management tools and 
techniques, are discussed below, under ``Factor D--Inadequacy of 
Regulatory Mechanisms.'' Future harvest levels and rates (amounts, 
methods, and timing) 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.
    Timber harvests in coastal British Columbia are currently composed 
of a mix of old growth and mature second growth. Approximately 35 
percent of the harvest is currently from second growth. This percentage 
is expected to increase as old growth available for harvest is cut. Our 
review of Timber Supply Analysis Reports for Timber Sale Areas and Tree 
Farm Licenses indicates that within two to seven decades (time varying 
by individual timber tenure), currently available old growth on the 
mainland and Vancouver Island will be liquidated and timber harvests 
will be almost entirely from second growth (reviewed in USFWS 2007, pp. 
89-91 and USFWS 2010, Table A-1). As a result, within 50 years only a 
few timber tenures are likely to have substantial reserves of old 
growth remaining within their timber harvesting land bases, and timber 
harvests across the region will likely be composed primarily of second 
growth. On the Queen Charlotte Islands, this is expected to take up to 
12 decades (USFWS 2010, Table A-1).
    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 (reviewed in 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). This 
percentage is likely to vary over time and space, depending largely on 
how uniformly harvests are conducted.
    It is likely that some of the mature second growth will provide 
little value as either nesting or foraging habitat because, for 
example, it is in small fragments and surrounded by low-value second 
growth. It is also likely that some of the younger second growth will 
provide foraging and perhaps nesting opportunities. We do not know 
precisely how these variations might balance each other, but have based 
our estimate of 15 percent of the harvested landscape offering suitable 
habitat on the best available information. We assume that most of the 
remaining, unharvested old growth will also provide suitable goshawk 
habitat, except where it is in small, isolated fragments surrounded by 
unforested areas.
    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.
    In summary, 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. Mature second growth does provide suitable 
nesting and foraging habitat, but in commercially harvested landscapes, 
typically only a small percentage of the second growth exists in this 
age class, as it is typically harvested as it reaches economic 
maturity. Efforts are underway to modify timber harvest practices to 
reduce impacts on goshawks and other species (discussed below under 
Factor D), but we expect that most of the harvested landscape is likely 
to become low-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 best 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 continued loss of habitat is likely to be a significant threat to 
the British Columbia DPS in the foreseeable future.

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

    In Canada, A. g. laingi 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,'' as a 
candidate for ``Threatened'' or ``Endangered'' status, since 1994 
(Cooper and Stevens 2000, pp. 3 and 14). In 2004, British Columbia 
recognized that, as a Schedule 1 Species at Risk, the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk, along with other named species, could be affected by forest 
management and required protection in addition to that provided by 
general forest management regulations (BCMSRM 2002, pp. 1-2; Barisoff 
2004, p. 2; reviewed by USFWS 2007, pp. 11-12). Each of these 
designations provides some protection from direct take. For example, 
capture of Queen Charlotte goshawks has been banned since 1994, when 
the subspecies was added to the provincial Red List (see ``Factor D. 
Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms'' for further discussion). Take of 
wild birds for falconry, therefore, is not a threat to the population. 
Further, the northern goshawk is listed in Appendix II of the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES). The database in which CITES trade is documented, the 
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) CITES Trade Database, does

[[Page 45882]]

not, for the most part, collect trade data at the subspecies level, and 
there are no CITES trade data available for the Queen Charlotte goshawk 
subspecies. However, as a Party to CITES, Canada must ensure that trade 
in northern goshawks, including the Queen Charlotte goshawk subspecies, 
does not adversely affect the species.
    Although individual Queen Charlotte goshawks may be killed or 
captured illegally on occasion, we have no indication that such 
activity is common, or that it poses any threat to the subspecies. We 
do not expect overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes to contribute to population declines or 
extinction risk. The NGRT 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. Reynolds et al. (2006, pp. 269-270) reviewed diseases as a 
potential factor limiting northern goshawk populations, and concluded 
that there is no strong evidence that disease limits goshawk 
populations. The NGRT considers the threat from disease low, but has 
expressed concern that emerging diseases such as West Nile virus, which 
is transmitted by mosquitoes and is fatal in goshawks (Wunschmann et 
al. 2005, p. 259), may be difficult to mitigate if outbreaks occur 
(NGRT 2008, pp. 16, 21). In 2010, the disease was detected in four 
American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and one black-billed magpie 
(Pica hudsonia) in British Columbia. It was not detected in any of the 
48 birds tested in British Columbia in 2011 (CDC 2012, https://www.ccwhc.ca/wnv_report_2010.php and https://www.ccwhc.ca/wnv_report_2011.php, accessed 1/27/2012). No predictions are available on 
when we might expect the disease to affect goshawks in British 
Columbia.
    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 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 once the 
goshawk population has declined in response to expected habitat loss, 
which is anticipated to peak in approximately 50 years.

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, nongovernmental 
organizations, industry, and First Nations, has produced a 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 anticipated, but not 
yet available (NGRT 2008, pp. i, 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 2010, Table 
A-23), so on average they appear to provide 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 (FRPA). This statute and its companion regulations 
set objectives for many resources, and require Forest Stewardship Plans 
describing how each objective will be met. The FRPA is also supported 
by the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (IWM Strategy), which 
provides direction, policy, procedures and guidelines for managing 
species at risk and regionally important wildlife; the strategy 
addresses only forest and range practices regulated by the FRPA. It is 
one fine-filter tool British Columbia uses for conservation of species 
at risk; it complements coarse-filter mechanisms, such as protected 
areas and regulations governing timber harvest generally, that manage 
multiple species and habitats. Wildlife Habitat Areas and associated 
General Wildlife Measures (legal terms) may be implemented under a FRPA 
regulation to protect important habitat elements (e.g., goshawk nests). 
The IWM Strategy provides guidance for their establishment (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

[[Page 45883]]

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.
    Wildlife Habitat Areas designated for goshawks are designed 
primarily to protect a core area that supports the active nest, 
alternate nests, and post-fledging area. Timber harvest is generally 
prohibited within these core areas. Wildlife Habitat Areas for goshawks 
average approximately 500 acres (200 ha) although they vary in size 
depending on site characteristics and overlap with other special 
management areas such as riparian zones, old growth management areas, 
etc. Prohibitions and constraints also vary among sites. For example, 
management plans may be developed to guide timber harvesting and road 
construction in the surrounding management zone to protect foraging 
habitat. Nonbinding recommendations have been developed to help guide 
these management plans (McClaren 2004, pp. 10-11). Currently there are 
27 Wildlife Habitat Areas: 24 on Vancouver Island, 1 on the mainland 
coast, and 2 on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Ten additional reserves 
(not Wildlife Habitat Areas) are proposed under the draft Haida Gwaii 
Land Use Objectives Order, Schedule 12.
    Provincial policy limits the impact of land protection under the 
IWM Strategy on the timber supply to one percent of the Timber 
Harvesting Land Base, which is the productive forest available for 
logging outside protected parks and other reserves. The Timber 
Harvesting Land Base also excludes forested areas outside reserves that 
are inoperable (e.g., too steep or wet to log), or retained to protect 
other resources (e.g., stream banks, deer winter ranges, or 
archaeological sites). To the extent possible, Wildlife Habitat Areas 
are designated on lands protected under other authorities. The one 
percent cap 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).
    The one percent cap is calculated and tracked separately for each 
forest district, with further limitations on the amount of mature and 
old forest that may be designated, using ``budgets'' for the short term 
timber supply (stands greater than 60 years old) and long-term timber 
supply (stands less than 60 years old) (BCMWLAP 2004, p. 4; FPB 2004, 
pp. 7-8).
    Another 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, pp. 15-
31). Some of these species have habitat needs that differ from those of 
the goshawk, yet their legitimate conservation needs are to be 
accommodated along with the goshawk within the one percent limit, under 
this policy. 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). Other areas within the Coast region with 
lower levels of human impact and fewer endemic species may have greater 
flexibility to protect important forest stands for goshawks and other 
species.
    Coast Land Use Orders issued in March 2009 establish legal 
requirements to maintain habitat for goshawks and other focal wildlife 
species within areas set aside for old growth retention. Across the 
province, there is an effort to co-locate various protection tools 
under the Forest and Range Practices Act to minimize impacts to timber 
harvests and local economies.
    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 ``nonspatial'' 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 does not maintain detailed inventories of forest 
resources on private lands, where there is little government oversight 
or regulation. For the purpose of developing a seamless forest cover 
inventory for the whole province, the Ministry of Forests and Range 
used baseline thematic mapping, based on satellite imagery from the 
1990s, and biogeographic ecosystem classification to characterize 
forest cover on private lands (BCMFR 2006, p. 138). Private lands are 
estimated to cover approximately 4.1 million ac (1.7 million ha) within 
the Coast region (Niemann 2006, attachment 1). Much of the private land 
is concentrated on the southern portions of Vancouver Island and the 
mainland coast.
    The Province of British Columbia has made significant progress in 
implementation of several elements of its conservation program for 
goshawks, as described above. A 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).
    To help guide evaluation of conservation efforts that are either 
planned but not yet implemented, or underway but not yet proven 
effective, the Service published a ``Policy for Evaluation of 
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions'' (PECE Policy) (68 
FR 15100, March 28, 2003). 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 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). Many of the actions listed in the recovery strategy 
have been implemented and warrant evaluation as formalized conservation 
efforts. We also evaluate actions identified in the 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 completed 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 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

[[Page 45884]]

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. 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 recovery strategy have been implemented 
(or have begun and are ongoing), but have not yet been proven 
effective. Included in this category are:
     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 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 soon. 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 of `Ecosystem Based Management' 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 or other management regimes. We have a high level of 
certainty that Ecosystem Based Management will be implemented in some 
form, although details are not yet available on which lands, if any, 
will be protected and how timber harvest will be regulated. We expect 
that protection of additional areas may reduce logging in some areas, 
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.
    Management of British Columbia's forests is currently in a period 
of change. This increases the uncertainties inherent in our projections 
of future conditions. We believe that the current trend toward policies 
that reduce impacts to goshawks from timber harvest will continue in 
the short term, as commitments made in recent land use agreements are 
implemented. We expect these conditions to persist for at least 10 to 
15 years. Beyond that, we expect that political and economic 
considerations could force reevaluations of forest management.
    In summary, 13 percent (5.4 million ac, or 2.3 million ha) of the 
land area (42 million ac, or 17 million ha), and 13 percent (3.0 
million ac, or 1.2 million ha) of the productive forest (22 million ac, 
or 8.8 million ha) is protected in parks and other reserves within the 
range of the British Columbia DPS (USFWS 2010, Table A-9 and Table A-
23). Management of timber lands within the province includes retention 
of additional forest cover to protect various non-timber values 
associated with forests, including goshawks. Designations of Wildlife 
Habitat Areas to protect species at risk, including goshawks, however, 
are limited by a policy-level cap of one percent of the Timber 
Harvesting Land Base. 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 Evaluation of 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. Consequently, we 
conclude that inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk in the foreseeable future.

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

    Competition for prey or nest sites: 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 where 
introduced deer have

[[Page 45885]]

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). We expect this 
condition to persist indefinitely, unless deer or raccoons are 
eliminated or reduced by some action or agent.
    Prey Diversity: Prey choices are limited within the range of the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk. Red squirrels, sooty grouse, and a variety of 
smaller forest birds form much of the diet (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). Squirrel and sooty grouse populations fluctuate 
(Doyle 2004, p. 5; Doyle 2007, p. 2), forcing goshawks to switch to 
alternate prey during times of low squirrel and grouse populations. 
Species that are commonly taken by goshawks in areas adjacent to 
coastal British Columbia are missing from much of the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk's range. For example, snowshoe hares are limited to portions of 
the mainland, where they are considered rare (Nagorsen 2002, pp. 92-93; 
Nagorsen 2005, p. 89). Ground squirrels (Spermophilus parryii) are also 
limited to the mainland, but are missing from rainforest habitats along 
the coast (Nagorsen 2002, pp. 106-109). Cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus 
floridans) have been introduced to southern Vancouver Island, but are 
not widespread and have not been documented in goshawk diets there. The 
Queen Charlotte Islands generally have lower diversity of prey than 
either the mainland or Vancouver Island, so the NGRT considers threats 
due to low prey diversity low on the mainland, moderate on Vancouver 
Island, and high on the Queen Charlotte Islands (NGRT 2008, pp. 16, 
18).
    Additional species could be introduced, or colonize the region, 
particularly if climate change (discussed below) alters habitat 
conditions, which could potentially benefit goshawks. However, we have 
very limited ability to reliably predict the timing of any changes in 
prey communities. We believe, therefore, that low prey diversity will 
remain a localized stressor likely to act in combination with other 
threats such that Queen Charlotte goshawks become in danger of 
extinction in the foreseeable future in some areas of the DPS.
    Contaminants: We know of no contaminants that pose current or 
potential future threats to goshawks within the British Columbia DPS.
    Natural disasters and catastrophic events: 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 the DPS. The likelihood 
that any of these occurrences would be of such magnitude, however, is 
unknown. While fires, insect infestations and forest disease epidemics 
are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, we cannot reliably 
predict that the magnitude of these events is likely to be great enough 
to exert population-level effects. Therefore, we cannot conclude that 
they pose threats in the foreseeable future.
    Climate Change: ``Climate'' refers to an area's long-term average 
weather statistics (typically for at least 20- or 30-year periods), 
including the mean and variation of surface variables such as 
temperature, precipitation, and wind; ``climate change'' refers to a 
change in the mean or variability or both of climate properties that 
persists for an extended period (typically decades or longer), whether 
due to natural processes or human activity (Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC) 2007a, p. 78). Although changes in climate occur 
continuously over geological time, changes are now occurring at an 
accelerated rate. For example, at continental, regional, and ocean 
basin scales, recent observed changes in long-term trends include: A 
substantial increase in precipitation in eastern parts of North America 
and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia, and 
an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic 
since about 1970 (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); and an increase in annual average 
temperature of more than 2 [deg]Fahrenheit (1.1 [deg]Celsius) across 
the United States since 1960 (Global Climate Change Impacts in the 
United States (GCCIUS) 2009, p. 27). Examples of observed changes in 
the physical environment include: An increase in global average sea 
level, and declines in mountain glaciers and average snow cover in both 
the northern and southern hemispheres (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); substantial 
and accelerating reductions in Arctic sea-ice (e.g., Comiso et al. 
2008, p. 1); and a variety of changes in ecosystem processes, the 
distribution of species, and the timing of seasonal events (e.g., 
GCCIUS 2009, pp. 79-88).
    The IPCC used Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models and 
various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to make projections of 
climate change globally and for broad regions through the 21st century 
(Meehl et al. 2007, p. 753; Randall et al. 2007, pp. 596-599), and 
reported these projections using a framework for characterizing 
certainty (Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22-23). Examples include: (1) It is 
virtually certain there will be warmer and more frequent hot days and 
nights over most of the earth's land areas; (2) it is very likely there 
will be increased frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most 
land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events will 
increase over most areas; and (3) it is likely that increases will 
occur in the incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis), 
intense tropical cyclone activity, and the area affected by droughts 
(IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). More recent analyses using a different 
global model and comparing other emissions scenarios resulted in 
similar projections of global temperature change across the different 
approaches (Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
    All models (not just those involving climate change) have some 
uncertainty associated with projections due to assumptions used, data 
available, and features of the models; with regard to climate change 
this includes factors such as assumptions related to emissions 
scenarios, internal climate variability, and differences among models. 
Despite this, however, under all global models and emissions scenarios, 
the overall projected trajectory of surface air temperature is one of 
increased warming compared to current conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, p. 
762; Prinn et al. 2011, p. 527). Climate models, emissions scenarios, 
and associated assumptions, data, and analytical techniques will 
continue to be refined, as will interpretations of projections, as more 
information becomes available. For instance, some changes in conditions 
are occurring more rapidly than initially projected, such as melting of 
Arctic sea-ice (Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1; Polyak et al. 2010, p. 1797), 
and since 2000 the observed emissions of greenhouse gases, which are a 
key influence on climate

[[Page 45886]]

change, have been occurring at the mid- to higher levels of the various 
emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990's and used by the IPPC 
for making projections (e.g., Raupach et al. 2007, Figure 1, p. 10289; 
Manning et al. 2010, Figure 1, p. 377; Pielke et al. 2008, entire). 
Also, the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that 
average global surface air temperature is increasing and several 
climate-related changes are occurring and will continue for many 
decades even if emissions are stabilized soon (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007, 
pp. 822-829; Church et al. 2010, pp. 411-412; Gillett et al. 2011, 
entire).
    Changes in climate can have a variety of direct and indirect 
impacts on species, and can exacerbate the effects of other threats. 
Rather than assessing ``climate change'' as a single threat in and of 
itself, we examine the potential consequences to species and their 
habitats that arise from changes in environmental conditions associated 
with various aspects of climate change. For example, climate-related 
changes to habitats, predator-prey relationships, disease and disease 
vectors, or conditions that exceed the physiological tolerances of a 
species, occurring individually or in combination, may affect the 
status of a species. Vulnerability to climate change impacts is a 
function of sensitivity to those changes, exposure to those changes, 
and adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89; Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). 
As described above, in evaluating the status of a species, the Service 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available, and this 
includes consideration of direct and indirect effects of climate 
change. As is the case with all potential threats, if a species is 
currently affected or is expected to be affected by one or more 
climate-related impacts, this does not necessarily mean the species 
should be listed as an endangered or threatened species as defined 
under the Act. If a species is listed as endangered or threatened, this 
knowledge regarding its vulnerability to, and impacts from, climate-
associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to help 
devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
    While projections from global climate model simulations are 
informative and in some cases the only or the best scientific 
information available, various downscaling methods are being used to 
provide higher-resolution projections that are more relevant to the 
spatial scales used to assess impacts to a given species (see Glick et 
al. 2011, pp. 58-61). With regard to the area of analysis for the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk, we are not aware of downscaled projections for 
coastal British Columbia. In adjacent Southeast Alaska, we expect 
warmer, wetter conditions that will likely favor increased forest 
cover. More of the annual precipitation is likely to be rain, rather 
than snow, and spring runoff is likely to be earlier than it currently 
is (Kelly et al. 2007, pp. 31-42).
    The mean number of frost days is predicted to be particularly 
sensitive in coastal British Columbia and Southeast Alaska, where the 
National Center for Atmospheric Research's Parallel Climate Model 
predicts 50 to 70 fewer frost days per year by 2080 to 2099 (Meehl et 
al. 2004, p. 498). We expect this trend to encourage encroachment of 
forest into alpine areas and to accelerate growth of trees in currently 
forested areas (Hamann and Wang 2006, pp. 2780-2782). This trend is 
likely to improve habitat conditions for goshawks.
    Gains of forest habitat from climate change could be offset, to an 
unknown degree, by decreases in forest cover as a result of increases 
in the frequency and severity of large fires, forest pests, or forest 
diseases (Bachelet et al. 2005, pp. 2244-2248). Increases in severe 
weather events, which are predicted to occur, could have localized 
effects, impacting nesting effort and productivity, which appear to be 
sensitive to spring weather (Fairhurst and Bechard 2005, pp. 231-232; 
Finn et al. 1998, p. 1; Patla 1997, pp. 34-35; McClaren et al. 2002, p. 
350).
    Another potential threat related to climate change is increased 
competition from the mainland form of the goshawk (A. g. atricapillus). 
This threat is difficult to assess, as we are uncertain of the adaptive 
advantages conferred by the two phenotypes. Changes in prey communities 
might also occur. Again, it is unclear if such changes would favor one 
subspecies over the other.
    We conclude that climate change is likely to have mixed effects on 
goshawks. Landscape-level changes due to climate change are likely, and 
some of these changes could negatively affect the British Columbia DPS 
of the Queen Charlotte goshawk. We do not believe that such changes 
currently place the DPS in danger of extinction, nor, based on climate 
models that project out approximately 100 years, do we expect them to 
in the foreseeable future.
    Demographic Considerations: 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, Talbot et al., 
in press). 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.
    Effects of low genetic diversity can be minimized through actions 
such as carefully planned captive breeding and translocations among 
wild and/or captive populations. 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. We believe that the greatest threats from 
inbreeding depression or other impacts associated with low genetic 
diversity would come as populations adjust to reduced habitat 
availability, which we believe will be lowest in about 120 years on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands, and in about 50 years for the rest of the DPS, 
when conversion of available old growth to second growth forest will be 
nearly complete (except on a few timber tenures), and timber harvests 
will be composed primarily of second growth (see discussion under 
Factor A, above).
    Hybridization can be a threat when related species or subspecies 
interbreed, diluting the genetics of the smaller population. 
Populations on Vancouver Island apparently display genetic affinities 
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, Talbot et al. 2011, p. 
27).
    A cline is a gradation in a measurable characteristic across a 
geographic area. Such variation is typically believed to reflect a 
species' response to variation in an environmental variable, and may 
result in development of distinct species or subspecies (Endeler 1977, 
pp. 5-7). Such clinal variation has been noted in body size of 
goshawks, with North America's smallest goshawks on Vancouver Island 
and larger birds through Southeast Alaska to the north and through 
western United States and Canada to the south and east (Whaley and 
White 1994, pp. 179-187, 193; Flatten et al. 2002, p. 2; Flatten and 
McClaren 2003, p. 1). These observations suggest that if body size is

[[Page 45887]]

genetically controlled, hybridization that may be occurring among 
goshawks on Vancouver Island has not overwhelmed the expression of 
small body size that we believe could be an adaptation to prey and 
habitat limitations.
    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, where genetic 
delineations will likely be blurred (NGRT 2008, pp. 3, 6, and 18).
    Goshawks are highly mobile, and sometimes use different nesting 
areas in subsequent years (Flatten et al. 2001, pp. 9-14; Lewis and 
Flatten 2004, p. 2). This characteristic likely increases genetic 
diversity. Following the breeding season, females often leave their 
breeding territory, while males apparently stay within and adjacent to 
the nesting area in most but not all cases (Flatten et al., 2001, pp. 
9-14; Lewis and Flatten 2004, p. 2; Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 28-29). 
Lewis and Flatten (2004, p. 2) documented a radio-tagged male in 
Southeast Alaska that moved greater than 50 mi (80 km) following its 
nesting season, and a female that moved greater than 27 mi (44 km) and 
returned to its nesting area during the breeding season.
    Transition zones between laingi and atricapillus forms have not 
been well sampled, so we have no information indicating whether A. g. 
atricapillus goshawks are expanding into the range of the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk. We recognize that range boundaries for the 
subspecies are somewhat imprecise and may represent a clinal variation 
without a distinct demarcation in some areas. Until we have evidence 
that suggests otherwise, though, we consider the transition zones 
between the subspecies to be stable. We recognize, however, that 
hybridization may be occurring in some areas, notably Vancouver Island 
and on the mainland. We conclude that hybridization could pose a risk 
to the subspecies in some areas, but it does not rise to the level that 
places the species in danger of extinction. We expect this threat to be 
greatest as climate changes over the next 50 to 100 years.
    Population estimates for Queen Charlotte goshawks are imprecise 
because the birds are difficult to census. They are often secretive, 
and spread at low densities across forested landscapes. Survival and 
recruitment rates are also difficult to measure. The best available 
population estimates are based on estimates of habitat capability (the 
number of territories that can be supported by the available habitat), 
which is adjusted to reflect annual occupancy rates. Using such 
techniques, the NGRT estimated the breeding population across the 
British Columbia DPS 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). By definition, stochastic 
events are not predictable, so we are unable to say when we expect such 
threats to occur. We do believe, though, that such events are likely to 
occur occasionally over the next 50 to 100 years.
    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 
and limited prey diversity, this DPS is likely to be vulnerable to prey 
fluctuations, and could face threats from hybridization (on Vancouver 
Island or the mainland), 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.

Summary of Factors

    In summary, we believe that continued habitat loss from logging 
(Factor A) will result in declines of prey populations and foraging 
habitat, and place the Queen Charlotte goshawk at risk of extinction in 
the foreseeable future. We do not expect overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor 
B) to contribute to population declines or extinction risk. We do not 
believe that disease and predation (Factor C) currently place the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk at risk of extinction, although there is moderate 
risk that either could affect population viability once the goshawk 
population has declined in response to expected habitat loss, which is 
anticipated to peak in approximately 50 years. Continued development 
and implementation of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) will be required 
to eliminate the long-term risk of extinction for the British Columbia 
DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk. No other natural and manmade 
factors such as competition, contaminants, natural disasters, climate 
change, or genetic problems resulting from hybridization or isolation 
(Factor E) appear to rise to a level that places the goshawk in danger 
of extinction at this time. Due to its small population size and 
limited prey diversity, however, this DPS is likely to be vulnerable to 
prey fluctuations, and could face threats from hybridization or 
inbreeding depression. If habitat modification causes population 
declines, then prey fluctuations, hybridization, or inbreeding 
depression could have substantially greater influence.

Determination

    As required by the Act, we considered each of the five factors 
under section 4(a)(1)(A) in assessing whether the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. We carefully examined the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the Queen Charlotte goshawk. We considered the 
information provided by the petitioners; information available in our 
files; other available published and unpublished information; and 
information submitted to the Service in response to our Federal 
Register notice of November 3, 2009.
    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 (best available 
estimate: 352 to 374 breeding pairs). It is possible that goshawks 
could persist in low numbers indefinitely, in spite of the expected 
declines in habitat quality. Smaller populations, though, likely would 
become increasingly vulnerable to factors such as predation, disease, 
prey fluctuations, hybridization, and inbreeding depression. We 
conclude, therefore, that although the subspecies is not in danger of 
extinction now, it is in danger of becoming so in the foreseeable 
future within the British Columbia DPS. Therefore, listing the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk in British

[[Page 45888]]

Columbia as a threatened species under the Act is warranted.

Significant Portions of the British Columbia DPS's Range

    The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The definition of 
``species'' is also relevant to this discussion. The Act defines 
``species'' as follows: ``The term `species' includes any subspecies of 
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] 
of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when 
mature.'' The phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) is not 
defined by the statute, and we have never addressed in our regulations: 
(1) The consequences of a determination that a species is either 
endangered or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of 
its range, but not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a 
portion of a range as ``significant.''
    Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR 
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of 
a defined ``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the 
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009); and 
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz. 
September 30, 2010), concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a 
petition to list the Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660, February 5, 
2008). The Service had asserted in both of these determinations that it 
had authority, in effect, to protect under the Act only some members of 
a ``species,'' as defined by the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or 
DPS). Both courts ruled that the determinations were arbitrary and 
capricious on the grounds that this approach violated the plain and 
unambiguous language of the Act. The courts concluded that reading the 
SPR language to allow protecting only a portion of a species' range is 
inconsistent with the Act's definition of ``species.'' The courts 
concluded that once a determination is made that a species (i.e., 
species, subspecies, or DPS) meets the definition of ``endangered 
species'' or ``threatened species,'' it must be placed on the list in 
its entirety and the Act's protections applied consistently to all 
members of that species (subject to modification of protections through 
special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
    Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this 
finding, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' 
in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened 
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing; thus there are 
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify 
for listing: A species may be endangered or threatened throughout all 
of its range; or a species may be endangered or threatened in only a 
significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of 
extinction throughout an SPR, then that species is an ``endangered 
species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened species.'' Based 
on this interpretation and supported by existing case law, the 
consequence of finding that a species is endangered or threatened in 
only a significant portion of its range is that the entire species 
shall be listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the 
Act's protections shall be applied across the species' entire range.
    We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting 
the SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the 
best interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the 
purposes and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act and 
with the judicial opinions that have most closely examined this issue. 
Having concluded that the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' 
provides an independent basis for listing and protecting the entire 
species, we next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to determine 
the threshold for when such an independent basis for listing exists.
    Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a 
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the 
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the 
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the 
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold 
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction 
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of 
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent 
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation. 
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, and as explained further below, 
a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that 
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
    We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of 
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and 
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species 
and its habitat that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance. 
Redundancy (having multiple populations distributed across the 
landscape) may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species 
to withstand catastrophic events. Representation (the range of 
variation found in a species) ensures that the species' adaptive 
capabilities are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and representation 
are not independent of each other, and some characteristic of a species 
or area may contribute to all three. For example, distribution across a 
wide variety of habitat types is an indicator of representation, but it 
may also indicate a broad geographic distribution contributing to 
redundancy (decreasing the chance that any one event affects the entire 
species), and the likelihood that some habitat types are less 
susceptible to certain threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability 
of the species to recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is 
intended to be mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range 
may be determined to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under 
any one or more of these concepts.
    For the purposes of this finding, we determine whether a portion 
qualifies as ``significant'' by asking whether without that portion, 
the representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be 
so impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to 
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of 
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would not 
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if 
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger 
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of 
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
    We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' (a portion of 
the range of a species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the 
viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the 
species would be in danger of extinction) establishes a threshold that 
is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the consequences of 
finding a species to be endangered or threatened in an SPR would be 
listing the species throughout its entire range, it is important to use 
a threshold for

[[Page 45889]]

``significant'' that is robust. It would not be meaningful or 
appropriate to establish a very low threshold whereby a portion of the 
range can be considered ``significant'' even if only a negligible 
increase in extinction risk would result from its loss. Because nearly 
any portion of a species' range can be said to contribute some 
increment to a species' viability, use of such a low threshold would 
require us to impose restrictions and expend conservation resources 
disproportionately to conservation benefit: Listing would be rangewide, 
even if only a portion of the range of minor conservation importance to 
the species is imperiled. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate 
to establish a threshold for ``significant'' that is too high. This 
would be the case if the standard were, for example, that a portion of 
the range can be considered ``significant'' only if threats in that 
portion result in the entire species being currently endangered or 
threatened. Such a high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent 
meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 
258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001).
    The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully 
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we 
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources 
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation. 
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a 
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning. 
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the 
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation. 
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so 
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species 
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of 
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not 
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance. 
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises 
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that 
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that 
we would not need to rely on the SPR language for such a listing.) 
Rather, under this interpretation we ask whether the species would be 
endangered everywhere without that portion, i.e., if that portion were 
completely extirpated. In other words, the portion of the range need 
not be so important that even the species being in danger of extinction 
in that portion would be sufficient to cause the species in the 
remainder of the range to be endangered; rather, the complete 
extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of the species in that portion 
would be required to cause the species in the remainder of the range to 
be endangered.
    The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions 
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to 
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be 
significant or to analyzing portions of the range in which there is no 
reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To 
identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we 
determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1) 
The portions may be ``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in 
danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future.
    Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats 
it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address the significance 
question first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that 
a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a 
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its 
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some 
way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout 
its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. 
Moreover, if any concentration of threats to the species occurs only in 
portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the 
biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such portions will 
not warrant further consideration.
    Below we consider the contribution of three portions of the range 
of the British Columbia DPS to determine if these areas are 
significant, as described above. Portions considered significant are 
then evaluated to determine if goshawks there are currently in danger 
of extinction (i.e., endangered) vs. likely to become in danger of 
extinction in the foreseeable future (i.e., threatened).
    Vancouver Island: We previously found that Vancouver Island was a 
significant portion of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's entire range 
(Response to Court, 72 FR 63128; November 8, 2007) and that it was 
threatened (74 FR 56757). This determination was based on the amount of 
habitat and proportion of the rangewide population still occurring on 
Vancouver Island, and the importance of the population there to 
redundancy and resilience of the subspecies, rangewide.
    The NGRT estimates that Vancouver Island supports 165 (44 to 47 
percent) of the 352 to 374 breeding pairs within British Columbia (NGRT 
2008, p. 8). Geographically, Vancouver Island covers 27 percent of the 
DPS's range (NGRT 2008, p. 6). Thus, although Vancouver Island 
comprises about a quarter of the DPS's range in British Columbia, it 
supports nearly half of the breeding pairs. Loss of this large 
percentage of the small population would clearly result in a meaningful 
decrease in representation, resilience, and redundancy across the DPS.
    Approximately half of the original goshawk habitat remains on 
Vancouver Island (USFWS 2010, Table A-17). Goshawks there nest in both 
old-growth and mature second-growth forest. Nesting densities (as 
measured by mean distance between nesting areas) are higher on 
Vancouver Island than on the Queen Charlotte Islands or in Southeast 
Alaska (NGRT 2008, p. 8), suggesting that prey availability is good and 
other necessary resources are available. Because the remaining habitat 
appears to be of high quality, we believe that the habitat on Vancouver 
Island contributes significantly to the resiliency of the DPS, as 
defined above.
    Goshawks on Vancouver Island appear to be genetically distinct from 
goshawks on the Queen Charlotte Islands, with affinities to the 
mainland atricapillus subspecies (Talbot et al. 2005, pp. 2-3; Talbot 
2006, p. 1, Talbot et al., in press). While this might suggest dilution 
of the laingi genotype on Vancouver Island, it is also possible that 
the genetic diversity in this population, expressed as a cline, could 
help the subspecies respond and adapt to future environmental changes, 
particularly as warmer-adapted forest communities move northward in 
response to climate change. We conclude that the population contributes 
to representation and resilience.
    Without Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte goshawk population in 
British Columbia would be limited to the Queen Charlotte Islands and 
the mainland. Overall, the population would be reduced by nearly half, 
and a probable source of immigrants to the mainland population would be 
gone. We do not have a demographic model to evaluate viability 
prospects for the

[[Page 45890]]

population that would remain on the mainland and the Queen Charlotte 
Islands, but we expect that loss of the densest population, inhabiting 
the most productive habitat in the DPS, would increase extinction risk 
for the remaining population. Without the redundancy and resiliency of 
the Vancouver Island population, the DPS would likely include fewer 
than 200 breeding pairs (NGRT 2008, p. 8). We, therefore, expect that 
the DPS would be in danger of extinction, and conclude that Vancouver 
Island is a significant portion of the DPS's range. Having established 
significance, we now determine if Queen Charlotte goshawk is endangered 
in this significant portion of the range.

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

    Approximately 13 percent of the landscape, but only 9 percent of 
the productive forest, on Vancouver Island is protected in reserves 
(USFWS 2010, Tables A-9 and A-23). Mature and old-growth forest 
currently covers approximately 42 percent of Vancouver Island (USFWS 
2010, Table A-21), suggesting that habitat, on average, is adequate to 
support goshawks. Clearly, habitat quality varies across the island. 
Some areas have been heavily impacted by timber harvest or urban 
development, and other areas have extensive stands of mature and old-
growth forest that provide higher quality habitat. These local 
differences are masked by calculations of forest cover across the 
island.
    Smith and Sutherland (2008, p. 33) found that habitat on Vancouver 
Island could potentially support approximately 310 goshawk territories. 
Only 55 percent of the known goshawk territories on Vancouver Island 
have been occupied, on average, leading the NGRT to suggest that the 
island may have approximately 165 breeding pairs (2008, pp. 7-8).
    We estimate that approximately 170,000 ac (418,000 ha) of old-
growth forest on Vancouver Island is likely to be harvested over the 
next 50 years (USFWS 2010, Table A-9), resulting in a landscape with 
approximately 35 percent cover by mature and old-growth forest (USFWS 
2010, Table A-24). We consider this low-quality habitat, on average, 
although many individual territories are likely to have higher quality 
habitat. Although habitat loss (Factor A) does not appear to pose a 
threat to the goshawk population on Vancouver Island at this time, it 
is likely to become a significant threat within the foreseeable future. 
The NGRT considers threats from habitat loss and fragmentation high on 
Vancouver Island (NGRT 2008, p. 16). We agree with this assessment and 
conclude that habitat loss is a threat to the Queen Charlotte goshawk 
in the foreseeable future, but does not place goshawks in the Vancouver 
Island portion of the subspecies' range in danger of extinction at this 
time.

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

    As discussed above for the entire DPS, the Queen Charlotte goshawk 
is protected from direct take by several laws and regulations in 
British Columbia. No Queen Charlotte goshawks from Vancouver Island are 
used for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes, including 
falconry; therefore, no element of this Factor is a threat to the 
species, now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    Neither disease nor predation has been identified as a current 
threat to Queen Charlotte goshawks on Vancouver Island. As discussed 
above, for the entire DPS, there is what we believe to be a low risk of 
disease in the future from West Nile virus or other emerging diseases, 
but these threats do not currently place the goshawk on Vancouver 
Island in danger of extinction.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Several factors reduce the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms 
on Vancouver Island, as compared to the rest of coastal British 
Columbia. First, a much higher percentage of the land is in private 
ownership (approximately 27 percent, as compared to 1 percent on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands and 6 percent on the mainland coast) (USFWS 
2010, Table A-3). Laws and regulations intended to protect goshawk 
habitat in the province, notably the Forest and Range Practices Act and 
its associated regulations and strategies, apply primarily or 
exclusively to Crown lands, not private lands. This leaves a 
significant portion of the island without regulatory protection of 
important goshawk habitat.
    Threats to habitat loss from urban development are also greatest in 
the Vancouver Island and South Coast Conservation Regions. Finally, the 
Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan (BC 2000) does not specifically 
address goshawk habitat, whereas land use plans for both the Queen 
Charlotte Islands (BC 2007, pp. 22) and the Central Coast (BCMAL 2009, 
not numbered) make provisions for protecting goshawk habitat. We do not 
believe that the somewhat higher threat posed by this lower level of 
regulatory oversight rises to a level that places goshawks on Vancouver 
Island in danger of extinction now, but does pose risks to the 
population in the foreseeable future, as discussed above for the entire 
DPS.

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

    There is evidence that goshawks on Vancouver Island hybridize 
(interbreed) with the mainland (atricapillus) form of the northern 
goshawk (Gust et al. 2003, p. 22; Talbot et al. 2005, pp. 2-3; Talbot 
2006, p. 1; Talbot et al. in press). We consider Vancouver Island a 
``stable hybrid zone'' (Haig et al. 2006, p. 7), where the laingi 
phenotype will continue to be represented in the population.
    We believe that climate change is likely to cause changes in 
habitat and possibly prey communities on Vancouver Island in the 
foreseeable future, as discussed above for the entire DPS. 
Hybridization with, and competition from, the mainland form of the 
goshawk (A. g. atricapillus) seem likely, as well. We are not certain 
what effects these threats may have on Queen Charlotte goshawk 
populations, but we do not believe that they place the subspecies in 
danger of extinction, now or in the foreseeable future, because we 
expect the small, dark phenotype to persist in the forests of Vancouver 
Island. Nor are we aware of any current threats from contaminants, 
natural disasters, or genetic problems resulting from demographic 
isolation. Prey fluctuations may affect the population periodically in 
the future, as discussed above for the entire DPS, but we do not 
consider the population to be currently at risk of extinction.
    We do not believe that any of the factors considered in this 
section place the goshawk in danger of extinction in the Vancouver 
Island portion of its range.

Summary of Factors for Vancouver Island

    None of the threats discussed above place the Queen Charlotte 
goshawk in current danger of extinction. Habitat loss (Factor A), 
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), hybridization, 
competition, prey fluctuations, or other climate change-induced risks 
(Factor E) are all chronic and, acting collectively, are likely to 
result in the goshawk becoming in danger of extinction in the

[[Page 45891]]

foreseeable future. Overutilization (Factor B) and predation (Factor C) 
are not expected to affect the population now or in the future. Disease 
(Factor C) could be a factor in the future, but we judge the risk now 
to be relatively low. Therefore, listing the species on Vancouver 
Island as threatened is appropriate.
    Queen Charlotte Islands: When we published our proposed rule, the 
Queen Charlotte Islands were believed to support about 10 to 18 
breeding pairs, though few nested during poor prey years (Doyle 2005, 
p. 18; Doyle 2007, p. 8; McClaren 2006, p. 8; NGRT 2008, p. 8). More 
recent habitat modeling suggests that the Queen Charlotte Islands may 
currently have adequate habitat for about 65 territories (Smith and 
Sutherland 2008, p. 41). If we apply the observed local territory 
occupancy rate of 43 percent, following the methodology of NGRT (2008, 
pp. 7-8), the Queen Charlotte Islands might currently support about 28 
breeding pairs, or about seven percent of the estimated breeding 
population in British Columbia.
    Currently available genetic analyses suggest that the Queen 
Charlotte Islands population may be unique (Talbot 2006, p. 1, Talbot 
et al. in press) and genetically isolated (Talbot et al. 2005, p. 3; 
Talbot et al. in press). Birds from this population are apparently more 
consistently dark than birds from Vancouver Island or Southeast Alaska 
(Taverner 1940, p. 160; Beebe 1974, p. 54; Webster 1988, pp. 46-47). We 
believe that this phenotype may represent adaptations favoring darker 
birds in the relatively dark rainforest habitat where there are few 
prey in open habitats, and smaller body size to maximize agility for 
capturing primarily avian prey, and to allow survival on smaller 
rations during periodic prey population declines. The strength of this 
phenotypic expression likely reflects genetic isolation of this 
population in recent time (Talbot et al. 2005, p. 3; Talbot et al. in 
press). This population may represent a small but possibly important 
pool of the genetic diversity and perhaps genetic purity (genetic 
coding for the small, dark phenotype) within the subspecies, 
contributing to the subspecies' representation and environmental 
resilience.
    In the proposed rule, we concluded that this apparent isolation and 
uniqueness was adequate to consider the Queen Charlotte Islands a 
significant portion of the DPS' range. Because we have modified our 
interpretation of the term ``significant portion of the range'', as 
described above, we no longer believe this to be the case. Despite the 
possible genetic uniqueness of this population, we conclude the loss of 
this population would not likely affect survival prospects for birds in 
the remainder of the DPS because there appears to be little or no gene 
flow from the Queen Charlotte Islands to the adjacent island and 
mainland populations, (Gust et al. 2003, p. 22; Talbot et al. 2005, pp. 
2-3; Talbot 2006, p. 1; Talbot et al. in press). In addition, this 
population is very small. Loss of this population, therefore, is 
unlikely to place the remainder of the DPS in danger of extinction. 
While we continue to believe that the genetics of the goshawks on the 
Queen Charlotte Islands may be important, we conclude that the Queen 
Charlotte Islands do not meet our criteria as a significant portion of 
the DPS's range.
    Mainland British Columbia: The NGRT estimates that the British 
Columbia coastal mainland covers 64 percent of the subspecies' 
geographic range in the DPS, and supports approximately half of the 
breeding population in the DPS (NGRT 2008, pp. 6-8). Goshawks from this 
portion of the range likely provide immigrants to Vancouver Island, as 
goshawks have been documented moving between Vancouver Island and the 
mainland (McClaren 2004, p. 3). The mainland could represent a 
potential source population, should populations on Vancouver Island 
decline. Loss of Queen Charlotte goshawks on the mainland would result 
in a significant gap in the subspecies' distribution, and a significant 
reduction in the resiliency and redundancy of the British Columbia DPS.
    Without the mainland habitat, the Queen Charlotte goshawk 
population in British Columbia would be limited to the Queen Charlotte 
Islands and Vancouver Island. Overall, the population would be reduced 
by about half, and a probable source of immigrants to Vancouver Island 
would be gone. We do not have a demographic model to evaluate viability 
of the population that would remain, but we expect that loss of the 
mainland population would increase extinction risk for the remaining 
population. Without the redundancy and resiliency of the mainland 
population, the DPS would likely number approximately 187 to 209 
breeding pairs (NGRT 2008, p. 8), which is precariously small from a 
conservation perspective. We expect that the DPS would probably be in 
danger of extinction, and conclude, therefore, that the British 
Columbia mainland is a significant portion of the DPS's range. Having 
established significance, we now determine if Queen Charlotte goshawk 
is endangered, rather than threatened, in this significant portion of 
the range.

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

    We agree with the NGRT that threats from habitat loss and 
fragmentation are moderate in the southern portion of the mainland and 
low to moderate in the northern portion (NGRT 2008, p. 16). These 
threats are chronic and do not currently place goshawks on the mainland 
in danger of extinction. Establishment of the Great Bear Rainforest and 
emergence of Ecosystem Based Management on lands available for 
development on the mainland appear to have reduced threats somewhat, 
but continued loss of old-growth habitat is likely to reduce habitat 
quality and contribute to population declines in the foreseeable 
future.

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

    Queen Charlotte goshawks on the mainland are protected from direct 
take by several laws and regulations, and not used for commercial, 
recreational or educational purposes, including falconry; therefore, no 
element of this Factor is a threat to the species, now or in the 
foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    Neither disease nor predation has been identified as a current 
threat to Queen Charlotte goshawks on the mainland. We believe that 
there is a low risk of disease in the future from West Nile virus or 
other emerging diseases, but these threats do not currently place 
goshawks on the mainland in danger of extinction.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Laws and regulations that protect habitat in the province, notably 
the Forest and Range Practices Act and its associated regulations and 
strategies, apply across the mainland range, except on the 6 percent in 
private ownership (USFWS 2010, Table A-3). Threats to habitat loss from 
urban development are greatest in the southern portion of the mainland 
coast, but significant protected areas occur in the northern portion. 
We do not believe that threats posed by inadequacies in existing 
regulatory mechanisms place goshawks on the mainland coast in current 
danger of extinction.

[[Page 45892]]

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

    It is likely that Queen Charlotte goshawks on the mainland 
encounter the mainland (atricapillus) subspecies of the northern 
goshawk, and that some hybridization occurs, although we are aware of 
no documentation to confirm this hypothesis. The NGRT considers the 
drier coastal western hemlock zones on the mainland to be transitional 
areas between subspecies. As on Vancouver Island, we believe these 
areas to be stable hybrid zones where the laingi form will persist 
unless changes in habitat favoring the atricapillus form occur. Such 
changes could conceivably be caused by factors such as climate change 
or timber harvest. Our current understanding of climate change effects 
is inadequate to allow predictions concerning competitive advantages 
that may result. Likewise, we are unable to conclude that timber 
harvest will favor one subspecies over another.
    We believe that climate change is likely to cause changes in 
habitat and possibly prey communities on the mainland coast that could 
affect Queen Charlotte goshawks in ways other than favoring the 
atricapillus subspecies. Any effects these threats may have on Queen 
Charlotte goshawk populations are likely to be in the future, and thus 
do not place the subspecies in this portion of its range in danger of 
extinction at this time.
    We are aware of no current threats from contaminants or natural 
disasters on the mainland. Prey fluctuations may affect the population 
periodically in the future, as discussed above for the entire DPS, but 
we do not consider the population to be currently at risk of 
extinction.
    We do not believe that any of the factors considered in this 
section currently place the goshawk in danger of extinction in the 
mainland coast portion of its range.

Summary of Factors for Mainland British Columbia

    We do not expect overutilization (Factor B), predation or disease 
(Factor C), inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), or other 
threats, such as climate change, competition, contaminants, natural 
disasters, or prey fluctuations (Factor E) to have disproportionately 
greater impacts on the mainland than elsewhere in the DPS's range. The 
NGRT considers each of these threats to be low on the mainland, except 
that they consider threats from low prey availability moderate in the 
southern portion of the mainland (NGRT 2008, p. 16).
    We do not believe that habitat loss (Factor A) or hybridization 
rates (Factor E) place Queen Charlotte goshawks on the mainland in 
current danger of extinction because these threats are of a chronic, 
long-term nature. Continued habitat loss, however, is likely to result 
in poor-quality habitat across a large portion of the mainland, leading 
to a progressively smaller, more vulnerable population likely to become 
in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. Therefore, listing 
the entire DPS as threatened is warranted.

Summary of ``Significant Portion of the Range'' Analysis

    In summary, we find that Vancouver Island and the coastal mainland 
of British Columbia are significant portions of the DPS's range, but 
that the Queen Charlotte Islands are not, using the definition of 
``significant portion of the range'' discussed above. Further, we find 
that threats to the populations on Vancouver Island and the mainland 
coast do not place the subspecies in these portions in danger of 
extinction at this time, but are likely to do so in the foreseeable 
future. Thus, listing the entire DPS as threatened is warranted.

Determination

    In consideration of the analyses described above, we find that 
listing the entire British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk 
as threatened is warranted.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition (through listing), 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
encourages conservation actions by Federal and State governments, 
private agencies and groups, and individuals.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions within the United States or on the high seas, and consult 
with the Service with respect to any species that is proposed or listed 
as endangered or threatened, and with respect to its critical habitat, 
if any is designated. Because the British Columbia DPS of the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk is entirely outside the United States, and is not 
``on the high seas,'' section 7 of the Act does not apply to this DPS. 
Therefore, there will be no requirement to evaluate management actions 
or consult with the Service. Further, we cannot designate critical 
habitat in foreign countries (50 CFR 424.12(h)), so we are not 
proposing critical habitat for the DPS.
    Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited 
financial assistance for the development and management of programs 
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful 
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign 
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to 
encourage conservation programs for foreign threatened and endangered 
species, and to provide assistance for such programs in the form of 
personnel and training of personnel.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and 
threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, 
in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to ``take'' (take includes harass, harm, pursue, 
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt any 
of these) within the United States or upon the high seas; import or 
export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or 
foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer 
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered or threatened 
wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation 
of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies. These prohibitions would not apply to the Queen 
Charlotte goshawk within the British Columbia DPS, except as they apply 
to import into the United States or foreign commerce.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species, and 17.32 for threatened species. Permits 
may be issued for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities. In addition, permits for threatened 
species may be issued for zoological exhibition, educational purposes 
or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.

[[Page 45893]]

Required Determinations

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The regulation will not impose new recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are 
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental 
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination was published in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A list of the references used to develop this rule is available at 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2009-0049 or upon 
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary author of this final rule is Steve Brockmann, Juneau 
Fish and Wildlife Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding a new entry for ``Goshawk, Queen 
Charlotte'' in alphabetical order under BIRDS to the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Species                                                          Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------------                            population where                   When     Critical   Special
                                                                   Historic range          endangered or       Status      listed    habitat     rules
         Common name                  Scientific name                                       threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
BIRDS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Goshawk, Queen Charlotte.....  Accipiter gentilis laingi....  That portion of British   British Columbia,   T                  807         NA         NA
                                                               Columbia that includes    Canada.
                                                               Vancouver Island and
                                                               its surrounding
                                                               islands, the mainland
                                                               coast west of the crest
                                                               of the Coast Range and
                                                               adjacent islands, and
                                                               the Queen Charlotte
                                                               Islands.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: June 26, 2012.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-18211 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P