Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, 71875-72068 [2012-28714]
Download as PDF
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 233
December 4, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised
Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71876
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112; 4500030114]
RIN 1018–AX69
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Revised
Critical Habitat for the Northern
Spotted Owl
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, designate revised
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) under
the Endangered Species Act. In total,
approximately 9,577,969 acres (ac)
(3,876,064 hectares (ha)) in 11 units and
60 subunits in California, Oregon, and
Washington fall within the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation.
DATES: The rule becomes effective on
January 3, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The final rule and the
associated economic analysis and
environmental assessment are available
on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112. Comments
and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in
preparing this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th
Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266;
telephone 503–231–6179; facsimile
503–231–6195.
The coordinates or plot points or both
from which the maps are generated are
included in the administrative record
for this critical habitat designation and
are available at http://www.fws.gov/
oregonfwo, at http://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112, and at the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The
additional tools and supporting
information that we developed for this
critical habitat designation are available
at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web
site and Field Office set out above and
at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave.,
Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266;
telephone 503–231–6179; facsimile
503–231–6195. If you use a
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Organization of the Final Rule
This final rule describes the revised
critical habitat designation for the
northern spotted owl under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The pages that follow summarize the
comments and information received in
response to the proposed designation
published on March 8, 2012 (77 FR
14062), and in response to the notice of
availability of the draft economic
analysis and draft environmental
assessment of the proposed revised
designation published on June 1, 2012
(77 FR 32483), describe any changes
from the proposed rule, and detail the
final designation for the northern
spotted owl. To assist the reader, the
content of the document is organized as
follows:
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
Introduction
An Ecosystem-Based Approach to the
Conservation of the Northern Spotted
Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat and the Northwest Forest
Plan
Forest Management Activities in Northern
Spotted Owl Critical Habitat
Research and Adaptive Management
The Biology and Ecology of the Northern
Spotted Owl
III. Previous Federal Actions
IV. Changes From the Proposed Rule
V. Changes From Previously Designated
Critical Habitat
VI. Critical Habitat
Background
Physical or Biological Features
Physical Influences Related to Features
Essential to the Northern Spotted Owl
Biological Influences Related to Features
Essential to the Northern Spotted Owl
Physical or Biological Features by LifeHistory Function
Primary Constituent Elements for the
Northern Spotted Owl
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
VII. Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
Occupied Areas
Summary of Determination of Areas That
Are Essential
Unoccupied Areas
VIII. Final Critical Habitat Designation
IX. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Determinations of Adverse Effects and
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
Section 7 Process Under This Critical
Habitat Rule
X. Exemptions
XI. Exclusions
XII. Summary of Comments and Responses
Comments From Peer Reviewers
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comments From Federal Agencies
Comments From State Agencies
Comments From Counties
Public Comments
Economic Analysis Comments
Environmental Assessment Comments
XIII. Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Order 12866/13563
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.)
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.)
Takings—Executive Order 12630
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Government-to-Government Relationship
With Tribes
XIV. References Cited
Regulation Promulgation
I. Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. This
is a final rule to designate revised
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl. Under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act), designations
and revisions of critical habitat can only
be completed through rulemaking.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), listed the northern
spotted owl as threatened on June 26,
1990 (55 FR 26114), because of
widespread loss of habitat across its
range and the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to conserve it.
We previously designated critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl in
1992 and 2008. The 2008 designation
(73 FR 47326, August 13, 2008) was
subsequently challenged in court. In
July 2009, the Federal Government
requested voluntary remand of the 2008
revised critical habitat designation. On
March 8, 2012, we published in the
Federal Register a revised proposed
critical habitat designation for the
northern spotted owl (77 FR 14062).
This rule complies with the courtordered deadline to submit a final
revised critical habitat rule for the
northern spotted owl to the Federal
Register by November 21, 2012.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The
critical habitat areas we are designating
in this rule constitute our current best
assessment of the areas that meet the
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
definition of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl.
The rule revises our designation of
critical habitat in Washington, Oregon,
and California. Consistent with the best
scientific data available, the standards
of the Act and our regulations, we are
designating 9,577,969 ac (3,876,064 ha)
in 11 units and 60 subunits in
California, Oregon, and Washington that
meet the definition of critical habitat.
The approximate totals by State and
comparison to previous designations are
outlined below, as follows (note some
units and subunits overlap State
boundaries; therefore, totals do not add
up to 11 units and 60 subunits):
• Approximately 2,918,067 ac
(1,180,898 ha) in 4 units and 26
subunits in Washington.
• Approximately 4,557,852 ac
(1,844,496 ha) in 8 units and 58
subunits in Oregon.
• Approximately 2,102,050 ac
(850,669 ha) in 5 units and 36 subunits
in California.
• This designation increases
previously designated critical habitat,
including the addition of 272,026 ac
(110,085 ha) ac of State lands. However,
this final critical habitat designation is
a decrease from the 13,962,449 ac
(5,649,660 ha) identified as meeting the
definition of critical habitat in the
March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062) proposed
rule.
• We have also excluded areas of
State and private land from this
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, as explained
in the Exclusions section of this rule.
The Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011;
hereafter ‘‘Revised Recovery Plan’’)
recommends that land managers: (1)
conserve older forest, high-value
habitat, and areas occupied by northern
spotted owls; and (2) actively manage
forests to restore ecosystem health in
many parts of the species’ range. In
developing this critical habitat
designation, we also recognize the
importance of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and its land management
strategy for conservation of native
species associated with old-growth and
late-successional forest, including the
northern spotted owl. The designation
of areas as critical habitat does not
change land use allocations or
Standards and Guidelines for
management under the NWFP, nor does
this rule establish any management plan
or prescriptions for the management of
critical habitat. However, we encourage
land managers to consider
implementation of forest management
practices recommended in the Revised
Recovery Plan to restore natural
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
ecological processes where they have
been disrupted or suppressed (e.g.,
natural fire regimes), and application of
‘‘ecological forestry’’ management
practices (e.g., Gustafsson et al. 2012,
entire; Franklin et al. 2007, entire;
Kuuluvian and Grenfell et al. 2012
entire) within critical habitat to reduce
the potential for adverse impacts
associated with commercial timber
harvest when such harvest is planned
within or adjacent to critical habitat. In
sum, the Service encourages land
managers to consider the conservation
of existing high-quality northern spotted
owl habitat, the restoration of forest
ecosystem health, and the ecological
forestry management practices
recommended in the Revised Recovery
Plan that are compatible with both the
goals of northern spotted owl recovery
and Standards and Guidelines of the
NWFP.
The basis for our action. This final
critical habitat designation is based on
the current status and recent scientific
research on northern spotted owl
populations. We used the best scientific
information available to identify those
specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed on which are found those
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, and
which may require special management
considerations or protection. For the
northern spotted owl, these features
include particular forest types that are
used or likely to be used by northern
spotted owls for nesting, roosting,
foraging, or dispersing habitat. In
addition, we used the best available
information to identify those areas that
are otherwise determined to be essential
to the conservation of the species.
We relied on the recovery criteria set
forth in the Revised Recovery Plan for
the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS
2011) to determine what is essential to
the conservation of the species;
therefore we have identified a habitat
network that meets the following
criteria:
• Ensures sufficient habitat to support
stable, healthy populations across the
range, and also within each of the 11
recovery units;
• Ensures distribution of northern
spotted owl populations across the
range of habitat conditions used by the
species;
• Incorporates uncertainty, including
potential effects of barred owls, climate
change, and wildfire disturbance risk;
and
• Recognizes that these protections
are meant to work in concert with other
recovery actions, such as barred owl
management.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71877
To assist us in determining critical
habitat, we integrated habitat and
demographic information (relating to
occupancy, survival, reproduction, and
movement) to develop a modeling tool
that assesses the distribution of habitat
quality and population dynamics across
the range, and provides a more accurate
picture of where high-quality northern
spotted owl habitat exists. This model
synthesized more than 20 years of data
from on-the-ground demographic
surveys, and allowed for analysis of
how northern spotted owl populations
would fare under different habitat
conservation scenarios. We determined
what is essential to recovery of the
northern spotted owl by evaluating the
performance of each potential critical
habitat scenario considered against the
recovery needs of the owl.
Peer reviewers support our methods.
We solicited expert opinions from
knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species
occurs, and conservation biology
principles. These peer reviewers
generally concurred with our methods
and conclusions and provided
additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve this final
rule.
Consistency with Presidential
Directive. On February 28, 2012, the
President issued a memorandum to the
Secretary of the Interior regarding the
proposed revised critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, specifically on
minimizing regulatory burdens. The
Service has fully addressed each of the
directives in this memo and has taken
steps to comply with this directive,
including:
• We conducted and completed, as is
the Service’s normal practice, an
economic analysis on the probable
impacts of the proposed revised
critical habitat.
• We provided a description of
ecological forestry management
actions that may be compatible with
both northern spotted owl recovery
and timber harvest, as
recommended in the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl. This discussion
appears in the following sections of
this rule:
Æ An Ecosystem-based Approach to
the Conservation of the Northern
Spotted Owl and Managing Its
Critical Habitat
Æ Special Management
Considerations or Protection
Æ Determination of Adverse Effects
and Application of the ‘‘Adverse
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71878
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Modification’’ Standard.
We note, however, that this discussion
of ecological forestry is provided to
Federal, State, local and private land
managers, as well as the public, for their
consideration as they make decisions on
the management of forest land under
their jurisdictions and through their
normal processes. This critical habitat
rule itself does not take any action or
adopt any policy, plan, or program in
relation to active forest management.
• As per the Service’s normal
practice, we solicited public review and
comment on this rulemaking action,
using information thus gained to correct
and refine our designation.
• We fully considered exclusion of
private lands and State lands from the
final revised critical habitat, consistent
with the best available scientific and
commercial information.
The Service appreciates, and is
sensitive to, the potential for regulatory
burden that may result from our
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl under the Act. Our
analysis indicated that the revision of
critical habitat could have relatively
little incremental effect above and
beyond the conservation measures
already required as a result of its
threatened species status under the Act,
and thus is not expected to impose
substantial additional regulatory
burdens. The Service appreciates, and
relies on the many partners we have in
conservation, including private
landowners, Tribes, States, and local
governments, and strongly desires to
promote conservation partnerships to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, plants, and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the American
people.
Costs and benefits. In order to identify
and analyze the potential economic
impacts of the designation of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl, we
worked with a contractor to draft an
economic analysis report, which was
released in May of 2012 and finalized
following consideration and
incorporation of public comment. The
report looked at a variety of economic
activities including timber harvest,
wildlife management, road construction,
and other forest management activities,
but focused primarily on timber
management. It concludes that only a
relatively small portion of the overall
proposed revised designation may result
in more than minor incremental
administrative costs. It found that
potential incremental changes in timber
harvests on Bureau of Land
Management and U.S. Forest Service
lands may occur on approximately
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
1,449,534 ac (585,612 ha) proposed for
designation, or 10 percent of the total
lands included in the proposed
designation and that there is the
potential for 307,308 ac (123,364 ha) of
private land to experience incremental
changes in harvests, or approximately 2
percent of total lands proposed. No
incremental changes in harvests are
expected on State lands.
II. Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the revised
designation of critical habitat in this
rule. For further details regarding
northern spotted owl biology and
habitat, population abundance and
trend, distribution, demographic
features, habitat use and conditions,
threats, and conservation measures,
please see the Northern Spotted Owl 5year Review Summary and Evaluation,
completed October 26, 2011, and the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011), completed
July 1, 2011. Both of these documents
are available on the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s Endangered Species
Web site at http://ecos.fws.gov/; under
‘‘Species Search,’’ enter ‘‘northern
spotted owl.’’ As detailed below,
Appendix C of the Revised Recovery
Plan is particularly informative, as we
used the habitat modeling process it
describes as a tool to help identify areas
containing the essential physical and
biological features or areas that were
otherwise essential to the conservation
of the northern spotted owl in this
revised designation of critical habitat.
Furthermore, the recovery criteria for
the northern spotted owl, as described
in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS
2011, pp. I–1 to I–2), helped to
discriminate between the various
scenarios considered in the modeling
process in terms of assessing which of
the habitat networks evaluated included
what is essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl in the most
efficient configuration possible.
Introduction
The northern spotted owl inhabits
structurally complex forests from
southwestern British Columbia through
Washington and Oregon to northern
California. The northern spotted owl
was listed under the Act as a threatened
species in 1990 because of widespread
loss of habitat across its range and the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to conserve it (55 FR
26114; June 26, 1990). Although the rate
of loss of habitat due to timber harvest
has been reduced on Federal lands over
the past two decades, both past and
current habitat loss remain a threat to
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the northern spotted owl. Despite
implementation of habitat conservation
measures in the early 1990s, Thomas et
al. (1990, p. 5) and USDI (1992,
Appendix C) foresaw that owl
populations would continue to decline
for several decades, even with habitat
conservation, as the consequence of lag
effects at both individual and
population levels. However, many
populations of northern spotted owls
have declined at a faster rate than
anticipated, especially in the northern
parts of the subspecies’ range (Anthony
et al. 2006, pp. 31–32; Forsman et al.
2011, pp. 65, 76). We now know that the
suite of threats (detailed below) facing
the northern spotted owl differs from
those at the time it was listed; in
addition to the effects of historical and
ongoing habitat loss, the northern
spotted owl faces a new significant and
complex threat in the form of
competition from the congeneric
(referring to a member of the same
genus) barred owl (USFWS 2011, pp. I–
7 to I–8).
During the second half of the 20th
century, barred owls expanded their
range from eastern to western North
America, and the range of the barred
owl now completely overlaps that of the
´
northern spotted owl (Gutierrez et al.
1995, p. 3; Crozier et al. 2006, p. 761).
Barred owls compete with northern
spotted owls for habitat and resources
for breeding, feeding, and sheltering,
and the presence of barred owls has
significant negative effects on northern
spotted owl reproduction, survivorship,
and successful occupation of territories
(see Population Status and Trends,
below). The loss of habitat has the
potential to intensify competition with
barred owls by reducing the total
amount of resources available to the
northern spotted owl and by increasing
the likelihood and frequency of
competitive interactions. While there
are important differences in the ecology
between barred owls and northern
spotted owls, barred owls select very
similar habitat for breeding, feeding,
and sheltering, and loss of habitat has
the potential to intensify competition
between species. While conserving
habitat will not completely alleviate the
barred owl threat, Dugger et al. (2011,
pp. 2464–2465) found that northern
spotted owl occupancy and colonization
rates decreased as both barred owl
presence increased and available habitat
decreased. Similar to another case in
which increased suitable habitat was
required to support two potentially
competing raptors, these authors
concluded that increased habitat
protection for northern spotted owls
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
may be necessary to provide for
sustainable populations in the presence
of barred owls in some areas (Dugger et
al. 2011, p. 2467). Maintaining highquality habitat has been important since
the northern spotted owl was initially
listed as a threatened species in 1990,
and this competitive pressure from
barred owls has intensified the need to
conserve and restore large areas of
contiguous, high-quality habitat across
the range of the northern spotted owl
(Dugger et al. 2011, p. 2464; Forsman et
al. 2011, p. 76; USFWS 2011, Recovery
Action 32 [RA32], p. III–67).
It is becoming increasingly evident
that solely securing habitat will not be
effective in achieving the recovery of the
northern spotted owl when barred owls
are present (USFWS 2011, p. vi). While
conservation of high-quality habitat is
essential for the recovery and
conservation of the owl, habitat
conservation alone is not sufficient to
achieve recovery objectives. As stated in
the Revised Recovery Plan, ‘‘* * *
addressing the threats associated with
past and current habitat loss must be
conducted simultaneously with
addressing the threats from barred owls.
Addressing the threat from habitat loss
is relatively straightforward with
predictable results. However, addressing
a large-scale threat of one raptor on
another, closely related raptor has many
uncertainties’’ (USFWS 2011, p. I–8). A
designation of critical habitat is
intended to ameliorate habitat-based
threats to an endangered or threatened
species; critical habitat cannot
reasonably be expected to fully address
other, non-habitat-related threats to the
species. In the case of the northern
spotted owl, the recovery goal of
supporting population viability and
demographically stable populations of
northern spotted owls will likely require
habitat conservation in concert with the
implementation of recovery actions that
address other, non-habitat-based threats
to the species, including the barred owl.
In addition, recovery actions include
scientific evaluation of potential
management options to reduce the
impact of barred owls on northern
spotted owls (USFWS 2011, Recovery
Action 29 [RA29], p. III–65), and
implementation of management actions
determined to be effective (USFWS
2011, Recovery Action 30 [RA30], p. III–
65).
When developing a critical habitat
rule, the Service must use the best
scientific information available to
identify critical habitat as defined in
section (3)(5)(A) of the Act, which are (i)
the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it was listed that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
provide the physical or biological
features essential for the conservation of
the species, and which may require
special management considerations or
protection, and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
that are otherwise determined to be
essential to the conservation of the
species. However, like most critical
habitat designations, this rule addresses
elements of risk management, because
we must make recommendations and
decisions in the face of incomplete
information and uncertainty about
factors influencing northern spotted owl
populations. This uncertainty exists
even though the northern spotted owl is
among the most thoroughly studied of
listed species. We understand a great
deal about the habitats the subspecies
prefers and the factors that influence its
demographic trends. Nonetheless,
considerable uncertainty remains,
particularly about interactions among
different factors that threaten the owl.
In the face of such uncertainty, the
Revised Recovery Plan proposes
strategies to address the primary threats
to the northern spotted owl from habitat
loss and barred owls (USFWS 2011, p.
I–7). The effects of climate change and
of past management practices are
changing forest ecosystem processes and
dynamics, including patterns of
wildfires, insect outbreaks, and disease,
to a degree greater than anticipated in
the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)
(Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 134–135;
Carroll et al. 2010, p. 899; Spies et al.
2010, entire; USFWS 2011, p. I–8). At
the same time, the expansion of barred
owl populations is altering the capacity
of intact habitat to support northern
spotted owls. Projecting the effects of
these factors and their interactions into
the future leads to even higher levels of
uncertainty, especially considering how
the influences of different threats may
vary across the owl’s large geographical
range. It is clear that ecosystem-level
changes are occurring within the
northern spotted owl’s forest habitat.
The development of a critical habitat
network for the northern spotted owl
must take into account current
uncertainties, such as those associated
with barred owl impacts and climate
change predictions (USFWS 2011, p.
III–10). These uncertainties require that
we make some assumptions about likely
future conditions in developing,
modeling, and evaluating potential
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl; those assumptions are identified
clearly in this rule (see Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat, below) and in
our supporting documentation (Dunk et
al. 2012b, entire).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71879
Given the continued decline of
northern spotted owl populations, the
apparent increase in severity of the
threat from barred owls, and
information indicating a recent loss of
genetic diversity for the subspecies,
retaining both occupied northern
spotted owl sites and unoccupied, highvalue northern spotted owl habitat
across the subspecies’ range are key
components for recovery (USFWS 2011,
p. I–9). High-value habitat is defined in
the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) as
habitat that is important for maintaining
northern spotted owls on landscapes,
including areas with current and
historic use by northern spotted owls.
We refer readers to the glossary
(Appendix G) of the Revised Recovery
Plan for definitions of forest stand
conditions and habitat types discussed
in this rule.
Accordingly, in this rule, we have
identified areas of habitat occupied at
the time of listing that provide the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl, and that may require
special management considerations or
protection. When occupied areas were
not adequate to achieve essential
recovery goals, we also identified some
unoccupied areas as critical habitat for
the northern spotted owl only upon a
determination that such areas are
essential to the conservation of the
species (see the second part of the
definition of critical habitat in section
(3)(5)(a)(ii), which states that critical
habitat also includes ‘‘specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing in
accordance with the provisions of
section 4 of this Act, upon a
determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation
of the species.’’) However, it is
important to note that this revised
designation of critical habitat does not
include all sites where northern spotted
owls are presently known to occur. The
habitat modeling that we used, in part,
to assist us in developing this revised
designation was based primarily on
present habitat suitability. While we did
also consider the present known
locations of northern spotted owls in
refining the identified habitat network,
not all such sites were included in the
revised designation if those areas did
not make a significant contribution to
population viability (for example, if
known sites were too small or isolated
to play a meaningful role in the
conservation of the species; see Criteria
Used to Identify Critical Habitat). This
is in accordance with section 3(5)(C) of
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71880
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
the Act, which specifies that ‘‘critical
habitat shall not include the entire
geographical area which can be
occupied by the threatened or
endangered species.’’
Because of the uncertainties
associated with the effects of barred owl
interactions with the northern spotted
owl and habitat changes that may occur
as a result of climate change, active
adaptive forest management strategies
will be needed to achieve results in
certain landscapes. Active adaptive
forest management is a systematic
approach for improving resource
management by learning from the
results of explicit management policies
and practices and applying that learning
to future management decisions
(USFWS 2011, p. G–1). This critical
habitat rule identifies key sources of
uncertainty, and the need to learn from
our management of forests that provide
habitat for northern spotted owls. We
have designated a critical habitat
network that was developed based on
what we determined to be the areas
containing the physical and biological
features essential for the conservation of
the northern spotted owl or are
otherwise essential to owl conservation,
after taking into consideration
information on essential habitats, the
current distribution of those habitats,
and the best available scientific
knowledge about northern spotted owl
population dynamics, while
acknowledging uncertainty about future
conditions in Pacific Northwest forests.
An Ecosystem-Based Approach to the
Conservation of the Northern Spotted
Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat
Section 2 of the Act states, ‘‘The
purposes of this Act are to provide a
means whereby the ecosystems upon
which endangered species and
threatened species depend may be
conserved.’’ Although the conservation
of the listed species is the specific
objective of a critical habitat
designation, the essential physical or
biological features that serve as the basis
of critical habitat are often essential
components of the ecosystem upon
which the species depends. In such
cases, a fundamental goal of critical
habitat management is not only to
conserve the listed species, but also to
conserve the ecosystem upon which that
species depends. This is the case with
the northern spotted owl.
An ecosystem is defined as a
biological community of interacting
organisms and their physical
environment, or as the complex of a
community of organisms and its
environment functioning as an
ecological unit (Krebs 1972, pp. 10–11;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Ricklefs 1979, pp. 31–32, 869). These
ecosystem interactions and functions
are often referred to as ecological
relationships or processes. Thus, to
conserve the northern spotted owl as
directed by the Act, one must also
conserve the ecological processes that
occur within the ecological landscape
inhabited by the species. These
processes—such as vegetation
succession, forest fire regimes, and
nutrient cycling—create and shape the
physical or biological features that form
the foundation of critical habitat. The
northern spotted owl was initially listed
as a threatened species largely due to
the loss or degradation of the latesuccessional forest ecosystems upon
which it depends. A complex
interaction of physical or biological
factors contribute to the development
and maintenance of these ecosystems,
which in turn provide the northern
spotted owl with the environmental
conditions required for its conservation
and survival, such as large areas of
suitable habitat, nest structures, and
sufficient prey to sustain interconnected
populations of owls across the
landscape. A fundamental goal of
critical habitat management should thus
be to understand, describe, and
conserve these processes, which in turn
will maintain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. This ‘‘ecosystem approach’’
will ultimately have the highest
likelihood of conserving listed species
such as the northern spotted owl in the
long term (Knight 1998, p. 43).
The U.S. Forest Service, which
manages the great majority of areas
being designated as revised northern
spotted owl critical habitat, has
prioritized restoring and maintaining
natural ecological function and
resiliency to its forest lands (Blate et al.
2009, entire; USDA 2010, entire;
Tidwell 2011, entire). Active adaptive
forest management within critical
habitat, as discussed herein for the
consideration of land managers, may be
fully compatible and consistent with
these landscape-level ecosystems. Most
importantly, this approach is
compatible with the ecosystem-based
approach of the Northwest Forest Plan.
Revised critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl includes a diverse
forest landscape that covers millions of
acres and contains several different
forest ecosystems and thousands of
plant and animal species. It ranges from
moist old-growth conifer forest in the
western portion, to a mix of conifers and
hardwood trees in the Klamath region,
to dry, fire-prone forests in the eastern
Cascades. Thousands of species occur in
these forest ecosystems, including other
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
listed and sensitive species with very
specific biological needs. In areas where
prescribed management is needed to
maintain ecosystem function, such
management is often expensive,
logistically difficult, and contentious
(Thompson et al. 2009, p. 29). Many
scientists believe a single-species
approach to forest management is
limited and that land managers need to
focus on broader landscape goals that
address ecosystem process and future
habitat conditions (see, e.g., Thomas et
al. 2006, p. 286; Boyd et al. 2008, p. 42;
Hobbs et al. 2010, p. 487; Mori 2011, pp.
289–290). The Revised Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2011) encourages the
application of ecosystem management
principles to ensure the long-term
conservation of the northern spotted
owl and its habitat, as well as other
species dependent on these shared
ecosystems.
We reference here the
recommendations for habitat
management as made in the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011). This discussion is
provided primarily for consideration by
Federal, State, local, and private land
managers, as they make decisions on the
management of forest land under their
jurisdictions and through their normal
processes. This critical habitat rule does
not take any action or adopt any policy,
plan or program in relation to active
forest management.
Critical Habitat and the Northwest
Forest Plan
It is important to understand the
relationship between northern spotted
owl critical habitat and the Northwest
Forest Plan (NWFP). In brief, the
designation of areas as critical habitat
does not change land use allocations or
Standards and Guidelines for
management under the NWFP. Critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl was
first designated in 1992 (January 15,
1992; 57 FR 1796). Since 1994, the
NWFP has also served as an important
landscape-level plan that has
contributed to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl and latesuccessional forest habitat on Federal
lands across the range of the species
(Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 278–284). The
NWFP introduced a system of reserves
where conservation of late-successional
forest, riparian habitats, northern
spotted owls, and other species
dependent on older forest would be the
priority, and matrix areas where timber
harvest would be the goal. The
Standards and Guidelines for the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994) prescribe an
ecosystem-based approach to
management for the Federal action
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
agencies that manage these lands, and
provide guidance for activities
conducted on different land use
allocations. All Bureau of Land
Management and U.S. Forest Service
lands identified as northern spotted owl
critical habitat in this rule fall under the
NWFP, and should be managed
consistent with its standards. Here we
briefly provide a summary of how our
designation of critical habitat has been
informed by and relates to forest
management under the NWFP.
In developing this critical habitat
designation, the Service recognizes the
importance of the NWFP as the
overarching land management strategy
for conservation of the northern spotted
owl and other native species associated
with old-growth and late-successional
forest. The system of reserves within the
NWFP is essential for the conservation
and development of large areas of latesuccessional forest across the landscape;
however, because the NWFP was
designed to benefit multiple species not
every acre of the late-successional
reserves (LSRs) provide high-quality
habitat for northern spotted owls. In
addition, barred owls have become
increasingly abundant in the Pacific
Northwest and likely have a large effect
on the continued decline of northern
spotted owl populations. With barred
owls now sharing the range of the
northern spotted owl, conservation of
northern spotted owls outside NWFP
reserved areas is increasingly important
for species recovery.
In our designation of critical habitat
on Federal lands, we identified lands
that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species including
lands both within NWFP reserves and
matrix that function as highly valuable
northern spotted owl habitat. As noted
above, designation as critical habitat
does not change these land use
allocations or Standards and Guidelines
for management under the NWFP, and
we fully recognize the ecological
functions and land management goals of
the different land use allocations as
outlined under the NWFP. While the
NWFP has been successful in
conserving large blocks of latesuccessional forest (Thomas et al. 2006,
p. 283, Davis et al. 2011, p. 38),
concerns have been expressed that it
provides less than the anticipated level
of commercial timber harvest on matrix
lands, does not promote active
restoration in areas that may contain
uncharacteristically high risk of severe
fire (Spies et al. 2006, pg. 359; Thomas
et al. 2006, p. 277), and does not
promote development of complex earlyseral forest in areas where regeneration
harvest has been conducted (Betts et al.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
2010, p. 2117; Hagar 2007, p. 109;
Swanson et al. 2011, p. 124) (‘‘seral’’
refers to developmental or successional
stages of the forest community that
influences species composition, i.e.,
early, mid, late seral stages).
Thomas et al. (2006, pp. 284–287)
provided three recommendations to
improve the NWFP. These
recommendations are highly relevant to
northern spotted owl critical habitat
conservation and management:
1. Conserve old-growth trees and
forests on Federal lands wherever they
are found (emphasis added), and
undertake appropriate restoration
treatment in the threatened forest types.
2. Manage NWFP forests as dynamic
ecosystems that conserve all stages of
forest development (e.g., encompassing
the range of conditions between earlyseral and old-growth), and where
tradeoffs between short-term and longterm risks are better balanced.
3. Recognize the NWFP as an
integrated conservation strategy that
contributes to all components of
sustainability across Federal lands.
It is our hope that management of
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl will be compatible with these
broader landscape management goals
articulated by Thomas et al. (2006, pp.
284–287). Furthermore, the Standards
and Guidelines for the NWFP encourage
an ecosystem-based approach to land
management (e.g., USDA and USDI
1994, p. A–1, Standards and Guidelines,
pp. C–12, C–13). As discussed in the
Revised Recovery Plan, recovery of the
northern spotted owl will likely require
that an ecosystem management
approach that includes both passive and
active management, to meet a variety of
conservation goals that support longterm northern spotted owl conservation,
be implemented. We fully support the
land use allocation goals and the
Standards and Guidelines for
management under the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994) as informed by the
recommendations of the Revised
Recovery Plan. Some general
considerations for managing the threats
to the essential physical or biological
features for the northern spotted owl are
discussed in the Special Management
Considerations or Protections and
Determinations of Adverse Effects and
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard sections of this
document, below, as well as in the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, pp. III–11 to
III–39).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71881
Forest Management Activities in
Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat
As stated above, many areas of critical
habitat do not require active
management, and active forest
management within such areas could
negatively impact northern spotted
owls. We are not encouraging land
managers to consider active
management in areas of high-quality
owl habitat or occupied owl sites;
rather, we encourage management
actions that will maintain and restore
ecological function where appropriate.
In some areas, forest stands are not on
a trajectory to develop into high-value
habitat, ecological processes have been
disrupted by human actions, or
projected climate change is expected to
further disrupt or degrade desired forest
conditions. In these areas, land
managers may choose to implement
active management, as recommended in
the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011),
to improve ecological health and
development of forest conditions more
favorable to northern spotted owls and
other biodiversity. For example, LSRs
are to be managed to protect and
enhance old-growth forest conditions
(defined in the Revised Recovery Plan
as forests that have accumulated
specific characteristics related to tree
size, canopy structure, snags, and
woody debris and plant associations).
According to the NWFP Standards and
Guidelines (USDA and USDI 1994), no
programmed timber harvest is allowed
inside the reserves. However, thinning
or other silvicultural treatments inside
these reserves may occur in younger
stands if the treatments are beneficial to
the creation and maintenance of latesuccessional forest conditions. On the
east of the Cascades and in Oregon and
California Klamath Provinces,
additional management activities may
be considered both within and outside
reserves to reduce risks of large-scale
disturbance (NWFP Standards and
Guidelines, p. C–12—C–13).
We also recognize that ecological
restoration is not the management goal
on all NWFP land use allocations (e.g.,
matrix) within designated critical
habitat, and we provide a discussion of
options land managers could consider to
tailor traditional forest management
activities on these lands to consistent
with conservation of current and future
northern spotted owl habitat (see, e.g.,
Gustafsson et al. 2012, entire; Franklin
et al. 2007, entire; Kuuluvainen and
Grenfell 2012, entire; North and Keeton
2008; Long 2009, entire; Lindenmayer et
al. 2012; entire). Our discussion of
potential management considerations
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71882
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
for the northern spotted owl are
intended to be fully compatible with the
objectives and Standards and
Guidelines of the NWFP as informed by
the conservation guidelines presented in
the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) to
provide a means whereby the
ecosystems on which northern spotted
owls depend will be conserved.
Mimicking natural disturbance
regimes, such as fire, is an important
strategy in North American forest
management (Seymour and Hunter
1999, p. 56; Long 2009, p. 1868;
Gustafsson et al. 2012, p. 635;
Kuuluvainen and Grenfell 2012, entire).
This change is occurring in response to:
(1) The simplification of forests in terms
of structure, age-class diversity, and
species composition as a result of
management for timber production, and
(2) a recognition of fundamental
changes in ecosystem function and
processes due to land management
practices, especially fire and
successional patterns (Franklin et al.
2002, pp. 402–408; Hessburg et al. 2005,
pp. 134–135; Drever et al. 2006, p.
2291). Although human disturbance is
unlikely to precisely mimic natural
forest disturbance, it can be used to
better maintain the resilience of
landscapes and wildlife populations to
respond to natural disturbance and
climate change (Lindenmayer et al.
2008, p. 87). In general, prescriptions
(e.g., vegetation management, prescribed
fire, etc.) that apply ecological forestry
principles to address the restoration and
conservation of broader ecological
processes in areas where this is needed,
while minimizing impacts to
structurally diverse or mature and old
forest that does not require such
management can be compatible with
maintaining the critical habitat’s
essential features in the long term at the
landscape scale (USFWS 2011, p. III–
14). The Service has recently consulted
on these types of management actions in
occupied northern spotted owl habitat
on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands.
Specifically prescribing such
management is beyond the scope or
purpose of this document, and should
instead be developed by the appropriate
land management agency at the
appropriate land management scale
(e.g., National Forest or Bureau of Land
Management District) (USDA 2010,
entire; Fontaine and Kennedy 2012, p.
1559; Gustafsson et al. 2012, pp. 639–
641, Davis et al. 2012, entire) through
the land managing agencies’ planning
processes and with technical assistance
from the Service, as appropriate.
Furthermore, we encourage an active
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
adaptive forest management approach,
should agencies choose to implement
ecological forestry practices, as we
continue to learn from continuing
research on these methods (see Research
and Adaptive Management, below).
Some general considerations for
managing for the conservation of
essential physical or biological features
within northern spotted owl critical
habitat are discussed in more detail in
the Special Management Considerations
or Protections and Determinations of
Adverse Effects and Application of the
‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard
sections of this document, below. In
sum, vegetation and fuels management
in dry and mixed-dry forests may be
appropriate both within and outside
designated critical habitat where the
goal of such treatment is to conserve
natural ecological processes or restore
them (including fire) where they have
been modified or suppressed (Allen et
al. 2002, pp. 1429–1430; Spies et al.
2006, pp. 358–361; Fielder et al. 2007,
entire; Prather et al. 2008, entire;
Lindenmayer et al. 2009, p. 274;
Tidwell 2011, entire; Stephens et al.
2009, pp. 316–318; Stephens et al.
2012a, p. 13; Stephens et al. 2012b, pp.
557–558; Franklin et al. 2008, p. 46;
Miller et al. 2009, pp. 28–30; Fule et al.
2012, pp. 75–76). These types of
management are encouraged in the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, p. C–13).
Likewise, in some moist and mixed
forests, management of northern spotted
owl critical habitat should be
compatible with broader ecological
goals, such as the retention of highquality older forest, the continued
treatment of young or homogenous
forest plantations to enhance structural
diversity, heterogeneity and latesuccessional forest conditions, and the
conservation or restoration of complex
early-seral forest habitat, where
appropriate (Spies et al. 2007b, pp. 57–
63; Betts et al. 2010, pp. 2117, 2126–
2127; Swanson et al. 2011, entire).
In general, actions that promote
ecological restoration and those that
apply ecological forestry principles at
appropriate scales as described above
and in the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011,
pp. III–11 to III–41) may be, in the right
circumstances, consistent with the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl and the management of its critical
habitat. However, we emphasize that
this rule does not take any action or
adopt any policy, plan or program in
relation to active forest management.
The discussion is provided only for
consideration by Federal, State, local
and private land managers, as well as
the public, as they make decisions on
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the management of forest land under
their jurisdictions and through their
normal processes.
Research and Adaptive Management
The Service supports the goals of
maintaining and restoring ecological
function and development of future
northern spotted owl habitat. We
encourage land managers to consider a
stronger focus on ecological forestry in
areas where commercial harvest and
restoration are planned. We recognize
the need to balance both the
conservation of current owl sites and
the development of future owl habitat.
However, a better understanding of how
ecological forestry approaches affect
owls and their prey is needed. Studies
have shown negative effects of
commercial thinning and other
conventional forestry practices on both
northern spotted owls (Forsman et al.
1984, pp. 16–17; Meiman et al. 2003, p.
1261) and their prey (Waters et al. 1994,
p. 1516; Luoma et al. 2003, pp. 343–373;
Wilson 2010, entire).This need was
recognized in Recovery Action 11 of the
Revised Recovery Plan, which states
‘‘When vegetation management
treatments are proposed to restore or
enhance habitat for northern spotted
owls (e.g., thinnings, restoration
projects, prescribed fire, etc.), consider
designing and conducting experiments
to better understand how these different
actions influence the development of
northern spotted owl habitat, northern
spotted owl prey abundance and
distribution, and northern spotted owl
demographic performance at local and
regional scales.’’ Furthermore, the
recovery strategy outlined in the
Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011)
identifies monitoring and research, as
well as active adaptive forest
management, as important steps in
achieving recovery goals.
Given these concerns, and recognizing
that appropriate management actions
will vary depending upon site-specific
conditions, we provide the following
suggestions regarding active forest
management for consideration by land
managers within critical habitat as
consistent with the recommendations of
the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl:
1. Focus active management in
younger forest, lower quality owl
habitat, or where ecological conditions
are most departed from the natural or
desired range of variability.
2. In moist forests on Federal lands,
follow NWFP guidelines as informed by
the Revised Recovery Plan and focus on
areas outside of LSRs (i.e., matrix). In
dry forests, follow NWFP guidelines and
focus on lands in or outside of reserves
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
that are most ‘‘at-risk’’ of experiencing
uncharacteristic disturbance and where
the landscape management goal is to
restore more natural or resilient forest
ecosystems (see, e.g., Davis et al. 2012,
entire; Franklin et al. 2008, p. 46).
3. Avoid or minimize activities in
active northern spotted owl territories
(or the high-quality habitat within these
territories).
4. Ensure transparency of process so
the public can see what is being done,
where it is done, what the goal of the
action is, and how well the action leads
to the desired goal.
5. Practice active adaptive forest
management by incorporating new
information and learning into future
actions to make them more effective,
focusing on how these actions affect
northern spotted owls and their prey.
Towards this objective of learning
critical new scientific insights from
research and adaptive management, we
especially encourage research and active
adaptive forest management on the
seven Forest Service Experimental
Forests (H.J. Andrews Experimental
Forest, Pringle Falls Experimental
Forest, South Umpqua Experimental
Forest, and Cascades Head Experimental
Forest in Oregon; Wind River
Experimental Forest and Entiat
Experimental Forest in Washington; and
Yurok Redwood Experimental Forest in
California) within designated northern
spotted owl critical habitat. We
acknowledge the specific value and
contributions of research done within
experimental forests in furtherance of
the research and active adaptive forest
management objectives in the Revised
Recovery Plan. These Experimental
Forests have four principal scientific
advantages that support the specific
kinds of research needed to better
understand how management affects
and potentially enhances northern
spotted owl habitat:
(1) These sites are intended for and
enabled to conduct manipulative
research to test forest management
strategies in a rigorous scientific
manner;
(2) They have long-term baseline
datasets that enable detailed climate/
environmental change assessments;
(3) The sites represent a diversity of
forest types within the range of northern
spotted owl; and
(4) Experimental forests have been the
subject of intensive, long-term study
that can serve as a backdrop for new
research.
Essential research and active adaptive
forest management questions, detailed
in the Revised Recovery Plan, that could
be conducted on Experimental Forests
include (but are not limited to):
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(a) What vegetation management
treatments best accelerate the
development of forest structure
associated with northern spotted owl
habitat functions while maintaining or
restoring natural disturbance and
provide greater ecosystem resiliency?
(b) What are the effects of wildland
and prescribed fire on the structural
elements of northern spotted owl
habitat?
(c) Can strategically-placed restoration
treatments be used to reduce the risk of
northern spotted owl habitat being
burned by high severity fire within dry
forest ecosystems?
(d) What are the effects of epidemic
forest insect outbreaks on northern
spotted owl occupancy and habitat use
immediately following the event and at
specified time periods after treatment?
Sound scientific information
represents a vital component of our path
to recovery for the northern spotted owl
(and almost all threatened or
endangered species). We believe it
would be counterproductive to inhibit
or curtail research that is designed to
benefit the northern spotted owl and the
ecosystem in which it is found, and
therefore support research activities
within experimental forests.
The Biology and Ecology of the Northern
Spotted Owl
Physical Description and Taxonomy
The northern spotted owl is a
medium-sized owl and the largest of the
three subspecies of northern spotted
owls currently recognized by the
American Ornithologists’ Union
´
(Gutierrez et al. 1995, p. 2). It is dark
brown with a barred tail and white spots
on the head and breast, and has dark
brown eyes that are surrounded by
prominent facial disks. The taxonomic
separation of these three subspecies is
supported by numerous factors
(reviewed in Courtney et al. 2004, pp.
3–3 to 3–31), including genetic
´
(Barrowclough and Gutierrez 1990, p.
739; Barrowclough et al. 1999, p. 922;
Haig et al. 2004, p. 1353; Barrowclough
et al. 2005, p. 1113), morphological
´
(Gutierrez et al. 1995, pp. 2 to 3),
behavioral (Van Gelder 2003, p. 30), and
biogeographical characteristics
(Barrowclough et al. 1999, p. 928).
Distribution and Habitat
The current range of the northern
spotted owl extends from southwest
British Columbia through the Cascade
Mountains, coastal ranges, and
intervening forested lands in
Washington, Oregon, and California, as
far south as Marin County, California.
The subspecies is listed as a threatened
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71883
species under the Act throughout its
range (55 FR 26114; June 26, 1990).
Within the United States, the northern
spotted owl ranges across 12 ecological
regions, based on recognized landscape
subdivisions exhibiting different
physical and environmental features,
often referred to as ‘‘physiographic
provinces’’ (Franklin and Dyrness 1988,
pp. 5–26; Thomas et al. 1990, p. 61;
USDA and USDI 1994, p. A–3). These
include the Olympic Peninsula, Western
Washington Lowlands, Western
Washington Cascades, Eastern
Washington Cascades, Oregon Coast
Ranges, Western Oregon Cascades,
Willamette Valley, Eastern Oregon
Cascades, Oregon Klamath, California
Klamath, California Coast Ranges, and
California Cascades Provinces (based on
USDA and USDI 1994, p. A–3). Very
few northern spotted owls are found in
British Columbia, in the Western
Washington Lowlands or Willamette
Valley; therefore, the subspecies is
restricted primarily to 10 of the 12
provinces within its range.
For the purposes of developing this
rule, and based on Appendix C of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, pp. C–7 to
C–13), we have divided the range of the
northern spotted owl into 11 different
regions. We used these 11 regions in the
habitat modeling that informed this
revised designation of critical habitat.
The regions used here are more ‘‘owl
specific’’ than the physiographic
provinces used in the past. In addition
to regional patterns of climate,
topography, and forest communities,
which the physiographic provinces also
considered, the 11 regions are based on
specific patterns of northern spotted owl
habitat relationships and prey base
relationships across the range of the
species. The 11 regions include the
North Coast Olympics; West Cascades
North; West Cascades Central; West
Cascades South; East Cascades North;
East Cascades South; Oregon Coast;
Klamath West; Klamath East; Redwood
Coast; and Inner California Coast
Ranges. We additionally grouped these
11 regions into 4 broad ecological zones
(West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon
and Washington; East Cascades;
Redwood; and Klamath and Northern
California Interior Coast Ranges). A map
of the 11 regions used for the purposes
of habitat modeling, as well as the 4
ecological zones, is provided in Figure
1 of this document. We used these 11
regions as the organizing units for our
designation of critical habitat, and the 4
ecological zones for the identification of
region-specific primary constituent
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71884
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
elements (PCEs) for the northern spotted
owl.
Northern spotted owls generally rely
on older forested habitats because such
forests contain the structures and
characteristics required for nesting,
roosting, and foraging, and dispersal.
Forest characteristics associated with
northern spotted owls usually develop
with increasing forest age, but their
occurrence may vary by location, past
forest practices, and stand type, history,
and condition. Although northern
spotted owl habitat is variable over its
range, some general attributes are
common to the owl’s life-history
requirements throughout its range. To
support northern spotted owl
reproduction, a home range requires
appropriate amounts of nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat arrayed so
that nesting pairs can survive, obtain
resources, and breed successfully. In
northern parts of the range where
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat
have similar attributes, nesting is
generally associated with late-seral or
old-growth forest in the core area
(Swindle et al. 1999, p. 1216). In some
southern portions of the range, northern
spotted owl survival is positively
associated with the area of old forest
habitat in the core, but reproductive
output is positively associated with
amount of edge between older forest and
other habitat types in the home range
(Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 573, 579). This
pattern suggests that where duskyfooted woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) are
the primary prey species, core areas that
have nesting habitat stands interspersed
with varied types of foraging habitat
may be optimal for northern spotted owl
survival and reproduction. Both the
amount and spatial distribution of
nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal
habitat influence reproductive success
and long-term population viability of
northern spotted owls.
Population growth can occur only if
there is adequate habitat in an
appropriate configuration to allow for
the dispersal of owls across the
landscape. This includes support of
dispersing juveniles, as well as
nonresident subadults and adults that
have not yet recruited into the breeding
population. The survivorship of
northern spotted owls is likely greatest
when dispersal habitat most closely
resembles nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat, but owls may use other
types of habitat for dispersal on a shortterm basis. Dispersal habitat, at a
minimum, consists of stands with
adequate tree size and canopy cover to
provide protection from avian predators
and at least minimal foraging
opportunities (57 FR 1805, January 15,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
1992). In this rule, we consider canopy
cover as a vertical measurement of the
amount of canopy that would cover the
ground.
The three essential functions served
by habitat within the home range of a
northern spotted owl are:
(1) Nesting. Nesting habitat is
essential to provide structural features
for nesting, protection from adverse
weather conditions, and cover to reduce
predation risks. Habitat requirements for
nesting and roosting are nearly
identical. However, nesting habitat is
specifically associated with a high
incidence of large trees with various
deformities (large cavities, broken tops,
mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.)
infections, and other evidence of
decadence) or large snags suitable for
nest placement. Additional features that
support nesting and roosting typically
include a moderate to high canopy
cover; a multilayered, multispecies
canopy with large overstory trees; large
accumulations of fallen trees and other
woody debris on the ground; and
sufficient open space below the canopy
for northern spotted owls to fly (Thomas
et al. 1990, p. 164). Forested stands with
high canopy cover also provide thermal
cover (Weathers et al. 2001, p. 686) and
protection from predators. Patches of
nesting habitat, in combination with
roosting habitat, must be sufficiently
large and contiguous to maintain
northern spotted owl core areas and
home ranges, and must be proximate to
foraging habitat. Ideally, nesting habitat
also functions as roosting, foraging, and
dispersal habitat.
(2) Roosting. Roosting habitat is
essential to provide for
thermoregulation, shelter, and cover to
reduce predation risk while resting or
foraging. As noted above, the same
habitat generally serves for both nesting
and roosting functions; technically
‘‘roosting habitat’’ differs from nesting
habitat only in that it need not contain
those specific structural features used
for nesting (cavities, broken tops, and
mistletoe platforms), but does contain
moderate to high canopy cover; a
multilayered, multispecies canopy; large
accumulations of fallen trees and other
woody debris on the ground; and open
space below the canopy for northern
spotted owls to fly. In practice,
however, roosting habitat is not
segregated from nesting habitat. Nesting
and roosting habitat will also function
as foraging and dispersal habitat.
(3) Foraging. Foraging habitat is
essential to provide a food supply for
survival and reproduction. Foraging
habitat is the most variable of all
habitats used by territorial northern
spotted owls, and is closely tied to the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
prey base, as described below. Nesting
and roosting habitat always provides for
foraging, but in some cases owls also
use more open and fragmented forests,
especially in the southern portion of the
range where some younger stands may
have high prey abundance and
structural attributes similar to those of
older forests, such as moderate tree
density, subcanopy perches at multiple
levels, multilayered vegetation, or
residual older trees. Foraging habitat
generally has attributes similar to those
of nesting and roosting habitat, but
foraging habitat may not always support
successfully nesting pairs (USDI 1992,
pp. 22–25). Foraging habitat can also
function as dispersal habitat. The
primary function of foraging habitat is to
provide a food supply for survival and
reproduction.
Because northern spotted owls show
a clear geographical pattern in diet, and
different prey species prefer different
habitat types, prey distribution
contributes to differences in northern
spotted owl foraging habitat selection
across the range. In the northern portion
of their range, northern spotted owls
forage heavily in older forests or forests
with similar complex structure that
support northern flying squirrels
(Glaucomys sabrinus) (Carey et al. 1992,
p. 233; Rosenberg and Anthony 1992, p.
165). In the southern portion of their
range, where woodrats are a major
component of their diet, northern
spotted owls are more likely to use a
variety of stands, including younger
stands, brushy openings in older stands,
and edges between forest types in
response to higher prey density in some
of these areas (Solis 1983, pp. 89–90;
Sakai and Noon 1993, pp. 376–378;
Sakai and Noon 1997, p. 347; Carey et
al. 1999, p. 73; Franklin et al. 2000, p.
579). Both the amount and distribution
of foraging habitat within the home
range influence the survival and
reproduction of northern spotted owls.
Dispersal Habitat and Habitat for
Nonresident Owls
Successful dispersal of northern
spotted owls is essential to maintaining
genetic and demographic connections
among populations across the range of
the species. Habitats that support
movements between larger habitat
patches that provide nesting, roosting,
and foraging habitats for northern
spotted owls act to limit the adverse
genetic effects of inbreeding and genetic
drift and provide demographic support
to declining populations (Thomas et al.
1990, pp. 271–272). Dispersing juvenile
northern spotted owls experience high
mortality rates (more than 70 percent in
some studies (Miller 1989, pp. 32–41;
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Franklin et al. 1999, pp. 25, 28; 55 FR
26115; June 26, 1990)) from starvation,
predation, and accidents (Miller 1989,
pp. 41–44; Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 18–
19). Juvenile dispersal is thus a highly
vulnerable life stage for northern
spotted owls, and enhancing the
survivorship of juveniles during this
period could play an important role in
maintaining stable populations of
northern spotted owls.
Successful juvenile dispersal may
depend on locating unoccupied suitable
habitat in close proximity to other
occupied sites (LaHaye et al. 2001, pp.
697–698). Dispersing juveniles are likely
attracted to conspecific calls, and may
look for suitable sites preferentially in
the vicinity of occupied territories.
When all suitable territories are
occupied, dispersers may temporarily
pursue a nonresident (nonbreeding)
strategy; such individuals are sometimes
referred to as ‘‘floaters’’ (Forsman et al.
2002, pp. 15, 26). Floaters prospect for
territorial vacancies created when
residents die or leave their territories.
Floaters contribute to stable or
increasing populations of northern
spotted owls by quickly filling territorial
vacancies. Where large blocks of habitat
with multiple breeding pairs occur, the
opportunities for successful recruitment
of dispersers and floaters are enhanced
due to the within-block production of
potential replacement birds (Thomas et
al. 1990, pp. 295, 307).
Juvenile dispersal occurs in steps
(Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 13–14),
between which dispersing juveniles
settle into temporary home ranges for up
to several months (Forsman et al. 2002,
p. 13). Natal dispersal distances,
measured from natal areas to eventual
home range, tend to be larger for females
(about 15 mi (24 km)) than males (about
8.5 mi (13.7 km)) (Courtney et al. 2004,
p. 8–5). Forsman et al. (2002, pp. 15–16)
reported dispersal distances of 1,475
northern spotted owls in Oregon and
Washington for the period from 1985 to
1996. Median maximum dispersal
distance (the straight-line distance
between the natal site and the farthest
location) for radio-marked juvenile male
northern spotted owls was 12.7 mi (20.3
km), and that of female northern spotted
owls was 17.2 mi (27.5 km) (Forsman et
al. 2002, Table 2).
Northern spotted owls can utilize
forests with the characteristics needed
for nesting, roosting, foraging, and
dispersal, and likely experience greater
survivorship under such conditions.
However, dispersing or nonresident
individuals may also make use of other
forested areas that do not meet the
requirements of nesting or roosting
habitat on a short-term basis. Such
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
71885
barred owl has expanded in recent years
and now completely overlaps that of the
northern spotted owl (Crozier et al.
2006, p. 761). The presence of barred
owls has significant negative effects on
northern spotted owl reproduction
(Olson et al. 2004, p. 1048), survival
Population Status and Trends
(Anthony et al. 2006, p. 32), and
Demographic data from studies
number of territories occupied (Kelly et
initiated as early as 1985 have been
al. 2003, p. 51; Olson et al. 2005, p.
analyzed every 5 years to estimate
928). The determination of population
northern spotted owl demographic rates trends for the northern spotted owl has
and population trends (Anderson and
become complicated by the finding that
Burnham 1992, entire; Burnham et al.
northern spotted owls are less likely to
1994, entire; Franklin et al. 1999, entire; call when barred owls are also present;
Anthony et al. 2006, entire; Forsman et
therefore, they are more likely to be
al. 2011, entire). The most current
undetected by standard survey methods
evaluation of population status and
(Olson et al. 2005, pp. 919–929; Crozier
trends is based on data through 2008
et al. 2006, pp. 766–767). As a result, it
(Forsman et al. 2011, p. 1). Based on this is difficult to determine whether
analysis, populations on 7 of 11 study
northern spotted owls no longer occupy
areas (Cle Elum, Rainier, Olympic
a site, or whether they may still be
Peninsula, Oregon Coast Ranges, H.J.
present but are not detected. The 2011
Andrews, Northwest California, and
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Green Diamond) were declining
Spotted Owl concludes that ‘‘barred
(Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64, Table 22).
owls are contributing to the population
Estimates of realized population
decline of northern spotted owls,
change (cumulative population change
especially in Washington, portions of
across all study years) indicated that, in
Oregon, and the northern coast of
the more rapidly declining populations
California.’’ (USFWS 2011, p. B–12).
(Cle Elum, Rainier, and Olympic
British Columbia has a small
Peninsula), the 2006 populations were
population of northern spotted owls.
40 to 60 percent of the population sizes
observed in 1994 or 1995 (Forsman et al. This population has declined at least 49
percent since 1992 (Courtney et al.
2011, pp. 47–49). Populations at the
2004, p. 8–14), and by as much as 90
remaining areas (Tyee, Klamath,
percent since European settlement
Southern Oregon Cascades, and Hoopa)
(Chutter et al. 2004, p. 6) to a 2004
showed declining population growth
breeding population estimated at about
rates as well, although the estimated
23 birds (Sierra Legal Defence [sic] Fund
rates were not significantly different
and Western Canada Wilderness
from stable populations (Forsman et al.
Committee 2005, p. 16) on 15 sites
2011, p 64). A meta-analysis combining
(Chutter et al. 2004, p. 26). Chutter et al.
data from all 11 study areas indicates
(2004, p. 30) suggested immediate
that rangewide the population declined
action was required to improve the
at a rate of about 2.9 percent per year
likelihood of recovering the northern
for the period from 1985 to 2006.
spotted owl population in British
Northern spotted owl populations on
Columbia. In 2007, the Northern
Federal lands had better demographic
Spotted Owl Population Enhancement
rates than elsewhere, but still declined
Team recommended to remove northern
at a mean annual rate of about 2.8
spotted owls from the wild in British
percent per year for 1985–2006
Columbia. Personnel in British
(Forsman et al. 2011, p. 67).
Columbia captured and brought into
In addition to declines in population
captivity the remaining 16 known wild
growth rates, declines in annual
northern spotted owls. Prior to initiating
survival were reported for 10 of the 11
the captive-breeding program, the
study areas (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64,
population of northern spotted owls in
Table 22). Number of young produced
Canada was declining by as much as 35
each year showed declines at 5 areas
percent per year (Chutter et al. 2004, p.
(Cle Elum, Klamath, Southern Oregon
6). The amount of previous interaction
Cascades, Northwest California, and
Green Diamond), was relatively stable at between northern spotted owls in
Canada and the United States is
3 areas (Olympic Peninsula, Tyee,
unknown (Chutter et al. 2004, p. 24).
Hoopa), and was increasing at 2 areas
Although the status of the northern
(Oregon Coast Ranges, H. J. Andrews)
spotted owl in Canada is informative in
(Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64 Table 22).
terms of the overall declining trend of
As noted above, the barred owl has
the northern spotted owl throughout its
emerged as a greater threat to the
range, and consequently the increased
northern spotted owl than was
need for conservation in those areas
previously recognized. The range of the
short-term dispersal habitats must, at
minimum, consist of stands with
adequate tree size and canopy cover to
provide protection from avian predators
and at least minimal foraging
opportunities.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71886
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
where it persists, the Service does not
designate critical habitat in foreign
countries (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Life History
Northern spotted owls are a long-lived
species with relatively stable and high
rates of adult survival, lower rates of
juvenile survival, and highly variable
reproduction. Franklin et al. (2000, p.
576) suggested that northern spotted
owls follow a ‘‘bet-hedging’’ life-history
strategy, where natural selection favors
individuals that reproduce only during
favorable conditions. For such species,
population growth rate is more
susceptible to changes in adult survival
than to recruitment of new individuals
into the population. For northern
spotted owls, recent demographic
analyses have indicated declining
trends in both adult survival and
recruitment across much of the species
range (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64, Table
22).
Northern spotted owls are highly
territorial (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 2–7).
They maintain large home ranges;
however, they actively defend a smaller
area, and overlap between the outer
portions of the home ranges of adjacent
pairs is common (Forsman et al. 1984,
´
pp. 5, 17, 22–24; Solis and Gutierrez
1990, p. 742; Forsman et al. 2005, p.
374). Pairs are nonmigratory and remain
on their home range throughout the
year, although they often increase the
area used for foraging during fall and
winter (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 21; Sisco
1990, p. 9), likely in response to
potential depletion of prey in the core
of their home range (Carey et al. 1992,
p. 245; Carey 1995, p. 649; but see
Rosenberg et al. 1994, entire). The
northern spotted owl shows strong yearround fidelity to its territory, even when
not nesting (Solis 1983, pp. 23–28;
Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 52–53) or after
natural disturbance alters habitat
characteristics within the home range
(Bond et al. 2002, pp. 1024–1026). A
discussion of northern spotted owl
home range size and use is included in
the Primary Constituent Elements
section of this rule.
Prey
Northern spotted owl diets vary
across owl territories, years, seasons,
and geographical regions (Forsman et al.
2001, pp. 146–148; 2004, pp. 217–220).
However, four to six species of
nocturnal mammals typically dominate
their diets (Forsman et al. 2004, p. 218),
with northern flying squirrels being a
primary prey species in all areas. In
Washington, diets are dominated by
northern flying squirrels, snowshoe hare
(Lepus americanus), bushy-tailed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
woodrats (Neotoma cinerea), and boreal
red-backed voles (Clethrionomys
gapperi) (Forsman et al. 2001, p. 144).
In Oregon and northern California,
northern flying squirrels in combination
with dusky-footed woodrats, bushytailed woodrats, red tree voles
(Arborimus longicaudus), and deer mice
(Peromyscus maniculatus) comprise the
majority of diets (Courtney et al. 2004,
pp. 41–31 to 4–32; Forsman et al. 2004,
p. 221). Northern spotted owls are also
known to prey on insects, other
terrestrial mammals, birds, and
juveniles of larger mammals (e.g.,
mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
(Forsman et al. 2001, p. 146; 2004, p.
223).
Northern flying squirrels are
positively associated with latesuccessional forests with high densities
of large trees and snags (Holloway and
Smith 2011, p. 671). Northern flying
squirrels typically use cavities in large
snags as den and natal sites, but may
also use cavities in live trees, hollow
branches of fallen trees, crevices in large
stumps, stick nests of other species, and
lichen and twig nests they construct
(Carey 1995, p. 658), as well as mistletoe
brooms when snags are not abundant
(Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, p. 593). Fungi
(mychorrhizal and epigeous types) are
prominent in their diet; however, seeds,
fruits, nuts, vegetation matter, insects,
and lichens may also represent a
significant proportion of their diet
(summarized in Courtney et al. 2004,
App. 4 p. 3–12). Northern flying squirrel
densities tend to be higher in older
forest stands with ericaceous shrubs
(e.g., Pacific rhododendron
(Rhododendron macrophyllum)) and an
abundance of large snags (Carey 1995, p.
654), and higher tree canopy cover
(Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, p. 591) likely
because these forests produce a higher
forage biomass. Wilson (2012, pp. i–ii)
reported that dense mid-story canopy
conditions can also be a limiting factor
for flying squirrel abundance. Flying
squirrel density tends to increase with
stand age (Carey 1995, pp. 653–654;
Carey 2000, p. 252), although managed
and second-growth stands sometimes
also show high densities of squirrels,
especially when canopy cover is high
(e.g., Rosenberg and Anthony 1992, p.
163; Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, pp. 589–
591). The main factors that may limit
northern flying squirrel densities are the
availability of den structures and food,
especially hypogeous (below ground)
fungi or truffles (Gomez et al. 2005, pp.
1677–1678), as well as protective cover
from predators (Wilson 2010, p. 115).
For northern spotted owls in Oregon,
both dusky-footed and bushy-tailed
woodrats are important prey items
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(Forsman et al. 2004, pp. 226–227),
whereas in Washington owls rely
primarily on the bushy-tailed woodrat
(Forsman et al. 2001, p. 144). Habitats
that support bushy-tailed woodrats
usually include early-seral mixedconifer/mixed-evergreen forests close to
water (Carey et al. 1999, p. 77). Bushytailed woodrats reach high densities in
both old forests with openings and
closed-canopy young forests (Sakai and
Noon 1993, pp. 376–378; Carey et al.
1999, p. 73), and use hardwood stands
in mixed-evergreen forests (Carey et al.
1999, p. 73). Bushy-tailed woodrats are
important prey species south of the
Columbia River and may be more
limited by abiotic features, such as the
availability of suitable rocky areas for
den sites (Smith 1997, p. 4) or the
presence of streams (Carey et al. 1992,
p. 234; 1999, p. 72). Dense woodrat
populations in shrubby areas are likely
a source of colonists to surrounding
forested areas (Sakai and Noon 1997, p.
347); therefore, forested areas with
nearby open, shrubby vegetation
generally support high numbers of
woodrats. The main factors that may
limit woodrats are access to stable,
brushy environments that provide food,
cover from predation, materials for nest
construction, dispersal ability, and
appropriate climatic conditions (Carey
et al. 1999, p. 78), and arboreal and
terrestrial cover in the form of large
snags, mistletoe, and soft logs
(Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, p. 376).
Home Range and Habitat Use
Territorial northern spotted owls
remain resident on their home range
throughout the year; therefore, these
homes ranges must provide all the
habitat components needed for the
survival and successful reproduction of
a pair of owls. Northern spotted owls
exhibit central-place foraging behavior
(Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, p.
1036), with much activity centered
within a core area surrounding the nest
tree during the breeding season. During
fall and winter as well as in
nonbreeding years, owls often roost and
forage in areas of their home range more
distant from the core. In nearly all
studies of northern spotted owl habitat
use, the amount of mature and oldgrowth forest was greater in core areas
and home ranges than at random sites
on the landscape (Courtney et al. 2004,
pp. 5–6, 5–13; also see USFWS 2011,
Appendix G for definitions of mature
and old-growth forest), and forests were
less fragmented within northern spotted
owl home ranges (Hunter et al. 1995, p.
688). The amount of habitat at the core
area scale shows the strongest
relationships with home range
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
occupancy (Meyer et al. 1998, p. 34;
Zabel et al. 2003, p. 1036), survival
(Franklin et al. 2000, p. 567; Dugger et
al. 2005, p. 873), and reproductive
success (Ripple et al. 1997, pp. 155–156;
Dugger et al. 2005, p. 871). A more
complete description of the home range
is presented in Population Spatial
Requirements, below.
The size, configuration, and
characteristics of vegetation patches
within home ranges affect northern
spotted owl survival and reproduction,
a concept referred to as habitat fitness
potential (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 542).
Among studies that have estimated
habitat fitness potential, the effects of
forest fragmentation and heterogeneity
vary geographically. In the California
Klamath Province, locations for nesting
and roosting tend to be centered in
larger patches of old forest, but edges
between forest types may provide
increased prey abundance and
availability (Franklin et al. 2000, p.
579). In the central Oregon Coast Range,
northern spotted owls appear to benefit
from a mixture of older forests with
younger forest and nonforested areas in
their home range (Olson et al. 2004, pp.
1049–1050), a pattern similar to that
found in the California Klamath
Province. Courtney et al. (2004, p. 5–23)
suggest that although in general large
patches of older forest appear to be
necessary to maintain stable
populations of northern spotted owls,
home ranges composed predominantly
of old forest may not be optimal for
northern spotted owls in the California
Klamath Province and Oregon Coast
Ranges Province.
The northern spotted owl inhabits
most of the major types of coniferous
forests across its geographical range,
including Sitka spruce (Picea
sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), mixed conifer and mixed
evergreen, grand fir (Abies grandis),
Pacific silver fir (A. amabilis), Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)/Douglas-fir (in
coastal California and southwestern
Oregon), white fir (A. concolor), Shasta
red fir (A. magnifica var. shastensis),
and the moist end of the ponderosa pine
(Pinus ponderosa) zone (Forsman et al.
1984, pp. 15–16; Thomas et al. 1990, p.
145). Habitat for northern spotted owls
has traditionally been described as
consisting of four functional types:
Nesting, roosting, foraging, and
dispersal habitats. Recent studies
continue to support the practical value
of discussing northern spotted owl
habitat usage by classifying it into these
functional habitat types (Irwin et al.
2000, p. 183; Zabel et al. 2003, p. 1028;
Buchanan 2004, p. 1334; Davis and Lint
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
2005, p. 21; Forsman et al. 2005, p. 372),
and data from studies are available to
describe areas used for these types of
activities, so we retain it here to
structure our discussion of the physical
or biological features of habitat essential
to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl.
Recent habitat modeling efforts have
also accounted for differences in habitat
associations across regions, which have
often been attributed to regional
differences in forest environments and
factors including available prey species
(USFWS 2011, p. C–7). These recent
advances allowed for modeling of
northern spotted owl habitat by regions
to account for: (1) The degree of
similarity between nesting/roosting and
foraging habitats based on prey
availability; (2) latitudinal patterns of
topology and climate; (3) regional
patterns of topography, climate, and
forest communities; and (4)
geographical distribution of habitat
elements that influence the range of
conditions occupied by northern
spotted owls (USFWS 2011, p. C–8).
Detailed characterizations of each of
these functional habitat types and their
relative distribution are described in
Physical or Biological Features, below.
Climate Change
There is growing evidence that recent
climate change has impacted a wide
range of ecological systems (Stenseth et
al. 2002, entire; Walther et al. 2002,
entire; Adahl et al. 2006, entire; Karl et
al. 2009, entire; Moritz et al. 2012,
entire; Westerling et al. 2011, p. S459;
Marlon et al. 2012, p. E541). Climate
change, combined with effects from past
management practices, is exacerbating
changes in forest ecosystem processes
and dynamics to a greater degree than
originally anticipated under the NWFP.
Environmental variation affects all
wildlife populations; however, climate
change presents new challenges as
systems may change beyond historical
ranges of variability. In some areas,
changes in weather and climate may
result in major shifts in vegetation
communities that can persist in
particular regions.
Climate change will present unique
challenges to the future of northern
spotted owl populations and their
habitats. Northern spotted owl
distributions (Carroll 2010, entire) and
population dynamics (Franklin et al.
2000, entire; Glenn et al. 2010, entire; et
al. 2011a, entire; Glenn et al. 2011b,
entire) may be directly influenced by
changes in temperature and
precipitation. In addition, changes in
forest composition and structure as well
as prey species distributions and
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71887
abundance resulting from climate
change may impact availability of
habitat across the historical range of the
subspecies. The Revised Recovery Plan
for the Northern Spotted Owl provides
a detailed discussion of the possible
environmental impacts to the habitat of
the northern spotted owl from the
projected effects of climate change
(USFWS 2011, pp. III–5 to III–11).
Because both northern spotted owl
population dynamics and forest
conditions are likely to be influenced by
large-scale changes in climate in the
future, we have attempted to account for
these influences in our designation of
critical habitat by recognizing that forest
composition may change beyond the
range of historical variation, and that
climate changes may have unpredictable
consequences for both Pacific Northwest
forests and northern spotted owls. This
critical habitat designation recognizes
that forest management practices that
promote ecosystem health under
changing climate conditions will be
important for northern spotted owl
conservation.
III. Previous Federal Actions
The northern spotted owl was listed
as a threatened species on June 26, 1990
(55 FR 26114); a description of the
relevant previous Federal actions up to
the time of listing can be found in that
final rule. On January 15, 1992, we
published a final rule designating
6,887,000 ac (2,787,000 ha) of Federal
lands in Washington, Oregon, and
California as critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl (57 FR 1796). On
January 13, 2003, we entered into a
settlement agreement with the American
Forest Resources Council, Western
Council of Industrial Workers, Swanson
Group Inc., and Rough & Ready Lumber
Company, to conduct a 5-year status
review of the northern spotted owl and
consider potential revisions to its
critical habitat (Western Council of
Industrial Workers (WCIW) v. Secretary
of the Interior, Civ. No. 02–6100–AA (D.
Or). On April 21, 2003, we published a
notice initiating the 5-year review of the
northern spotted owl (68 FR 19569), and
published a second information request
for the 5-year review on July 25, 2003
(68 FR 44093). We completed the 5-year
review on November 15, 2004,
concluding that the northern spotted
owl should remain listed as a threatened
species under the Act (USFWS 2004,
entire). On November 24, 2010, we
published in the Federal Register a
notice initiating a new 5-year review for
the northern spotted owl (75 FR 71726);
the information solicitation period for
this review was reopened from April 20,
2011, through May 20, 2011 (76 FR
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71888
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
22139), and the completed review was
signed on September 29, 2011,
concluding that the northern spotted
owl was appropriately listed as a
threatened species.
In compliance with the settlement
agreement in the WCIW case, as
amended, we published a proposed
revised critical habitat rule in the
Federal Register on June 12, 2007 (72
FR 32450). On May 21, 2008, we
published a notice announcing the
availability of a Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (73 FR 29471;
May 21, 2008). We also announced the
availability of a draft economic analysis
on the proposed critical habitat
designation and the reopening of the
public comment period on the proposed
revised critical habitat designation. The
2008 recovery plan formed the basis for
the current designation of northern
spotted owl critical habitat. We
published a final rule revising the
critical habitat designation in the
Federal Register on August 13, 2008 (73
FR 47325).
Both the 2008 critical habitat
designation and the 2008 recovery plan
were challenged in court in Carpenters’
Industrial Council v. Salazar, Case No.
1:08–cv–01409–EGS (D.DC). In addition,
on December 15, 2008, the Inspector
General of the Department of the
Interior issued a report entitled
‘‘Investigative Report of The Endangered
Species Act and the Conflict between
Science and Policy,’’ which concluded
that the integrity of the agency decisionmaking process for the northern spotted
owl recovery plan was potentially
jeopardized by improper political
influence. As a result, the Federal
Government filed a motion in the
lawsuit for remand of the 2008 recovery
plan and the critical habitat designation
which was based on it. On September 1,
2010, the Court issued an opinion
remanding the 2008 recovery plan to us
for issuance of a revised plan within 9
months.
On September 15, 2010, we published
a Federal Register notice (75 FR 56131)
announcing the availability of the Draft
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl, and opened a 60-day
comment period through November 15,
2010. On November 12, 2010, we
announced by way of press release an
extension of the comment period until
December 15, 2010. On November 30,
2010, we announced in the Federal
Register the reopening of the public
comment period until December 15,
2010 (75 FR 74073). At that time we also
announced the availability of a synopsis
of the population response modeling
results for public review and comment.
The supporting information regarding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
the modeling process was posted on our
Web site (http://www.fws.gov/
oregonfwo/). Of the approximately
11,700 comments received on the Draft
Revised Recovery Plan, many requested
the opportunity to review and comment
on more detailed information on the
habitat modeling process in Appendix
C. On April 22, 2011, we reopened the
comment period on Appendix C of the
Draft Revised Recovery Plan (76 FR
22720); this comment period closed on
May 23, 2011. On May 6, 2011, the
Court granted our request for an
extension of the due date for issuance of
the final revised recovery plan until July
1, 2011. We published the notice of
availability of the final Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl in the Federal Register on July 1,
2011 (76 FR 38575).
On October 12, 2010, the Court
remanded the 2008 critical habitat
designation, which had been based on
the 2008 Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl, and adopted the Service’s
proposed schedule to issue a new
proposed revised critical habitat rule for
public comment by November 15, 2011,
and a final rule by November 15, 2012.
The Court subsequently extended the
date for delivery of the proposed rule to
the Federal Register to February 28,
2012. A proposed revision to the
designated critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl was signed on
February 28, 2012 and published in the
Federal Register on March 8, 2012 (77
FR 14062), with a 3-month public
comment period. On May 8, 2012, we
announced an extension of the comment
period through July 6, 2012 (77 FR
27010). A June 1, 2012 Federal Register
notice announced the availability of the
associated draft economic analysis and
draft environmental assessment
(conducted under NEPA), and invited
the public to comment on these
documents through July 6, 2012 (77 FR
32483). We held seven public
information meetings and one public
hearing. Two public information
meetings were held each night in
Redding, California, on June 4, 2012; in
Tacoma, Washington, on June 12, 2012;
and in Roseburg, Oregon, on June 27,
2012. One public information meeting
was held in Portland, Oregon on June
20, 2012 and the public hearing was
held in Portland, Oregon, on June 20,
2012. On July 20, 2012, the Service sent
letters to all potentially affected
Counties and State fish and wildlife
agencies in Washington, Oregon and
California advising them of the
additional opportunity to comment
until August 20, 2012, to ensure that
they were able to thoroughly review and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
comment on the proposed rule as
provided by Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the
Act. In order to allow sufficient time for
interagency review, the Court extended
the time for delivery of the final rule to
the Federal Register to November 21,
2012.
IV. Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing this final revised critical
habitat designation for the northern
spotted owl, we reviewed and
considered comments from the public,
peer reviewers, and other interested
parties on the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat published
on March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062). We
also reviewed and considered comments
on the draft environmental assessment
and draft economic analysis. As a result
of these comments and a reevaluation of
the revised proposed critical habitat
boundaries, we have made changes in
this final designation, as follows:
(1) We responded to peer-review,
public, stakeholder, and internal
comments on a wide variety of topics to
clarify and strengthen the supporting
rationale of this final designation,
clarify our meanings and descriptions,
and to refine specific aspects of the rule
to include emerging research or provide
additional explanation. Included in
these types of changes from the
proposed to final rule are the following:
• Clarifications to the language to
specify that northern spotted owl
occupancy data are not needed or
appropriate for an analysis of the effects
of an action on northern spotted owl
critical habitat.
• Clarifications to the language to
more clearly describe the potential
management of hazard trees in critical
habitat along roadways.
• In the Special Management
Considerations section, we reference
Recovery Action 10 from the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011), which focuses on
retaining existing northern spotted owls
on the landscape. We have edited those
references to clarify that management of
critical habitat and the section 7
evaluation under the Act that
management should focus on the
habitat’s ability to support nesting
northern spotted owls instead of
focusing on individual northern spotted
owls.
• To determine how to conduct those
evaluations under section 7 of the Act,
the proposed revised critical habitat
recommended assessing the impacts of
a timber management project in the
context of 500 ac (200 ha) around where
the impacts would occur. After
numerous discussions with section 7
practitioners in different parts of the
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
range of the species, we are
recommending that the effects
determination for a section 7
consultation be conducted at a scale
consistent with ‘‘the localized biology of
the life-history needs of the northern
spotted owl (such as the stand scale, a
500-acre (200-ha) circle, or other
appropriate, localized scale).’’ Please see
detailed discussion of the distinction
between effects determination and the
adverse modification standard in the
section Determinations of Adverse
Effects and Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard.
• We have clarified that our
discussion of ecological forestry and
active management is intended for land
managers to consider when developing
management plans or planning projects,
as in many areas this approach may be
consistent with critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, but that such
management is not mandated by the
Service and is not required as the result
of this rulemaking. We have also
clarified this issue in the final rule
language by stating that we have made
the 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)
determination that essential biological
and physical features in occupied areas
may require special management
considerations or protection, but that
the rule does not require land managers
to implement, or preclude land
managers from implementing, such
measures.
• We have provided land managers
with a discussion of relevant emerging
science and greater detail regarding the
appropriate application of active
management and ecological forestry to
benefit forest ecosystem restoration, as
recommended in the Revised Recovery
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. In
addition, we received extensive
comments regarding the appropriateness
of developing diverse early-seral forest
at the expense of older forest stands. We
have clarified language regarding
development of diverse, early-seral
forest to indicate that: (1) We do not
recommend these actions in older forest
stands or areas that currently function
as owl habitat; and (2) this type of
management is most appropriate where
more traditional forestry methods have
typically been conducted on matrix
lands. As stated in both the proposed
rule and in this final rule, our first
recommendation for northern spotted
owl critical habitat is the conservation
of old growth trees and forests on
Federal lands wherever they are found,
and to undertake appropriate restoration
treatment in the threatened forest types.
• We have clarified the relationship
between this revised designation of
critical habitat for the northern spotted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
owl and the Northwest Forest Plan.
Numerous commenters were concerned
that this critical habitat would
undermine the Standards and
Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan,
or enable timber harvest activities in
Late-Successional Reserves that would
not otherwise be permissible. We have
added language to the preamble to
clarify that the revised designation of
critical habitat does not supersede the
Standards and Guidelines of the
Northwest Forest Plan. Our discussion
of potential active management within
critical habitat is intended to encourage
land managers to consider the range of
management flexibility already
contained in the Northwest Forest Plan.
(2) In the proposed rule we requested
specific information regarding the
amount and distribution of northern
spotted owl habitat that should be
included in the designation. We refined
the designation based on input from
peer-review, public comment, and
comments from Federal land
management agencies, combined with
further evaluation of modeled
population response to the potential
revisions of the critical habitat network,
and including the following.
(A) Formal comments from the Forest
Service requested that we consider large
numbers of specific areas to be removed
from, or added to, critical habitat, submitted
to us in the form of GIS data. This proposal
would have greatly reduced matrix lands in
moist forest areas (Western Cascades, Oregon
Coast Range, and North Coast Olympics) and
eliminated Adaptive Management Areas and
Experimental Forests from critical habitat. In
addition, BLM requested removal of
approximately 300,000 acres of selected BLM
lands in western Oregon. We evaluated a new
map of relative habitat suitability (Composite
8, as described in our Modeling Supplement,
Dunk et al. 2012b) that incorporated all of
these requested changes. Population
modeling results for Composite 8 indicated
that many of the lands proposed for removal
were essential to conservation of the northern
spotted owl because the rangewide
population declined by 39 percent and
population risk increased by 44 percent. To
bring the spotted owl population results back
up to levels comparable to proposed critical
habitat, the final critical habitat designation
includes areas recommended by those
agencies for elimination (and that had been
removed in our test of Composite 8) because
we determined they are essential to the
conservation of the species. To increase
efficiency and ensure that the designation
included only occupied habitat containing
the features essential to conservation or
habitat that is otherwise essential to the
species’ conservation, we further refined the
boundaries of some subunits by moving the
boundaries to include more high-value
habitat while simultaneously and less lowervalue habitat in the network. To the greatest
degree possible, wherever possible we
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71889
removed matrix lands and incorporated
habitat in LSRs in this process.
(B) In response to peer review comments
about connectivity and population issues we
identified specific areas providing highsuitability habitat that were required to better
achieve population objectives in specific
lower-performing modeling regions. The
additional areas consisted solely of Federal
lands, primarily USFS LSR lands, that were
essential to provide connectivity between
populations in the Oregon Coast Ranges and
adjacent regions with larger spotted owl
populations, as pointed out in peer review
and public comments, and supported by
results of population modeling. In many
cases, areas added were specifically
identified by the USFS or BLM as lands that
should be added to compensate for removal
of other, lower value lands. To the degree
possible, we attempted to situate additions
within LSRs and balanced additions by
removing lower-quality areas in matrix land
allocations. In some cases, additions were
made to balance areas removed in (A) above.
No additional State or private lands were
designated in this process, and all areas are
within the critical habitat units as described
in the proposed rule.
The changes described in (A) and (B) above
had the desired effect of bringing population
results back up to levels similar to proposed
critical habitat, while simultaneously
reducing the area of matrix and lower-quality
habitat in the designation thus ensuring that
only essential habitat is designated. Overall,
about 318,296 acres of BLM and USFS lands
were removed from critical habitat, 74
percent (236,887 acres) of which were matrix
lands of relatively lower value to northern
spotted owls.
(C) We identified and removed lands based
on information we received during the public
comment period indicating that they did not
meet the definition of critical habitat. In
general, lands removed had recently lost
their ability to function as northern spotted
owl habitat either through stand-replacing
wildfire or through timber harvest conducted
after 2006 (the date of our most recent
comprehensive vegetation layer). When such
lands were identified, we removed them from
critical habitat because they were unlikely to
support northern spotted owls, and did not
contain the PCEs or could not be otherwise
considered essential.
(D) We further refined the critical habitat
boundaries to better conform to identifiable
landscape features or administrative
boundaries, and to improve consistency with
our goal of prioritizing high value Federal
lands to include in critical habitat while
removing relatively lower value lands in all
ownerships. The USFS provided a number of
specific suggestions in their public comment
for this type of refinement. Overall, these
refinements resulted in a small net reduction
of critical habitat area.
(E) Correcting ownership boundary errors
identified in peer-review and public
comment. When the underlying land
ownership was corrected, we determined that
some lands originally labeled as private lands
were in fact Federal or State lands.
In the State of Washington, in
response to public comment and upon
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71890
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
further review using the underlying
aerial photo imagery from the 2011
National Agricultural Imagery Program
(NAIP) and Ruraltech’s 2007 forestland
parcel data, we determined that the vast
majority of Small Forest Landowner
parcels we examined had either highly
fragmented, little, or no northern
spotted owl habitat currently present.
Based on the combination of parcel size,
current habitat conditions, and spatial
distribution, we concluded that private
lands identified as Small Forest
Landowner parcels in the State of
Washington do not provide the PCEs for
northern spotted owls, nor are they
essential to the conservation of the
species; thus, these areas do not meet
the definition of critical habitat, and we
have removed them from the final
designation of critical habitat.
Also in the State of Washington, we
corrected ownership of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) lands. In the proposed rule, we
identified 1,752 ac (709 ha) as under the
ownership of WDFW. In this rule, we
have corrected this acreage to 8,328 ac
(3,370 ha). This correction reflects a
land transfer between WDFW and the
Washington Department of Natural
Resources, as well as a mistaken usage
of a mineral rights GIS layer instead of
a landownership layer.
Additional changes that were made
were minor and included corrections of
mapping errors, removing lower value
areas that were inadvertently included,
or correctly identifying administrative
boundaries. Changes in total area are
detailed in Table 1, below, and are
shown by land ownership.
TABLE 1—LANDS IN THE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DETERMINED NOT TO CONTAIN THE PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO CONSERVATION OF THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL OR NOT OTHERWISE ESSENTIAL TO ITS CONSERVATION AND THEREFORE NOT INCLUDED IN FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT
State
Ownership
Washington .............................................................
Oregon ....................................................................
USFS ......................................................................
USFS ......................................................................
BLM ........................................................................
STATE ....................................................................
USFS ......................................................................
BLM ........................................................................
11,864
55,788
62,862
14,114
64,114
17,152
4,793
22,538
25,396
5,702
25,902
6,929
.................................................................................
225,894
91,261
California .................................................................
Total .................................................................
(3) We have exempted 14,313 ac
(5,782 ha) of Department of Defense
lands at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in
Washington from critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, in accordance
with section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
Exemptions). These lands comprised
subunit NCO–3 in the proposed revision
of critical habitat, and represented the
only entirely unoccupied unit of critical
habitat proposed for the northern
spotted owl.
(4) In the proposed revised rule (77
FR 14062; March 8, 2012), we identified
Acres
numerous areas under consideration for
exclusion from the final designation,
and solicited public comment on
whether the benefits of exclusion of
these lands would outweigh the benefits
of inclusion, for example, based on
active conservation agreements or
conservation plans. We did a thorough
evaluation of all the areas identified in
the proposed rule, as well as others
identified through our review and
through information received from the
public, and found that the benefits of
exclusion for many of these areas
Hectares
outweighed the benefits of inclusion in
critical habitat and that excluding these
areas will not lead to the extinction of
the species. Therefore, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion to exclude
specific areas covered under
conservation agreements, programs, and
partnerships under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions section of this
document). The total area excluded
from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act are given in Table 2, below, again
shown by land ownership.
TABLE 2—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OR EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION
4(a)(3) OF THE ACT
Proposed
area
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Washington:
USFS ........................................................................
NPS ...........................................................................
Other Federal (Joint Base Lewis-McChord; 4(a)(3)
exemption) .............................................................
STATE ......................................................................
PRIVATE ...................................................................
Oregon: *
USFS ........................................................................
BLM ...........................................................................
NPS ...........................................................................
STATE ......................................................................
California:
USFS ........................................................................
BLM ...........................................................................
NPS ...........................................................................
STATE ......................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Proposed
area
Final area
Final area
Excluded or
exempted
Excluded or
exempted
(ac)
State (Ownership)
(ha)
(ac)
(ha)
(ac)
(ha)
3,601,564
835,510
1,455,032
337,546
2,909,739
0
1,177,528
0
680,197
835,510
274,800
337,546
14,313
226,708
178,310
5,782
91,590
72,037
0
8,328
0
0
3,370
0
14,313
218,380
178,310
5,782
88,225
72,037
3,555,630
1,297,529
35,161
228,733
1,436,475
524,202
14,205
92,408
3,114,637
1,230,417
0
212,798
1,260,448
497,932
0
86,116
458,965
25,785
35,161
0
185,422
10,417
14,205
0
2,367,916
186,082
127,913
215,333
956,638
75,177
51,677
86,995
1,933,411
98,195
0
70,444
782,423
39,738
0
28,508
389,387
70,735
127,913
144,889
157,312
28,577
51,677
58,487
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
71891
TABLE 2—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OR EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION
4(a)(3) OF THE ACT—Continued
Proposed
area
Proposed
area
Final area
Final area
Excluded or
exempted
Excluded or
exempted
(ac)
State (Ownership)
(ha)
(ac)
(ha)
(ac)
(ha)
PRIVATE ...................................................................
1,091,747
441,066
0
0
1,091,747
441,066
Grand Totals ......................................................
13,962,449
5,640,829
9,577,969
3,876,064
4,271,291
1,725,553
(* Please note that no private lands in Oregon were proposed or included in this final designation.)
Note the difference in area between
the proposed and final rules will not
align exactly with the sum total of areas
removed because they did not meet the
definition of critical habitat and areas
excluded or exempted from the final
designation. Some minor discrepancies
in area are due to mapping errors in the
proposed designation have been
corrected here, and may not be readily
apparent through simple addition or
subtraction of the total areas identified
under various land categories. For
example, the proposed rule mistakenly
identified 16,031 ac (6,487 ha) of lands
under the ownership of SDS and
Broughton Lumber Companies in
Washington as under consideration for
exclusion. The accurate area included
within the proposed critical habitat was,
in fact, 2,035 ac (824 ha), and it is that
area, which was excluded from this
final designation, reflected in this final
rule. The difference of nearly 14,000 ac
(5,655 ha) will not be reflected in the
difference between areas proposed and
areas excluded in the final rule, as it
was not really in the proposed critical
habitat to begin with (and thus, was not
excluded).
The number of subunits in the final
critical habitat designation have
changed as a result of exclusions under
section 4(b)(2) or exemptions under
section 4(a)(3). There were 11 critical
habitat units and 63 subunits in the
proposed rule. Eleven critical habitat
units and 60 subunits comprise the final
designation. In the North Coast
Olympics, subunit NCO–3, composed
entirely of Department of Defense lands
at Joint-Base Lewis McChord, was
exempted from the final designation
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
Exemptions). In the Redwood Coast
Region, subunits RDC–3 and RDC–4
were made up of private lands excluded
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
Exclusions).
(5) Not all areas identified for
potential exclusion in the proposed
revised rule were excluded from the
final designation. Based on the best
available scientific information, we have
found that the benefits of excluding
other areas proposed or considered for
exclusion do not outweigh the benefits
of including them in the designation for
the reasons discussed below. Therefore,
the Secretary has determined not to
exercise his discretion to exclude these
lands. These areas are identified in
Table 3 and are discussed further,
below.
TABLE 3—LANDS THAT WERE PROPOSED FOR EXCLUSION, OR OTHERWISE CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION, WHICH ARE
RETAINED IN THE FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL
Type
State
State Lands ..................................
State Lands ..................................
State Lands ..................................
Total ......................................
Landowner
Acres
Hectares
WA
OR
CA
CA
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Lands 1 .....................
Oregon Department of Forestry .......................................................
California State Forests ....................................................................
Local Government Lands 2 ...............................................................
8,328
212,798
49,760
20,684
3,370
86,116
20,137
8,371
.........
...........................................................................................................
291,570
117,994
(a) State, County, and Municipal Lands Not Excluded.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
California
We retained a relatively limited area
of State, County, and municipally
owned or managed lands in California.
Retained areas include lands managed
as State Forests, County Parks, and a
Municipal Water District. No habitat
conservation plans (HCPs) or sage
harbor agreements (SHAs) are currently
in place on these lands. Most of these
lands are in areas that have repeatedly
been identified as critical to maintaining
linkages among northern spotted owl
populations in California. These State
and County lands play an essential
conservation role in this area of limited
Federal ownership. Retaining these
lands in the critical habitat designation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
promotes movement of northern spotted
owls, and maintains the potential for
genetic interchange. Including these
lands would increase the awareness of
State, County and local agencies about
the status of and threats to spotted owls,
the conservation actions needed for
recovery, and the essential conservation
role this habitat plays. It also increases
the potential for educating visitors to
State Forests and County Parks and
Open Space areas about northern
spotted owl conservation needs.
Excluding these lands would have little
impact on regulatory burdens because
(a) current management of these lands is
generally consistent with maintenance
of habitat values, limiting the potential
for adverse effects to critical habitat, and
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(b) management activities typically do
not involve a Federal nexus. Therefore,
the Secretary has chosen not to exclude
the following California State, County,
or municipal lands from the final
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl:
California Demonstration State
Forests—Two California State Forests
are included in the final critical habitat
designation: (1) Jackson Demonstration
State Forest (DSF), within subunit 2 in
the Redwood Coast CHU in Mendocino
County, California; and (2) Las Posadas
DSF within subunit 6 of the Interior
Coastal California CHU in Napa County,
California. The California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE)
requested that the Jackson DSF be
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71892
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation for the northern spotted
owl.
CALFIRE developed the Las Posadas
DSF Management Plan (California
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, 1992) for the Las Posadas
DSF and characterizes current
management on the forest as
‘‘custodial.’’ Goals for fish and wildlife
under the plan include maintenance of
the ‘‘* * * Forest’s status as one of the
last relatively undisturbed fish and
wildlife habitats in Napa County.’’
However, the management plan is quite
dated, having been approved in 1992.
There is acknowledgment of the
presence of northern spotted owl
activity sites in the management plan,
but no specific provisions for owl
management or conservation actions in
the plan. There have been no publiclyavailable amendments or updates to the
plan since its enactment in 1992 and the
timeframe in which any revisions to the
plan may take place is uncertain. The
designation of critical habitat on these
lands would perform an important
educational function in highlighting
their essential role in owl conservation
as the State updates its plan and
conducts management activities. Habitat
within the plan area is not typical
forested habitat often associated with
the northern spotted owl but includes
oak woodlands and grasslands in this
southern part of the species range and
represents a unique ecological setting
for the species; the educational benefit
of including this area in critical habitat
is therefore high, as landowners may not
be aware that the northern spotted owl
inhabits this atypical habitat type. After
reviewing the information available, we
find that the benefits of including these
areas as critical habitat will assist in
maintaining linkages and movement
among and between northern spotted
owl populations, and heightening the
awareness and educating visitors of the
conservation role this habitat plays for
recovery of the northern spotted owl. As
a result we are not excluding the areas
designated as critical habitat within the
Las Posadas DSF.
CALFIRE has also developed a
management plan for the Jackson DSF
(Jackson Demonstration State Forest
Management Plan (dated January 2008)
and CALFIRE has requested that the
area be excluded from the final
designation. In their request for
exclusion CALFIRE stated that the
designation of the Jackson DSF as
critical habitat was unnecessary given:
(1) Extensive conservation planning and
environmental assessment has already
been completed for the area; (2) the
designation would potentially have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
negative impacts on the mission of the
Jackson DSF on implementing
restoration and research projects; (3)
that the draft economic analysis for the
proposed critical habitat concluded that
the designation would not affect timber
harvest on State lands; and (4)
designation does not provide
meaningful wildlife benefits any
different from those already in place.
The Service responds, as follows, to
the four elements in CALFIRE’S request
for exclusion. (1) While there are efforts
by CALFIRE in the development of a
forest management plan and
environmental assessment for the
Jackson DSF, the plan does not
specifically provide for northern spotted
owl conservation. We believe that the
Jackson DSF Management Plan
(CALFIRE, 2008) could provide
potential benefits to the northern
spotted owl, in that there is a high
likelihood that land allocations stated in
the plan, along with the long-term
desired conditions for forest
composition will improve habitat over
time. However, we find that: (a) Existing
management direction in the Plan
relating to the northern spotted owl is
vague; (b) the stated conservation policy
for the owl is limited to a takeavoidance strategy; and (c) while
CALFIRE collects monitoring data on
northern spotted owl activity sites on a
continuous basis, there is no apparent
strategy for evaluating that information
or applying it to the benefit of the
species. The only overt policy statement
in the 2008 Plan regarding the northern
spotted owl states that ‘‘* * * forest
management objectives * * * are to
maintain or increase the number and
productivity of nesting owl pairs
through forest management practices
that enhance nesting/roosting
opportunities and availability of a
suitable prey base.’’ The terms
‘‘maintain’’ and ‘‘increase’’ are not
supported with measurable standards or
targets; and there are no remedial
measures or mechanisms in the 2008
Plan that are triggered by a decrease in
activity sites or demographic
productivity. The northern spotted owl
conservation strategy in the 2008 Plan is
predicated on take-avoidance (CALFIRE
2008, pp. 109 and 267). Take avoidance
alone is not a sufficient conservation
strategy and it will not necessarily
satisfy CALFIRE’s direction to maintain
or increase owl activity sites or
demographic performance. If there are
local variations in the ‘‘true’’ optimal
forest conditions that support owl
occupancy, strict adherence to the takeavoidance provisions may not be
satisfactory and occupancy rates may
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
decrease, and there are no corrective
mechanisms in the 2008 Plan to account
for this possibility. This dual problem of
the suitability and occupancy of activity
sites is further complicated by barred
owl intrusion, and likewise is not
addressed by total reliance on a takeavoidance strategy. In addition, in the
monitoring chapter for the 2008 Plan we
find that there is continuous monitoring
of northern spotted owl activity sites
(CALFIRE 2008, p. 149), but it is not
spelled out in detail. (For example, it
does not include the detail and
adaptability (i.e., adaptive management
provisions) as are specified for instream
conditions and fisheries (CALFIRE
2008, pp. 153–154). In addition, the
2008 Plan does not appear to contain
guidance on how to process, evaluate,
and interpret the continuous data that is
currently being collected on northern
spotted owl activity sites, or on how to
apply that information to agency
decision-making in the event that
activity sites and demographic
performance are not maintained or
increased under the existing
management direction. In summary,
although the 2008 Jackson DSF
Management Plan can potentially
produce positive long-term outcomes for
the northern spotted owl, it contains an
incomplete conservation plan for the
species.
(2) We do not agree with CALFIRE’s
contention that the designation would
potentially have negative impacts on its
ability to implement restoration and
research projects. The fact that a Federal
agency (i.e., U.S. Forest Service) is a
research cooperator does not, by itself,
create a section 7 nexus. The Service
contacted the senior Forest Service
scientist connected with the research
program at Jackson DSF who described
the Forest Service research activities as
simply a scientific examination of the
State’s proposed actions. At this time,
we see no Federal regulatory
mechanism in connection with the
Jackson DSF’s existing cooperative
research program that would trigger
consultation under section 7 of the Act.
Therefore, we believe any regulatory
burden from designation would be
minimal.
(3) The Service agrees with
CALFIRE’s observation, in their July 6,
2012 correspondence, that the economic
analysis rightly concluded that critical
habitat designation would have no effect
on Jackson DSF harvest levels. The only
potential effect on harvest schedules
would occur if Federal permits or
grants-of-funds were connected to the
harvest activity.
(4) We disagree with CALFIRE’s
position that ‘‘designation would
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
provide no meaningful wildlife benefits
from those already in place.’’ Our
response to item 1, above, indicates that
there are potentially meaningful
informational benefits that may assist
implementation of the existing Jackson
DSF Management Plan. We believe
designating these lands as critical
habitat would serve a very important
informational function as the
management plan is implemented; it
would highlight the fact that this habitat
is essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl.
While acknowledging that the 2008
Management Plan contains many
features that have the potential to
benefit the northern spotted owl over
the long term, and also recognizing that
there several remediable omissions in
that Plan, the Secretary has elected not
to exclude Jackson Demonstration State
Forest from critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because
we believe that the educational and
informational benefits of inclusion
outweigh the benefits of exclusion.
Mount Tamalpais Municipal
Watershed of the Marin Municipal
Water District—We are not excluding
the Mount Tamalpais Watershed
(Watershed) from critical habitat
designation. The Watershed (18,500 ac
(7,487 ha)) is administered by the Marin
Municipal Water District (MMWD) in
Marin County, California. The
Watershed is flanked on all sides by
public parks, county-administered open
space areas, grazing land, and
residential areas within the triangle
formed by U.S. Highway 101, California
State Route 1 and Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard. The MMWD currently does
not operate under a conservation plan
such as an HCP or SHA.
A key management consideration for
the MMWD is the practical need to limit
sediment delivery thereby extending the
service life of the five reservoirs within
the Watershed (Kent, Alpine, Bon
Tempe, Lagunitas, and Phoenix Lakes).
To that end, the policy of the MMWD
is to maintain land in a natural
condition and limit human activities to
those that have the least impact on the
Watershed. Within specified
constraints, permitted public activities
include hiking, bicycling, horseback
riding, fishing and picnicking. Camping,
swimming and boating are prohibited.
There is limited public motor vehicle
access into the Watershed on Panoramic
Highway, Ridgecrest Boulevard and the
Fairfax-Bolinas Road. These roads
mostly access scenic vistas and day use
areas around the reservoirs. The
remainder of the road network in the
Watershed is dedicated for firefighter
access and administrative use, and is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
closed to public motor vehicles. The
MMWD has produced several current
management plans addressing specific
subject areas, including public access,
vegetation management, road and trail
management, and long term fire and
fuels management. Several elements in
those plans are compatible with longterm northern spotted owl conservation.
However, there is no explicit discussion
about long-term owl management in any
of the MMWD’s planning documents.
The upcoming Vegetation Management
Plan (projected in 2013) may provide
additional information that is relevant
to northern spotted owl habitat
management. We are not aware of any
substantial benefits to excluding these
areas from critical habitat and find that
there would be significant educational
benefits to including them in the
designation in that it would highlight
the significance this area has for
northern spotted owl conservation in
future planning efforts.
Marin County Parks and Open Space
Department—We have included in the
designation six Open Space Preserves
(OSPs) totaling 3,626 ac (1,467 ha)
administered by the Marin County
(California) Parks and Open Space
Department (Department). We have
designated three contiguous OSPs
adjacent to the Mount Tamalpais
Watershed and south of the
communities of Lagunitas and Fairfax
including Gary Giacomini (1,476 ac (597
ha)), White Hill (390 ac (158 ha)), and
Cascade Falls (498 ac (202 ha)). We have
also designated three contiguous OSPs
adjacent the Watershed and west of the
community of Corte Madera including
Baltimore Canyon (193 ac (78 ha)),
Blithedale Summit (899 ac (364 ha), and
Camino Alto (170 ac (69 ha). The Parks
Department currently does not operate
under a conservation plan such as an
HCP or SHA.
Park management emphasizes nonmotorized public use. Five of the six
OSPs are served only by fire roads that
are closed to public motor vehicle
access. The exception is the Camino
Alto OSP which is flanked on the east
by a public street. Several land
management elements in the park
system strategic plan (Marin County
Parks and Open Space Department,
2008) are compatible with northern
spotted owl. However, there is no
explicit discussion about long term owl
management in this planning document.
We are not aware of any substantial
benefits to excluding these areas from
critical habitat and find that there
would be significant educational
benefits to including them in the
designation.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71893
Sonoma County Regional Parks
Department—Lands within Hood
Mountain Regional Park, administered
by the Sonoma County (California)
Regional Parks Department (SCRPD), are
included in the designation in subunit
6 of the Interior California Coast CHU.
The proposed critical habitat
designation includes all, or portions of,
four assessor’s parcels totaling 460 ac
(186 ha) within the park boundary. The
SCRPD does not operate under an HCP
or SHA.
Hood Mountain Regional Park is
minimally roaded; the Sonoma County
General Plan of 2008 indicates a modest
program of trail construction and
management within the countywide
regional parks system. Public
information materials, along with maps
showing the local road network, and the
types and locations of facilities within
Hood Mountain Regional Park, indicate
that the SCRPD is emphasizing nonmotorized recreation and protection of
undeveloped land. Through public
information sources in Sonoma County,
we located a mission statement for the
SCRPD but were unable to find any
planning or guidance documents to
indicate how the regional parks system
would be managed over the long term.
The absence of planning direction and
the reasons for inclusion are similar to
those for the Marin Municipal Water
District and for the Marin County Parks
and Open Space Department. We are not
aware of any substantial benefits to
excluding these areas from critical
habitat and find that there would be
significant educational benefits to
including them in the designation.
Oregon
In Oregon, we considered excluding
228,733 ac (92,565 ha) of State lands
managed by the Oregon Department of
Forestry (ODF). These lands contain
both demographically productive sites
for northern spotted owls and provide
connectivity linkages among northern
spotted owl populations in the Oregon
Coast and North Coast-Olympic
Modeling Regions. These lands are not
currently managed under any sort of
conservation plan or agreement with the
Service, but are managed by ODF for
multiple benefits including commodity
production.
The State of Oregon has indicated that
the designation of their lands as critical
habitat would have ‘‘virtually no
impact—positive or negative * * *’’ on
either the management of their lands or
their ability to pursue HCPs, SHAs or
other conservation agreements (ODF in
litt.). This is because there is rarely a
Federal nexus that would trigger Service
regulatory authority, such as the section
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71894
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
7 consultation process and the adverse
modification analysis. Thus, there
would be little negative impact of
including State lands in the critical
habitat designation.
Inclusion of these lands in the critical
habitat designation highlights their
essential conservation role and provides
opportunities for educating visitors to
these areas, nearby landowners, and
ODF about the potential conservation
contribution of these lands to northern
spotted owls. If ODF were to pursue
some sort of conservation agreement,
this critical habitat designation would
provide a blueprint not only for the
lands that would be essential to include
in such an effort but also the types of
management that would be appropriate
there. If ODF does not pursue such an
effort this designation clearly indicates
the value of these lands for the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl. We believe the value of the
information included in the designation
would provide an opportunity for
management direction that focuses on
benefits to the species.
Because we are unaware of any
negative impacts of including these ODF
lands, the benefits of exclusion do not
outweigh the benefits of inclusion for
these lands, and the Secretary has
chosen not to exercise his discretion to
exclude these State of Oregon lands
from the final designation.
Washington
In Washington we proposed or
considered excluding 226,869 ac
(91,811 ha) of State lands managed by
the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (225,013 ac; 91,059 ha),
Washington State Parks (104 ac; 42 ha),
and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (8,328 ac; 3,370 ha). We
excluded the lands managed by the
Washington Department of Natural
Resources from the final designation
based on their HCP, and excluded 104
ac (42 ha) of State Parks and Department
of Fish and Wildlife Lands (see
Exclusions). We retained 8,328 ac (3,370
ha) of State-owned lands managed by
the State Department of Fish and
Wildlife for wildlife habitat in the final
designation. No conservation
agreements are currently in place on
these lands, but some could be covered
by an HCP which is currently under
development. Most of these lands are
located in the central Cascades in an
area that has repeatedly been identified
as critical to maintaining linkages
among spotted owl populations in
Washington. These State lands play an
essential conservation role in this area
of limited or checkerboard Federal
ownership. Retaining these lands in the
critical habitat designation promotes
movement of northern spotted owls
between the northern and southern
Cascades Range, as well as between the
western and eastern slopes of the
Cascades. Including these State lands
would increase the awareness of State
agencies about the essential
conservation role these lands play and
the conservation actions needed for
recovery. Excluding these lands would
impose little regulatory burden because
(a) management of these lands is
consistent with maintenance of habitat
values, limiting the potential for adverse
effects to critical habitat, and (b)
management activities typically do not
involve a Federal nexus. Therefore, the
Secretary has chosen not to exercise his
discretion to exclude lands managed by
the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife from the final designation of
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl.
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
The areas identified in this final rule
constitute a revision from the areas we
designated as critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl in 2008 (August
13, 2008; 73 FR 47326), which was a
revision of the areas we initially
designated as critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl in 1992 (January
15, 1992; 57 FR 1796; see Changes from
Previously Designated Critical Habitat,
below). This final rule supersedes and
replaces both of these earlier
designations. The changes to the
proposed revised critical habitat
designation identified above result in a
final designation of 9,577,969 ac
(3,876,064 ha), a decrease of 4,197,484
ac (1,689,072 ha) from the 13,962,449 ac
(5,649,660 ha) identified as meeting the
definition of critical habitat in the
March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062) proposed
rule (Table 4, below).
TABLE 4—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROPOSED AND FINAL REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT. TOTALS MANY NOT SUM DUE TO
ROUNDING (ROUNDED TO NEAREST 100 UNITS). SMALL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROPOSED AND FINAL REVISED
CRITICAL HABITAT THAT ARE NOT NOTED AS ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS ARE THE RESULT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE
GIS MAP AND ROUNDING ERROR
Proposed
acres
Critical habitat unit
Proposed
hectares
Final
acres
Final
hectares
1,919,469
526,810
1,276,450
1,111,679
1,291,606
1,595,821
891,154
1,550,747
1,353,045
820,832
1,624,836
775,465
212,831
515,686
449,118
521,809
644,712
360,026
626,502
546,630
331,616
656,434
1,345,523
368,381
941,568
1,052,731
1,197,389
824,500
859,864
180,855
909,687
542,274
1,355,198
544,514
149,078
381,039
426,025
484,565
333,663
347,975
73,189
368,136
219,450
548,429
Total ..........................................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
East Cascades North .......................................................................................
East Cascades South ......................................................................................
Inner California Coast Ranges ........................................................................
Klamath East ...................................................................................................
Klamath West ..................................................................................................
North Coast Olympic .......................................................................................
Oregon Coast Ranges .....................................................................................
Redwood Coast ...............................................................................................
West Cascades Central ...................................................................................
West Cascades North ......................................................................................
West Cascades South .....................................................................................
13,962,449
5,640,829
9,577,969
3,876,064
V. Changes From Previously Designated
Critical Habitat
In 2008, we designated 5,312,300 ac
(2,149,800 ha) of Federal lands in
California, Oregon, and Washington as
critical habitat for the northern spotted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
owl (73 FR 47326; August 13, 2008). In
this revision, we are designating
9,577,969 ac (3,876,064 ha) as critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl. We
have revised the designation of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl to
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
be consistent with the most current
assessment of the conservation needs of
the species, as described in the 2011
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, Appendix
B). In this final designation, 4,085,808
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
ac (1,653,468 ha) are the same as in the
2008 designation. Of the current
designation, 5,679,162 ac (2,298,275 ha)
are lands not formerly designated in
2008, and 1,229,119 ac (497,405 ha) of
lands that were included in the former
designation are not included here, for
reasons detailed below.
This revision of critical habitat
represents an increase in the total land
area identified from previous
designations in 1992 and 2008. This
increase in area is due, in part, to: (a)
The unanticipated steep decline of the
northern spotted owl and the impact of
the barred owl, requiring larger areas of
habitat to maintain sustainable spotted
owl populations in the face of
competition with the barred owl (e.g.,
Dugger et al. 2011, p. 2467); (b) the
recommendation from the scientific
community that the conservation of
more occupied and high-quality habitat
is essential to the conservation of the
species (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 77); (c)
the need to provide for redundancy in
northern spotted owl populations, by
maintaining sufficient suitable habitat
for northern spotted owls on a
landscape level in areas prone to
frequent natural disturbances, such as
the drier, fire-prone regions of its range
(in other words, ‘‘back-up’’ areas of
habitat so that owls have someplace to
go if their habitat burns or trees die due
to insect infestation, etc.) (Noss et al.
2006, p. 484; Thomas et al. 2006, p. 285;
Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, p. 565);
and (d) in contrast to the previous
critical habitat designation, the
inclusion of some State lands in areas
where Federal lands are not sufficient to
meet the conservation needs of the
northern spotted owl.
The new delineation of areas
determined to provide the physical or
biological features essential for the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl, or otherwise determined to be
essential for the conservation of the
species, was based, in part, on an
improved understanding of the forest
characteristics and spatial patterns that
influence habitat usage by northern
spotted owls which were incorporated
into the latest population evaluation
and mapping technology. The modeling
process we used to evaluate alternative
critical habitat scenarios differed
fundamentally from the conservation
planning approach used to inform the
1992 and 2008 designations of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl.
These past designations relied on a
priori (predefined) rule sets derived
from the best scientific information and
expert judgment available at that time
regarding the size of reserves or habitat
conservation blocks, target number of
spotted owl pairs per reserve or block,
and targeted spacing between reserves
or blocks (USFWS 2011, p. C–4), which
we then assessed and refined based on
local conditions. This revised
designation reflects our use of a series
of spatially explicit modeling processes
to determine those specific areas where
biological features are essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl, and in the case of unoccupied
habitat, to determine the areas that are
otherwise essential to the conservation
of the owl, as described in Criteria Used
to Identify Critical Habitat. These
models enabled us to compare potential
critical habitat scenarios in a repeatable
and scientifically accepted manner
(USFWS 2011, p. C–4), using current
tools that capitalize on new spatial
information and algorithms (rule sets to
solve problems) for identifying the most
efficient habitat network containing
what is essential for conservation.
The areas designated are lands that
were occupied at the time of listing and
that currently provide suitable nesting,
roosting, foraging, or dispersal habitat
for northern spotted owls, or that are
otherwise essential to the conservation
of the species. However, as noted above,
not every site of known owl occupancy,
either at present or at the time of listing,
is included in the designation. We did
not include owl sites if they were
isolated from other known occurrences
or in areas of marginal habitat quality
such that they were unlikely to make a
significant contribution to the
conservation of the species, and
therefore were not considered to
provide the essential features.
The critical habitat network
development and evaluation strategy we
used attempted to maximize the
efficiency of the network by prioritizing
Federal lands. Utilization of new
scientific information and advanced
modeling techniques accounts for many
of the changes in the revised critical
habitat; in particular, the location of
71895
areas essential to northern spotted owls
may have shifted from previous
designations based on the best
information available regarding the
spatial distribution of high-value
habitat. These advances include
improvements in remotely-sensed
vegetation data, use of models that
better identify spatial configurations of
habitat features important to owls, and
assessment of relative population
performance of northern spotted owls
under different critical habitat
designations. In addition, negative
effects of barred owls on northern
spotted owl populations were
incorporated into the modeling process.
Late-successional reserves (LSRs)
were not prioritized in this approach
based solely on their status as a reserved
land allocation, but were included in
the 2012 designation only where the
habitat quality was high enough to meet
the selection criteria. In contrast, the
2008 critical habitat identified lands in
part based on status as LSRs. However,
LSRs were not originally designed
under the NWFP solely to meet the
needs of the northern spotted owl, but
may include areas designated for other
late-successional forest species.
Therefore, not all LSRs contain habitat
of sufficient quality to be included in
the critical habitat network for the
northern spotted owl. Connected to the
decision to designate lands in part
because of their status as LSRs, we did
not include NWFP matrix on Forest
Service lands in 2008. In this
designation we have included NWFP
matrix lands where they contain high
quality habitat essential to the species’
conservation. As described in the
section Changes from the Proposed
Rule, we tested a habitat network that
did not include many of these highvalue matrix lands; doing so led to a
significant increase in the risk of
extinction for the species, therefore
these lands are retained in this final
designation.
Table 5 shows a comparison of areas
included in the 2008 designation and
those included in this revision to
critical habitat. The process we used to
determine occupied areas containing
essential features and unoccupied areas
essential to the conservation of the
species is described in Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat.
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF AREA INCLUDED IN 2008 CRITICAL HABITAT AND 2012 CRITICAL HABITAT BY REGION. THE 11
REGIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION
2012 Critical habitat
2008 Final critical habitat
Modeling region
acres
North Coast Olympics ......................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
824,500
hectares
333,663
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
acres
485,039
hectares
196,289
71896
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF AREA INCLUDED IN 2008 CRITICAL HABITAT AND 2012 CRITICAL HABITAT BY REGION. THE 11
REGIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION—Continued
2012 Critical habitat
2008 Final critical habitat
Modeling region
acres
hectares
acres
hectares
859,864
180,855
542,274
909,687
1,355,198
1,345,523
368,381
1,052,731
1,197,389
941,568
347,975
73,189
219,450
368,136
548,429
544,514
149,078
426,025
484,565
381,039
507,082
70,153
390,232
546,333
700,421
687,702
207,291
667,795
667,795
535,863
205,209
28,390
157,921
221,093
283,450
278,303
83,888
270,247
270,247
216,856
Grand total ................................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Oregon Coast ..................................................................................................
Redwood Coast ...............................................................................................
West Cascades North ......................................................................................
West Cascades Central ...................................................................................
West Cascades South .....................................................................................
East Cascades North .......................................................................................
East Cascades South ......................................................................................
Klamath East ...................................................................................................
Klamath West ..................................................................................................
Inner California Coast Ranges ........................................................................
9,577,969
3,876,064
5,312,327
2,149,823
The reduction in the number of
critical habitat units from 33 in 2008 to
11 in 2012 is a reflection, in part, of our
decision to aggregate habitat by regions.
The 2008 designation included 33
critical habitat units; the 2012 revision
includes 11 critical habitat units with 60
subunits.
Our determination of PCEs in this
revised designation incorporates new
information resulting from research
conducted since the last revision in
2008. This new information, along with
relevant older studies, allowed us to
include a higher level of specificity in
the PCEs in this revision. This final rule
also includes two changes in overall
organization. The 2008 revised
designation considered nesting and
roosting habitat as separate PCEs. In this
designation, we have combined these
habitat types, because northern spotted
owls generally use the same habitat for
both nesting and roosting; they are not
separate habitat types, and function
differs only based on whether a nest
structure is present. At the scale of a
rangewide designation of critical
habitat, nesting and roosting habitats
cannot be systematically distinguished,
and, therefore, we combined them in
our analysis and resulting rulemaking.
For project planning and management of
northern spotted owls at the local scale,
the distinction between nesting and
roosting habitat remains useful,
especially in portions of the subspecies’
range where nesting structures are
conspicuous (e.g., mistletoe brooms).
The second organizational change was
to subdivide the range of the northern
spotted owl into four separate regions,
and to describe PCEs for foraging habitat
separately for each of these to provide
more appropriate region-specific
information.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
VI. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features;
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species; and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even
in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of
the Federal action agency and the
landowner is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features: (1) Which are
essential to the conservation of the
species, and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, those
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an
area, we focus on the principal
biological or physical constituent
elements (PCEs—primary constituent
elements such as roost sites, nesting
grounds, rainfall, canopy cover, soil
type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area that was
not occupied at the time of listing but
is essential to the conservation of the
species may be included in the critical
habitat designation. We designate
critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species
only when a designation limited to its
range would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species (50 CFR
424.12(e)).
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological
assessments, other unpublished
materials, or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and northern
spotted owls may move from one area
to another over time. We recognize that
critical habitat designated at a particular
point in time may not include all of the
habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery
of the species. For these reasons, a
critical habitat designation does not
signal that habitat outside the
designated area is unimportant or may
not be needed for recovery of the
species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
and outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject
to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act, (2) regulatory protections
afforded by the requirement in section
7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to
insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered or threatened species,
and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of
the Act on taking any individual of the
species, including taking caused by
actions that affect habitat. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting
listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases. These
protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of
this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the
best available information at the time of
designation will not control the
direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species
conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which
areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing to designate as critical habitat,
we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require
special management considerations or
protection. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring;
and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
For the northern spotted owl, the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species are
forested areas that are used or likely to
be used for nesting, roosting, foraging,
or dispersing. The specific
characteristics or components that
comprise these features include, for
example, specific ranges of forest stand
density and tree size distribution; coarse
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71897
woody debris; and specific resources,
such as food (prey and suitable prey
habitat), nest sites, cover, and other
physiological requirements of northern
spotted owls and considered essential
for the conservation of the species.
Below, we describe the life-history
needs of the species and the broader
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl, which informed our
identification of the primary constituent
elements (PCEs). The following
information is based on studies of the
habitat, ecology, and life history of the
species, as described in the final listing
rule for the northern spotted owl,
published in the Federal Register on
June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114); the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl released on June 30, 2011
(USFWS 2011); the Background section
of this document; and the following
information.
Although the northern spotted owl is
typically considered a habitat and prey
specialist, it uses a relatively broad
array of forest types for nesting,
roosting, foraging, and dispersal. The
diversity of forest types used is a
reflection of the large geographical range
of this subspecies, and the strong
gradation in annual precipitation and
temperature associated with both
coastal mountain ranges and the
Cascade Range. While the northern
spotted owl is unquestionably
associated with old-growth forests,
habitat selection and population
performance involves many additional
features (Loehle et al. 2011, p. 20). This
description of physical or biological
features summarizes both variation in
habitat use and particular features or
portions of the overall gradient of
variation that northern spotted owls
preferentially select, and that we,
therefore, consider essential to their
conservation. We begin by considering
the broad-scale patterns of climate,
elevation, topography, and forest
community type that act to influence
northern spotted owl distributions and
space for population growth and
dispersal. We then discuss the
abundance and pattern of habitats used
for nesting, roosting, and foraging at the
landscape scale that influence the
availability and occupancy of breeding
sites and the survival and fecundity of
northern spotted owls. Thus, we begin
by considering factors that operate at
broader spatial scales and proceed to
factors that influence habitat quality at
the forest stand scale. When we discuss
the physical or biological features, we
focus on features that are common range
wide, but also summarize specific
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71898
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
features or patterns of habitat selection
that characterize particular regions.
Physical Influences Related to Features
Essential to the Northern Spotted Owl
Climate, elevation, and topography
are features of the physical environment
that influence the capacity of a
landscape to support habitat with high
value for northern spotted owls and the
type of habitat needed by the species.
The distribution and amount of habitat
on the landscape reflects interactions
among these physical elements. Several
studies have found that physical aspects
of the environment, such as topographic
position, aspect, and elevation,
influence the northern spotted owl’s
selection of habitat (e.g., Clark 2007, pp.
97–111; Stalberg et al. 2009, p. 80).
These features are also factors in
determining the type of habitats
essential to northern spotted owl
conservation.
Climate—Population processes for
northern spotted owls are affected by
both large-scale fluctuations in climate
conditions and by local weather
variation (Glenn 2009, pp. 246–248).
The influence of weather and climate on
northern spotted owl populations has
been documented in northern California
(Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 559–583),
Oregon (Olson et al. 2004, pp. 1047–
1052; Dugger et al. 2005, pp. 871–877;
Glenn et al. 2010, pp. 2546–2551), and
Washington (Glenn et al. 2010, pp.
2546–2551). Climate and weather effects
on northern spotted owls are mediated
by vegetation conditions, and the
combination of climate and vegetation
variables improves models designed to
predict the distribution of northern
spotted owls (e.g., Carroll 2010, pp.
1434–1437).
Climate niche models for the northern
spotted owl identified winter
precipitation as the most important
climate variable influencing ability to
predict the distribution of northern
spotted owl habitat (Carroll 2010, p.
1434). This finding is consistent with
previous demographic studies that
suggest there are negative effects of
winter and spring precipitation on
survival, recruitment, and dispersal
(Franklin et al. 2000; pp. 559–583).
Niche modeling suggested that
precipitation variables, both in winter
and in summer, were more influential
than winter and summer temperatures
(Carroll 2010, p. 1434–1436).
Wet, cold weather during the winter
or nesting season, particularly the early
nesting season, has been shown to
negatively affect northern spotted owl
reproduction (Olson et al. 2004, p. 1039;
Dugger et al. 2005, p. 863; Glenn et al.
2011b, p. 1279), survival (Franklin et al.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
2000, p. 539; Olson et al. 2004, p. 1039;
Glenn et al. 2011a, p. 159), and
recruitment (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 559;
Glenn et al. 2010, p. 2546). Cold, wet
weather may reduce reproduction or
survival during the breeding season, due
to declines or decreased activity in
small mammal populations, so that less
food is available during this period
when metabolic demands are high
(Glenn et al. 2011b, pp. 1290–1294).
Wet, cold springs or intense storms
during this time may increase the risk
of starvation in adult birds (Franklin et
al. 2000, pp. 559–590). Cold, wet
weather may also limit abundance of
prey (Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, pp. 589–
595), and reduce the male northern
spotted owl’s ability to bring food to
incubating females or nestlings
(Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 559–590).
Cold, wet nesting seasons have been
shown to increase the mortality of
nestlings due to chilling (Franklin et al.
2000, pp. 559–590), and reduce the
number of young fledged per pair per
year (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 559, Olson
et al. 2004, p. 1047; Glenn et al. 2011b,
p. 1279). Wet, cold weather may
decrease survival of dispersing juveniles
during their first winter, thereby
reducing recruitment (Franklin et al.
2000, pp. 559–590).
Habitat quality may offset the negative
effects of climate extremes. Franklin et
al. (2000, pp. 582–583) argued that
northern spotted owl populations are
regulated or limited by both habitat
quality and environmental factors, such
as weather. Abundance and availability
of prey may ultimately limit northern
spotted owl populations, and
abundance of prey is strongly associated
with habitat conditions. As habitat
quality decreases, other factors, such as
weather, have a stronger influence on
demographic performance. In essence,
the presence of high-quality habitat
appears to buffer the negative effects of
cold, wet springs and winters on
survival of northern spotted owls, as
well as ameliorate the effects of heat.
High-quality northern spotted owl
habitat was defined in a northern
California study area as a mature or oldgrowth core within a mosaic of old and
younger forest (Franklin et al. 2000, p.
559). The high-quality habitat can help
maintain a stable prey base, thereby
reducing the cost of foraging during the
early breeding season, when energetic
needs are high (Carey et al. 1992, pp.
223–250; Franklin et al. 2000, p. 559).
In addition, mature and old forest with
high canopy cover typically remains
cooler during summer months than
younger stands.
Drought or hot temperatures during
the previous summer have also been
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
associated with reduced northern
spotted owl recruitment and survival
(Glenn et al. 2010, p. 2546). Drier,
warmer summers and drought
conditions during the growing season
strongly influence primary production
in forests, food availability, and the
population sizes of small mammals
(Glenn et al. 2010, p. 2546). Northern
flying squirrels (one of the northern
spotted owl’s primary prey), for
example, forage primarily on
ectomycorrhizal fungi (truffles), many of
which grow better under moist
conditions (Lehmkuhl et al. 2004, pp.
58–60). Drier, warmer summers, or the
high-intensity fires, which such
conditions support, may change the
range or availability of these fungi,
affecting northern flying squirrels and
the northern spotted owls that prey on
them. Periods of drought are associated
with declines in annual survival rates
for other raptors, due to a presumed
decrease in prey availability (Glenn et
al. 2010, pp. 2546–2551).
Mexican northern spotted owls (Strix
occidentalis lucida) and California
northern spotted owls (S. o.
occidentalis) have a narrow temperature
range in which body temperature can be
maintained without additional
metabolic energy expenditure (Ganey et
al. 1993, pp. 653–654; Weathers et al.
2001, pp. 682–686). Others (e.g.,
Franklin et al. 2000, entire) have
assumed the northern spotted owl to be
similar in this regard. While winter
temperatures are relatively mild across
much of the northern spotted owl’s
range, heat stress has been identified as
a potential stressor at temperatures
exceeding 30 °C (86 °F; Weathers et al.
2001, p. 678). The northern spotted
owl’s selection for areas with olderforest characteristics has been
hypothesized to be related, in part, to its
needing cooler areas in summer to avoid
heat stress (Barrows and Barrows 1978,
entire).
Elevation and Topography—Elevation
and corresponding changes in
temperature or moisture regimes
constrain the development of vegetation
communities selected by northern
spotted owls, and may exceed the
bounds of physiological tolerance of
northern spotted owls or their prey as
well. Several studies have noted the
avoidance or absence of northern
spotted owls above location-specific
elevational limits (Blakesley et al. 1992,
pp. 390–391; Hershey et al. 1998, p.
´
1406; LaHaye and Gutierrez 1999, pp.
326, 328). In some locations, elevational
limits occur despite the presence of
forests that appear to have the structural
characteristics typically associated with
northern spotted owl habitat. Where
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
forest structure is not the apparent cause
of elevational limits, the mechanistic
bases of these limits are unknown, but
they could be related to prey
availability, presence of competitors, or
extremes of temperature or
precipitation. Habitat for northern
spotted owls can occur from sea level to
the lower elevation limit of subalpine
vegetation types. This upper elevation
limit varies with latitude from about
3,000 feet (ft) (900 meters (m)) above sea
level in coastal Washington and Oregon
(Davis and Lint 2005, p. 32) to about
6,000 ft (1,800 m) above sea level near
the southern edge of the range (derived
from Davis and Lint 2005, p. 32).
Topography also influences the
distribution of northern spotted owl
habitat and patterns of habitat selection.
The effects of topography are strongest
in drier forests, where aspect and
insolation (amount of solar radiation
received in an area) contribute to
moisture stress that can limit forest
density and tree growth. In drier forests
east of the Cascades and in the Klamath
region, suitable habitat can be
concentrated at intermediate
topographic positions, on north-facing
aspects, and in concave landforms that
retain moisture. This leads to a
distribution of suitable habitat
characterized by ribbon-like bands and
discrete patches. Ribbons occur along
drainages and valley bottoms, along the
north faces of ridges that trend from east
to west, and at intermediate topographic
positions between drier pine-dominated
forests at lower elevations, and
subalpine forest types at higher
elevations. Discrete patches also occur
on top of higher plateaus. Northern
spotted owl populations inhabiting drier
forests have higher fecundity and lower
survival rates than owls in other regions
(Hicks et al. 2003, pp. 61–62; Anthony
et al. 2006, pp. 28, 30). The naturally
fragmented distribution of suitable
habitat in drier forests, and increased
predation risk associated with traversing
this landscape, may be one of many
features that contributed to the
evolution of these life-history
characteristics.
Slope may also influence the
distribution of suitable habitat.
Intermediate slopes have been
associated with northern spotted owl
sites in some studies (e.g., Gremel 2005,
p. 37; Gaines et al. 2010, pp. 2048–2050;
USFWS 2011, Appendix C), but the
mechanisms underlying this association
are unclear, potentially including a
variety of features from soil depth to
competition with barred owls.
Disturbance Regimes—Natural
disturbances and anthropogenic
(human-caused) activities continuously
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
shape the amount and distribution of
northern spotted owl habitat on the
landscape. In moist forests west of the
Cascades in Washington and Oregon,
and in the Redwood region in
California, anthropogenic activities have
a dominant influence on distribution
patterns of remaining habitat, with
natural disturbances typically playing a
secondary role. In contrast, drier forests
east of the Cascades and in the Klamath
region have dynamic disturbance
regimes that continue to exert a strong
influence on northern spotted owl
habitat. Climate change may modify
disturbance regimes across the range of
the northern spotted owl, resulting in
substantial changes to the frequency and
extent of habitat disruption by natural
events.
In drier forests, low- and mixedseverity fires historically contributed to
a high level of spatial and temporal
variability in landscape patterns of
disturbed and recovering vegetation.
However, anthropogenic activities have
so altered these historical patterns and
composition of vegetation, fuels, and
associated disturbance regimes, that
contemporary landscapes no longer
function as they did historically
(Hessburg et al. 2000a, pp. 77–78;
Hessburg and Agee 2003, pp. 44–51;
Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 122–127, 134–
136; Skinner et al. 2006, pp. 176–179;
Skinner and Taylor 2006, pp. 201–203).
Fire exclusion, combined with the
removal of fire-tolerant structures (e.g.,
large, fire-tolerant tree species such as
ponderosa pine, western larch (Larix
occidentalis), and Douglas-fir), have
reduced the resiliency of the landscape
to fire and other disturbances, (Agee
1993, pp. 280–319; Hessburg et al.
2000a, pp. 71–80; Hessburg and Agee
2003, pp. 44–46). Understory vegetation
in these forests has shifted in response
to fire exclusion from grasses and
shrubs to shade-tolerant conifers,
reducing fire tolerance of these forests,
and increasing drought stress on
dominant tree species.
Anthropogenic activities have also
fundamentally changed the spatial
distribution of fire-intolerant stands
among the fire-tolerant stands, changing
the pattern of fire activity across the
landscape. Past management has altered
the natural disturbance regime,
homogenized the formerly patchy
vegetative network, and reduced the
complexity that was more prevalent
during the presettlement era (Skinner
1995, pp. 224–226; Hessburg and Agee
2003, pp. 44–45; Hessburg et al. 2007,
p. 21; Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, pp.
564–565). This alteration in the
disturbance regime further affects forest
structure and composition. Patches of
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71899
fire-intolerant vegetation that had been
spatially separated have become more
contiguous and are more prone to
conducting fire, insects, and diseases
across larger swaths of the landscape
(Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 71–74, 77–78).
This homogenized landscape may be
altering the size and intensity of current
disturbances and further altering
landscape functionality (e.g., Everett et
al. 2000, pp. 221–222).
The intensity and spatial extent of
natural disturbances that affect the
amount, distribution, and quality of
northern spotted owl habitat in dry
forests are also influenced by local
topographic features, elevation, and
climate (Swanson et al. 1988, entire). At
local scales, these factors can be used to
identify areas that are insulated from
recent or existing disturbance, and
consequently tend to persist without
disturbance for longer periods (Camp et
al. 1997, entire). These disturbance
refugia are locations where northern
spotted owl habitat has a higher
likelihood of developing and persisting
in drier forests. As a result of these
unevenly distributed disturbance
regimes, especially in the drier forests
within its range, habitat for the northern
spotted owl naturally occurs in a patchy
mosaic in various stages of suitability in
these regions. Sufficient area to provide
for these habitat dynamics and to allow
for the maintenance of adequate
quantities of suitable habitat on the
landscape at any one point in time is,
therefore, essential to the conservation
of the northern spotted owl in the dry
forest regions.
Pattern and Distribution of Habitat—
Historically, forest types occupied by
the northern spotted owl were fairly
continuous, particularly in the wetter
parts of its range in coastal northern
California and most of western Oregon
and Washington. Suitable forest types in
the drier parts of the range (interior
northern California, Klamath region,
interior southern Oregon, and east of the
Cascade crest in Oregon and
Washington) occur in a mosaic pattern
interspersed with infrequently used
vegetation types, such as open forests,
shrubby areas, and grasslands. As
described above, natural disturbance
processes in these drier regions likely
contributed to a pattern in which
patches of habitat in various stages of
suitability shift positions on the
landscape through time. In the Klamath
Mountains Provinces of Oregon and
California, and to a lesser extent in the
Coast and Cascade Provinces of
California, large areas of serpentine soils
exist that are typically not capable of
supporting northern spotted owl habitat
(Davis and Lint 2005, pp. 31–33).
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71900
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Biological Influences Related to
Features Essential to the Northern
Spotted Owl
Forest Community Type
(Composition)—Across their
geographical range, northern spotted
owl use of habitat spans several scales,
with increasing levels of habitat
selection specificity at each scale. We
refer to these scales as the ‘‘landscape,’’
‘‘home range,’’ and ‘‘core area’’ scales.
Nest stands within core areas are even
more narrowly selected (see Functional
Categories of Northern Spotted Owl
Habitat, in the Background section,
above).
Landscapes supporting populations of
northern spotted owls are the broadest
scale we considered, encompassing
areas sufficient to support numerous
reproductive pairs (roughly 20,000 to
200,000 ac (8,100 to 81,000 ha). At the
landscape scale, the northern spotted
owl inhabits most of the major types of
coniferous forests across its
geographical range, including Sitka
spruce, western hemlock, mixed conifer
and mixed evergreen, grand fir, Pacific
silver fir, Douglas-fir, redwood/Douglasfir (in coastal California and
southwestern Oregon), white fir, Shasta
red fir, and the moist end of the
ponderosa pine zone (Forsman et al.
1984, pp. 8–9; Franklin and Dyrness
1988, entire; Thomas et al. 1990, p.
145). These forest types may be in
early-, mid-, or late-seral stages, and
must occur in concert with at least one
of the physical or biological features
characteristic of breeding and
nonbreeding (dispersal) habitat,
described below.
Landscape-level patterns in tree
species composition and topography
can influence the distribution and
density of northern spotted owls. These
differences in northern spotted owl
distribution occur even when different
forest types have similar structural
attributes, suggesting that northern
spotted owls may prefer specific plant
associations or tree species. Some forest
types, such as pine-dominated and
subalpine forests, are infrequently used,
regardless of their structural attributes.
In areas east of the Cascade Crest,
northern spotted owls select forests with
high proportions of Douglas-fir trees.
The effects of tree species composition
on habitat selection also extend to
hardwoods within conifer-dominated
forests (e.g., Meyer et al. 1998, p. 35).
For example, our habitat modeling
indicated that habitat value in the
central Western Cascades was
negatively related to proportion of
hardwoods present. At the home range
and core area scales, locations occupied
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
by northern spotted owls consistently
have greater amounts of mature and oldgrowth forest compared to random
locations or unused areas. The
proportion of older or structurally
complex forest within the home range
varies greatly by geographical region,
but typically falls between 30 and 78
percent (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–6). In
studies where circles of different sizes
were compared, differences between
northern spotted owl sites and random
locations diminished as circles of
increasing size were evaluated
(Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–7), suggesting
habitat selection is stronger at the core
area scale than at the home range and
landscape scales.
Population Spatial Requirements—
We have described a range of climatic,
elevational, topographic, and
compositional factors, and associated
disturbance dynamics typical of
different regions, that constrain the
amount and distribution of northern
spotted owl habitat across landscapes.
Within this context, areas that contain
the physical or biological features
described below must provide habitat in
an amount and distribution sufficient to
support persistent populations,
including metapopulations of
reproductive pairs, and opportunities
for nonbreeding and dispersing owls to
move among populations to be
considered essential to the conservation
of the northern spotted owl.
Northern spotted owls maintain large
home ranges that vary in size across
nearly an order of magnitude across the
species’ range, from about 1,400 to
14,000 ac (570 to 5,700 ha), depending
on geographic latitude and prey
resources (see Home Range
Requirements, below). Overlap occurs
among adjoining territories, but the
large size of territories nonetheless
means that populations of northern
spotted owls require landscapes with
large areas of habitat suitable for
nesting, roosting, and foraging. For
example, in the northern parts of the
subspecies’ range where territories are
largest, a population of 20 resident pairs
would require at least 100,000 ac (about
40,500 ha) of habitat that is relatively
densely distributed and of high quality.
As described in the Background
section above, several studies have
examined patterns of northern spotted
owl habitat selection at the territory
scale and the consequences on fitness of
habitat configuration within a territory.
We do not know if the features that
contribute to enhancing northern
spotted owl occupancy and
reproductive success at the territory
scale can be scaled up to predict what
landscape-scale patterns of habitat are
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
most conducive to stable or increasing
northern spotted owl populations.
Studies that use populations as units of
analysis in order to investigate the
effects of the landscape-scale
configuration of habitat on the
performance of northern spotted owl
populations have only begun recently.
Past models of northern spotted owl
population dynamics have included
predictions about the effects of habitat
configuration on population
performance, but these predictions have
not been tested or validated by
empirical studies (Franklin and
´
Gutierrez 2002; p. 215). Recent
demographic analyses suggested that
recruitment was positively related to the
proportion of study areas covered by
suitable habitat (see Forsman et al.
2011, pp. 59–62), but this covariate was
not associated with other aspects of
demographic performance, and few
other covariates were investigated.
When the northern spotted owl was
listed as threatened in 1990 (55 FR
26114; June 26, 1990), habitat loss and
fragmentation of old-growth forest were
identified as major factors contributing
to declines in northern spotted owl
populations. As older forests were
reduced to smaller and more isolated
patches, the ability of northern spotted
owls to successfully disperse and
establish territories was likely reduced
(Lamberson et al. 1992, pp. 506, 508,
510–511). Lamberson et al. (1992, pp.
509–511) identified an apparent sharp
threshold in the amount of habitat
below which northern spotted owl
population viability plummeted.
Lamberson et al. (1994, pp. 185–186,
192–194) concluded that size, spacing,
and shape of reserved areas all had
strong influence on population
persistence, and reserves that could
support a minimum of 20 northern
spotted owl territories were more likely
to maintain northern spotted owl
populations than smaller reserves. They
also found that juvenile dispersal was
facilitated in areas large enough to
support at least 20 northern spotted owl
territories.
In addition to area size, spacing
between reserves had a strong influence
on successful dispersal (Lamberson et
al. 1992, pp. 508, 510–511). Forsman et
al. (2002, pp. 15–16) reported dispersal
distances of 1,475 northern spotted owls
in Oregon and Washington for 1985 to
1996. Median maximum dispersal
distance (the straight-line distance
between the natal site and the farthest
location) for radio-marked juvenile male
northern spotted owls was 12.7 miles
(mi) (20.3 kilometers (km)), and that of
female northern spotted owls was 17.2
mi (27.5 km) (Forsman et al. 2002: Table
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
2). Dispersal data and other studies on
the amount and configuration of habitat
necessary to sustain northern spotted
owls provided the foundation for
developing previous northern spotted
owl habitat reserve systems. Given the
range-wide declining trends in northern
spotted owl populations, as well as
declining trends in the recruitment of
new individuals into territorial
populations (Forsman et al. 2011, pp.
59–66, Table 22), we have determined
that, to be essential, physical or
biological features must be positioned
on the landscape to enable populations
to persist and to allow individual owls
to disperse among populations.
In contrast to earlier designations of
critical habitat, we did not develop an
a priori rule set to identify those areas
that provide the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the owl, using factors such as minimum
size of habitat blocks, targeted numbers
of owl pairs, or maximum distance
between blocks of habitat. Instead, we
determined the spatial extent and
placement of the areas providing the
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the owl
based on the relative demographic
performance of the habitat models
tested. This process is summarized in
the section Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat, presented later in this
document, and is presented in detail in
our supporting documentation (Dunk et
al. 2012b, entire). This supporting
documentation, which describes in
detail the modeling process we used, is
available at our Web site. We refer to
this document in the Summary of
Comments and Recommendations
section, below, as our ‘‘Modeling
Supplement’’ (Dunk et al. 2012b).
Home Range Requirements—Most
adult northern spotted owls remain on
their home range throughout the year;
therefore, their home range must
provide all the habitat components,
including prey, needed for the survival
and successful reproduction of a
territorial pair. The home range of a
northern spotted owl is relatively large,
but varies in size across the range of the
subspecies (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–
24; 55 FR 26117; June 26, 1990). Home
range sizes are largest in Washington
(Olympic Peninsula: 9,231 ac (3,736 ha)
(Forsman et al. 2005, pp. 371–372), and
generally decrease along a north-south
gradient to approximately 1,430 ac (580
ha) in the Klamath region of
northwestern California and southern
Oregon (Zabel et al. 1995, p. 436).
Northern spotted owl home ranges are
generally larger where northern flying
squirrels are the predominant prey and
smaller where woodrats are the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
predominant prey (Zabel et al. 1995, p.
436). Home range size also increases
with increasing forest fragmentation
(Carey et al. 1992, p. 235; Franklin and
´
Gutierrez 2002, p. 212; Glenn et al.
2004, p. 45) and decreasing proportions
of nesting habitat on the landscape
(Carey et al. 1992, p. 235; Forsman et al.
2005, p. 374), suggesting that northern
spotted owls increase the size of their
home ranges to encompass adequate
amounts of suitable forest types
(Forsman et al. 2005, p. 374).
Meta-analysis of features associated
with occupancy at the territory-scale
indicated that northern spotted owls
consistently occupy areas having larger
patches of older forests that were more
numerous and closer together than
´
random sites (Franklin and Gutierrez
2002; p. 212). In the Klamath and
Redwood regions owls also consistently
occupy sites with higher forest
heterogeneity than random sites.
Occupied sites in the Klamath region, in
particular, show a high degree of
vegetative heterogeneity, with more
variable patch sizes and more perimeter
edge than in other regions (Franklin and
´
Gutierrez 2002; p. 212). In the Klamath
region, ecotones, or edges between older
forests and other seral stages, may
contribute to improved access to prey
´
(Franklin and Gutierrez 2002, p. 215).
Several studies in the Klamath region
and the Redwood region have found
that variables describing the
relationship between habitat core area
and edge length improve the ability of
models to predict northern spotted owl
occupancy (e.g., Folliard et al. 2000, pp.
79–81; Zabel et al 2003, pp. 1936–1938).
In contrast, northern spotted owl sites in
the Oregon Coast Range had a more
even distribution of cover types than
random locations, and nest stands had
a higher ratio of core to edge and more
complex stand shapes than non-nest
stands (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–9).
A home range provides the habitat
components essential for the survival
and successful reproduction of a
resident breeding pair of northern
spotted owls. The exact amount, quality,
and configuration of these habitat types
required for survival and successful
reproduction varies according to local
conditions and factors, such as the
degree of habitat fragmentation,
proportion of available nesting habitat,
and primary prey species (Courtney et
al. 2004, p. 5–2).
Core Area Requirements—Northern
spotted owls often use habitat within
their home ranges disproportionally,
and exhibit central-place foraging
behavior (Rosenberg and McKelvey
1999, p. 1028), with much activity
centered within a core area surrounding
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71901
the nest tree during the breeding season.
During fall and winter, as well as in
nonbreeding years, owls often roost and
forage in areas of their home range more
distant from the core. The size of core
areas varies considerably across the
subspecies’ geographical range
following a pattern similar to that of
home range size (Bingham and Noon
1997, p. 133), varying from over 4,057
ac (1,642 ha) in the northernmost (flying
squirrel prey) provinces (Forsman et al.
2005, pp. 370, 375) to less than 500 ac
(202 ha) in the southernmost (duskyfooted woodrat prey) provinces (Pious
1995, pp. 9–10, Table 2; Zabel et al.
2003, pp. 1036–1038). Owls often
switch nest trees and use multiple core
areas over time, possibly in response to
local prey depletion or loss of a
particular nest tree.
Core areas contain greater proportions
of mature or old forest than random or
nonuse areas (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–
13), and the amount of high-quality
habitat at the core area scale shows the
strongest relationships with occupancy
(Meyer et al. 1998, p. 34; Zabel et al.
2003, pp. 1027, 1036), survival
(Franklin et al. 2000, p. 567; Dugger et
al. 2005, p. 873), and reproductive
success (Ripple et al. 1997, pp. 155 to
156; Dugger et al. 2005, p. 871). In some
areas, edges between forest types within
northern spotted owl home ranges may
provide increased prey abundance and
availability (Franklin et al. 2000, p.
579). For successful reproduction, core
areas need to contain one or more forest
stands that have both the structural
attributes and the location relative to
other features in the home range that
allow them to fulfill essential nesting,
roosting, and foraging functions (Carey
and Peeler 1995, pp. 233–236;
Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, pp.
1035–1037).
Areas to Support Dispersal and
Nonbreeding Owls—Northern spotted
owls regularly disperse through highly
fragmented forested landscapes that are
typical of the mountain ranges in
western Washington and Oregon, and
have dispersed from the Coastal
Mountains to the Cascades Mountains
in the broad forested regions between
the Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue
Valleys of Oregon (Forsman et al. 2002,
p. 22). Corridors of forest through
fragmented landscapes serve primarily
to support relatively rapid movement
through such areas, rather than
colonization or residency of
nonbreeding owls.
During the transience (movement)
phase, dispersers used mature and oldgrowth forest slightly more than its
availability; during the colonization
phase, mature and old-growth forest was
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71902
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
used at nearly twice its availability
(Miller et al. 1997, p. 144). Closed polesapling-sawtimber habitat was used
roughly in proportion to availability in
both phases and may represent the
minimum condition for movement.
Open sapling and clearcuts were used
less than expected based on availability
during colonization (Miller et al. 1997,
p. 145). In comparison, nondispersing
subadults or nonbreeding adults that are
residents require habitats that are more
similar to the nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitats utilized by breeding
pairs. This suggests that juveniles and
transient dispersers either have a less
developed ability to avoid areas where
starvation or predation are more likely,
or they can use a greater variety of
forested habitats than nondispersing
adults, or both.
We currently do not have sufficient
information to permit formal modeling
of dispersal habitat and the influence of
dispersal habitat condition on dispersal
success (USFWS 2011, p. C–15). We
expect, based on the studies discussed
above, that dispersal success is highest
when dispersers move through forests
that have the characteristics of nestingroosting and foraging habitats. Northern
spotted owls can also disperse
successfully through forests with less
complex structure, but risk of starvation
and predation likely increase with
increasing divergence from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
characteristics of suitable (nesting,
roosting, foraging) habitat. The
suitability of habitat to contribute to
successful dispersal of northern spotted
owls is likely related to the degree to
which it ameliorates heat stress,
provides abundant and accessible prey,
limits predation risk, and resembles
habitat in natal territories (Carey 1985,
pp. 105–107; Buchanan 2004, pp. 1335–
1341).
Dispersal habitat is habitat that both
juvenile and adult northern spotted
owls must use when looking to establish
a new territory. Although optimal
dispersal habitat would be the same as
suitable nesting, roosting, or foraging
habitat (mature and old-growth stands),
dispersing owls will use younger forest
for dispersal, and the Interagency
Scientific Committee (Thomas et al.
1990) suggested the 50–11–40 rule for
maintaining baseline forest conditions
between blocks of old forest to enhance
dispersal. Forests composed of at least
50 percent of trees with 11 inches (in)
(28 centimeters (cm)) diameter at breast
height (dbh) or greater, and with
roughly a minimum 40 percent canopy
cover, were considered to meet this
baseline condition for northern spotted
owl dispersal. Dispersal habitat can
occur between larger blocks of nesting,
foraging, and roosting habitat or within
blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat. Dispersal habitat is essential to
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
maintaining stable populations by
promoting rapid filling of territorial
vacancies when resident northern
spotted owls die or leave their
territories, and to providing adequate
gene flow across the range of the
species.
Regional Variation in Habitat Use—
Differences in patterns of habitat
associations across the range of the
northern spotted owl suggest four
different broad zones of habitat use,
which we characterize as the (1) West
Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and
Washington, (2) East Cascades, (3)
Klamath and Northern California
Interior Coast Ranges, and (4) Redwood
Coast (Figure 1. We configured these
zones based on a qualitative assessment
of similarity among ecological
conditions and habitat associations
within the 11 different regions analyzed,
as these 4 zones efficiently capture the
range in variation of some of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl. We summarize the physical
or biological features for each of these
four zones, emphasizing zone-specific
features that are distinctive within the
context of general patterns that apply
across the entire range of the northern
spotted owl.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon
and Washington
This zone includes five regions west
of the Cascade crest in Washington and
Oregon (Western Cascades North,
Central and South; North Coast Ranges
and Olympic Peninsula; and Oregon
Coast Ranges; USFWS 2011, p. C–13).
Climate in this zone is characterized by
high rainfall and cool to moderate
temperatures. Variation in elevation
between valley bottoms and ridges is
relatively low in the Coast Ranges,
creating conditions favorable for
development of contiguous forests. In
contrast, the Olympic and Cascade
ranges have greater topographic
variation with many high-elevation
areas supporting permanent snowfields
and glaciers. Douglas-fir and western
hemlock dominate forests used by
northern spotted owls in this zone. Root
diseases and wind-throw are important
natural disturbance mechanisms that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
form gaps in forested areas. Flying
squirrels are the dominant prey, with
voles and mice also representing
important items in the northern spotted
owl’s diet.
Our habitat modeling indicated that
vegetation structure had a dominant
influence on owl population
performance, with habitat pattern and
topography also contributing. High
canopy cover, high density of large
trees, high numbers of subcanopy
vegetation layers, and low to moderate
slope positions were all important
features.
Nesting habitat in this zone is mostly
limited to areas with large trees with
defects such as mistletoe brooms,
cavities, or broken tops. The subset of
foraging habitat that is not nesting/
roosting habitat generally had slightly
lower values than nesting habitat for
canopy cover, tree size and density, and
canopy layering. Prey species (primarily
northern flying squirrel) in this zone are
associated with mature to late-
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
successional forests, resulting in small
differences between nesting, roosting,
and foraging habitat.
East Cascades
This zone includes the Eastern
Cascades North and Eastern Cascades
South regions (USFWS 2011, p. C–13).
This zone is characterized by a
continental climate (cold, snowy
winters and dry summers) and a high
frequency of natural disturbances due to
fires and outbreaks of forest insects and
pathogens. Flying squirrels are the
dominant prey species, but the diet of
northern spotted owls in this zone also
includes relatively large proportions of
bushy-tailed woodrats, snowshoe hare,
pika, and mice (Forsman et al. 2001, pp.
144–145).
Our modeling indicates that habitat
associations in this zone do not show a
pattern of dominant influence by one or
a few variables (USFWS 2011,
Appendix C). Instead, habitat
association models for this zone
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
ER04DE12.000</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
71903
71904
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
included a large number of variables,
each making a relatively modest
contribution (20 percent or less) to the
predictive ability of the model. The
features that were most useful in
predicting habitat quality were
vegetation structure and composition,
and topography, especially slope
position in the north. Other efforts to
model habitat associations in this zone
have yielded similar results (e.g., Gaines
et al. 2010, pp. 2048–2050; Loehle et al.
2011, pp. 25–28).
Relative to other portions of the
subspecies’ range, nesting and roosting
habitat in this zone includes relatively
younger and smaller trees, likely
reflecting the common usage of dwarf
mistletoe brooms (dense growths) as
nesting platforms (especially in the
north). Forest composition that includes
high proportions of Douglas-fir is also
associated with this nesting structure.
Additional foraging habitat in this zone
generally resembles nesting and roosting
habitat, with reduced canopy cover and
tree size, and reduced canopy layering.
High prey diversity suggests relatively
diverse foraging habitats are used.
Topographic position was an important
variable, particularly in the north,
possibly reflecting competition from
barred owls (Singleton et al. 2010, pp.
289, 292). Barred owls, which have been
present for over 30 years in northern
portions of this zone, preferentially
occupy valley-bottom habitats, possibly
compelling northern spotted owls to
establish territories on less productive,
mid-slope locations (Singleton et al.
2010, pp. 289, 292).
Klamath and Northern California
Interior Coast Ranges
This zone includes the Klamath West,
Klamath East, and Interior California
Coast regions (USFWS 2011, p. C–13).
This region in southwestern Oregon and
northwestern California is characterized
by very high climatic and vegetative
diversity resulting from steep gradients
of elevation, dissected topography, and
large differences in moisture from west
to east. Summer temperatures are high,
and northern spotted owls occur at
elevations up to 5,800 ft (1,768 m).
Western portions of this zone support a
diverse mix of mesic forest communities
interspersed with drier forest types.
Forests of mixed conifers and evergreen
hardwoods are typical of the zone.
Eastern portions of this zone have a
Mediterranean climate with increased
occurrence of ponderosa pine. Douglasfir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium
douglasii) is rarely used for nesting
platforms in the western part of the
northern spotted owl’s range, but is
commonly used in the east. The prey
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
base for northern spotted owls in this
zone is correspondingly diverse, but
dominated by dusky-footed woodrats,
bushy-tailed woodrats, and flying
squirrels. Northern spotted owls have
been well studied in the western
Klamath portion of this zone (Forsman
et al. 2004, p. 217), but relatively little
is known about northern spotted owl
habitat use in the eastern portion and
the California Interior Coast Range
portion of the zone. Our habitat
association models for this zone suggest
that vegetation structure and
topographic features are nearly equally
important in influencing owl population
performance, particularly in the
Klamath. High canopy cover, high levels
of canopy layering, and the presence of
very large dominant trees were all
important features of nesting and
roosting habitat. Compared to other
zones, additional foraging habitat for
this zone showed greater divergence
from nesting habitat, with much lower
canopy cover and tree size. Low to
intermediate slope positions were
strongly favored. In the eastern Klamath,
presence of Douglas-fir was an
important compositional variable in our
habitat model (USFWS 2011, Appendix
C).
Redwood Coast
This zone is confined to the northern
California coast, and is represented by
the Redwood Coast region (USFWS
2011, p. C–13). It is characterized by a
maritime climate with moderate
temperatures and generally mesic
conditions. Near the coast, frequent fog
delivers consistent moisture during the
summer. Terrain is typically low-lying
(0 to 3,000 ft (0 to 900 m)). Forest
communities are dominated by
redwood, Douglas-fir–tanoak
(Lithocarpus densiflorus) forest, coast
live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and tanoak
series. Dusky footed woodrats are the
dominant prey items for northern
spotted owls in this zone.
Habitat association models for this
zone diverged strongly from models for
other zones. Topographic variables
(slope position and curvature) had a
dominant influence with vegetation
structure having a secondary role. Low
position on slopes was strongly favored,
along with concave landforms.
Several studies of northern spotted
owl habitat relationships suggest that
stump-sprouting and rapid growth of
redwood trees, combined with high
availability of woodrats in patchy,
intensively managed forests, enables
northern spotted owls to occupy a wide
range of vegetation conditions within
the redwood zone. Rapid growth rates
enable young stands to develop
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
structural characteristics typical of older
stands in other regions. Thus, relatively
small patches of large remnant trees can
also provide nesting habitat structure in
this zone.
Physical or Biological Features and
Primary Constituent Elements
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl in areas occupied
at the time of listing, focusing on the
features’ primary constituent elements.
Primary constituent elements are those
specific elements of the physical or
biological features that provide for a
species’ life-history processes and are
essential to the conservation of the
species. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl are forested
lands that can be used for nesting,
roosting, foraging, or dispersing. We
have further determined that these
physical or biological features may
require special management
considerations or protection, as
described in the section Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, below. For the northern
spotted owl, the primary constituent
elements are the specific characteristics
that make areas suitable for nesting,
roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat.
To be essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl, these features
need to be distributed in a spatial
configuration that is conducive to
persistence of populations, survival and
reproductive success of resident pairs,
and survival of dispersing individuals
until they can recruit into a breeding
population.
Models developed for the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011, Appendix C) to
assess habitat suitability for the
northern spotted owl across the range of
the species and applied here to help
identify potential critical habitat were
based on habitat conditions within 500acre (200-ha) core areas. Because core
areas support a mix of nesting, roosting,
and foraging habitats, their
characteristics provide a basis for
identification and quantification of
PCEs.
Physical or Biological Features by LifeHistory Function
Each of the essential features—in this
case, forested lands that provide the
functional categories of northern spotted
owl habitat—comprises a complex
interplay of structural elements, such as
tree size and species, stand density,
canopy diversity, and decadence.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Northern spotted owls have been shown
to exhibit strong associations with
specific PCEs; however, the range of
combinations of PCEs that may
constitute habitat (particularly foraging
habitat) is broad. In addition, the
relative importance of specific habitat
elements (and subsequently their
relevance as PCEs) is strongly
influenced by physical factors, such as
elevation and slope position, and the
degree to which physical factors
influence the role of individual PCEs
varies geographically. In addition to
forest type, the key elements of habitats
with the physical or biological features
essential for the conservation of the
northern spotted owl may be organized
as follows:
Nesting and Roosting Habitat
Nesting and roosting habitat provides
structural features for nesting,
protection from adverse weather
conditions, and cover to reduce
predation risks for adults and young.
Because nesting habitat provides
resources critical for nest site selection
and breeding, its characteristics tend to
be conservative; stand structures at nest
sites tend to vary little across the
northern spotted owl’s range. Nesting
stands typically include a moderate to
high canopy cover (60 to over 80
percent); a multilayered, multispecies
canopy with large (greater than 30 in (76
cm) dbh) overstory trees; a high
incidence of large trees with various
deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken
tops, mistletoe infections, and other
evidence of decadence); large snags;
large accumulations of fallen trees and
other woody debris on the ground; and
sufficient open space below the canopy
for northern spotted owls to fly (Thomas
et al. 1990, p. 164; 57 FR 1798, January
15, 1992). These findings were recently
reinforced in rangewide models
developed by Davis and Dugger (2011,
Table 3–1, p. 39), who found that stands
used for nesting (moderate to high
suitability) exhibited high canopy cover
of conifers (65 to 89 percent), large trees
(mean diameter from 20 to 36 in (51 to
91 cm)), with a forest density of 6 to 19
large trees (greater than 30 in dbh) per
acre (15 to 47 large trees (greater than
76 cm dbh) per hectare), and high
diameter diversity.
Recent studies have found that
northern spotted owl nest stands tend to
have greater tree basal area, number of
canopy layers, density of broken-top
trees, number or basal area of snags, and
volume of logs (Courtney et al. 2004, pp.
5–16 to 5–19, 5–23) than non-nest
stands. In some forest types, northern
spotted owls nest in younger forest
stands that contain structural
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
characteristics of older forests (legacy
features from previous stands before
disturbance). In the portions of the
northern spotted owl’s range where
Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe occurs,
infected trees provide an important
source of nesting platforms (Buchanan
et al. 1993, pp. 4–5). Nesting northern
spotted owls consistently occupy stands
having a high degree of canopy cover
that may provide thermoregulatory
benefits (Weathers et al. 2001, p. 686),
allowing northern spotted owls a wider
range of choices for locating thermally
neutral roosts near the nest site. A high
degree of canopy cover may also conceal
northern spotted owls, reducing
potential predation. Studies of roosting
locations found that northern spotted
owls tended to use stands with greater
vertical canopy layering (Mills et al.
1993, pp. 318–319), canopy cover (King
1993, p. 45), snag diameter (Mills et al.
1993, pp. 318–319), diameter of large
trees (Herter et al. 2002, pp. 437, 441),
and amounts of large woody debris
(Chow 2001, p. 24; reviewed in
Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 5–14 to 5–16,
5–23). Northern spotted owls use the
same habitat for both nesting and
roosting; the characteristics of roosting
habitat differ from those of nesting
habitat only in that roosting habitat
need not contain the specific structural
features used for nesting (Thomas et al.
1990, p. 62). Aside from the presence of
the nest structure, nesting and roosting
habitat are generally inseparable.
Habitat modeling developed for the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, Appendix
C) and used as one means of helping us
identify potential critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl supports previous
descriptions of nesting habitat (57 FR
1796, January 15, 1992; 73 FR 47326,
August 13, 2008), and suggests a high
degree of similarity among the 11
ecological regions across the range of
the species. Across regions, moderate to
high suitability nesting habitat was
characterized as having high canopy
cover (65 to over 80 percent) and high
basal area (240 ft2/ac; (55 m2/ha), mean
dbh of conifers at least 16.5 to 24 in (42
to 60 cm), and a significant component
of larger trees (greater than 30 in (75
cm)).
Foraging Habitat
Habitats used for foraging by northern
spotted owls vary widely across the
northern spotted owl’s range, in
accordance with ecological conditions
and disturbance regimes that influence
vegetation structure and prey species
distributions. In general, northern
spotted owls select old forests for
foraging in greater proportion than their
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71905
availability at the landscape scale (Carey
et al. 1992, pp. 236–237; Carey and
Peeler 1995, p. 235; Forsman et al. 2005,
pp. 372–373), but will forage in younger
stands and brushy openings with high
prey densities and access to prey (Carey
et al. 1992, p. 247; Rosenberg and
Anthony 1992, p. 165; Thome et al.
1999, pp. 56–57; Irwin et al. 2012, pp.
208–210). Throughout much of the
owl’s range, the same habitat that
provides for nesting and roosting also
provides for foraging, although northern
spotted owls have greater flexibility in
utilizing a variety of habitats for
foraging than they do for nesting and
roosting. That is, habitats that meet the
species’ needs for nesting and roosting
generally also provide for foraging (and
dispersal) requirements of the owl.
However, in some areas owls may use
other types of habitats for foraging, in
addition to those used for nesting and
roosting; thus, habitat that supports
foraging (or dispersal) does not always
support the other PCEs, and does not
necessarily provide for nesting or
roosting. Variation in the potential use
of various foraging habitats throughout
the range of the northern spotted owl is
described here.
West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon
and Washington
In the West Cascades/Coast Ranges of
Oregon and Washington, high-quality
foraging habitat is also nesting/roosting
habitat. Foraging activity is positively
associated with tree height diversity
(North et al. 1999, p. 524), canopy cover
(Irwin et al. 2000, p. 180; Courtney et al.
2004, p. 5–15), snag volume, density of
snags greater than 20 in (50 cm) dbh
(North et al. 1999, p. 524; Irwin et al.
2000, pp. 179–180; Courtney et al. 2004,
p. 5–15), density of trees greater than or
equal to 31 in (80 cm) dbh (North et al.
1999, p. 524) density of trees 20 to 31
in (51 to 80 cm) dbh (Irwin et al. 2000,
pp. 179–180), and volume of woody
debris (Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 179–180).
While the majority of studies reported
strong associations with old-forest
characteristics, younger forests with
some structural characteristics (legacy
features) of old forests (Carey et al. 1992,
pp. 245 to 247; Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 178
to 179), hardwood forest patches, and
edges between old forest and hardwoods
(Glenn et al. 2004, pp. 47–48) are also
used by foraging northern spotted owls.
East Cascades
Foraging habitats used by northern
spotted owls in the East Cascades of
Oregon, Washington, and California
were similar to those used in the
Western Cascades, but can also
encompass forest stands that exhibit
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71906
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
somewhat lower mean tree sizes
(quadratic mean diameter 16 to 22 in (40
to 55 cm) (Irwin et al. 2012, p. 207).
However, foraging activity was still
positively associated with densities of
large trees (greater than 26 in (66 cm))
and increasing basal area (Irwin et al.
2012, p. 206). Stands dominated by
Douglas-fir and white fir/Douglas-fir, or
grand fir/Douglas-fir were preferred in
some regions, whereas stands
dominated by ponderosa pine were
generally avoided (Irwin et al. 2012, p.
207).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Klamath and Northern California
Interior Coast Ranges
Because diets of northern spotted
owls in the Klamath and Northern
California Interior Coast Ranges consist
predominantly of both northern flying
squirrels and dusky-footed woodrats,
habitats used for foraging northern
spotted owls are much more variable
than in northern portions of the species’
range. As in other regions, foraging
northern spotted owls select stands with
mature and old-forest characteristics
such as increasing mean stand diameter
and densities of trees greater than 26 in
(66 cm) dbh (Irwin et al. 2012, p. 206)
and a dominant canopy of large conifer
trees greater than 21 in (52.5 cm) dbh
(Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p. 747), high
canopy cover (87 percent at frequently
used sites; Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p.
747, Table 3), and multiple canopy
layers (Solis and Gutierrez 1990, pp.
744–747; Anthony and Wagner 1999,
pp. 14, 17). However, other habitat
elements are disproportionately used,
particularly forest patches within
riparian zones of low-order streams
(Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p. 747; Irwin
et al. 2012, p. 208) and edges between
conifer and hardwood forest stands
(Zabel et al. 1995, pp. 436–437; Ward et
al. 1998, pp. 86, 88–89). Foraging use is
positively influenced by conifer species,
including incense-cedar (Calocedrus
decurrens), sugar pine (P. lambertiana),
Douglas-fir, and hardwoods such as
bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum),
California black oak (Q. kelloggii), live
oaks, and Pacific madrone (Arbutus
menziesii) as well as shrubs (Sisco 1990,
p. 20; Irwin et al. 2012, pp. 206–207,
209–210), presumably because they
produce mast important for prey
species. Within a mosaic of mature and
older forest habitat, brushy openings
and dense young stands or low-density
forest patches also receive some use
(Sisco 1990, pp. 9, 12, 14, 16; Zabel et
al. 1993, p. 19; Irwin et al. 2012, pp.
209–210).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Redwood Coast
The preponderance of information
regarding habitats used for foraging by
northern spotted owls in the Redwood
Coast zone comes from intensively
managed industrial forests. In these
environments, which comprise the
majority of the redwood region,
interspersion of foraging habitat and
prey-producing habitat appears to be an
important element of habitat suitability.
Foraging habitat is used by owls to
access prey and is characterized by a
wide range of tree sizes and ages.
Foraging activity by owls is positively
associated with density of small to
medium sized trees (10 to 22 in (25 to
56 cm)) and trees greater than 26 in (66
cm) in diameter (Irwin et al. 2007b, p.
19) or greater than 41 years of age
(MacDonald et al. 2006, p. 381).
Foraging was also positively associated
with hardwood species, particularly
tanoak (MacDonald et al. 2006, pp. 380–
382; Irwin et al. 2007a, pp. 1188–1189).
Prey-producing habitats occur within
early-seral habitats 6 to 20 years old
(Hamm and Diller 2009, p. 100, Table
2), typically resulting from clearcuts or
other intensive harvest methods. Habitat
elements within these openings include
dense shrub and hardwood cover, and
woody debris.
Nonbreeding and Dispersal Habitat
Although the term ‘‘dispersal’’
frequently refers to post-fledgling
movements of juveniles, for the
purposes of this rule we are using the
term to include all movement during
both the transience and colonization
phase, and to encompass important
concepts of linkage and connectivity
among owl subpopulations. Population
growth can only occur if there is
adequate habitat in an appropriate
configuration to allow for the dispersal
of owls across the landscape. Although
habitat that allows for dispersal may
currently be marginal or unsuitable for
nesting, roosting, or foraging, it provides
an important linkage function among
blocks of nesting habitat both locally
and over the owl’s range that is essential
to its conservation. However, as noted
above, we expect dispersal success is
highest when dispersers move through
forests that have the characteristics of
nesting-roosting and foraging habitats.
Although northern spotted owls may be
able to move through forests with less
complex structure, survivorship is likely
decreased. Dispersal habitat, at a
minimum, consists of stands with
adequate tree size and canopy cover to
provide protection from avian predators
and at least minimal foraging
opportunities; there may be variations
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
over the owl’s range (e.g., drier site in
the east Cascades or northern
California). This may include younger
and less diverse forest stands than
foraging habitat, such as even-aged,
pole-sized stands, but such stands
should contain some roosting structures
and foraging habitat to allow for
temporary resting and feeding during
the transience phase.
Habitat supporting nonbreeding
northern spotted owls, or the
colonization phase of dispersal, is
generally equivalent to nesting, roosting,
and foraging habitat and is described
above, although it may be in smaller
amounts than that needed to support
nesting pairs.
Primary Constituent Elements for the
Northern Spotted Owl
Based on our current knowledge of
the physical or biological features and
habitat characteristics required to
sustain the species’ life-history
processes, we determine that the
primary constituent elements specific to
the northern spotted owl are as follows;
note that PCE 1 must occur in concert
with PCE 2, 3, or 4:
(1) Forest types that may be in
early-, mid-, or late-seral stages and that
support the northern spotted owl across
its geographical range; these forest types
are primarily:
(a) Sitka spruce,
(b) Western hemlock,
(c) Mixed conifer and mixed
evergreen,
(d) Grand fir,
(e) Pacific silver fir,
(f) Douglas-fir,
(g) White fir,
(h) Shasta red fir,
(i) Redwood/Douglas-fir (in coastal
California and southwestern Oregon),
and
(j) The moist end of the ponderosa
pine coniferous forests zones at
elevations up to approximately 3,000 ft
(900 m) near the northern edge of the
range and up to approximately 6,000 ft
(1,800 m) at the southern edge.
(2) Habitat that provides for nesting
and roosting. In many cases the same
habitat also provides for foraging (PCE
(3)). Nesting and roosting habitat
provides structural features for nesting,
protection from adverse weather
conditions, and cover to reduce
predation risks for adults and young.
This PCE is found throughout the
geographical range of the northern
spotted owl, because stand structures at
nest sites tend to vary little across the
northern spotted owl’s range. These
habitats must provide:
(a) Sufficient foraging habitat to meet
the home range needs of territorial pairs
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
of northern spotted owls throughout the
year.
(b) Stands for nesting and roosting
that are generally characterized by:
(i) Moderate to high canopy cover (60
to over 80 percent);
(ii) Multilayered, multispecies
canopies with large (20–30 in (51–76
cm) or greater dbh) overstory trees;
(iii) High basal area (greater than 240
ft2/ac (55 m2/ha));
(iv) High diversity of different
diameters of trees;
(v) High incidence of large live trees
with various deformities (e.g., large
cavities, broken tops, mistletoe
infections, and other evidence of
decadence);
(vi) Large snags and large
accumulations of fallen trees and other
woody debris on the ground; and
(vii) Sufficient open space below the
canopy for northern spotted owls to fly.
(3) Habitat that provides for foraging,
which varies widely across the northern
spotted owl’s range, in accordance with
ecological conditions and disturbance
regimes that influence vegetation
structure and prey species distributions.
Across most of the owl’s range, nesting
and roosting habitat is also foraging
habitat, but in some regions northern
spotted owls may additionally use other
habitat types for foraging as well. The
foraging habitat PCEs for the four
ecological zones within the geographical
range of the northern spotted owl are
generally the following:
(a) West Cascades/Coast Ranges of
Oregon and Washington
(i) Stands of nesting and roosting
habitat; additionally, owls may use
younger forests with some structural
characteristics (legacy features) of old
forests, hardwood forest patches, and
edges between old forest and
hardwoods;
(ii) Moderate to high canopy cover (60
to over 80 percent);
(iii) A diversity of tree diameters and
heights;
(iv) Increasing density of trees greater
than or equal to 31 in (80 cm) dbh
increases foraging habitat quality
(especially above 12 trees per ac (30
trees per ha));
(v) Increasing density of trees 20 to 31
in (51 to 80 cm) dbh increases foraging
habitat quality (especially above 24 trees
per ac (60 trees per ha));
(vi) Increasing snag basal area, snag
volume (the product of snag diameter,
height, estimated top diameter, and
including a taper function (North et al.
1999, p. 523)), and density of snags
greater than 20 in (50 cm) dbh all
contribute to increasing foraging habitat
quality, especially above 4 snags per ac
(10 snags per ha);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(vii) Large accumulations of fallen
trees and other woody debris on the
ground; and
(viii) Sufficient open space below the
canopy for northern spotted owls to fly.
(b) East Cascades
(i) Stands of nesting and roosting
habitat;
(ii) Stands composed of Douglas-fir
and white fir/Douglas-fir mix;
(iii) Mean tree size greater than 16.5
in (42 cm) quadratic mean diameter;
(iv) Increasing density of large trees
(greater than 26 in (66 cm)) and
increasing basal area (the total area
covered by trees measured at breast
height) increases foraging habitat
quality;
(v) Large accumulations of fallen trees
and other woody debris on the ground;
and
(vi) Sufficient open space below the
canopy for northern spotted owls to fly.
(c) Klamath and Northern California
Interior Coast Ranges
(i) Stands of nesting and roosting
habitat; in addition, other forest types
with mature and old-forest
characteristics;
(ii) Presence of the conifer species,
incense-cedar, sugar pine, Douglas-fir,
and hardwood species such as bigleaf
maple, black oak, live oaks, and
madrone, as well as shrubs;
(iii) Forest patches within riparian
zones of low-order streams and edges
between conifer and hardwood forest
stands;
(iv) Brushy openings and dense young
stands or low-density forest patches
within a mosaic of mature and older
forest habitat;
(v) High canopy cover (87 percent at
frequently used sites);
(vi) Multiple canopy layers;
(vii) Mean stand diameter greater than
21 in (52.5 cm);
(viii) Increasing mean stand diameter
and densities of trees greater than 26 in
(66 cm) increases foraging habitat
quality;
(ix) Large accumulations of fallen
trees and other woody debris on the
ground; and
(x) Sufficient open space below the
canopy for northern spotted owls to fly.
(d) Redwood Coast
(i) Nesting and roosting habitat; in
addition, stands composed of hardwood
tree species, particularly tanoak;
(ii) Early-seral habitats 6 to 20 years
old with dense shrub and hardwood
cover and abundant woody debris; these
habitats produce prey, and must occur
in conjunction with nesting, roosting, or
foraging habitat;
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71907
(iii) Increasing density of small-tomedium sized trees (10 to 22 in (25 to
56 cm)) increases foraging habitat
quality;
(iv) Trees greater than 26 in (66 cm)
in diameter or greater than 41 years of
age; and
(v) Sufficient open space below the
canopy for northern spotted owls to fly.
(4) Habitat to support the transience
and colonization phases of dispersal,
which in all cases would optimally be
composed of nesting, roosting, or
foraging habitat (PCEs (2) or (3)), but
which may also be composed of other
forest types that occur between larger
blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat. In cases where nesting, roosting,
or foraging habitats are insufficient to
provide for dispersing or nonbreeding
owls, the specific dispersal habitat PCEs
for the northern spotted owl may be
provided by the following:
(a) Habitat supporting the transience
phase of dispersal, which includes:
(i) Stands with adequate tree size and
canopy cover to provide protection from
avian predators and minimal foraging
opportunities; in general this may
include, but is not limited to, trees with
at least 11 in (28 cm) dbh and a
minimum 40 percent canopy cover; and
(ii) Younger and less diverse forest
stands than foraging habitat, such as
even-aged, pole-sized stands, if such
stands contain some roosting structures
and foraging habitat to allow for
temporary resting and feeding during
the transience phase.
(b) Habitat supporting the
colonization phase of dispersal, which
is generally equivalent to nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat as
described in PCEs (2) and (3), but may
be smaller in area than that needed to
support nesting pairs.
This revised designation describes the
physical or biological features and their
primary constituent elements essential
to support the life-history functions of
the northern spotted owl. We have
determined that all of the units and
subunits designated in this rule were
occupied by the northern spotted owl at
the time of listing, and that (depending
on the scale at which occupancy is
considered) some smaller areas within
the subunits may have been unoccupied
at the time of listing. To address any
uncertainty regarding occupancy, we
have also evaluated all of the areas
identified here as critical habitat under
the standard of section 3(5)(a)(ii) of the
Act, and determined that they are
essential to the conservation of the
species, as described in Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat, below. The
criteria section also describes our
evaluation of the configuration of the
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71908
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
physical or biological features on the
landscape to determine where those
features are essential to the conservation
of the northern spotted owl. We have
further determined that the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl require special management
considerations or protection, as
described below.
In areas occupied at the time of
listing, not all of the revised critical
habitat will contain all of the PCEs,
because not all life-history functions
require all of the PCEs. Some subunits
contain all PCEs and support multiple
life processes, while some subunits may
contain only those PCEs necessary to
support the species’ particular use of
that habitat. However, all of the areas
occupied at the time of listing and
designated as critical habitat support at
least the first PCE described (foresttype), in conjunction with at least one
other PCE. Thus PCE (1) must always
occur in concert with at least one
additional PCE (PCE 2, 3, or 4).
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. The term
critical habitat is defined in section
3(5)(A) of the Act, in part, as the specific
areas within the geographical areas
occupied by the species, at the time it
is listed, on which are found those
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species and
‘‘which may require special
management considerations or
protection.’’ Accordingly, in identifying
critical habitat in areas occupied at the
time of listing, we determine whether
the features essential to the conservation
of the species on those areas may
require any special management actions
or protection. Here we present a
discussion of the special management
considerations or protections that may
be required throughout the critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl. In
addition, for the benefit of land
managers, we provide management
suggestions consistent with the
recommendations of the Revised
Recovery Plan for consideration.
An effective critical habitat strategy
needs to conserve extant, high-quality
northern spotted owl habitat in order to
reverse declining population trends and
address the threat from barred owls. The
northern spotted owl was initially listed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
as a threatened species due largely to
both historical and ongoing habitat loss
and degradation. The recovery of the
northern spotted owl therefore requires
both protection of habitat and
management where necessary to provide
sufficient high-quality habitat to allow
for population growth and to provide a
buffer against threats such as
competition with the barred owl.
Recovery Criterion 3 in the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011) is the ‘‘Continued
Maintenance and Recruitment of
Northern Spotted Owl Habitat,’’ which
is further described as the achievement
of a stable or increasing trend in
northern spotted owl nesting, roosting,
and foraging habitat throughout the
range of the species. Meeting this
recovery criterion will require special
management considerations or
protection of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl in all of the
critical habitat units and subunits, as
described here. Special management
includes both passive and active
management.
The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for
the Northern Spotted Owl describes the
three main threats to the northern
spotted owl as competition from barred
owls, past habitat loss, and current
habitat loss (USFWS 2011, p. III–42). As
the barred owl is present throughout the
range of the northern spotted owl,
special management considerations or
protections may be required in all of the
critical habitat units and subunits to
ensure the northern spotted owl has
sufficient habitat available to withstand
competitive pressure from the barred
owl (Dugger et al. 2011, pp. 2459, 2467).
In particular, studies by Dugger et al.
(2011, p. 2459) and Wiens (2012, entire)
indicated that northern spotted owl
demographic performance is better
when additional high-quality habitat is
available in areas where barred owls are
present.
Scientific peer reviewers of the 2011
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFSW 2011, entire) and
Forsman et al. (2011, p. 77)
recommended that we address currently
observed downward demographic
trends in northern spotted owl
populations by protecting currently
occupied sites, as well as historically
occupied sites, and by maintaining and
restoring older and more structurally
complex multilayered conifer forests on
all lands (USFWS 2011, pp. III–42 to III–
43). The types of management or
protections that may be required to
achieve these goals and maintain the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the owl in
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
occupied areas vary across the range of
the species. Some areas of northern
spotted owl habitat, particularly in
wetter forest types, are unlikely to be
enhanced by active management
activities, but instead need protection of
the essential features; whereas other
forest areas would likely benefit from
more proactive forestry management.
For example, in drier, more fire-prone
regions of the owl’s range, habitat
conditions will likely be more dynamic,
and more active management may be
required to reduce the risk to the
essential physical or biological features
from fire, insects, disease, and climate
change, as well as to promote
regeneration following disturbance.
While we recommend conservation of
high-quality and occupied northern
spotted owl habitat, long-term northern
spotted owl recovery could benefit from
forest management where the basic
goals are to restore or maintain
ecological processes and resilience, as
discussed in detail in the Revised
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, pp. III–11
to III–39). Special management
considerations or protections may be
required throughout the critical habitat
to achieve these goals and benefit the
conservation of the owl. The natural
ecological processes and landscape that
once provided large areas of relatively
contiguous northern spotted owl habitat
(especially on the west side of the
Cascade Range) have been altered by a
history of anthropogenic activities, such
as timber harvest, road construction,
development, agricultural conversion,
and fire suppression. The resilience of
these systems is now additionally
challenged by the effects of climate
change. As recommended in the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl, active forest management may be
required throughout the range of the owl
with the goal of maintaining or restoring
forest ecosystem structure, composition,
and processes so they are sustainable
and resilient under current and future
climate conditions, to provide for the
long-term conservation of the species
(USFWS 2011, p. III–13). For example,
in some areas, past management
practices have decreased age-class
diversity and altered the structure of
forest patches; in these areas,
management, such as targeted
vegetation treatments, could
simultaneously reduce fuel loads and
increase canopy and age-class diversity
(Miller et al. 2009, p. 30; Stephens et al.
2009, p. 316–318; Stephens et al. 2012b,
p. 554; Fontaine and Kennedy 2012, p.
1559; Chmura et al. 2011, p. 1134;
USFWS 2011, p. III–18).
In moist forests that are currently
providing mature and late-successional
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
forest that functions as habitat for
northern spotted owls, active
management is generally unnecessary to
conserve older growth forests (Johnson
and Franklin 2009, p. 3). Within
younger, homogeneous stands, active
management that retains larger and
older trees but reduces density of
smaller trees may be useful to accelerate
development of within-stand structural
diversity. Management insights, such as
those provided by Aubry et al. (2009,
entire), Johnson and Franklin (2009,
entire), Johnson and Franklin (2012
entire), Kerr 2012, entire), and Spies et
al. (2010, entire), provide examples of
how such actions could occur in a
manner consistent with northern
spotted owl conservation in moist
forests.
In dry forest regions, where natural
disturbance regimes and vegetation
structure, composition, and distribution
have been substantially altered since
Euro-American settlement, vegetation
and fuels management (through
influencing fire behavior, severity, and
distribution) may be required to retain
and recruit northern spotted owl habitat
on the landscape (Buchanan 2009, pp.
114–115; Healey et al. 2008, pp. 1117–
1118; Roloff et al. 2012, pp. 8–9; Ager
et al. 2007, pp. 53–55; Ager et al. 2012,
pp. 279–282; Franklin et al. 2009, p. 46;
Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, pp. 564–
565), to conserve other biodiversity
(Perry et al. 2011, p. 715), and to restore
more natural vegetation and disturbance
regimes and heterogeneity (e.g.,
Stephens et al. 2012b, pp. 557–558).
Special management considerations
may be required to maintain adequate
northern spotted owl habitat in the near
term, not only to allow northern spotted
owls to persist in the face of threats
from barred owl expansion and habitat
modifications from fire and other
disturbances, but also to restore
landscapes to a more resilient state in
the face of alterations projected to occur
with ongoing climate change (USFWS
2011, p. III–32).
If land managers are actively
managing forests, we recommend that
these activities be focused on lower
quality owl habitat (lower relative
habitat sustainability (RHS)); that these
activities focus on ecological
restoration, or apply principles of
ecological forestry; and, where possible,
evaluate the effects of these treatments
on northern spotted owls and other
species of concern using an active
adaptive forest management framework.
We recognize that the only regulatory
effect of the designation of critical
habitat is that section 7(a)(2) of the Act
applies, and that it does not require
active management or mandate any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
specific type of management; it only
requires that Federal agencies ensure
that their actions are not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat, as those terms are used in
section 7. However, because the Act
requires us to make a determination that
the physical and biological features
essential to conservation of the species
may also need special management
considerations or protection, we are
taking this opportunity to describe, for
consideration by land managers,
specific management approaches and
types of forest where land managers
should consider applying them in order
to maintain sufficient suitable habitat
across the range of the owl. We have
determined that the physical and
biological features in habitat occupied
by the species at the time it was listed,
as represented by the primary
constituent elements, may require
special management considerations or
protection as required by 16 U.S.C.
1532(5)(A). However, nothing in this
rule requires land managers to
implement, or precludes land managers
from implementing, special
management or protection measures.
Because these will vary
geographically, here we provide a more
detailed discussion of the types of
management considerations or
protections that may be required to
preserve or enhance the essential
physical or biological features for the
northern spotted owl in the West
Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and
Washington, East Cascades, Klamath
and Northern California Interior Coast
Ranges, and the Redwood Coast.
West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon
and Washington
Special management considerations
or protection may be required in areas
of moist forests to conserve or protect
older stands that contain the conditions
to support northern spotted owl
occupancy (RA10: USFWS 2011, p. 43)
or contain high-value northern spotted
owl habitat (RA32: USFWS 2011, p. 67).
Silvicultural treatments are generally
not needed to maintain existing oldgrowth forests and high-quality habitat
on moist sites (Wimberly et al. 2004, p.
155; Johnson and Franklin 2009, pp. 3,
39). In contrast to dry forests, short-term
fire risk is generally lower in the moist
forests that not only dominate on the
west side of the Cascade Range, but also
occur east of the Cascades as a higherelevation band or as peninsulas or
inclusions in mesic forests. Disturbancebased management for forests and
northern spotted owls in moist forest
areas should be different from that
applied in dry forests. Efforts to alter
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71909
either fuel loading or potential fire
behavior in these sites could have
undesirable ecological consequences as
well (Johnson and Franklin 2009, p. 39;
Mitchell et al. 2009, pp. 653–654;
USFWS 2011, p. III–17). Furthermore,
commercial thinning has been shown to
have negative consequences for
northern spotted owls (Forsman et al.
1984, Meiman et al. 2003) and their prey
(Waters et al. 1994, Luoma et al. 2003,
Wilson 2010). Active management may
be more appropriate in younger
plantations that are not currently on a
trajectory to develop old-growth
structure. These stands typically do not
provide high-quality northern spotted
owl habitat, although they may
occasionally be used for foraging and
dispersal.
In general, to advance long-term
northern spotted owl recovery and
ecosystem restoration in moist forests in
the face of climate change and past
management practices, special
management considerations or
protections may be required that follow
these principles as recommended in the
2011 Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS
2011, p. III–18):
(1) Conserve older stands that contain
the conditions to support northern
spotted owl occupancy or high-value
northern spotted owl habitat as
described in Recovery Actions 10 and
32 (USFWS 2011, pp. III–43, III–67). On
Federal lands this recommendation
applies to all land-use allocations (see
also Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 284–285).
(2) Management emphasis needs to be
placed on meeting northern spotted owl
recovery goals and long-term ecosystem
restoration and conservation. When
there is a conflict between these goals,
actions that would disturb or remove
the essential physical or biological
features of northern spotted owl critical
habitat need to be minimized and
reconciled with long-term ecosystem
restoration goals.
(3) Continue to manage for large,
continuous blocks of late-successional
forest.
(4) In areas that are not currently lateseral forest or high-value habitat and
where more traditional forest
management might be conducted (e.g.
matrix), these activities should consider
applying ecological forestry
prescriptions. Some examples that
could be utilized include Franklin et al.
(2002, pp. 417–421; 2007, entire), Kerr
(2012), Drever et al. (2006, entire),
Johnson and Franklin (2009, pp. 39–41),
Swanson et al. (2010, entire), and others
cited in the Revised Recovery Plan for
the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS
2011, pp. III–14, III–17 to III–19).
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71910
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
These special management
considerations or protections apply to
Units 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the revised
critical habitat.
East Cascades
Special management considerations
or protection may be required in the
East Cascades to address the effects of
past activities associated with EuroAmerican settlement, such as timber
harvest, livestock grazing, fire
suppression, and fire exclusion, that
have substantially altered the inland
northwest, modifying the patterns of
vegetation and fuels, and subsequent
disturbance regimes to the degree that
contemporary landscapes no longer
function as they did historically
(Hessburg et al. 2000a, pp. 74–81;
Hessburg and Agee 2003, pp. 44–46;
Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 134–135;
Skinner et al. 2006, pp. 178–179;
Skinner and Taylor 2006, pp. 201–203;
Miller et al. 2009, p. 30; Stephens et al.
2009, pp. 316–318; Stephens et al.
2012b, p. 554; Fontaine and Kennedy
2012, p. 1559; Chmura et al. 2011, p.
1134). This has affected not only the
existing forest and disturbance regimes,
but the quality, amount, and
distribution of northern spotted owl
habitat on the landscape (Buchanan
2009, pp. 114–115; Healey et al. 2008,
pp. 1117–1118; Roloff et al. 2012, pp. 8–
9; Ager et al. 2007, pp. 53–55; Ager et
al. 2012, pp. 279–282; Franklin et al.
2009, p. 46; Kennedy and Wimberly
2009, pp. 564–565). In order to preserve
the essential physical or biological
features, these dynamic, disturbanceprone forests should be managed in a
way that promotes northern spotted owl
conservation, responds to climate
change, and restores dry forest
ecological structure, composition and
processes, including wildfire and other
disturbances (USFWS 2011, p. III–20).
The following restoration principles
apply to the management that may be
required in this dry forest region
(USFWS 2011, pp. III–34 to III–35):
(1) Conserve older stands that contain
the conditions to support northern
spotted owl occupancy or high-value
northern spotted owl habitat as
described in Recovery Actions 10 and
32 (USFWS 2011, pp. III–43, III–67). On
Federal lands this recommendation
applies to all land-use allocations (see
also Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 284–285).
(2) Emphasize vegetation management
treatments outside of northern spotted
owl territories or highly suitable habitat;
(3) Design and implement restoration
treatments at the landscape level;
(4) Retain and restore key structural
components, including large and old
trees, large snags, and downed logs;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
(5) Retain and restore heterogeneity
within stands;
(6) Retain and restore heterogeneity
among stands;
(7) Manage roads to address fire risk;
and
(8) Consider vegetation management
objectives when managing wildfires,
where appropriate.
The above principles will result in
treatments that have a variety of effects
on northern spotted owl habitat in the
short and long term. For example, some
restoration treatments may have an
immediate neutral or beneficial effect on
existing northern spotted owl habitat
(e.g., roads management, some
prescribed fire prescriptions). Other
treatments, however, may involve
reductions in stand densities, canopy
cover, or ladder fuels (understory
vegetation that has the potential to carry
up into a crown fire)—and thus affect
the physical or biological features
needed by the species. At the stand
scale, this can result in a level of
conflict between conserving existing
northern spotted owl habitat and
restoring dry-forest ecosystems.
Resolution of such conflicts can be
enhanced by considering the range of
forest conditions that comprise suitable
owl habitat and tailoring management
accordingly.
Land managers should change from
the practice of implementing many
small, uncoordinated and independent
fuel-reduction and restoration
treatments. Instead, coordinated and
strategic efforts that link individual
projects to the larger objectives of
restoring landscapes while conserving
and recovering northern spotted owl
habitat are needed (sensu Sisk et al.
2005, entire; Prather et al. 2008, entire;
Gaines et al. 2010, entire). Some
examples of this type of planning in the
east Cascades that may be emulated or
referenced include the OkanagonWenatchee National Forest (USDA 2010,
entire), The Nature Conservancy (Davis
et al. 2012, entire), and the Deschutes
National Forest (Smith et al. 2011,
entire).
The special management
considerations or protections identified
here apply to Units 7 and 8 of the
revised critical habitat.
Klamath and Northern California
Interior Coast Ranges
The special management
considerations or protections that may
be required in the Klamath and
Northern California Interior Coast
Ranges represent a mix of the
requirements needed to maintain or
enhance the essential physical or
biological features in mesic and dry
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
forest types. This region in
southwestern Oregon and northwestern
California is characterized by very high
climatic and vegetative diversity
resulting from steep gradients of
elevation, dissected topography, and
large differences in moisture from west
to east. Summer temperatures are high,
and northern spotted owls occur at
elevations up to 1,768 m (5,800 ft).
Western portions of this zone support a
diverse mix of mesic forest communities
interspersed with drier forest types.
Forests of mixed conifers and evergreen
hardwoods are typical of the zone.
Eastern portions of this zone have a
Mediterranean climate with increased
occurrence of ponderosa pine. Douglasfir dwarf mistletoe is rarely used for
nesting platforms in the west, but
commonly used in the east. The prey
base for northern spotted owls in this
zone is correspondingly diverse, but is
dominated by dusky-footed woodrats,
bushy-tailed woodrats, and flying
squirrels. Northern spotted owls have
been well studied in the western portion
of this zone (Forsman et al. 2005, p.
219), but relatively little is known about
northern spotted owl habitat use in the
eastern portion and the California
Interior Coast Range portion of the zone.
High canopy cover, high levels of
canopy layering, and the presence of
very large dominant trees were all
important features of nesting and
roosting habitat. Compared to other
zones, models of foraging habitat for this
zone showed greater divergence from
nesting habitat. Low to intermediate
slope positions were strongly favored. In
the eastern Klamath, presence of
Douglas-fir was an important
compositional variable. Habitat
associations in the Klamath zone are
diverse and unique, reflecting the
climate, topography, and vegetation of
this area. Nesting and roosting habitat
somewhat resembles that of other zones,
with a greater emphasis on topography
that provides some relief from high
temperatures while foraging habitat in
this zone includes more open forests.
Consequently, management actions
consistent with maintaining and
developing northern spotted owl habitat
need to consider local conditions. In
some areas, appropriate management
will be more consistent with dry forest
management strategies, while in other
areas wet forest management strategies
will be more appropriate.
This region contains habitat
characteristics of both moist and dry
forests interspersed across a highly
diverse landscape (Halofsky et al. 2011,
p. 1). The special management
recommendations from the moist and
dry forest sections, above, apply to the
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
management actions or protections that
may be required in the Klamath and
Northern California Interior Coast
Ranges. Similar to the discussion in
moist forests concerning conservation of
small patches of early-seral habitat,
Perry et al. (2011, p. 715) noted that
replacement of early successional shrubhardwood communities by closed
forests in the absence of fire
significantly impacts landscape
diversity. Restoration of appropriate fire
regimes and use of targeted silvicultural
intervention may be effective where the
goal is to restore or maintain this
diversity (Halofsky et al. 2011, p. 15).
An example of this type of planning in
this area that may be emulated or
referenced is the Ashland Forest
Resiliency Project (USDA 2009, entire).
The special management
considerations or protections identified
here apply to Units 9, 10, and 11 of the
revised critical habitat.
Redwood Coast
Special management considerations
or protection may be needed in the
Redwood Coast Zone to maintain or
enhance the essential physical or
biological features for the owl. Although
the Redwood Coast zone of coastal
northern California is considered part of
the wet/moist forest region within the
range of the northern spotted owl, there
are distinct differences in northern
spotted owl habitat use and diet within
this zone. The long growing season in
this region, combined with redwood’s
ability to resprout from stumps, allows
redwood stands to attain suitable stand
structure for nesting in a relatively short
period of time (40–60 years) if legacy
structures are present. Late-successional
forest is an important component of
nesting and roosting habitat in the
Redwood Zone, and demographic
productivity on northern spotted owl
breeding sites has been positively
correlated with the density of legacy
trees in proximity to owl nest sites
(Thome et al. 1999, p. 57). Forest
management in this region should
conserve older stands that contain the
conditions to support northern spotted
owl occupancy or high-value northern
spotted owl habitat as described in
Recovery Actions 10 and 32 (USFWS
2011, pp. III–43, III–67). On Federal
lands this recommendation applies to
all land-use allocations (see also
Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 284–285). In
this region, some degree of fine-scale
fragmentation in redwood forests
appears to benefit northern spotted
owls. Forest openings aged 5 to 20 years
(e.g., harvest units or burns), with dense
shrub and hardwood cover, and
abundant food sources, can provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
high-quality habitat for the northern
spotted owl’s primary prey, the duskyfooted woodrat. Woodrat populations
within recent openings probably peak
by about stand age 10. Food sources and
understory cover decline steadily
through about stand age 20, when the
woodrat population-source diminishes.
In northern spotted owl territories
within the Redwood Zone, active
management that creates small openings
in proximity to nesting, roosting, or
foraging habitat may enhance northern
spotted owl foraging opportunities.
The special management
considerations or protections identified
here apply to Unit 3 of the revised
critical habitat.
Summary of Special Management
Considerations or Protection
We find that each of the areas
occupied at the time of listing that we
are designating as critical habitat
contains features essential to the
conservation of the species that may
require special management
considerations or protection to ensure
the conservation of the northern spotted
owl. These special management
considerations or protection may be
required to preserve and enhance the
essential features needed to achieve the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl. Additional information on
management activities compatible with
northern spotted owl conservation can
be found within the Section 7
Consultation section of this preamble.
VII. Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, we use the best scientific and
commercial data available to designate
critical habitat. We have reviewed the
available information pertaining to the
habitat requirements of the species. In
accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(e), based on this review, we have
identified the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it was listed on
which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. In
addition, we considered whether any
additional areas outside those occupied
at the time of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species.
Occupied Areas
For the purpose of developing and
evaluating this revised critical habitat
designation for the northern spotted
owl, we identified ‘‘geographical area
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71911
occupied by the species’’ at the time it
was listed consistent with the species’
distribution, population ecology, and
use of space. We based our
identification of occupied geographical
areas on: (1) The distribution of verified
northern spotted owl locations at the
time of listing and (2) scientific
information regarding northern spotted
owl population structure and habitat
associations.
We determined the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing based in part on a habitat
suitability model incorporating the
distribution of approximately 4,000
known northern spotted owl territories
across the geographical range of the
species (USFWS 2011, Appendix C). We
used this model rather than just relying
on surveyed sites at that time because
large areas within the species’
geographical range had not been
surveyed; therefore the distribution of
northern spotted owl populations was
incompletely known at the time the
species was listed, and remains so
today. For this reason, designating
critical habitat based solely on the
locations of territories identified
through surveys would exclude a
substantial proportion of the area that
would have been occupied by the
species at the time of listing, and that
provides the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. To address this, we used
our descriptions of the physical and
biological features to develop a habitat
suitability model that enabled us to map
the distribution of relative habitat
suitability and reliably identify areas
that would have supported northern
spotted owl territories at the time of
listing, based on habitat value (USFWS
2011, Appendix C). Our habitat
suitability model was based on GNN
(Gradient Nearest Neighbor) vegetation
data from 1996, and the locations of
approximately 4,000 known owl pairs
documented within 3 years of the date
of the GNN vegetation data (USFWS
2011, p. C–20). Because our evaluations
of model performance demonstrated
that the models had good predictive
ability (USFWS 2011, Appendix C, p.
C–38–42) we used the relative habitat
suitability models to predict the
distribution of areas that would have
supported occupancy by spotted owls at
the time of listing.
Because the best available habitat and
owl location data and information
corresponded to 1996, we made an
explicit assumption that the 1996-based
habitat suitability model would reliably
predict the distribution of spotted owls
at the time of listing (1990). This
assumption was based on: (1) Our
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71912
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
expectation that patterns of habitat
selection by spotted owls would not
change over a 6-year period; (2) the high
degree of site fidelity exhibited by
territorial spotted owls over many years;
and (3) the fact that the amount and
distribution of older forest habitat,
which takes many decades to develop
and is a primary component of northern
spotted owl habitat, would not have
increased significantly in the period
between listing and 1996. Therefore, we
concluded that the 1996 GNN layer is a
reasonable representation of the habitat
that would have been occupied by
northern spotted owls at the time of
listing.
We tested this assumption by
analyzing the relationship between our
1996 habitat suitability map and the
distribution of 3,723 spotted owl sites
known to be occupied at the time of
listing (1987–1996). This time period
reasonably represents the time of listing
because northern spotted owls are
relatively long-lived and exhibit a high
degree of fidelity to territory core areas;
their territory locations are, therefore,
relatively stable through time, unless
substantial changes occur to territory
habitat. For this reason, we consider it
highly likely that locations occupied
between 1987 and 1990, and 1990 and
1996 were also occupied at the time of
listing in 1990. We found that over 85
percent of the proposed critical habitat
area was within the estimated home
ranges of known spotted owl sites,
strongly supporting our assumption that
the model reliably predicted areas were
occupied at the time of listing.
However, restricting a definition of
occupancy to areas known to be used by
resident territorial owls overlooks a
large segment of the owl population that
is not generally reflected in standard
survey methodologies, as described
below. Northern spotted owl
populations consist of the territorial,
resident owls, for which we have
documentation of occupancy
throughout much of the owl’s range,
described above, but also include
nonterritorial adult ‘‘floaters’’ and
dispersing subadult owls. Both
dispersing subadults and nonterritorial
floaters are consistently present on the
landscape and require suitable habitat to
support dispersal and survival until
they recruit into the breeding
population; this habitat requirement is
in addition to that already utilized by
resident territorial owls. Nonterritorial
owls are difficult to detect in surveys
because most surveys rely on territorial
defense behavior of resident owls
(responding to artificial owl calls) to
determine their presence. Because they
are difficult to detect, the number and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
distribution of nonterritorial and
dispersing owls is poorly known for any
given northern spotted owl population.
However, they constitute essential
elements of northern spotted owl
populations, and can reliably be
assumed to occur in suitable habitat
within the same landscapes occupied by
territorial owls. As stated, the great
majority (85 percent) of the area within
the identified critical habitat is covered
by the home ranges of known owl
territories at the time of listing. Because
it is well established that dispersing
subadults and non-territorial northern
spotted owls regularly occupy highquality habitat in the vicinity of other
territorial northern spotted owls, and
because our relative habitat suitability
models exhibited high accuracy at
predicting the probability of presence by
owls, we conclude that these areas of
high-quality habitat were occupied by
the species at the time of listing.
Therefore, based on the best available
scientific information regarding
population structure of northern spotted
owls, ‘‘occupied at the time of listing’’
encompasses (1) home ranges of
resident, territorial northern spotted
owls known from surveys to be present
at the time of listing, (2) home ranges of
territorial owls that would have been
present at the time of listing based on
a model developed specifically to
predict owl presence based on relative
habitat suitability, and (3) areas used by
nonterritorial and dispersing owls that
were likely to be present within the
matrix of territories in a given landscape
known to be occupied by resident owl
pairs.
Having determined our working
definition of the term ‘‘occupied,’’ in
this instance, we then characterized
‘‘specific areas’’ as used in the
definition of critical habitat in section
3(5)(A) of the Act, to conform with
known patterns of space-use and
distribution exhibited by northern
spotted owls. Northern spotted owls are
wide-ranging organisms that maintain
large home ranges and disperse
relatively long distances. Home ranges
are used regularly by territorial owls for
foraging, raising young, and other
activities, and are actively defended by
the resident pair year-round; as such,
we consider these home ranges to be
continually occupied by the species.
Although much activity is centered on
core areas within the home ranges,
northern spotted owls are dependent
upon the entirety of the home range for
prey resources and use it on a regular
basis throughout the year. As described
earlier, territorial northern spotted owls
cover home ranges from roughly 1,400
ac (570 ha) at the southern end of their
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
range (Zabel et al. 1995, p. 436) up to
over 14,000 ac (5,700 ha) (USDI 1992, p.
23; USFWS 1994 in litt., p. 1) in the
northern portion of the species’ range.
These large home ranges may overlap
with those of neighboring northern
spotted owls, such that large landscapes
may be fully occupied by population
clusters in areas where suitable habitat
is well distributed. Some demographic
study areas still exhibit this pattern over
large landscapes today, although
overlapping home ranges were more the
case when the northern spotted owl was
first listed, prior to extensive
colonization of the species’ range by the
barred owl.
To conservatively evaluate the
proportion of each subunit that was
composed of areas known to be
occupied by northern spotted owls at
the time of listing, we calculated the
area within estimated home ranges
(USFWS 2011, p. C–63 Table C–24) for
all verified northern spotted owl
locations known at the time of listing,
as described above. Overall, 85 percent
of the area designated is within
estimated home ranges of verified
territorial northern spotted owls located
through surveys at the time of listing;
this area is entirely representative of
verified owl locations, and does not
include habitat occupied based on
habitat suitability or nonresident owls.
Twenty-two (37 percent) of the 60
subunits have at least 90 percent of their
area within verified known home
ranges; 41 (68 percent) have at least 70
percent. As explained above, given that
these areas represent occupancy by
verified resident owls only, and
considering the suitable habitat
available at the time of listing in these
same landscapes, we conclude that the
remainder of these areas was occupied
by other resident owls that simply were
not within surveyed areas, nonterritorial
adult owls (floaters), or dispersing
subadults.
To help us identify and map potential
critical habitat for the owl, we used a
three-step modeling framework
developed as part of the Revised
Recovery Plan that integrates a northern
spotted owl habitat model, a habitat
conservation planning model, and a
population simulation model. The
details of this modeling framework are
presented in Appendix C of the Revised
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011), and a
detailed technical description of the
modeling and habitat network
evaluation process we used in this
revised designation of critical habitat is
provided in Dunk et al. (2012b, entire).
Both of these supporting documents are
available at http://www.regulations.gov
(see ADDRESSES), or by contacting the
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The overall approach for critical
habitat modeling consisted of three
main steps (USFWS 2011, Appendix C,
p. C–3) to help refine, select, and
evaluate a series of alternative critical
habitat networks for the northern
spotted owl. Each of these steps helped
us to identify a critical habitat network
that meets the statutory definition of
critical habitat, namely, the distribution
of the physical or biological features
needed by the species across its
geographical range occupied at the time
of listing, and the identification of a
landscape configuration where these
features, as well as any necessary
unoccupied areas, are essential to the
conservation of the species. These steps
are summarized here, and then each is
described in further detail.
Step 1: At the outset, the attributes of
forest composition and structure and
characteristics of the physical
environment associated with nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat—physical
or biological features used by the
species—were identified based on
published research, input from
individual experts, and analysis of
northern spotted owl location and
habitat data from nearly 4,000 known
owl pairs (USFWS 2011, pp. C–20 to C–
28). We then used these physical or
biological features of nesting, roosting,
and foraging habitats to create a
rangewide map of relative habitat
suitability using the model MaxEnt
(Phillips et al. 2006, entire; Phillips and
Dudik 2008, entire), based on the habitat
selection exhibited by these known owl
pairs. In addition to providing a map of
relative habitat suitability, this process
allowed us to evaluate an area’s
suitability and determine whether the
presence of the species was likely based
on an assessment of known specieshabitat relationships.
Step 2: We developed northern
spotted owl habitat networks based on
the relative habitat suitability map using
the Zonation conservation planning
model (Moilanen and Kujala 2008,
entire). The Zonation model used a
hierarchical prioritization of the
landscape based on relative habitat
suitability and other user-specified
criteria (e.g., land ownership) to develop
the most efficient solutions for
incorporating high-value habitat.
Zonation analyses were conducted
separately for each region to ensure that
reserves would be well-distributed
across the range of the owl. Zonation
also allowed for consideration of land
ownership in development of reserve
designs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Step 3: In the last step, we determined
where the physical or biological
features, as well as unoccupied areas,
are essential to the conservation of the
species. To do this we used a spatially
explicit northern spotted owl
population model (HexSim) (Schumaker
2008, entire) to predict relative
responses of northern spotted owl
populations to different habitat network
designs, and evaluated these responses
against the recovery objectives and
criteria for the northern spotted owl
using a rule set based on those criteria.
Simulations from these models are not
meant to be estimates of what will occur
in the future, but rather provide
information on trends predicted to
occur under different network designs;
this allowed us to compare the relative
performance of various critical habitat
scenarios.
In Step 1 of the modeling framework,
we used published research, input from
individual experts, and analysis of
northern spotted owl location and
habitat data to develop models of
relative habitat suitability for northern
spotted owls. These relative habitat
suitability models identify areas with
habitat that provides the combination of
variables (forest composition and
structure, and abiotic factors such as
elevation, precipitation, and
temperature) with a high predictive
probability of supporting northern
spotted owls, based on data gathered
from known owl sites. Based on the
physical or biological features of
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats
known to be utilized by resident owls,
we used these models to identify areas
containing those physical or biological
features required by the owl, and to map
their distribution across the range of the
owl (USFWS 2011, pp. C–27 to C–42, C–
62). Because the models are based in
large part on data from nearly 4,000 owl
sites (USFWS 2011, p. C–62), model
outputs highlight surveyed and verified
owl home ranges. However, they also
identify areas with habitat that
supported territorial and non-territorial
owls at the time of listing, based on
habitat suitability, and areas that may
have been unoccupied at the time of
listing, but that may be essential for the
conservation of the species based on
their relative habitat suitability as well
as the habitat characteristics needed for
population growth or dispersal (see
below). To ensure that the variety of
physical or biological features used by
northern spotted owls across their range
is represented in the models, we applied
separate habitat models for each of 11
ecological regions, based on differences
in forest environments, northern spotted
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71913
owl habitat use and prey distribution,
and variation in ecological conditions
(USFWS 2011, C–7 to C–13).
In Step 2 of the modeling framework,
we used a habitat conservation planning
model (Zonation) (Moilanen et al. 2005,
entire; Moilanen and Kujala 2008,
entire) to develop a northern spotted
owl conservation planning model. We
used this in the critical habitat process
to aggregate areas of greatest relative
habitat suitability (areas occupied at the
time of listing that provide the physical
or biological features, or areas of habitat
that may have been unoccupied at the
time of listing, but have the potential to
play an essential conservation role, for
example, in providing connectivity
between isolated populations) from Step
1 into discrete units. This process
provided a series of maps representing
a range of alternative critical habitat
networks, each containing a different
amount and distribution of northern
spotted owl habitat quality (representing
differing amounts and configurations of
the primary constituent elements). The
Zonation model seeks to provide the
most efficient design (most habitat value
on smallest land area) and allowed us to
maximize reliance on public lands to
provide what is essential to northern
spotted owl conservation.
In Step 3 of the modeling framework,
we developed a northern spotted owl
population simulation model that
allowed us to simulate the relative
population responses of northern
spotted owls to various habitat
conservation network scenarios
(HexSim) (Schumaker 2011, entire). In
developing this rule, we used this
northern spotted owl population
simulation model to compare alternative
critical habitat networks and evaluate
each design’s ability to meet the
recovery goals and criteria for the
northern spotted owl (described further
below, and in detail in Dunk et al.
2012b). This step of the process enabled
us to determine the amount and
configuration of physical or biological
features on the landscape that are
essential to the conservation of the owl,
as well as to determine those
unoccupied areas essential for the
conservation of the species. By
evaluating northern spotted owl
population metrics, such as relative
population size, population trend, and
extinction risk that resulted from each
scenario evaluated, we are designating
the most efficient habitat network
necessary to conserve the northern
spotted owl (efficient, as noted above, in
terms of balancing greatest conservation
value for the owl in proportion to acres
designated). This network has the
potential to support an increasing or
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71914
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
stable population trend of northern
spotted owls, exhibits relatively low
extinction risk, both rangewide and at
the recovery unit scale (recovery units,
as identified in the Revised Recovery
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, are
defined by physiographic provinces
(USFWS 2011, pp. III–1 to III–2)), and
achieves adequate connectivity among
recovery units, while prioritizing
reliance on public lands.
We determined what is essential to
recovery of the northern spotted owl by
evaluating the performance of each
potential critical habitat scenario
considered against the recovery needs of
the owl. In contrast with earlier
conservation modeling efforts for the
northern spotted owl, the modeling
framework we utilized does not rely on
a priori (predefined) rule sets for
features such as size of habitat blocks,
number of owl pairs per block, or
distance between blocks (USFWS 2011,
p. C–4) to determine what is essential
for the conservation of the species.
Instead, we evaluated northern spotted
owl population metrics such as relative
population size and trend to determine
what is essential to owl conservation,
both in terms of where and how much
of the physical or biological features are
essential and how much unoccupied
habitat is essential to meet the recovery
objectives for the owl, as defined in the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, p. ix) and
detailed in our supporting
documentation (Dunk et al. 2012b,
entire).
To accomplish this, we developed a
rule set for the identification of critical
habitat based on the ability of that
habitat to meet the recovery objectives
and criteria set forth in the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The recovery
objectives for the northern spotted owl
are:
(1) Northern spotted owl populations
are sufficiently large and distributed
such that the species no longer requires
listing under the Act;
(2) Adequate habitat is available for
northern spotted owls and will continue
to exist to allow the species to persist
without the protection of the Act; and
(3) The effects of threats have been
reduced or eliminated such that
northern spotted owl populations are
stable or increasing and northern
spotted owls are unlikely to become
threatened again in the foreseeable
future.
The recovery criteria for the northern
spotted owl (aside from the requirement
for post-delisting monitoring) are:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Recovery Criterion 1—Stable
Population Trend: The overall
population trend of northern spotted
owls throughout the range is stable or
increasing over 10 years, as measured by
a statistically reliable monitoring effort.
Recovery Criterion 2—Adequate
Population Distribution: Northern
spotted owl subpopulations within each
province (i.e., recovery unit), excluding
the Willamette Valley Province, achieve
viability, as informed by the HexSim
population model or some other
appropriate quantitative measure.
Recovery Criterion 3—Continued
Maintenance and Recruitment of
Northern Spotted Owl Habitat: The
future range-wide trend in northern
spotted owl nesting/roosting and
foraging habitat is stable or increasing
throughout the range, from the date of
Revised Recovery Plan approval, as
measured by effectiveness monitoring
efforts or other reliable habitat
monitoring programs.
We used the following rule set to
compare and evaluate the potential of
various habitat scenarios to meet these
recovery objectives and criteria, and
thus determine what is essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl:
(1) Ensure sufficient habitat to
support population viability across the
range of the species.
(a) Habitat can support an increasing
or stable population trend, as measured
by a population growth rate of 1.0 or
greater.
(b) Habitat will be sufficient to insure
a low risk of extinction.
(2) Support demographically stable
populations in each recovery unit.
(a) Habitat can support an increasing
or stable population trend in each
recovery unit.
(b) Habitat will be sufficient to insure
a low risk of extinction in each recovery
unit.
(c) Conserve or enhance connectivity
within and among recovery units.
(d) Conserve genetic diversity.
(e) Ensure sufficient spatial
redundancy in critical habitat within
each recovery unit.
(i) Accommodate habitat disturbance
due to fire, insects, disease, and
catastrophic events.
(3) Ensure distribution of northern
spotted owl populations across
representative habitats.
(a) Maintain distribution across the
full ecological gradient of the historical
range.
(4) Acknowledge uncertainty
associated with both future habitat
conditions and northern spotted owl
population performance—including
influence of barred owls, climate
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
change, fire/disturbance risk, and
demographic stochasticity—in
assessment of critical habitat design.
These critical habitat objectives of
supporting population viability and
demographically stable populations are
intended to be met in concert with the
implementation of recovery actions to
address other nonhabitat-based threats
to the owl.
We applied this rule set to the
outcome of HexSim modeling
simulations on the various habitat
scenarios considered (see Appendix C of
the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011)
and Dunk et al. 2012b, entire, for all
details). Each HexSim simulation began
with a population of 10,000 females (all
population metrics are in numbers of
females), consisted of 100 replicates and
350 time steps for each habitat scenario
considered, and included the
introduction of environmental
stochasticity. We then evaluated the
relative performance of each habitat
scenario using numerous metrics to
assess the ability of that scenario to
meet the specified recovery goals for the
northern spotted owl, as laid out in our
rule set for identifying critical habitat;
these metrics were evaluated at the scale
of each region, as well as collectively
rangewide. Our metrics of population
performance resulting from each habitat
scenario considered included:
• The percentage of simulations
during which the rangewide population
fell below 1,250 individuals.
• The percentage of simulations
during which the rangewide population
fell below 1,000 individuals.
• The percentage of simulations
during which the rangewide population
fell below 750 individuals.
• The percentage of simulations
during which the population fell below
250 in each region (using 250 as a quasiextinction threshold).
• The percentage of simulations
during which the population fell below
100 in each region (using 100 as a quasiextinction threshold).
• The percentage of simulations that
went to extinction (population = 0) in
each region.
• The mean population size from
time step 150 to time step 350 in each
region.
• The mean population size at the last
time step in each region.
• The mean population size at the last
time step rangewide.
Measures of extinction risk are used
as an indirect measure of sufficient
population abundance, as well as
viability.
These metrics were used to
comparatively evaluate the ability of
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
each scenario under consideration to
determine what is essential for the
conservation of the species as informed
by our rule set. We selected habitat
scenarios for further evaluation if they
outperformed the other scenarios under
consideration in terms of being better
able to meet the population abundance,
viability, and trend criteria both across
regions and rangewide. In all cases, we
attempted to identify the most efficient
(smallest) total area that would meet the
population goals essential to recovery.
Our final critical habitat designation is
based on the habitat network that best
met all of these criteria, and then was
further refined, as described below.
We also focused on public lands to
the maximum extent possible (see Dunk
et al. 2012b, entire, for specific details).
In this step, we compared scenarios that
did not discriminate between various
land ownerships, and those that
prioritized publicly owned lands. As
Federal agencies have a mandate under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act to utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act by carrying out
programs for the conservation of listed
species, we looked first to Federal lands
for critical habitat. However, in some
areas of limited Federal ownership,
State and private lands may provide
areas determined to be essential to the
northern spotted owl by contributing to
demographic support and connectivity
to facilitate dispersal and colonization.
In all cases, if the scenarios under
consideration provided equal
contribution to recovery, as measured
by the population metrics described
above, we chose the scenario that
prioritized inclusion of federally owned
lands. State and private lands were
included only if they were necessary to
achieve conservation of the species, and
were determined to provide either
occupied areas that support the PCEs or
unoccupied areas essential for the
conservation of the owl. We also
considered Indian lands in our
evaluations; if habitat scenarios
performed equally well with or without
Indian lands, we did not include them
(see Indian Lands, below).
To determine which of the numerous
potential arrays of habitat we
considered contained only those areas
that are essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl, we evaluated
each of them according to the rule set
and criteria detailed above. Briefly
summarizing, all of the habitat networks
we assessed contained varying amounts
of the physical or biological features
needed by the northern spotted owl in
varying amounts and spatial
arrangements across the range of the
species. Our first consideration in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
determining which of these scenarios
contained the physical or biological
features in the quantity and
configuration essential to the
conservation of the species (i.e., the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species) was our evaluation of how well
the network performed in terms of
contributing toward the recovery criteria
for the northern spotted owl; we used
the recovery criteria as our standard for
the conservation of the species.
To ensure that we designated only
what is essential to the species’
conservation, our secondary
consideration was efficiency. For our
purposes, we evaluated efficiency both
in terms of number of acres and
landownership. Some of the networks
we evaluated were smaller than this
final designation, or did not include any
State or private lands; however, such
networks failed to meet the recovery
criteria required to achieve the
conservation of the species, and
therefore could not be considered to
provide the quantity and configuration
of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species. Other potential designations
were significantly larger than this final
designation and while they were also
capable of meeting the recovery criteria,
they did not provide proportionately
greater conservation value relative to the
additional area (as measured, for
example, in relative projected numbers
of owls). We concluded that such
networks therefore included large areas
of habitat that may contribute to
recovery, but that are not necessary to
achieve the recovery criteria for the
northern spotted owl, therefore these
superfluous areas could not be
considered essential to the conservation
of the species.
Finally, our assessment of potential
habitat networks, based not only on the
population models but additionally
refined by expert opinion, as described
below, indicated that critical habitat
limited to areas presently occupied by
the northern spotted owl would not be
sufficient to achieve the recovery
criteria for the species, as such a
designation would lead to inadequate
population distribution and inadequate
population connectivity (50 CFR
424.12(e)). Modeling led us to a similar
conclusion regarding areas that were
occupied at the time of listing; networks
limited to such areas were not capable
of meeting the recovery criteria for the
species, and the models assisted us in
identifying those additional specific
areas of habitat unoccupied at the time
of listing that are essential in terms of
achieving the conservation of the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71915
species. Another element of an essential
network was therefore the identification
of sufficient areas of suitable habitat or
potentially suitable habitat not presently
occupied by the northern spotted owl,
or that was not occupied at the time of
listing, to achieve the conservation of
the species, in conjunction with
occupied habitat.
Our final designation is the critical
habitat network that includes the
quantity and spatial configuration of
habitat that meets the requirement that
it contain occupied areas with the
essential physical and biological
features or unoccupied areas that are
themselves essential for conservation of
the species by achieving the recovery
criteria for the northern spotted owl
while avoiding the designation of areas
of habitat that do not make an essential
contribution to the conservation of the
species. This essential habitat network
is composed predominantly of areas
occupied at the time of listing and that
contain the essential physical or
biological features, in conjunction with
some areas that may have been
unoccupied at the time of listing, to
collectively comprise the habitat
configuration and quantity that most
efficiently meets the recovery criteria for
the species. All areas in this final
critical habitat designation, whether
considered occupied at the time of
listing or unoccupied at the time of
listing, are therefore considered
essential to the conservation of the
species. The specific modeling
outcomes and our evaluation of each
potential critical habitat network are
presented in detail in Dunk et al. 2012b.
It is important to recognize that
although the application of this
modeling framework provided the
foundation for identifying those areas
that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl, the
models do not simply produce a map of
critical habitat. Working from the model
results, we then further refined the
model-based map units, after
considering land ownership patterns,
interagency coordination, and best
professional judgment, with the
objective of increasing the efficiency
and effectiveness of the critical habitat
designation, as well as making
corrections based on ground truthing
and local knowledge. The process
generally consisted of modifying
boundaries to better conform to existing
administrative and landscape features,
removing small areas of relatively
lower-suitability habitat, and
incorporating additional areas that may
have been unoccupied at the time of
listing, but were determined to be
essential for population connectivity,
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71916
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
for population growth, or to
accommodate maintenance of suitable
habitat on the landscape for owls in the
face of natural disturbance regimes (e.g.,
fire) or competition with the barred owl,
while retaining the overall configuration
of the model-based maps. In addition, as
part of this refinement process, expert
knowledge helped us to identify
essential areas such as the unique oak
woodland ecotype used by northern
spotted owls at the southernmost extent
of the species’ range in Napa, Sonoma,
and Marin Counties, California. We
used the population simulation model
to evaluate whether this revised critical
habitat network continued to provide
what is essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl, and used this
same process to evaluate changes made
between the proposed and final rule (see
Changes from Proposed Rule for
details).
Summary of How We Determined Where
Physical and Biological Features and
Unoccupied Areas Are Essential to
Conservation of the Species
The decision of where the requisite
physical and biological features and
unoccupied areas are essential to the
northern spotted owl was made by
identifying those areas in the range of
the owl that are necessary to achieving
a relatively high likelihood of meeting
the recovery objectives described in the
Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, p.
ix), while at the same time minimizing
the inclusion of areas that are relatively
less important or not necessary to
spotted owl recovery. Striking this
balance required by the Act—
designating only those areas that
contain the essential features or are
themselves essential for conservation of
the species and not unnecessarily
designating the entire geographical area
that is or can be occupied by the
species—was accomplished using the
best available information: a
combination of scientific modeling,
expert scientific opinion of agency
biologists and peer reviewers, and
careful consideration of public
comment.
We made sure that this final critical
habitat designation includes only what
is essential to the species’ conservation
by evaluating a variety of potential
critical habitat networks and assessing
their relative probability of meeting
recovery objectives and, secondarily,
their relative ‘‘efficiency’’ in meeting
these objectives. The various scenarios
were designed to bracket a variety of
conditions and included different
aggregations of total habitat area,
landscape juxtaposition, and forest
conditions. Some were smaller or larger
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
in total size than this final designation,
and some did or did not include Federal
matrix lands, State lands, or private
lands. The process of comparing
alternative networks and population
results is described in detail in the
Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al.
2012b). When compared to other
possible network scenarios, we
conclude the final identification of
critical habitat either contains essential
physical and biological features or is
otherwise essential because it has the
highest likelihood of meeting recovery
objectives in the most efficient manner
for the following reasons.
(1) It ensures that northern spotted
owl populations are sufficiently large to
exhibit low extinction risk at the
rangewide scale. Under the final
designation, modeled rangewide
populations have less than a 10 percent
probability of declining to fewer than
1,000 females, and a 3 percent
probability of declining to fewer than
750 females. Modeled population size
and extinction risk results for the
designation are within the top 10
percent of all alternative networks, yet
the designation is much smaller than
other top-ranking alternatives.
(2) It ensures that northern spotted
owl populations are well-distributed
across the geographic range of the
species by selecting a habitat network
that supports population sizes with low
extinction risk within each of 11
modeling regions. Modeling regionspecific population sizes in the final
designation are in the top 10 percent of
all alternative networks.
(3) It ensures that adequate amounts
of current and future habitat is available
for spotted owls to persist and recover
by designating a habitat network
consisting of approximately 50 percent
of the available high-suitability spotted
owl habitat rangewide. An additional 21
percent of high-quality habitat is
encompassed within Congressionally
Reserved lands that are not designated,
but will retain their value for spotted
owls. This high-quality habitat, in
addition to areas required for
population connectivity, is necessary to
support rangewide populations with
low extinction risk at both rangewide
and regional scales.
(4) Compared to previous spotted owl
conservation strategies, it provides
increased redundancy in habitat to help
buffer potential adverse impacts due to
climate change and other stochastic (i.e.,
unpredictable) events by enlarging the
total area of the final designation within
the fire-prone portions of the northern
spotted owl’s range. This means that the
final designation supports larger
populations in some modeling regions
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
than would be minimally required to
achieve low extinction risk. Although it
is impossible to predict with precision
how much redundancy may be required
to deal with future changes in forest
conditions, this is essential to
ameliorating the potential impacts of
fire, insects, and forest disease on
spotted owls.
(5) The balancing of population
objectives and parsimony resulted in a
final designation that encompasses 50
percent of the total available highsuitability habitat rangewide and less
than nine percent of low-quality habitat,
and supported population size and
extinction risk within the top 10 percent
of all alternatives. Other larger
alternatives had similar or slightly better
population characteristics, but
contained much larger proportions of
lower-suitability habitat. The small
amount of low-quality habitat contained
in the final designation is essential
because it provides for population
growth and connectivity both within
regional populations and between
populations; however, we determined
that additional lower-suitability habitat
was not necessary to the conservation of
the species.
We considered but rejected potential
critical habitat networks that provided
less total area, that did not include
Federal matrix lands, or that did not
include some State or private lands
where Federal lands were lacking,
because these networks had a
significantly lower likelihood of
meeting recovery objectives as measured
by demographic modeling results and
expert scientific opinion. For example,
modeled rangewide population sizes in
this final designation were 1.7 times
larger than under the proposed rule’s
Possible Outcome 4, which did not
include any State or private lands, and
nearly twice the size of populations
under 2008 critical habitat. This larger
population size is essential because it
results in low extinction risk. Likewise,
we considered but rejected several
potential networks that included
significantly more total area than the
final designation. These potential
networks had a high probability of
meeting recovery objectives as measured
by model results and expert opinion,
but they did not confer much of a net
increase in the likelihood of meeting
recovery objectives beyond what is
provided by the final designation. This
lack of parsimony, combined with a lack
of a proportional increase in measurable
demographic performance, justified the
rejection of these larger potential
networks when compared to the final
designation.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
This methodological approach was
generally supported by the scientific
peer reviewers. One peer reviewer felt
the proposed critical habitat identified
too much total area, and another peer
reviewer felt that more land area should
be included, but most peer reviewers
felt the total area and the juxtaposition
of land areas seemed reasonable and
scientifically justified given the current
status of the owl and the recovery
objectives. Most of these experts also
concluded that the use of the modeling
process was justified for informing the
final decision.
In sum, we believe this final
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl meets the intent of
the Act by identifying those areas
containing essential features or are
otherwise essential in a way that has a
very high probability of providing for
the conservation of the species, while
minimizing the potential for
unnecessarily including areas of low
conservation value to the species.
Unoccupied Areas
Based on the northern spotted owl’s
wide-ranging use of the landscape, and
the distribution of known owl sites at
the time of listing across the units and
subunits designated as critical habitat in
this rule, we find that all units and all
subunits meet the Act’s definition of
being within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing.
As noted above in Occupied Areas,
within the units and subunits
designated as critical habitat, each
consists predominantly of habitat
occupied by the species at the time of
listing. However, parts of most units and
subunits contain a forested mosaic that
includes younger forests that may not
have been occupied at the time of
listing; we evaluated such areas of
younger forest as unoccupied at the time
of listing. Unoccupied areas must meet
the standard of section 3(5)(a)(ii) of the
Act: They must be determined to be
essential for the conservation of the
species. In addition, there are some
areas we have concluded were highly
likely occupied at the time of listing,
based on the presence of suitable habitat
and our predictive models, but
acknowledge there is some element of
uncertainty to recognizing these areas as
occupied under the statutory definition
due to the lack of survey information.
Therefore, we also evaluated all areas
that we concluded were likely occupied
but which lack survey information
applying the standard of section
3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, and have
determined that all such areas included
in this designation are essential for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
conservation of the species. Finally, as
noted earlier, as a result of our
application of the modeling framework
and refinement process described above,
in which we evaluated various habitat
scenarios to identify the network that is
essential to the conservation of the
species by providing the quantity and
configuration of habitat essential for the
conservation of the species, we have
additionally determined that all areas
identified here as critical habitat,
whether occupied at the time of listing
or unoccupied at the time of listing, are
essential for the conservation of the
species and therefore meet the
definition of critical habitat under
section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Thus, even if not occupied at the time
of listing, all units and subunits
designated as critical habitat are
essential for the conservation of the
species because, in addition to nesting,
roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat,
they provide connectivity between
occupied areas, room for population
growth, and the ability to provide
sufficient suitable habitat on the
landscape for owls in the face of natural
disturbance regimes (e.g., fire).
In general, northern spotted owls
require large areas of habitat due to their
expansive home range requirements and
the need for connectivity between
subpopulations to maintain genetic
diversity and support stable, viable
populations over the long term. The
northern spotted owl was initially listed
in large part due to past habitat loss and
degradation. In addition, recent work
has confirmed that northern spotted
owls require additional areas of habitat
to persist in the face of competition with
barred owls (Dugger et al. 2011, p.
2467). Given the effects of past habitat
loss and the increased habitat area
needed to offset competition from the
barred owl, our assessment indicates
that large areas of contiguous areas of
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat
are essential to sustaining viable
northern spotted owl populations and
meeting recovery goals.
In addition, because past habitat loss
and degradation was identified as a
major threat to the northern spotted owl
at the time of listing and because this
threat currently continues, conservation
and recovery of the species is dependent
in part on development of additional
habitat to allow for population growth
and recovery. Therefore, portions of the
habitat mosaic in some subunits
designated as critical habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing consist of
younger or partially harvested forest.
These are essential for the conservation
of the species because they are capable
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71917
of developing the PCEs that support
nesting, roosting, or foraging by
northern spotted owls that will be
necessary for population growth.
Typically the result of past timber
harvest or wildfire, these areas of
younger forest contain the elements
conducive to fully developing the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the owl (they are
of suitable elevation, climate, and forest
community type). They may, however,
be lacking some element of the physical
or biological features, such as large trees
or dense canopies that are associated
with nesting habitat. In particular, of 60
subunits designated, 4 (NCO–4, NCO–5,
and ORC–1) contain proportionally
greater areas of younger forests that are
essential for the conservation of the
species, because they can develop
additional habitat necessary to support
viable northern spotted owl populations
in the future. These subunits are located
within Southwestern Washington and
Oregon Coast Ranges Areas of Special
Concern (Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 66–
69), areas described as exhibiting a
scarcity of suitable habitat due to
extensive timber harvest. The recovery
goal of achieving viable populations
distributed across the range of the owl
cannot be achieved without these areas;
therefore, we have determined them to
be essential for the conservation of the
species.
Finally, there are portions of two
subunits that function primarily for
connectivity between populations.
Although portions of these subunits
may not have been occupied at the time
of listing, these areas contain the
dispersal and foraging habitat to support
movement between adjacent subunits
and are therefore essential to provide
population connectivity. Many of these
areas are also anticipated to develop
into habitat capable of supporting
nesting pairs in the future. In 1990, the
Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC)
(Thomas et al. 1990, entire) identified
‘‘Areas of Special Concern’’ in the Draft
Strategy for the Conservation of the
Northern Spotted Owl. The ISC defined
Areas of Special Concern as lands where
past natural occurrences and human
actions had adversely affected habitat
more than in the remainder of the
physiographic province under
consideration (Thomas et al. 1990, p.
66). Within the Areas of Special
Concern described by the ISC (Thomas
et al. 1990, pp. 66–69), we identified
areas that were strategically located
between subunits that would otherwise
be demographically isolated. Of 60
subunits designated, two (ORC–4 and
ECS–3) are identified as functioning
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71918
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
primarily for population connectivity
with less than 70 percent of the subunit
covered by survey-located owl sites.
Our evaluation of the various habitat
scenarios considered in the modeling
process described above enabled us to
determine the amount and configuration
of habitat essential for the conservation
of the owl, based on the relative ability
of that habitat network to meet the
recovery criteria of stable or increasing
populations and adequate distribution
of viable populations. Although this
evaluation was primarily based on areas
we know to have been occupied at the
time of listing, our evaluation of the
distribution and configuration of the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the owl
additionally identified areas that may
not have been occupied at the time of
listing, if those areas were essential to
meeting the recovery goals for the
species. We have determined these areas
to be essential for the conservation of
the species, to provide for dispersal and
connectivity between currently
occupied areas, allow space for
population growth, and provide habitat
replacement in the event of
disturbances, such as wildfires and
competition with barred owls. Our
evaluation of alternative habitat
networks, described above, indicates
that the specific areas identified in this
designation are necessary to achieve the
amount and configuration of habitat that
meets the recovery criteria for the
species. Because these areas do so
efficiently (without designating more
areas than are needed, or designating
areas that would not make a significant
contribution to conservation value), we
have determined that these areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species. As described above, we have
determined that a critical habitat
designation that does not include these
areas, even if they may not be occupied,
would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species. The
resulting revised critical habitat
represents the amount and spatial
distribution of habitats that we have
determined to be essential for the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl.
This designation is an improvement
over the previous designation in that it
anticipates that in geographical regions
with drier forests and more dynamic
natural disturbance regimes, land
managers will consider taking a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
landscape approach to managing critical
habitat. This landscape approach would
recognize that large areas are essential
in these regions to accommodate
disturbance-driven shifts in the physical
or biological features essential for the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl, and that restorative management
actions may be needed across these
landscapes to help manage for resilience
in such a dynamic ecosystem. These
large landscapes, although essential to
provide for the conservation of the
northern spotted owl, do include within
their boundaries several particular types
of areas that are not included in critical
habitat, because they cannot support
northern spotted owl habitat. The
following types of areas are not critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl, and
are not included in the revised
designation:
• Meadows and grasslands. These
include dry, upland prairies and
savannas found in the valleys and
foothills of western Washington,
Oregon, and northwest California;
subalpine meadows; and grass and forb
dominated cliffs, bluffs and grass balds
found throughout these same areas.
Dominated by native grasses and diverse
forbs, they may include a minor savanna
component of Oregon white oak,
Douglas-fir, or Ponderosa pine.
• Oak and aspen (Populus spp.)
woodlands. Oak woodlands are
characterized by an open canopy
dominated by Oregon white oak but
may also include ponderosa pine,
California black oak, Douglas-fir, or
canyon live oak. The understory is
relatively open with shrubs, grasses and
wildflowers. Oak woodlands are
typically found in drier landscapes and
on south-facing slopes. Note this
exception for oak woodlands does not
include tanoak (Notholithocarpus
densiflorus) stands, closed-canopy live
oak (Quercus agrifolia) woodlands and
open-canopied valley oak (Quercus
lobata) and mixed-oak woodlands in
subunits ICC–6 and RDC–5 in Napa,
Sonoma, and Marin Counties,
California. Aspen woodlands are
dominated by aspen trees with a forb,
grass or shrub understory and are
typically found on mountain slopes,
rock outcrops and talus slopes, canyon
walls, and some seeps and stream
corridors. This forest type also can
occur in riparian areas or in moist
microsites within drier landscapes.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• Manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads,
and other paved areas) and the land on
which they are located.
When determining critical habitat
boundaries, we made every effort to
avoid including these areas because
they lack physical or biological features
for the northern spotted owl. Due to the
limitations of mapping at such fine
scales, however, we were often not able
to segregate these areas from areas
shown as critical habitat on critical
habitat maps suitable in scale for
publication within the Code of Federal
Regulations. Thus, we have included
regulatory text clarifying that these areas
are not included in the designation even
if within the mapped boundaries of
critical habitat, as a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to
effects to critical habitat unless the
specific action would affect the physical
or biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
VIII. Final Critical Habitat Designation
Consistent with the standards of the
Act and our regulations we have
identified 9,577,969 ac (3,876,064ha) in
11 units and 60 subunits as meeting the
definition of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl. The 11 units we
have identified as critical habitat are: (1)
North Coast Olympics, (2) Oregon Coast
Ranges, (3) Redwood Coast, (4) West
Cascades North, (5) West Cascades
Central, (6) West Cascades South, (7)
East Cascades North, (8) East Cascades
South, (9) Klamath West, (10) Klamath
East, and (11) Interior California Coast
Ranges. All of the critical habitat units
and subunits identified were occupied
at the time of listing; however, some
units may include some smaller areas
that were not known to be occupied at
the time of listing but have been
determined to be essential to the
conservation of the species. In addition,
as described above, we have determined
that all areas being designated are
essential to the conservation of the
species. Land ownership of the
designated critical habitat includes
Federal and State lands. No tribal lands
are included in the critical habitat
designation. The approximate area of
each critical habitat unit is shown in
Table 6. Table 7 gives totals by land
ownership.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
71919
TABLE 6—REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
Critical habitat unit
Land ownership
Unit 1—North Coast Olympics ..................................................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
696,230
128,270
281,754
51,909
Unit 2—Oregon Coast Ranges ..................................................................
Total .................................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
824,500
788,919
70,945
333,663
319,264
28,711
Unit 3—Redwood Coast ............................................................................
Total .................................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
Local government ............................
859,864
111,258
48,912
20,684
347,975
45,025
19,794
8,371
Unit 4—West Cascades North ..................................................................
Total .................................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
180,855
541,476
798
73,189
219,127
323
Unit 5—West Cascades Central ................................................................
Total .................................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
542,274
908,861
825
219,450
367,802
334
Unit 6—West Cascades South ..................................................................
Total .................................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
909,687
1,354,989
209
368,136
548,345
85
Unit 7—East Cascades North ...................................................................
Total .................................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
1,355,198
1,338,988
6,534
548,429
541,869
2,644
Unit 8—East Cascades South ...................................................................
Unit 9—Klamath West ...............................................................................
Total .................................................
Federal ............................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
1,345,523
368,380
1,186,750
10,639
544,514
149,078
480,260
4,305
Unit 10—Klamath East ..............................................................................
Total .................................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
1,197,389
1,049,826
2,905
484,565
424,850
1,175
Unit 11—Inner California Coast Ranges ...................................................
Total .................................................
Federal ............................................
State ................................................
1,052,731
940,721
848
426,025
380,696
343
Total .................................................
941,568
381,039
..........................................................
9,577,969
3,876,064
Grand Total .........................................................................................
Acres
Hectares
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
TABLE 7—REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT
UNITS FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED
OWL, DESCRIBING AREA INCLUDED
DIFFERENT
UNDER
LANDOWNERSHIPS
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Acres
Hectares
USFS ................
BLM ..................
NPS ..................
State .................
Local Government ..............
Private ...............
Other Federal
(DOD) ............
Tribal ..........
7,957,787
1,328,612
0
270,886
3,220,399
537,670
0
109,624
20,684
0
8,371
0
0
0
0
0
Total ...........
9,577,969
3,876,064
We present brief descriptions of all
units and their subunits below. For each
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
subunit, we describe the proportion of
the area that is covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. As described above in
the section Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat, all areas being
designated that were occupied at the
time of listing contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl, and which may require special
management considerations or
protection. In addition, there are smaller
areas of suitable habitat within subunits
that we considered likely occupied by
nonterritorial owls and dispersing
subadults, at the time of listing, as well
as some smaller areas of younger forest
within the larger habitat mosaic that
may have been unoccupied at the time
of listing. Due to some potential for
uncertainty in these latter two categories
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of areas in terms of occupancy at the
time of listing, we evaluated all such
areas applying the standard under
section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, and have
determined that all such areas included
in this designation are essential to the
conservation of the species. In addition,
as a result of our application of the
modeling framework described earlier,
we have determined that all areas
identified here as critical habitat,
whether occupied at the time of listing
or unoccupied at the time of listing, are
essential to the conservation of the
species and therefore meet the
definition of critical habitat under
section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act. This
applies to all units and subunits
described below.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71920
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Unit 1: North Coast Ranges and
Olympic Peninsula (NCO)
Unit 1 consists of 824,500 ac (333,623
ha) and contains five subunits. This unit
consists of the Oregon and Washington
Coast Ranges Section M242A, based on
section descriptions of forest types from
Ecological Subregions of the United
States (McNab and Avers 1994a, Section
M242A). This region is characterized by
high rainfall, cool to moderate
temperatures, and generally low
topography (1,470 to 2,460 ft (448 to 750
m)). High elevations and cold
temperatures occur in the interior
portions of the Olympic Peninsula, but
northern spotted owls in this area are
limited to the lower elevations (less
than 2,950 ft (900 m)). Forests in the
NCO are dominated by western
hemlock, Sitka spruce, Douglas-fir, and
western red cedar (Thuja plicata).
Hardwoods are limited in species
diversity (consist mostly of bigleaf
maple and red alder (Alnus rubra)) and
distribution within this region, and
typically occur in riparian zones. Root
pathogens like laminated root rot
(Phellinus weirii) are important gap
formers, and vine maple (Acer
circinatum), among others, fills these
gaps. Because Douglas-fir dwarf
mistletoe is unusual in this region,
northern spotted owl nesting habitat
consists of stands providing very large
trees with cavities or deformities. A few
nests are associated with western
hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium
tsugense subsp. tsugense). Northern
spotted owl diets are dominated by
species associated with mature to latesuccessional forests (flying squirrels, red
tree voles), resulting in similar
definitions of habitats used for nesting/
roosting and foraging by northern
spotted owls.
Subunit Descriptions: Unit 1
NCO–1. The NCO–1 subunit consists
of approximately 293,539 ac (118,791
ha) in Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor,
and Mason Counties, Washington, and
comprises lands managed by U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and State of
Washington. The USFS manages
230,966 ac (93,309 ha) as Latesuccessional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, late-successional
and old-growth forest ecosystems and
62,966 ac (25,481 ha) under the adaptive
management area land use allocation.
Threats in this subunit include current
and past timber harvest, competition
with barred owls, and isolation on a
peninsula (along with subunit NCO–2).
This subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support of
the overall population. NCO–1 is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
located primarily in the watersheds of
Lyre, Hoko, Soleduck, Hoh, Quinault,
Queets, and Clearwater Rivers, and
includes the northern part of the Lower
Chehalis River watershed.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 94 percent of the
area of NCO–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
NCO–2. The NCO–2 subunit consists
of approximately 213,633 ac (86,454 ha)
in Kitsap, Clallam, Jefferson, Grays
Harbor, and Mason Counties,
Washington, and comprises lands
managed by the USFS. The USFS
manages 173,682 ac (70,287 ha) as Latesuccessional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, late-successional
and old-growth forest ecosystems and
39,083 ac (15,816 ha) under the adaptive
management area land use allocation.
Threats in this subunit include current
and past timber harvest, competition
with barred owls, and isolation on a
peninsula (along with subunit NCO–1).
This subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support of
the overall population. NCO–2 is
located primarily in the watersheds of
the Elwha, Dungeness, Quilcene, Snow,
Skokomish, and Dosewallips rivers.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicate
that approximately 95 percent of the
area of this subunit was covered by
verified northern spotted owl home
ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of
suitable habitat and occupancy by
nonterritorial owls and dispersing
subadults, we consider this subunit to
have been largely occupied at the time
of listing. In addition, there may be
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
some smaller areas of younger forest
within the habitat mosaic of this subunit
that were unoccupied at the time of
listing. We have determined that all of
the unoccupied and likely occupied
areas in this subunit are essential for the
conservation of the species to meet the
recovery criterion that calls for the
continued maintenance and recruitment
of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS
2011, p. ix). The increase and
enhancement of northern spotted owl
habitat is necessary to provide for viable
populations of northern spotted owls
over the long term by providing for
population growth, successful dispersal,
and buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
NCO–3. We exempted subunit NCO–
3 from the final designation of critical
habitat under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
(See Exemptions section below). This
subunit is comprised approximately
14,313 ac (5,792 ha) of lands managed
by the Department of Defense as part of
Joint Base Lewis-McChord under their
integrated natural resource management
plan (INRMP).
NCO–4. The NCO–4 subunit consists
of approximately 179,745 ac (72,740 ha)
in Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook, and
Washington Counties, Oregon, and
comprises Federal lands and lands
managed by the State of Oregon. Of this
subunit, 117,033 ac (47,361 ha) are
managed as part of the Tillamook and
Clatsop State Forests for multiple uses
including timber revenue production,
recreation, and wildlife habitat
according to the Northwest Oregon State
Forest Management Plan (ODF 2010a,
entire). Federal lands encompass 62,712
ac (25,379 ha) of this subunit and are
managed as directed by the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats from current and past
timber harvest and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population. This
subunit is isolated from the nearest
subunit to the north but is adjacent to
subunit NCO–5 to the south.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicate
that approximately 63 percent of the
area of NCO–4 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider a
large part of this subunit to have been
occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this
subunit that may have been unoccupied
at the time of listing. We have
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
determined that all of the unoccupied
and likely occupied areas in this
subunit are essential for the
conservation of the species to meet the
recovery criterion that calls for the
continued maintenance and recruitment
of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS
2011, p. ix). The increase and
enhancement of northern spotted owl
habitat in this subunit is especially
important for providing for population
growth and additional demographic
support in this region. The development
of additional suitable habitat in this
subunit is needed to support viable
northern spotted owl populations over
the long term. The recruitment of
additional suitable habitat will also
contribute to the successful dispersal of
northern spotted owls, and serve to
buffer northern spotted owls from
competition with the barred owl.
NCO–5. The NCO–5 subunit consists
of approximately 142,937 ac (57,845 ha)
in Yamhill, Lincoln, Tillamook, and
Polk Counties, Oregon, and comprises
lands managed by the State of Oregon,
the BLM, and the USFS. Of this subunit
11,067 ac (4,479 ha) are managed by the
State of Oregon for multiple uses
including timber revenue production,
recreation, and wildlife habitat
according to the Northwest Oregon State
Forest Management Plan (ODF 2010a,
entire), and may be considered for
exclusion from the final critical habitat
designation. Federal lands comprise
131,870 ac (53,666 ha) and are managed
as directed by the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population and
north-south connectivity between
subunits and critical habitat units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicate
that approximately 63 percent of the
area of NCO–5 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider a
large part of this subunit to have been
occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this
subunit that may have been unoccupied
at the time of listing. We have
determined that all of the unoccupied
and likely occupied areas in this
subunit are essential for the
conservation of the species to meet the
recovery criterion that calls for the
continued maintenance and recruitment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS
2011, p. ix). The increase and
enhancement of northern spotted owl
habitat in this subunit is especially
important for providing for population
growth and additional demographic
support in this region. The development
of additional suitable habitat in this
subunit is needed to support viable
northern spotted owl populations over
the long term. The recruitment of
additional suitable habitat will also
contribute to the successful dispersal of
northern spotted owls, and serve to
buffer northern spotted owls from
competition with the barred owl.
Unit 2: Oregon Coast Ranges (OCR)
Unit 2 consists of 859,864 ac (347,975
ha) and contains six subunits. This unit
consists of the southern third of the
Oregon and Washington Coast Ranges
Section M242A, based on section
descriptions of forest types from
Ecological Subregions of the United
States (McNab and Avers 1994a, Section
M242A). We split the section in the
vicinity of Otter Rock, OR, based on
gradients of increased temperature and
decreased moisture that result in
different patterns of vegetation to the
south. Generally this region is
characterized by high rainfall, cool to
moderate temperatures, and generally
low topography (980 to 2,460 ft (300 to
750 m)). Forests in this region are
dominated by western hemlock, Sitka
spruce, and Douglas-fir; hardwoods are
limited in species diversity (largely
bigleaf maple and red alder) and
distribution, and are typically limited to
riparian zones. Douglas-fir and
hardwood species associated with the
California Floristic Province (tanoak,
Pacific madrone, black oak, giant
chinquapin (Castanopsis chrysophylla))
increase toward the southern end of the
OCR. On the eastern side of the Coast
Ranges crest, habitats tend to be drier
and dominated by Douglas-fir. Root
pathogens like laminated root rot are
important gap formers, and vine maple
among others fills these gaps. Because
Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is unusual
in this region, northern spotted owl
nesting habitat tends to be limited to
stands providing very large trees with
cavities or deformities. A few nests are
associated with western hemlock dwarf
mistletoe. Northern spotted owl diets
are dominated by species associated
with mature to late-successional forests
(flying squirrels, red tree voles),
resulting in similar definitions of
habitats used for nesting/roosting and
foraging by northern spotted owls. One
significant difference between OCR and
NCO is that woodrats comprise an
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71921
increasing proportion of the diet in the
southern portion of the modeling region.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 2
OCR–1. The OCR–1 subunit consists
of approximately 110,657 ac (44,781 ha)
in Polk, Benton and Lincoln Counties,
Oregon, and comprises lands managed
by the State of Oregon, the BLM, and the
USFS. Of this subunit 6,612 ac (2,676
ha) are managed by the State of Oregon
for multiple uses including timber
revenue production, recreation, and
wildlife habitat according to the
Northwest Oregon State Forest
Management Plan (ODF 2010a, entire).
Federal lands comprise 104,045 ac
(42,105 ha) and are managed as directed
by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population and
north-south connectivity between
subunits and critical habitat units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 55 percent of the
area of OCR–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider a
large part of this subunit to have been
occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this
subunit that may have been unoccupied
at the time of listing. We have
determined that all of the unoccupied
and likely occupied areas in this
subunit are essential for the
conservation of the species to meet the
recovery criterion that calls for the
continued maintenance and recruitment
of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS
2011, p. ix). The increase and
enhancement of northern spotted owl
habitat in this subunit is especially
important for providing for population
growth and additional demographic
support in this region. The development
of additional suitable habitat in this
subunit is needed to support viable
northern spotted owl populations over
the long term. The recruitment of
additional suitable habitat will also
contribute to the successful dispersal of
northern spotted owls, and serve to
buffer northern spotted owls from
competition with the barred owl.
OCR–2. The OCR–2 subunit consists
of approximately 261,405 ac (105,787
ha) in Lane, Benton, and Lincoln
Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71922
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
managed by the State of Oregon, the
BLM, and the USFS. Of this subunit
18,504 ac (7,448 ha) are managed by the
State of Oregon for multiple uses
including timber revenue production,
recreation, and wildlife habitat
according to the Northwest Oregon State
Forest Management Plan (ODF 2010a,
entire). Federal lands comprise 242,901
ac (98,298 ha) and are managed as
directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population and
north-south connectivity between
subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 77 percent of the
area of OCR–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
OCR–3. The OCR–3 subunit consists
of approximately 203,681 ac (82,427 ha)
in Lane and Douglas Counties, Oregon,
and comprises lands managed by the
State of Oregon, the BLM, and the
USFS. Of this subunit 5,082 ac (2,07 ha)
are managed by the State of Oregon for
multiple uses including timber revenue
production, recreation, and wildlife
habitat according to the Northwest
Oregon State Forest Management Plan
(ODF 2010a, entire). Federal lands
comprise 198,599 ac (80,369 ha) and are
managed as directed by the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats from current and past
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
timber harvest and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population and
for both north-south and east-west
connectivity between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 97 percent of the
area of OCR–3 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
OCR–4. The OCR–4 subunit consists
of approximately 8,263 ac (3,344 ha) in
Lane and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and
comprises lands managed by the BLM as
directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for east-west
connectivity between subunits and
critical habitat units, and between the
Oregon coast and the western Cascades.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 43 percent of the
area of OCR–4 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider a
large part of this subunit to have been
occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this
subunit that may have been unoccupied
at the time of listing. We have
determined that all of the unoccupied
and likely occupied areas in this
subunit are essential for the
conservation of the species to meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
recovery criterion that calls for the
continued maintenance and recruitment
of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS
2011, p. ix). The increase and
enhancement of northern spotted owl
habitat in this subunit is especially
important for providing essential
connectivity between currently
occupied areas to support the successful
dispersal of northern spotted owls, and
may also help to buffer northern spotted
owls from competition with the barred
owl.
OCR–5. The OCR–5 subunit consists
of approximately 176,905 ac (71,591ha)
in Coos and Douglas Counties, Oregon,
and comprises lands managed by the
State of Oregon, the BLM, and the
USFS. Of this subunit 40,747 ac (16,490
ha) are managed by the State of Oregon
for multiple uses including sustained
economic benefit through timber harvest
and management, recreation, and
wildlife habitat according to the Elliot
State Forest Management Plan (ODF
2011, entire). Federal lands comprise
136,158 ac (55,101 ha) and are managed
as directed by the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population and
for north-south, and potentially eastwest, connectivity between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 94 percent of the
area of OCR–5 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
OCR–6. The OCR–6 subunit consists
of approximately 81,900 ac (33,144 ha)
in Coos and Douglas Counties, Oregon,
and comprises lands managed by the
BLM as directed by the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats from current and past
timber harvest and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population and
for north-south connectivity between
subunits and critical habitat units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 97 percent of the
area of OCR–6 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
Unit 3: Redwood Coast (RWC)
Unit 3 contains 180,855ac (73,189ha)
and three subunits. This unit consists of
the Northern California Coast Ecological
Section 263, based on section
descriptions of forest types from
Ecological Subregions of the United
States (McNab and Avers 1994b, entire).
This region is characterized by lowlying terrain (0 to 2,950 ft (0 to 900 m))
with a maritime climate, generally
mesic conditions, and moderate
temperatures. Climatic conditions are
rarely limiting to northern spotted owls
at all elevations. Forest communities are
dominated by redwood, Douglas-firtanoak forest, coast live oak, and tanoak
series. The vast majority of the region is
in private ownership, dominated by a
few large industrial timberland
holdings. The results of numerous
studies of northern spotted owl habitat
relationships suggest stump-sprouting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
and rapid growth rates of redwoods,
combined with high availability of
woodrats in patchy, intensively
managed forests, enables northern
spotted owls to maintain high densities
in a wide range of habitat conditions
within the Redwood zone.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 3
RDC–1. This subunit contains 63,127
ac (25,547 ha) of lands managed by the
USFS and BLM in Curry County,
Oregon and in Del Norte, Humboldt,
and Trinity Counties, California. Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats from the barred owl.
Suitable habitat within the subunit is
relatively contiguous north-to-south,
and is capable of supporting a
sustainable subpopulation of owls. We
expect that this subunit will provide
strong connectivity among the adjacent
critical habitat units to the north (OCR)
and east (KLW, ICC). The subunit is
weakly connected to the adjacent
subunit to the south (RDC–2).
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 78 percent of the
area of RDC–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
RDC–2. This subunit contains 65,391
ac (26,463 ha) in Mendocino and
southwestern Humboldt Counties,
California. There are 16,479 ac (6,669
ha) of Federal lands in the subunit,
managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. The California
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection operates the Jackson
Demonstration State Forest (48,912 ac
(19,794 ha)) for multiple uses including
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71923
timber production, water quality,
wildlife habitat, and research.
Special management considerations
or protection are required in this
subunit to address threats from the
barred owl. Suitable habitat within the
subunit is relatively contiguous northto-south, and is capable of supporting a
sustainable subpopulation of owls. The
subunit is weakly connected to the
adjacent CHU to the east (ICC) and to
the coastal subunit to the north (RDC–
1); it is relatively well connected to the
coastal subunit to the south (RDC–3).
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 85 percent of the
area of RDC–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
RDC–3. This subunit was comprised
entirely of private lands, which have
been excluded from the final rule.
RDC–4. This subunit was comprised
entirely of private lands, which have
been excluded from the final rule.
RDC–5. This subunit contains 20,684
ac (8,371 ha) in southern Marin County,
California and represents the southern
range limit of the subspecies. No private
lands are contained in this subunit. The
Mount Tamalpais Watershed (18,900 ac
(7,649 ha)) of the Marin Municipal
Water District is included in the final
critical habitat designation. Six Open
Space Preserves (OSPs) in the Marin
County Parks and Open Space System,
totaling 3,627 ac (1,468 ha), are
included in the final critical habitat
designation, including Gary Giacomini,
White Hill, Cascade Canyon, Baltimore
Canyon, Camino Alto, and Blithedale
Summit OSPs. Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71924
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
incipient threats from the barred owl.
Suitable habitat within the subunit is
continuous from east to west. It is
unknown whether this subunit is
capable of supporting a self-sustaining
subpopulation of owls without support
from the subunit to the north (RDC–4).
The lands between this subunit and the
nearest subunit to the east (ICC–6) are
dominated by agricultural and urban
land use, and are very weakly
connected.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 82 percent of the
area of RDC–5 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
Unit 4: West Cascades North (WCN)
This unit contains 542,274 ac
(219,450 ha) and two subunits. This unit
coincides with the northern Western
Cascades Section M242B, based on
section descriptions of forest types from
Ecological Subregions of the United
States (McNab and Avers 1994a, Section
M242B), combined with the western
portion of M242D (Northern Cascades
Section), extending from the U.S.Canadian border south to Snoqualmie
Pass in central Washington. It is similar
to the Northern Cascades Province of
Franklin and Dyrness (1988, pp. 17–20).
This region is characterized by high
mountainous terrain with extensive
areas of glaciers and snowfields at
higher elevation. The marine climate
brings high precipitation (both annual
and summer) but is modified by high
elevations and low temperatures over
much of this modeling region. The
resulting distribution of forest
vegetation is dominated by subalpine
species, mountain hemlock and silver
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
fir; the western hemlock and Douglas-fir
forests typically used by northern
spotted owls are more limited to lower
elevations and river valleys (northern
spotted owls are rarely found at
elevations greater than 4,200 ft (1,280
m) in this region) grading into the mesic
Puget lowland to the west.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 4
WCN–1. The WCN–1 subunit consists
of approximately 438,255 ac (177,355
ha) in Whatcom, Skagit, and Snohomish
Counties, Washington, and comprises
lands managed by the USFS and the
State of Washington. The USFS manages
320,146 ac (129,559 ha) as Latesuccessional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, latesuccessional, and old-growth forest
ecosystems and 6,147 ac (2,487 ha)
under the matrix land use allocation
where multiple uses occur, including
most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber
harvest, competition with barred owls,
steep topography with high-elevation
ridges that separate relatively small,
linear strips of suitable habitat in valley
bottoms, and location at the northern
limit of the subspecies range. This
subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support of
the overall population and to maintain
the subspecies distribution in the
northernmost portion of its range.
WCN–1 is located in the watersheds of
the Stillaguamish, Skagit, and Nooksack
rivers, and is bounded on the north by
the international boundary with British
Columbia, Canada. In this subunit, we
have excluded lands covered under the
Washington Department of Natural
Resources State Lands HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 92 percent of the
area of WCN–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
WCN–2. The WCN–2 subunit consists
of approximately 103,988 ac (42,083 ha)
in King and Snohomish Counties,
Washington, and comprises lands
managed by the USFS, State of
Washington, and private landowners.
The USFS manages 82,316 ac (33,312
ha) as Late-successional Reserves to
maintain functional, interactive, latesuccessional, and old-growth forest
ecosystems and 834 ac (338 ha) under
the matrix land use allocation where
multiple uses occur, including most
timber harvest and other silvicultural
activities. Threats in this subunit
include current and past timber harvest,
competition with barred owls, and steep
topography with high-elevation ridges
that separate relatively small, linear
strips of suitable habitat in valley
bottoms. This subunit has a key role in
maintaining connectivity between
northern spotted owl populations, both
north to south in the West Cascades and
west to east between the West and East
Cascades units. This role is shared with
the WCC–1 subunit to the south and the
ECN–4 subunit to the east. This subunit
is also expected to provide demographic
support of the overall population.
WCN–2 is located in the watersheds of
the Snohomish and Cedar/Sammamish
Rivers. In this subunit, we have
excluded lands covered under the
Washington Department of Natural
Resources State Lands HCP in the final
designation.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 79 percent of the
area of WCN–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Unit 5: West Cascades Central (WCC)
This unit contains 909,687 ac
(368,136 ha) and three subunits. This
region consists of the midsection of the
Western Cascades Section M242B, based
on section descriptions of forest types
from Ecological Subregions of the
United States (McNab and Avers 1994a,
Section M242B), extending from
Snoqualmie Pass in central Washington
south to the Columbia River. It is similar
to the Southern Washington Cascades
Province of Franklin and Dyrness (1988,
pp. 21–23). We separated this region
from the northern section based on
differences in northern spotted owl
habitat due to relatively milder
temperatures, lower elevations, and
greater proportion of western hemlock/
Douglas-fir forest and occurrence of
noble fir (A. procera) to the south of
Snoqualmie Pass. Because Douglas-fir
dwarf mistletoe occurs rarely in this
region, northern spotted owl nest sites
are largely limited to defects in large
trees, and occasionally nests of other
raptors.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 5
WCC–1. The WCC–1 subunit consists
of approximately 225,847 ac (91,397 ha)
in King, Pierce, Thurston, Lewis,
Kittitas, and Yakima Counties,
Washington, and comprises lands
managed by USFS and State of
Washington. The USFS manages
183,884 ac (76,843 ha) as Latesuccessional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, latesuccessional, and old-growth forest
ecosystems and 35,145 ac (14,222 ha)
under the matrix land use allocation
where multiple uses occur, including
most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber
harvest, competition with barred owls,
and stand conversion. This subunit is
expected to provide demographic
support of the overall population and to
maintain demographic connectivity
between the Cascade Range and the
Olympic Peninsula in conjunction with
subunit NCO–3. WCC–1 is located
primarily in the watersheds of the
Nisqually, Puyallup, White, Duwamish,
and Green Rivers. In this subunit, we
have excluded lands from our final
critical habitat designation that are
covered under the Washington
Department of Natural Resources State
Lands HCP, the Cedar River Watershed
HCP, the Plum Creek Timber Central
Cascades HCP, the West Fork Timber
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
HCP, the Tacoma Water Green River
Water Supply Operations and
Watershed Protection HCP as well as
other private lands from the final
designation.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicate
that approximately 96 percent of the
area of WCC–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
WCC–2. The WCC–2 subunit consists
of approximately 279,445 ac (113,087
ha) in Pierce, Lewis, Cowlitz, Skamania,
and Yakima Counties, Washington, and
comprises lands managed by USFS,
State of Washington, and private
landowners. The USFS manages 92,835
ac (37,569 ha) as Late-successional
Reserves to maintain functional,
interactive, late-successional, and oldgrowth forest ecosystems and 88,655 ac
(35,878 ha) under the matrix land use
allocation where multiple uses occur,
including most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
provide demographic support of the
overall population. WCC–2 is located
primarily in the Cowlitz River
watersheds west of the Cascade Crest
and the headwaters of the Naches River
watershed east of the Crest. In this
subunit, we have excluded lands
covered under the Washington
Department of Natural Resources State
Lands HCP, the West Fork Timber HCP,
and the Port Blakely Tree Farms L.P.
(Morton Block) SHA, Landowner Option
Plan, and Cooperative Habitat
Enhancement Agreement in the final
critical habitat designation.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71925
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 96 percent of the
area of WCC–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
WCC–3. The WCC–3 subunit consists
of approximately 394,501 ac (159,649
ha) in Clark, Skamania, and Yakima
Counties, Washington, and comprises
lands managed by the USFS, the State
of Washington, and private landowners.
The USFS manages 242,929 ac (98,310
ha) as Late-successional Reserves to
maintain functional, interactive, latesuccessional, and old-growth forest
ecosystems and 122,641 ac (49,631 ha)
under the matrix land use allocation
where multiple uses occur, including
most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber
harvest, competition with barred owls,
and the Columbia River as an
impediment to northern spotted owl
dispersal. This subunit is expected to
provide demographic support of the
overall population and an opportunity
for demographic exchange between the
WCC Unit and the WCS Unit. WCC–3 is
located primarily in the watersheds of
the Lewis, Wind, and White Salmon
Rivers, and is bounded on the south by
the Columbia River. In this subunit, we
have excluded lands covered under the
Washington Department of Natural
Resources State Lands HCP from critical
habitat designation.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 96 percent of the
area of WCC–3 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71926
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Unit 6: West Cascades South (WCS)
Unit 6 contains 1,355,198ac (548,429
ha) and contains six subunits. This unit
consists of the southern portion of the
Western Cascades Section M242B, based
on section descriptions of forest types
from Ecological Subregions of the
United States (McNab and Avers 1994a,
Section M242B), and extends from the
Columbia River south to the North
Umpqua River. We separated this region
from the northern section due to its
relatively milder temperatures, reduced
summer precipitation due to the
influence of the Willamette Valley to the
west, lower elevations, and greater
proportion of western hemlock/Douglasfir forest. The southern portion of this
region exhibits a gradient between
Douglas-fir/western hemlock and
increasing Klamath-like vegetation
(mixed conifer/evergreen hardwoods),
which continues across the Umpqua
divide area. The southern boundary of
this region is novel and reflects a
transition to mixed-conifer forest
(Franklin and Dyrness 1988, pp. 23–24,
137–143). The importance of Douglas-fir
dwarf mistletoe increases to the south in
this region, but most northern spotted
owl nest sites are found in defective
large trees, and occasionally nests of
other raptors.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 6
WCS–1. The WCS–1 subunit consists
of approximately 92,586 ac (37,468 ha)
in Multnomah, Hood River, and
Clackamas Counties, Oregon, and
comprises only Federal lands managed
by the BLM and the USFS under the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire).
Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats from current and past
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
timber harvest and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population, as
well as north-south and east-west
connectivity between subunits and
critical habitat units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 88 percent of the
area of WCS–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
WCS–2. The WCS–2 subunit consists
of approximately 150,105 ac (60,745 ha)
in Clackamas, Marion, and Wasco
Counties, Oregon, and comprises only
Federal lands managed by the BLM and
the USFS under the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population, as
well as north-south connectivity
between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 82 percent of the
area of WCS–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011 p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
WCS–3. The WCS–3 subunit consists
of approximately 319,736 ac (129,393
ha) in Clackamas, Marion, Linn, and
Lane Counties, Oregon, and comprises
lands managed by the State of Oregon,
the BLM, and the USFS. Of this subunit,
184 ac (75 ha) are managed by the State
of Oregon primarily for recreation
(Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter
736, entire). The remaining 319,552 ac
(129,318 ha) are Federal lands managed
as directed by the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population, as
well as north-south connectivity
between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 85 percent of the
area of WCS–3 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
WCS–4. The WCS–4 subunit consists
of approximately 379,130 ac (153,429
ha) in Lane and Douglas Counties,
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Oregon, and comprises only Federal
lands managed by the BLM and the
USFS under the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population, as
well as north-south connectivity
between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 86 percent of the
area of WCS–4 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
WCS–5. The WCS–5 subunit consists
of approximately 356,415 ac (144,236
ha) in Lane and Douglas Counties,
Oregon, and comprises only Federal
lands managed by the USFS under the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire).
Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats from current and past
timber harvest and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population, as
well as north-south and east-west
connectivity between subunits and
critical habitat units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 83 percent of the
area of WCS–5 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
WCS–6. The WCS–6 subunit consists
of approximately 99,558 ac (40,290 ha)
in Lane, Klamath, and Douglas
Counties, Oregon, and is managed by
the BLM and the USFS as directed by
the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for east-west
connectivity between subunits and
critical habitat units, and between the
Oregon coast and the western Cascades.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 97 percent of the
area of WCS–6 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71927
Unit 7: East Cascades North (ECN)
Unit 7 contains 1,345,523ac (557,002
ha) and nine subunits. This unit
consists of the eastern slopes of the
Cascade range, extending from the
Canadian border south to the Deschutes
National Forest near Bend, OR. Terrain
in portions of this region is glaciated
and steeply dissected. This region is
characterized by a continental climate
(cold, snowy winters and dry summers).
High-frequency, low-intensity fire
regimes occur at lower elevations, mid
elevations have mixed-severity regimes,
and high elevations have high-severity
regimes. Increased precipitation from
marine air passing east through
Snoqualmie Pass and the Columbia
River has resulted in an increase of
moist forest conditions in this region
(Hessburg et al. 2000b, p. 165). In
Washington, ponderosa pine and
Douglas-fir forest are dominant at low
elevations, Douglas-fir/grand fir mixedconifer forest are characteristic of midelevations, and higher elevations
support forests of silver fir, hemlock,
and subalpine fir. The terrain is highly
dissected and mountainous. The terrain
and ecology are different on the
southern portion of the unit, where
ponderosa pine predominates on flat
terrain at low elevations, and owl
habitat is restricted to buttes and the
slopes of the Cascade Range in forests of
Douglas-fir, grand/white fir, and true
firs. There is substantially less habitat in
the Deschutes area of Oregon compared
to the area north of Sisters, Oregon, and
into Washington. The bulk of owls in
this Unit are in Washington.
Forest composition, particularly the
presence of grand fir and western larch,
distinguishes this modeling region from
the southern section of the eastern
Cascades. While ponderosa pine forest
dominates lower and middle elevations
in both this and the southern section,
the northern section supports grand fir
and Douglas-fir habitat at middle
elevations. Dwarf mistletoe provides an
important component of nesting habitat,
enabling northern spotted owls to nest
within stands of relatively younger and
smaller trees.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 7
ECN–1. The ECN–1 subunit consists
of approximately 101,661 ac (41,141 ha)
in Whatcom, Skagit, and Okanogan
Counties, Washington, and comprises
lands managed by USFS. The USFS
manages 60,173 ac (24,351 ha) as Latesuccessional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, late-successional
and old-growth forest ecosystems and
22,802 ac (9,228 ha) under the matrix
land use allocation where multiple uses
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71928
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
occur, including most timber harvest
and other silvicultural activities.
Threats in this subunit include current
and past timber harvest; competition
with barred owls; removal or
modification of habitat by forest fires,
insects, and diseases; steep topography
with high-elevation ridges that separate
relatively small, linear strips of suitable
habitat in valley bottoms; and location
at the northeastern limit of the range of
the subspecies. This subunit is expected
to provide demographic support of the
overall population and maintain the
subspecies distribution in the
northeastern portion of its range. ECN–
1 is located primarily in the watershed
of the Methow River and includes a
small portion of the upper Skagit River
watershed. It is bounded on the north by
the international boundary with British
Columbia, Canada.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 41 percent of the
area of ECN–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECN–2. The ECN–2 subunit consists
of approximately 60,128 ac (24,333 ha)
in Chelan County, Washington, and
comprises lands managed by USFS. The
USFS manages 35,835 ac (14,502 ha) as
Late-successional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, late-successional
and old-growth forest ecosystems and
17,545 ac (7,100 ha) under the matrix
land use allocation where multiple uses
occur, including most timber harvest
and other silvicultural activities.
Threats in this subunit include current
and past timber harvest; competition
with barred owls; steep topography with
high-elevation ridges that separate
relatively small, linear strips of suitable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
habitat in valley bottoms; the
combination of Lake Chelan and the
Sawtooth Mountains acting as a barrier
to dispersal; and removal or
modification of habitat by forest fires,
insects, and diseases. This subunit is
expected to provide demographic
support of the overall population. ECN–
2 is located primarily in the watersheds
of the Chelan and Entiat Rivers.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 34 percent of the
area of ECN–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECN–3. The ECN–3 subunit consists
of approximately 301,219 ac (121,899
ha) in Chelan County, Washington, and
comprises lands managed by the USFS
and private landowners. The USFS
manages 187,103 ac (75,718 ha) as Latesuccessional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, late-successional
and old-growth forest ecosystems and
114,117 ac (46,181 ha) under the matrix
land use allocation where multiple uses
occur, including most timber harvest
and other silvicultural activities.
Threats in this subunit include current
and past timber harvest, competition
with barred owls, and removal or
modification of habitat by forest fires,
insects, and diseases. This subunit is
expected to provide demographic
support of the overall population. ECN–
3 is located primarily in the watershed
of the Wenatchee River. In this subunit,
we have excluded private lands and
lands covered under the Washington
Department of Natural Resources State
Lands HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 71 percent of the
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
area of ECN–3 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECN–4. The ECN–4 subunit consists
of approximately 222,818 ac (90,171 ha)
in Kittitas County, Washington, and
comprises lands managed by the USFS
and the State of Washington. The USFS
manages 99,641 ac (40,323 ha) as Latesuccessional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, latesuccessional, and old-growth forest
ecosystems and 118,676 ac (48,027 ha)
under the matrix land use allocation
where multiple uses occur, including
most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
manages 4,498 ac (1,820 ha). Threats in
this subunit include current and past
timber harvest, competition with barred
owls, and removal or modification of
habitat by forest fires, insects, and
diseases. This subunit is expected to
provide demographic support of the
overall population. This subunit also
has a key role in maintaining
connectivity between northern spotted
owl populations, both north to south in
the East Cascades North Unit and west
to east between the West and East
Cascades units. This role is shared with
the WCN–2 subunit and the WCC–1
subunit to the west. ECN–4 is located
primarily in the Upper Yakima River
watershed. In this subunit, we have
excluded private lands and lands
covered under the Washington
Department of Natural Resources State
Lands HCP and the Plum Creek Timber
Central Cascades HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 78 percent of the
area of ECN–4 was covered by verified
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECN–5. The ECN–5 subunit consists
of approximately 201,108 ac (81,415 ha)
in Kittitas and Yakima Counties,
Washington, and comprises lands
managed by the USFS and the State of
Washington. The USFS manages
115,289 ac (46,656 ha) as Latesuccessional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, latesuccessional, and old-growth forest
ecosystems and 83,849 ac (33,933 ha)
under the matrix land use allocation
where multiple uses occur, including
most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber
harvest, competition with barred owls,
and removal or modification of habitat
by forest fires, insects, and diseases.
This subunit is expected to provide
demographic support of the overall
population. ECN–5 is located primarily
in the watershed of the Naches River. In
this subunit, we have excluded from
final critical habitat designation lands
covered under the Washington
Department of Natural Resources State
Lands HCP, the Plum Creek Timber
Central Cascades HCP, and private
lands.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 85 percent of the
area of ECN–5 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECN–6. The ECN–6 subunit consists
of approximately 81,852 ac (33,124 ha)
in Skamania, Yakima, and Klickitat
Counties, Washington, and comprises
lands managed by the USFS and the
State of Washington. The USFS manages
32,400 ac (13,112 ha) as Latesuccessional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, latesuccessional, and old-growth forest
ecosystems; and 49,452 ac (20,012 ha)
under the matrix land use allocation
where multiple uses occur, including
most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber
harvest, competition with barred owls,
and the Columbia River as an
impediment to northern spotted owl
dispersal. This subunit is expected to
provide demographic support of the
overall population. ECN–6 is located
primarily in the watersheds of the
Klickitat and White Salmon Rivers, and
is bounded on the south by the
Columbia River. In this subunit, we
have excluded lands covered under the
Washington Department of Natural
Resources State Lands HCP as well as
private lands from the final designation.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 88 percent of the
area of ECN–6 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71929
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECN–7. The ECN–7 subunit consists
of approximately 139,983 ac (56,649 ha)
in Hood River and Wasco Counties,
Oregon, and comprises only Federal
lands managed by the USFS under the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire).
Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats from current and past
timber harvest, removal or modification
of habitat by forest fires and the effects
on vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support to
the overall population, as well as northsouth and east-west connectivity
between subunits and critical habitat
units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that nearly 100 percent of the area of
ECN–7 was covered by verified northern
spotted owl home ranges at the time of
listing. When combined with likely
occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECN–8. The ECN–8 subunit consists
of approximately 94,622 ac (38,292 ha)
in Jefferson and Deschutes Counties,
Oregon, of Federal lands managed by
the USFS under the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest, losses due to wildfire and the
effects on vegetation from fire exclusion,
and competition with barred owls. This
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71930
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support to
the overall population, as well as northsouth connectivity between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicate
that approximately 61 percent of the
area of ECN–8 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECN–9. The ECN–9 subunit consists
of approximately 155,434 ac (62,902 ha)
in Deschutes and Klamath Counties,
Oregon, and comprises only Federal
lands managed by the USFS under the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support to the overall population, as
well as north-south connectivity
between subunits and critical habitat
units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 45 percent of the
area of ECN–9 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
Unit 8: East Cascades South (ECS)
Unit 8 contains 368,381 ac (149,078
ha) and three subunits. This unit
incorporates the Southern Cascades
Ecological Section M261D, based on
section descriptions of forest types from
Ecological Subregions of the United
States (McNab and Avers 1994c, Section
M261D) and the eastern slopes of the
Cascades from the Crescent Ranger
District of the Deschutes National Forest
south to the Shasta area. Topography is
gentler and less dissected than the
glaciated northern section of the eastern
Cascades. A large expanse of recent
volcanic soils (pumice region) (Franklin
and Dyrness 1988, pp. 25–26), large
areas of lodgepole pine, and increasing
presence of red fir (Abies magnifica)
and white fir (and decreasing grand fir)
along a south-trending gradient further
supported separation of this region from
the northern portion of the eastern
Cascades. This region is characterized
by a continental climate (cold, snowy
winters and dry summers) and a highfrequency/low-mixed severity fire
regime. Ponderosa pine is a dominant
forest type at mid-to-lower elevations,
with a narrow band of Douglas-fir and
white fir at middle elevations providing
the majority of northern spotted owl
habitat. Dwarf mistletoe provides an
important component of nesting habitat,
enabling northern spotted owls to nest
within stands of relatively younger,
smaller trees.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 8
ECS–1. The ECS–1 subunit consists of
approximately 127,801 ac (51,719 ha) in
Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas
Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands
managed by the BLM and the USFS.
Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats to the essential
physical or biological features from
current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support to
the overall population, as well as north-
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
south and east-west connectivity
between subunits and critical habitat
units. This subunit is adjacent to ECS–
2 to the south.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 78 percent of the
area of ECS–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECS–2. The ECS–2 subunit consists of
approximately 66,086 ac (26,744 ha) in
Klamath and Jackson Counties, Oregon,
and Siskiyou County, California, all of
which are Federal lands managed by the
BLM and USFS per the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats to the essential
physical or biological features from
current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function
primarily for north-south connectivity
between subunits, but also for
demographic support in this area of
sparse Federal land and sparse highquality nesting habitat.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 77 percent of the
area of ECS–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ECS–3. The ECS–3 subunit consists of
approximately 112,179 ac (45,397 ha) in
Siskiyou County, California, all of
which are Federal lands managed by the
USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. The function of this subunit is to
provide demographic support in this
area of sparsely distributed high-quality
habitat and Federal land, and to provide
for population connectivity between
subunits to the north and south.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 69 percent of the
area of ECS–3 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider a
large part of this subunit to have been
occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this
subunit that may have been unoccupied
at the time of listing. We have
determined that all of the unoccupied
and likely occupied areas in this
subunit are essential for the
conservation of the species to meet the
recovery criterion that calls for the
continued maintenance and recruitment
of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS
2011, p. ix). The increase and
enhancement of northern spotted owl
habitat in this subunit is especially
important for providing essential
connectivity between currently
occupied areas to support the successful
dispersal of northern spotted owls, and
may also help to buffer northern spotted
owls from competition with the barred
owl.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Unit 9: Klamath West (KLW)
Unit 9 contains 1,197,389 ac (484,565
ha) and nine subunits. This unit
consists of the western portion of the
Klamath Mountains Ecological Section
M261A, based on section descriptions of
forest types from Ecological Subregions
of the United States (McNab and Avers
1994c, Section M261A). A long northsouth trending system of mountains
(particularly South Fork Mountain)
creates a rainshadow effect that
separates this region from more mesic
conditions to the west. This region is
characterized by very high climatic and
vegetative diversity resulting from steep
gradients of elevation, dissected
topography, and the influence of marine
air (relatively high potential
precipitation). These conditions support
a highly diverse mix of mesic forest
communities such as Pacific Douglas-fir,
Douglas-fir tanoak, and mixed evergreen
forest interspersed with more xeric
forest types. Overall, the distribution of
tanoak is a dominant factor
distinguishing the Western Klamath
Region. Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is
uncommon and seldom used for nesting
platforms by northern spotted owls. The
prey base of northern spotted owls
within the Western Klamath is diverse,
but dominated by woodrats and flying
squirrels.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 9
KLW–1. The KLW–1 subunit consists
of approximately 147,326 ac (59,621 ha)
in Douglas, Josephine, Curry, and Coos
Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands
managed by the State of Oregon and the
BLM. Of this subunit 7,682 ac (3,109 ha)
are managed by the State of Oregon for
multiple uses including timber revenue
production, recreation, and wildlife
habitat according to the Southwest
Oregon State Forests Management Plan
(ODF 2010b, entire). Federal lands
comprise 139,644 ac (56,512 ha) and are
managed as directed by the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats to the essential
physical or biological features from
current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function for
demographic support to the overall
population and for north-south and eastwest connectivity between subunits and
critical habitat units. This subunit sits at
the western edge of an important
connectivity corridor between coastal
Oregon and the western Cascades.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71931
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 96 percent of the
area of KLW–1was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLW–2. The KLW–2 subunit consists
of approximately 148,929 ac (60,674 ha)
in Josephine, Curry, and Coos Counties,
Oregon, and comprises lands managed
by the USFS and the BLM as directed
by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function for demographic support to the
overall population and for north-south
and east-west connectivity between
subunits and critical habitat units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 71 percent of the
area of KLW–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71932
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLW–3. The KLW–3 subunit consists
of approximately 143,862 ac (58,219 ha)
in Josephine, Curry, and Coos Counties,
Oregon, and comprises lands managed
by the USFS, the BLM and the State of
Oregon. There are 142,982 ac (57,863
ha) of Federal lands managed as
directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). The 880 ac (356 ha) of
State of Oregon lands are managed
according to the Southwest Oregon State
Forests Management Plan (ODF 2010b,
entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest, losses due to wildfire and the
effects on vegetation from fire exclusion,
and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function for
demographic support to the overall
population and for north-south
connectivity between subunits and
critical habitat units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 88 percent of the
area of KLW–3 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLW–4. The KLW–4 subunit consists
of approximately 158,299 ac (64,061 ha)
in Josephine and Jackson Counties,
Oregon, and Del Norte and Siskiyou
Counties, California, and comprises
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
lands managed by the USFS and the
BLM that are managed as directed by
the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function for demographic support to the
overall population and for north-south
and east-west connectivity between
subunits and critical habitat units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 95 percent of the
area of KLW–4 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLW–5. The KLW–5 subunit consists
of approximately 31,085 ac (12,580 ha)
in Josephine County, Oregon, and Del
Norte and Siskiyou Counties, California,
all of which are Federal lands managed
by the BLM and USFS per the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats to the essential
physical or biological features from
current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function for
demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 98 percent of the
area of KLW–5 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLW–6. The KLW–6 subunit consists
of approximately 117,545 ac (47,569 ha)
in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Siskiyou
Counties, California, all of which are
Federal lands managed by the USFS as
directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 91 percent of the
area of KLW–6 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLW–7. The KLW–7 subunit consists
of approximately 255,779 ac (103,510
ha) in Del Norte, Humboldt, and
Siskiyou Counties, California, all of
which are Federal lands managed by the
BLM and USFS as directed by the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire).
Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats to the essential or
physical features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 91 percent of the
area of KLW–7 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLW–8. The KLW–8 subunit consists
of approximately 114,287 ac (46,250 ha)
in Siskiyou and Trinity Counties,
California, all of which are Federal
lands managed by the BLM and USFS
as directed by the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 85 percent of the
area of KLW–8 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLW–9. The KLW–9 subunit consists
of approximately 149,656 ac (60,564 ha)
in Humboldt and Trinity Counties,
California, all of which are Federal
lands managed by the USFS as directed
by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 89 percent of the
area of KLW–9 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71933
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
Unit 10: Klamath East (KLE)
Unit 10 contains 1,052,731ac
(426,025ha) and seven subunits. This
unit consists of the eastern portion of
the Klamath Mountains Ecological
Section M261A, based on section
descriptions of forest types from
Ecological Subregions of the United
States (McNab and Avers 1994c, Section
M261A), and portions of the Southern
Cascades Ecological Section M261D in
Oregon. This region is characterized by
a Mediterranean climate, greatly
reduced influence of marine air, and
steep, dissected terrain. Franklin and
Dyrness (1988, pp. 137–149)
differentiate the mixed-conifer forest
occurring on the ‘‘Cascade side of the
Klamath from the more mesic mixed
evergreen forests on the western portion
(Siskiyou Mountains),’’ and Kuchler
(1977) separates out the eastern Klamath
based on increased occurrence of
ponderosa pine. The mixed-conifer/
evergreen hardwood forest types typical
of the Klamath region extend into the
southern Cascades in the vicinity of
Roseburg and the North Umpqua River,
where they grade into the western
hemlock forest typical of the Cascades.
High summer temperatures and a
mosaic of open forest conditions and
Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)
woodlands act to influence northern
spotted owl distribution in this region.
Northern spotted owls occur at
elevations up to 1,768 m. Dwarf
mistletoe provides an important
component of nesting habitat, providing
additional structure and enabling
northern spotted owls to occasionally
nest within stands of relatively younger,
small trees.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 10
KLE–1. The KLE–1 subunit consists of
approximately 242,338 ac (98,071 ha) in
Jackson and Douglas Counties, Oregon,
and comprises Federal lands managed
by the USFS and the BLM under the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire).
Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats to the essential
physical or biological features from
current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support to
the overall population, as well as northsouth and east-west connectivity
between subunits and critical habitat
units.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71934
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 84 percent of the
area of KLE–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLE–2. The KLE–2 subunit consists of
approximately 101,942 ac (41,255 ha) in
Josephine and Douglas Counties,
Oregon, and comprises Federal lands
managed by the USFS and the BLM
under the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for east-west
connectivity between subunits and
critical habitat units, but also for
demographic support. This subunit
facilitates northern spotted owl
movements between the western
Cascades and coastal Oregon and the
Klamath Mountains.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 92 percent of the
area of KLE–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLE–3. The KLE–3 subunit consists of
approximately 111,410 ac (45,086 ha) in
Jackson, Josephine, and Douglas
Counties, Oregon, and comprises
Federal lands managed by the USFS and
the BLM under the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for east-west
connectivity between subunits and
critical habitat units, but also for
demographic support. This subunit
facilitates northern spotted owl
movements between the western
Cascades and coastal Oregon and the
Klamath Mountains.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 97 percent of the
area of KLE–3 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLE–4. The KLE–4 subunit consists of
approximately 254,442 ac (102,969 ha)
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in Jackson, Klamath, and Douglas
Counties, Oregon, and comprises
Federal lands managed by the USFS and
the BLM under the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for east-west
connectivity between subunits and
critical habitat units, but also for
demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 81 percent of the
area of KLE–4 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLE–5. The KLE–5 subunit consists of
approximately 38,283 ac (15,493 ha) in
Jackson County, Oregon, and comprises
lands managed by the BLM and USFS.
The BLM and USFS lands are managed
per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for north-south
connectivity between subunits, but also
for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 86 percent of the
area of KLE–5 was covered by verified
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLE–6. The KLE–6 subunit consists of
approximately 167,849 ac (67,926 ha) in
Jackson County, Oregon, and Siskiyou
County, California, all of which are
Federal lands managed by the BLM and
USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for north-south
connectivity between subunits, but also
for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 97 percent of the
area of KLE–6 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
KLE–7. The KLE–7 subunit consists of
approximately 66,078 ac (26,741 ha) in
Siskiyou County, California, all of
which are Federal lands managed by the
BLM and USFS per the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats to the essential
physical or biological features from
current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function for
demographic support and also for
connectivity across the landscape.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 96 percent of the
area of KLE–7 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
Unit 11: Interior California Coast (ICC)
Unit 11 contains 941,568 ac (381,039
ha) and eight subunits. This unit
consists of the Northern California Coast
Ranges ecological Section M261B, based
on section descriptions of forest types
from Ecological Subregions of the
United States (McNab and Avers 1994c,
Section M261B), and differs markedly
from the adjacent redwood coast region.
Marine air moderates winter climate,
but precipitation is limited by
rainshadow effects from steep
elevational gradients (328 to 7,847 ft
(100 to 2,400 m)) along a series of northsouth trending mountain ridges. Due to
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71935
the influence of the adjacent Central
Valley, summer temperatures in the
interior portions of this region are
among the highest within the northern
spotted owl’s range. Forest communities
tend to be relatively dry mixed-conifer,
blue and Oregon white oak, and the
Douglas-fir tanoak series. Northern
spotted owl habitat within this region is
poorly known; there are no
Demographic Study Areas (DSAs—areas
within forested habitats specifically
surveyed to determine northern spotted
owl occupation and density), and few
studies have been conducted here.
Northern spotted owl habitat and
occupancy data obtained during this
project suggests that some northern
spotted owls occupy steep canyons
dominated by live oak and Douglas-fir.
The distribution of dense conifer
habitats most suitable for the northern
spotted owl is limited to higher
elevations on the Mendocino National
Forest.
Subunit Descriptions—Unit 11
ICC–1. The ICC–1 subunit consists of
approximately 332,042 ac (134,372 ha)
in Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, and
Tehama Counties, California, all of
which are Federal lands managed by the
BLM and the USFS per the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats to the essential
physical or biological features from
current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support, but
also for connectivity between subunits
and critical habitat units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 97 percent of the
area of ICC–1 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71936
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ICC–2. The ICC–2 subunit consists of
approximately 204,400 ac (82,718 ha) in
Humboldt and Trinity Counties,
California, all of which are Federal
lands managed by the BLM and the
USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support, but also for connectivity
between subunits and critical habitat
units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 98 percent of the
area of ICC–2 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ICC–3. The ICC–3 subunit consists of
approximately 103,971 ac (42,035 ha) in
Trinity, Tehama, and Mendocino
Counties, California, all of which are
Federal lands managed by the BLM and
the USFS per the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support, but also for north-south
connectivity between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 89 percent of the
area of ICC–3 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ICC–4. The ICC–4 subunit consists of
approximately 120,997 ac (48,966 ha) in
Mendocino, Glenn, and Colusa
Counties, California, all of which are
Federal lands managed by the BLM and
USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 93 percent of the
area of ICC–4 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ICC–5. The ICC–5 subunit consists of
approximately 34,957 ac (14,147 ha) in
Lake and Mendocino Counties,
California, all of which are Federal
lands managed by the USFS and BLM
per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats to the essential physical or
biological features from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred
owls. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic
support, but also for connectivity
between subunits and critical habitat
units.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 78 percent of the
area of ICC–5 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ICC–6. The ICC–6 subunit consists of
approximately 2,072 ac (839 ha) of State
and Federal lands in Napa and Sonoma
Counties, California.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 90 percent of the
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
area of ICC–6 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ICC–7. The ICC–7 subunit consists of
approximately 119,742 ac (48,458 ha) in
Trinity and Shasta Counties, California,
all of which are Federal lands managed
by the BLM and USFS per the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit
to address threats to the essential
physical or biological features from
current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function both for
demographic support and for east-west
connectivity between subunits in an
area of sparse Federal ownership.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 73 percent of the
area of ICC–7 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
ICC–8. The ICC–8 subunit consists of
approximately 83,376 ac (33,742 ha) in
Siskiyou and Shasta Counties,
California, all of which are Federal
lands managed by the BLM and the
USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber
harvest, losses due to wildfire and the
effects on vegetation from fire exclusion,
and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function both for
demographic support and for
connectivity between subunits in an
area of sparse Federal ownership.
Our evaluation of sites known to be
occupied at the time of listing indicates
that approximately 84 percent of the
area of ICC–8 was covered by verified
northern spotted owl home ranges at the
time of listing. When combined with
likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by nonterritorial owls and
dispersing subadults, we consider this
subunit to have been largely occupied at
the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger
forest within the habitat mosaic of this
subunit that were unoccupied at the
time of listing. We have determined that
all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are
essential for the conservation of the
species to meet the recovery criterion
that calls for the continued maintenance
and recruitment of northern spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The
increase and enhancement of northern
spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of
northern spotted owls over the long
term by providing for population
growth, successful dispersal, and
buffering from competition with the
barred owl.
IX. Effects of Critical Habitat
Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
determinations of designated critical
habitat of such species. Decisions by the
Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of
Appeals have invalidated our regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71937
definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse
modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (Gifford
Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir.
2004); Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this
regulatory definition when analyzing
whether an action is likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Under
the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse
modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation function or
purpose for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with the Service. Examples of actions
that are subject to the section 7
consultation process are actions on
State, Indian, local, or private lands that
require a Federal permit (such as a
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
or a permit from the Service under
section 10 of the Act) or that involve
some other Federal action (such as
funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, Indian, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded or federally
authorized do not require section 7
consultation.
Section 7 consultation results in
issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71938
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
and/or avoid the likelihood of
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected, and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action, or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law. Consequently,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Determinations of Adverse Effects and
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor involved in the
destruction/adverse modification
determination for a proposed Federal
agency action is whether the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve
its intended conservation function or
purpose for the species with
implementation of the proposed action
after taking into account any anticipated
cumulative effects (USFWS 2004, in litt.
entire). Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl. As discussed above, the
role of critical habitat is to support lifehistory needs of the species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical
habitat, when carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency, should
result in consultation for the northern
spotted owl under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act. In general, there are five possible
outcomes in terms of how proposed
Federal actions may affect the PCEs or
physical or biological features of
northern spotted owl critical habitat or
essential habitat qualities associated
with that critical habitat area: (1) No
effect; (2) wholly beneficial effects (e.g.,
improve habitat condition); (3) both
short-term adverse effects and long-term
beneficial effects; (4) insignificant or
discountable adverse effects; or (5)
wholly adverse effects. Actions with no
effect on the PCEs and physical or
biological features of occupied areas or
the essential habitat qualities in
unoccupied areas do not require section
7 consultation, although such actions
may still require consultation if they
have effects on the species itself as a
result of its status as a threatened
species under the Act. Actions with
effects to the PCEs, physical or
biological features, or other essential
habitat qualities of northern spotted owl
critical habitat that are discountable,
insignificant, or wholly beneficial
would be considered not likely to
adversely affect critical habitat, and do
not require formal consultation if the
Service concurs in writing with that
Federal action agency determination.
Actions that are likely to adversely
affect the physical or biological features
or other essential habitat qualities of
northern spotted owl critical habitat
require formal consultation and the
preparation of a Biological Opinion by
the Service. The Biological Opinion sets
forth the basis for our section 7(a)(2)
determination as to whether the
proposed Federal action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify northern
spotted owl critical habitat.
Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the essential physical or
biological features or other essential
habitat qualities of the critical habitat to
an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of the critical habitat
for the listed species. As discussed
above, the conservation role or value of
northern spotted owl critical habitat is
to adequately support the life-history
needs of the species to the extent that
well-distributed and interconnected
northern spotted owl nesting
populations are likely to persist within
properly functioning ecosystems at the
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
critical habitat unit and range-wide
scales.
Proposed Federal actions that may
affect northern spotted owl critical
habitat will trigger the consultation
requirements under section 7 of the Act
and compliance with the section 7(a)(2)
standard described above. The
consultation process evaluates the
effects of a proposed action to
designated critical habitat regardless of
the species’ presence or absence. For an
action that may affect critical habitat,
the next step is to determine whether it
is likely to adversely affect critical
habitat. For example, where a project is
designed to reduce fuels such that the
effect of wildfires will be reduced, but
will also reduce foraging opportunities
within treatment areas, established
interagency consultation teams should
determine whether the proposed project
has more than an insignificant impact
on the foraging PCEs for northern
spotted owls. A localized reduction in
foraging habitat within a stand may
have such an insignificant impact on
foraging PCEs within the stand that a
not likely to adversely affect
determination is appropriate. Similarly,
a hazard tree removal project in a stand
with many suitable nest trees may have
such a minimal reduction in nesting
PCEs of that stand that the effect to
nesting habitat is insignificant. In such
a case, a ‘‘not likely to adversely affect’’
determination would be appropriate.
For actions that are likely to adversely
affect critical habitat, the agencies will
enter into formal consultation. At this
stage of consultation, scale and context
are especially important in evaluating
the potential effects of forest
management on northern spotted owl
habitat. The degree to which various
forest management activities are likely
to affect the capability of the critical
habitat to support northern spotted owl
nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersal
will vary depending on factors such as
the scope and location of the action, and
the quantity of the critical habitat
affected. In addition, in analyzing
whether an action will likely destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, the
effects of the action on the factors that
were the basis for determining the area
to meet the definition of critical habitat
should be considered.
In general, we would anticipate that
management actions that are consistent
with the overall purpose for which a
critical habitat unit was designated
would not likely destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat as those terms are
used in the context of section 7(a)(2) of
the Act. Such actions include activities
whose intent is to restore ecological
processes or long-term forest health to
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
forested landscapes that contain
northern spotted owl habitat, such as
those actions described in the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011) and elsewhere in
this document. However, each proposed
action will be considered on a case-bycase basis.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Section 7 Process Under This Critical
Habitat Rule
The Presidential Memo, dated
February 28, 2012 (77 FR 12985; March
5, 2012), directed the Service to address
six action items in the final revised
critical habitat rule for the northern
spotted owl. One item in the Memo
called for the Service to develop clear
direction ‘‘for evaluating logging activity
in areas of critical habitat, in accordance
with the scientific principles of active
forestry management and to the extent
permitted by law.’’ The following
summarizes the evaluation process for
logging activities in areas of northern
spotted owl critical habitat under
section 7 of the Act and its
implementing regulations, and our
plans for close coordination with the
land management agencies to best meet
the dual goals of recovering the northern
spotted owl and managing our public
forest lands for multiple use.
Coordination With Land Management
Agencies
The Service is committed to working
closely with the U.S. Forest Service and
BLM to implement the active
management and ecological forestry
concepts discussed in the Revised
Recovery Plan and this critical habitat
rule. Both recommend that land
managers use the best science to
maintain and restore forest health and
resilience in the face of climate change
and other challenges.
To meet this goal, we have prioritized
the timely review of forestry projects
that will be proposed in critical habitat.
We have already completed section 7
conference opinions on the proposed
rule with the agencies, and have
recently held interagency coordination
meetings with the section 7 Level 1 staff
in Oregon, Washington, and California.
In these meetings, we identified ways to
streamline the section 7 process to
ensure that potential projects can be
implemented in a timely manner
consistent with northern spotted owl
conservation. We are also closely
involved in and supportive of the
respective Forest Service and BLM
landscape-level planning efforts
currently underway, and will work with
the agencies to incorporate the
conservation planning recommended in
the Revised Recovery Plan and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
discussed in this final critical habitat
designation.
Finally, appropriate Service staff have
been directed that all levels of
management and field teams stay fully
engaged in this process to ensure these
commitments are met.
Determining Whether an Action Is
Likely to Adversely Affect Critical
Habitat
The 1992 northern spotted owl
critical habitat rule (57 FR 1796; January
15, 1992) identified the primary
constituent element (PCE) as the
fundamental scale of analysis at which
the ‘‘evaluation of actions that may
affect critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl’’ should occur. Those
elements included nesting, roosting,
foraging and dispersal habitats. In the
2008 northern spotted owl critical
habitat rule (73 FR 47326; August 13,
2008), the forested stand is identified as
the appropriate scale for determining
whether an action was likely to
adversely affect northern spotted owl
critical habitat. The 2012 proposed
revised critical habitat rule identified a
500-ac (200-ha) circle as a logical scale
for determining the effects of a timber
sale to critical habitat because research
shows northern spotted owls respond
more favorably to an area larger than a
single tree when choosing where to live.
However, there are many variables to
be considered when determining
whether the effects to critical habitat are
adverse or not. When making a
determination as to whether an action is
likely to adversely affect critical habitat,
and thus require formal consultation, it
is not possible to design a ‘‘one size fits
all’’ set of rules due to differences in
project types, habitat types, and habitat
needs across the range of the species
(Fontaine and Kennedy 2012, p. 1559).
This determination should be
conducted at a scale that is relevant to
the northern spotted owl life-history
functions supplied by the PCEs and
affected by the project. We note that this
more localized scale differs from that
used in determining whether an action
will destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat, which is made at the scale of
the designated critical habitat, as
described further below.
Northern spotted owl critical habitat
PCE 4 (habitat to support the transience
and colonization phases of dispersal)
provides a life-history need that
functions at a landscape-level scale and
should be assessed at a larger scale than
the other PCEs. Potential scales of
analysis include the local watershed
(e.g., fifth-field watershed) or
subwatershed (e.g., sixth-field
watershed), a dispersal corridor, or a
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71939
relevant landform. Both PCE 2 (habitat
that provides for nesting and roosting)
and PCE 3 (habitat that provides for
foraging) provide life-history needs that
function at a more localized landscape,
which should help inform the scale at
which the determination of whether an
action will likely adversely affect
critical habitat should be conducted. We
encourage the level one consultation
teams to tailor this scale of the effects
determination to the localized biology of
the life-history needs of the northern
spotted owl (such as the stand scale, a
500-ac (200-ha) circle, or other
appropriate, localized scale).
If a project produces an effect on
critical habitat that is wholly beneficial,
insignificant, or discountable, then the
project is not likely to adversely affect
critical habitat, and consultation would
be concluded with a letter of
concurrence. Wholly beneficial effects
include those that actively promote the
development or improve the
functionality of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl without causing
adverse effects to the PCEs. Such actions
might involve variable-density thinning
in forest stands that do not currently
support nesting, roosting, or foraging
habitat for the northern spotted owl,
which would speed the development of
these types of habitats, while
maintaining dispersal habitat function.
Thinning or other treatments in young
plantations that are specifically
designed to accelerate the development
of owl habitat, and either are in areas
that do not provide dispersal habitat or
where the effects to dispersal capability
would be insignificant or discountable,
would also fall into the ‘‘not likely to
adversely affect’’ category. While these
wholly beneficial actions may affect
critical habitat and would, therefore,
require consultation under section 7 of
the Act, they most likely would be
completed via an informal consultation
with a determination that they are not
likely to adversely affect critical habitat.
Likewise, if the adverse effects of a
proposed Federal action on the lifehistory needs supported by physical or
biological features of northern spotted
owl critical habitat are expected to be
discountable or insignificant, that action
would also be considered not likely to
adversely affect northern spotted owl
critical habitat. In such cases, the
section 7 consultation requirements can
also be satisfied through the informal
concurrence process. Examples of such
actions may include: Pre-commercial or
commercial thinning that does not delay
the development of essential physical or
biological features; fuel-reduction
treatments that have a negligible effect
on northern spotted owl foraging habitat
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71940
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
within the stand; and the removal of
hazard trees, where the removal has an
insignificant effect on the capability of
the stand to provide northern spotted
owl nesting opportunities.
Some proposed Federal forest
management activities may have shortterm adverse effects and long-term
beneficial effects on the physical or
biological features of northern spotted
owl critical habitat. The Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl recommends that land managers
actively manage portions of both moist
and dry forests to improve stand
conditions and forest resiliency, which
should benefit the long-term recovery of
the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011,
p. III–11). For example, variable
thinning in single-story, uniform forest
stands to promote the development of
multistory structure and nest trees may
result in short-term adverse impacts to
the habitat’s current capability to
support owl dispersal and foraging, but
have long-term benefits by creating
higher quality habitat that will better
support territorial pairs of northern
spotted owls. Such activities would
have less impact in areas where foraging
and dispersal habitat is not limiting, and
ideally can be conducted in a manner
that minimizes short-term negative
impacts. Even though they may have
long-term beneficial effects, if they have
short-term adverse effects, such actions
may adversely affect critical habitat, and
would require formal consultation
under section 7 of the Act. For
efficiency, such actions may be
evaluated under section 7
programmatically at the landscape scale
(e.g., USFS or BLM District).
Habitat conditions in moist/wet and
dry/fire-prone forests within the range
of the northern spotted owl vary widely,
as do the types of management activities
designed to accelerate or enhance the
development of northern spotted owl
habitat. ‘‘Wet’’ and ‘‘dry’’ are ends of a
spectrum, not distinct categories that
adequately describe the full range of
forest types within the range of the
northern spotted owl. Because these
categories are broad, and conditions on
the ground are more variable, land
managers and cooperators should have
the expectation that multiple forest
types may be involved, and similar
projects in different forest types may not
always lead to the same effect
determination for purposes of
compliance with section 7 of the Act.
To make effects determinations, we
recommend generating area-specific
maps showing the current habitat
condition (such as types of habitat,
known nest trees, or other feature) and,
using information on the proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
action (such as location, type and
intensity of harvest, location of new
roads and landings, or other proposed
activity effects), produce a post-project
habitat map such that the pre- and postproject comparison of the PCEs can be
assessed. We also recommend the
cooperative development of a spatial
and temporal framework for evaluating
the impact of both the short- and longterm effects of the proposed activities on
the northern spotted owl. Framework
examples include a landscape
assessment or a checklist of key
questions the answers to which will
illustrate how the project will impact
the northern spotted owl (see Spies et
al. 2012, p. 11, for an example).
Determining Whether an Action Will
Destroy or Adversely Modify Critical
Habitat
If the effects of the project have more
than an insignificant or discountable
impact on the ability of the PCEs to
provide life-history functions for the
northern spotted owl, then the project is
likely to adversely affect northern
spotted owl critical habitat, and formal
consultation is warranted. For projects
that will adversely affect critical habitat,
it is the Service’s responsibility to
conduct an analysis of whether the
action is likely to ‘‘destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat’’ during the
formal consultation process. As
discussed below, the determination of
whether an action is likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat is
made at the scale of the entire critical
habitat network. However, a proposed
action that compromises the capability
of a subunit or unit to fulfill its intended
conservation function or purpose could
represent an appreciable reduction in
the conservation value of the entire
designated critical habitat. Therefore,
the biological opinion should describe
the relationship between the
conservation role of the action area,
affected subunits, units, and the entire
designated critical habitat. This analysis
must incorporate all direct and indirect
effects and any cumulative effects from
the project within the action area. If,
after the formal consultation analysis, it
is determined that the proposed project
will not destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat, then the action can be
conducted.
Factors to consider in evaluating
whether activities, including timber
harvest, are likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat
pursuant to section 7 include:
• The extent of the proposed action,
both its temporal and spatial scale,
relative to the critical habitat subunit
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and unit within which it occurs, and the
entire critical habitat network.
• The specific purpose for which the
affected subunit was identified and
designated as critical habitat.
• The cumulative effects of all
completed activities in the critical
habitat unit.
• The impact of the proposed action
on the ability of the affected critical
habitat to continue to support the lifehistory functions supplied by the PCEs.
• The impact of the proposed action
on the subunit’s likelihood of serving its
intended conservation function or
purpose.
• The impact of the proposed action
on the unit’s likelihood of continuing to
contribute to the conservation of the
species.
• The overall consistency of the
proposed action with the intent of the
recovery plan or other landscape-level
conservation plans.
• The special importance of project
scale and context in evaluating the
potential effects of timber harvest to
northern spotted owl critical habitat.
The first step is to describe the
impacts to critical habitat in the action
area with respect to the subunit’s
intended functions as identified in this
rule. For example, if a particular subunit
was designated to support northern
spotted owl connectivity between
subunits, then the loss or impact to
connectivity must be assessed. Subunits
that are expected to provide
demographic support should be
assessed for their ability to continue to
support northern spotted owl nesting
territories in conditions suitable for
occupancy by pairs of owls (e.g.,
amount and location of nesting habitat,
proximity of foraging habitat, etc.). The
analysis should describe the extent to
which the project is expected to
prevent, preclude, or significantly
impair the ability of that subunit to meet
its intended function. The analysis
should not incorporate the effect of the
proposed action on individual northern
spotted owls but, instead, on the lifehistory functions supplied by the PCEs
and the physical biological features.
Effects to northern spotted owls should
be included in the effects to the species
section of a biological opinion, as
appropriate.
The analysis in a biological
assessment or a biological opinion
should include an evaluation of the
type, frequency, magnitude, and
duration of impacts likely to be caused
by the action on the PCEs of the action
area, affected subunits and critical
habitat units, and an assessment of how
those impacts are likely to influence the
capability of the affected critical habitat
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
units to provide for a well-distributed
and self-sustaining northern spotted owl
population. The analysis in a biological
assessment or a biological opinion of
cumulative effects on critical habitat
should include a similar assessment for
any future, non-Federal actions
reasonably certain to occur in the action
area, and at the level of the affected
subunits and critical habitat units.
Consideration of the effects of the
action, together with any cumulative
effects, will form the basis for the
biological opinion’s determination as to
whether the action will destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. In
accordance with Service policy, the
adverse modification determination is
made at the scale of the entire
designated critical habitat, unless the
critical habitat rule identifies another
basis for the analysis (FWS and NMFS
1998). The adverse modification
determination for the northern spotted
owl will occur at the scale of the entire
designated critical habitat, as described
below, with consideration given to the
need to conserve viable populations
within each of the recovery units
identified in the Revised Recovery Plan
for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS
2011, Recovery Criterion 2).
It is important to note that although
the adverse modification determination
is made at the scale of the entire
designated critical habitat, a proposed
action that compromises the capability
of a subunit or unit to fulfill its intended
conservation function or purpose could
represent an appreciable reduction in
the conservation value of the entire
designated critical habitat. Therefore,
the biological opinion should describe
the relationship between the
conservation role of the action area,
affected subunits, units, and the entire
designated critical habitat. In this way,
the biological opinion establishes a
sensitive analytical framework for
informing the determination of whether
a proposed action is likely to
appreciably reduce the conservation
role of critical habitat overall.
The Service has assured the BLM and
FS that it is committed to working
closely with them to evaluate and
implement active management and
ecological forestry concepts of the
recovery plan and critical habitat rule
into potential timber management
projects. Both documents recommend
that land managers use the best science
to maintain and restore forest health and
resilience in the face of climate change
and other challenges.
To meet this goal we have prioritized
the timely review of forestry projects
that will be proposed in critical habitat.
We have already completed section 7
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
conference opinions on the proposed
rule with several of your units, and we
have recently held interagency
coordination meetings with the section
7 Level 1 staff in Oregon, Washington,
and California. In these meetings, we
identified ways to streamline the section
7 process to ensure that potential
projects can be implemented in a timely
manner consistent with northern
spotted owl conservation. We are also
closely involved in and supportive of
the respective FS and BLM landscapelevel planning efforts currently
underway and will work with you to
incorporate the conservation planning
reflected in the revised recovery plan
and the final critical habitat designation.
Finally, appropriate Service staff have
been directed that all levels of
management and field teams—from
Level 1 biologists up to the Assistant
Regional Director—stay fully engaged in
this process to ensure these
commitments are met. Any problems or
disagreement should be promptly
elevated and resolved.
Within dry forests, the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011) emphasizes active
forest management that could meet
overlapping goals of northern spotted
owl conservation, climate change
response, and restoration of dry forest
ecological structure, composition, and
process, including wildfire and other
disturbances (USFWS 2011, pp. III–20).
For the rest of the northern spotted
owl’s range that is not fire-prone, the
Revised Recovery Plan emphasizes
habitat management that accelerates the
development of future habitat, restores
larger habitat blocks, and reduces
habitat fragmentation. The following
discussion describes the type of
management approaches that would be
consistent with the Revised Recovery
Plan in the West Cascades/Coast Ranges
of Oregon and Washington, East
Cascades, and the Redwood Coast
zones, and in some cases includes
consideration of possible corresponding
effect determinations for activities
implementing these approaches, for the
purpose of analyzing effects to critical
habitat under section 7 of the Act. The
Klamath and Northern California
Interior Coast Ranges regions contain
conditions similar to the three regions
discussed below, and similar
management approaches would be
consistent with the recovery needs of
the owl.
West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon
and Washington
The primary goal of the Revised
Recovery Plan for this portion of the
northern spotted owl’s range is to
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71941
conserve stands that support northern
spotted owl occupancy or contain highvalue northern spotted owl habitat
(USFWS 2011, p. III–17). Silvicultural
treatments are generally not needed to
accomplish this goal. However, there is
a significant amount of younger forest
that occurs between and around the
older stands, where silvicultural
treatments may accelerate the
development of these stands into future
northern spotted owl nesting habitat,
even if doing so temporarily degrades
existing dispersal habitat, as is
recommended in Recovery Action 6
(USFWS 2011, p. III–19). The Revised
Recovery Plan encourages silviculture
designed to develop late-successional
structural complexity and to promote
resilience (USFWS 2011, pp. III–17 to
III–19). Restoration or ecological
prescriptions can help uniform stands of
poor quality develop more quickly into
more diverse, higher quality northern
spotted owl habitat, and provide
resiliency in the face of potential
climate change impacts in the future.
Targeted vegetation treatments could
simultaneously increase canopy and
age-class diversity, putting those stands
on a more efficient trajectory towards
nesting and roosting habitat, while
reducing fuel loads. Introducing varying
levels of spatial heterogeneity, both
vertically and horizontally, into forest
ecosystems can contribute to both of the
goals stated above.
On matrix lands under the NWFP
where land managers have a range of
management goals, the Service
anticipates that not all forest
management projects in critical habitat
will be focused on the development or
conservation of northern spotted owl
habitat. Ideally, proposed actions within
critical habitat should occur on
relatively small patches of younger,
mid-seral forest stands that do not cause
reductions in higher quality northern
spotted owl habitat. They should also be
planned in such a way that their net
occurrence on the regional landscape is
consistent with broader ecosystembased planning targets (e.g., Spies et al.
2007a, entire) to provide the physical or
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the northern spotted
owl. Within that context, thinning and
targeted variable-retention harvest in
moist forests could be considered where
the conservation of complex early-seral
forest habitat is a management goal.
This approach provides a contrast to
traditional clearcutting that does not
mimic natural disturbance or create
viable early-seral communities that
grow into high-quality habitat (Dodson
et al. 2012, p. 353; Franklin et al. 2002,
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71942
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
p. 419; Swanson et al. 2011, p. 123;
Kane et al. 2011, pp. 2289–2290; Betts
et al. 2010, p. 2127, Hagar 2007, pp.
117–118). Swanson (2012, entire)
provides a good overview and some
management considerations.
In cases where these moist forest
treatments in matrix are intended to
meet management goals other than
northern spotted owl conservation, they
can be designed to enable the
development of northern spotted owl
habitat over time at the landscape scale.
If planned well at this scale, these
projects may have short-term adverse
effects, but are not expected to adversely
modify the role and function of critical
habitat units. In other words, such
treatments can be dispersed across the
landscape and over time to both
accommodate northern spotted owl
habitat needs and conservation of
diverse and complex early-seral habitat.
Additional information about ecological
forestry activities in moist forests can be
found in the Revised Recovery Plan
under Northern Spotted Owls and
Ecological Forestry (USFWS 2011, p.
III–11) and Habitat Management in
Moist Forests (USFWS 2011, p. III–17).
East Cascades
The Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011)
recommends that the dynamic, fireprone portion of the northern spotted
owl’s range be actively managed to
conserve northern spotted owls, but also
address climate change and restore dry
forest ecological structure, composition,
and processes (e.g., wildfire) to provide
for the long-term conservation of the
species and its habitat in a dynamic
ecosystem (USFWS 2011, pp. III–13, III–
20). To do this, management actions
should be considered to balance shortterm adverse effects with long-term
beneficial effects. In some cases, formal
consultation on the effects of dry forest
management activities on northern
spotted owl critical habitat is likely to
occur; in other cases, there may be no
adverse effects and consultation can be
concluded informally.
Management in dry forests should
increase the likelihood that northern
spotted owl habitat will remain on the
landscape longer and develop as part of
the dynamic fire- and disturbanceadapted community. Several
management approaches can be
described for these systems. The first is
to maintain adequate northern spotted
owl habitat in the near term to allow
owls to persist on the landscape in the
face of threats from barred owl
expansion and habitat alterations from
fire and other disturbances. The next is
to restore landscapes that are resilient to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
fire and other disturbances, including
those projected to occur with climate
change. This will require more than
reducing fuels and thinning trees to
promote low-severity fires; management
will need to develop ‘‘more natural
patterns and patch size distributions of
forest structure, composition, fuels, and
fire regime area’’ (Hessburg et al. 2007,
p. 21).
Our prime objective for vegetation
management activities within northern
spotted owl critical habitat is to
maintain adequate amounts of nesting,
roosting, foraging, or dispersal habitat
where it currently exists, and to restore
degraded habitat where it is essential to
the owl and can be best sustained on the
landscape, as recommended in the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, Section III).
Successfully accomplishing these
objectives can be facilitated by spatially
and temporally explicit landscape
assessments that identify areas valuable
for northern spotted owl conservation
and recovery, as well as areas important
for process restoration (e.g., Prather et
al. 2008, p. 149; Franklin et al. 2008, p.
46; Spies et al. 2012, entire). Such
assessments could answer questions
that are frequently asked about
proposed forest management activities,
namely ‘‘why here?’’ and ‘‘why now?’’
Providing well-reasoned responses to
these questions becomes especially
important when restoration activities
degrade or remove existing northern
spotted owl habitat. By scaling up
conservation and restoration planning
from the stand to the landscape level,
many apparent conflicts may disappear
because management actions can be
prioritized and spatially partitioned
(Prather et al. 2008, p. 149; Rieman et
al. 2010, p. 464). For example, portions
of the landscape can be identified where
there may be no conflict between
objectives, and where relatively
aggressive approaches to ecosystem
restoration can occur without placing
listed species at substantial risk (Prather
et al. 2008, pp. 147–149; Gaines et al.
2010, pp. 2049–2050). Conflicts between
objectives will remain in some
locations, such as in places where
removing younger, shade-intolerant
conifers to reduce competition with
larger, legacy conifers may result in a
substantial decrease in canopy cover
that translates into a reduction in
northern spotted owl habitat quality.
However, when this sort of treatment is
well designed, strategically located, and
justified within a landscape approach to
treatments, it is easier to assess its
effectiveness in meeting both owl
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conservation and forest restoration
needs.
Landscape assessments developed at
the scale of entire National Forests,
Ranger Districts, or BLM Districts have
the broad perspective that can improve
ability to estimate effects of
management activities on the function
of critical habitat and better identify and
prioritize treatment areas and the
actions that will restore landscapes
while conserving northern spotted owl
habitat. The Okanogan-Wenatchee
National Forest has developed a
landscape evaluation process as part of
their forest restoration strategy (USDA
2010, pp. 36–52) that can serve as an
example for other administrative units
when developing their own assessment
approaches. We suggest that the value of
such assessments in guiding vegetation
management within critical habitat can
be enhanced by spatially identifying
locations where restoration objectives
and northern spotted owl habitat
objectives converge, are in conflict, or
simply are not an issue (see, e.g., Davis
et al. 2012, entire). We suggest the
following approach for the East
Cascades:
1. Spatially identify and map:
a. Existing northern spotted owl
habitat and northern spotted owl
nesting sites.
b. Places on the landscape where
northern spotted owl habitat is expected
to be retained longer on the landscape
in the face of disturbance activities such
as fire and insect outbreaks.
c. Places on the landscape where key
ecosystem structures and processes are
at risk and would benefit from
restoration (e.g. legacy trees, unique
habitats).
2. Overlay what is known about
landscape patterns of vegetation and
disturbance processes with items from
step 1 above to determine:
a. Stands of high restoration value but
low value as existing northern spotted
owl habitat.
b. Stands of low restoration value but
high value as existing northern spotted
owl habitat.
c. Stands of low restoration value and
low value as existing northern spotted
owl habitat.
d. Stands of high restoration value
and high value as existing northern
spotted owl habitat.
In locations where there is high
restoration value and high value as
existing northern spotted owl habitat, a
landscape assessment can help to build
a strong rationale for impacting owl
habitat functionality to achieve broader
landscape goals. Conditions that may
support management activities in these
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
stands may include, but are not limited
to the following:
1. The patch of habitat is located in
an area where it is likely unsustainable
and has the potential for conveying
natural disturbances across the
landscape in ways that jeopardize large
patches of suitable northern spotted owl
habitat.
2. There are nearby areas that are
more likely to sustain suitable northern
spotted owl habitat and are either
currently habitat or will likely develop
suitable conditions within the next 30
years.
3. The patch of habitat does not
appear to be associated with a northern
spotted owl home range or to promote
successful dispersal between existing
home ranges.
4. The area will still retain some
habitat function after treatment, while
still meeting the intended restoration
objective. For example, stands that are
suitable as foraging habitat may be
degraded post treatment but remain
foraging habitat after treatment. Or,
stands may be downgraded to dispersal
habitat as a result of treatment.
We do not expect the desired
landscape conditions will be achieved
within the next decade or two; a longer
time will be required as younger forests
develop into northern spotted owl
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat.
In the interim, we recommend that land
managers consider management actions
to protect current habitat, especially
where it occurs in larger blocks on areas
of the landscape, where it is more likely
to be resistant or resilient to fires and
other disturbance agents. We also
encourage land managers to consider
actions to accelerate the restoration of
habitat, especially where it is consistent
with overall forest restoration and
occurs in those portions of the
landscape that are less fire prone or are
resilient in the face of these
disturbances. The careful application of
these types of activities is expected to
achieve a landscape that is more
resilient to future disturbances. As such,
we anticipate that projects designed to
achieve this goal will need to be of a
larger spatial scale as to have a
meaningful effect on wildfire behavior,
regimes, and extent. The effects of these
projects will vary depending on existing
condition, prescriptions, proximity of
habitat, and other factors. It is likely that
such projects may affect northern
spotted owl critical habitat and require
section 7 consultation.
Some situations also exist in the final
critical habitat area where northern
spotted owl habitat has been created
through fire suppression activities (e.g.,
meadow conversion, white fir
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
intrusion), but retention of those
forested habitat elements is contrary to
the overall goals of ecosystem
restoration and long-term security for
the owl. Restoration projects that
modify these elements, while sometimes
prudent and recommended (Franklin et
al. 2008, p. 46), may adversely affect
northern spotted owls or their critical
habitat, and may need to be evaluated
through the section 7 consultation
process. Additional information about
restoration activities in dry forests can
be found in the Revised Recovery Plan
for the Northern Spotted Owl under
Restoring Dry Forest Ecosystems
(USFWS 2011, p. III–32).
Redwood Coast
While the Redwood Coast region of
coastal northern California is similar to
the West Cascades/Coast region in many
respects, there are some distinct
differences in northern spotted owl
habitat use and diet within this zone.
The long growing season, combined
with the redwood’s ability to resprout
from stumps, allows redwood stands to
attain suitable stand structure for
nesting in a relatively short period of
time (40 to 60 years) if legacy structures
are present. In contrast to the large,
contiguous, older stands desired in
other wet provinces, some degree of
fine-scale fragmentation in redwood
forests appears to benefit northern
spotted owls. These openings provide
habitat for the northern spotted owl’s
primary prey, the dusky-footed woodrat.
High woodrat abundance is associated
with dense shrub and hardwood cover
that persists for up to 20 years in recent
forest openings created by harvesting or
burns. Under dense shrub and
hardwood cover, woodrats can forage,
build nests, and reproduce, relatively
secure from owl predation. These sites
quickly become overpopulated, and
surplus individuals are displaced into
adjacent older stands where they
become available as owl prey. When
developing stands reach an age of
around 20 years, understory vegetation
is increasingly shaded-out, cover and
food sources become scarce, and
woodrat abundance declines rapidly. By
this time, the stand that once supported
a dense woodrat population makes a
structural transition into a stand where
woodrats are subject to intense owl
predation. In northern spotted owl
territories within the Redwood Forest
zone, active management that creates
small openings within foraging habitat
can enhance northern spotted owl
foraging opportunities and produce or
retain habitat suitability in the short
term. Actions consistent with this type
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71943
of land management are not expected to
adversely modify critical habitat.
Summary of Section 7 Process
This discussion has covered projects
that may or may not require formal
section 7 consultation. It is important to
distinguish between a finding that a
project is likely to adversely affect
critical habitat and a finding at the
conclusion of formal consultation that a
project is likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat; these are two
very different outcomes. It is not
uncommon for a proposed project to be
considered likely to adversely affect
critical habitat, and thus require formal
consultation, but still warrant a
conclusion that it will not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. An
action may destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat if it adversely affects the
essential physical or biological features
to an extent that the intended
conservation function or purpose of
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl is appreciably reduced.
The adverse modification
determination is made at the scale of the
entire designated critical habitat, unless
the final critical habitat rule identifies
another basis for that determination,
such as at the scale of discrete units
and/or groups of units necessary for
different life cycle phases, units
representing distinctive habitat
characteristics or gene pools, or units
fulfilling essential geographical
distribution requirements of the species
(USFWS and NMFS 1998, p. 4–39). In
the case of northern spotted owl critical
habitat, the adverse modification
determination will be made at the scale
of the entire designated critical habitat.
However, by describing the relationship
between the conservation role of
affected subunits, units, and the entire
designated critical habitat in the
biological opinion, a sensitive analytical
framework is established for informing
the determination of whether a
proposed action is likely to appreciably
reduce the conservation role of the
critical habitat overall. In this way, a
proposed action that compromises the
capability of a subunit or unit to fulfill
its intended conservation function or
purpose (e.g., demographic, genetic, or
distributional support for northern
spotted owl recovery) could represent
an appreciable reduction in the
conservation value of the entire
designated critical habitat. This
approach should avoid false no-adversemodification determinations, when the
functionality of a unit or subunit would
actually be impaired by a proposed
action.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71944
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
As described above, in general, we do
not anticipate that activities consistent
with the stated management goals or
recommended recovery actions of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, Chapters II
and III) would constitute adverse
modification of critical habitat, even if
those activities may have adverse effects
in the short term, if the intended result
over the long term is an improvement in
the function of the habitat to provide for
the essential life-history needs of the
northern spotted owl. However, such
activities will be evaluated under
section 7, taking into account the
specific proposed action, location, and
other site-specific factors.
X. Exemptions
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines, in writing, that such plan
provides a benefit to the species for
which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.’’
We consult with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with listed
species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations
located within the range of the
designated critical habitat designation
for the northern spotted owl to
determine if they are exempt under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following
areas are Department of Defense lands
with completed, Service-approved
INRMPs that fell within the area we
proposed as revised critical habitat (77
FR 14062; March 8, 2012).
Approved INRMPs
U.S. Army Joint Base Lewis-McChord
Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM),
formerly known as Fort Lewis, is an
86,500-ac (35,000-ha) U.S. Army
military reservation in western
Washington, south of Tacoma and the
Puget Sound. JBLM contains one of the
largest remaining intact forest areas in
the Puget Sound basin, with
approximately 54,400 ac (22,000 ha) of
forests and woodlands, predominantly
of the dry Douglas-fir forest type and
including some moist forest types
(Douglas-fir, red cedar, hemlock). The
forested area of JBLM is managed by the
Base’s Forestry Program, and the
primary mission for the JBLM Forest is
to provide a variety of forested
environments for military training.
JBLM has a history of applying an
ecosystem management strategy to their
forests to provide for multiple
conservation goals, which have
included promoting native biological
diversity, maintaining and restoring
unique plant communities, and
developing late-successional (older)
forest structure. There are 14,997 ac
(6,069 ha) of lands within the boundary
of JBLM that were identified in the
proposed critical habitat designation;
these lands comprised subunit NCO–3
in the proposed rule (77 FR 14062;
March 8, 2012).
JBLM has an INRMP in place that was
approved in 2008; JBLM is in the
process of updating that INRMP. To
date, JBLM has managed their forest
lands according to their Forest
Management Strategy, first prepared for
then-Fort Lewis in 1995 by the Public
Forestry Foundation based in Eugene,
Oregon, in collaboration with The
Nature Conservancy. The Forest
Management Strategy was last revised in
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
May 2005, and is also in the process of
being updated (Forest Management
Strategy 2005, entire). However, in
2012, JBLM amended their existing
INRMP with specific regard to the
northern spotted owl by completing an
Endangered Species Management Plan
(ESMP) that includes guidelines for
protecting, maintaining, and enhancing
habitat essential to support the northern
spotted owl on JBLM. The Service has
found, in writing, that the amended
INRMP provides a net conservation
benefit to the species.
The ESMP identifies management
objectives for the conservation of the
northern spotted owl. Specifically, the
ESMP includes three focus areas for
management of northern spotted owl.
The long-term objective for the first is
development of all four types of owl
habitat (nesting, roosting, foraging, and
dispersal). The long-term objectives for
Focus Areas 2 and 3 are development of
owl foraging and dispersal habitat. The
primary conservation goals for northern
spotted owl habitat on JBLM are to
protect and maintain existing northern
spotted owl suitable habitat; manipulate
unsuitable habitat to suitable habitat;
and ensure long-term suitable habitat
and monitor northern spotted owl
habitat to assure that goals are met and
actions are successful. Although
northern spotted owls are not currently
known to occupy JBLM, it is the only
significant Federal ownership in this
region of Washington, and it provides
the largest contiguous block of forest in
this area as well. The potential
development of suitable owl habitat at
JBLM provides one of the only feasible
opportunities for establishing
connectivity between owl populations
in the Olympic Peninsula and the
western Cascades Range. Connectivity
allows gene flow between populations,
and further maintains northern spotted
owl distribution and metapopulation
dynamics, which are important
components of the recovery strategy for
the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011,
p. III–1, III–44). The Forest Management
Strategy (2005, p. 82) notes that the
mosaic of dry forest, woodland, and
prairie at JBLM is very different from
typical forest landscapes that support
northern spotted owls, and that while
suitable habitat for dispersal of northern
spotted owls can be achieved in the
short term, at least 40 to 50 years may
be needed to meet the desired condition
for foraging, nesting, and roosting
habitat.
Based on the above considerations
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the JBLM INRMP and that
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
conservation efforts identified in the
INRMP through its ESMP for the
northern spotted owl will provide a
benefit to the species occurring in
habitats within or adjacent to JBLM,
including the northern spotted owl.
Therefore, lands within this installation
are exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act. We are not including
approximately 14,997 ac (6,069 ha) of
habitat in this final critical habitat
designation as a result of this
exemption.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
XI. Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary must designate or make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impacts of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history, are clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
When considering the benefits of
inclusion for an area, we consider the
additional regulatory benefits that area
would receive from the protection from
adverse modification or destruction as a
result of actions with a Federal nexus;
the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the
listed species; and any benefits that may
result from a designation due to State or
Federal laws that may apply to critical
habitat.
When considering the benefits of
exclusion, we consider, among other
things, whether exclusion of a specific
area is likely to result in the overall
conservation of the northern spotted
owl through the continuation,
strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships and the implementation of
management plans or programs that
provide equal or more conservation for
the northern spotted owl than could be
achieved through a designation of
critical habitat. The Secretary can
consider the existence of conservation
agreements and other land management
plans with Federal, State, private, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
tribal entities when making decisions
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The
Secretary may also consider
relationships with landowners,
voluntary partnerships, and
conservation plans, and weigh the
implementation and effectiveness of
these against that of designation to
determine which provides the greatest
conservation value to the listed species.
Consideration of relevant impacts of
designation or exclusion under section
4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited
to, any of the following factors: (1)
Whether the plan provides specific
information on how it protects the
species and the physical or biological
features, and whether the plan is at a
geographical scope commensurate with
the species; (2) whether the plan is
complete and will be effective at
conserving and protecting the physical
or biological features; (3) whether a
reasonable expectation exists that
conservation management strategies and
actions will be implemented, that those
responsible for implementing the plan
are capable of achieving the objectives,
that an implementation schedule exists,
and that adequate funding exists; (4)
whether the plan provides assurances
that the conservation strategies and
measures will be effective (i.e.,
identifies biological goals, has
provisions for reporting progress, and is
of a duration sufficient to implement the
plan); (5) whether the plan has a
monitoring program or adaptive
management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective; (6)
the degree to which the record supports
a conclusion that a critical habitat
designation would impair the benefits of
the plan; (7) the extent of public
participation; (8) a demonstrated track
record of implementation success; (9)
the level of public benefits derived from
encouraging collaborative efforts and
encouraging private and local
conservation efforts; and (10) the effect
designation would have on
partnerships.
After evaluating the benefits of
inclusion and the benefits of exclusion,
we carefully weigh the two sides to
determine whether the benefits of
excluding a particular area outweigh the
benefits of its inclusion in critical
habitat. If we determine that the benefits
of excluding a particular area outweigh
the benefits of its inclusion, then the
Secretary can exercise his discretion to
exclude the area, provided that the
exclusion will not result in the
extinction of the species.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
must consider all relevant impacts of
the designation of critical habitat,
including economic impacts. In
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71945
addition to economic impacts
(discussed in the Economics Analysis
section, below), we considered a
number of factors in a section 4(b)(2)
analysis. We considered whether
Federal or private landowners or other
public agencies have developed
management plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs) or Safe Harbor Agreements
(SHAs) for the area or whether there are
conservation partnerships or other
conservation benefits that would be
encouraged or discouraged by
designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat in an area. We also
considered other relevant impacts that
might occur because of the designation.
To ensure that our final determination
is based on the best available
information, we also considered
comments received on foreseeable
economic, national security, or other
potential impacts resulting from this
designation of critical habitat from
governmental, business, or private
interests and, in particular, any
potential impacts on small businesses.
Based on the information provided by
entities seeking exclusion, as well as
any additional public comments
received, we evaluated whether certain
lands in the proposed revised critical
habitat were appropriate for exclusion
from this final designation pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on our
evaluation, we are excluding
approximately 3,879,506 ac (1,567,875
ha) of lands that meet the definition of
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act from final critical habitat.
Final Economic Analysis
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we prepared a draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical
habitat designation and related factors
(IEC 2012a). The draft analysis was
made available for public review from
June 1, 2012, through July 6, 2012 (77
FR 32483). Following the close of the
comment period, we developed a final
economic analysis (FEA) (IEC 2012b) of
the potential economic effects of the
designation taking into consideration
the public comments and any new
information.
The intent of the FEA is to quantify
economic impacts that may be directly
attributable to the designation of critical
habitat—that is, costs above and beyond
what are considered ‘‘baseline’’ costs, as
described below. The economic impact
of the final critical habitat designation is
analyzed by comparing scenarios both
‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without
critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71946
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, and considers the costs
incurred as a result of protections
already in place for the species (e.g.,
under the Federal listing and other
Federal, State, and local regulations);
these are costs that are incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’
scenario describes the ‘‘incremental’’
economic impacts associated
specifically with the designation of
critical habitat for the species—these
costs are those not expected to occur but
for the designation of critical habitat for
the species. In other words, the
incremental costs are those attributable
solely to the designation of critical
habitat above and beyond the baseline
costs; these are the costs we consider in
the final designation of critical habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential
economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of
any local or regional impacts of habitat
conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government
agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. Decisionmakers can use
this information to assess whether the
effects of the designation might unduly
burden a particular group or economic
sector. Finally, the FEA considers those
costs that may occur in the 20 years
following the revised designation of
critical habitat, which was determined
to be the appropriate period for analysis
because limited planning information
was available for most activities to
forecast activity levels for projects
beyond a 20-year timeframe. The FEA
quantifies economic impacts of northern
spotted owl conservation efforts
associated with timber harvests, wildfire
management, barred owl management,
road construction, and linear projects
(road and bridge construction and
maintenance, installation of power
transmission lines and utility pipelines),
as these are the types of activities we
determined were most likely to occur
within northern spotted owl habitat.
The results of the FEA concludes that
only a portion of the overall proposed
revised designation will result in more
than incremental, minor administrative
costs. Specifically, of the 13,962,449 ac
proposed for designation, potential
incremental changes in timber harvest
practices were anticipated on only
1,449,534 ac (585,612 ha) of USFS and
BLM lands, or approximately 10 percent
of the proposed designation. In
addition, there was potential for the
owners of 307,308 ac (123,364 ha) of
private land to experience incremental
changes in harvests (approximately 2
percent of the proposed designation).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
No incremental changes in harvests are
expected on State lands.
In addition, to address the uncertainty
in the types of management and
activities that may or may not occur
within the proposed critical habitat, the
FEA evaluated three scenarios to
capture the full range of potential
economic impacts of the designation.
The first scenario contemplates that
minimal or no changes to current timber
management practices will occur, thus
the incremental costs of the designation
would be predominantly administrative.
The potential additional administrative
costs due to critical habitat designation
on Federal lands range from $185,000 to
$316,000 on an annualized basis for
timber harvest.
The second scenario posits that action
agencies may choose to implement
management practices that yield an
increase in timber harvest relative to the
baseline (current realized levels of
timber harvest). For this scenario,
baseline harvest projections were scaled
upward by 10 percent, resulting in a
positive impact on Federal lands
ranging from $893,000 to $2,870,000 on
an annualized basis for timber harvest.
The third scenario considers that
actions agencies may choose to be more
restrictive in response to critical habitat
designation, resulting in a decline in
harvest volumes relative to the baseline.
To illustrate the potential for this effect,
baseline harvest projections were scaled
downward by 20 percent, resulting in a
negative impact on timber harvest on
Federal lands ranging from $2,650,000
to $6,480,000 on an annualized basis.
The USFS and BLM suggested certain
alterations to the baseline timber harvest
projections, based on differing
assumptions regarding northern spotted
owl occupancy in matrix lands and
projected levels of timber harvest
relative to historical yields. The FEA
presents the results of a sensitivity
analysis considering these alternative
assumptions, which widen the range of
annualized potential impacts to Federal
timber harvest relative to the scenarios
described above (IEC 2012b, pp. 4–37 to
4–39). This sensitivity analysis
contemplated a situation in which 26.6
percent of northern spotted owl habitat
on BLM matrix lands is unoccupied,
and a 20 percent increase in baseline
timber harvest in USFS Region 6
relative to historical yields. The range of
incremental impacts under these
alternative assumptions widens to a
potential annualized increase of $0.7
million under Scenario 2, and an
annualized decrease of $1.4 million
under Scenario 3, relative to the results
reported above.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Timber harvest was not anticipated to
change on State lands in response to
critical habitat designation. Timber
harvest effects on private lands were
highly uncertain, and were only
identified qualitatively as potential
negative impacts associated with
regulatory uncertainty, and possibly
(but speculative) new regulation in the
State of Washington.
Under all three scenarios, linear
projects reflected administrative costs
only, ranging from $10,800 to $19,500
on an annualized basis.
Counties receive Federal lands
payments from a subset of four
programs: The U.S. Forest Service 25%
Fund; the BLM O&C lands payments;
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT); and
Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-determination Act (SRS) (please see
FEA pp. 3–19 to 3–21 for a thorough
discussion of these programs). Counties
have the option of receiving either SRS
of 25%/O&C payments, but not both.
For reasons unrelated to proposed
critical habitat, the future of the PILT
and SRS programs is uncertain and
depends on forces, including
Congressional action, unrelated to
critical habitat designation. If funding is
not appropriated to PILT, or SRS is not
reauthorized, payments from the USFS
25% Fund and the BLM O&C lands
become relatively more important.
Payments for these latter two programs
are based on commercial receipts, main
from timber generated on Federal lands;
payments from PILT and SRS are not as
closely linked to fluctuations in timber
sales. In recent years, most counties
have opted to receive SRS payments; for
example, in FY 2009 all 18 counties in
Oregon that contain BLM lands opted to
receive SRS payments instead of the
LBM O&C lands revenue-sharing
payment. Therefore, it is difficult to
quantify the effects that future changes
in timber harvests from Federal lands
resulting from critical habitat
designation would have on counties if
SRS and PILT payment programs ended
and the counties were forced to rely on
revenue-sharing payments only. Given
the baseline uncertainty associated with
the continuance of SRS and PILT
payments, we were unable to quantify
possible changes in county revenue
payments that could result from the
critical habitat designation. However,
based on recent socioeconomic trends,
we were able to identify those counties
that may be more sensitive to future
changes in timber harvests, industry
employment, and Federal land
payments. Potential timber harvest
changes related to critical habitat
designation, whether positive, negative,
or neutral, are one potential aspect of
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
this sensitivity. The counties identified
as relatively more sensitive to future
changes in timber harvests,
employment, and payments were Del
Norte and Trinity Counties, California;
Douglas and Klamath Counties, Oregon;
and Skamania County, Washington.
With regard to jobs, increases or
decreases in timber harvests from
Federal or private lands could result in
positive or negative changes in jobs,
respectively. The FEA notes that many
factors affect timber industry
employment (Chapter 6). The scope of
our analysis was limited to the
incremental effects of critical habitat
within the area proposed for designation
by the northern spotted owl. The FEA
did not consider potential changes in
timber activities outside the proposed
critical habitat designation, and did not
evaluate the potential effects related to
the timber industry as a whole.
Based on our economic analysis of the
potential effects of the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, there is a range of
potential outcomes, ranging from
positive to negative impacts of the
designation. Most potential economic
impacts would occur, if at all, on
Federal matrix lands managed by BLM
and the Forest Service, although we
note that the amount of Federal matrix
lands has been reduced from the
proposed rule, as described in Changes
from the Proposed Rule, which would
have the effect of reducing the range of
potential economic impacts presented
by the FEA. While there is uncertainty
over whether such impacts will occur
and to what extent, even assuming
higher economic impacts suggested by
some commenters, we would not
exclude these lands from designation
under section 4(b)(2) because a critical
habitat designation on these lands will
have benefits in conserving this
essential habitat. In addition, our
evaluation of these matrix lands clearly
demonstrates their importance to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl; as also discussed in the section
Changes from the Proposed Rule, our
evaluation of a habitat network with
reduced areas of high value habitat on
matrix lands indicated a significant
increase in extinction risk to the species
as a result.
A copy of the FEA with supporting
documents may be obtained by
contacting the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES) or by
downloading from the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.
National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
or managed by the Department of
Defense (DOD) where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
final rule, we have determined that the
only lands within the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl that are owned or
managed by the Department of Defense
have an active INRMP which provides
a benefit to the species, and are thus
exempt from critical habitat designation
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
Exemptions, above). We therefore
anticipate no impact on national
security from this designation.
Consequently, the Secretary is not
exercising his discretion to exclude any
additional areas from this final revised
designation based on impacts to
national security.
Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider all relevant impacts, including
but not limited to economic impacts and
impacts on national security. We
consider a number of factors including
whether the landowners have developed
any HCPs or other management plans
for the area, or whether there are
conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues,
and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United
States with tribal entities. We also
consider any social impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
Here we provide our analysis of areas
that were proposed as revised
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, for which there
may be a greater conservation benefit to
exclude rather than include in the
designation. Our weighing of the
benefits of inclusion versus exclusion
considered all relevant factors in order
to make our final determination as to
what will result in the greatest
conservation benefit to the owl.
Depending on the specifics of each
situation, there may be cases where the
designation of critical habitat will not
necessarily provide enhanced
protection, and may actually lead to a
net loss of conservation benefit.
Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat
The process of designating critical
habitat as described in the Act requires
that the Service identify those lands
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing on
which are found the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species that may
require special management
considerations or protection, and those
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71947
areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing that are essential for the
conservation of the species.
The identification of areas that
contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species, or are
otherwise essential for the conservation
of the species if outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing, is a benefit resulting from the
designation. The critical habitat
designation process includes peer
review and public comment on the
identified physical or biological features
and areas, and provides a mechanism to
educate landowners, State and local
governments, and the public regarding
the potential conservation value of an
area. This helps focus and promote
conservation efforts by other parties by
clearly delineating areas of high
conservation value for the species, and
is valuable to land owners and managers
in developing conservation management
plans by describing the essential
physical or biological features and
special management actions or
protections that are needed for
identified areas. Including lands in
critical habitat also informs State
agencies and local governments about
areas that could be conserved under
State laws or local ordinances.
However, the prohibition on
destruction or adverse modification
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act
constitutes the only Federal regulatory
benefit of critical habitat designation. As
discussed above, Federal agencies must
consult with the Service on actions that
may affect critical habitat and must
avoid destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat. Federal agencies must
also consult with us on actions that may
affect a listed species and refrain from
undertaking actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
such species. The analysis of effects to
critical habitat is a separate and
different analysis from that of the effects
to the species. Therefore, the difference
in outcomes of these two analyses also
represents the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat. For some species, and in
some locations, the outcome of these
analyses will be similar because effects
on habitat will often result in effects on
the species. However, these two
regulatory standards are different. The
jeopardy analysis evaluates how a
proposed action is likely to influence
the likelihood of a species’ survival and
recovery. The adverse modification
analysis evaluates how an action affects
the capability of the critical habitat to
serve its intended conservation function
or purpose (USFWS, in litt. 2004).
Although these standards are different,
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71948
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
it has been the Service’s experience that
in many instances proposed actions that
affect both a listed species and its
critical habitat and that constitute
jeopardy also constitute adverse
modification. In some cases, however,
application of these different standards
results in different section 7(a)(2)
determinations, especially in situations
where the affected area is mostly or
exclusively unoccupied critical habitat.
Thus, critical habitat designations may
provide greater benefits to the recovery
of a species than would listing as
endangered or threatened under the Act
alone.
There are two limitations to the
regulatory effect of critical habitat. First,
a section 7(a)(2) consultation is required
only where there is a Federal nexus (an
action authorized, funded, or carried out
by any Federal agency)—if there is no
Federal nexus, the critical habitat
designation of non-Federal lands itself
does not restrict any actions that destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat.
Aside from the requirement that Federal
agencies ensure that their actions are
not likely to result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
under section 7, the Act does not
provide any additional regulatory
protection to lands designated as critical
habitat.
Second, designating critical habitat
does not create a management plan for
the areas; does not establish numerical
population goals or prescribe specific
management actions (inside or outside
of critical habitat); and does not have a
direct effect on areas not designated as
critical habitat. The designation only
limits destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat, not all
adverse effects. By its nature, the
prohibition on adverse modification
ensures that the conservation role and
function of the critical habitat network
is not appreciably reduced as a result of
a Federal action.
Once an agency determines that
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act is necessary, the process may
conclude informally when the Service
concurs in writing that the proposed
Federal action is not likely to adversely
affect the species or critical habitat.
However, if we determine through
informal consultation that adverse
impacts are likely to occur, then formal
consultation is initiated. Formal
consultation concludes with a biological
opinion issued by the Service on
whether the proposed Federal action is
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
For critical habitat, a biological
opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or
adverse modification may recommend
additional conservation measures to
minimize adverse effects to primary
constituent elements, but such measures
would be discretionary on the part of
the Federal agency.
The designation of critical habitat
does not require that any management
or recovery actions take place on the
lands included in the designation. Even
in cases where consultation has been
initiated under section 7(a)(2) of the Act
because of effects to critical habitat, the
end result of consultation is to avoid
adverse modification, but not
necessarily to manage critical habitat or
institute recovery actions on critical
habitat. On the other hand, voluntary
conservation efforts by landowners can
remove or reduce known threats to a
species or its habitat by implementing
recovery actions. We find that in many
instances the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat is minimal when
compared to the conservation benefit
that can be achieved through
implementing HCPs under section 10 of
the Act, or other voluntary conservation
efforts or management plans. The
conservation achieved through
implementing HCPs, or other habitat
management plans can be greater than
what we achieve through multiple siteby-site, project-by-project section 7(a)(2)
consultations involving project effects to
critical habitat. Management plans can
commit resources to implement longterm management and protection to
particular habitat for at least one and
possibly other listed or sensitive
species. Section 7(a)(2) consultations
commit Federal agencies to preventing
adverse modification of critical habitat
caused by the particular project;
consultation does not require Federal
agencies to provide for conservation or
long-term benefits to areas not affected
by the proposed project. Thus,
implementation of any HCP, or
management plan that incorporates
enhancement or recovery as the
management standard may often
provide as much or more benefit than a
consultation for critical habitat
designation. After reviewing all current
HCPs, SHAs, and any other active
management plans or conservation
agreements, and weighing the benefits
of inclusion and exclusion (see below),
we are excluding all State and private
lands covered by such agreements from
the final critical habitat designation.
We are also excluding under section
4(b)(2) congressionally-reserved natural
areas such as national parks and
wilderness areas, State parks, and other
private lands that had been proposed for
designation, for the reasons discussed
below. These analyses are based in large
part on the particular conservation
requirements of the northern spotted
owl or the State laws aimed at
protecting this species, and are specific
to this designation. Thus, our
determination that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion in these cases, as well as the
decision to exclude in these instances,
do not necessarily have a bearing on any
future critical habitat designations.
Table 8 identifies all lands excluded
from the final rule.
TABLE 8—LANDS EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL REVISED DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NORTHERN
SPOTTED OWL UNDER SECTION 4(B)(2) OF THE ACT
Critical habitat unit
State
Safe Harbor Agreement .....
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Type of agreement
WCC ............
WA
WCC/ECN ....
RWC ............
RWC ............
WCC ............
WCC ............
WA
CA
CA
WA
WA
WCC/ECN ....
WA
Habitat Conservation Plan ..
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Land owner/agency
Acres
Port Blakely Tree Farms, L.P., Safe Harbor Agreement, Landowner Option Plan, Cooperative Habitat
Enhancement.
SDS Co. & Broughton Lumber Co. Conservation Plan
Forster-Gill, Inc ..............................................................
Van Eck Forest Foundation, Safe Harbor Agreement ..
Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan .....
Green River Water Supply Operations and Watershed
Protection Habitat Conservation Plan.
Plum Creek Timber Central Cascades I–90 Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Hectares
195
79
2,035
238
2,774
3,244
3,162
824
96
1,122
1,313
1,280
33,144
13,413
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
71949
TABLE 8—LANDS EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL REVISED DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NORTHERN
SPOTTED OWL UNDER SECTION 4(B)(2) OF THE ACT—Continued
Critical habitat unit
State
WCC ............
RWC ............
WA
CA
RWC ............
CA
RWC ............
ICC ...............
......................
CA
CA ....
WA
ECN .............
WA
RWC ............
CA
Type of agreement
Other Conservation Measures or Partnerships.
National Parks, State
Parks, and Congressionally Reserved Lands.
Land owner/agency
Acres
West Fork Timber Habitat Conservation Plan ..............
Green Diamond Resource Company Habitat Conservation Plan.
Humboldt Redwood Company, Habitat Conservation
Plan.
Regli Estate Habitat Conservation Plan ........................
Terra Springs Habitat Conservation Plan .....................
Washington Department of Natural Resources State
Lands HCP.
Scofield Corporation ......................................................
5,105
369,384
2,066
149,484
208,172
84,244
484
39
225,751
196
16
91,358
40
16
Mendocino Redwood Company ....................................
National Parks ...............................................................
232,584
998,585
94,123
404,113
180,894
1,625,068
42,513
123,348
73,267
657,644
17,204
49,917
4,056,759
1,641,777
Other Private Lands ...........
......................
......................
WA
CA
State Parks and Natural Areas .....................................
Congressionally Reserved USFS and BLM Lands .......
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
Total lands excluded
under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
......................
...........
........................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Benefits of Excluding Lands With Safe
Harbor Agreements
A Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) is a
voluntary agreement involving private
or other non-Federal property owners
whose actions contribute to the recovery
of listed species. The agreement is
between cooperating non-Federal
property owners and the Service. In
exchange for actions that contribute to
the recovery of listed species on nonFederal lands, participating property
owners receive formal assurances from
the Service that, if they fulfill the
conditions of the SHA, the Service will
not require any additional or different
management activities by the
participants without their consent. In
addition, at the end of the agreement
period, participants may return the
enrolled property to the baseline
conditions that existed at the beginning
of the SHA.
Because many endangered and
threatened species occur exclusively, or
to a large extent, on privately owned
property, the involvement of the private
sector in the conservation and recovery
of species is crucial. Property owners
are often willing partners in efforts to
recover listed species. However, some
property owners may be reluctant to
undertake activities that support or
attract listed species on their properties,
due to fear of future property-use
restrictions related to the Act. To
address this concern, an SHA provides
that future property-use limitations will
not occur without the landowner’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
consent if the landowner is in
compliance with the permit and
agreement and the activity is not likely
to result in jeopardy to the listed
species.
Central to this approach is that the
actions taken under the SHA must
provide a net conservation benefit that
contributes to the recovery of the
covered species. Examples of
conservation benefits include:
• Reduced habitat fragmentation;
• Maintenance, restoration, or
enhancement of existing habitats;
• Increases in habitat connectivity;
• Stabilized or increased numbers or
distribution;
• The creation of buffers for protected
areas; and
• Opportunities to test and develop
new habitat management techniques.
By entering into a SHA, property
owners receive assurances that land use
restrictions will not be required even if
the voluntary actions taken under the
agreement attract particular listed
species onto enrolled properties or
increase the numbers of distribution of
those listed species already present on
those properties. The assurances are
provided through an enhancement of
survival permit issued to the property
owner, under the authority of section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. To implement
this provision of the Act, the Service
and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) issued a joint policy for
developing SHAs for listed species on
June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32717). The
Service simultaneously issued
PO 00000
Hectares
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
regulations for implementing SHAs on
June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32706). A
correction to the final rule was
announced on September 30, 1999 (64
FR 52676). The enhancement of survival
permit issued in association with an
SHA authorizes incidental take of
species that may result from actions
undertaken by the landowner under the
SHA, which could include returning the
property to the baseline conditions at
the end of the agreement. The permit
also specifies that the Service will not
require any additional or different
management activities by participants
without their consent if the permittee is
in compliance with the requirements of
the permit and the SHA and the
permittee’s actions are not likely to
result in jeopardy.
The benefits of excluding lands with
approved SHAs from critical habitat
designation may include relieving
landowners, communities, and counties
of any additional regulatory burden that
might be imposed as a result of the
critical habitat designation. Even if any
additional regulatory burden would be
unlikely due to a lack of a Federal
nexus, the designation of critical habitat
could nonetheless have an unintended
negative effect on our relationship with
non-Federal landowners, due to the
perceived imposition of government
regulation. An additional benefit of
excluding lands covered by approved
SHAs from critical habitat designation is
that it may make it easier for us to seek
new partnerships with future SHA
participants, including States, counties,
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71950
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
in cases where potential partners may
be reluctant to encourage the
development of habitat that supports
endangered or threatened species. In
such cases, we may be able to
implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish
otherwise. By excluding these lands, we
may preserve our current partnerships
and encourage additional future
conservation actions.
In weighing the benefits of inclusion
versus the benefits of exclusion for
lands subject to approved SHAs, it is
important to note that a fundamental
requirement of an SHA is an advance
determination by the Service that the
provisions of the SHA will result in a
net conservation benefit to the listed
species. Approved SHAs have,
therefore, already been determined to
provide a net conservation benefit to the
listed species; in addition, the
management activities provided in an
SHA often provide conservation benefits
to unlisted sensitive species as well. As
described earlier, the designation of
critical habitat may not provide any
substantial realized conservation benefit
to the species on non-Federal lands
absent a Federal nexus for an activity.
Especially where further Federal action
is unlikely, the net conservation benefit
provided by the terms of the SHA itself,
considered in conjunction with the
benefit of excluding lands subject to an
SHA by preserving our working
relationships with landowners who
have entered into SHAs with the
Service, and the benefit of laying the
positive groundwork for possible future
agreements with other landowners, may
collectively outweigh the potentially
limited benefit that would be realized
on these lands from the designation of
critical habitat. However, as with all
potential exclusions under
consideration, lands subject to an SHA
will only be excluded if we determine
that the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion following a
rigorous examination of the record on a
case-by-case basis.
We note that permit issuance in
association with SHA applications
requires consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, which would include
the review of the effects of all SHAcovered activities that might adversely
impact the species under a jeopardy
standard, including possibly significant
habitat modification (see definition of
‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3), even without
the critical habitat designation. In
addition, all other Federal actions that
may affect the listed species would still
require consultation under section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review
these actions for possible significant
habitat modification in accordance with
the definition of harm, described in the
Benefits of Excluding Lands with
Habitat Conservation Plans, below.
We further note that SHAs may
include a provision that the landowner
may return the area to baseline
conditions upon expiration of the
permit. The term of the permit is thus
an important consideration in weighing
the relative benefits of inclusion versus
exclusion from the designation of
critical habitat. However, the Service
has the right to revise a critical habitat
designation at any time. Furthermore,
the potential benefit of acknowledging
the positive conservation contributions
of landowners willing to enter into
voluntary conservation agreements with
the Service for the recovery of
endangered or threatened species may
nonetheless outweigh the loss of benefit
that may be incurred through a possible
return to baseline following permit
expiration. As stated above, such
circumstances require careful
consideration on a case-by-case basis in
order to make a final determination of
the benefits of exclusion or inclusion in
a critical habitat designation.
Below is a description of each SHA
and our analysis of the benefits of
including and excluding it from the
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
State of California
Forster-Gill, Inc., Safe Harbor
Agreement
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
238 ac (96 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are covered by the Safe Harbor
Agreement (SHA) of Forster-Gill, Inc.,
within subunit 1 of the Redwood Coast
CHU in Humboldt County, California.
The enhancement of survival permit
associated with this SHA was noticed in
the Federal Register on March 22, 2002
(67 FR 13357), and issued June 18, 2002.
The term of the agreement is 80 years,
and the term of the permit is 90 years.
The SHA provides for the creation and
enhancement of habitat for the northern
spotted owl on 238 ac (96 ha) of lands
in Humboldt County, California, and
provides for continued timber harvest
on those lands. There are two baseline
conditions that will be maintained
under the SHA: (1) Protection of an
11.2-ac (5-ha) no-harvest area that will
buffer the most recent active northern
spotted owl nest site, but will also be
maintained in the absence of a nest site;
and (2) maintenance of 216 ac (87 ha)
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
on the property such that the trees will
always average 12 to 24 in (30 to 60 cm)
dbh with a canopy cover of 60 to 100
percent. At the time of the agreement,
forest conditions were on the lower end
of the diameter and canopy cover
ranges. By the end of the agreement, the
property will be at the upper end of the
diameter and canopy cover ranges.
Under the SHA, Forster-Gill, Inc., agrees
to: (1) Annually, survey and monitor for
the location and reproductive status of
northern spotted owls on the property;
(2) protect all active nest sites (locations
where nesting behavior is observed
during any of the previous 3 years) with
a no-harvest area that buffers the nest
site by no less than 300 ft (90 m) and
limits timber harvest operations within
1,000 ft (305 m) of an active nest site
during the breeding season, allowing
only the use of existing haul roads; and
(3) manage the second-growth redwood
timber on the property in a manner that
maintains suitable northern spotted owl
habitat, while creating, over time, the
multilayered canopy structure with an
older, larger tree component associated
with high-quality northern spotted owl
habitat. The SHA is expected to provide,
maintain, and enhance for the 80-year
life of the agreement over 200 ac (80 ha)
of northern spotted owl habitat within
a matrix of private timberland. The
cumulative impact of the agreement and
the timber management activities it
covers, which are facilitated by the
allowable incidental take, is expected to
provide a net benefit to the northern
spotted owl.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands that might trigger such
consultation is limited (there is little
likelihood of an action that will involve
Federal funding, authorization, or
implementation). In addition, since the
lands under the SHA in question are
occupied by the northern spotted owl, if
a Federal nexus were to occur, section
7 consultation would already be
triggered and the Federal agency would
consider the effects of its actions on the
species through a jeopardy analysis.
Because one of the primary threats to
the northern spotted owl is habitat loss
and degradation, the consultation
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
process under section 7 of the Act for
projects with a Federal nexus will, in
evaluating effects to the northern
spotted owl, evaluate the effects of the
action on the conservation or
functionality of the habitat for the
species regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated for these lands.
The analytical requirements to support
a jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
adverse modification determination on
included land. However, the additional
conservation that could be attained
through the supplemental adverse
modification analysis for critical habitat
under section 7 would likely not be
significant, and would be triggered only
in the event of a Federal action.
Furthermore, any such potential benefit
would be small in comparison to the
benefits derived from the SHA, which
already incorporates measures that
specifically benefit the northern spotted
owl and its habitat, as described above,
and remains in place regardless of the
designation of critical habitat.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Any information about the
northern spotted owl and its habitat that
reaches a wider audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable. However, in this
case the landowners are aware of the
needs of the species through the
development of their SHA, in which
they have agreed to take measures to
protect the northern spotted owl on
their property and create and enhance
suitable habitat for the species as well.
Any additional educational and
information benefits that might arise
from critical habitat designation have
been largely accomplished through the
public review of and comment on the
SHA and the associated permit. The
release of the Revised Recovery Plan for
the Northern Spotted Owl in 2011 was
also preceded by outreach efforts and
public comment opportunities. In
addition, the rulemaking process
associated with critical habitat
designation included several
opportunities for public comment, and
we also held multiple public
information meetings across the range of
the species. Through these outreach
opportunities, land owners, State
agencies, and local governments have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
become aware of the current status of
and threats to the northern spotted owl,
and the conservation actions needed for
recovery.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, CALFIRE has
indicated to us that it is unlikely to
impose any new requirements on
project proponents if critical habitat is
designated in areas already subject to
California Forest Practice Rules.
Therefore, we believe this potential
benefit of critical will be limited.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 236 ac (96 ha)
of lands currently managed under the
SHA are substantial. We have created a
close partnership with Forster-Gill
through the development of the SHA,
which incorporates protections and
management objectives for the northern
spotted owl and the habitat upon which
it depends for breeding, sheltering, and
foraging activities, as described above.
The conservation approach identified in
the Forster-Gill, Inc. SHA, along with
our close coordination with the
company, addresses the identified
threats to northern spotted owl habitat
on the covered lands that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
The conservation measures identified
within the SHA seek to achieve
conservation goals for northern spotted
owls and their habitat, and thus can be
of greater conservation benefit than the
designation of critical habitat, which
does not require specific, proactive
management actions. If there is a
Federal nexus, consultation under
critical habitat requires only that the
action agency avoid actions that destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat. In
contrast, SHA conservation measures
that provide a benefit to the northern
spotted owl and its habitat have been,
and will be, implemented continuously
beginning with the enactment of the
SHA in 2002 through the 80-year term
of the ITP, through 2082, on all covered
lands owned and managed by ForsterGill, Inc. The key conservation measure
is a provision that will lead to an
approximate doubling of mean tree
diameter from roughly 12 to 24 in (30
to 60 cm) on covered lands over the life
of the permit, leading to enhancement of
habitat suitability.
The designation of critical habitat
could have an unintended negative
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71951
effect on our relationship with nonFederal landowners due to the
perceived imposition of redundant
government regulation. If lands within
the Forster-Gill SHA are designated as
critical habitat, it would likely have a
chilling effect on our continued ability
to seek new partnerships with future
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement various
conservation actions (such as SHAs,
HCPs, and other conservation plans,
particularly large, regional Conservation
Plans that involve numerous
participants and/or address landscapelevel conservation of species and
habitats) that we would be unable to
accomplish otherwise.
Excluding the approximately 238 ac
(96 ha) owned and managed by ForsterGill, Inc. from critical habitat
designation will sustain and enhance
the working relationship between the
Service and this private lands partner.
The willingness of Forster-Gill to work
with the Service to manage federally
listed species will continue to reinforce
those conservation efforts and our
partnership, which contribute toward
achieving recovery of the northern
spotted owl. We consider this voluntary
partnership in conservation vital to our
understanding of the status of species
on non-Federal lands and necessary to
implement recovery actions such as
habitat protection and restoration, and
beneficial management actions for
species. By excluding these lands, we
preserve our current conservation
partnership with Forster-Gill and
encourage additional conservation
actions by this partner, and potentially
others as well, in the future. We
consider the positive effect of excluding
proven conservation partners from
critical habitat to be a significant benefit
of exclusion.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh
the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed
and evaluated the exclusion of
approximately 238 ac (96 ha) of land
owned and managed by Forster-Gill,
Inc. from our designation of critical
habitat. The benefits of including these
lands in the designation are relatively
small. The habitat on the covered lands
is already being monitored and managed
under the SHA to improve the habitat
elements that are equivalent to the
physical or biological features that are
outlined in this critical habitat rule. The
additional designation of critical habitat
would provide unnecessarily
duplicative protections, and would in
any case be unlikely to be triggered
under section 7, since there is little
probability of a Federal nexus for any
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71952
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
activity on these lands. Even if
triggered, since the lands in question are
occupied by the species, section 7
consultation would already be required
under the jeopardy standard, and as
noted, the analysis under the adverse
modification standard would be
unlikely to provide additional
protections beyond those already in
place under the SHA. The regulatory
benefit of additional Federal review on
individual proposed actions is episodic
and confined to the scope and scale of
the specific actions, whereas
implementation of the SHA is
continuous and affects the entire
property.
Educational benefits are also limited.
The landowner is already aware of the
conservation needs of the species
through development of the SHA.
Because there is no public access to the
land, we are not aware of any public
constituency connected with this
ownership which would derive
informational benefits from the
designation of critical habitat. However,
as noted, we have conducted extensive
outreach efforts, both in relation to the
SHA and its associated permit, as well
as our proposed critical habitat, which
have provided opportunity for public
education and comment on critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl. As
such, much of the potential educational
benefit of critical habitat on these lands
has already been accomplished.
On the other hand, the SHA has
provisions for protecting and
maintaining northern spotted owl
habitat that far exceed the conservation
benefits that could be obtained through
section 7 consultation. These measures
will not only prevent the degradation of
essential features of the northern
spotted owl, but they will maintain or
improve these features over time.
Furthermore, landowners always have
the option not to return to baseline after
the term of the SHA is over. Exclusion
of these lands from critical habitat will
help foster the partnership we have
developed with Forster-Gill through the
development and continuing
implementation of the SHA, and may
encourage the landowner to continue
these cooperative efforts even after the
term of the SHA. In addition, this
partnership may serve as a model and
aid in fostering future cooperative
relationships with other parties in other
locations for the benefit of listed
species. For these reasons, we have
determined that the benefits of
exclusion of lands covered by the
Forster-Gill, Inc. SHA outweigh the
benefits of critical habitat designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
determined that the exclusion of 238 ac
(96 ha) from the designation of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl of
lands owned and managed by ForsterGill, Inc., as identified in their SHA will
not result in extinction of the species
because current conservation efforts
under the plan adequately protect the
geographical areas containing the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. For
projects having a Federal nexus and
affecting northern spotted owls in
occupied areas, as in this case, the
jeopardy standard of section 7 of the
Act, coupled with protection provided
under the terms of the SHA, would
provide assurances that this species will
not go extinct as a result of excluding
these lands from the critical habitat
designation. Based on the above
discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act to exclude from this final
critical habitat designation portions of
the proposed critical habitat units or
subunits that are within the Forster-Gill,
Inc. SHA boundary totaling 238 ac (96
ha).
Van Eck Forest Foundation Safe Harbor
Agreement
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are
covered by the SHA between the Fred
M. Van Eck Forest Foundation and the
Service within subunit 1 of the
Redwood Coast CHU in California.
These lands are also protected under a
conservation easement held by the
Pacific Forest Trust. The enhancement
of survival permit associated with this
SHA was noticed in the Federal
Register on July 8, 2008 (73 FR 39026),
and issued August 18, 2008. The term
of the permit and the agreement is 90
years. The SHA provides for the
creation and enhancement of habitat for
the northern spotted owl on 2,774 ac
(1,122 ha) of lands in Humboldt County,
California, and provides for continued
timber harvest on those lands. At the
time of the agreement, the lands under
consideration supported 1,730 ac (700
ha) of northern spotted owl nesting and
roosting habitat and one northern
spotted owl activity center (a location
where owls are observed nesting or
roosting). We anticipate that under the
northern spotted owl habitat creation
and enhancement timber management
regime proposed in the SHA that
approximately 1,947 ac (788 ha) of
nesting and roosting habitat and
potentially up to five northern spotted
owl activity centers could exist on the
property at the end of 90 years. The
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
SHA does not provide for a return to
baseline conditions at the end of the
agreement term. Instead, the agreement
provides that if more than five northern
spotted owl activity centers should
become established on the property
during the 90-year term, the landowner
would be allowed to remove such
additional activity centers during the
agreement period.
Under the SHA, the Fred M. van Eck
Forest Foundation agrees to: (1) Conduct
surveys annually to determine the
locations and reproductive status of any
northern spotted owls; (2) protect up to
five activity centers with a no-harvest
area that buffers the activity center by
no less than 100 ft (30 m); (3) utilize
selective timber harvest methods such
that suitable nesting habitat is
maintained within 300 ft (91 m) of each
activity center; (4) limit noise
disturbance from timber harvest
operations within 1,000 ft (305 m) of an
active nest during the breeding season;
and (5) manage all second-growth
redwood timber on the property in a
manner that maintains or creates
suitable nesting and roosting habitat
over time. The term of the SHA and ITP
is 90 years; there is no term limitation
on the easement deed held by the
Pacific Forest Trust. Specific long-term
management targets for second-growth
timber are enumerated in the easement
deed. All are expressed as propertywide
averages; for example, a stocking target
of 100,000 board feet (bf) per acre, 75
percent minimum conifer occupancy, 25
percent of standing inventory made up
of trees greater than 200 years of age, 15
dominant conifers per acre 36-inches
DBH or greater, 4 standing snags per
acre 30-inches DBH or greater, 1,600
cubic feet per acre of dead and down
logs. The cumulative impact of the SHA
and the easement, is expected to
provide a substantial net benefit to the
northern spotted owl.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands is limited (there is little likelihood
of an action that will involve Federal
funding, authorization, or
implementation). In addition, since the
lands under the SHA in question are
occupied by the northern spotted owl, if
a Federal nexus were to occur, section
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
7 consultation would already be
triggered and the Federal agency would
consider the effects of its actions on the
species through a jeopardy analysis.
Because one of the primary threats to
the northern spotted owl is habitat loss
and degradation, the consultation
process under section 7 of the Act for
projects with a Federal nexus will, in
evaluating effects to the northern
spotted owl, evaluate the effects of the
action on the habitat for the species
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated for these lands. The
analytical requirements to support a
jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
adverse modification determination on
included land. However, the additional
conservation that could be attained
through the supplemental adverse
modification analysis for critical habitat
under section 7 would likely not be
significant, and would be triggered only
in the event of a Federal action.
Furthermore, any such potential benefit
would be small in comparison to the
benefits already derived from the SHA,
which already incorporates measures
that specifically benefit the northern
spotted owl and its habitat, as described
above, and remains in place regardless
of the designation of critical habitat.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Any information about the
northern spotted owl and its habitat that
reaches a wider audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable. The landowners
in this case are aware of the needs of the
species through the development of
their SHA, in which they have agreed to
take measures to protect the northern
spotted owl on their property and create
and enhance suitable habitat for the
species as well. Any additional
educational and information benefits
that might arise from critical habitat
designation have been largely
accomplished through the public review
of and comment on the SHA and the
associated permit. The release of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl in 2011 was also preceded
by outreach efforts and public comment
opportunities. In addition, the
rulemaking process associated with
critical habitat designation included
several opportunities for public
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
comment, and we also held multiple
public information meetings across the
range of the species. Through these
outreach opportunities, land owners,
State agencies, and local governments
have become aware of the current status
of and threats to the northern spotted
owl, and the conservation actions
needed for recovery.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, CALFIRE has
indicated to us that it is unlikely to
impose any new requirements on
project proponents if critical habitat is
designated in areas already subject to
California Forest Practice Rules.
Therefore, we believe this potential
benefit of critical will be limited.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 2,774 ac
(1,122 ha) of lands currently managed
under the SHA are substantial. We have
created a close partnership with the
Foundation through the development of
the SHA, which incorporates
protections and management objectives
for the northern spotted owl and the
habitat upon which it depends for
breeding, sheltering, and foraging
activities, as described above. The
conservation approach identified in the
Van Eck Forest Foundation SHA, along
with our close coordination with the
Foundation, addresses the identified
threats to northern spotted owl on
covered lands that contain the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
The SHA conservation measures that
provide a benefit to the northern spotted
owl and its habitat have been, and will
be, implemented continuously
beginning with the enactment of the
SHA in 2008 through the 90-year term
of the ITP, through 2088, on all covered
lands owned and managed by the Van
Eck Forest Foundation. Such measures
include the examples we identified
above: A volume-based mean stocking
target, mean conifer occupancy, mean
percentages of standing inventory in
older age classes, mean size and density
of dominant conifers, mean size and
density of standing snags, and mean
volume of dead and down logs. The
measures provided in the SHA are
aimed at the maintenance and
enhancement of suitable nesting and
roosting habitat over time to benefit the
northern spotted owl.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71953
The designation of critical habitat
could have an unintended negative
effect on our relationship with nonFederal landowners due to the
perceived imposition of redundant
government regulation. If lands within
the Van Eck Forest Foundation SHA are
designated as critical habitat, it would
likely have a chilling effect on our
continued ability to seek new
partnerships with future participants
including States, counties, local
jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement various
conservation actions (such as SHAs,
HCPs, and other conservation plans)
that we would be unable to accomplish
otherwise. Excluding the approximately
2,774 ac (1,122 ha) owned and managed
by the Van Eck Forest Foundation from
critical habitat designation will sustain
and enhance this working relationship
between the Service and the
Foundation. The willingness of the
Foundation to work with us to manage
federally listed species will continue to
reinforce those conservation efforts and
our partnership, which contribute
toward achieving recovery of the
northern spotted owl. We consider this
voluntary partnership in conservation
vital to our understanding of the status
of species on non-Federal lands and
necessary for us to implement recovery
actions, such as habitat protection and
restoration, and beneficial management
actions for species. Further, this
partnership may aid in fostering future
cooperative relationships with other
parties in other locations for the benefit
of listed species. We consider the
positive effect of excluding proven
conservation partners from critical
habitat to be a significant benefit of
exclusion.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh
the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed
and evaluated the exclusion of
approximately 2,774 ac (1,122 ha) of
land owned and managed by the Van
Eck Forest Foundation from our
designation of critical habitat. The
benefits of including these lands in the
designation are relatively small, since
the habitat on the covered lands is
already being monitored and managed
under the SHA to improve the habitat
elements that are equivalent to the
physical or biological features that are
outlined in this critical habitat rule. The
additional designation of critical habitat
would provide unnecessarily
duplicative protections, and would in
any case be unlikely to be triggered
under section 7, since there is little
probability of a Federal nexus on these
lands. Even if triggered, since the lands
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71954
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
in question are occupied by the species,
section 7 consultation would already be
required under the jeopardy standard,
and, as noted, the analysis under the
adverse modification standard would be
unlikely to provide additional
protections beyond those already in
place under the SHA.
Educational benefits are also limited.
The landowner is already aware of the
conservation needs of the species
through development of the SHA.
Because the Van Eck lands, for the most
part, are not open to the general public,
there is no public constituency that
would derive informational benefits
from the designation of critical habitat.
However, as noted, we have conducted
extensive outreach efforts, both in
relation to the SHA and its associated
permit, as well as our proposed revision
of critical habitat, which have provided
opportunity for public education and
comment on critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl. As such, much of
the potential educational benefit of
critical habitat on these lands has
already been accomplished.
On the other hand, the conservation
measures identified within the SHA
seek to achieve conservation goals for
northern spotted owls and their habitat,
and thus can be of greater conservation
benefit than the designation of critical
habitat, which does not require specific,
proactive actions. Thus, the
implementation of the SHA provides a
substantially greater benefit to the
northern spotted owl than would be
obtained through section 7 consultation.
The measures provided in the SHA will
not only prevent the degradation of
essential features for the northern
spotted owl, but they are designed to
maintain or enhance these features over
time. Furthermore, landowners always
have the option not to return to baseline
after the term of the SHA is over.
Exclusion of these lands from critical
habitat will help foster the partnership
we have developed with the Van Eck
Forest Foundation through the
development and continuing
implementation of the SHA and may
encourage the landowner to continue
these cooperative efforts even after the
term of the SHA. In addition, this
partnership may serve as a model and
aid in fostering future cooperative
relationships with other parties in other
locations for the benefit of listed
species. For these reasons we have
determined that the benefits of
exclusion of lands covered by the Van
Eck Forest Foundation SHA outweigh
the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
determined that the exclusion of 2,774
ac (1,122 ha) from the designation of
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl of lands owned and managed by the
Van Eck Forest Foundation, as
identified in their SHA will not result
in extinction of the species because
current conservation efforts under the
plan adequately protect the geographical
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. For projects
having a Federal nexus and affecting
northern spotted owls in occupied
areas, such as in this case, the jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled
with protection provided under the
terms of the SHA and Conservation
Easement Agreement, would provide
assurances that this species will not go
extinct as a result of excluding these
lands from the critical habitat
designation. Based on the above
discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act to exclude from this final
critical habitat designation portions of
the proposed critical habitat units or
subunits that are within the Van Eck
Forest Foundation SHA boundary
totaling 2,774 ac (1,122 ha).
State of Washington
Port Blakely Tree Farms L.P. (Morton
Block) Safe Harbor Agreement,
Landowner Option Plan, and
Cooperative Habitat Enhancement
Agreement
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, totaling
approximately 195 ac (79 ha) that are
covered under the Port Blakely Tree
Farms (also known as Morton Block)
SHA in the West Cascades Central CHU
in Washington. The enhancement of
survival permit associated with this
SHA was noticed in the Federal
Register on December 17, 2008 (73 FR
76680) and issued May 22, 2009. The
SHA and permit include both the
marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus) and the northern spotted
owl, and covers an area of 45,306 ac
(18,335 ha) of managed forest lands
known as the ‘‘Morton Block,’’ in Lewis
and Skamania Counties. The term of the
permit and SHA is 60 years.
The covered lands have been
intensively managed for timber
production and at the time the permit
was issued were not known to be
occupied by northern spotted owls. The
environmental baseline was measured
in terms of dispersal habitat. There are
no known northern spotted owls nesting
on Port Blakely lands. However,
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
northern spotted owls have historically
nested on adjacent Federal lands and
the 1.82-mile (2.9-km) radius circles
around those sites that are used for
evaluating potential habitat availability
for northern spotted owls extend onto
Port Blakely lands. Because of this, Port
Blakely Tree Farms conducted habitat
evaluations of their properties to
determine the amount of suitable
northern spotted owl habitat present.
The baseline estimate to be provided by
the SHA is 8,360 ac (3,383 ha) of
northern spotted owl dispersal habitat.
Under the SHA, Port Blakely is
implementing conservation measures
that are expected to provide net
conservation benefits to the northern
spotted owl and marbled murrelet. The
SHA also provides that Port Blakely will
manage their tree farm in a manner that
contributes to the goals of the Mineral
Block Northern Spotted Owl Special
Emphasis Area (SOSEA) according to
Washington Forest Practices Rules and
Regulations (Washington Forest
Practices Board 2002, WAC 222–16–
080, WAC 222–16– 086). This area is
intended to facilitate dispersal of
juvenile northern spotted owls, as well
as provide demographic support to core
northern spotted owl populations.
Under the SHA, Port Blakely is
implementing enhanced forestmanagement measures that would create
potential habitat for the northern
spotted owl and marbled murrelet, such
as longer harvest rotations, additional
thinning to accelerate forest growth, a
snag-creation program, retention of
more fallen wood than is required by
Washington Forest Practices Rules,
establishment of special management
areas and special set-aside areas, and
monitoring. The terms of the agreement
are intended to produce conditions that
will facilitate the dispersal of the
northern spotted owl across the Port
Blakely ownership.
At present, there are no known
nesting sites for owls in the covered
area. However, portions of the covered
area are within owl management circles
associated with site centers on adjacent
ownerships. The majority of the standmanagement units are composed of 20to 60-year-old timber. There are no
stands that would provide nesting
opportunities for owls in the covered
area, and very little young forest
marginal habitat is present in the areas
of the Morton Block with the potential
for utilization by owls that may occur
on adjacent ownerships. The young
forest marginal habitat known to exist
on Port Blakely’s ownership is within
circles that have greater than 40 percent
suitable habitat and, thus, may be
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
harvested under Washington State
Forest Practices Rules.
The SHA landscape-management
approach contributes to owl recovery by
complementing the existing owl
landscape-management strategies on
adjacent Federal and State forestlands.
The SHA goals and objectives for the
northern spotted owl are to provide
demographic interchange through
dispersal and foraging habitat across
their ownership on a dynamic basis, as
well as higher-quality habitat in harvest
set-asides. These habitats provide for
both dispersal and demographic
interchange. SOSEA goals are identified
in the Washington State Forest Practices
Rules and shown on the SOSEA maps
(see WAC 222–16–086). SOSEA goals
provide for demographic and dispersal
support as necessary to complement the
northern spotted owl protection
strategies on Federal lands within or
adjacent to the SOSEA (WAC 222–16–
010).
Port Blakely will achieve these goals
and objectives both in the near term and
over the term of the SHA by
immediately protecting special
management areas and special set-aside
areas of northern spotted owl habitat,
and managing commercial forested
lands in the plan area on an average
rotation length of 60 years. In addition,
the SHA provides silvicultural measures
to benefit the northern spotted owl,
including a thinning program and a
snag-retention and creation program.
Port Blakely has agreed to collaborate
with State and Federal biologists in
research efforts to better understand
how their management will influence
dispersal habitat conditions in the plan
area. Port Blakely is working
cooperatively with the Service, WDFW,
WDNR, and other entities that have
expertise, in designing a statistically
robust snag-monitoring study. Port
Blakely will also map all leave tree
areas, and mark a sample of snag and
defective trees for use in snagmonitoring studies. The SHA
acknowledges uncertainty in some
aspects of anticipated results. Areas of
uncertainty include the likelihood that
green retention trees will become snags
during the period between commercial
thinning and future entries, as well as
the recruitment success and persistence
of snags. Port Blakely has committed to
work collaboratively with agencies in
these matters. The SHA also contains
monitoring and reporting requirements.
Benefits of Inclusion—Critical habitat
designation on private lands introduces
a higher level of Federal scrutiny under
the interagency consultation process in
section 7 of the Act. This higher level
of scrutiny can arise through two
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
avenues. Under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act, Federal agencies that grant funds or
issue permits for proposed actions on
private lands, whether or not those
lands are designated critical habitat, are
required to consult with the Service to
ensure that the proposed action ‘‘* * *
is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or
threatened species * * *’’ When lands
are designated critical habitat, the
section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement
is expanded so that the granting or
permitting Federal agencies and the
Service are required to ensure that the
proposed action will not ‘‘* * * result
in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat * * *’’
of any endangered species or threatened
species. Critical habitat designation
adds a new element to the Federal
consultation: The consideration and
analysis of adverse effects to habitat that
might potentially arise from the
proposed action. In evaluating the
effects of proposed actions on critical
habitat, the Service must be satisfied
that the essential physical or biological
features of the critical habitat likely will
not be altered or destroyed by proposed
activities to the extent that the
conservation function of the designated
critical habitat would be appreciably
diminished. Briefly, if the land
potentially affected by the proposed
action is not designated critical habitat,
the scope of the consultation must
include a consideration of ‘‘jeopardy’’ to
threatened or endangered species; but if
the same land is designated critical
habitat, the consultation must include
considerations of both ‘‘jeopardy’’ and
‘‘adverse modification’’ of critical
habitat.
We find that the conservation
achieved through implementing these
types of agreements is typically greater
than would be achieved through
multiple site-by-site, project-by-project,
section 7 consultations involving
consideration of critical habitat. In
addition, it is unlikely that Federal
projects would be proposed on these
relatively remote forest lands unless it
was a linear project such as a powerline,
pipeline, or transportation project. Due
to the scope of such projects, they
would likely already have a Federal
nexus regardless whether these lands
are designated as critical habitat. While
the SHA lands may not have nesting
sites on them at this time, degradation
of the habitats on the SHA or adjacent
lands could be considered an adverse
effect to the species. Because one of the
primary threats to the northern spotted
owl is habitat loss and degradation, the
consultation process under section 7 of
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71955
the Act for projects with a Federal nexus
likely would, in evaluating effects to the
northern spotted owl, evaluate the
effects of the action on the conservation
or functionality of the habitat for the
species, regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated for these lands.
The analytical requirements to support
a jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
adverse modification determination on
land designated as critical habitat.
However, the amount of conservation
that could be attained through the
addition of a critical habitat analysis to
the section 7 consultation would be
relatively low in comparison to the
conservation provided by the SHA. The
additional benefits of inclusion on the
section 7 process are therefore relatively
small.
The benefits of inclusion are further
minimized because, as mentioned
above, the Port Blakely SHA provides
for the needs of the northern spotted
owl by protecting and preserving
landscape levels of suitable northern
spotted owl nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat, as well as foraging and
dispersal habitat over the term of the
SHA in strategic landscapes, and
implementing species-specific
conservation measures designed to
avoid and minimize effects to northern
spotted owls. A fundamental
requirement of an SHA is a
determination by the Service that the
provisions of the SHA will result in a
net conservation benefit to the listed
species. Approved SHAs have,
therefore, already been determined to
provide a net conservation benefit to the
listed species. In addition, monitoring
will track SHA progress over the term of
the permit and provide feedback on
management actions. Therefore,
designation of critical habitat would be
redundant on these lands, and would
not provide additional measureable
protections.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Designation of critical habitat
could inform State agencies and local
governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local
ordinances, such as the Washington
State Growth Management Act, which
encourage the protection of ‘‘critical
areas’’ including fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas. However, not
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71956
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
only has the public process for this
rulemaking provided information to the
landowner, State agencies and local
governments and the public about the
importance of this area, but the process
for approving a SHA, which requires
public notice and comment, has served
this educational function as well.
Through these opportunities, land
owners, State agencies, and local
governments have become more aware
of the status of and threats to listed
species, and the conservation actions
needed for recovery particularly as it
relates to this property. For this reason,
we believe that the educational benefits
that might accrue from critical habitat
designation would be minimal.
Thus, we find that there is minimal
benefit from designating critical habitat
for the northern spotted owl within the
Port Blakely SHA.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 195 ac (79 ha)
of lands currently managed under the
SHA are substantial and include
maintaining our partnership with this
landowner. This is important because it
may encourage the company not to
return to baseline immediately after
expiration of the SHA.
Excluding lands with SHAs from
critical habitat designation may also
enhance our ability to seek new
partnerships with future participants
including States, counties, local
jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be
unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands
within the plan area are designated as
critical habitat, it could have a negative
effect on our ability to work with
various companies to accomplish our
goals for the SHA program and recovery
of the northern spotted owl. This SHA
is located in a key landscape between
the Mineral Block and other Federal
lands, and represents a unique
opportunity to maintain northern
spotted owls at the western extreme of
the Cascades, which may support
dispersal between the Cascades and
Olympics. This SHA contributes
meaningfully to the recovery of the
northern spotted owl and serves as an
example to other industrial companies.
This SHA was the first to combine a
Federal SHA effort with similar
planning processes under State
jurisdiction and serves as a role model
in combining SHA planning with State
processes. By excluding these lands, we
preserve our current private and local
conservation partnerships and
encourage additional conservation
actions in the future.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the Port Blakely SHA from the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl outweigh the
benefits of including this area in critical
habitat. We find that including the Port
Blakely SHA would result in minimal,
if any, additional benefits to the
northern spotted owl, as explained
above. We also find that the benefits of
including these lands are further
minimized by the fact that the
management strategies of the Port
Blakely SHA are designed to maintain
and enhance habitat for the northern
spotted owl. The SHA includes speciesspecific avoidance and minimization
measures, monitoring requirements to
track success and ensure proper
implementation, and forest-management
practices and habitat conservation
objectives that benefit the northern
spotted owl and its habitat, which
exceeds any conservation value
provided as a result of a critical habitat
designation. Furthermore, encouraging
landowners to enter into voluntary
conservation agreements with the
Service for the recovery of endangered
or threatened species which we believe
would be one of the benefits of
exclusion may outweigh the loss of
benefit that may be incurred through a
possible return to baseline following
permit expiration.
Therefore, in consideration of the
factors discussed above in the Benefits
of Exclusion section, including the
relevant impact to current and future
partnerships, we have determined that
the benefits of exclusion of lands
covered by the Port Blakely SHA
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of a net of
approximately 195 ac (79 ha) of lands
within the Port Blakely SHA will not
result in extinction of the northern
spotted owl because current and future
conservation efforts under the
agreement provide management to
facilitate dispersal of juvenile northern
spotted owls, as well as provide
demographic support to core northern
spotted owl populations. Further,
should nesting populations of the owl
become reestablished in this area (and
projects subsequently planned that have
a Federal nexus and would potentially
affect northern spotted owls), the
jeopardy standard of section 7 of the
Act, coupled with protection provided
by the Port Blakely SHA, would provide
a level of assurance that this species
will not go extinct as a result of
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. Based on the above
discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act to exclude from this final
critical habitat designation portions of
the proposed critical habitat units or
subunits that are within the Port Blakely
SHA totaling about 195 ac (79 ha).
SDS Company LLC and Broughton
Lumber Company Safe Harbor
Agreement
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, lands totaling
about 2,035 ac (824 ha) that are covered
under the SDS Lumber Company LLC
and its registered business name
Stevenson Land Company (together
SDS) and Broughton Lumber Company
(in total are related companies and are
herein known as ‘‘the Companies’’)
SHA, in Washington and Oregon. (Note
the proposed rule contained an error, in
which we mistakenly identified
approximately 16,031 ac (6,487 ha) of
SDS and Broughton lands for potential
exclusion). The enhancement of
survival permits associated with this
SHA were noticed in the Federal
Register on August 21, 2012 (77 FR
50526) and issued to the Companies on
October 26, 2012. The term of each of
the permits is 60 years. The Companies
collectively manage approximately
83,000 ac (33,589 ha) of forestland in
Skamania and Klickitat Counties in
Washington, and Hood River and Wasco
Counties in Oregon. Much of this
ownership is composed of potential
habitat outside of any owl circles and,
therefore, is currently available for
harvest under Washington State Forest
Practices Rules. However, 30 northern
spotted owl home ranges overlap some
portion of the Companies’ land base.
Most site centers are currently located
on Federal or State ownership; only one
site center is located on Companies’
ownership. Because the Companies
have committed to manage their
commercial forest lands for a
substantially longer rotation than the
typical 45-year rotation, and to
implement additional conservation
measures, northern spotted owls could
occupy the covered area in the future
under the SHA.
The Companies’ landscape
management approach contributes to
owl recovery by complementing the
existing owl landscape-management
strategies on adjacent Federal and State
forestlands. The Companies’ SHA goals
and objectives for the northern spotted
owl are to provide dispersal and young
forest marginal habitat across their
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ownership on a dynamic basis, as well
as submature and higher quality habitat
in harvest set-asides. These habitats
provide both dispersal and demographic
support, an established goal for lands
within the two northern spotted owl
special emphasis areas (SOSEAs).
SOSEA goals are identified in the Forest
Practices Rules and shown on the
SOSEA maps (see WAC 222–16–086).
SOSEA goals provide for demographic
and/or dispersal support as necessary to
complement the northern spotted owl
protection strategies on Federal lands
within or adjacent to the SOSEA (WAC
222–16–010).
The Companies will achieve these
goals and objectives both in the near
term and over the term of the SHA by
immediately protecting special set-aside
areas of northern spotted owl habitat
and managing commercial forested
lands in the plan area on an average
rotation length of 60 years. In addition,
the SHA provides silvicultural measures
to benefit the northern spotted owl,
including a snag-retention and creation
program.
The SHA includes an elevated
baseline, provisions for a 240-acre
nesting set-aside and a 411-acre reserve
in the White Salmon SOSEA, a 10-year
deferral of harvest of any habitat in the
0.7-mile circle of the four site centers in
which the Companies’ covered lands
comprise greater than 15 percent, future
nest site protection, and the support and
enhancement of existing conservation
agreements. The SHA will include a
monitoring and reporting schedule to
ensure that the anticipated benefits will
accrue both in the near term and over
the term of the SHA.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find that
there is minimal benefit from
designating critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl within the SDS
SHA. It is unlikely that Federal projects
would be proposed on these relatively
remote forest lands unless it was a
linear project such as a powerline,
pipeline, or transportation project. Due
to the scope of such projects, they
would likely already have a Federal
nexus regardless whether these lands
are designated as critical habitat. Even
where the SHA lands may not have
nesting sites on them at this time,
degradation of the habitats on the SHA
or adjacent lands could be considered
an adverse effect to the species. Because
one of the primary threats to the
northern spotted owl is habitat loss and
degradation, the consultation process
under section 7 of the Act for projects
with a Federal nexus likely would, in
evaluating effects to the northern
spotted owl, evaluate the effects of the
action on the conservation or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
functionality of the habitat for the
species, regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated for these lands.
The analytical requirements to support
a jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
adverse modification determination on
land designated as critical habitat.
However, the amount of conservation
that could be attained through the
addition of a critical habitat analysis to
the section 7 consultation would be
relatively low in comparison to the
conservation provided by the SHA, as
discussed below. The additional
benefits of inclusion on the section 7
process are therefore relatively small.
The benefits of inclusion are further
minimized because this SHA provides
for the needs of the northern spotted
owl by protecting and preserving
landscape levels of suitable northern
spotted owl nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat, as well as foraging and
dispersal habitat over the term of the
SHA in strategic landscapes, and
implementing species-specific
conservation measures designed to
avoid and minimize effects to northern
spotted owls. A fundamental
requirement of an SHA is a
determination by the Service that the
provisions of the SHA will result in a
net conservation benefit to the listed
species. Approved SHAs have,
therefore, already been determined to
provide a net conservation benefit to the
listed species. In addition, funding for
management is ensured through the
Implementation Agreement. Such
assurances are typically not provided by
section 7 consultations, which in
contrast to SHAs, do not commit the
project proponent to long-term, special
management practices or protections. In
addition, monitoring will track SHA
progress over the term of the permit and
provide feedback on management
actions. Therefore, designation of
critical habitat would be redundant on
these lands, and would not provide
additional measureable protections.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Designation of critical habitat
could inform State agencies and local
governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local
ordinances, such as the Washington
State Growth Management Act, which
encourage the protection of ‘‘critical
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71957
areas’’ including fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas. However, not
only has the public process for this
rulemaking provided information to the
landowner, State agencies and local
governments and the public about the
importance of this area, but the process
for approving a SHA, which also
requires public notice and comment,
has served this educational function too.
Through these opportunities, land
owners, State agencies, and local
governments have become more aware
of the status of and threats to listed
species, and the conservation actions
needed for recovery particularly as it
relates to this property. For these
reasons, we believe that the educational
benefits that might accrue from critical
habitat designation would be minimal.
Therefore, we find that there is
minimal benefit from designating
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl within this SHA.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 2,035 ac (824
ha) of lands currently managed under
the SHA are substantial and include
maintaining our partnership with this
landowner. This is important because it
may encourage the company not to
return to baseline immediately after
expiration of the SHA.
Excluding lands with SHAs from
critical habitat designation may also
enhance our ability to seek new
partnerships with future participants
including States, counties, local
jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be
unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands
within the plan area are designated as
critical habitat, it could have a negative
effect on our ability to work with
various companies to accomplish our
goals for the SHA program and recovery
of the northern spotted owl. This SHA
is located in key northern spotted owl
landscapes and contributes
meaningfully to the recovery of the
northern spotted owl. Two SOSEAs, the
White Salmon and Columbia Gorge
SOSEAs, encompass approximately 54
percent of the Companies’ lands in
Skamania and Klickitat Counties. The
Companies’ landscape-management
approach contributes to northern
spotted owl recovery by complementing
the existing northern spotted owl
landscape-management strategies on
adjacent Federal and State forestlands.
With the Companies’ participation in
northern spotted owl conservation, it
will be the first time in these SOSEAs,
that a private landowner has joined
State and Federal land managers to
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71958
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
implement a landscape approach for
northern spotted owl habitat. The
Companies’ lands provide a major link
in the goal of managing both the
Columbia River and White Salmon
SOSEAs under a unified landscapemanagement regime rather than a
competitive harvesting regime under
owl-circle management.
The designation of critical habitat
could nonetheless have an unintended
negative effect on our relationship with
non-Federal landowners due to the
perceived imposition of redundant
government regulation. If lands within
the SDS SHA plan area are designated
as critical habitat, it would likely have
a negative effect on our ability to
establish new partnerships to develop
SHAs, HCPs, and other conservation
plans, particularly plans that address
landscape-level conservation of species
and habitats. This SHA is being
observed by other land and timber
companies in Washington and Oregon
and may serve as a model for ongoing
and future efforts. By excluding these
lands, we preserve our current private
and local conservation partnerships and
encourage additional conservation
actions in the future.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the SDS SHA from the designation of
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl outweigh the benefits of including
this area in critical habitat. We find that
including it would result in minimal, if
any, additional benefits to the northern
spotted owl, as explained above. We
also find that the benefits of including
these lands are further minimized by the
fact that the management strategies of
the SHA are designed to maintain and
enhance habitat for the northern spotted
owl. The SHA includes species-specific
avoidance and minimization measures,
monitoring requirements to track
success and ensure proper
implementation, and forest-management
practices and habitat conservation
objectives that benefit the northern
spotted owl and its habitat, which
exceeds any conservation value
provided as a result of a critical habitat
designation. Furthermore, encouraging
landowners to enter into voluntary
conservation agreements with the
Service for the recovery of endangered
or threatened species which we believe
would be one of the benefits of
exclusion may outweigh the loss of
benefit that may be incurred through a
possible return to baseline following
permit expiration.
Therefore, in consideration of the
factors discussed above in the Benefits
of Exclusion section, including the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
relevant impact to current and future
partnerships, we have determined that
the benefits of exclusion of lands
covered by the Port Blakely SHA
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of a net of
approximately 2,035 ac (824 ha) of lands
within the SDS SHA will not result in
extinction of the northern spotted owl
because, under this agreement, the
landscape management approach
contributes to owl recovery by
complementing the existing owl
landscape-management strategies on
adjacent Federal and State forestlands.
The SDS SHA goals and objectives for
the northern spotted owl are to provide
dispersal and young forest marginal
habitat across their ownership on a
dynamic basis, as well as submature and
higher quality habitat in harvest setasides. These habitats provide both
dispersal and demographic support, an
established goal for lands within the
two northern spotted owl special
emphasis areas (SOSEAs). Further, for
projects having a Federal nexus and
affecting northern spotted owls in
occupied areas, the jeopardy standard of
section 7 of the Act, coupled with
protection provided by the SDS SHA,
would provide a level of assurance that
this species will not go extinct as a
result of excluding these lands from the
critical habitat designation. We find that
exclusion of these lands within the SDS
SHA will not result in extinction of the
northern spotted owl. Based on the
above discussion, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this
final critical habitat designation
portions of the proposed critical habitat
units or subunits that are within the
SDS SHA totaling about 2,035 ac (824
ha).
How We Evaluate Lands Protected
Under HCPs for Exclusion
The consultation provisions under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act constitute a
regulatory benefit of critical habitat.
Federal agencies must consult with us
on actions that may affect critical
habitat and must avoid destroying or
adversely modifying critical habitat. In
areas without designated critical habitat,
Federal agencies consult with us on
actions that may affect a listed species
and must refrain from undertaking
actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species.
Thus, the analysis of effects to critical
habitat is a separate and different
analysis from that of the effects to the
species. The difference in outcomes of
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
these two analyses represents the
regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For
some species, and in some locations, the
outcome of these analyses will be
similar, because effects on habitat will
often result in effects on the species.
However, the regulatory standard is
different: The jeopardy analysis looks at
the action’s impact on survival and
recovery of the species, while the
adverse modification analysis looks at
the action’s effects on the designated
habitat’s contribution to the species’
conservation. This will, in some
instances, lead to different results or
consultation where it might not have
otherwise occurred (e.g. in habitat not
currently occupied by the species).
Once an agency determines that
consultation under section 7 of the Act
is necessary, the process may conclude
informally when we concur in writing
that the proposed Federal action is not
likely to adversely affect critical habitat.
However, if the action agency
determines through informal
consultation that adverse effects are
likely to occur, then it would initiate
formal consultation, which would
conclude when we issue a biological
opinion on whether the proposed
Federal action is likely to result in
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. A biological opinion
that concludes in a determination of no
destruction or adverse modification may
contain discretionary conservation
recommendations to minimize adverse
effects to critical habitat, but it would
not contain any mandatory reasonable
and prudent measures or terms and
conditions because these do not apply
to critical habitat. In addition, we
suggest reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the proposed Federal
action only when our biological opinion
finds that the action may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
The process of designating critical
habitat as described in the Act requires,
in part, that the Service identify those
lands occupied at the time of listing on
which are found the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, which may
require special management
considerations or protection and any
unoccupied lands that are essential to
the conservation of the species. In
identifying those lands, the Service
must consider the recovery needs of the
species. Once critical habitat has been
designated, Federal agencies must
consult with the Service under section
7(a)(2) of the Act on their actions that
may adversely affect the species or
critical habitat to ensure that their
actions are not likely to adversely
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
modify critical habitat or jeopardize the
continued existence of the species.
We find that in some cases, the
conservation benefits to a species and
its habitat that may be achieved through
the designation of critical habitat are
less than those that could be achieved
through the implementation of a habitat
conservation management plan that
includes specific provisions based on
enhancement or recovery as the
management standard. Consequently,
the implementation of any HCP or
management plan that considers
enhancement or recovery as the
management standard will often provide
as much or more benefit than a section
7(a)(2) consultation under the Act.
There may be some regulatory benefit
that results from designating critical
habitat in the areas covered by the HCPs
because of section 7 consultation
requirements; however, they are often
minimal compared to the benefits of
exclusion.
Non-Federal landowners are often
motivated to work with the Service
collaboratively to develop HCPs because
of the regulatory certainty provided by
an incidental take permit under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, including
assurances under the No Surprises
Policy (63 FR 8859; February 23, 1998).
The No Surprises Policy sets forth a
clear commitment to incidental take
permittees that, to the extent consistent
with the Act and other Federal laws, the
government will not seek additional
mitigation under an approved HCP
where the permittee is implementing
the HCP’s terms and conditions.
Although the HCP process can be
complex and time-consuming, the
benefit to landowners in undertaking
this extensive process is not only
incidental take authorization but the
resulting regulatory certainty, which
translates into real savings for private
landowners in terms of opportunity
costs, as well as direct savings and
avoided costs. Designation of critical
habitat within the boundaries of already
approved HCPs may be viewed as a
disincentive by other entities currently
developing HCPs or contemplating them
in the future, because it may be
perceived as imposing duplicative
regulatory burdens. In discussions with
the Service, HCP permittees have
indicated they view critical habitat
designation as an unnecessary
additional intrusion on their property,
and have expressed concern that the
Service may request new conservation
measures for the northern spotted owl,
even though they have an existing HCP
and associated incidental take permit
that has already gone through NEPA and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
the section 7 consultation process
already in place.
Although parties whose actions may
take listed species may still desire
incidental take permits to avoid liability
under section 9 of the Act, failure to
exclude HCP lands from critical habitat
could reduce the conservation value of
the HCP program in several ways. First,
parties may be less willing to seek a
section 10 (a)(2) permit and develop an
HCP where they are not certain their
actions will cause incidental take in
order to avoid involving the Federal
government when that involvement
could lead to future section 7
consultations because of critical habitat
designation. Second, in any given HCP,
applicants may reduce the amount of
protection to which they are willing to
agree, in effect holding some additional
protective measures ‘‘in reserve’’ for use
in any future discussions to address
critical habitat. The failure to exclude
qualified HCP lands from critical habitat
designations could decrease the
program’s efficacy and have profound
effects on our ability to establish and
maintain important conservation
partnerships with stakeholders.
Excluding qualified HCP lands from
critical habitat provides permittees with
the greatest possible certainty, and
thereby may help foster the cooperation
necessary to allow the HCP program to
achieve the greatest possible
conservation benefit. Thus, excluding
the lands covered by HCPs may improve
the Service’s ability to enter into new
partnerships. In addition, permittees
who trust and benefit from the HCP
process may encourage future HCP
participants, such as States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
leading to new HCPs that may result in
implementation of conservation actions
we would be unable to accomplish
otherwise.
Excluding lands covered under HCPs
from the critical habitat designation may
also relieve landowners from the
possibility of any additional regulatory
burden and costs associated with the
preparation of section 7 documents
related to critical habitat. While the
costs of providing these additional
documents to the Service is minor, there
may be resulting delays that generate
perceived or very real costs to private
landowners in the form of opportunity
costs, as well as direct costs.
HCPs can provide other important
conservation benefits, including the
development of important biological
information needed to guide
conservation efforts and assist in species
conservation outside the HCP planning
area. Each of the HCPs evaluated below
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71959
have some component of adaptive forest
management to address uncertainties in
achieving their agreed-upon
conservation objectives for the northern
spotted owl. The adaptive management
strategy helps to ensure management
will continue to be consistent with
agreed-upon northern spotted owl
conservation objectives.
Below is a brief description of each
HCP and the lands proposed as critical
habitat covered by each plan that we
have excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
State of California
Green Diamond Resource Company
Habitat Conservation Plan
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are
covered under the Green Diamond
Resource Company Northern Spotted
Owl Habitat Conservation Plan of 1992.
The Green Diamond Resource Company
(Green Diamond, formerly Simpson
Timber Company) operates under a
northern spotted owl HCP within the
Redwood Coast Critical Habitat Unit in
California. The Incidental Take Permit
(ITP) issued in association with this
HCP was initially noticed in the Federal
Register on May 27, 1992 (57 FR 22254)
and issued September 17, 1992. Both
the HCP and the permit had a term of
30 years, with a comprehensive review
scheduled after 10 years to review the
efficacy of the plan. The permit allows
incidental take of up to 50 pairs of
northern spotted owls and their habitat
during the course of timber harvest
operations on 369,384 ac (149,484 ha) of
forest lands in Del Norte and Humboldt
Counties.
At the time the permit was issued,
more than 100 northern spotted owl
nest sites or activity centers were known
or suspected on the property. The
Service determined that the projected
growth and harvest rates indicated more
habitat of the age class primarily used
by northern spotted owls would exist on
the property at the end of the 30-year
permit period. In addition, the HCP
provided that nest sites would be
protected during the breeding season,
and no direct killing or injuring of owls
was anticipated. Green Diamond also
agreed to continue their monitoring
programs, in which more than 250 adult
owls and more than 100 juveniles were
already banded, as well as analyses of
timber stands used by owls. As required
by the terms of the HCP, Green Diamond
and the Service conducted a
comprehensive review of the first 20
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71960
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
years of implementation, including a
comparison of actual and estimated
levels of owl displacement, a
comparison of estimated and actual
distribution of habitat, a reevaluation of
the biological basis for the HCP’s
conservation strategy, an examination of
the efficacy of and continued need for
habitat set-asides, and an estimate of
future owl displacements. During the
comprehensive review, Green Diamond
requested an amendment to the 1992
ITP to allow incidental take of up to
eight additional northern spotted owl
pairs. This request was noticed in the
Federal Register on February 26, 2007
(72 FR 8393) and the modified permit
was issued in October 2007.The original
Green Diamond Northern Spotted Owl
HCP relied on extensive monitoring and
research to inform development of more
comprehensive conservation strategies
for their lands. The outcome of 20 years
of implementation of Green Diamond’s
1992 informed the Service and Green
Diamond on how to develop new, or
modify the original, conservation
strategies to further benefit the northern
spotted owl.
On April 16, 2010, we announced our
intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) in response to an expected new
HCP from Green Diamond, which would
include provisions for the northern
spotted owl and possibly the Pacific
fisher (Martes pennanti), a species that
may be considered for listing during the
term of the HCP. This new HCP, if
completed and approved, would replace
the 1992 HCP, and would require the
issuance of a new incidental take
permit. The proposed new HCP is
intended to address the retention of
suitable northern spotted owl nesting
habitat, the development of older forest
habitat elements and habitat structures,
and future establishment of northern
spotted owl nest sites in streamside
retention zones. In addition, the new
plan will help cluster owl sites in
favorable habitat areas, and initiate
future research on other wildlife species
such as fishers and barred owls. Since
this new draft HCP has not yet been
completed, the draft HCP does not serve
as the basis for exclusion and we only
provide this information in terms of
demonstrating the progression of
involvement and partnership between
the Service and Green Diamond. The
existing HCP, originally completed in
1992, is still in effect as of this date and
serves, in part, as the basis for this
exclusion.
Since approval of the 1992 HCP,
personnel from Green Diamond, along
with academic and research institutions,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
have been the largest single contributor
of scientific information on the ecology
of northern spotted owls and their
habitats on managed forest lands in the
redwood region, in the form of graduate
theses and peer-reviewed papers. Since
the initial listing of the northern spotted
owl in 1990, Green Diamond has
maintained on their lands 1 of the 11
demographic study areas within the
range of the northern spotted owl that
have been used for rangewide
monitoring and evaluation of
populations and population trends in
the Pacific northwest. This important
demographic information is reported in
a continuing series of monographs, the
most recent being Forsman et al. (2011).
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands that might trigger such
consultation is limited; there is little
likelihood of an action that will involve
Federal funding, authorization, or
implementation. In addition, since the
lands under the HCP in question are
occupied by the northern spotted owl, if
a Federal nexus were to occur, section
7 consultation would already be
triggered and the Federal agency would
consider the effects of its actions on the
species through a jeopardy analysis.
While the jeopardy and adverse
modification standards are different, the
additional conservation that could be
attained through the supplemental
adverse modification analysis for
critical habitat under section 7 would
not be significant in light of the benefits
of the HCP, which already incorporates
protections and management objectives
for the northern spotted owl and the
habitat upon which it depends for
breeding, sheltering, and foraging
activities. The conservation approach
identified in the Green Diamond HCP,
along with our close coordination with
the company, addresses the identified
threats to northern spotted owl on lands
covered by the HCP that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. The
conservation measures identified within
the HCP seek to achieve conservation
goals for northern spotted owls and
their habitat, and thus can be of greater
conservation benefit than the
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
designation of critical habitat, which
does not require specific, proactive
actions. HCPs typically provide for
greater conservation benefits to a
covered species than section 7
consultations because HCPs ensure the
long-term protection and management
of a covered species and its habitat. In
addition, funding for such management
is ensured through the Implementation
Agreement. Such assurances are
typically not provided by section 7
consultations, which in contrast to
HCPs, often do not commit the project
proponent to long-term, special
management practices or protections.
Thus, a section 7 consultation typically
does not afford the lands it covers
similar extensive benefits as an HCP. In
addition, the protections of critical
habitat come into play only in the event
of a Federal action, whereas the
protections of an HCP are in continuous
force.
Another potential benefit of including
lands in a critical habitat designation is
that the designation can serve to educate
landowners, State and local government
agencies, and the public regarding the
potential conservation value of an area,
and may help focus conservation efforts
on areas of high conservation value for
certain species. Any information about
the northern spotted owl and its habitat
that reaches a wider audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable. However, in this
case the educational value of critical
habitat is limited. Green Diamond has
already made substantial contributions
to our knowledge of the species through
research and monitoring without critical
habitat designated on their lands. In
addition, the educational and
informational benefits that might arise
from critical habitat designation have
been largely accomplished through the
public review and comment on the HCP
and associated documents. The release
of the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl in 2011 was also
preceded by outreach efforts and public
comment opportunities. Furthermore,
we conducted extensive outreach efforts
on the proposed revision of critical
habitat, including multiple public
information meetings and opportunities
for public comment. Through these
outreach opportunities, land owners,
State agencies, and local governments
have become aware of the status of and
threats to the northern spotted owl, and
the conservation actions needed for
recovery.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, CALFIRE has
indicated to us that it is unlikely to
impose any new requirements on
project proponents if critical habitat is
designated in areas already subject to
California Forest Practice Rules.
Therefore, we believe this potential
benefit of critical will be limited.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 369,864 ac
(149,484 ha) of lands currently managed
under the Green Diamond HCP are
significant. We have created a close
partnership with Green Diamond
through development of the HCP, and
they have proven to be an invaluable
partner in the conservation of the
northern spotted owl. Green Diamond
has made a significant contribution to
our knowledge of the northern spotted
owl through their support of continuing
research on their lands. Excluding the
approximately 369,864 ac (149,484 ha)
owned and managed by Green Diamond
from critical habitat designation will
sustain and enhance the working
relationship between the Service and
Green Diamond. The willingness of
Green Diamond to work with the
Service in innovative ways to conduct
solid scientific research and manage
federally listed species will continue to
reinforce those conservation efforts and
our partnership, which contribute
toward achieving recovery of the
northern spotted owl. Due to the
important research they are facilitating,
we consider this voluntary partnership
in conservation vital to our
understanding of the northern spotted
owl status of species on non-Federal
lands and necessary for us to implement
recovery actions such as habitat
protection and restoration, and
beneficial management actions for
species.
The designation of critical habitat
could have an unintended negative
effect on our relationship with nonFederal landowners due to the
perceived imposition of redundant
government regulation. If lands within
the Green Diamond HCP are designated
as critical habitat, it would likely have
a negative effect on our continued
ability to seek new partnerships with
future participants including States,
counties, local jurisdictions,
conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can
implement various conservation actions
(such as SHAs, HCPs, and other
conservation plans) that we would be
unable to accomplish otherwise. In
addition, our conservation partnership
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
with Green Diamond may serve as a
model and aid in fostering future
cooperative relationships with other
parties in other locations for the benefit
of listed species. We consider the
positive effect of excluding proven
conservation partners from critical
habitat to be a significant benefit of
exclusion.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh
the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed
and evaluated the exclusion of
approximately 369,864 ac (149,484 ha)
of land owned and managed by the
Green Diamond Resource Company
from our designation of critical habitat.
The benefits of including these lands in
the designation are comparatively small,
since the habitat on the covered lands
is already being monitored and managed
under the current HCP to improve the
habitat elements that are equivalent to
the physical or biological features
outlined in this critical habitat rule. Any
potential regulatory benefits of critical
habitat would be minimal, at best, as
additional Federal review on individual
proposed actions is episodic and
confined to the scope and scale of the
specific Federal actions that take the
form of project review or granting of
funds. In any case, any potential
regulatory benefit that would be gained
from a supplemental adverse
modification analysis, should section 7
be triggered, would likely be minimal
since the protections afforded by critical
habitat would be duplicative with the
protections provided through the HCP.
Educational benefits to the company
that might be attributed to critical
habitat designation are limited because
the company already has an active
program of research and analysis that is
embedded in company planning. In
addition, extensive outreach efforts that
have already occurred in conjunction
with the HCP, Revised Recovery Plan,
and the proposed revision of critical
habitat have raised awareness of the
current status of and threats to the
northern spotted owl, and the
conservation actions needed for
recovery. Green Diamond has made a
significant contribution to the body of
scientific information about the
northern spotted owl in the redwood
region.
In this instance, the regulatory and
educational benefits of inclusion in
critical habitat are minimal compared to
the significant benefits gained through
our conservation partnership with
Green Diamond. In addition, the
conservation measures of their HCP
serves not only an educational function
for the company and local and State
regulatory jurisdictions, but also
provides for significant conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71961
and management of northern spotted
owl habitat and contributes to the
recovery of the species. The HCP
provisions for protecting and
maintaining northern spotted owl
habitat far exceed the conservation
benefits that would be obtainable
through section 7 consultation. The
company’s current program of research
on the northern spotted owl habitat and
demographics could not be obtained
through section 7 consultation.
Exclusion of these lands from critical
habitat will help foster the partnership
we have developed with Green
Diamond, partly through the
development and continuing
implementation of the HCP, and partly
through the encouragement of elective
actions by the company that are
unconnected to the HCP. For example,
Green Diamond’s elective role in
maintaining a demographic study area,
which is a key part of the network of
demographic study areas essential to
determining the rangewide population
trends of the northern spotted owl, is
integral to continuing research on the
species. Our partnership with Green
Diamond not only provides a benefit for
the conservation of the northern spotted
owl, but it may also serve as a model
and aid in fostering future cooperative
relationships with other parties in other
locations for the benefit of listed
species. For these reasons, we have
determined that the benefits of
exclusion of lands covered by the Green
Diamond Resource Company HCP
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that the exclusion of
369,864 ac (149,484 ha) from the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl of lands owned
and managed by the Green Diamond
Resource Company, as identified in
their HCP, will not result in extinction
of the species because current
conservation efforts under the plan
adequately protect the geographical
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. For those
infrequent projects having a Federal
nexus and affecting northern spotted
owls on these lands, which are occupied
by the species, the jeopardy standard of
section 7 of the Act, coupled with
protection provided by the current
Green Diamond HCP, would provide a
level of assurance that this species will
not go extinct as a result of excluding
these lands from the critical habitat
designation. Based on the above
discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71962
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
the Act to exclude from this final
critical habitat designation portions of
the proposed critical habitat units or
subunits that are within the Green
Diamond HCP boundary totaling
369,864 ac (149,484 ha).
Humboldt Redwood Company Habitat
Conservation Plan
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are
covered under the Humboldt Redwood
Company (formerly Pacific Lumber)
HCP in the Redwood Coast CHU in
California. The permit under this HCP
with a term of 50 years was noticed on
July 14, 1998 (63 FR 37900) and issued
on March 1, 1999. The HCP includes
208,172 ac (84,244 ha) of commercial
timber lands in Humboldt County,
essentially all of the formerly Pacific
Lumber timberlands outside of the
Headwaters Reserve, which is currently
under Bureau of Land Management
administration. The Humboldt Redwood
Company HCP includes nine nonlisted
species (including one candidate
species) and three listed species,
including the northern spotted owl.
Activities covered by the HCP include
forest management activities and mining
or other extractive activities. With
regard to the northern spotted owl in
particular, the HCP addresses the
harvest, retention, and recruitment of
requisite habitat types and elements
within watershed assessment areas and
individual northern spotted owl activity
sites. The management objectives of the
HCP are to minimize disturbance to
northern spotted owl activity sites,
monitor to determine whether these
efforts maintain a high-density and
productive population of northern
spotted owls, and apply adaptive forest
management provisions as necessary to
evaluate or modify existing conservation
measures. In addition, there are specific
habitat retention requirements to
conserve habitat for foraging, roosting,
and nesting at northern spotted owl
activity sites. The other conservation
elements of the HCP are also expected
to aid in the retention and recruitment
of potential foraging, roosting, and
nesting habitat in watersheds across the
ownership. For example, the HCP
establishes a network of marbled
murrelet conservation areas, outlines
silvicultural requirements associated
with riparian management zones and
mass wasting avoidance areas, imposes
cumulative effects/disturbance index
restrictions, and contains a retention
standard of 10 percent late seral habitat
in each watershed assessment. Each of
these measures is likely to provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
additional suitable habitat for the
northern spotted owl.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands that might trigger such
consultation is limited since there is
little likelihood of an action that will
involve Federal funding, authorization,
or implementation. In addition, since
the lands under the HCP in question are
occupied by the northern spotted owl, if
a Federal nexus were to occur, section
7 consultation would already be
triggered and the Federal agency would
consider the effects of its actions on the
species through a jeopardy analysis.
Although the jeopardy and adverse
modification standards are different, the
additional conservation that could be
attained through the supplemental
adverse modification analysis for
critical habitat under section 7 would
not be significant because the HCP
incorporates protections and
management objectives for the northern
spotted owl and the habitat upon which
it depends for breeding, sheltering, and
foraging activities. The conservation
approach identified in the HCP, along
with our close coordination with the
Humboldt Redwood Company,
addresses the identified threats to
northern spotted owl on lands covered
by the HCP that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. The
conservation measures identified within
the HCP seek to achieve conservation
goals for northern spotted owls and
their habitat, and thus can be of greater
conservation benefit than the
designation of critical habitat, which
does not require specific, proactive
actions. HCPs typically provide for
greater conservation benefits to a
covered species than section 7
consultations because HCPs ensure the
long-term protection and management
of a covered species and its habitat. In
addition, funding for such management
is ensured through the Implementation
Agreement. Such assurances are
typically not provided by section 7
consultations, which in contrast to
HCPs, often do not commit the project
proponent to long-term, special
management practices or protections.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Thus, a section 7 consultation typically
does not afford the lands it covers
similar extensive benefits as an HCP. In
addition, the protections of critical
habitat come into play only in the event
of a Federal action, whereas the
protections of an HCP are in continuous
force.
The HCP conservation measures that
provide direct and indirect benefits to
the northern spotted owl and its habitat
have been implemented continuously
since 1999 on all covered lands owned
and managed by the Humboldt
Redwood Company. Northern spotted
owl conservation measures are subject
to re-evaluation and modification
through active adaptive forest
management provisions in the Plan,
which can be initiated by the Service or
by the Company.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Any information about the
northern spotted owl and its habitat that
reaches a wider audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable. The landowners
in this case are aware of the needs of the
species through the development of
their HCP, in which they have agreed to
take measures to protect the northern
spotted owl and its habitat. Any
additional educational and information
benefits that might arise from critical
habitat designation have been largely
accomplished through the public review
of and comment on the HCP and the
associated permit. The release of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl in 2011 was also preceded
by outreach efforts and public comment
opportunities. In addition, the
rulemaking process associated with
critical habitat designation included
several opportunities for public
comment, and we also held multiple
public information meetings across the
range of the species. Through these
outreach opportunities, land owners,
State agencies, and local governments
have become aware of the current status
of and threats to the northern spotted
owl, and the conservation actions
needed for recovery.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, CALFIRE has
indicated to use that it is unlikely to
impose any new requirements on
project proponents if critical habitat is
designated in areas already subject to
California Forest Practice Rules.
Therefore, we believe this potential
benefit of critical will be limited.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 208,172 ac
(84,244 ha) of lands currently managed
under the Humboldt Redwood Company
(formerly Pacific Lumber Company)
HCP are significant. Although the HCP
was originally negotiated with Pacific
Lumber, we have developed a good
working rapport with Humboldt
Redwood Company, and expect this
conservation partnership to continue
through the implementation of the HCP.
We consider conservation partnerships
with private landowners to represent an
integral component of recovery for
listed species. However, the designation
of critical habitat could have an
unintended negative effect on our
relationship with non-Federal
landowners due to the perceived
imposition of redundant government
regulation. If lands within the Humboldt
Redwood Company HCP are designated
as critical habitat, it would likely have
a chilling effect on our continued ability
to seek new partnerships with future
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement various
conservation actions (such as SHAs,
HCPs, and other conservation plans)
that we would be unable to accomplish
otherwise.
Excluding the approximately 208,172
ac (84,244 ha) owned and managed by
the Humboldt Redwood Company from
critical habitat designation will sustain
and enhance the working relationship
between the Service and the Company,
and will bolster our ability to pursue
additional conservation partnerships for
the benefit of listed species. The
willingness of the Humboldt Redwood
Company to work with us to manage
their forest lands for the benefit of the
northern spotted owl will continue to
reinforce those conservation efforts and
our partnership, which contributes to
the recovery of the species. We consider
this voluntary partnership in
conservation important to our
understanding of the status of northern
spotted owls on non-Federal lands and
necessary for us to implement recovery
actions such as habitat protection and
restoration, and beneficial management
actions for species. In addition, as noted
above, our conservation partnership
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
with the Humboldt Redwood Company
may serve as a model and aid in
fostering future cooperative
relationships with other parties in other
locations for the benefit of listed
species. We consider the positive effect
of excluding proven conservation
partners from critical habitat to be a
significant benefit of exclusion.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh
the Benefits of Inclusion—We have
reviewed and evaluated the exclusion,
from critical habitat designation, of
approximately 208,172 ac (84,244 ha) of
land owned and managed by the
Humboldt Redwood Company. The
benefits of including these lands in the
designation are comparatively small,
since the habitat on the covered lands
is already being monitored and managed
under the current HCP to improve the
habitat elements that are equivalent to
the physical or biological features that
are outlined in this critical habitat rule.
Because one of the primary threats to
the northern spotted owl is habitat loss
and degradation, the consultation
process under section 7 of the Act for
projects with a Federal nexus in areas
occupied by the species, such as is the
case here, will, in evaluating effects to
the northern spotted owl, evaluate the
effects of the action on the conservation
or function of the habitat for the species
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated for these lands. The
analytical requirements to support a
jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
adverse modification determination on
included land. However, the HCP
provides habitat conservation measures
that apply for the benefit of northern
spotted owl. In addition, educational
benefits are limited, since outreach
efforts associated with various
conservation actions for this species
have been extensive, and members of
the public, as well as State and local
agencies, are likely familiar with the
species and its biological needs.
Company personnel are knowledgeable
in the ecology of the northern spotted
owl and have contributed to the body of
scientific information about the
northern spotted owl in the redwood
region. In this case, the regulatory and
education benefits of inclusion are less
than the continued benefit of this
conservation partnership.
Humboldt Redwood Company has
made important contributions to our
understanding of the ecology of the
northern spotted owl and its habitats in
the redwood region, and continues to do
so through HCP implementation and
long-term monitoring. The Service
recognizes the conservation value of
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71963
partnerships with non-Federal
landowners, such as the Humboldt
Redwood Company, which allow us to
achieve conservation measures that
would not otherwise be attainable on
these private lands. We have
determined that our conservation
partnership with the Humboldt
Redwood Company HCP, in conjunction
with the conservation measures
provided in the HCP, provide a greater
benefit than would the regulatory and
educational benefits of critical habitat
designation. Furthermore, we have
determined that the additional
regulatory benefits of designating
critical habitat, afforded through the
section 7(a)(2) consultation process, are
minimal because of limited Federal
nexus and because conservation
measures specifically benefitting the
northern spotted owl and its habitat are
in place through the implementation of
the HCP. Therefore, in consideration of
the factors discussed above in the
Benefits of Exclusion section, including
the relevant impact to current and
future partnerships, we have
determined that the benefits of
exclusion of lands covered by the
Humboldt Redwood Company HCP
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that the exclusion of
208,172 ac (84,244 ha) from the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl of lands owned
and managed by the Humboldt
Redwood Company, as identified in
their HCP, will not result in extinction
of the species because current
conservation efforts under the plan
adequately protect the geographical
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. For projects
having a Federal nexus and affecting
northern spotted owls in occupied
areas, which is the case here, the
jeopardy standard of section 7 of the
Act, coupled with protection provided
by the current Humboldt Redwood
Company HCP, would provide a high
level of assurance that this species will
not go extinct as a result of excluding
these lands from the critical habitat
designation. Based on the above
discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act to exclude from this final
critical habitat designation portions of
the proposed critical habitat units or
subunits that are within the Humboldt
Redwood Company HCP boundary
totaling 208,172 ac (84,244 ha).
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71964
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Regli Estate Habitat Conservation Plan
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are
covered under the Regli Estate HCP in
the Redwood Coast CHU. The permit
issued under this HCP in 1995 (noticed
July 17, 1995 (60 FR 36432) and issued
August 30, 1995) covers 484 ac (196 ha)
in Humboldt County, California, to be
used for forest management activities.
Two listed species, the marbled
murrelet and northern spotted owl, as
well as two nonlisted species, are
covered under the incidental take
permit. Provisions in the HCP for the
northern spotted owl include the
mitigation of impacts from forest
management activities by using singletree selection silviculture that would
retain owl foraging habitat suitability in
all harvested areas; protecting an 80-ac
(32-ha) core nesting area for one of the
two owl pairs known to exist in the HCP
area; and planting conifer tree species
on approximately 73 ac (30 ha) of
currently nonforested habitat within the
HCP area, which would result in a net
increase in forested habitat over time. In
addition, take of owls would be
minimized using seasonal protection
measures specified in the HCP.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands that might trigger such
consultation is limited since there is
little likelihood of an action that will
involve Federal funding, authorization,
or implementation. In addition, since
the lands under the HCP in question are
occupied by the northern spotted owl, if
a Federal nexus were to occur, section
7 consultation would already be
triggered and the Federal agency would
consider the effects of its actions on the
species through a jeopardy analysis. The
additional conservation that could be
attained through the supplemental
adverse modification analysis for
critical habitat under section 7 would
not be significant because this HCP
incorporates measures that specifically
benefit the northern spotted owl and its
habitat. The HCP incorporates
protections and management objectives
for the northern spotted owl designed to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
produce a net increase in forested
habitat for the species over time. The
conservation measures identified within
the HCP seek to achieve conservation
goals for northern spotted owls and
their habitat can be of greater
conservation benefit than the
designation of critical habitat, which
does not require specific, proactive
actions. HCPs typically provide for
greater conservation benefits to a
covered species than section 7
consultations because HCPs ensure the
long-term protection and management
of a covered species and its habitat. In
addition, funding for such management
is ensured through the Implementation
Agreement. Such assurances are
typically not provided by section 7
consultations, which in contrast to
HCPs, often do not commit the project
proponent to long-term, special
management practices or protections.
Thus, a section 7 consultation typically
does not afford the lands it covers
similar extensive benefits as an HCP. In
addition, the protections of critical
habitat come into play only in the event
of a Federal action, whereas the
protections of an HCP are in continuous
force.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Any information about the
northern spotted owl and its habitat that
reaches a wider audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable. The landowners
in this case are aware of the needs of the
species through the development of
their HCP, in which they have agreed to
take measures to protect the northern
spotted owl and its habitat. Any
additional educational and information
benefits that might arise from critical
habitat designation have been largely
accomplished through the public review
of and comment on the HCP and the
associated permit. The release of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl in 2011 was also preceded
by outreach efforts and public comment
opportunities. In addition, the
rulemaking process associated with
critical habitat designation included
several opportunities for public
comment, and we also held multiple
public information meetings across the
range of the species. Through these
outreach opportunities, land owners,
State agencies, and local governments
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
have become aware of the current status
of and threats to the northern spotted
owl, and the conservation actions
needed for recovery.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, CALFIRE has
indicated to us that it is unlikely to
impose any new requirements on
project proponents if critical habitat is
designated in areas already subject to
California Forest Practice Rules.
Therefore, we believe this potential
benefit of critical will be limited.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from critical habitat
designation the approximately 484 ac
(196 ha) of lands currently managed
under the HCP are greater than those
that would accrue from inclusion. We
have developed a conservation
partnership with Regli Estate through
the development and implementation of
the HCP. The conservation measures
that provide a benefit to the northern
spotted owl and its habitat have been,
and will continue to be, implemented
continuously beginning with the
issuance of the Incidental Taking Permit
in 1995 and continuing through the 20year term of the permit, through 2015.
These measures include use of singletree selection silviculture to retain owl
foraging habitat suitability, protection of
an 80-ac (32-ha) core nesting area for
one of the two known owl pairs, and
reforestation of approximately 73 ac (30
ha) of ‘‘old-field’’ grasslands, the latter
which has already been accomplished
and will result in a net increase in
forested habitat over time. A significant
benefit of exclusion would be the
increased likelihood of this landowner
continuing with conservation actions for
the northern spotted owl and its habitat,
such as the development of a new HCP
and application for a new incidental
take permit upon the expiration of their
current permit.
The HCP incorporates protections and
management objectives for the northern
spotted owl and the habitat upon which
it depends for breeding, sheltering, and
foraging activities. The approach used
in the HCP, along with our close
coordination with the landowner,
addresses the identified threats to
northern spotted owl on covered lands
that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. The conservation measures
identified within the HCP seek to
maintain or surpass current habitat
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
suitability for northern spotted owls,
and thus can be of greater conservation
benefit than the designation of critical
habitat, which does not require specific,
proactive actions.
Excluding the approximately 484 ac
(196 ha) of this covered land from
critical habitat designation will sustain
and enhance the working relationship
between the Service and the owner, and
will increase the likelihood that the
owner will update the HCP and apply
for a new incidental take permit when
the current permit expires in 2015. The
willingness of the landowner to work
with the Service to manage federally
listed species will continue to reinforce
those conservation efforts and our
partnership, which contribute toward
achieving recovery of the northern
spotted owl. We consider this voluntary
partnership in conservation important
in maintaining our ability to implement
recovery actions such as habitat
protection and restoration, and
beneficial management actions for
species on non-Federal lands. The
Service recognizes the importance of
non-Federal landowners in contributing
to the conservation and recovery of
listed species, and seeks to maintain
and promote these partnerships for the
benefit of all threatened and endangered
species.
We consider conservation
partnerships with private landowners to
represent an integral component of
recovery for listed species. However, the
designation of critical habitat could
have an unintended negative effect on
our relationship with non-Federal
landowners due to the perceived
imposition of redundant government
regulation. If lands within the Regli
Estate HCP are designated as critical
habitat, it would likely have a chilling
effect on our continued ability to seek
new partnerships with future
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement various
conservation actions (such as SHAs,
HCPs, and other conservation plans)
that we would be unable to accomplish
otherwise. We therefore consider the
positive effect of excluding proven
conservation partners from critical
habitat to be a significant benefit of
exclusion.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh
the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed
and evaluated the exclusion of
approximately 484 ac (196 ha) of land
owned and managed by Regli Estate
from our designation of critical habitat.
The benefits of including these lands in
the designation are relatively small.
Because one of the primary threats to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
the northern spotted owl is habitat loss
and degradation, the consultation
process under section 7 of the Act for
projects with a Federal nexus in areas
occupied by the species, such as is the
case here, will, in evaluating effects to
the northern spotted owl, evaluate the
effects of the action on the conservation
or function of the habitat for the species
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated for these lands. The
analytical requirements to support a
jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
adverse modification determination on
included land. However, the HCP
provides habitat conservation measures
that apply for the benefit of northern
spotted owl, and remains in place
regardless of critical habitat. In addition,
for the reasons described above, the
educational benefits of designation in
this instance are minimal.
Exclusion of these lands from critical
habitat will help foster the partnership
we have developed with the company,
through the continuing implementation
of the HCP. Furthermore, we believe
exclusion of these lands from critical
habitat will increase the likelihood that
the owner will update the HCP and
apply for a new incidental take permit
when the current permit expires in
2015, thereby ensuring continuing
benefits to the northern spotted owl and
its habitat on these lands. The HCP has
provisions for protecting and
maintaining northern spotted owl
habitat that exceed the conservation
benefits that could be obtained through
section 7 consultation. These measures
will not only prevent the degradation of
essential features of the northern
spotted owl, but they will maintain or
improve these features over time.
Finally, this partnership may serve as a
model and aid in fostering future
cooperative relationships with other
parties in other locations for the benefit
of listed species.
In summary, we have determined that
our conservation partnership with the
Regli Estate, in conjunction with the
conservation measures provided in the
HCP, provide a greater benefit than
would the regulatory and educational
benefits of critical habitat designation.
We have determined that the additional
regulatory benefits of designating
critical habitat, afforded through the
section 7(a)(2) consultation process, are
minimal because the probability of a
Federal nexus for projects on this land
is limited in scope and will occur
episodically at most. On the other hand,
the conservation measures specifically
benefitting the northern spotted owl and
its habitat are in continuous effect
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71965
throughout the lands covered by this
HCP. Finally, the Service acknowledges
the importance of conservation
partnerships with private landowners in
achieving the recovery of listed species,
such as the northern spotted owl, and
recognizes the positive benefits that
accrue to conservation through the
exclusion of recognized conservation
partners from critical habitat. Therefore,
in consideration of the factors discussed
above in the Benefits of Exclusion
section, including the relevant impact to
current and future partnerships, we
have determined that the benefits of
exclusion of lands covered by the Regli
Estate Habitat Conservation Plan
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that the exclusion of 484 ac
(196 ha) of Regli Estate lands from the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, as identified in
their HCP, will not result in extinction
of the species because current
conservation efforts under the plan
adequately protect the geographical
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. For projects
having a Federal nexus and affecting
northern spotted owls in occupied
areas, as is the case here, the jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled
with protection provided under the
terms of the HCP, would provide
assurances that this species will not go
extinct as a result of excluding these
lands from the critical habitat
designation. Based on the above
discussion, the Secretary is exercising
his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act to exclude from this final
critical habitat designation portions of
the proposed critical habitat units or
subunits that are within the Regli Estate
Habitat Conservation Plan boundary
totaling 484 ac (196 ha).
Terra Springs Habitat Conservation Plan
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
39 ac (16 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are covered under the Terra Springs
LLC HCP in subunit 6 of the Interior
California Coast CHU. The permit
issued in association with this HCP
(noticed October 29, 2002 (67 FR
65998), and issued in 2004) has a term
of 30 years and includes a total of 76 ac
(31 ha) of covered land second-growth
forest lands in Napa County, California.
This HCP addresses the effects of timber
harvest and conversion of forest lands to
vineyard and subsequent maintenance,
in perpetuity, of suitable northern
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71966
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
spotted owl habitat characteristics on
the remaining 39 ac (16 ha) of mature
(80–120 years) Douglas-fir forest on
covered lands. The HCP provides a
conservation program to minimize and
mitigate for the covered activities,
including a deed restriction that
requires management in perpetuity of 39
ac (16 ha) of the property as nesting and
roosting quality habitat for the northern
spotted owl. In addition to mitigation,
the Plan also includes measures to
minimize take of the northern spotted
owl.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands that might trigger such
consultation is limited since there is
little likelihood of an action that will
involve Federal funding, authorization,
or implementation. In addition, since
the lands under the HCP in question are
occupied by the northern spotted owl, if
a Federal nexus were to occur, section
7 consultation would already be
triggered and the Federal agency would
consider the effects of its actions on the
species through a jeopardy analysis. The
additional conservation that could be
attained through the supplemental
adverse modification analysis for
critical habitat under section 7 would
not be significant because this HCP
incorporates measures that specifically
benefit the northern spotted owl and its
habitat. The HCP incorporates
protections and management objectives
for the northern spotted owl designed to
maintain suitable habitat on the
property for the species in perpetuity.
The conservation measures identified
within the HCP seek to achieve
conservation goals for northern spotted
owls and their habitat that can be of
greater conservation benefit than the
designation of critical habitat, which
does not require specific, proactive
actions. HCPs typically provide for
greater conservation benefits to a
covered species than section 7
consultations because HCPs ensure the
long-term protection and management
of a covered species and its habitat. In
addition, funding for such management
is ensured through the Implementation
Agreement. Such assurances are
typically not provided by section 7
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
consultations, which in contrast to
HCPs, often do not commit the project
proponent to long-term, special
management practices or protections.
Thus, a section 7 consultation typically
does not afford the lands it covers
similar extensive benefits as an HCP. In
addition, the protections of critical
habitat come into play only in the event
of a Federal action, whereas the
protections of an HCP are in continuous
force.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. The landowners in this case are
aware of the needs of the species
through the development of their HCP,
in which they have agreed to take
measures to protect the northern spotted
owl and its habitat. Any additional
educational and information benefits
that might arise from critical habitat
designation have been largely
accomplished through the public review
of and comment on the HCP and the
associated permit. The release of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl in 2011 was also preceded
by outreach efforts and public comment
opportunities. In addition, the
rulemaking process associated with
critical habitat designation included
several opportunities for public
comment, and we also held multiple
public information meetings across the
range of the species. Through these
outreach opportunities, land owners,
State agencies, and local governments
have become aware of the current status
of and threats to the northern spotted
owl, and the conservation actions
needed for recovery.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, CALFIRE has
indicated to use that it is unlikely to
impose any new requirements on
project proponents if critical habitat is
designated in areas already subject to
California Forest Practice Rules.
Therefore, we believe this potential
benefit of critical will be limited.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 39 ac (16 ha)
of lands currently managed under the
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
HCP are substantial. We have developed
a conservation partnership with Terra
Springs through the development and
implementation of the HCP.
Excluding the approximately 39 ac
(16 ha) owned and managed by Terra
Springs, LLC from critical habitat
designation will sustain and enhance
the working relationship between the
Service and the company. The
willingness of the company to work
with the Service to manage federally
listed species will continue to reinforce
those conservation efforts and our
partnership, which contribute toward
achieving recovery of the northern
spotted owl. We consider this voluntary
partnership in conservation important
in maintaining our ability to implement
recovery actions, such as habitat
protection and restoration, and
beneficial management actions for
species on non-Federal lands. The
Service recognizes the importance of
non-Federal landowners in contributing
to the conservation and recovery of
listed species, and seeks to maintain
and promote these partnerships for the
benefit of all threatened and endangered
species.
We consider conservation
partnerships with private landowners to
represent an integral component of
recovery for listed species. However, the
designation of critical habitat could
have an unintended negative effect on
our relationship with non-Federal
landowners due to the perceived
imposition of redundant government
regulation. If lands within the Terra
Springs HCP are designated as critical
habitat, it would likely have a chilling
effect on our continued ability to seek
new partnerships with future
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement various
conservation actions (such as SHAs,
HCPs, and other conservation plans)
that we would be unable to accomplish
otherwise. We therefore consider the
positive effect of excluding proven
conservation partners from critical
habitat to be a significant benefit of
exclusion.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh
the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed
and evaluated the exclusion of
approximately 39 ac (16 ha) of land
owned and managed by Terra Springs,
LLC from our designation of critical
habitat. The benefits of including these
lands in the designation are relatively
small. Because one of the primary
threats to the northern spotted owl is
habitat loss and degradation, the
consultation process under section 7 of
the Act for projects with a Federal nexus
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
in areas occupied by the species, such
as is the case here, will, in evaluating
effects to the northern spotted owl,
evaluate the effects of the action on the
conservation or function of the habitat
for the species regardless of whether
critical habitat is designated for these
lands. The analytical requirements to
support a jeopardy determination on
excluded land are similar, but not
identical, to the requirements in an
analysis for an adverse modification
determination on included land.
However, the HCP provides habitat
conservation measures that apply for the
benefit of northern spotted owl, and
remains in place regardless of critical
habitat. These measures will not only
prevent the degradation of essential
features of the northern spotted owl, but
will preserve some suitable northern
spotted owl habitat in perpetuity.
We have determined that the
preservation of our conservation
partnership with Terra Springs, in
conjunction with the conservation
measures provided by the HCP, provide
a greater benefit than would the
regulatory and educational benefits of
critical habitat designation. The
additional regulatory benefits of
designating critical habitat, afforded
through the section 7(a)(2) consultation
process, are minimal because there is
little probability of a Federal nexus on
these private lands. On the other hand,
the conservation measures specifically
benefitting the northern spotted owl and
its habitat are in continuous effect
throughout the lands covered by this
HCP. Finally, the Service acknowledges
the importance of conservation
partnerships with private landowners in
achieving the recovery of listed species,
such as the northern spotted owl, and
recognizes the positive benefits that
accrue to conservation through the
exclusion of recognized conservation
partners from critical habitat. Therefore,
in consideration of the factors discussed
above in the Benefits of Exclusion
section, including the relevant impact to
current and future partnerships, we
have determined that the benefits of
exclusion of lands covered by the Terra
Springs Habitat Conservation Plan
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that the exclusion of 39 ac
(16 ha) from the designation of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl of
lands owned and managed by Terra
Springs, LLC, as identified in their HCP,
will not result in extinction of the
species because current conservation
efforts under the plan adequately
protect the geographical areas
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
containing the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. For projects having a
Federal nexus and affecting northern
spotted owls in occupied areas, as is the
case here, the jeopardy standard of
section 7 of the Act, coupled with
protection provided under the terms of
the HCP would provide assurances that
this species will not go extinct as a
result of excluding these lands from the
critical habitat designation. Based on
the above discussion, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this
final critical habitat designation
portions of the proposed critical habitat
units or subunits that are within the
Terra Springs, LLC Habitat Conservation
Plan boundary totaling 76 ac (31 ha).
State of Oregon
No lands covered under an HCP in the
State of Oregon are designated as critical
habitat.
State of Washington
Cedar River Watershed Habitat
Conservation Plan in King County,
Washington
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, totaling
approximately 3,244 ac (1,313 ha) that
are covered under the Cedar River
Watershed HCP (Cedar River HCP) in
King County, Washington. The permit
associated with this HCP was noticed in
the Federal Register on December 11,
1998 (63 FR 68469), and issued on April
21, 2000. The term of the permit and
HCP is 50 years. The plan was prepared
to address declining populations of
salmon, steelhead, bull trout, northern
spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and 76
unlisted species of fish and wildlife in
the Cedar River watershed. The City of
Seattle’s HCP covers 90,535 ac (36,368
ha) of City-owned land in the upper
Cedar River watershed and the City’s
water supply and hydroelectric
operations on the Cedar River, which
flows into Lake Washington.
Participants involved in the
development and implementation of the
Cedar River HCP include the City of
Seattle, Seattle City Light, Seattle Public
Utilities, Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Washington
Department of Ecology, Muckelshoot
Indian Tribe, King County, and several
conservation-oriented nongovernmental
organizations.
At the time the HCP was approved,
the 90,535 ac (36,638 ha) in upper Cedar
River Watershed, owned and managed
by the City of Seattle as a closed-
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71967
watershed, consisted of approximately
13,889 ac (5,620 ha) of old growth forest
(190–800 years old), 91 ac (37 ha) of
late-successional (120–189 years old),
1,074 ac (435 ha) of mature forests (80–
119 years old), and 70,223 ac (28,418
ha) of second growth forests (greater
than 80 years old). Conservation
strategies in the HCP for covered lands
are centered around protecting and
preserving the remaining old growth,
late-successional, and mature forest
habitats; accelerating the development
of mature forest characteristics in the
existing second growth forests though a
combination of riparian, ecological, and
restoration thinnings; and minimizing
human disturbance through road
closures and road abandonments,
elimination of commercial harvest on
covered lands, and continued
management of the covered lands as a
closed municipal watershed.
At the time the HCP was approved,
only two northern spotted owl
reproductive site centers and two singleresident site centers had been identified
on covered lands. In addition, two
reproductive site enters located outside
the watershed boundary had owl circles
that partially overlap the Cedar River
watershed. The boundaries of all known
reproductive site centers are protected
by the City of Seattle’s commitment to
conservation strategies and speciesspecific measures in the Cedar River
HCP. The objectives of the northern
spotted owl conservation strategy are to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts
of watershed activities to northern
spotted owls, provide a long-term net
benefit to the northern spotted owl, and
contribute to the owl’s recovery. These
objectives are to be accomplished by
protecting existing habitat; enhancing
and recruiting significantly more
nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal
habitat in the Cedar River watershed;
and protecting nest sites, reproductive
pairs, and their offspring from
disturbances. In addition, the City of
Seattle committed to implementing a
monitoring and research program that
will be used to help determine if the
conservation strategies for the northern
spotted owl achieve their conservation
objectives and support the adaptive
management program designed to
provide a means by which conservation
measures could be altered to meet these
conservation objectives. Elements of the
monitoring and research program
important to northern spotted owls
include a project to improve the City’s
forest habitat inventory and data base, a
project to track changes in forest habitat
characteristics, a study to classify oldgrowth types in the Cedar River
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71968
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
watershed, and projects to monitor all
forest restoration efforts.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find that
there is minimal benefit from
designating critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl within the Cedar
River HCP because, as explained above,
these covered lands are already
managed for the conservation of the
species over the term of the HCP. As
discussed above, the inclusion of these
covered lands as critical habitat could
provide some additional Federal
regulatory benefits for the species
consistent with the conservation
standard based on the Ninth Circuit
Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. A
benefit of inclusion would be the
requirement of a Federal agency to
ensure that their actions on these nonFederal lands would not likely result in
the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. However, this
additional analysis to determine
whether a Federal action is likely to
result in destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat is not
likely to be significant because these
covered lands are not under Federal
ownership making the application of
section 7 less likely, and we are not
aware of any other potential Federal
nexus. In addition, any Federal agency
proposing a Federal action on these
covered lands would have to consider
the conservation restrictions on these
lands and incorporate measures
necessary to ensure the conservation of
these resources, thereby reducing any
incremental benefit critical habitat may
have.
The incremental benefit from
designating critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl within the Cedar
River HCP is further minimized
because, as explained above, these
covered lands are already managed for
the conservation of the species over the
term of the HCP and the conservation
measures provided by the HCP will
provide greater protection to northern
spotted owl habitat than the designation
of critical habitat.
The Cedar River HCP provides for the
needs of the northern spotted owl by
protecting and preserving thousands of
acres of existing suitable northern
spotted owl habitat in the Cedar River
watershed, committing to the
enhancement and recruitment of
approximately 70,000 ac (28,328 ha) of
additional habitat over the term of the
Cedar River HCP, and implementing
species-specific conservation measures
designed to avoid and minimize impacts
to northern spotted owls. Monitoring
and research and adaptive management
programs were developed to track HCP
progress over the term of the permit and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
provide critical feedback on
management actions that allow for
management changes in response to this
feedback or to larger trends outside the
HCP boundaries such as climate change.
Therefore, designation of critical habitat
would be redundant on these lands, and
would not provide additional
measureable protections.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Designation of critical habitat
would inform State agencies and local
governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local
ordinances, such as the Washington
State Growth Management Act, which
encourage the protection of ‘‘critical
areas’’ including fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas. Any
information about the northern spotted
owl and its habitat that reaches a wider
audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
However, the additional educational
and informational benefits that might
arise from critical habitat designation
here have been largely accomplished
through the public review and comment
of the HCP, Environmental Impact
Statement, and Implementation
Agreement. Through these processes,
this HCP included intensive public
involvement.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, in Washington, State
forest practices regulations provide an
exemption for review for lands managed
under an HCP. Thus, even should the
State respond to designation of critical
habitat by instituting additional
protections, the HCP will not be subject
to those protections as the species is
considered already addressed, and
therefore no additional benefit would
accrue through State regulations.
Benefits of Exclusion—Compared to
the minimal benefits of inclusion of this
area in critical habitat, the benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 3,244 ac
(1,313 ha) of lands currently managed
under the HCP are more substantial.
HCP conservation measures that
provide a benefit to the northern spotted
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
owl and its habitat have been
implemented continuously since 1998
on all covered lands owned and
managed under the Cedar River HCP.
Excluding the lands managed under the
Cedar River HCP from critical habitat
designation will sustain and enhance
the working relationship between the
Service and the permit holder.
Excluding lands within HCPs from
critical habitat designation can also
facilitate our ability to seek new
partnerships with future HCP
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be
unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands
within HCP plan areas are designated as
critical habitat, it would likely have a
negative effect on our ability to establish
new partnerships to develop HCPs,
particularly large, regional HCPs that
involve numerous participants and/or
address landscape-level conservation of
species and habitats. By excluding these
lands, we preserve our current
partnerships and encourage additional
conservation actions in the future.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the Cedar River HCP from the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl outweigh the
benefits of including this area in critical
habitat. The regulatory and
informational benefits of inclusion will
be minimal. Because one of the primary
threats to the northern spotted owl is
habitat loss and degradation, the
consultation process under section 7 of
the Act for projects with a Federal nexus
will, in evaluating effects to the
northern spotted owl, evaluate the
effects of the action on the conservation
or functionality of the habitat for the
species regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated for these lands.
The analytical requirements to support
a jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
adverse modification determination on
included land. However, the additional
benefits of inclusion on the section 7
process are relatively unlikely because a
Federal nexus on these relatively remote
forest lands would rarely occur. If one
were to occur, it would most likely be
a linear project such as a powerline,
pipeline, or transportation. In the last 12
years of the permit, none have occurred.
In addition, the management
strategies of the Cedar River HCP are
designed to protect and enhance habitat
for the northern spotted owl. The Cedar
River HCP includes species-specific
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
avoidance and minimization measures,
monitoring requirements to track
success and ensure proper
implementation, and forest management
practices and habitat conservation
objectives that benefit the northern
spotted owl and its habitat which
further minimizes the benefits that
would be provided as a result of a
critical habitat designation.
On the other hand, the benefit of
excluding these lands is that it will help
us maintain an important and successful
conservation partnership with a major
city, and may encourage others to join
in conservation partnerships as well.
For these reasons, we have determined
that the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion in this case.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of
approximately 3,244 ac (1,313 ha) of
lands covered under the Cedar River
HCP will not result in extinction of the
northern spotted owl because the Cedar
River HCP provides for the needs of the
northern spotted owl by protecting and
preserving thousands of acres of existing
suitable northern spotted owl habitat in
the Cedar River watershed, committing
to the enhancement and recruitment of
additional habitat over the term of the
Cedar River HCP, and implementing
species-specific conservation measures
designed to avoid and minimize impacts
to northern spotted owls. In addition,
monitoring, research, and adaptive
management programs were developed
to track HCP progress and provide
critical feedback on management actions
that allow for management changes in
response. Further, for projects having a
Federal nexus and affecting northern
spotted owls in occupied areas, the
jeopardy standard of section 7 of the
Act, coupled with protection provided
by the Cedar River HCP, would provide
a level of assurance that this species
will not go extinct as a result of
excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. The species is also
protected from take under section 9 of
the Act. For these reasons we find that
exclusion of these lands within the
Cedar River HCP will not result in
extinction of the northern spotted owl.
Based on the above discussion, the
Secretary is exercising his discretion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to
exclude from this final critical habitat
designation portions of the proposed
critical habitat units or subunits that are
within the Cedar River Watershed HCP
boundary totaling about 3,244 ac (1,313
ha).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Green River Water Supply Operations
and Watershed Protection Habitat
Conservation Plan
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, totaling
approximately 3,162 ac (1,280 ha) that
are covered under Tacoma Water’s
Green River Water Supply Operations
and Watershed Protection HCP (Green
River HCP) in the State of Washington.
The permit associated with this HCP
was noticed in the Federal Register on
August 21, 1998 (63 FR 44918), and
issued on July 6, 2001. The term of the
permit and HCP is 50 years. The Green
River HCP addresses upstream and
downstream fish passage issues, flows
in the middle and lower Green River,
and timber and watershed-management
activities on 15,843 ac (6,411 ha) of
Tacoma-owned land in the upper Green
River Watershed. The Green River HCP
covers 32 species of fish and wildlife,
including the northern spotted owl and
10 other listed species, under an
agreement designed to allow the
continuation of water-supply operations
on the Green River, forest management
practice in the upper Green River
watershed, and aquatic restoration and
enhancement activities. The plan also
provides for fish passage into and out of
the upper Green River Watershed.
The City of Tacoma manages
approximately 15,843 ac (6,411 ha) of
covered lands in the upper Green River
watershed for water quality benefits and
timber harvest. The Green River HCP
divides Tacoma-owned lands into three
distinct management zones, and
contains a series of conservation
measures that address upland forest
management, riparian buffers, and avoid
or minimize impacts to covered species.
Each management zone has specific
goals and objectives that focus on water
quality, fish and wildlife, and timber
management. The Natural Zone contains
5,850 ac (2,370 ha). In this zone,
Tacoma is committed to conduct no
timber harvest management except for
danger tree removal. The long-term goal
is to allow these timber stands to
develop into late-seral (greater than 155
years old) and mature timber (106–155
years old) conditions through natural
succession. The Conservation Zone
contains 5,180 ac (2,080 ha) of covered
lands. In this zone, Tacoma will
conduct no even-aged harvest in conifer
stands and no harvest of any form in
stands over 100 years old (except for
danger tree removal). Tacoma may
conduct uneven-aged harvest in stands
less than 100 years old to improve stand
condition. Once stands reach 100 years
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71969
of age, no timber harvest will be
conducted and stands will be allowed to
develop through natural succession. The
Commercial Zone contains 3,858 ac
(1,561 ha) of covered lands. Stands in
this zone will be managed sustainably
for timber production on a 70-year
rotation. A considerable area of lateseral and mature forest capable of
supporting nesting, roosting, foraging,
and dispersal of northern spotted owls
is expected to develop over time in the
Natural Zone, Conservation Zone, and
to a lesser extent, riparian buffers. Over
the term of the permit, the amount of
late-seral forest is expect to increase
from 41 ac (17 ha) to 292 ac (118 ha),
and the amount of mature forest is
expected to increase from 268 ac (108
ha) to 4,027 ac (1,630 ha).
At the time the permit was approved,
there were 16 known northern spotted
owl activity centers within 1.8 miles of
covered lands. Fifteen were
reproductive site centers and one was a
single-resident site center. Only the
single-resident site center was actually
located on covered lands. Speciesspecific conservation measures are
designed to protect habitat around
known nest sites and minimize
disturbance during the nesting season.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find that
there is minimal benefit from
designating critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl within the Green
River HCP because, as explained above,
these covered lands are already
managed for the conservation of the
species over the term of the HCP. As
discussed above the inclusion of these
covered lands as critical habitat could
provide some additional Federal
regulatory benefits for the species
consistent with the conservation
standard based on the Ninth Circuit
Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. A
benefit of inclusion would be the
requirement of a Federal agency to
ensure that their actions on these nonFederal lands would not likely result in
the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. However, this
additional analysis to determine
whether a Federal action is likely to
result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat is not
likely to be significant not only because
a Federal nexus is unlikely (these
covered lands are not under Federal
ownership), any Federal agency
proposing a Federal action on these
covered lands would likely consider the
conservation value of these lands and
take the necessary steps to avoid
adverse effects to northern spotted owl
habitat. If a Federal nexus did occur, it
would most likely be in the context of
a linear project such as a powerline,
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71970
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
pipeline, or transportation project. In
the last 11 years of the permit, none
have occurred.
Another factor that minimizes any
regulatory benefits that might result
from critical habitat designation is that
the Green River HCP already provides
for the needs of the northern spotted
owl by protecting and preserving acres
of existing suitable northern spotted owl
habitat in the Green River watershed,
committing to the enhancement and
recruitment of additional area of
suitable habitat over the term of the
Green River HCP, and implementing
species-specific conservation measures
designed to avoid and minimize impacts
to northern spotted owls. Monitoring
was developed to track HCP progress
over the term of the permit and provide
critical feedback on management
actions, which allow for management
changes in response to this feedback or
to larger trends outside the HCP
boundaries such as climate change.
Therefore, designation of critical habitat
would be redundant on these lands, and
would not provide additional
measurable protections.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Designation of critical habitat
would inform State agencies and local
governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local
ordinances, such as the Washington
State Growth Management Act, which
encourage the protection of ‘‘critical
areas’’ including fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas. Any
information about the northern spotted
owl and its habitat that reaches a wider
audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
However, the additional educational
and informational benefits that might
arise from critical habitat designation
here have been largely accomplished
through the public review and comment
on the HCP, Environmental Impact
Statement, and Implementation
Agreement.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, in Washington, State
forest practices regulations provide an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
exemption for review for lands managed
under an HCP. Thus, even should the
State respond to designation of critical
habitat by instituting additional
protections, the HCP will not be subject
to those protections as the species is
considered already addressed, and
therefore no additional benefit would
accrue through State regulations.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 3,162 ac
(1,280 ha) of lands currently managed
under the HCP are substantial. HCP
conservation measures that provide a
benefit to the northern spotted owl and
its habitat have been implemented
continuously since 2001 on all covered
lands owned and managed under the
Green River HCP. Excluding the lands
managed under the Green River HCP
from critical habitat designation will
sustain and enhance the working
relationship between the Service and
the permit holder.
Excluding lands within HCPs from
critical habitat designation may also
support our continued ability to seek
new partnerships with future HCP
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be
unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands
within HCP plan areas are designated as
critical habitat, it would likely have a
negative effect on our ability to establish
new partnerships to develop HCPs,
particularly HCPs address landscapelevel conservation of species and
habitats. By excluding these lands, we
preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional conservation
actions in the future.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the Green River HCP from the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl outweigh the
benefits of including this area in critical
habitat. The regulatory and
informational benefits of inclusion will
be minimal. Because one of the primary
threats to the northern spotted owl is
habitat loss and degradation, the
consultation process under section 7 of
the Act for projects with a Federal nexus
will, in evaluating effects to the
northern spotted owl, evaluate the
effects of the action on the conservation
or functionality of the habitat for the
species regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated for these lands.
The analytical requirements to support
a jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
adverse modification determination on
included land. However, any benefits
from the section 7 process are unlikely
because Federal projects would be rare
on these relatively remote forest lands.
The regulatory benefits of inclusion are
even more minimal in light of the fact
that the Green River HCP includes
species-specific avoidance and
minimization measures, monitoring
requirements to track success and
ensure proper implementation, and
forest management practices and habitat
conservation objectives that benefit the
northern spotted owl and its habitat,
which exceeds any conservation value
provided as a result of a critical habitat
designation. On the other hand, the
benefit of excluding these lands is that
it will help us maintain an important
and successful conservation partnership
with a major city, and may encourage
others to join in conservation
partnerships as well. Therefore, we find
that the benefits of exclusion of the
lands covered by Green River HCP
outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of
approximately 3,162 ac (1,280 ha) of
lands covered under the Green River
HCP will not result in extinction of the
northern spotted owl because the Green
River HCP provides for the needs of the
northern spotted owl by protecting and
preserving acres of existing suitable
northern spotted owl habitat in the
Green River watershed, committing to
the enhancement and recruitment of
additional area of suitable habitat over
the term of the Green River HCP, and
implementing species-specific
conservation measures designed to
avoid and minimize impacts to northern
spotted owls. Monitoring was developed
to track HCP progress over the term of
the permit and provide critical feedback
on management actions, which allow for
management changes in response to this
feedback or to larger trends outside the
HCP boundaries such as climate change.
The conservation measures provided by
this HCP have been implemented
continuously since 1998 on all covered
lands owned and managed under the
Green River HCP. Further, for projects
having a Federal nexus and affecting
northern spotted owls in occupied
areas, the jeopardy standard of section
7 of the Act, coupled with protection
provided by the Green River HCP,
would provide a level of assurance that
this species will not go extinct as a
result of excluding these lands from the
critical habitat designation. The species
is also protected by ESA section 9,
which prohibits the take of listed
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
species. For these reasons, we find that
exclusion of these lands within the
Green River HCP will not result in
extinction of the northern spotted owl.
Based on the above discussion, the
Secretary is exercising his discretion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to
exclude from this final critical habitat
designation portions of the proposed
critical habitat units or subunits that are
within the Green River HCP boundary
totaling about 3,162 ac (1,280 ha).
Plum Creek Timber Central Cascades
Habitat Conservation Plan
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, totaling about
33,144 ac (13,413 ha) that are covered
under the Plum Creek Timber Central
Cascades HCP (Plum Creek HCP) in the
State of Washington. The permit
associated with the Plum Creek HCP
was first noticed in the Federal Register
on November 17, 1995 (60 FR 57722),
issued on June 27, 1996, and later
modified in December of 1999 as
noticed on February 10, 2000 (65 FR
6590). The permit has a term of 50 years
(with an option to extend to 100 years
if certain conditions are met) and
currently covers 84,600 ac (34,236 ha) of
lands in the Interstate-90 corridor in
King and Kittitas Counties, Washington.
The HCP includes over 315 species of
fish and wildlife, including the northern
spotted owl and 7 other listed species.
The plan addresses forest-management
activities across an area of industrial
timberlands in Washington’s central
Cascade Mountains, and provides for
management of the northern spotted owl
based on landscape conditions tailored
to the guidelines provided by the NWFP
by providing additional protection to
northern spotted owl sites near latesuccessional reserves. Wildlife trees are
retained in buffers of natural features
(e.g., caves, wetlands, springs, cliffs,
talus slopes) and streams, as well as
scattered and clumped within harvest
units. The HCP also requires Plum
Creek to maintain and grow nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat as well as
habitat that can be used for foraging and
dispersal. They are also required to
provide forests of various structural
stages across all of their HCP
ownerships. This commitment of owl
habitat and forest stages, in combination
with wildlife trees retained within
harvest units and stream and landscapefeature buffers will provide a matrix of
habitat conditions that complements the
owl habitat provided in the Plum Creek
HCP and nearby LSRs. Stands
containing scattered leave trees
following harvest will be expected to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
become more valuable for northern
spotted owls at earlier ages than those
harvested using previous methods.
At the time the permit was approved,
there were 107 known northern spotted
owl activity centers within 1.82 miles of
covered lands, which included
reproductive site centers, single-resident
site centers, and historic sites. A
detailed description of each sites history
is provided in the HCP and associated
technical papers.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands is small unless it is a larger project
covering adjacent Federal lands as well,
in which case section 7 consultation
would already be triggered and the
Federal agency would consider the
effects of its actions on the species. In
addition, although the standards of
jeopardy and adverse modification are
different, the margin of conservation
that could be attained through section 7
would not be significant in light of the
benefits already derived from the HCP.
HCPs typically provide for greater
conservation benefits to a covered
species than section 7 consultations
because HCPs ensure the long-term
protection and management of a covered
species and its habitat. In addition,
funding for such management is
ensured through the Implementation
Agreement. Such assurances are
typically not provided by section 7
consultations, which in contrast to
HCPs, often do not commit the project
proponent to long-term, special
management practices or protections.
Thus, a section 7 consultation typically
does not afford the lands it covers
similar extensive benefits as a HCP. The
development and implementation of
HCPs provide other important
conservation benefits, including the
development of biological information
to guide the conservation efforts and
assist in species conservation, and the
creation of innovative solutions to
conserve species while meeting the
needs of the applicant. In this case,
substantial information has been
developed from the research,
monitoring, and surveys conducted
under the Plum Creek HCP.
There is minimal incremental benefit
from designating critical habitat for the
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71971
northern spotted owl within the Plum
Creek HCP because, as explained above,
these covered lands are already
managed for the conservation of the
species over the term of the HCP and the
conservation measures provided by the
HCP will provide greater protection to
northern spotted owl habitat than the
designation of critical habitat, which
provides regulatory protections only in
the event of a Federal action. The Plum
Creek HCP provides for the needs of the
northern spotted owl by protecting and
preserving landscape levels of suitable
northern spotted owl nesting, roosting,
and foraging habitat as well as foraging
and dispersal habitat over the term of
the HCP in strategic landscapes, and
implementing species-specific
conservation measures designed to
avoid and minimize effects to northern
spotted owls. The HCP also provides for
the ability to make ongoing adjustments
in a number of forms including active
adaptive forest management. The ability
to change is crucial to meet new
recovery challenges. The Service
negotiated this plan with Plum Creek,
which contains mandatory permit
conditions in the form of HCP
commitments, and continues to be
involved in its ongoing implementation.
The Service conducts compliance
monitoring on the covered lands and
routinely meets with Plum Creek to
discuss ongoing implementation. The
HCP contains provisions that address
ownership changes and the outcomes
expected by the Service. Monitoring was
developed to track HCP progress over
the term of the permit and provide
feedback on management actions.
Therefore, designation of critical habitat
would be redundant on these lands, and
would not provide additional
measureable protections.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Designation of critical habitat
would inform State agencies and local
governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local
ordinances, such as the Washington
State Growth Management Act, which
encourage the protection of ‘‘critical
areas’’ including fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas. Any
information about the northern spotted
owl and its habitat that reaches a wider
audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71972
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
However, Plum Creek is knowledgeable
about the northern spotted owl and the
company has made substantial
contributions in research and science
for the species. The additional
educational and informational benefits
that might arise from critical habitat
designation here have been largely
accomplished through the public review
and comment of the HCP,
Environmental Impact Statement, and
Implementation Agreement, as well as
the supplemental Environmental Impact
Statements associated with the
modification of the HCP and the I–90
Land Exchange. Through these
processes, this HCP included intensive
public involvement. This HCP
continues to receive a high degree of
scrutiny and study by academics, as
well as informational releases to the
general public and has resulted in
improved understanding by the public.
This level of exposure in local
newspapers and television stations
exceeds the level of education that
would come from a designation that
would be read by few people in the
public. Moreover, the rulemaking
process associated with critical habitat
designation includes several
opportunities for public comment, and
thus also provides for public education.
Through these outreach opportunities,
land owners, State agencies, and local
governments have become more aware
of the status of and threats to the
northern spotted owl and the
conservation actions needed for
recovery.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, in Washington, State
forest practices regulations provide an
exemption for review for lands managed
under an HCP. Thus, even should the
State respond to designation of critical
habitat by instituting additional
protections, the HCP will not be subject
to those protections as the species is
considered already addressed, and
therefore no additional benefit would
accrue through State regulations.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 33,144 ac
(13,413 ha) of lands currently managed
under the HCP are more substantial. The
designation of critical habitat could
have an unintended negative effect on
our relationship with non-Federal
landowners due to the perceived
imposition of redundant government
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
regulation. If lands within the Plum
Creek HCP area are designated as
critical habitat, it would likely have a
negative effect on our continued ability
to seek new partnerships with future
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement
conservation actions (such as SHAs,
HCPs, and other conservation plans,
particularly those that address
landscape-level conservation of species
and habitats) that we would be unable
to accomplish otherwise. This HCP is
currently serving as a model for ongoing
and future efforts. Due to the high level
of visibility in the Interstate-90 corridor
and the overlap with recreational lands
used by many residents of the Seattle
metropolitan area, this HCP received an
unusual amount of scrutiny. Because it
was one of the first HCPs to address
species using a habitat-based approach,
it set a high standard for application of
the best available science. Plum Creek
has been a long-standing partner and
advocate for HCPs across the nation.
They are viewed as leaders in their
industry and as an example in the HCP
community. By excluding these lands,
we preserve our current private and
local conservation partnerships and
encourage additional conservation
actions in the future.
In addition, exclusion may encourage
Plum Creek to engage in further land
exchanges or sales of their lands for
conservation purposes. This HCP is
located in a key landscape between the
I–90 and other Federal lands and
represents a unique opportunity in
maintaining northern spotted owls at
the western extreme of the Cascades,
which may support dispersal between
the Cascades. This HCP contributes
meaningfully to the recovery of the
northern spotted owl and serves as an
example to other industrial companies.
Since issuance of the Plum Creek HCP,
Plum Creek’s ownership has decreased
from about 170,000 ac (68,797 ha) to
about 81,000 ac (32,780 ha). This
decrease is mostly due to land
exchanges and sales by Plum Creek for
conservation purposes. Conservation
sales have been completed on a number
of sensitive sites. Plum Creek has
worked to find conservation buyers and
has responded to requests from agencies
and conservation groups. They have
sold lands to a various parties using
differing funding mechanisms, but sold
lands have been transferred to public
ownership, primarily the U.S. Forest
Service. All of these lands have been
placed in conservation status. If lands
within the Plum Creek HCP plan areas
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
are designated as critical habitat, it
would likely have a negative effect on
the willingness of various groups and
funding sources to accomplish these
conservation sales, and could also
negatively affect Plum Creek’s
willingness to participate in these
acquisition processes.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—The benefits of
including these lands in the designation
are small. Because one of the primary
threats to the northern spotted owl is
habitat loss and degradation, the
consultation process under section 7 of
the Act for projects with a Federal nexus
will, in evaluating effects to the
northern spotted owl, evaluate the
effects of the action on the conservation
or functionality of the habitat for the
species regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated for these lands.
The analytical requirements to support
a jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
adverse modification determination on
included land. However, the HCP
contains provisions for protecting and
maintaining northern spotted owl
habitat that far exceed the conservation
benefits afforded through section 7
consultation. It provides for
comprehensive measures applied across
a large landscape that will benefit
spotted owls. Plum Creek personnel are
knowledgeable in the ecology of the
northern spotted owl and have
contributed to the body of scientific
information about the northern spotted
owl. In this instance, the regulatory and
educational reasons for inclusion have
much less benefit than the continued
benefit of the HCP, including the
educational benefits derived from the
HCP.
On the other hand, the benefits of
exclusion will continue the positive
relationship we currently have with
Plum Creek and encourage others to
engage in conservation partnerships
such as HCPs as well. For these reasons,
we determine that the benefits of
excluding the Plum Creek Cascades HCP
from the designation of critical habitat
for the northern spotted owl outweigh
the benefits of including this area in
critical habitat.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of
approximately 33,144 ac (13,413 ha) of
lands covered under the Plum Creek
HCP will not result in extinction of the
northern spotted owl because the Plum
Creek HCP provides for the needs of the
northern spotted owl by protecting and
preserving landscape levels of suitable
northern spotted owl nesting, roosting,
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
and foraging habitat as well as foraging
and dispersal habitat over the term of
the HCP in strategic landscapes, and
implementing species-specific
conservation measures designed to
avoid and minimize effects to northern
spotted owls. Monitoring was developed
to track HCP progress over the term of
the permit and provide feedback on
management actions. The Plum Creek
HCP provides for the ability to make
ongoing adjustments in a number of
forms, including active adaptive forest
management. The ability to change is
crucial to meet new recovery challenges.
The HCP contains provisions that
address ownership changes and the
outcomes expected by the Service.
Further, for projects having a Federal
nexus and affecting northern spotted
owls in occupied areas, the jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled
with protection provided by the Plum
Creek HCP, would provide a level of
assurance that this species will not go
extinct as a result of excluding these
lands from the critical habitat
designation. We find that exclusion of
these lands within the Plum Creek HCP
will not result in extinction of the
northern spotted owl. Based on the
above discussion, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this
final critical habitat designation
portions of the proposed critical habitat
units or subunits that are within the
Plum Creek HCP boundary totaling
about 33,144 ac (13,413 ha).
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources State Lands Habitat
Conservation Plan
Washington State lands totaling
approximately 225,751 ac (91,358 ha)
that are covered and managed under the
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources State Lands Habitat
Conservation Plan (WDNR HCP), are
excluded from this critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. The WDNR HCP covers
approximately 1.7 million ac (730,000
ha) of State forest lands within the range
of the northern spotted owl in the State
of Washington. The majority of the area
covered by the HCP is west of the
Cascade Crest and includes the Olympic
Experimental State Forest. The HCP area
on the east side of the Cascade Range
includes lands within the range of the
northern spotted owl. The permit
associated with this HCP, issued
January 30, 1997, was noticed in the
Federal Register on April 5, 1996 (61 FR
15297), has a term of 70 to 100 years,
and covers activities primarily
associated with commercial forest
management, but also includes limited
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
nontimber activities such as some
recreational activities. The HCP covers
all species, including the northern
spotted owl and other listed species.
The HCP addressed multiple species
through a combination of strategies. The
HCP includes a series of Natural Area
Preserves and Natural Resource
Conservation Areas. The marbled
murrelet is addressed through a
combination of steps culminating in the
development of a long-term plan to
retain and protect important old-forest
habitat, which will also benefit the
northern spotted owl. Riparian
conservation includes buffers on fishbearing streams as well as substantial
buffers on streams and wetlands
without fish, and deferring harvest on
unstable slopes. Wildlife trees are
retained in buffers of natural features
(e.g., caves, wetlands, springs, cliffs,
talus slopes) and streams, as well as
scattered and clumped within harvest
units. The HCP also requires WDNR to
maintain and grow forests of various
structural stages across all of their HCP
ownerships. Specifically for northern
spotted owls, they have identified
portions of the landscape upon which
they will manage for nesting, roosting,
and foraging (NRF) habitat for northern
spotted owls. These areas are known as
NRF Management Areas (NRFMAs) and
were located to provide demographic
support that would strategically
complement the NWFP’s LateSuccessional Reserves as well as those
Adaptive Management Areas that have
late-successional objectives. The
NRFMAs also were situated to help
maintain species distribution.
Generally, these NRFMAs will be
managed so that approximately 50
percent of those lands will develop into
NRF habitat for the northern spotted
owl over time. Within this 50 percent,
certain nest patches containing highquality nesting habitat are to be retained
and grown. Since the HCP was
implemented, within the NRFMAs,
WDNR has carried out 5,100 ac (2,064
ha) of pre-commercial thinning and
7,800 ac (3,156 ha) of timber harvest
specifically configured to enhance
northern spotted owl habitat. WDNR’s
habitat-enhancement activities will
continue under the HCP.
Some areas outside of the NRFMAs
are managed to provide for dispersal
and foraging conditions in 50 percent of
the forests in those areas; these were
strategically located in landscapes
important for connectivity. The
Olympic Experimental State Forest is
managed to provide for northern spotted
owl conservation across all of its lands.
Even in areas not specifically managed
for northern spotted owls, WDNR has
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71973
committed to providing a range of forest
stages across the landscape to address
multiple species. This commitment of
forest stages, in combination with
wildlife trees retained within harvest
units and stream and landscape-feature
buffers, will provide a matrix of habitat
conditions that will also provide some
assistance in conserving northern
spotted owls. Stands containing
scattered leave trees following harvest
will become more valuable for northern
spotted owls at earlier ages than those
stands harvested using previous
methods. Northern Spotted owls across
the WDNR HCP are expected to benefit
from the combination of these strategies.
At the time the permit was approved,
there were approximately 292 northern
spotted owl site centers overlapping on
WDNR covered lands, including 76
known site centers (excluding historic
sites and non-territorial singles). There
were approximately 484,717 ac (196,158
ha) of suitable habitat on covered lands,
which comprised over 10 percent of all
suitable habitat in Washington State at
that time.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands is small unless it is a larger project
covering adjacent Federal lands as well,
in which case section 7 consultation
would already be triggered and the
Federal agency would consider the
effects of its actions on the species. In
addition, although the standards of
jeopardy and adverse modification are
different, in this case, the benefits of
applying the latter standard would be
minimal in light of the benefits already
derived from the HCP.
HCPs typically provide for greater
conservation benefits to a covered
species than section 7 consultations
because HCPs ensure the long-term
protection and management of a covered
species and its habitat. Funding for such
management is ensured through the
Implementation Agreement. Such
assurances are typically not provided by
section 7 consultations, which in
contrast to HCPs, often do not commit
the project proponent to long-term,
special management practices or
protections. Thus, a section 7
consultation typically does not afford
the lands the same benefits as a HCP.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71974
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
The development and implementation
of HCPs provide other important
conservation benefits, including the
development of biological information
to guide the conservation efforts and
assist in species conservation, and the
creation of innovative solutions to
conserve species while meeting the
needs of the applicant. In this case,
substantial information has been
developed from the research,
monitoring, and surveys conducted
under the WDNR HCP.
There is minimal incremental benefit
from designating critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl within the WDNR
HCP because, as explained above, these
covered lands are already managed for
the conservation of the species over the
term of the HCP and the conservation
measures provided by the HCP will
provide greater protection to northern
spotted owl habitat than the designation
of critical habitat, which provides
regulatory protections only in the event
of a Federal action. The WDNR HCP
provides for the needs of the northern
spotted owl by protecting and
preserving landscape levels of suitable
northern spotted owl nesting, roosting,
and foraging habitat as well as foraging
and dispersal habitat over the term of
the HCP in strategic landscapes, and
implementing species-specific
conservation measures designed to
avoid and minimize effects to northern
spotted owls. The HCP also provides for
the ability to make ongoing adjustments
in a number of forms, including active
adaptive forest management. The ability
to change is crucial to meet new
recovery challenges. The Service
continues to be involved in the
implementation of this HCP. The
Service conducts compliance
monitoring on the covered lands and
routinely meets with WDNR to discuss
ongoing implementation. The HCP
contains provisions that address
ownership changes and the outcomes
expected by the Service. Monitoring was
developed to track HCP progress over
the term of the permit and provide
feedback on management actions.
Therefore, designation of critical habitat
would be redundant on these lands, and
would not provide additional
measureable protections.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Designation of critical habitat
would inform State agencies and local
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local
ordinances, such as the Washington
State Growth Management Act, which
encourage the protection of ‘‘critical
areas’’ including fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas. Any
information about the northern spotted
owl and its habitat that reaches a wider
audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
However, WDNR, as the State’s natural
resource agency, is knowledgeable about
the species and has made substantial
contributions to our knowledge of the
species. In addition the additional
educational and informational benefits
that might arise from critical habitat
designation here have been largely
accomplished through the public review
and comment of the HCP,
Environmental Impact Statement, and
Implementation Agreement, as well as
the supplemental Environmental Impact
Statements associated with the
modification of the HCP. This HCP
included intensive public involvement
and continues to be an example used
when discussing HCPs. The HCP is
frequently a topic of open and public
discussion during meetings of the
Washington State Board of Natural
Resources, whose meetings are open to
the public and frequently televised. This
level of exposure in local newspapers
and television stations exceeds the level
of education that would come from a
designation that would be read by few
people in the public. Moreover, the
rulemaking process associated with
critical habitat designation includes
several opportunities for public
comment, and thus also provides for
public education.
Benefits of Exclusion—A benefit of
excluding lands within this HCP from
critical habitat designation is that it
would encourage the State and other
parties to continue to work for owl
conservation. Since issuance of this
HCP, a number of land transactions and
land exchanges with the HCP area have
occurred. These transactions have
included creation of additional Natural
Resource Conservation Areas and
Natural Area Preserves (both land
designations with high degree of
protection) and have also included large
land exchanges and purchases that have
changed the footprint of the HCP. These
land-based adjustments have facilitated
better management on many important
parcels and across larger landscapes
than would otherwise have been
possible. If lands within HCP plan areas
are designated as critical habitat, it
would likely have a negative effect on
the willingness of various groups and
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
funding sources to accomplish these
land-ownership adjustments because of
a reluctance to acquire lands designated
as critical habitat as well as a reduced
willingness on the part of WDNR to
accommodate the Services goals. This
HCP is located in key landscapes across
the State and contributes meaningfully
to the recovery of the northern spotted
owl.
If lands within the WDNR HCP plan
area are designated as critical habitat, it
would also likely have a negative effect
on our ability to establish new
partnerships to develop HCPs,
particularly large, regional HCPs that
involve numerous participants and/or
address landscape-level conservation of
species and habitats. This HCP has
served as a model for several completed
and ongoing HCP efforts, including the
Washington State Forest Practices HCP.
By excluding these lands, we preserve
our current private and local
conservation partnerships and
encourage additional conservation
actions in the future because other
parties see our exclusion as a sign that
the Service will not impose duplicative
regulatory burdens on landowners who
have developed an HCP.
HCPs typically provide for greater
conservation benefits to a covered
species than section 7 consultations
because HCPs ensure the long-term
protection and management of a covered
species and its habitat. In addition,
funding for such management is
ensured through the Implementation
Agreement. Such assurances are
typically not provided by section 7
consultations, which in contrast to
HCPs often do not commit the project
proponent to long-term, special
management practices or protections.
Thus, a section 7 consultation typically
does not afford the lands it covers
similar extensive benefits as an HCP.
The development and implementation
of HCPs provide other important
conservation benefits, including the
development of biological information
to guide the conservation efforts and
assist in species conservation, and the
creation of innovative solutions to
conserve species while meeting the
needs of the applicant. In this case,
substantial information has been
developed from the research,
monitoring, and surveys conducted
under the WDNR HCP. Therefore,
exclusion is a benefit because it
maintains and fosters development of
biological information and innovative
solutions.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—The benefits of
including these lands in the designation
are small. Because one of the primary
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
threats to the northern spotted owl is
habitat loss and degradation, the
consultation process under section 7 of
the Act for projects with a Federal nexus
will, in evaluating effects to the
northern spotted owl, evaluate the
effects of the action on the conservation
or functionality of the habitat for the
species regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated for these lands.
The analytical requirements to support
a jeopardy determination on excluded
land are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements in an analysis for an
adverse modification determination on
included land. However, the HCP
contains provisions for protecting and
maintaining northern spotted owl
habitat that far exceed the conservation
benefits afforded through section 7
consultation. It provides for
comprehensive measures applied across
a large landscape that will benefit
spotted owls. Washington State DNR
personnel are extremely knowledgeable
regarding the ecology of the northern
spotted owl and have contributed to the
body of scientific information about the
northern spotted owl. In this instance,
the regulatory and educational benefits
of inclusion have much less benefit than
the continued benefit of the HCP
including the educational benefits
derived from the HCP.
The WDNR HCP provides for
significant conservation and
management within geographical areas
that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl and help
achieve recovery of this species through
the conservation measures of the HCP.
Exclusion of these lands from critical
habitat will help foster the partnership
we have developed with WDNR,
through the development and
continuing implementation of the HCP.
Furthermore, this partnership may aid
in fostering future cooperative
relationships with other parties in other
locations for the benefit of listed
species.
For these reasons, we determine that
the benefits of excluding the WDNR
HCP from the designation of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl
outweigh the benefits of including this
area in critical habitat.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of
approximately 225,751 ac (91,358 ha) of
lands covered under the WDNR HCP
will not result in extinction of the
northern spotted owl. The WDNR HCP
protects and preserves landscape levels
of suitable northern spotted owl nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat as well as
foraging and dispersal habitat over the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
term of the HCP in strategic landscapes,
and implements species-specific
conservation measures designed to
avoid and minimize effects to northern
spotted owls. Monitoring was developed
to track HCP progress over the term of
the permit and provide critical feedback
on management actions. Adaptive
management provides for responses to
this feedback. Further, for projects
having a Federal nexus and affecting
northern spotted owls in occupied
areas, the jeopardy standard of section
7 of the Act, coupled with protection
provided by the WDNR HCP, would
provide a level of assurance that this
species will not go extinct as a result of
excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. We find that
exclusion of these lands within the
WDNR HCP will not result in extinction
of the northern spotted owl. Based on
the above discussion, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this
final critical habitat designation
portions of the proposed critical habitat
units or subunits that are within the
WDNR HCP totaling about 225,751 ac
(91,358 ha).
West Fork Timber Habitat Conservation
Plan
The Service has excluded
approximately 5,105 ac (2,066 ha) of
lands from final critical habitat
designation, under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, that are covered under the West
Fork Timber HCP (West Fork HCP)
(formerly known as Murray Pacific
Corporation) in the West Cascades
Central CHU in Washington. The West
Fork HCP was the first multispecies
HCP on forested lands in the Nation.
The permit associated with the West
Fork HCP has a term of 100 years and
was first issued on September 24, 1993;
amended on June 26, 1995; and
amended again on October 16, 2001 (66
FR 52638). The HCP includes 53,558 ac
(21,674 ha) of commercial timber lands
managed as a tree farm in Lewis County,
Washington. The HCP is situated
between an area of Federal land known
as the Mineral Block and the larger
block of Federal lands in the Cascades.
The HCP was first developed to allow
for forest-management activities and
provide for the conservation of the
northern spotted owl; the amended HCP
provides for all species, including six
listed species. The HCP is designed to
develop and maintain northern spotted
owl dispersal habitat across 43 percent
of the tree farm, and must also meet
quantitative measures of amount and
distribution. As a result, total dispersal
habitat will more than double in
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71975
amount, and wide gaps between stands
of dispersal habitat will be decreased.
In addition, the West Fork HCP
provides for leaving at least 10 percent
of the tree farm in reserves for the next
100 years. These reserves will primarily
take the form of riparian buffers
averaging at least 100 feet (30 m) on
each side of all fish-bearing streams, as
well as other buffers and set-a-side
areas. Other provisions of the HCP are
designed to ensure that all forest habitat
types and age classes currently on the
tree farm, as well as special habitat
types such as talus slopes, caves, nest
trees, and den sites, are protected or
enhanced. Seasonal protection is
provided within 1⁄4 mile of an active
northern spotted owl nest site.
At the time the permit was approved,
there were approximately 4,678 ac
(1,893 ha) of suitable habitat in small
stands sporadically located, comprising
about 8 percent of the ownership. The
HCP included 3 resident northern
spotted owls and included about 20
percent of the ownership in dispersal
habitat.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands is small unless it was a larger
project covering adjacent Federal lands
as well, in which case section 7
consultation would already be triggered
and the Federal agency would consider
the effects of its actions on the species.
In addition, although the standards for
jeopardy and adverse modification are
not the same, the benefits of the section
7 prohibition on adverse modification
would be minimal in light of the
benefits already derived from the HCP.
HCPs typically provide for greater
conservation benefits to a covered
species than section 7 consultations
because HCPs ensure the long-term
protection and management of a covered
species and its habitat. In addition,
funding for such management is
ensured through the Implementation
Agreement. Such assurances are
typically not provided by section 7
consultations, which, in contrast to
HCPs, usually do not commit the project
proponent to long-term, special
management practices or protections.
Thus, a section 7 consultation typically
does not afford the lands it covers
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71976
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
benefits similar to those provided by an
HCP. The development and
implementation of HCPs provide other
important conservation benefits,
including the development of biological
information to guide the conservation
efforts and assist in species
conservation, and the creation of
innovative solutions to conserve species
while meeting the needs of the
applicant.
There is minimal incremental benefit
from designating critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl within the West
Fork HCP because, as explained above,
these covered lands are already
managed for the conservation of the
species over the term of the HCP and the
conservation measures provided by the
HCP will provide greater protection to
northern spotted owl habitat than the
designation of critical habitat, which
provides regulatory protections only in
the event of a Federal action. The West
Fork HCP provides for the needs of the
northern spotted owl by protecting and
preserving landscape levels of suitable
northern spotted owl dispersal habitat
over the term of the HCP in strategic
landscapes, and implementing speciesspecific conservation measures designed
to avoid and minimize effects to
northern spotted owls. The HCP also
provides for the ability to make ongoing
adjustments in a number of forms,
including active adaptive forest
management. The ability to change is
crucial to meet new recovery challenges.
The Service continues to be involved in
implementation of the HCP. It contains
provisions that address ownership
changes and the outcomes expected by
the Service. Monitoring was developed
to track HCP progress over the term of
the permit and provide feedback on
management actions. Therefore,
designation of critical habitat would be
redundant on these lands, and would
not provide additional measureable
protections.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Designation of critical habitat
would inform State agencies and local
governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local
ordinances, such as the Washington
State Growth Management Act, which
encourage the protection of ‘‘critical
areas’’ including fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas. Any
information about the northern spotted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
owl and its habitat that reaches a wider
audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
However, this landowner is
knowledgeable about the species
through its implementation of the HCP.
In addition the additional educational
and informational benefits that might
arise from critical habitat designation
here have been largely accomplished
through the public review and comment
of the HCP, Environmental Impact
Statement, and Implementation
Agreement. Through these processes,
this HCP included intensive public
involvement. Moreover, the rulemaking
process associated with critical habitat
designation includes several
opportunities for public comment, and
thus also provides for public education.
Through these outreach opportunities,
land owners, State agencies, and local
governments have become more aware
of the status of and threats to the
northern spotted owl and the
conservation actions needed for
recovery.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, in Washington, State
forest practices regulations provide an
exemption for review for lands managed
under an HCP. Thus, even should the
State respond to designation of critical
habitat by instituting additional
protections, the HCP will not be subject
to those protections as the species is
considered already addressed, and
therefore no additional benefit would
accrue through State regulations.
Benefits of Exclusion—Compared to
the minimal benefits of inclusion of this
area in critical habitat, the benefits of
excluding it from designated critical
habitat are more substantial.
HCP conservation measures that
provide a benefit to the northern spotted
owl and its habitat have been
implemented continuously since 1993
on all covered lands owned and
managed under the HCP. Excluding
these lands from critical habitat
designation will sustain and enhance
the working relationship between the
Service and the permit holder.
A related benefit of excluding lands
within HCPs from critical habitat
designation is the unhindered,
continued ability to seek new
partnerships with future HCP
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be
unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands
within the West Fork HCP plan area are
designated as critical habitat, it would
likely have a negative effect on our
ability to establish new partnerships to
develop HCPs, particularly large,
regional HCPs that involve numerous
participants and/or address landscapelevel conservation of species and
habitats. If excluded, the willingness of
the landowner to work with the Service
to manage federally listed species will
continue to reinforce those conservation
efforts and our partnership, which
contribute toward achieving recovery of
the northern spotted owl. We consider
this voluntary partnership in
conservation important in maintaining
our ability to implement recovery
actions such as habitat protection and
restoration, and beneficial management
actions for species on non-Federal
lands.
In summary, the designation of
critical habitat could have an
unintended negative effect on our
relationship with non-Federal
landowners due to the perceived
imposition of redundant government
regulation. If lands within the West Fork
HCP area are designated as critical
habitat, it would likely have a negative
effect on our continued ability to seek
new partnerships with future
participants can implement
conservation actions (such as SHAs, and
HCPs) that we would be unable to
accomplish otherwise. By excluding
these lands, we preserve our current
private and local conservation
partnerships and encourage additional
conservation actions in the future.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—The benefits of
including these lands in the designation
are comparatively small. Because one of
the primary threats to the northern
spotted owl is habitat loss and
degradation, the consultation process
under section 7 of the Act for projects
with a Federal nexus will, in evaluating
effects to the northern spotted owl,
evaluate the effects of the action on the
conservation or functionality of the
habitat for the species regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated for
these lands. The analytical requirements
to support a jeopardy determination on
excluded land are similar, but not
identical, to the requirements in an
analysis for an adverse modification
determination on included land.
However, the HCP contains provisions
for protecting and maintaining northern
spotted owl habitat that far exceed the
conservation benefits afforded through
section 7 consultation. It provides for
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
comprehensive measures applied across
a large landscape that will benefit
spotted owls. In this instance, the
regulatory and educational benefits of
inclusion have much less benefit than
the continued benefit of the HCP
including the educational benefits
derived from the HCP.
The West Fork HCP provides for
significant conservation and
management within geographical areas
that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl and help
achieve recovery of this species through
the conservation measures of the HCP.
Exclusion of these lands from critical
habitat will help foster the partnership
we have developed with West Fork,
through the development and
continuing implementation of the HCP.
Furthermore, this partnership may aid
in fostering future cooperative
relationships with other parties in other
locations for the benefit of listed
species.
In summary, we determine that the
benefits of excluding the West Fork HCP
from the designation of critical habitat
for the northern spotted owl outweigh
the benefits of including this area in
critical habitat.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of
approximately 5,105 ac (2,066 ha) of
lands covered under the West Fork HCP
will not result in extinction of the
northern spotted owl because the
conservation measures identified within
the HCP seek to maintain or surpass
current habitat suitability for northern
spotted owls. The HCP is designed to
develop and maintain northern spotted
owl dispersal habitat; as a result, total
dispersal habitat will more than double
in amount and wide gaps between
stands of dispersal habitat will be
decreased. In addition, the West Fork
HCP provides for reserves for the next
100 years, ensuring that all forest habitat
types and age classes currently on the
tree farm, as well as special habitat
types such as talus slopes, caves, nest
trees, and den sites, are protected or
enhanced. Seasonal protection is
provided for active northern spotted owl
nest sites. Further, for projects having a
Federal nexus and affecting northern
spotted owls in occupied areas, the
jeopardy standard of section 7 of the
Act, coupled with protection provided
by the West Fork HCP, would provide
a level of assurance that this species
will not go extinct as a result of
excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. We find that
exclusion of these lands within the West
Fork HCP will not result in extinction
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
of the northern spotted owl. Based on
the above discussion, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this
final critical habitat designation
portions of the proposed critical habitat
units or subunits that are within the
West Fork HCP boundary totaling about
5,105 ac (2,066 ha).
Other Conservation Measures or
Partnerships
State of California
Mendocino Redwood Company
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
lands from critical habitat, under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, owned by The
Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC,
the company) and totaling
approximately 232,584 total ac (94,123
ha) in Unit 3—Redwood Coast, in
Mendocino and Sonoma Counties,
California. This land is distributed
among three critical habitat subunits as
described in the following. In subunit
RDC–2, we proposed approximately
209,550 ac (84,802 ha) for critical
habitat designation. In subunit RDC–3,
we proposed approximately 22,733 ac
(9,200 ha) for critical habitat
designation. In subunit RDC–4, we
proposed 301 ac (121 ha) for critical
habitat designation. All company lands
proposed for designation within these
three subunits have been excluded from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
MRC has a long-standing voluntary
partnership with the Service to protect
the northern spotted owl on MRC lands.
MRC initially approached the Service in
1998 to develop a combined habitat
conservation plan and a State-level
counterpart draft natural communities
conservation plan (HCP/NCCP).
Knowing that the completion of an
HCP/NCCP would take an extended
period of time, MRC and the Service
worked together to develop a set of
interim standards and measures to
conserve and protect the northern
spotted owl and its habitat, pending the
completion of the HCP/NCCP. These
written interim standards and measures
are detailed and specific and have been
incorporated into each of MRC’s timber
harvest plans since their development.
These interim standards and measures
are detailed in MRC’s January 15, 2010,
Northern Spotted Owl Resource Plan/
Management Plan (SORP) (MRC 2010,
pp. 1–30). The SORP was intended to
serve as a bridge document to reduce
resource impacts to both the northern
spotted owl and its habitat until the
completion of the HCP/NCCP. The
SORP includes monitoring and survey
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71977
requirements and northern spotted owl
habitat protection measures that are
implemented across the landscape. The
SORP describes methodologies to locate
owls, assess reproductive status, and
provide a framework that includes
habitat definitions and protections
associated with northern spotted owl
activity centers which provide
measurable standards for habitat
conservation. MRC and the Service meet
frequently to discuss northern spotted
owl study results provided by the
company and this information is used
by both the Service and MRC to develop
measures that conserve the species
through an iterative process that will
assist in the development of the HCP/
NCCP. In reviewing the SORP and
monitoring results, we find that the
SORP and protective measures therein
provide substantial conservation
benefits for the northern spotted owl
and its habitat at a landscape scale.
The standards and measures
described in the SORP are included in
the ‘‘Planning Agreement’’ (dated
August 5, 2009) that MRC entered into
with the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) for preparation of the
NCCP element of the HCP/NCCP.
Planning Agreements are mandatory
under the California Natural
Community Conservation Planning Act,
and inasmuch as the northern spotted
owl standards and measures are
included in MRC’s planning agreement,
they are mandatory. MRC has revised
them when requested by the Service, as
part of a voluntary partnership with the
Service.
In addition, MRC has two State-level
planning documents that are in effect
now and which contain substantial
long-terms benefits for northern spotted
owl habitat. One is the company’s 2008
Option A plan, entered into with
CALFIRE, which sets sustainable longterm timber harvest levels and controls
on standing forest inventory, and the
other is the companion 2012
Management Plan, also entered into
with CALFIRE, which outlines
company-specific management practices
used in conjunction with the Option A
harvesting program. Together, these
documents have enabled the company
to maintain its forest certification
through the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) which gives the company access
to certain wholesale lumber markets
that promote ‘‘green’’ certified wood
products. The State-level planning
documents have also enabled the
company to obtain registration through
the California Climate Action Registry
which is the designated clearinghouse
for carbon-credit sellers under
California’s developing cap-and-trade
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71978
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
program. The company’s long-term
management direction under Option A
(2008) and the Management Plan (2012)
is to greatly expand their stock of
standing forest inventory, with a neardoubling of that inventory over the next
nine decades. While we do not consider
here the northern spotted owl
conservation measures in the company’s
proposed HCP in support of 4(b)(2)
exclusion, since that plan is not yet
finalized, we do note that practically all
of the long-term habitat and
demographic objectives in the proposed
HCP are dependent on the forest
inventory trajectory that is established
and in effect under Option A and the
Management Plan, and are partly
dependent on the distribution and array
of silvicultural treatments that is
specified under the Management Plan.
Time intervals, measurable targets, and
enforcement mechanisms for forest
inventory development are already in
place through the State-level forest
planning processes, whether or not the
proposed HCP is finalized. The
company’s long term commitment to
expanding standing forest inventory is
also demonstrated by their status as a
seller in the State’s emerging carbon
credit market. In order to sell carbon
credits, the seller has to possess surplus
carbon; in forest management terms, the
only way to have a continuous supply
of surplus carbon is to have a body of
inventory that is on a continuous-netgrowth trajectory. The 2012
Management Plan also explicitly
documents some of the company’s
internal management direction on the
northern spotted owl with regard to the
linkages between future forest
conditions and owl habitat utilization,
direction on the acquisition and
analysis of owl breeding site surveys,
and future development of northern
spotted owl habitat models.
Following are summaries of specific
measures in the 2012 Management Plan
that will have direct, indirect, near-term
and long-term benefits for the northern
spotted owl, and which are in effect
currently: (1) The company, having
inherited a severely depleted forest
inventory from the previous owners, has
a standing policy to rebuild inventories,
which will result in a doubling of total
standing volume by the ninth decade of
the planning horizon; (2) total harvest
levels through the 100-year planning
horizon are constrained to a graduating
percentage of periodic growth volume,
from a current 48 percent to 84 percent
in the tenth decade of the plan; (3) a
shift in the use of uneven-aged
silviculture from a current 65 percent of
harvest acres to 99 percent in the fifth
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
decade of the plan; (4) protection
policies for unharvested old-growth
stands and previously harvested stands
containing residual old-growth trees; (5)
wildlife tree and snag retention
requirements that meet or exceed
Service recommendations and exceed
current State Forest Practice rules; (6) a
minimum forest floor large woody
debris (LWD) standard on general forest
land of 70 cubic feet per ac (4.9 cubic
meter per ha) based on minimum-sized
logs 16 in (41 cm) diameter and 10 ft
(3.3 m) in length, increasing to 98 cubic
feet per ac (6.9 cubic meter per ha) in
riparian areas; and (7) a hardwood
management policy that maintains a
minimum hardwood basal area of 15
square feet per ac (3.4 square m per ha)
in mixed conifer-hardwood stands. Each
policy outlined above will result in: (a)
A long term increase in standing forest
biomass per unit of land area; or (b)
increased spatial continuity of
vegetative types that are suitable
northern spotted owl habitat; or (c)
retention of specific features such as
old-growth trees or stands, and retention
of a minimum level of hardwoods,
snags, and wildlife trees. All of these
policies will either lead to maintenance
or enhancement of northern spotted owl
habitat suitability or lead to emergence
of suitable habitat where it is currently
not present, thereby benefiting the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl and its habitat.
The company has completed a draft of
their proposed HCP/NCCP, and the
northern spotted owl is one of the
covered species in this document. The
company has submitted the HCP
application to the Service. If the HCP/
NCCP is approved and permits issued,
the term of the incidental take permit
and counterpart State permit would be
80 years. The combined draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and State draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is scheduled for issuance in
fall of 2012, and a final HCP/NCCP and
final EIS/EIR is anticipated in spring or
summer, 2013. However, as noted
above, we have not taken the proposed
HCP/NCCP into account in determining
the level of protection currently
provided to the northern spotted owl on
MRC land, as we have not completed
processing the permit application and a
final decision has not been made
whether it meets issuance criteria. We
cite to the development of this HCP/
NCCP only in terms of evidence of
MRC’s commitment to partnering with
the Service for the conservation of the
northern spotted owl.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including MRC
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
above, the designation of critical habitat
invokes the provisions of section 7.
However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands that might trigger such
consultation is limited since there is
little likelihood of an action that will
involve Federal funding, authorization,
or implementation. In addition, since
the lands under in question are
occupied by the northern spotted owl, if
a Federal nexus were to occur, section
7 consultation would already be
triggered and the Federal agency would
consider the effects of its actions on the
species through a jeopardy analysis.
Because one of the primary threats to
the northern spotted owl is habitat loss
and degradation, the consultation
process under section 7 of the Act for
projects with a Federal nexus will, in
evaluating effects to the northern
spotted owl, evaluate the effects of the
action on the conservation or function
of the habitat for the species regardless
of whether critical habitat is designated
for these lands. Although the standards
for jeopardy and adverse modification
are not the same, the additional
conservation that could be attained
through the section 7 prohibition on
adverse modification analysis would not
likely be significant in this case because
of the conservation agreements already
in place.
Another potential benefit of including
lands in a critical habitat designation is
that the designation can serve to educate
landowners, State and local government
agencies, and the public regarding the
potential conservation value of an area,
and may help focus conservation efforts
on areas of high conservation value for
certain species. Any information about
the northern spotted owl and its habitat
that reaches a wider audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable. However, in this
case the educational value of critical
habitat is limited. As evidenced by their
extensive forest management planning,
this forestland owner is knowledgeable
about the species.
The designation of critical habitat
may also indirectly cause State or
county jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional requirements in areas
identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, CALFIRE has
indicated to us that it is unlikely to
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
impose any new requirements on
project proponents if critical habitat is
designated in areas already subject to
California Forest Practice Rules.
Therefore, we believe this potential
benefit of critical will be limited.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 232,584 ac
(94,123 ha) of lands currently owned by
the MRC are substantial. We have
created a close partnership with the
company through the development of
the SORP and the resulting draft HCP/
NCCP. The SORP contains provisions
that will improve inventory of redwood,
Douglas-fir, and other conifers across
MRC’s ownership and includes
measures that will return forest types to
those that support the northern spotted
owl. In addition, the SORP stipulates a
series of actions intended to increase
canopy cover and move management of
forest stands to uneven-aged
management to promote multilayered
canopies and protect old growth stands
and individual trees with old-growth
structural features. The SORP also
contain provisions that will result in
stands being grown in Watercourse and
Lake Protection Zones (WLPZ) that
exceed current State Forest Practice
requirements and that meet the
Service’s recommended standards for
standing tree basal area and retention of
large woody debris in watercourse
protection zones. All of these measures
are consistent with recommendations
from the Service for the conservation of
the northern spotted owl, and will
afford benefits to the species and its
habitat.
Other MRC actions also demonstrate
their commitment to the Federal-Stateprivate partnership. The company’s
Management Plan in connection to their
FSC forest certification is already in
effect. That Plan has numerous
measures within it that the company has
been implementing on the ground for
several years without any inducement
from the cooperating Federal and State
agencies. Much of the Management Plan
is concerned with harvest scheduling
and how the company will remedy its
current deficit in standing forest
inventory. The major part of that
remedy is found in the 10-decade
harvesting schedule in the Management
Plan, which tightly constrains harvest
levels in the early decades of the Plan
and relaxes the constraint in later
decades. The company has
implemented the designed harvest
schedule since 2000, which is
supported in the certification audit
reports of 2005 and 2010. This means
that MRC has, in fact, foregone a portion
of their potential short-term harvest
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
revenues for nearly 12 years to fulfill a
Management Plan that is not under
Federal purview. Company policies
embodied in the Management Plan will
result in (a) a long term increase in
standing forest biomass per unit of land
area; or (b) increased spatial continuity
of vegetative types that are suitable
northern spotted owl habitat; or (c)
retention of specific features such as
old-growth trees/stands, retention of a
minimum level of hardwoods, snags,
and wildlife trees. All of these policies
will either lead to maintenance of
northern spotted owl habitat suitability
or lead to emergence of suitable habitat
where it is currently not present.
Excluding the approximately 232,584
ac (94,123 ha) owned and managed by
MRC from critical habitat designation
will provides significant benefit in
terms of sustaining and enhancing the
excellent partnership between the
Service and the company, with positive
consequences for conservation. The
willingness of MRC to voluntarily
undertake conservation efforts for the
benefit of the northern spotted owl and
work with the Service to develop new
conservation plans for the species will
continue to reinforce those conservation
efforts and our partnership, which
contribute toward achieving recovery of
the northern spotted owl. We consider
this voluntary partnership in
conservation vital to our understanding
of the northern spotted owl status of
species on MRC lands and in the
redwood region, and necessary for us to
implement recovery actions such as
habitat protection and restoration, and
beneficial management actions for
species.
The designation of critical habitat
could have an unintended negative
effect on our relationship with nonFederal landowners due to the
perceived imposition of government
regulation. If lands within the area
managed by MRC for the benefit of the
northern spotted owl are designated as
critical habitat, it could have a chilling
effect on our continued ability to seek
new partnerships with future
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement various
conservation actions (such as SHAs,
HCPs, and other conservation plans,
particularly large, regional Conservation
Plans that involve numerous
participants and/or address landscapelevel conservation of species and
habitats) that we would be unable to
accomplish otherwise. In addition, MRC
serves as a model of voluntary
conservation by a private landowner,
and may aid in fostering future
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71979
voluntary conservation efforts by other
parties in other locations for the benefit
of listed species. We consider the
positive effect of excluding proven
conservation partners from critical
habitat to be a significant benefit of
exclusion.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh
the Benefits of Inclusion—We have
reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of
approximately 232,584 ac (94,123 ha) of
land owned and managed by MRC from
the critical habitat designation. The
benefits of including these lands in the
designation are comparatively small,
since the habitat on the covered lands
is already being monitored and managed
under the current Management Plan and
the Timber Management Plan to
improve the habitat elements that are
equivalent to the physical or biological
features that are outlined in this critical
habitat rule. We therefore anticipate
little, if any, additional protections
through application of the section 7
prohibition on adverse modification due
to the designation of critical habitat on
these lands.
The potential educational benefits of
inclusion are also limited. The company
has an active monitoring program on
over 150 northern spotted owl activity
sites and is making increasing
contributions to our knowledge of the
species through focused research. In
addition, there is a growing local
constituency for current land
management direction as a result of the
company’s outreach efforts in the form
of public informational presentations
and tours of the property. In this
instance, any potential educational
benefits of inclusion would have much
less practical effect than any of the
scientific and informational activities
that the company has initiated to date.
In contrast, the benefits derived from
excluding this ownership and
enhancing our private lands partnership
with MRC are significant. We have
developed a solid working relationship
with MRC, and expect this beneficial
conservation partnership to continue.
The benefits of this partnership are
significant, because MRC has
demonstrated that its actions will
contribute substantially to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl and its habitat and influence longterm management outcomes across the
entire ownership. We noted the positive
conservation benefits that accrue from
exclusion from critical habitat,
including relief from perceived
potentially duplicative regulatory
burden and the increased potential of
pursuing additional conservation
agreements with other private
landowners. As discussed above, MRC
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71980
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
has developed a long-standing practice
of managing its lands in a sustainable
nature that benefits the northern spotted
owl and its habitat. We also discussed
the long-term value of the partnership
with MRC, and evidence of the
company’s commitment to that
partnership through voluntary
implementation and coordination of
conservation actions. We will not repeat
that discussion here, but point to it as
the strongest among all factors we
considered in the weighing of the
benefits of exclusion against the benefits
of inclusion.
We have determined that the
additional regulatory benefits of
designating critical habitat, afforded
through the section 7(a)(2) consultation
process, are minimal because of limited
Federal nexus and because conservation
measures specifically benefitting the
northern spotted owl and its habitat are
in place as a result of our partnership
with the company and as demonstrated
by the provisions of the SORP and other
planning documents, as discussed
above. The potential educational and
informational benefits of critical habitat
designation on lands containing the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl would be minimal, because
MRC is making substantial
contributions to our understanding of
the ecology of the northern spotted owl
and its habitats in the redwood region,
and continues to disseminate useful
information through public education
events. Therefore, in consideration of
the factors discussed above in the
Benefits of Exclusion section, including
the relevant impact to current and
future partnerships, we have
determined that the benefits of
exclusion of lands owned by the MRC
outweigh the benefits of designating
these areas as critical habitat.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that the exclusion of
232,584 ac (94,123 ha) from the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl on lands owned
and managed by MRC will not result in
extinction of the species. Conservation
efforts that are currently in effect
through the SORP (and not taking into
account the draft HCP/NCCP) will
adequately protect the geographical
areas containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. For projects
having a Federal nexus and affecting
northern spotted owls in occupied
areas, as is the case here, the jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled
with current land management
measures that are not under Federal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
purview, would provide assurances that
this species will not go extinct as a
result of excluding these lands from the
critical habitat designation. Based on
the above discussion, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this
final critical habitat designation
portions of the proposed critical habitat
units or subunits that are within the
Mendocino Redwood Company
ownership boundary totaling 232,854 ac
(92,123 ha).
State of Washington
Scofield Corporation Deed Restriction
(Formerly Habitat Conservation Plan)
In this final designation, the Secretary
has exercised his authority to exclude
40 ac (16 ha) of lands from critical
habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
that are covered under the Scofield
Corporation Deed Restriction in the East
Cascades North CHU. A incidental take
permit based on an HCP, was issued to
Scofield Corporation in 1996 (noticed
February 20, 1996 (61 FR 6381), issued
April 3, 1996). The permit had a
duration for only one year, but as
provided in the permit terms, the lands
under this HCP are now covered by a
Deed Restriction for those lands in
perpetuity. This HCP and deed
restriction include 40 ac (16 ha) of forest
lands in Chelan County, Washington.
The HCP-covered forest-management
activities and the associated incidental
take permit included only the northern
spotted owl. The HCP provided for
mitigation and minimization measures
by retaining a buffer of intact habitat,
implementing selective timber harvest
practices, and placing a perpetual deed
restriction on the property permanently
prohibiting further timber harvest or
tree removal except with the express
written consent of the Service. These
measures were designed to ensure the
retention of some northern spotted owl
habitat and approximately 72 percent of
the total number of trees after harvest.
At the time the permit was approved,
the HCP-covered lands included a single
northern spotted owl site with most of
its habitat on adjacent Federal lands.
The amount of habitat was low, due to
natural eastside Cascades characteristics
and recent fire. Approximately 55
percent of the mature trees in the 40acre project area were allowed to be
removed, which in the short term
further reduced the availability of
potential nesting, roosting, or foraging
sites for northern spotted owls.
However, the adverse effects on this
northern spotted owl pair due to loss of
habitat was likely low, because the
habitat was marginal Type C (young
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
forest marginal) at best, and surveys in
the project area suggested low use by
northern spotted owls. In addition, the
no-harvest buffer along the highway
ensured that is less than 40 ac (16 ha)
was affected by the action, which is a
small portion of the suitable habitat that
is available for use by northern spotted
owls within the median home range of
that site as well as the eastern Cascades.
Under the HCP, about 55 percent of
the mature trees and 28 percent of the
total number of trees in the project area
were allowed to be harvested. Selective
harvest resulted in retention of different
size and age classes of trees to
contribute to stand structure and species
diversity, important components to
northern spotted owl habitat. Thinning
the stand will allow younger age-class
trees to grow, and continue to contribute
to the multilayer structure of the stand.
Since the project area is being allowed
to grow and develop into perpetuity,
suitable northern spotted owl habitat
will be available in the future. This
potential habitat will complement
habitat that is likely to occur on
adjacent national forest lands being
managed as late-successional forest. In
the long-term, the potential for the
project area to become northern spotted
owl habitat and remain in that condition
is substantially greater than it would
have been without the HCP. In addition,
the Deed Restriction identified in the
land contract provides for the
permanent protection of this habitat.
Benefits of Inclusion—We find that
there is minimal benefit from
designating critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl within the
Scofield Deed Restriction because, as
explained above, these lands are already
managed for the conservation of the
species under the deed restrictions.
Section 7 is unlikely to provide
additional regulatory protection, not
only because Federal actions on this
small 40-acre parcel are unlikely, but
also because any such Federal action
would have to be consistent with the
Deed Restriction. Thus the existence of
this Deed Restriction reduces any
incremental benefits that may be
provided by section 7. The Deed
Restriction provides for the needs of the
northern spotted owl by providing
northern spotted owl dispersal habitat
and improving conditions. Therefore,
designation of critical habitat would be
redundant on these lands, and would
not provide additional measureable
protections. In addition, the
conservation measures identified within
the Deed Restriction seek to achieve
conservation goals for northern spotted
owls and their habitat, and thus can be
of greater conservation benefit than the
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
designation of critical habitat, which
does not require specific management
actions.
A potential benefit of including lands
in a critical habitat designation is that
the designation can serve to educate
landowners and the public regarding the
potential conservation value of an area,
and may help focus conservation efforts
on areas of high conservation value for
certain species. However, the additional
educational and informational benefits
that might arise from critical habitat
designation have been largely
accomplished through the public review
and comment of the HCP/
Environmental Assessment, as well as
the Implementation Agreement. In
addition, through the Deed Restriction,
the current landowner and any future
owner are made fully aware of the needs
of the northern spotted owl on this
parcel.
Benefits of Exclusion—A benefit of
excluding lands within HCPs from
critical habitat designation is the
unhindered, continued ability to seek
new partnerships with future HCP
participants including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be
unable to accomplish otherwise. In
particular, if lands within the Scofield
Corporation Deed Restriction area are
designated as critical habitat, it would
likely have a negative effect on our
ability to establish new partnerships to
develop HCPs with smaller landowners
who occupy key landscapes. It could be
perceived as adding redundant Federal
regulation on top of the HCP’s
requirement to protect the land in
perpetuity. By excluding these lands,
we may encourage additional
conservation actions in the future.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the Scofield Corporation lands subject
to the Deed Restriction from the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl outweigh the
benefits of including this area in critical
habitat. We find that including this area
in the designation would result in
minimal, if any, additional benefits to
the northern spotted owl, as explained
above. Excluding this parcel from
critical habitat could result in real
benefits by encouraging other small
landowners to participate in northern
spotted owl conservation efforts by
demonstrating that we will not impose
redundant regulatory burdens when
they undertake meaningful conservation
efforts. The management strategies of
the Scofield Deed Restriction are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
designed to maintain and enhance
habitat for the northern spotted owl.
The Scofield Deed Restriction includes
forest-management practices and habitat
conservation objectives that benefit the
northern spotted owl and its habitat,
which exceeds any conservation value
provided as a result of a critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of
approximately 40 ac (16 ha) of lands
covered under the Scofield Deed
Restriction will not result in extinction
of the northern spotted owl because it
provides northern spotted owl dispersal
habitat and improves habitat conditions,
and it the possibility for the project area
to become northern spotted owl habitat
and remain in that condition is
substantially greater than without the
HCP. Further, the protection provided
by the Scofield Deed Restriction would
provide a level of assurance that this
species will not go extinct as a result of
excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. We find that
exclusion of these lands within the
Scofield Deed Restriction will not result
in extinction of the northern spotted
owl. Based on the above discussion, the
Secretary is exercising his discretion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to
exclude from this final critical habitat
designation portions of the proposed
critical habitat units or subunits that are
covered by the Scofield Corporation
Deed Restriction totaling about 40 ac (16
ha).
Exclusion of Private Lands
State of California
Our proposed designation included
123,348 ac (49,917 ha) of privatelyowned lands without existing Federal
conservation agreements in the State of
California that we identified as critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl.
Forest management and forest
practices on private lands in California,
including harvesting for forest products
or converting land to another use are
regulated by the State under Division 4
of the Public Resources Code, and in
accordance with the California Forest
Practice Rules (California Code of
Regulations, (CCR) Title 14, Sections
895–1115). Under this framework, the
California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (CALFIRE) is the
designated authority on forest
management and forest practices on
private lands in California.
All private land timber harvesting in
California must be conducted in
accordance with a site-specific timber
harvest plan (THP) that is submitted by
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71981
the owner and is subject to
administrative approval by CALFIRE.
The THP must be prepared by a Stateregistered professional forester, and
must contain site-specific details on the
quantity of timber involved, where and
how it will be harvested, and the steps
that will be taken to mitigate potential
environmental damage. The THP and
CALFIRE’s review process are
recognized as the functional equivalent
to the environmental review processes
required under the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
(CEQA). The policy of the State with
regard to the northern spotted owl can
be characterized as one of takeavoidance. The Director of CALFIRE is
not authorized to approve any proposed
THP that would result in take of a
federally-listed species, including the
northern spotted owl unless that taking
is authorized under a Federal Incidental
Take Permit (review process is outlined
in 14 CCR 919.9 and 919.10). This latter
point creates an incentive for private
landowners to enter into Federal safe
harbor agreements or habitat
conservation plans. CALFIRE also
regulates the conversion permitting
process in which private forest and
woodland can be converted to
agricultural uses (in contrast,
conversions of forest and woodlands to
residential, commercial, and industrial
uses are evaluated and permitted under
local land use planning authorities).
Benefits of Inclusion—We find there
are minimal benefits to including these
lands in critical habitat. As discussed
above, the principal benefit of including
an area in critical habitat is the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with the Service under section
7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure actions they
fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of any designated
critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) also
requires that Federal agencies must
consult with us on actions that may
affect a listed species and refrain from
undertaking actions likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of such species.
Our Final Economic Analysis (IEC
2012b) concludes that critical habitat
designation for the northern spotted owl
is unlikely to directly affect timber
harvests on private lands in California
because of the low likelihood that such
harvests would be simultaneously
connected to a Federal permitting or
funding action. Without a pending
Federal action, there is no basis for
initiating a consultation process under
section 7 of the Act. In northern
California, the Service has seen very few
section 7 actions resulting from Federal
permitting or funding activity on private
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71982
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
lands. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
are the Federal agencies responsible for
regulating section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, which deals with discharge
of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States. In the areas identified
as critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl the Corps has not taken
jurisdiction over activities associated
with stream alteration or fill and has
deferred to the State of California for
regulating these activities. As a result
many proposed actions involving water
quality issues and stream disturbance
are not referred to the Service for
section 7 consultation. The majority of
the water quality permitting actions in
California are now administered by the
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) and by Regional Water Quality
Control Boards. Water quality permit
reviews by the Corps are very
uncommon. When Federal consultation
does occur, the affected areas are
typically limited to streams or roadways
adjacent to streams and thus in areas not
considered habitat for the northern
spotted owl. CALFIRE has indicated (in
its correspondence of July 6, 2012) that
it has no plans to enact additional
requirements for protection of the
northern spotted owl in response to a
possible critical habitat designation of
private lands in the State.
We, therefore, conclude that the
requirement that permitting and funding
agencies consult with us and ensure that
their actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species because the possibility of a
Federal nexus for a project on these
lands that might trigger such
consultation is limited (there is little
likelihood of an action that will involve
Federal funding, authorization, or
implementation). In addition, since the
lands in question are occupied by the
northern spotted owl, if a Federal nexus
were to occur, section 7 consultation
would already be triggered and the
Federal agency would consider the
effects of its actions on the species
through a jeopardy analysis. Because the
possibility of a Federal nexus on these
private lands is limited, the additional
regulatory benefits to the species and its
habitat through inclusion in critical
habitat, if any, are anticipated to be
minimal. In addition, existing State
regulations provide protections for the
northern spotted owl and its habitat,
and these protections are in continuous
effect. The protections to the critical
habitat of the northern spotted owl, by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
contrast, come into effect only in the
event of a Federal action.
Another benefit of including lands in
a critical habitat designation is that it
serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public
regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and
promote conservation efforts by other
parties by identifying areas of high
conservation value for northern spotted
owls. Any information about the
northern spotted owl and its habitat that
reaches a wider audience, including
parties engaged in conservation
activities, is valuable. In the case of the
northern spotted owl, any potential
educational benefits that might be
attributable to critical habitat
designation are minimized by the
existing State regulatory framework for
the northern spotted owl in timber
harvest planning. Private landowners
who harvest timber in proximity to
northern spotted owl activity sites are
required to conduct surveys of owl
activity and report those results in their
proposed timber harvest plans that are
submitted to CALFIRE for approval, so
critical habitat designation will not
result in any additional data collection.
While the State’s existing takeavoidance strategy for the northern
spotted owl does not necessarily
provide for long term conservation of
suitable habitat, it does serve an
important informational service with
private landowners through the timber
harvest planning process. Thus,
CALFIRE’s existing regulatory
framework provides adequate and
consistent education to the affected
community regarding the northern
spotted owl and its conservation needs.
Similarly, the great majority of
industrial and non-industrial forest
landowners, along with the in-house
and consulting biologists who conduct
the owl survey work, already
voluntarily submit their survey results
to the CDFG for entry into the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB),
which is the State’s clearinghouse for
occupancy, activity, and spatial data on
special status species. It is highly
unlikely that inclusion in the final
critical habitat designation could cause
any increases in landowner and
biologist participation in the CNDDB
reporting. Voluntary participation rates
are currently very high, and we have no
evidence to suggest that inclusion in
critical habitat would increase those
rates any further.
In this case the educational value of
critical habitat is further limited by the
fact that the northern spotted owl is a
high-profile species, and most
forestland owners in the range of the
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
northern spotted owl are knowledgeable
about the species. The release of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl in 2011 was preceded by
outreach efforts and public comment
opportunities, and provided information
about the northern spotted owl and its
conservation needs to a wide
constituency. Furthermore, we
conducted extensive outreach efforts on
the proposed revision of critical habitat,
including multiple public information
meetings and opportunities for public
comment. Through these outreach
opportunities, land owners, State
agencies, and local governments have
become aware of the status of and
threats to the northern spotted owl, and
the conservation actions needed for
recovery.
Another potential benefit of the
designation of critical habitat is that it
may indirectly cause State or county
jurisdictions to initiate their own
additional protective requirements in
areas identified as critical habitat. These
measures may include additional
permitting requirements or a higher
level of local review on proposed
projects. However, CALFIRE has
indicated to use that it is unlikely to
impose any new requirements on
project proponents if critical habitat is
designated in areas already subject to
California Forest Practice Rules.
Therefore, we believe this potential
benefit of critical will be limited.
Finally, there may be some ancillary
benefits if the designation resulted in
changed timber management practices
on these private lands. These benefits
could include but are not limited to:
public safety benefits by increasing
resiliency of timber stands, improved
water quality, aesthetic benefits, and
carbon storage. However, as discussed
above, the possibility of a Federal nexus
on these private lands is limited, so
changes in timber management as a
result of critical habitat, and any
attendant ancillary benefits, are
anticipated to be minimal.
Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of
excluding from designated critical
habitat the approximately 123,348 ac
(49,917 ha) of private lands in California
are relatively greater.
Excluding the approximately 123,348
ac (49,917 ha) of private lands from
critical habitat designation will sustain
and enhance the conservation
partnership between the Service and
CALFIRE. The Service is currently
working with CALFIRE to explore
avenues for more comprehensive
conservation planning for the northern
spotted owl in northern California that
goes beyond the existing take-avoidance
strategy. Development of a landscape
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
scale analysis and plan (e.g., general
conservation plan) would provide for
greater protections to the northern
spotted owl and could incorporate
critical habitat conservation elements
within that planning process. Current
revisions and improvements to the
CNDDB database would aid in the
development of this plan, with the
ability to evaluate status and trends
across the region versus on a singular
THP or Non-industrial Timber
Management Plan (NTMP) level. Critical
habitat designation would be viewed as
another layer of regulatory process to
that already overseen by CALFIRE and
could impede landowner support for the
development of this larger
programmatic conservation plan and
undercut the efforts of CALFIRE to
contribute to such a discussion. We
received several public comments
objecting to this perceived redundancy
in regulation. Excluding those private
lands from the designation would avoid
a chilling effect on the partnership
between the Service and the affected
State regulatory agencies in California
regarding administration of their
existing conservation programs to
protect and conserve northern spotted
owls on private lands. We consider the
maintenance of our partnership between
the Service and the affected State
regulatory agencies in California to be a
significant benefit of exclusion.
In addition, there are many other
opportunities for private landowners to
enter into conservation agreements
without Federal involvement that will
benefit northern spotted owls.
Landowners can obtain ‘‘green’’ forest
certification through the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) or the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) that
enables access to certain wholesale
lumber markets. They can register their
property with the California Climate
Action Registry to gain access to the
emerging carbon credit market in
California, or they can sell conservation
easement rights on their properties to a
land trust. In all cases, the landowner
gains immediate economic benefits in
exchange for agreeing to a management
program on their lands that meets the
objectives of the certification or
registration entity, or the land trust. All
of these instruments, by design, involve
the conservation and expansion of
standing forest inventory and forest
cover on the participating ownerships.
Whether by design or not, that will lead
to the long-term improvement of
existing northern spotted owl habitat
suitability and to the emergence of
suitable habitat in areas where it is
currently unsuitable. These market-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
based agreements have the long term
potential for significantly more on-theground benefits for the northern spotted
owl on private lands than would the
limited regulatory and educational
benefits that would result from critical
habitat designation.
The economic incentives for
landowners to enter into these
agreements are independent of a critical
habitat designation. We are not certain
how designation might affect
perceptions and priorities among the
grantors in agreements (i.e., the
certification and registration entities
and the land trusts). For example, land
trusts operate on limited funds and we
do not know how critical habitat
designation might influence them in
prioritizing properties for easement
acquisition; that is, whether it might
lead them to look more or less favorably
on designated lands, or treat some
geographic areas preferentially over
others. Thus, exclusion from
designation could avoid any uncertain,
and possibly detrimental, effects on
both buyers (land trusts, certification
entities) and sellers (landowners) in
market-based conservation programs
(IEC 2012b, p. 5–21).
Excluding these lands may reduce the
perception that some private
landowners have that they are being
subjected to redundant and unnecessary
regulation. As noted above, all private
land timber harvesting in California
must be conducted in accordance with
a site-specific THP that is submitted by
the owner and is subject to
administrative approval by CALFIRE.
The Director of CALFIRE is not
authorized to approve any proposed
THP that would result in take of a
federally-listed species, including the
northern spotted owl, unless that taking
is authorized under a Federal Incidental
Take Permit. The additional overlay of
Federal critical habitat on these private
lands may result in lack of support for
the development of a programmatic
conservation agreement with CALFIRE
and their valuable contribution of
information to the CNDDB due to their
perception of duplicative and
burdensome regulation specific to the
northern spotted owl.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—We have
reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of
approximately 123,348 ac (49,917 ha) of
privately-owned lands in the State of
California from the critical habitat
designation. The benefits of including
these lands in the designation are
comparatively small. We find there is
little likelihood of a Federal nexus on
these private lands that would trigger
the regulatory protections of critical
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71983
habitat under section 7 of the Act. We
therefore anticipate little, if any,
additional protections through a
supplemental analysis of potential
adverse modification due to the
designation of critical habitat on these
lands.
The potential educational benefits of
inclusion are also limited. Under
existing State regulations, private
landowners who harvest timber in
proximity to northern spotted owl
activity sites are required to conduct
surveys of owl activity consistent with
the Service-recommended protocol and
report those results in their proposed
timber harvest plans that are submitted
to CALFIRE for approval, so landowners
are already aware of the presence of the
northern spotted owl and its habitat
needs, and critical habitat designation
will not result in any additional data
collection. The State of California’s
existing take-avoidance strategy for the
northern spotted owl provides an
important informational service with
private landowners through the timber
harvest planning process. Therefore, in
this instance, any potential educational
benefits of inclusion are minimal.
In contrast, the benefits derived from
excluding private lands and enhancing
our partnership with California State
regulatory agencies are relatively
greater. The minimal benefits of
inclusion are outweighed by the benefits
of fostering conservation partnerships
with CALFIRE that would relieve
private landowners of what they might
perceive as duplicative regulations.
Exclusion could also encourage the
partnership and collaboration in
development of the landscape
conservation planning between the
Service and CALFIRE by focusing efforts
towards that planning effort versus
applying a regulatory process that
would have limited private land
involvement.
We also considered the avoidance of
potential issues associated with
regulatory uncertainty due to critical
habitat designation to be a significant
benefit of exclusion. For example, there
may be a significant benefit of exclusion
from designation that would accrue due
to the avoidance of any uncertain, and
possibly detrimental, effects on both
buyers (land trusts, certification entities)
and sellers (landowners) in marketbased conservation programs that stand
to provide significant conservation
benefits to the northern spotted owl.
We have determined that maintaining
our partnership with California State
regulatory agencies provides a greater
benefit than would the regulatory and
educational benefits of critical habitat
designation. Therefore, in consideration
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71984
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
of the factors discussed above, we have
determined that the benefits of
exclusion of private lands in California
outweigh the benefits of designating
these areas as critical habitat.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of 123,348 ac
(49,917 ha) of private lands in northern
California that are not currently under a
Federal agreement from critical habitat
for the northern spotted owl will not
result in the extinction of the species.
Habitat protection provisions in the
current California forest practice
regulation on private forestlands
provide some level of protection for the
species and its habitats. We reiterate
here that under the California State
Code (14 CCR 919.9 and 919.10), the
Director of CALFIRE is not authorized to
approve any proposed THP that would
result in take of a federally-listed
species unless that taking is authorized
under a Federal Incidental Take Permit.
For projects having a Federal nexus and
affecting northern spotted owls in
occupied areas, as is the case here, the
jeopardy standard of section 7 of the
Act, coupled with current land
management measures that are not
under Federal purview, would provide
assurances that this species will not go
extinct as a result of excluding these
lands from the critical habitat
designation. Further, the exclusion of
these lands from the final critical habitat
designation does not preclude advances
in our scientific knowledge of the
species and using that knowledge to
effectively advocate future
improvements in State forest practice
policies and procedures. Based on the
preceding analysis, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude private
lands totaling 123,348 ac (49,917 ha)
from the final critical habitat
designation.
State of Washington
In Washington we proposed 133,895
ac (54,186 ha) of private lands within
Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Areas
(SOSEAs) as critical habitat; all of these
lands were identified as under
consideration for exclusion. However,
as described in Changes from the
Proposed Rule, many of the small,
private parcels were removed from the
final designation upon a determination
that they did not meet the definition of
critical habitat, leaving. The remaining
areas of private lands in Washington
contained in this designation covered by
HCPs or SHAs and are private industrial
forest lands; these private lands are not
currently covered by HCPs or SHAs but
are covered under the WDNR Forest
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Practices Rules (FPR) and largely
located in SOSEAs. We have excluded
areas covered by HCPs and SHAs
because, for the reasons discussed
above, the benefits of excluding them
outweigh the benefits of including them
in critical habitat. We sought to make
our designation of private lands in
Washington as consistent as possible
with Washington State regulations
governing forest practices on private
lands. Most of the remaining private
lands are located only within SOSEAs,
areas designated by the State to provide
for demographic and/or dispersal
support as necessary to complement the
northern spotted owl protection
strategies on Federal land within or
adjacent to the SOSEAs. We find that for
these lands, too, the benefits of
excluding them in critical habitat
outweigh the benefits of including them.
In Washington, any private timber
harvest must obtain a permit from, and
comply with, the Washington Forest
Practices Act (RCW 76.09) as well as the
Washington Forest Practices Rules
(WAC 222). In the absence of a
federally-approved HCP covering
northern spotted owls or a Stateapproved special wildlife management
plan, suitable northern spotted owl
habitat in State-designated SOSEAs on
non-federal lands is protected by the
special Washington Forest Practices
Rules in State-designated SOSEAs.
Within SOSEAs, the Forest Practices
rules provide protection for suitable
northern spotted owl habitat. The
Washington Forest Practices Rules
maintain the viability of each northern
spotted owl site center by protecting: (a)
All suitable spotted owl habitat within
0.7 mile of each spotted owl site center;
and (b) a total of 2,605 acres of suitable
spotted owl habitat within the median
home range circle with a radius of 1.8
miles. Under the rules, proposed forest
practices likely to adversely affect
spotted owl habitat in either category (a)
or (b) above are likely to have significant
adverse impacts to the northern spotted
owl, and such activities would require
a Class IV special forest practices permit
and an environmental impact statement
per the State Environmental Policy Act.
The overarching policy goal of the
Washington Forest Practices Rules is to
complement the conservation strategy
on Federal lands, and as such the
SOSEAs are adjacent to Federal lands.
SOSEAs are designed to provide a larger
landscape for demographic and
dispersal support for northern spotted
owls. The long-term goal is to support
a viable population of northern spotted
owls in Washington.
In Washington, the Forest Practices
Board (the State regulatory rule-making
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
body) has a long-standing relationship
with the Service and collaborates
extensively on northern spotted owl
conservation. The Service provided
extensive technical assistance in the
development of the Board’s existing
northern spotted owl rules. The Board
was recognized in Recovery Action 18
in the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, p.
III–57) for its ongoing owl conservation
efforts and encouraged to continue to
use its existing processes ‘‘to identify
areas on non-federal lands in
Washington that can make strategic
contributions to spotted owl
conservation over time. The Service
encourages timely completion of the
Board’s efforts and will be available to
assist as necessary.’’ The Board
convened the Northern Spotted Owl
Implementation Team (NSOIT). The
NSOIT has been tasked to develop
incentives for landowners to conserve
northern spotted owl habitat, identify
the temporal and spatial allocation of
conservation efforts on non-federal
lands, and make recommendations to
the Board, should any rules need to be
updated. The NSOIT is also conducting
a pilot project testing different thinning
prescriptions in northern spotted owl
habitat. These efforts have evolved over
years of collaboration and are designed
to change the dynamic away from fear
and resistance to partnership and
participation. On November 13, 2012,
the Board took another step for northern
spotted owl conservation and expanded
the scope of the NSOIT to investigate
and recommend, in coordination with
the Service, voluntary programmatic
tools for private landowners to support
northern spotted owl conservation and
provide regulatory certainty for
landowners (WDNR in litt.). This step
further demonstrates Washington’s
willingness to use its authority and
processes to support northern spotted
owl conservation. The Service has and
continues to provide funding to support
the work of the NSOIT.
Benefits of Inclusion—The areas of
private land retained in our final
designation at issue here support both
essential demographic and dispersal
needs of spotted owls, and highlight the
important conservation roles of private
lands in Washington. Designation of
these private lands may raise public
awareness of conservation actions
needed for spotted owl recovery,
although the educational benefit of the
designation is somewhat limited
currently since these areas have already
been identified as SOSEAs, since 1997.
We find there are minimal benefits to
including these lands in critical habitat.
The designation of critical habitat
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
invokes the provisions of section 7. Our
Final Economic Analysis (IEC 2012b, p.
ES–17) concludes that critical habitat
designation for the northern spotted owl
is unlikely to directly affect timber
harvests on private lands in Washington
because of the low likelihood that such
harvests would be simultaneously
connected to a Federal permitting or
funding action. Without a pending
Federal action, there is no basis for
initiating a consultation process under
section 7 of the Act. As discussed
previously, the designation of critical
habitat invokes the provisions of section
7. However, in this case, we find the
requirement that Federal agencies
consult with us and ensure that their
actions are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat will
not result in significant benefits to the
species. The possibility of a Federal
nexus for a project on these lands is
small unless it was a larger project
covering adjacent Federal lands as well,
in which case section 7 consultation
would already be triggered and the
Federal agency would consider the
effects of its actions on the species. In
addition, most of the habitat on these
private lands would be assumed to be
occupied, further minimizing to some
extent the margin of conservation that
could be attained through section 7.
Any incremental benefits would be
further minimized because of the
protections already in place In addition,
it would be small in comparison to the
benefits already derived under the
WDNR FPR.
There is minimal incremental benefit
from designating critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl within private
lands covered by the WDNR Forest
Practices Rules (FPR) because these
lands are already managed for the
conservation of the species through the
WDNR FPR. The conservation measures
provided by that process will provide
greater protection to northern spotted
owl habitat than the designation of
critical habitat, which provides
regulatory protections only in the event
of a Federal action. In addition, the final
rule designation would provide for
protection of fewer acres than the
existing FPR. The WDNR FPR provides
for the needs of the northern spotted
owl by protecting and preserving
landscape levels of suitable northern
spotted owl nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat as well as foraging and
dispersal habitat in strategic landscapes,
and implementing species-specific
conservation measures designed to
avoid and minimize effects to northern
spotted owls. The WDNR FPR also
contains provisions that address
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
ownership changes and provides for the
ability to make ongoing adjustments in
a number of forms, including active
adaptive forest management. The ability
to change is crucial to meet new
recovery challenges. The Service
continues to be work with WDNR to
provide technical assistance in the
implementation of these rules. The
WDNR FPR contains provisions that
address ownership changes and the
outcomes expected by the Service.
Therefore, designation of critical habitat
would be redundant on these lands, and
would not provide additional
measureable protections.
Including lands in a critical habitat
designation does serve to educate
landowners, State and local
governments, and the public regarding
the potential conservation value of an
area. This helps focus and promote
conservation efforts by other parties by
identifying areas of high conservation
value for northern spotted owls.
Designation of critical habitat would
inform State agencies and local
governments about areas that could be
conserved under State laws or local
ordinances, such as the Washington
State Growth Management Act, which
encourage the protection of ‘‘critical
areas’’ including fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas. Any
information about the northern spotted
owl and its habitat that reaches a wider
audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable.
However, WDNR, as the State’s natural
resource agency, is knowledgeable about
the species and has made substantial
contributions to our knowledge of the
species. The additional educational and
informational benefits that might arise
from critical habitat designation here
have been largely accomplished through
the public review and comment during
reviews of the FPR and associated with
the modification of the FPR, and
through implementation of the FPR by
landowners. The existing public process
for FPR development provides for
extensive opportunities for engagement
in the development and refinement of
the rules. The FPR includes intensive
public involvement and is frequently a
topic of open and public discussion
during meetings of the Washington State
Forest Practices Board, whose meetings
are open to the public and frequently
televised. This level of exposure in local
newspapers and television stations
exceeds the level of education that
would come from a designation that
would be read by few people in the
public. Moreover, the rulemaking
process associated with critical habitat
designation includes several
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71985
opportunities for public comment, and
thus also provides for public education.
Finally, there may be some ancillary
benefits if the designation resulted in
changed timber management practices
on these private lands. These benefits
could include but are not limited to:
public safety benefits by increasing
resiliency of timber stands, improved
water quality, aesthetic benefits, and
carbon storage. However, as discussed
above, the possibility of a Federal nexus
on these private lands is limited, so
changes in timber management as a
result of critical habitat, and any
attendant ancillary benefits, are
anticipated to be minimal.
Benefits of Exclusion—With regard to
the benefits of exclusion from
designation, although the final
economic analysis (FEA) noted that one
possible outcome of the critical habitat
designation would be that the State
could revise its regulations, and in a
worst case scenario such revision could
result in some private acres no longer
being harvestable, we note that the
likelihood of such revision actually
occurring is characterized as speculative
(IEC 2012b, p. 5–20). The FEA notes two
possible outcomes of critical habitat
designation, one being no change in
Forest Practices Rules, the other is that
State would revise their regulations and
designate all suitable habitat
overlapping with Federal critical habitat
as ‘‘critical habitat state.’’ However,
Washington DNR representatives only
offered examples of potential responses
to Federal designation of critical habitat
in Washington, and did not comment
upon the likelihood that any of these
scenarios would occur (IEC 2012b, p. 5–
11). The FEA also makes note of the
potential indirect effects of critical
habitat on private lands, in terms of
private landowners possibly reacting by
changing their timber harvest practices
in response to perceived regulatory
uncertainty as a result of critical habitat
(IEC 2012b, p. 5–19).
In particular, a benefit of excluding
lands covered under the WDNR FPR
from critical habitat designation is that
it would encourage the State and other
parties to continue to work for owl
conservation. If lands within the WDNR
FPR area are designated as critical
habitat, it would also likely have a
negative effect on our ability to continue
to partner with the WDNR on this
conservation. In particular, the WDNR
comment letter (WDNR 2012) states that
if inclusion of private land is warranted,
then WDNR requests that the Service
‘‘create and bolster incentive based
conservation opportunities for private
landowners’’. This recognizes the
potential negative effects to their
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71986
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
existing collaborative approach. By
excluding these lands, we preserve our
current private and local conservation
partnerships and encourage additional
conservation actions in the future
because other parties see our exclusion
as a sign that the Service will not
impose duplicative regulatory burdens
on landowners who are already have a
regulatory responsibility under the
WDNR FPR. As described in Changes
from the Proposed Rule, many of the
small, private parcels were removed
from the final designation upon a
determination that they did not meet the
definition of critical habitat. The
remaining areas of private lands (40,732
ac; 16,483 ha) in Washington contained
in this designation are private industrial
forest lands; these private lands are not
currently covered by HCPs or SHAs but
are covered under the WDNR Forest
Practices Rules (FPR). Of these, 37,000
ac (14,974 ha) occur within the spotted
owl circles currently regulated by the
existing FPR. It is unlikely that the
benefit of overlaying an additional
regulatory burden within the SOSEAs to
protect an additional 4,000 ac (1,619 ha)
would be a significant benefit within the
range of the owl. Excluding these
private lands from the designation
would avoid a chilling effect on the
partnership between the Service and the
affected State regulatory agencies
regarding administration of their
existing conservation programs to
protect and conserve northern spotted
owls on private lands. We consider the
maintenance of our partnership between
the Service and the affected State
regulatory agencies to be a significant
benefit of exclusion.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—The benefits of
including these lands in the designation
are small. The WDNR FPR contains
provisions for protecting and
maintaining northern spotted owl
habitat that provides for comprehensive
measures applied across a large
landscape that will benefit spotted owls.
WDNR personnel are extremely
knowledgeable regarding the ecology of
the northern spotted owl and have
contributed to the body of scientific
information about the northern spotted
owl. The landowners subject to these
State regulations are also informed by
them. In this instance, the regulatory
and educational benefits of inclusion
have much less benefit than the
continued benefit of the WDNR FPR
including the educational benefits
derived from the FPR.
The WDNR FPR provides for
significant conservation and
management within geographical areas
that contain the physical or biological
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
features essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl and help
achieve recovery of this species.
Exclusion of private lands already
covered under the WDNR FPR will help
foster the partnership we have
developed with WDNR. Furthermore,
this partnership may aid in fostering
future cooperative relationships with
other parties in other locations for the
benefit of listed species.
In summary, we determine that the
benefits of excluding private lands
already covered under the WDNR FPR
from the designation of critical habitat
for the northern spotted owl outweigh
the benefits of including this area in
critical habitat. We find that including
these lands would result in minimal, if
any, additional benefits to the northern
spotted owl, as explained above. The
WDNR FPR includes species-specific
avoidance and minimization measures,
rule enforcement procedures, and forestmanagement practices and habitat
conservation objectives that benefit the
northern spotted owl and its habitat,
which exceeds substantially minimizes
the incremental any conservation value
provided as a result of a critical habitat
designation. Given the active and
ongoing efforts of the State of
Washington to address northern spotted
owl conservation, we have determined
that maintaining our partnership with
WDNR, in conjunction with the
conservation measures under the WDNR
FPR, provides a greater benefit to the
northern spotted owl than would the
regulatory and educational benefits of
critical habitat designation. We also
have determined that the potential
incremental educational and ancillary
benefits of critical habitat designation
on lands containing the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl would be minimal, because WDNR
has already made significant
contributions to our understanding of
the ecology of the northern spotted owl,
and continues to do so through
implementation of Recovery Action 18
and through participation in range wide
demographic studies.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We have
determined that exclusion of
approximately 40,732 ac (16,483 ha) of
private lands covered under the WDNR
FPR will not result in extinction of the
northern spotted owl. The WDNR FPR
protects and preserves landscape levels
of suitable northern spotted owl nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat as well as
foraging and dispersal habitat in
strategic landscapes, and implements
species-specific conservation measures
designed to avoid and minimize effects
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to northern spotted owls. The Board has
adopted a Wildlife Work Plan that
requires rule review and revision should
new information warrant that. We find
that exclusion of private lands currently
covered under the WDNR FPR will not
result in extinction of the northern
spotted owl. Therefore, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude these
private lands from this final critical
habitat designation that are currently
covered under the WDNR FPR totaling
about 40,732 ac (16,483 ha).
Congressionally Reserved Natural Areas
and State Park Lands
Our decision to exclude
congressionally reserved natural areas
and State park lands from this rule is
based on the unique circumstances
associated with this critical habitat
designation. Before making a final
decision of whether to exclude
congressionally and State reserved
natural areas, we weighed the relative
benefits and costs a designation of these
lands would confer and compared them
to the costs and benefits of no
designation. Our final decision is that
these areas are essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl, but a designation of these areas in
this particular case would confer no
current or potential regulatory benefit
and a very minor education benefit. The
primary habitat threat to the northern
spotted owl is from commercial timber
harvest. Since commercial timber
harvest is not allowed on these lands,
there would be little benefit to
additional section 7 consultation on
effects to critical habitat. We also agree
with the National Park Service that a
designation would impose some, albeit
relatively small, additional
administrative costs to land managers
who would need to consult with the
Service if their actions or programs
might affect northern spotted owl
critical habitat. Likewise, we find that
State Park lands could experience some
additional minor administrative costs as
a consequence of this designation,
especially those State Parks jointly
managed with Redwood National Park
and those that may use Federal funding
for research and monitoring or program
and capital improvements. However, we
find that even these minimal costs
would outweigh the minor
informational benefits of including
these areas in the critical habitat
designation.
Benefits of Inclusion—The proposed
critical habitat rule published on March
8, 2012 (77 FR 14062), as part of
‘‘Possible Outcome 3’’ in Table 1 (p.
14068), proposed to exclude 2,631,736
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ac (1,065,026 has) of congressionally
reserved lands and 164,776 ac (66,682
ha) of State Park lands from final critical
habitat. These Federal reserved lands
include all National Parks and
Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild
and Scenic Rivers, National Scenic
Areas, and other congressionally
designated areas identified in the
proposed rule. State Parks lands
included Iron Horse State Park in
Washington, and all or portions of 30
State Parks in California, including
Jedediah Smith, Del Norte Coast, Prairie
Creek, Grizzly Creek, Humboldt
Redwoods, DeWitt Redwoods,
Richardson Grove, Reynolds Wayside,
Smithe Redwoods, Standish-Hickey,
Wm. Standley, Russian Gulch,
Mendocino Headlands, Mendocino
Woodlands, Van Damme, Montgomery
Woods, Navarro Redwoods, Hendy
Woods, Mailliard, Salt Point, Austin
Creek, Armstrong State Reserve,
Tomales Bay, Samuel P. Taylor, Mount
Tamalpais, Robert Louis Stevenson,
Bothe—Napa Valley, Sugarloaf Ridge,
Jack London, and Annadel State Park.
A primary purpose of these
congressional and State reserved natural
areas is to conserve natural ecosystems,
including those of the northern spotted
owl and its habitat, and educate the
public regarding the conservation of
these areas. Unlike other Federal and
State lands that have multiple use
mandates that include commercial
harvest of timber in the range of the
spotted owl, such as National Forests,
State Forests, and forests managed by
the BLM, these reserved natural areas
are unlikely to have uses that are
incompatible with the purposes of
critical habitat because the primary
threat to spotted owl critical habitat—
commercial timber harvest—is
prohibited on these lands. These natural
areas are managed under explicit
Federal and State laws and policies
consistent with the conservation of the
northern spotted owl, and there is
generally little or no timber
management beyond the removal of
hazard trees or fuels management to
protect structures, roads, human safety,
and important natural attributes. For
example, the Wilderness Act provides
conservation for the northern spotted
owl because it prohibits commercial
activities unrelated to wilderness
recreation. Thus, not only is commercial
timber harvest directly barred on these
Federal lands, but the Wilderness Act
also precludes the construction of roads
and most uses of mechanical
equipment. 16 U.S.C. 1133. The
fundamental purpose of the National
Park System, established by the Organic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Act and reaffirmed by the General
Authorities Act, as amended, begins
with a mandate to conserve park
resources and values. This mandate is
independent of the separate prohibition
on impairment and applies with respect
to all park resources and values, even
when there is no risk that any park
resources or values may be impaired.
See 16 U.S.C. sections 1–4.
Similarly, all of the State Parks lands
proposed for exclusion occur in
California except for 104 ac (42 ha) in
Washington. California State Parks are
managed by the California Department
of Parks and Recreation. This Agency’s
mission is to ‘‘administer, protect,
provide for recreational opportunity,
and develop the State Park System
* * *’’ We are unaware of any
commercial timber harvests in
California or Washington State Parks.
Therefore, any habitat-disturbing
activities that might occur as the land
managers carry out their conservation
programs (e.g., trail maintenance,
education and outreach, operations and
maintenance, etc.) are likely to be
relatively minor and are unlikely to be
regulated by a critical habitat
designation. On the Federal reserved
lands, the section 7 prohibition on the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat would be redundant and
unlikely to add any protection to these
important habitat areas. Likewise, many
of these State Parks have close working
relationships with Federal agencies and
may experience, through those Federal
partners, a section 7 nexus or other
administrative costs if the States utilize
Federal funds or require a Federal
permit for their activities. For example,
several State Parks in California (i.e.,
Del Norte Redwoods, Prairie Creek
Redwoods, and Jedediah Smith
Redwoods) are jointly managed with
Redwood National Park through an
agreement signed in 1994. In the San
Francisco Bay Area, the National Park
Service manages an inventory and
monitoring program that includes
actions by State Parks and other Federal
partners such as the U.S. Geological
Survey. Further, land managers monitor
spotted owl territories within these
reserved areas as part of long term
population monitoring efforts, and
barred owl populations are also
monitored as part of spotted owl
recovery efforts. For example, spotted
owl territories in Crater Lake National
Park have been monitored since 1992,
and there are multiple spotted owl
monitoring and conservation efforts
occurring in many these parks
throughout the species’ range. A critical
habitat designation on these State Parks
may introduce some additional
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71987
administrative costs but confer no
increase in regulatory protection.
Therefore, we believe there would be no
regulatory benefits to inclusion of these
lands in critical habitat.
We also believe that a critical habitat
designation for these specific natural
areas would confer minimal additional
educational benefit toward spotted owl
conservation. These areas are generally
well known for their value to the
conservation of listed species due to the
education and communication programs
of the natural area management agencies
during the time since the listing of the
spotted owl. Educational materials are
distributed and other communication
programs occur regarding the
conservation of late successional forests
and the species that inhabit them such
as the spotted owl (see, e.g., Olympic
National Park Web site featuring spotted
owl information at http://www.nps.gov/
olym/naturescience/animals.htm, or
http://www.nps.gov/muwo/
naturescience/life-of-spotted-owls.htm
for NPS lands in central California). We
also note that the management agencies
overseeing these congressionally and
State reserved natural areas have a
positive history of over 20 years of
conserving northern spotted owls and
supporting research and conservation of
the owl on their protected lands. While
in other cases we have found benefits
where critical habitat would highlight
the importance of the habitat to owl
conservation for future planning and
management purposes, in the case of
these lands, management is already
consistent with habitat protection.
Therefore, it is unlikely that designation
of critical habitat of these areas would
provide any significant informational
benefits to the land managers or the
public.
Benefits of Exclusion—We attempted
to quantify the potential increase in
administrative costs for the Service
associated with a proposed designation
of critical habitat in congressionally
reserved land allocations. There is
generally little or no timber
management beyond removal of hazard
trees or fuels reduction to protect
structures and road maintenance, in
addition to fire-management activities.
Management guidelines for
congressionally reserved lands are
generally protective, so we do not
anticipate requesting any changes of
proposed management as a result of a
critical habitat designation, and we
would not anticipate reaching an
adverse modification determination. In
reserve areas where we do consult, the
designation of critical habitat would
likely add an adverse-modification
analysis to an existing consultation.
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71988
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Total incremental effects would likely
be about 4–6 hours of staff time per
action for both the action agency and
the Service, although this estimate
could vary widely depending on the
size and scope of the action.
The final economic analysis (FEA)
(IEC 2012b) quantified this potential for
an increase in administrative costs, and
they described the potential indirect
impacts due to time delays for project
processing and regulatory uncertainty.
The analysis states, ‘‘While critical
habitat is not expected to generate
changes to forest management practices
or to testing or training missions on NPS
or DOD lands, these areas may be
subject to new or increasingly complex
section 7 consultations as a result of
critical habitat designation. Activities
that may involve section 7 consultations
include the construction or maintenance
of visitor facilities on NPS lands and
access roads to projects or military
training including the use of vehicles,
explosives, and soldiers. DOD and NPS
will likely experience an additional
administrative burden to provide
biological assessments for projects in
consultations with the Service as a
result of critical habitat designation’’
(IEC 2012b, p. 4–4). The FEA forecast an
additional 16 informal consultations
with NPS on planned or ongoing
recreation and habitat management
projects (IEC 2012b, p. 4–27). (Although
the text refers to the NPS lands, the
same rationale generally applies to other
federally reserved lands in the proposed
exclusion.) The FEA did not quantify
the potential for direct incremental
economic impacts on State Park lands,
but it does identify the potential for
indirect impacts due to time delays and
regulatory uncertainty. Again, it is
expected that these impacts would be
relatively minor, but they nevertheless
are not offset by a proportional increase
in conservation benefits that would
accrue as a consequence of this critical
habitat designation on these lands.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion—In sum, we find
there are no regulatory benefits and
such minimal educational benefits to
including these lands in the designation
that they are outweighed by the minor
increase in administrative costs. We
reach this conclusion for several
reasons: (1) A critical habitat
designation of these reserved areas in
the range of the spotted owl would
provide no additional regulatory
benefits beyond what is already on these
lands due to their permanent status as
fully protected lands and, importantly,
the fact that commercial timber harvest
is not permitted on these lands under
Federal and State law and policy; (2) the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
designation of these reserve areas would
confer little additional educational
benefits associated with the
conservation of the spotted owl, as these
educational messages are already being
communicated in many of these areas
under existing programs; and (3) as
identified by the economic analysis and
the NPS, there is the potential for a
small but measureable increase in
administrative costs, time delays, and
regulatory uncertainty for the Service
and Federal and State land managers if
these lands were designated, without
any offsetting positive conservation
benefits to justify the increased
administrative costs.
After weighing these relative costs
and benefits, the Secretary has chosen to
exercise his discretion under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude these lands
from final critical habitat. As part of this
review we have determined the Federal
agencies are managing these reserved
natural areas under statutes that already
impose a clear conservation mandate
consistent with the specific needs of the
northern spotted owl, and a critical
habitat designation would confer no
additional conservation benefits to the
spotted owl that offset the potential
increase in administrative costs. In
making this decision, we also note the
historic role of congressionally and
State reserved natural areas as part of
northern spotted owl critical habitat. In
1992, the Service concluded that certain
congressionally reserved parks and
wilderness areas were essential to
spotted owl conservation, but we
declined to include these lands in the
final designation of critical habitat
because their current classification and
management was deemed adequate to
meet spotted owl conservation goals
(January 15, 1992; 57 FR 1796, p. 1806).
Likewise, in 2008, the Service revised
northern spotted owl critical habitat and
again concluded that congressionally
reserved natural areas would not be
included in final critical habitat for the
same reasons as those identified in the
1992 decision (August 13, 2008; 73 FR
47325, p. 47334). Although not a factor
in this section 4(b)(2) weighing, this
determination will maintain the
consistent management approach for
spotted owls that has occurred on these
lands over the last 20 years and should
minimize the potential for confusion
among land managers and the public.
This analysis is based in large part on
the particular conservation
requirements of the northern spotted
owl and is specific to this designation.
Thus, our determination that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion in this case does
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
not necessarily have a bearing on future
critical habitat designations.
Exclusion Will Not Result in
Extinction of the Species—We conclude
that this exclusion of congressionally
and State reserved natural areas would
not result in the extinction of the
species. As described above, all of these
areas are managed under State and
Federal law to provide for the
conservation of species and their natural
habitat, including the northern spotted
owl. A critical habitat designation
would not enhance or incrementally
improve this dedicated management or
increase the protections of these lands,
nor would its absence somehow fail to
provide protections that otherwise
would not be present. Therefore, this
exclusion of lands from final critical
habitat would not result in any
appreciable risk of extinction to the
species because these lands will
continue to be managed to provide for
the conservation of the spotted owl.
Cumulative Analysis—Exclusion Will
Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We have determined that exclusion of
approximately 4,056,759 ac (1,641,777
ha) of lands from this final designation
of critical habitat will not result in
extinction of the northern spotted owl.
We have excluded these areas based, in
part, on the significant conservation
benefits afforded to the northern spotted
owl and its habitat on these lands
through the positive conservation
measures provided through SHAs,
HCPs, or other agreements with private
landowner partners with a proven track
record of conservation actions. Each of
these agreements, as discussed here,
provides significant conservation
benefits to the species in terms of
maintaining, enhancing, or recruiting
additional suitable habitat for the
northern spotted owl, and implementing
species-specific conservation measures
designed to avoid and minimize impacts
to northern spotted owls. Further, for
projects having a Federal nexus and
affecting northern spotted owls in the
excluded areas, all of which are
occupied by the species, the jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act provides
a level of assurance that this species
will not go extinct as a result of
excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. The species is also
protected by section 9 of the Act, which
prohibits the take of listed species.
Congressionally and State reserved
natural areas excluded are managed
under State and Federal law and policy
to provide for the conservation of
species and their natural habitat,
including the northern spotted owl.
These lands will continue to be
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
managed under a clear conservation
mandate, and exclusion of these lands
from critical habitat will not deprive the
species or its habitat of any protections
that are not already present. Although
we did not assume that all private lands
without specific conservation
agreements would continue to fully
provide for the conservation of the owl,
we determined that the exclusion of
these lands would not lead to the
extinction of the species, due to existing
State protections and the fact that the
areas excluded constitute such a small
percentage of the overall designation.
For these reasons, we conclude that the
exclusion of these areas under section
4(b)(2) of the Act will not cumulatively
result in the extinction of the species.
Consideration of Indian Lands
In accordance with the Secretarial
Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997); the
President’s memorandum of April 29,
1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive
Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’ (November 6, 2000, and
as reaffirmed November 5, 2009); and
the relevant provision of the
Departmental Manual of the Department
of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe
that fish, wildlife, and other natural
resources on Indian lands may be better
managed under Indian authorities,
policies, and programs than through
Federal regulation where Indian
management addresses the conservation
needs of listed species. In addition, such
designation may be viewed as
unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion
into Indian self-governance, thus
compromising the government-togovernment relationship essential to
achieving our mutual goals of managing
for healthy ecosystems upon which the
viability of threatened and endangered
species populations depend.
In developing the proposed revised
critical habitat designation for the
northern spotted owl, we considered
inclusion of some Indian lands. As
described in the above section Criteria
Used to Identify Critical Habitat, and
detailed in our supporting
documentation (Dunk et al. 2012b,
entire), we evaluated numerous
potential habitat scenarios to determine
those areas that are essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl. In all cases, we assessed the
effectiveness of the habitat scenario
under consideration in terms of its
ability to meet the recovery goals for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
species. Furthermore, the habitat
scenarios under consideration included
a comparison of different prioritization
schemes for landownership; we
prioritized areas under consideration for
critical habitat such that we looked first
to Federal lands, followed by State,
private, and Indian lands. Indian lands
are those defined in Secretarial Order
3206 ‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act’’ (June
5, 1997), as: (1) lands held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of any
Indian tribe or individual; and (2) lands
held by any Indian Tribe or individual
subject to restrictions by the United
States against alienation. In evaluating
Indian lands under consideration as
potential critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl, we further considered the
directive of Secretarial Order 3206 that
stipulates ‘‘Critical habitat shall not be
designated in such areas unless it is
determined essential to conserve a listed
species. In designating critical habitat,
the Services shall evaluate and
document the extent to which the
conservation needs of the listed species
can be achieved by limiting the
designation to other lands.’’
Although some Indian lands
identified in our habitat modeling
demonstrated the potential to contribute
to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl, our analysis did not
suggest that these areas were essential to
conserve the northern spotted owl. This
determination was based on our relative
evaluation of the various habitat
scenarios under consideration; if the
population performance results from
our habitat modeling indicated that we
could meet the recovery goals for the
species without relying on Indian lands,
we did not consider the physical or
biological features on those lands, or the
lands themselves, to be essential to the
conservation of the species, therefore
they did not meet our criteria for
inclusion in critical habitat. Our
evaluation of the areas under
consideration for designation as critical
habitat indicated that we could achieve
the conservation of the northern spotted
owl by limiting the designation of
revised critical habitat to other lands.
Therefore, no Indian lands are included
in the revised designation of critical
habitat.
XII. Summary of Comments and
Responses
We requested written comments from
the public on the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl during an initial
90-day public comment period, which
opened with the publication of the
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71989
proposed revised rule on March 8, 2012
(77 FR 14062), and closed on June 6,
2012. On June 1, 2012, we published the
notice of availability of the draft
economic analysis and draft
environmental assessment associated
with the proposed revised designation
of critical habitat (77 FR 32483), and
extended the comment period for the
proposed rule an additional 30 days,
through July 6, 2012, thereby providing
a total comment period of 120 days. In
addition, we held two public
information meetings in Redding,
California on June 4, 2012; two in
Tacoma, Washington, on June 12, 2012;
one in Portland, Oregon on June 20,
2012; and two in Roseburg, Oregon, on
June 27, 2012. We also held a public
hearing in Portland, Oregon, on June 20,
2012. In addition, we contacted
appropriate Federal, State, County, and
local agencies; scientific organizations;
and other interested parties and invited
them to comment on the proposed rule,
draft economic analysis, and draft
environmental assessment during these
comment periods. In addition, in
response to requests from several
Counties, and to ensure that all affected
Counties and State fish and wildlife
agencies in Washington, Oregon, and
California were able to thoroughly
review and comment as provided by
section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
Service provided an additional
opportunity for those entities to
comment until August 20, 2012.
During the comment period(s), we
received over 33,000 comments (many
of which were form letters), directly
addressing the proposed revised critical
habitat designation. During the June 20,
2012, public hearing, eight individuals
or organizations provided comments on
the proposed revised designation. All
substantive information provided by
commenters has either been
incorporated directly into this final
designation or addressed below.
Comments received were grouped into
general categories specifically relating to
the proposed revised critical habitat
designation, and are addressed in the
following summary, and incorporated
into the final rule as appropriate. We
received a number of highly technical
comments regarding the modeling
process used to develop critical habitat.
These technical questions are addressed
in the final Modeling Supplement
(Dunk et al. 2012b) rather than in the
following section. We also received
several comments regarding perceived
effects attributed to the original listing
of the northern spotted owl (June 26,
1990; 55 FR 26114), but are not
addressing those comments because
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
71990
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
they do not apply to this rulemaking,
which is limited to the revised
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl.
Comments From Peer Reviewers
In accordance with our peer review
policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions
from 40 knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species
occurs, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from
15 of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received
from the peer reviewers for substantive
issues and new information regarding
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl. The peer reviewers generally
supported the modeling process used to
inform the identification of critical
habitat and the resulting size and
distribution of the proposed revised
designation. Reviewers were divided on
the risks posed by climate change and
forest health, and whether active
management should be applied within
critical habitat.
We asked reviewers to address a
number of specific questions with
regard to the proposed rule. The
questions posed to the peer reviewers
and a summary of their responses are
provided below; peer reviewer
comments, clarifications, and
suggestions have been incorporated into
the final rule as appropriate. Our
responses to issues raised by the peer
reviewers are presented in the
subsequent summaries of comments and
responses.
Question 1a: Given the assumptions
about barred owl effects, does this
critical habitat network provide a
sufficient amount and distribution of
habitat for the northern spotted owl?
Peer Review Response: Of the seven
reviewers who provided a response to
this question, four indicated that it was
impossible to determine whether the
critical habitat network was adequate
with barred owls present across the
area. Two reviewers believed the
network was adequate, and one believed
it was too small given barred owl
impacts.
Question 1b: Have the physical or
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the owl been
properly described? Do the areas
identified as proposed critical habitat
adequately capture these features? Are
there areas we identified that should not
be included in the designation?
Peer Review Response: Of the five
reviewers who addressed this question,
all believed the physical or biological
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
features were properly described. A
number of these reviewers did have
suggestions for revising descriptions of
these features in specific forest types
and we have incorporated these
suggestions into the final rule.
Question 2: Does the critical habitat
network adequately encompass the
geographic range of the northern spotted
owl and represent the range of habitat
types used by the species?
Peer Review Response: Only three
reviewers specifically addressed this
question. All agreed that the network
encompassed the geographic range and
habitat types used by owls. One
reviewer expressed concern that
additional lands in the southwest
Washington lowlands should be
included to improve landscape
connectivity, and a second reviewer
indicated that maintaining areas of
marginal habitat where northern spotted
owls could persist in the face of
encroachment by barred owls may be
particularly important. See our response
to 0 for a detailed discussion regarding
inclusion of lands in southwest
Washington and inclusion of marginal
habitat.
Question 3: We have identified areas
on Federal lands in the ‘‘Matrix’’
classification (i.e., areas designated for
timber harvest under the NWFP) as
proposed critical habitat, as well as
some State and private lands where
Federal lands are lacking. Do you agree
or disagree with this approach? Why or
why not?
Peer Review Response: Eight
reviewers addressed this question, and
all agreed that inclusion of matrix lands
in critical habitat was supported. One
reviewer noted that the barred owl issue
needs to be addressed (see response to
0 for detailed discussion of this issue),
and another reviewer was surprised that
all habitat-capable lands in the western
portion of the species’ range were not
included in critical habitat (see 0 for a
more detailed discussion of this issue).
Question 4a: Does the proposed rule
appropriately cite the scientific
literature on ecological forestry to
recommend restoration of ecological
processes and the conservation of latesuccessional forests while also
providing sufficient habitat
conservation for northern spotted owls?
Peer Review Response: Ten reviewers
addressed this issue. Most supported
the idea that land managers consider the
application of ecological forestry
principles. Five believed the rule cited
appropriate literature, and several other
expressed general support, but
recommended consideration of
additional published research. Three
reviewers disagreed with some of the
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
science that was cited, or the
interpretation of that science, and noted
that the discussion did not adequately
address studies that have documented
negative effects of timber management
on northern spotted owls and their prey.
Several reviewers recommended that
active management should be
conducted in an adaptive management
framework. We addressed these issues
in revisions to the section An
Ecosystem-based Approach to the
Conservation of the Northern Spotted
Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat.
Question 4b: Do the proposed
guidelines for vegetation management,
including forest fuels treatments and
restoration of fire regimes, represent an
appropriate application of ecological
science?
Peer Review Response: Responses to
this question were varied. Eight
reviewers expressed overall support for
the concept, although several
recommended providing more specific
management information. Four
reviewers indicated that parts of the
document were unclear on whether
ecological science was applied
appropriately, and highlighted the lack
of understanding about how such
management actions may affect owls
and their prey. Two reviewers
specifically indicated that they did not
think that approach is appropriate.
Several recommended conducting active
management activities in an adaptive
management framework, until the
science becomes clearer regarding how
northern spotted owls are affected by
projects intended to restore forest health
or apply ecological forestry principles.
We addressed active adaptive forest
management in the section An
Ecosystem-based Approach to the
Conservation of the Northern Spotted
Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat.
Question 4c: Do you believe the
proposed rule appropriately balances
the potential risks of taking action with
the potential risks of a passive (i.e., ‘‘no
action’’) management approach,
especially in the face of ongoing climate
change and the need to manage for the
entire forest ecosystem, not just
northern spotted owls?
Peer Review Response: Peer reviewers
were split in their opinions on this
question, and responded with varying
degrees of specificity. Eight reviewers
generally supported the suggestion that
land managers consider an active
management approach in managing
forest landscapes, although not all
stated whether the discussion of this
concept in the proposed rule balanced
the respective tradeoffs. Five reviewers
believed that the risks were not
appropriately balanced, that the
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
discussion was too vague in weighing
the tradeoffs, or that there is too little
specific scientific understanding of the
explicit tradeoffs to conduct an
informed discussion. Several of these
reviewers indicated that there was too
much emphasis on active management
in the preamble to the proposed rule
given the lack of understanding about
how ecological forestry and restoration
management might affect owls. In
contrast, one reviewer noted that the
consequences of not applying
management in some areas (e.g., fireprone areas) were not sufficiently
addressed. We have addressed the need
to conduct additional research in an
adaptive management framework in the
section An Ecosystem-based Approach
to the Conservation of the Northern
Spotted Owl and Managing Its Critical
Habitat.
Question 5a: Is there relevant
information available we did not
incorporate into the critical habitat
modeling process (thoroughness), and
have we interpreted the existing
scientific information in a reasonable
way (scientific consistency)?
Peer Review Response: The 15
reviewers generally agreed that we did
include the appropriate information and
interpreted it in a reasonable way.
Recommendations to incorporate more
realistic barred owl encounter rates, use
individual home ranges rather than pair
ranges in the modeling process, and
analyze the effects of proposed
exclusions were suggested. We address
these issues in our responses to
Comment (11), Comment (38), and
Comment (139). One reviewer
questioned the accuracy of GNN data for
identifying northern spotted owl
habitat. We address the question
regarding the accuracy of GNN data in
our response to Comment (19). In
addition, some reviewers asked for more
detail regarding the modeling process.
Many of the responses to comments
provided here present such detail, and
we have incorporated additional
discussion in our separate Modeling
Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b).
Question 5b: The modeling process
attempted to incorporate both scientific
uncertainty and demographic
(stochastic) variation. Were methods
used to incorporate uncertainty and
variability appropriate?
Peer Review Response: Six reviewers
addressed this question specifically.
Most had suggestions for improving our
methods including addressing temporal
variation in demographic rates,
providing confidence intervals on
estimates, and conducting sensitivity
analyses. We address specific comments
in more detail in the Modeling
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Comments section below, as well as in
our separate Modeling Supplement
(Dunk et al. 2012b).
Question 5c: Does the proposed
critical habitat rule correctly express the
key assumptions and uncertainties
underlying the scientific and technical
information it used, particularly in
regard to northern spotted owl habitat,
demographic trends, and influence of
barred owls on northern spotted owls?
Peer Review Response: In general, the
reviewers agreed that the rule did
address key assumptions and
uncertainties; however, most identified
specific areas these could be improved.
We address these comments in more
detail in the Modeling Section below, as
well as in our separate Modeling
Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b).
Question 5d: Was the combination of
analytical methods (MaxEnt, Zonation,
HexSim) with professional judgment
(please see Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat, pp. 14096–14101 in the
proposed rule (March 8, 2012; 77 FR
14062) for details) appropriate for
identifying critical habitat? Are there
additional analyses you would
recommend?
Peer Review Response: Of the 15 peer
reviewers, 1 thought that HexSim was
not an appropriate model given its
complexity, and 2 expressed concern
about the utility of the MaxEnt model
for identifying habitat. The majority of
peer reviewers thought that the
combination of analytical methods we
used was appropriate. We address the
question regarding the use of HexSim
and MaxEnt in our responses to
Comments (20, 21, 22, 26, and 43) as
well as in our separate Modeling
Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b).
A number of peer reviewers had
additional comments about the concept
of active management. Since the
preambles to the proposed and final
rules discuss this concept, we have
addressed their comments below.
However, we emphasize that this rule
does not take any action or adopt any
policy, plan or program in relation to
active forest management. The
discussion is provided only for
consideration by Federal, State, and
local land managers, as well as the
public, as they make decisions on the
management of forest land under their
jurisdictions and through their normal
processes.
Additional peer reviewer comments
are addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate.
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71991
Comments on Lands Included in Critical
Habitat and Exclusions
Comment (1): Several reviewers
commented that proposed critical
habitat failed to include habitat that
linked the Olympic peninsula to other
regions, and also did not include lowelevation habitat along the margins of
the Willamette Valley, Puget Trough,
Umpqua Valley, and Rogue River
Valley. Some reviewers indicated that
they thought this was a fault of the
modeling methods used.
Our Response: There are multiple
reasons why the areas described in the
above comments were not included in
the revised critical habitat. First, the
habitat model using MaxEnt was at the
500-ac (200-ha) scale, and was thus
unlikely to identify small, isolated
habitat fragments. This is not a failure
of the modeling, but rather a
consequence of these areas (identified in
the comments) having very little
northern spotted owl habitat; such
small, fragmented areas do not meet our
criteria for critical habitat, and are
therefore not included in final the
critical habitat designation. Second, to
incorporate additional information such
as connectivity and unique forest
situations, the Service also utilized
expert knowledge and current owl
location data (among other factors) to
determine what is essential for
conservation of the species. In Phase 3
of the critical habitat development
process, as described in Dunk et al.
2012b, we evaluated areas where
connectivity appeared to be deficient,
and added in habitat to strengthen
connectivity. However, most of the areas
identified in these comments
(particularly in western Washington)
consist largely of cutover industrial
timberlands, are not occupied by
northern spotted owls, do not contain
the primary constituent elements for
critical habitat, and are not otherwise
essential to the conservation of the
species because they do not provide
high-quality habitat or areas where
restoration of habitat is need to provide
essential connectivity or demographic
support. These areas were not included
in the 1992 or 2008 critical habitat
designations for the same reasons.
Without additional information about
the location and habitat conditions of
specific parcels in the areas mentioned
in this comment, we are unable to
further evaluate the benefits of
including them in the revised
designation.
Comment (2): One reviewer
questioned the fact that portions of
several late-successional reserves (LSRs)
including a portion of the Okanogan-
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71992
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Wenatchee National Forest in the
eastern Washington Cascades and lands
in the Western Klamath region that were
affected by the Biscuit Fire were not
included in the critical habitat proposal.
Our Response: Both of the areas
described in this comment generally
exhibit low relative habitat suitability
(RHS) values. The portion of the
Okanogan-Wenatchee LSR that was not
included contains much high-elevation
forest and dry forest seldom occupied
by the northern spotted owl. The Biscuit
Fire area described by the reviewer is
composed of low RHS due to a
combination of fire effects and
ultramafic soils.
Comment (3): One peer reviewer and
several public commenters were
concerned about congressionally
reserved areas not being included in
proposed critical habitat.
Our Response: All congressionally
reserved lands that met the criteria for
critical habitat were included in the
proposed revised designation. We
sought public comment on whether they
should be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation. Based on
further analysis and public comment,
they are excluded in the final revised
critical habitat designation. Our final
decision is that these areas are essential
to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl, but as these areas are
managed under a conservation mandate
that provides for the needs of the
northern spotted owl, we could find no
benefits to the designation that
outweighed the minor administrative
costs associated with including these
areas. Therefore the benefits of
exclusion outweighed those of
inclusion, and since such exclusion will
not result in the extinction of the
species, these congressionally reserved
areas have been excluded from the final
designation.
Comment (4): Several reviewers
highlighted the importance of keeping
State lands, congressionally reserved
lands, and some private lands without
HCPs or other agreements in critical
habitat.
Our Response: We agree that these
lands are important for the conservation
of northern spotted owls. However,
Federal parks and wilderness areas (and
any other congressionally reserved
lands) including State parks, as well as
private lands, have been excluded in the
final revised designation of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl.
Some State lands are included in the
final critical habitat designation, unless
such lands had an HCP, SHA, or other
conservation measures in place that led
to their exclusion under section 4(b)(2)
(see Exclusions).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Comment (5): Several reviewers
indicated that the largest reserve designs
may be the best for northern spotted owl
conservation.
Our Response: Designation of critical
habitat is constrained by the statutory
language in section 3(5) of the Act,
which states that critical habitat must
either have been occupied by the
species at the time it was listed and
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species, or, if unoccupied at the time
of listing, be essential to the
conservation of the species.
Furthermore, section 3(5)(c) of the Act
specifies that except in rare
circumstances, critical habitat should
not include the entire geographical area
which can be occupied by the species.
We concur that in areas where highquality habitat is lacking, designating all
areas capable of developing in to
suitable habitat in the future might
provide more robust networks.
However, the addition of large areas of
currently unsuitable habitat as
suggested in this comment would likely
not meet the intent and mandate of the
statute. If occupied at the time of listing,
such lands would not provide the
requisite essential features. If
unoccupied at the time of listing, such
lands would only be included in critical
habitat if we found them to be essential
to the conservation of the species. Our
evaluation of various potential habitat
networks as we developed this critical
habitat designation demonstrated that
these lands are not likely to contribute
substantially more owls to the
rangewide population than the area
designated as final critical habitat, thus
we did not consider them to be essential
to the conservation of the species.
Comment (6): One reviewer stressed
the need to retain Recovery Action 10
and 32 lands in critical habitat.
Our Response: Recovery Action 10
and Recovery Action 32 do not
constitute specific areas of mapped
lands that could be included in critical
habitat designation. Rather, they are
broad landscape-level conservation
recommendations contained in the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) for
identification and conservation of
important habitats that apply to all land
ownership categories and Federal land
management allocations, including
designated critical habitat. While
consistency with these and other
recovery actions is not required, Federal
land management agencies generally try
to conduct activities in a manner
consistent with the guidance provided
in the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comments on Competition From the
Barred Owl
Comment (7): One reviewer indicated
that recovery efforts need to focus on
barred owl management in addition to
critical habitat.
Our Response: Barred owls and loss
or degradation of habitat are primary
factors impacting northern spotted owls.
As we noted in the proposed critical
habitat rule, habitat protection is
necessary, but not sufficient alone, to
recover the northern spotted owl. This
revised designation of critical habitat is
only one of many conservation actions
that will contribute to the recovery of
the northern spotted owl. The Service is
currently working on a final
environmental impact statement under
NEPA for experimental barred owl
removal to address the threat posed to
northern spotted owls by the barred
owl. Nonhabitat-based threats, such as
barred owls, are specifically addressed
in the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011),
and do not fall within the scope of this
critical habitat rule. The Revised
Recovery Plan, not this critical habitat
rule, should be considered the
comprehensive recovery document for
the northern spotted owl.
Comments Regarding the Northwest
Forest Plan (NWFP)
Comment (8): Several reviewers
indicated that the relationship between
proposed critical habitat and the
Northwest Forest Plan was unclear.
Our Response: We have attempted to
clarify the language regarding the
relationship between critical habitat and
the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The
NWFP provides land management
guidance for most of the Federal lands
identified as critical habitat, and we
anticipate that the Standards and
Guidelines for the NWFP will continue
to direct management actions on these
lands, unless amended sometime in the
future. We emphasize that critical
habitat does not replace or supersede
the Standards and Guidelines of the
NWFP. Active management is discussed
in the preamble of this rule only to
encourage land managers to consider
the range of management flexibility
already contained in the NWFP. We
acknowledge the importance of the
NWFP as a management strategy for
conserving northern spotted owls and
late-successional forest habitat, and our
suggestions for special management
considerations needed to address the
threats to the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl (see Special
Management Considerations or
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Protections, above) are consistent with
the directives of the NWFP.
Comment (9): One reviewer noted that
LSR areas and locations on the East
Cascades were designed under the
assumption of static landscapes, not the
dynamic landscapes we now recognize.
Our Response: We have recognized
that the Standards and Guidelines for
management under the NWFP differ
across eastern and western forests, and
that eastern forests are very dynamic.
This condition was recognized in the
NWFP, and the Standards and
Guidelines of the NWFP allow for active
management in such areas (USDA and
USDI 2004, pp. C–12—C–13).
Comments on the Modeling Process
Here we provide a summary of
general comments received on the
modeling process that we used, in part,
to identify revised critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl. The habitat
modeling framework we utilized was
originally developed for the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011), and Appendix C of
the Revised Recovery Plan provides a
detailed description of the modeling
framework and the extensive testing and
cross-validation that was done at each
stage of development. In addition, we
note that the modeling framework that
we applied here to assist in the
identification of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl was
independently the subject of prior peer
review and public comment for the
recovery plan. Particularly detailed or
technical comments on the habitat
modeling that we received in relation to
this critical habitat rule are addressed
separately in our Modeling Supplement,
Dunk et al. 2012b, in an effort to reduce
the length and improve the readability
of this rule.
Comment (10): One reviewer
suggested that the modeling of habitat
networks and scenarios should consider
a wider range of options or composites
with greater emphasis on sustainability
of owl populations, not efficiency. The
present document is biased in favor of
efficiency, not conservation of old forest
habitat.
Our Response: We evaluated each of
the potential critical habitat networks
with respect to the guiding principles
we developed, which were based on the
statutory definition of critical habitat
and informed by the recovery criteria for
the northern spotted owl as established
in the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan. The
recovery criteria for the northern
spotted owl are aimed at achieving
sustainable northern spotted owl
populations across the range of the
species. In terms of identifying critical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
habitat, we use the term ‘‘efficient’’ to
convey that we sought to include the
highest-quality habitat with the greatest
potential contribution to recovery and
minimize as much as possible the
amount of relatively lower quality
habitat in determining what is essential
to conservation of the species. In areas
of insufficient high-quality habitat,
lower quality habitat may still provide
the PCEs and may be essential in terms
of providing sufficient habitat overall to
sustain the population. We also sought
to rely on public lands to the extent
possible.
Efficiency never trumped owl
performance in our selection process;
the population performance of the
northern spotted owl in response to the
scenarios evaluated was our first
concern. However, given two or more
nearly equal population performance
outcomes, we did look for efficient
solutions; that is, given the choice
between two nearly equivalent habitat
networks in terms of northern spotted
owl population performance, we chose
the network that achieved roughly the
same level of performance provided by
a relatively greater proportion of public
lands or smaller overall designation.
Old forest habitat and areas of high RHS
are nearly identically represented in the
largest networks we evaluated (Z70,
Composites 1, 3, 4, and 7).
Comment (11): One reviewer
suggested the use of individual, rather
than pair home range size estimates in
the HexSim model.
Our Response: Because our spotted
owl population model is a females-only
model, it was most appropriate to use
individual home range sizes. Thus our
model will not simulate the resource
constraints that could result from male
owl’s consumption of limited food
resources. We strove to construct the
simplest model structure that captured
the essential ecological processes; doing
so made our northern spotted owl
model more straightforward to develop
and easier to understand. We evaluated
how well the HexSim model was
calibrated to actual populations, by
comparing simulated spotted owl
populations from our model with actual
densities of northern spotted owls as
measured within demographic study
areas (Appendix C, p. C–73). We found
that simulated populations were quite
similar to actual populations, suggesting
that the females-only model produced
reasonably accurate estimates. Finally,
because we used the HexSim model to
compare the relative differences in
population size resulting from different
reserve design assumptions, any biases
that may have been introduced into the
process from the use of a females-only
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71993
model would essentially be zeroed out,
since that bias would be the same across
all populations; in such a case, the net
relative difference would still be
accurately reflected between
populations.
Comment (12): One reviewer noted
that we did not include baseline
scenarios that provide clear insight
concerning the contributions that State,
private, and Indian lands might make in
the long run. They note that excluding
consideration of some large areas by
virtue of land ownership may have
attendant effects on demographic results
by inadvertently imposing ‘‘pinch
points’’ along the north-south axis of the
critical habitat area. The main concern
was that northern spotted owl recovery
may be quite limited by the initial
assumptions made about excluding
State, private, and Indian lands based
on their current conditions; remaining
alternatives considered may all be
poorer as a result.
Our Response: We did not make
initial assumptions about the
population contributions potentially
made by State, private, and Indian
lands, or about the feasibility of
including those lands in proposed
critical habitat. Our initial comparisons
of Zonation-derived reserve designs
included both ‘‘ALL lands’’ and
‘‘PUBLIC lands’’ scenarios (Appendix C,
p. C–49–52); these habitat networks did
not restrict our evaluation to particular
land ownerships, but allowed us to
evaluate all lands regardless of
ownership. Thus, we evaluated the
contribution of all land ownerships
before narrowing down the habitat
network designs based on policy and
cost-benefit analyses (meaning the
weighing of relative population
performance versus total area in the
designation), as fully described in our
Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al.
2012b). As discussed in this rule and in
that supplement, we sought to maximize
the reliance on public lands to the
extent possible, but only if it did not
compromise the population metrics
essential to conservation of the northern
spotted owl. In addition, as described in
the section Consideration of Indian
Lands, we conducted this analysis in
accordance with the Secretarial Order
3206 directive to consider ‘‘the extent to
which the conservation needs of the
listed species can be achieved by
limited the designation to other [nonIndian] lands.’’ As we did not identify
any Indian lands that were essential to
the conservation of the northern spotted
owl, we did not include any such lands
in the designation.
Comment (13): One reviewer asked
whether foraging habitat was considered
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71994
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
separately from nesting/roosting habitat
in the Step 1 modeling, or if suitable
habitat was modeled as nesting/
roosting/foraging?
Our Response: Foraging habitat was
separate from nesting/roosting habitat,
as explained in Appendix C to the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, p. C–24).
Comment (14): One reviewer noted a
potential failure to acknowledge the
importance of winter migration behavior
to spatial and habitat requirements of
territorial northern spotted owls.
Our Response: We attempted to
incorporate some degree of winter
habitat requirements by using annual
home ranges in HexSim. To our
knowledge, the data we could use in
HexSim to incorporate broader
movements does not exist throughout
the northern spotted owl’s range. To the
extent that northern spotted owls move
away from their territories during the
nonbreeding period, and if habitat use
differs appreciably in the breeding
season and nonbreeding season, it is
possible that our approach did not
include all areas that may be important
to northern spotted owls. However, we
are unaware of a consistent
methodology that we could use to
overcome this potential shortcoming.
Comment (15): One reviewer
requested that we consider the effects of
fire in the modeling process used to
define critical habitat, and how critical
habitat should be protected from the
effects of fire.
Our Response: Our process
incorporated several different possible
vegetation growth and loss scenarios,
and modeled a variety of potential
northern spotted owl responses to
differing management strategies. These
scenarios were based on observed rates
of habitat change measured between
1996 and 2006. As such, they
incorporate habitat loss to fire and other
causes, and project it into the future as
a rate of change. We considered
explicitly modeling fire probabilities
and fire effects into the scenarios, but
the complexity and high degree of
uncertainty made this unfeasible.
Incorporating fire impacts would have
had a similar proportional effect to the
relative outputs of each modeled
scenario, thereby not elucidating real
differences between the effectiveness of
the modeled scenarios. The question of
protecting critical habitat from the
effects of fire is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
Comment (16): One reviewer
suggested that estimating the rate of
population change (l, or lambda) at 10year intervals makes interpretation more
difficult, especially with respect to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
results from demographic studies,
where l is estimated as an annual
interval.
Our Response: Our use and estimate
of the finite rate of population change
was not intended to be compared to
estimates from demographic study areas
or the meta-analysis (e.g., Forsman et al.
2011). We used lambda as one basis for
comparison between the various
alternative potential critical habitat
networks considered to determine what
is essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl, using different
assumptions related to the barred owl
and the amount of suitable habitat.
Thus, our use of lambda at 10-year
intervals was appropriate for our
intended use of relative population
performance between habitat scenarios
under consideration.
Comment (17): One reviewer
indicated that one aspect that seemed to
be lacking in the designation of critical
habitat was whether the model correctly
predicted areas currently occupied by
northern spotted owls based on relative
habitat suitability. The reviewer
suggested that one way to accomplish
this would be to examine the spatial
distribution of critical habitat in relation
to the existing demographic study areas
and other areas with a history of surveys
for northern spotted owls.
Our Response: To evaluate how well
the modeling process identified areas
likely to be occupied by northern
spotted owls, we tested the predictive
ability of the model by comparing our
RHS model outputs with the
distribution of known northern spotted
owl locations (independent data sets)
from the years 1996 and 2006, and in
both cases found a high predictive
accuracy. The results of this comparison
are presented on pages C–38 to C–41 in
Appendix C of the Revised Recovery
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl
(USFWS 2011).
Comment (18): One reviewer
indicated that the models are likely to
be ‘‘overfit’’ (an overfit model that is
overly sensitive to small fluctuations in
data inputs, and will consequently have
poor predictive results), even though
cross-validation results by modeling
region showed that all models were
relatively robust to prediction (Table
C19, Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011)).
The reviewer indicated that this point
needs to be more clearly disclosed.
Several commenters expressed concern
about the number of covariates in the
RHS models, and the potential for
overfitting.
Our Response: We carefully evaluated
the modeling procedures we used to
identify spotted owl habitat and test the
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
resulting models using both crossvalidation and independent data sets.
Based on the results of our evaluations,
we disagree that our models are overfit.
We have clarified the procedures used
and results of model testing in the final
Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al.
2012b). MaxEnt is designed to reduce
the effects of the potential model overfitting through its use of regularization.
The main consequence of overfitting
that we wished to guard against was that
of having models so tightly fit to the
training data that they were not
generalizable (i.e., that they did not
work well at classifying test data or data
that did not contribute to the model’s
development). Our extensive crossvalidation (randomly removing 25
percent of the data, each of 10 times
within each modeling region) and
evaluation of each model’s full and
cross-validated performance revealed
that the models were not overfit (see
Table C–16). Furthermore, where we
had adequate independent data, the
models performed almost identically on
them as on the training data (see Table
C–17). We share the reviewers concerns
with overfitting models, and we directly
evaluated whether the consequences of
overfitting were realized and found that
they were not. Thus, the conclusions on
page C–41 of the Revised Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2011) under ‘‘Model evaluation
summary’’ remain valid.
Comment (19): Some reviewers and
commenters suggested that the GNN
database used to develop the relative
habitat suitability (RHS) map is
inappropriate for use in designating
critical habitat because it does not
depict what actual vegetative
components exist on the ground but is
a computer simulation of what might
exist. The reviewer stated that since the
base vegetation layer does not
accurately represent stand conditions on
the ground, it is impossible to show
what stands contain PCEs and which do
not. Several reviewers suggested that a
formal accuracy assessment of the GNN
data is needed and suggested that model
predictions of habitat conditions should
be verified. One reviewer indicated that
inaccuracies in the GNN database
probably led to errors with MaxEnt
predictions of owl distributions. The
reviewer suggested that there is little
science to support the assumptions that
GNN data for vegetative variables
believed to be important to northern
spotted owls were equally accurate
across modeling regions, and there is
little certainty that relevant processes
were sufficiently captured so as to
reliably predict owl population
performance. The reviewer further
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
claims the Service did not assess the
accuracy of the GNN data. Finally, the
reviewer states that Dr. Larry Irwin,
National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement (NCASI) conducted an
analysis of how well the GNN–LT data
correlated with actual measurements on
the ground, and concluded that there is
a very low correlation between GNN–LT
predictions and reality. Further, the
reviewer states that GNN–LT was
developed for mid- to large-scale spatial
analysis, not the designation of critical
habitat.
Our Response: We concur that the
RHS models and subsequent modeling
steps are dependent on the reliability of
the GNN vegetation layer. A description
of our use of GNN and accuracy
assessments for the GNN variables used
in our RHS models are presented in
detail on pages C–16 to C–19 of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011). Based on
our data needs, these accuracy
assessments, and independent
verification of the performance of GNN
estimates, we have determined that
GNN represents the best scientific
information available for habitat
modeling throughout the range of the
northern spotted owl.
As described in detail in Appendix C,
we selected the GNN vegetation
database for a number of reasons; most
importantly it is the layer developed for
use in the Northwest Forest Plan
monitoring program. In addition, it is
the only vegetation layer available that
covers all land ownerships across the
entire range of the northern spotted owl.
Past efforts to model, map, and quantify
habitat selection by northern spotted
owls at regional scales have often
suffered from lack of important
vegetation variables, inadequate spatial
coverage, or coarse resolution of
available vegetation databases (Davis
and Lint 2005). To develop rangewide
models of relative habitat suitability for
northern spotted owls, we required
maps of forest composition and
structure of sufficient accuracy to allow
discrimination of attributes used for
nesting, roosting, and foraging by
northern spotted owls (the essential
physical or biological features). GNN,
developed for the NWFP’s effectiveness
monitoring program, provides detailed
maps of forest composition and
structural attributes for all lands within
the NWFP area (coextensive with the
range of the northern spotted owl).
Although the GNN approach is a
method for predictive vegetation
mapping, it is based on input of
empirical forest attribute data from
inventory plots (Forest Inventory and
Analysis, current vegetation analysis,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
etc.) and modeled relationships between
plots and predictor variables from
Landsat thematic mapper imagery,
climatic variables, topographic
variables, and soil parent materials.
The GNN maps come with a large
suite of diagnostics detailing map
quality and accuracy; these are
contained in model region-specific
accuracy assessment reports available at
the LEMMA Web site (http://
www.fsl.orstu.edu/lemma/). Accuracy
assessments apply to the GNN model(s),
rather than the satellite imagery. We
provide Pearson correlation coefficients
of GNN structural variables used in
Table C–1 of the Revised Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2011, pp. C–18 to C–19), and
local accuracy assessments (kappa
coefficients) for individual species’
variables in Table C–2. For developing
models of northern spotted owl habitat,
we generally selected GNN structural
variables with plot correlation
coefficients greater than 0.5 for an
individual modeling region (42 percent
had correlation coefficients greater than
0.7). On a few occasions when expert
opinion or research results suggested a
particular variable might be important,
we used variables with plot correlations
from 0.31 to 0.5. For species
composition variables, we attempted to
use only variables with kappas greater
than 0.3. However, because we
combined species’ variables into groups
that expert opinion and research
suggested may represent influent
community types, we occasionally
accepted variables with kappas greater
than 0.2 and less than 0.3 for individual
variables within a group.
The GNN vegetation database was
specifically developed for mid-to largescale spatial analysis, suggesting that
accuracies at the 30-m pixel scale may
be less influential to results obtained at
larger scales. Because we were
interested in the utility of GNN at our
analysis area (500 ac (200 ha)) spatial
scale, we additionally conducted less
formal assessments where we compared
the distribution of GNN variable values
at a large sample of actual locations
(known northern spotted owl nest sites
and foraging sites) to published
estimates of those variables at the same
scale. In addition, we received
comparisons of GNN maps to a number
of local plot-based vegetation maps
prepared by various field personnel.
Based on these informal evaluations, we
determined that GNN represents a
dramatic improvement over past
vegetation databases used for modeling
and evaluating northern spotted owl
habitat, and used GNN maps as the
vegetation data for our habitat modeling.
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71995
Our primary objective in Step 1 of the
modeling process was to develop
MaxEnt models that perform well at
predicting northern spotted owl habitat
by developing models that had good
discrimination ability, were well
calibrated, were robust, and had good
generality. Our detailed evaluations of
model performance, cross-validation,
and comparison with independent data
sets (described in pages C–30 to C–41 in
Appendix C of the Revised Recovery
Plan) demonstrate that at the scale
MaxEnt models were developed and
evaluated, we met these objectives.
Acknowledging that all vegetation
databases will exhibit some degree of
error, if the GNN layer was inadequate
for predicting northern spotted owl
habitat, we would not expect the
reliable predictive models that we
obtained. Thus, as described above,
given our data needs, we believe the
GNN database represents the best
available information for the purposes
of identifying critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl. We are unaware
of any alternative existing scientific
information, and no viable suggestions
were offered by reviewers or
commenters.
Comment (20): One reviewer
indicated that inaccuracies in the GNN
database and inherent problems with
MaxEnt probably led to errors with
MaxEnt predictions of owl distributions.
The reviewer suggested that there is
little science to support the assumptions
that GNN data for vegetative variables
believed to be important to northern
spotted owls were equally accurate
across modeling regions, and there is
little certainty that relevant processes
were sufficiently captured so as to
reliably predict owl population
performance.
Our Response: As noted earlier, no
vegetation database will be free of error;
the important question is whether the
database used is accurate enough to
support the intended analysis
objectives. We acknowledge that there
may be some errors in the GNN
database, yet the MaxEnt models we
developed performed very well at
predicting habitat suitability for
northern spotted owls (one would not
expect reliable predictive models if the
underlying databases were highly
inaccurate—one would expect poorly
performing models). Our evaluation of
the MaxEnt models developed indicate
that the models for all modeling regions
were well calibrated and showed quite
similar patterns in terms of strength of
selection (Figure C–5, USFWS 2011).
Cross-validation results showed that all
models were robust (i.e., equally
accurate when applied to different
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71996
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
subsets of the spotted owl sample;
USFWS 2011, Table C–19), and
comparison of model results with
independent test data showed the
models had good ability to predict
known northern spotted owl locations
(USFWS 2011, Table C–20). Overall,
these evaluations suggest our models of
relative habitat suitability were robust
and have good generality (are good at
predicting northern spotted owl habitat
in areas other than areas that provided
the data for development of the model).
As detailed in our response to 0 based
on our data needs, accuracy
assessments, and independent
verification, amongst other information,
we believe the GNN database represents
the best available scientific data for our
purposes.
We are uncertain about what
‘‘inherent problems with MaxEnt’’ the
reviewer may be referring to; MaxEnt
has been thoroughly evaluated in the
scientific literature and found to
perform very well for predicting species
distributions and habitat suitability.
Peer-reviewed papers by Elith et al.
(2006), Wisz et al. (2008), Graham et al.
(2008), Phillips et al. (2009), and
Willems and Hill (2009) all compared
MaxEnt to other modeling tools on
identical data sets (sometimes hundreds
of species), sample sizes, and
geographic areas. MaxEnt always
performed very well and was
consistently a top-performing model.
Based on the accurate performance of
the model and the thorough,
independent scientific evaluations of
MaxEnt on a number of taxa, geographic
regions, and sample sizes, we believe
we have utilized the best available
scientific information to model habitat
suitability for the northern spotted owl.
We note that 13 out of the 15 peer
reviewers agreed that the use of MaxEnt
was appropriate for our purposes.
Comment (21): One reviewer stated
that although the Service claimed in the
proposed rule that the modeling process
defined areas that contain the physical
and biological features essential for
conservation of the species, that in
reality MaxEnt provides no scientific
support for the PCEs described in the
proposed rule, and the proposed rule
cites no other scientific basis for them.
The reviewer indicates that MaxEnt
simply ranks pixels in an area based on
the ‘‘best’’ habitat definition supplied to
it, and that the habitat definitions
chosen by MaxEnt do not represent
what the spotted owl needs and do not
delineate the physical or biological
features essential for the conservation of
the species.
Our Response: The comment
mischaracterizes the relationship
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
between our habitat modeling and the
identification of PCEs for the northern
spotted owl. We did not use the habitat
modeling to define the PCEs for the
species. As stated in the proposed rule
(March 8, 2012; 77 FR 14062, p. 14082),
and reiterated in this rule, the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species (and
associated primary constituent elements
(PCEs)) of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, are identified
based on ‘‘* * * studies of the habitat,
ecology, and life history of the species
as described in the final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on
June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114), the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl released on June 30, 2011,
the Background section of this proposal,
and the following information.’’ The
following section of the proposed rule,
titled Physical or Biological Features,
provided an expansive discussion of the
scientific basis for the identification of
the essential physical or biological
features of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, accompanied by
numerous supporting citations from the
scientific literature, which informed our
description of the PCEs. The modeling
was not used to describe the PCEs of
critical habitat; rather, it was used to
identify the areas most likely to contain
the PCEs and the areas most likely to
have been occupied by northern spotted
owls based on habitat suitability at the
time of listing, as well as identify the
specific areas essential to the
conservation of the species. This is an
important distinction. The habitat
models were constructed from a
rigorous assessment of current
knowledge of the physical and
biological features that influence
northern spotted owl habitat suitability,
and are supported by a solid scientific
basis. We recognize that there may have
been some poorly worded statements in
the proposed rule that led to some
confusion regarding the intersection of
the PCEs and the modeling framework.
We have clarified the language in this
final rule to make it clear that we did
not use models to define the PCEs for
the northern spotted owl, but that we
used the PCEs to develop maps of
relative habitat suitability across the
range of the northern spotted owl as one
step in the identification of critical
habitat for the species.
Comment (22): One reviewer
recommended that the Service: (a)
evaluate the rate at which MaxEnt may
misclassify locations that do not contain
spotted owls; and (b) provide evidence
that MaxEnt accurately incorporates the
factors that reflect the best
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
environmental conditions for optimal
population performance among
northern spotted owls.
Our Response: Our models were
developed to identify areas likely
occupied at the time of listing based on
relative habitat suitability (RHS), not to
identify areas that do not contain owls.
Furthermore, the presence of owls on
territories can vary across space and
time. There any many possible reasons
that an organism (northern spotted owl
in this case) may not occupy apparently
suitable habitat for a period of time (e.g.,
death, competition, population is not at
equilibrium with its environment). We
did not use the RHS values to predict
the number of years a site would be
occupied or the reproductive rates at
territories. The RHS layers we
developed have been subjected to
rigorous cross-validation and testing
with independent data, as explained in
Appendix C of the Revised Recovery
Plan (USFWS 2011). Our assessment of
the estimated on-the-ground conditions
at high, intermediate, and low RHS
values corresponds very closely to the
published literature on northern spotted
owl habitat use and selection, thus
addressing (b). See also our responses to
Comments (19), (20), and (21), among
others.
Comment (23): One reviewer stated
that comparisons with other evaluations
of northern spotted owl habitat
demonstrate the flaws in the modeling.
In comparison with NWFP land use
allocations, the modeling process
includes 2.7 million ac (1.1 million ha)
of lands that, up until now, had not
been viewed as being needed for the
recovery of the spotted owl. Overlaying
the proposed critical habitat designation
with USDA Pacific Northwest Research
Station’s 2011 data on old growth
forests shows that only 36 percent of
proposed critical habitat comprises latesuccessional old growth forest.
Overlaying the proposed designation
with USDA Pacific Northwest Research
Station’s 2011 report allocating spotted
owl habitat into unsuitable, marginal,
suitable and highly suitable shows that
50 percent of proposed critical habitat is
either unsuitable or marginal habitat,
and only 24 percent of the acres are
classified as highly suitable.
Our Response: The designation of
critical habitat is guided by the statutory
language of the Act, and is highly
species-specific in terms of its direction
to identify specific areas that provide
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
listed species in question—in this case,
the northern spotted owl. Latesuccessional reserves under the NWFP,
on the other hand, were established for
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the conservation of multiple species of
varying taxa (birds, mammals,
amphibians, fishes, etc.) and, in some
areas, encompass forest types not used
by northern spotted owls. For these
reasons, the comparison of critical
habitat with NWFP land use allocations
is inappropriate, because they are
intended to serve different purposes.
The 2.7 million ac (1.1 million ha) of
lands the reviewer refers to are
presumably the congressionally
reserved natural areas (wilderness areas
and national parks) that are now
excluded in this designation. These
lands have consistently been viewed as
essential to the recovery of the northern
spotted owl since the species was listed.
However, they were not included in
previous designations due to our
interpretation of the definition of
critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of
the Act at that time and because their
current classification and management
was deemed adequate to meet northern
spotted owl conservation goals. A
primary purpose of these
congressionally reserved natural areas is
to conserve natural systems, including
threatened and endangered species and
their habitats, including the northern
spotted owl. These areas are managed
consistent with the conservation of the
northern spotted owl, and we could find
no benefit of inclusion that would
outweigh the potential administrative
costs associated with the designation of
critical habitat on these lands.
Based on our modeling process, we
found that northern spotted owl
population performance under a habitat
network represented by the 1994 NWFP
was relatively poor compared with
several other reserve designs (Dunk et
al. 2012b). This result is not surprising
considering the influence of barred owls
and continued habitat loss to wildfire.
Similarly, the results of this
commenter’s comparison of proposed
critical habitat to maps of old growth
forest and the nesting habitat model
from the 2011 NWFP monitoring report
would be anticipated, because the
NWFP models represent only a portion
of the habitat elements and spatial
extent used by northern spotted owls. In
particular, the classification of habitat
into unsuitable, marginal, suitable, and
highly suitable pertains only to forest
structure used for nesting at the pixel
scale, whereas our models are based on
landscape-level habitat selection and
incorporate the broader array of habitats
used by northern spotted owls
(including non-old growth). We believe
the commenter is attempting to make
‘‘apples and oranges’’ type comparisons
of habitat, and for the reasons described
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
above, we disagree with the statement
that such comparison demonstrate flaws
in our modeling.
Comment (24): One reviewer stated
that the Zonation model was not
designed to develop a conservation
network and that this model does not
make a judgment as to what is essential
for the conservation of the species. As
characterized by the reviewer, Zonation
does not use the presence or absence of
PCEs as input so it does not show where
the PCEs are essential. According to the
reviewer, what it does is take the
relative habitat suitability index of the
MaxEnt model (which itself does not
depict the presence or absence of PCEs),
further smooth them by assigning new
values at the home range size of 3,424
ac, (1,386 ha) and determines how little
land is required to capture some percent
of habitat values based on the
parameters provided by the Service. It
does this by removing the areas with the
lowest habitat values first until the
specified percentage of the habitat
values are left. The reviewer contends
that the Service used Zonation outputs
that captured 70 percent of the habitat
values as the basis for the proposed
revision of critical habitat, and that this
in no way supports the premise that
these areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. The
reviewer claims that Zonation only
shows a computer’s calculation of the
minimum amount of land needed to
encompass 70 percent of the habitat
value, which is a purely artificial data
point created from smoothed indices of
a relative habitat suitability index based
on biased spotted owl locations overlaid
on a hypothetical landscape using
conglomerated data. The reviewer states
there is no way to determine if the areas
captured by these solutions actually
contain the PCEs, and the Service has
no idea how accurate the model is in
predicting use by spotted owls.
Our Response: We disagree with the
reviewer’s statement in that it
mischaracterizes the intended purpose
of Zonation, the way the model works,
and how the Service used it. The
Zonation model was designed
specifically for the purpose of
developing conservation networks
(Moilanen and Kojala 2008). However,
we did not simply employ the Zonation
model to provide a critical habitat
network. As described in our response
to Comment (21), and as detailed at
length in our Modeling Supplement
(Dunk et al. 2012b), we used the PCEs
for the northern spotted owl to develop
maps of relative habitat suitability for
the species across its range; this step
then informed the development of the
spotted owl habitat conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71997
planning model (Zonation), thus the
presence of PCEs is the foundation of
the entire habitat modeling framework,
and is fundamental to our identification
of critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl. We used Zonation to
provide a series of alternative networks
that were then compared in terms of
relative simulated spotted owl
population performance (using
HexSim). After comparing a wide range
of Zonation-derived scenarios, the topperforming alternatives for each
modeling region were assembled into
composite maps for further evaluation
in HexSim. Development of composite
maps also involved modification of
reserve designs based on expert opinion
and policy. In many modeling regions,
the proposed critical habitat deviates
substantially from the strictly Zonationderived reserve designs, because use of
the modeling was only one step in the
process of identifying critical habitat.
Finally, the Service verified that the
resulting proposed critical habitat met
the statutory criteria of critical habitat
by evaluating the proportion of
proposed critical habitat that was
occupied by known northern spotted
owl home ranges at the time of listing
and that provides the essential physical
or biological features, and by evaluating
any areas that may have been
unoccupied at the time of listing to
determine whether they are essential to
the conservation of the species. In
addition, to address any uncertainty
regarding occupancy, we evaluated all
of the critical habitat under the higher
standard of section 3(5)(a)(ii) of the Act.
Please see Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat for further information.
Comment (25): One reviewer stated
that the process used by the Service to
define what constitutes nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitats in the
proposed rule produced results in
staggering differences compared to
historical definitions. According to this
reviewer, not only are they totally
different from what has been viewed as
valid definitions for almost 20 years, but
they are also totally unrecognizable on
the ground. The reviewer claims the
proposed rule utilizes habitat
definitions derived from analysis of the
hypothetical GNN–LT vegetation layer
coupled with abiotic factors, which only
make sense in computer modeling. The
reviewer states that MaxEnt does not
use these definitions to identify NRF
(nesting/roosting/foraging) habitat but
rather assigns an RHS value based on
how many of the factors are present.
Finally, the reviewer says that the
Service claims to be using these factors
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71998
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
to determine if stands contain the PCEs
when, in fact, they do not.
Our Response: We are unsure of the
basis for this comment, since the
definitions of nesting, roosting (NR) and
foraging (F) habitats used in this critical
habitat rule are very similar to
definitions used in past assessments,
including previous designations of
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl, and the definitions we use are
based primarily on the information
found in the published scientific
literature. In fact, all NR and F models
tested were derived from literature
reviews and expert opinion, including
input from timber industry scientists
and managers. The relative habitat
suitability models incorporate these NR
and F definitions (submodels), as well
as broader environmental features such
as elevation and slope position, that are
also well-described in the northern
spotted owl literature. The remainder of
the comment mischaracterizes our
habitat suitability modeling; a thorough
explanation of that modeling is found in
Appendix C of the Revised Recovery
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl
(USFWS 2011). In addition, please see
our response to Comment (19) for
details on how the PCEs were defined
and incorporated into the process of
mapping RHS.
Comment (26): One reviewer stated
that the Service modified input
variables given to HexSim to produce
‘‘composites,’’ and the Service cannot
show that these contain the PCEs and
that they are essential, and there is no
statistical difference between the
different composites. By only displaying
mean values, the reviewer claims the
Service creates a false appearance that
the difference between these
alternatives is real. The Service does not
show that the differences result in any
real difference in achieving recovery
objectives, they merely state it as a
matter of fact. This is a misuse of
modeling data, the reviewer states, and
not best available science.
Our Response: This comment
misunderstands the process used to
develop composite maps, and the
subsequent comparison of HexSim
results. Composite maps are maps
where different reserve designs were
selected for each modeling region based
on their ability to achieve recovery
goals. These region-specific designs
were combined across the range of the
owl to create a ‘‘composite map.’’ We
evaluated composite maps in an
iterative manner to identify the design
that best met recovery goals and our
guiding principles. Composites were not
created by modifying HexSim input
variables; rather, they represent a range
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
of reserve design alternatives that were
subsequently tested in HexSim.
Appendix C and Dunk et al. (2012b)
provide ample evidence that all of the
composites contain the physical and
biological features used by the owl;
comparison of HexSim results is the
process by which the Service evaluates
what amount and distribution of these
features is essential to the conservation
of the northern spotted owl. As stated in
our proposed rule, this final rule, and in
Dunk et al. 2012b, we assessed various
composites by comparing the relative
(emphasis added) performance of
various habitat scenarios. That is, we
used metrics such as relative differences
in extinction risk and population size
(which include upper and lower
confidence intervals) to evaluate the
ability of different composites to
achieve recovery objectives for the
northern spotted owl. In fact, we
expressly stated ‘‘simulations from these
models are not meant to be estimates of
what will occur in the future, but rather
provide information on trends predicted
to occur under different network
designs’’ (March 8, 2012; 77 FR 14062,
p. 14097). There were statistically
significant differences in population
performance, both at the modeling
region and range-wide scales among our
composites (see Appendix C, USFWS
2011 and the Modeling Supplement
(Dunk et al. 2012b) for additional
details). We therefore disagree with the
commenter’s claims about misuse of
modeling data and best available
science.
Comment (27): One reviewer stated
that the boundaries of the proposed
revision of critical habitat are
impossible to identify on the ground.
They can only be defined by use of
global positioning satellite receivers that
have had the boundaries created by the
Zonation computer model inputted to
them.
Our Response: Critical habitat is
defined by the features as discussed in
this final critical habitat designation and
shown on accompanying maps. Specific
coordinates and descriptions that define
the boundaries of critical habitat are
available online at http://www.fws.gov/
oregonfwo, at http://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
[FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112], and from the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT);
maps are available online at http://
criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/.
Comment (28): One reviewer states
that the Service did not use pixel by
pixel data, but conglomerated the pixel
data into indices that represent the 500ac (200-ha) circle around each pixel,
which increased the error associated
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with the predictions. The reviewer
claims this wipes out all the actual
stands that might actually be used by
spotted owls and instead assigns each
pixel a conglomerate value for each
habitat variable based on averages.
Therefore, the reviewer asserts there are
many areas that do not contain the
PCEs.
Our Response: This comment
mischaracterizes the method used to
evaluate habitat quality, and the basic
definition of habitat for northern spotted
owls. As described in Appendix C of the
Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011),
habitat suitability consists of several
factors including, but not limited to, the
actual forest ‘‘stands’’ used by owls. Our
relative habitat suitability models are
based on the amount, edge, and core of
actual stands classified as nesting/
roosting habitat and amount of foraging
habitat; i.e., the PCEs identified in this
rule. We therefore do not ‘‘wipe out’’ the
actual stands as suggested by the
reviewer, but rather measure their
relative importance given additional
landscape features such as elevation and
slope position. This allowed us to better
identify the landscape features where
owls could establish a viable territory.
Simply mapping out ‘‘the actual stands
that might be used’’ would have
provided a highly fragmented habitat
network consisting of many ‘‘stands’’
not likely to be used by spotted owls.
The comment also ignores the fact that
we extensively tested the RHS model
and found it accurately predicts spotted
owl habitat, and we evaluated the
proposed critical habitat network and
found that the areas proposed were
predominantly occupied by known
spotted owl sites at the time of listing.
See also our responses to Comment (19)
through Comment (24).
Comment (29): One reviewer stated
that Phase 1 results suggested that the
Redwood Coast modeling region was
among the most stable, but questioned
how this could be when there are very
few remaining northern spotted owls in
Redwood National Park, where barred
owls are now the predominate species.
The reviewer states this was also not
reflected in the Phase 2 modeling results
(Table 6) (Dunk et al. 2012a).
Our Response: We obtained recent
(2006) verified northern spotted owl
location data from many sources in the
Redwood Coast modeling region. These
data strongly suggest that the high
densities of barred owls observed within
Redwood National Park are not
occurring in the remainder of the
modeling region, where large numbers
of northern spotted owl territories
persist. We therefore used demographic
data from the Green Diamond
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
monitoring study to parameterize (put
variables into) HexSim for the region.
Comment (30): One reviewer
suggested that we include an appendix
that shows each of the decision points
in the development of the proposed
critical habitat network in systematic
detail, and suggested this would be an
adequate remedy and make the entire
modeling process open and transparent,
and repeatable by persons external to
this process.
Our Response: We attempted to make
explicit the key assumptions and
decision points used in the modeling
process, and the guiding principles we
followed for application of professional
judgment in refining reserve networks
were included in the proposed rule.
Much of what the reviewer asks for is
presented in Appendix C of the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011). In addition, we
have tried to make assumptions and
decision points more explicit in our
final Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al.
2012b) that is available to the public at
http://www.regulations.gov.
Comment (31): One reviewer
suggested that a major flaw in the
modeling is that the habitat is held
constant for 350 years and any area with
an RHS value less than 35 is assumed
to be non-habitat. The reviewer states
that by holding the habitat constant and
not allowing it to grow, the Service
greatly overestimates the amount of land
needed to reach relative population
levels. The reviewer claims this also
results in a double standard for areas
currently classified by MaxEnt as having
low RHS values—in the modeling
process they are excluded and not
allowed to grow into habitat, yet they
are included as critical habitat because
the Service claims they will be
necessary for population growth.
Our Response: The reviewer
misunderstands the method we used to
simulate habitat change through time.
Habitat was not held constant during
the HexSim simulations; we measured
the rates of change in habitat quality
(RHS) between the 1996 and 2006 GNN
layers and projected those rates into the
future. This allowed for losses in habitat
quality caused by timber harvest,
wildfires, and other causes as well as
gains due to forest growth to occur
through time in a plausible fashion.
Because the remainder of this comment
is based on this faulty premise, the other
points in this comment are, in turn,
unfounded.
Comment (32): One reviewer noted
that throughout the modeling process,
means of the response variables (e.g.,
Table 8 of Dunk et al. 2012a) should be
accompanied by either standard errors
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
or 95 percent confidence intervals.
Otherwise, the reviewer states, it is
difficult to determine how precise these
estimates were, especially when
comparing different scenarios.
Our Response: We agree, and this was
an oversight that we have corrected in
the final version of our Modeling
Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b).
Comment (33): One reviewer thought
more could have been done to evaluate
uncertainty in the original habitat
suitability models by running replicate
samples in MaxEnt and then capturing
the range of variation in resulting
habitat designations.
Our Response: Table C–19 in
Appendix C of the Revised Recovery
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl
(USFWS 2011) presents results from the
cross-validation results, in terms of
performance differences between
models based on replicate samples.
Those results showed that there was
very little difference between the
performance of the models when
replicate samples were evaluated, giving
us confidence in the generality of our
model (that is, the model worked
reliably well across a range of situations
tested).
Comment (34): One reviewer
requested additional sensitivity analysis
to quantify the influence of different
parameter settings within HexSim on
modeled population performance,
which would have been particularly
useful for evaluating the implications of
scientific uncertainty.
Our Response: We agree and in the
final Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al.
2012b) we have incorporated the results
of sensitivity analyses conducted on
nine HexSim parameters.
Comment (35): One reviewer noted
that the original supplement on habitat
modeling that accompanied our
proposed rule (Dunk et al. 2012a) did
not report measures of variance in the
population estimates or pseudoextinction thresholds used to compare
habitat network scenarios. The reviewer
noted that reporting standard errors or
ranges of those population estimates
would help in the comparison of the
efficacy of different network designs.
Our Response: Our failure to report
measures of variation in population
estimates was an oversight that we have
corrected in the Modeling Supplement
(Dunk et al. 2012b). The estimated
extinction risk thresholds that we
reported were the total number of
simulations in which that threshold was
exceeded (i.e., the population fell below
the extinction threshold). It would not
be appropriate to provide measures of
variation around these. The measure
itself is interpreted as the ‘‘probability
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71999
of exceeding pseudo-extinction
threshold X.’’
Comment (36): One reviewer noted
that model results showed that the
barred owl encounter rate can have a
disproportionately large influence on
persistence outcomes of the HexSim
model. The reviewer states that the
Service evaluated four barred owl
scenarios (Dunk et al. 2012a), but none
of these considered the more critical
survival parameter and the major
reductions in adult survival that barred
owls generate in the model. Thus, the
reviewer states that one is unable to
assess the relative contributions of
barred owl encounter rates versus
barred owl survival reductions to
persistence of simulated northern
spotted owl populations.
Our Response: In the northern spotted
owl HexSim model we used, barred
owls only affected northern spotted owl
survival, not occupancy or
reproduction. Thus, the impact of
barred owls in HexSim results is only
from their reduction of northern spotted
owl survival. Based on advice we
obtained from species experts, we
limited barred owl impacts on northern
spotted owls to survival alone. We did
not simulate barred owl impacts on
reproduction, territory establishment,
site fidelity, or movement behavior. We
also did not simulate barred owl
predation on northern spotted owl
nestlings. This recommendation (to
simulate barred owl impacts only on
northern spotted owl survival) was a
reflection of limitations on rangewide
data availability regarding these factors.
Comment (37): One reviewer
suggested that we allow the barred owl
effect in the HexSim model to vary with
resource acquisition class. For example,
the barred owl effect on survival might
be more severe when an owl is in the
‘‘low’’ resource class but incrementally
reduced in the medium and high
resource classes (i.e., as resources
become less limiting so do the negative
effects of competition with barred owls).
Our Response: Resource acquisition
classes are a component of the HexSim
model. In the model, resources available
to an owl are a function of the mean
RHS value of habitat within its home
range and fall into three categories:
High, medium, or low (USFWS 2011, p.
C–60). This is a good suggestion, and
could potentially help refine the
HexSim model for the northern spotted
owl. It would not, however, improve the
model’s ability to identify those specific
areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl, or that are essential to the
conservation of the species (section
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
72000
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
3(5)(a) of the Act). The relative
performance of various composite
potential critical habitat networks
would be unlikely to change if we were
to change the analysis as the reviewer
suggests, because the proposed change
would affect all potential critical habitat
networks in the same way. The relative
performance of the habitat networks
under consideration, which is what we
were able to assess (as opposed to
absolute outcomes), would therefore
remain the same, and our ultimate
determination of the critical habitat
network that provides what is essential
to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl in the most efficient design
would be unchanged.
Comment (38): One reviewer
suggested that modeling of habitat
networks should incorporate more
realistic encounter rates between
northern spotted owls and barred owls,
so that estimates of sustainability of
northern spotted owl populations are
not overly optimistic.
Our Response: As we have noted in
both the proposed rule and this rule, the
designation of critical habitat is only
one of many conservation actions that
may contribute to the recovery of the
northern spotted owl. The designation
of critical habitat is intended to help
address habitat-based threats to a listed
species; it is not expected to
independently lead to recovery absent
other actions to ameliorate additional,
non-habitat based threats. We are also
bound, however, by the statutory
definition of critical habitat, which
requires that we identify those areas that
provide the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species, or are otherwise essential (if
not occupied at the time of listing). The
task of identifying where on the
landscape these essential areas lay was
complicated by the barred owl, a nonhabitat based threat. In some cases, the
negative influence of the barred owl on
the simulated performance of our
modeled northern spotted owl
populations completely masked the
potential contribution of varying areas
of relative habitat suitability, thus
rendering it impossible to determine
which specific areas provide the
essential physical or biological features.
Our HexSim modeling suggested that if
barred owl encounter rates within each
modeling region were to be maintained
at their currently estimated rates (from
Forsman et al. 2011), there was little
variation in northern spotted owl
population performance among any of
the potential critical habitat networks
(even doubling the size of the habitat
network produced no discernible
difference). The only avenue that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
allowed us to discriminate between
potential networks and isolate and
evaluate the contribution of specific
areas of habitat that are essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl, as directed by the statute, was to
adjust the encounter rates with barred
owls to some reasonable level, as might
potentially be achieved through
management actions. This harkens back
to our statement earlier that we do not
assume critical habitat will provide for
the recovery of the species in a vacuum;
rather, we must assume that other
recovery actions will occur in
coincidence with the protections
provided by critical habitat. We
assumed changes in barred owl
encounter probabilities in our
comparisons of potential critical habitat
networks that, in our judgment,
represented changes that could
realistically be achieved with
management aimed at reducing
encounter rates (and without
prescribing the nature of that
management). In most cases, only
relatively modest changes to the
currently estimated encounter
probabilities between barred owls and
northern spotted owls were required to
allow us to discern the underlying
differences between varying habitat
network designs, and to enable the
identification of the specific areas
essential to the conservation of the
species. In fact, for Phase 2 and 3
modeling (MaxEnt and HexSim; see
Dunk et al. 2012b for details), we
decreased barred owl encounter
probabilities in only 3 of 11 modeling
regions, and increased encounter
probabilities in 8 of 11 modeling
regions. The mean absolute value of
change (from currently estimated
encounter probabilities to what we
assumed in Phases 2 and 3) among
modeling regions was 0.081 (range =
0.005 (in the KLE) to 0.335 (in the
OCR)). Our population performance
results do not suggest that the habitat
scenarios considered were overly
optimistic in regard to sustainability of
northern spotted owl populations (Dunk
et al. 2012b).
Comment (39): One reviewer
suggested incorporating the relative
probability of controlling barred owls as
part of the designation of various critical
habitat units. The reviewer noted that to
be able to assess habitat factors in the
modeling process, the barred owl effect
had to be set below known values in
selected areas, suggesting that these
designated critical habitat units will not
contribute to northern spotted owl
conservation in the absence of barred
owl control. The reviewer further stated
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that the apparent sensitivity of the
HexSim model to the barred owl
covariate indicates that barred owl
management will be the overriding
factor in the success of critical habitat
being able to achieve the northern
spotted owl recovery goals. The
reviewer suggested that if the Service
wants to capture uncertainty in this
modeling exercise, the probability of
controlling barred owl numbers should
be factored into the modeling process
based on logistical, ownership, and
social factors.
Our Response: We agree with the
reviewer’s suggestions in theory.
However, we are unaware of currently
available scientific information that
would enable us to reliably estimate the
influence of ‘‘logistical, ownership, and
social factors’’ on the probability of
effective barred owl control across the
range of the northern spotted owl (over
50 million ac (20 million ha)). Lacking
any such specific data, such exercise
would be arbitrary and speculative, and
would likely introduce greater
uncertainty into the modeling. We
appreciate that the reviewer recognizes
the sensitivity of the model to barred
owl encounter rates, and the reason why
we had to make slight adjustments to
those rates in some areas to identify
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl (see our response to Comment (38),
above).
Comment (40): One reviewer
indicated that basing the demographic
trends on the last meta-analysis
(Forsman et al. 2011) is overly
optimistic since these results are already
badly outdated. The reviewer states that
the last meta-analysis was conducted
after the 2008 field season, with survival
rates estimated through 2007 and
realized rate of population change
through 2006. The reviewer states that,
according to personal communications
with researchers in other demographic
study areas, many of the study areas
shown as stable in the 2008 metaanalysis are now in precipitous decline
due to rapid increases in barred owl
populations. The reviewers suggests
that, although it would only be
qualitative, the Service could contact
the leads from the various northern
spotted owl demographic study areas to
see if there have been substantial
changes in barred owl versus northern
spotted owl numbers.
Our Response: This is a good point,
and we heard similar comments from
several field researchers and principal
investigators of the northern spotted owl
demographic studies. In Step 3 of the
modeling process, we obtained the most
recent annual reports from the
demographic study areas and evaluated
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the more recent estimates of barred owl
densities, and included a scenario
representing high barred owl densities
such as those described in this
comment. Because we used more recent
estimates of barred owl encounter rates,
spotted owl population trends
simulated in HexSim showed a more
rapid decline than that estimated in the
recent meta-analysis; this was especially
evident in the Tyee demographic study
area. We therefore believe that our
modeling process incorporated the idea
expressed in this comment.
Comment (41): One reviewer
indicated that bounding experiments
with HexSim are needed to suggest the
sort of spatial, temporal, and population
controls that may be needed for the
barred owls to create a high likelihood
of success for critical habitat. The
reviewer suggests the Service has thus
far determined the barred owl encounter
rates that were needed to achieve
reasonably stable northern spotted owl
population dynamics.
Our Response: This is a good
suggestion, but not necessary to identify
lands meeting the definition of critical
habitat. Because we evaluated northern
spotted owl population performance
across a gradient of barred owl
encounter probabilities ranging from 0.0
to 0.7, our modeling already revealed
that northern spotted owls are likely to
do very poorly at high barred owl
encounter probabilities. This provided a
general understanding of the influence
of various barred owl encounter rates
and demonstrated the range of values
(bounds) where population performance
that met recovery criteria was possible.
This is why we set 0.375 as a ceiling to
barred owl encounter probabilities. The
reviewer’s suggestion is more relevant to
the specifics of potential barred owl
control efforts, such as have been
recommended by the Revised Recovery
Plan on an experimental basis (USFWS
2011). The Service is currently
considering such efforts and has
published an environmental impact
statement on experimental barred owl
removal options. That is a separate
recovery effort, however, is not
connected to this rulemaking.
Comment (42): Several reviewers
expressed concern that the way that
barred owl encounters were represented
in the model as homogeneous
probabilistic reductions in northern
spotted owl survival may fail to capture
important spatial patterns of interaction
between the species within subregions,
and it may overestimate (one reviewer)
or underestimate (second reviewer) the
negative impacts of barred owls on
northern spotted owl population
persistence. The reviewers suggested the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
uncertainty surrounding the specific
impacts of barred owls, and the analysis
in Appendix C of the Revised Recovery
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl
further justify the need for an intensive
barred owl removal experiment to
understand the overall impact that
barred owls are having on northern
spotted owls.
Our Response: This point is well
taken by the Service. As the reviewer
mentioned, ‘‘empirical information
required for a realistic representation of
barred owl interaction effects across the
range of the northern spotted owl is not
available at this time.’’ The Service did
evaluate several different barred owl
encounter probabilities, which largely
differed among the 11 modeling regions,
but were identical within modeling
regions. The modeling framework we
used is capable of including a spatially
explicit barred owl effect, if such
specific data should become available.
Given the uncertainties about variation
in barred owl impacts within modeling
regions, it is possible that our modeling
overestimated or underestimated
negative barred owl impacts. However,
because we used HexSim to compare
relative population performance among
alternative potential critical habitat
networks, and used the best available
estimates of barred owl effects, we
believe the representation of barred owl
impacts we used allowed us to
accurately evaluate which networks, on
a comparative basis, best met the
objectives in our guiding principles for
identifying lands meeting the definition
of critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl.
Comment (43): One reviewer believed
that the HexSim model was not an
appropriate choice for this modeling
process because the reviewer indicated
it was overly complex, too individually
based, and included variables where
there was no, little, or very incomplete
data, such as territory searching
behavior, and floater dynamics, etc. In
addition, the reviewer expressed
skepticism that the modeling approach
used would be repeatable, because of its
complexity.
Our Response: We disagree. We have
articulated our rationale for using the
HexSim model in Appendix C to the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, pp. C–53–
C–56) and again in our Modeling
Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b). We
acknowledge that there are many
possible approaches to identifying and
evaluating alternative potential critical
habitat networks. However, we contend
that our approach represents the best
available science and is appropriate for
identifying areas meeting the definition
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
72001
of critical habitat because it enabled us
to evaluate numerous possible networks
of habitat and compare simulated
population responses of northern
spotted owls to environmental
conditions in a spatially-explicit
manner that enabled us to determine
those areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for the species. Our
approach is detailed in the section
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat,
but in brief, the use of HexSim enabled
us to evaluate which of the habitat
scenarios under consideration had the
greatest potential to meet the recovery
objectives for the northern spotted owl,
based on relative population
performance.
To identify the areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, we elected to use
a spatially explicit, individual-based
modeling approach. We did so because
we required an approach that enabled
comparison of a wide range of spatially
explicit conditions such as variation in
habitat conservation networks.
Individual-based models allow for the
representation of ecological systems in a
manner consistent with the way
ecologists view such systems as
operating. That is, emergent properties
such as population increases or declines
are the result of a series of effects and
interactions operating at the scale of
individuals. Individuals select habitat
based on what is available to them,
disperse as a function of their
individual circumstance (age), compete
for resources, etc.
Grimm and Railsback (2005) noted
that individual-based models need to be
simple enough to be practical, but have
enough resolution to capture essential
structures and processes. We are
fortunate to have a tremendous quantity
and quality of data available for the
northern spotted owl; the species is
therefore ideally suited for a spatiallyexplicit, individual-based model, such
as HexSim. While not developed
specifically for the northern spotted
owl, HexSim (Schumaker 2011) was
designed to simulate a population’s
response to changing on-the-ground
conditions by considering how those
conditions influence an organism’s
survival, reproduction, and ability to
move around a landscape. We
developed a HexSim spotted owl
scenario based on the most up-to date
demographic data available on spotted
owls (Forsman et al. 2011), published
information on spotted owl dispersal
and home range sizes, as well as a
variety of other parameters. Evaluation
and calibration of the HexSim output
included comparison with owl numbers
in demographic study areas and
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
72002
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
dispersal histograms. Based on our
assessment of the model, we are
confident it performs as intended, in
terms of allowing us to reliably assess
the relative performance of alternative
habitat conservation networks. We
further note that the majority of peer
reviewers supported the modeling
framework we applied in the
identification of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl.
Comments on Active Forest
Management
Comment (44): Five peer reviewers
and numerous public commenters
indicated that active forest management
should be conducted in areas that are
not currently high value for northern
spotted owls and in an adaptive
management framework given the
uncertainties regarding how such
management practices will impact
northern spotted owls and their prey.
Our Response: The Service expects to
support and design, in concert with the
BLM, USFS, and researchers, scientific
studies on the effects of ecological
forestry projects in northern spotted owl
critical habitat, to gain a better
understanding of the short-term and
long-term impacts of these silvicultural
treatments on northern spotted owls,
their prey and forest vegetative
structure. We are currently designing
and funding just such a study through
Oregon State University for the pilot
project in the Middle Applegate
Watershed. We expect these types of
research studies to inform the design of
future ecological forestry projects within
the range of the northern spotted owl.
A key difference between using active
adaptive forest management to evaluate
risks associated with ecological forestry
and the Service’s ongoing efforts to
address risks associated with expanding
barred owl populations is that, for
barred owls, a single experiment has the
potential to address many of the most
important uncertainties pertinent to
future management, allowing the
Service to define a schedule for
progress. Addressing uncertainties
about ecological forestry will likely
require multiple research efforts, each
tailored to specifics of different
geographic areas and different
ecological interactions. Collaboration
among programs, similar to the
collaboration supporting long-term
demographic studies of northern spotted
owls, will likely be needed to conduct
adaptive management studies of habitat
treatments. Integrative initiatives, such
as the USFS’s Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program, may
also play an important role. Adaptive
management of ecological forestry
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
techniques will take time, and will
require continuation of the ongoing
dialogue between researchers and forest
management practitioners regarding
how to simultaneously meet the goals of
forest restoration and northern spotted
owl conservation. Coordination among
research projects also will be essential
to generating reliable information about
diverse interactions as efficiently as
possible.
Comment (45): One reviewer and a
public comment suggested that the
emphasis of management within
northern spotted owl critical habitat
should be on ecological restoration
rather than ecological forestry.
Our Response: In general, in northern
spotted owl critical habitat, we would
like to see land managers consider
activities to restore and maintain
northern spotted owl habitat and the
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire
regime, natural vegetational succession
patterns, etc.) of the owl’s forest
ecosystems. However, we also recognize
that ecological restoration, in and of
itself, is often not the management goal
of all lands included in critical habitat.
This critical habitat rule does not dictate
what land managers do on Federal State,
or private lands. However, in areas
where land managers are considering
competing land management goals (e.g.,
northern spotted owl habitat
conservation vs. commercial timber
harvest), we encourage them to consider
an ecological forestry approach to better
meet the needs of the northern spotted
owl, the goals of the land managers, and
long-term forest health. As described in
the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011),
the field of ‘‘ecological forestry’’ is
emerging as a dominant paradigm of
forest management; related to this
emergence are concepts such as ‘‘natural
disturbance emulation’’ and ‘‘retention
forestry’’ (see, e.g., Gustafsson et al.
2012, entire; Franklin et al. 2007, entire;
Kuuluvainen and Grenfell 2012, entire;
North and Keeton 2008; Long 2009,
entire; Lindenmayer et al. 2012; entire).
The Service believes that application of
these ecological forestry goals and
principles, including those generally
described in Johnson and Franklin
(2009, entire; 2012, entire), may result,
in some situations, in fewer adverse
impacts to northern spotted owl critical
habitat when compared to application of
traditional silviculture as currently
applied or permitted on private, State,
and Federal matrix lands.
Comment (46): Several reviewers
commented that studies have
demonstrated negative effects of forest
thinning on northern spotted owls and
their prey, and expressed concern that
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
negative effects of these practices may
be further exacerbated by barred owls.
These reviewers were uneasy with such
types of activities occurring near owl
territories, and recommended that if
conducted, these actions be done at
small scales and be subject to rigorous
scientific scrutiny.
Our Response: We are not
recommending that commercial
thinning or other treatments be
conducted near active owl territories or
in good quality owl habitat. We also
encourage an active adaptive forest
management approach to improve the
understanding about effects of
ecological forestry approaches on
northern spotted owl, barred owls, and
other species of concern.
Comment (47): Three reviewers
recommended that we give full
consideration to recent publications of
Hessburg et al. (2007) and Baker (2012)
for guidance on how to restore and
manage dry forests in the eastern
Cascades.
Our Response: Both this final critical
habitat rule and the Revised Recovery
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl
(USFWS 2011) cite Hessburg et al.
(2007, p. 21), and we continue to
recommend land managers consider
their findings and recommendations
regarding dry forest management within
the range of the northern spotted owl.
Since publication of the proposed
critical habitat rule, we have reviewed
Baker (2012, entire) as well as many
other recently published studies
addressing forest health and the risk of
wildfire in the Pacific Northwest. We
acknowledge some of the conclusions of
Baker (2012, p. 21) and Williams and
Baker (2012, p. 9) that portions of the
dry forests of the Pacific Northwest
experienced high-severity fires as well
as mixed and low-severity fires.
However, we also acknowledge the
conclusions of many other researchers
that large areas within the range of the
owl that once burned frequently with
low-moderate intensity regimes are
currently outside of historical
conditions (cited below). A variety of
management measures (e.g., prescribed
fire, mechanical treatment, etc.) can be
considered in such areas where the goal
is to influence wildfires to reduce
adverse impacts of climate change,
manage forest carbon levels, reduce fire
severity and retain desirable forest
conditions (i.e., conserve older trees), or
protect high-value wildlife habitats
(including northern spotted owls),
riparian areas, and biodiversity (Davis et
al. 2012, entire; Stephens et al. 2009,
p.310–318; Stephens et al. 2012a, p. 12;
Stephens et al. 2012b, entire; Chmura et
al. 2012, p. 1134; Syphard et al. 2011,
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
p. 381; Safford et al. 2012, pp. 26–27;
Roloff et al. 2012, pp. 7–9, Roberts et al.
2011, p. 617, Messier et al. 2012, pp.
67–70; Franklin et al. 2008, p. 46; Ager
et al. 2007, pp. 53–55).
Such management considerations are
completely consistent with the intent of
the NWFP (Standards and Guidelines, p.
C–12—C–13). We continue to
recommend that land managers
carefully distinguish and target areas
that are high priority for ecological
restoration (e.g., Franklin et al. 2008, p.
46; Schoennagel and Nelson 2011,
entire; Ager et al. 2012, p. 280), and that
they also minimize short-term impacts
to northern spotted owls to the greatest
possible extent. We suggest using a
process such as provided by Spies et al.
(2012, entire) to help prioritize actions
and consider tradeoffs such as northern
spotted owl conservation, restoration of
ecological conditions, and other land
management goals. Given the wide
geographic area of this critical habitat
designation and the variety of landscape
conditions and fire regimes, more
precise planning and implementation
should be done at the appropriate
landscape scales such as the National
Forest scale, consistent with the goals of
the Northwest Forest Plan.
Comment (48): One reviewer and a
public comment recommended that the
Johnson and Franklin (2009) ecological
forestry framework should not be used
because it is based on the wrong
reference framework.
Our Response: While we recognize
that there is some scientific
disagreement about the specific
ecological forestry practices
recommended by Drs. Johnson and
Franklin,we believe the commenters
may have misinterpreted our references
to this unpublished report. First,
Johnson and Franklin (2009) is only
referenced three times in the final
critical habitat rule: Once as a general
reference for ecological forestry, once in
relation to how active management is
generally not necessary to maintain old
growth conditions in moist forests, and
again to highlight that alteration of fuel
loads in moist forest could have
undesirable ecological consequences
and thus should be discouraged.
Second, we continue to encourage forest
land managers to consider the
application of ecological forestry
principles to their commercial timber
harvest (see response to peer review
question 4a-c, above), and we believe
that application of these principles in
many instances may result in better
long-term ecological conditions for
northern spotted owls and other forest
wildlife when compared to the
application of traditional silviculture
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
methods. The methods presented by
Johnson and Franklin (2009) are one
example of how ecological forestry can
be applied. We recognize that there are
a variety of approaches, and the best
management practices for any area are
highly dependent on site-specific
conditions.
Comment (49): One reviewer
recommended a zoning process for
determining where active management
would be appropriate. Such a zoning
process would include identification of
areas where management is not needed
or should be avoided, areas where
future habitat could be enhanced by
treatment, and areas where management
is needed to meet broader landscape
goals. In addition, monitoring and
reporting of progress towards desired
goals is essential if this strategy is to be
successful.
Our Response: The Service supports
the concept of land managers
identifying areas where active
management would be appropriate on
the lands under their jurisdiction.
However, it is not appropriate for this
critical habitat rule to attempt to do this;
it should be done by land managers
consistent with their planning
procedures. As the reviewer also
suggested, these details will need to be
worked out at regional scales and
planning levels (see response to peer
review comment 4, above). Several
examples of strategies for prioritizing
landscapes for management treatment in
eastern Washington include Davis et al.
(2012, entire) and Franklin et al. (2008,
pg. 46).
Comment (50): One reviewer
encouraged the Service to recognize the
highly transient nature of grand fir on
the eastern Cascades.
Our Response: We have recognized
this in the rule. While we did not
explicitly identify all forest types in all
regions, we have recognized the patchy
and transient nature of east Cascades
forests.
Comment (51): One reviewer asked
that we identify which (specific)
ecological processes will be enhanced
by management and how management
will be coordinated across large
landscapes.
Our Response: We agree that
additional guidance and coordination
among management agencies would be
helpful to coordinate landscape-level
planning; however, such guidance and
coordination is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. To the extent possible we
have provided additional detail
regarding restoration and management
of ecological processes in revisions to
the following sections of this rule: An
Ecosystem-based Approach to the
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
72003
Conservation of the Northern Spotted
Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat,
Special Management Considerations or
Protections, and Determination of
Adverse Effects and Application of the
‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard.
Comment (52): There were a number
of general comments about analysis of
fire risk and ecological benefits of
contemporary fire regimes in dry and
mixed-severity forests.
Our Response: The issue of forest
health and fire risk in the Pacific
Northwest is complex, and there is a
wide variety of legitimate scientific
viewpoints on forest management in the
face of uncertainty. Although some
scientists do not believe management
intervention is appropriate and advocate
a mostly passive (i.e., hands-off)
approach to forest ecosystem
management, many others believe
science-based intervention is necessary
to restore and maintain important
ecological processes and components of
biodiversity, including the northern
spotted owl.
We agree with the majority of
scientists who suggest that forest
ecosystems at global, national, and
regional levels are undergoing
significant changes due to climate
change and past management activities
(Collins et al. 2012, pp. 8–12; Miller et
al., 2012, p. 201; Miller et al., 2009, p.
28; Moritz et al. 2012, entire; Westerling
et al. 2011, p. S459; Marlon et al. 2012,
p. E541). Impacts from wildfire, changes
in precipitation, insect and invasive
weed outbreaks, and forest disease
appear to be increasing when compared
to historic patterns and are putting some
components of native biodiversity at
risk (Perry et al. 2011, p. 712). Although
some researchers disagree on the
magnitude of these changes and what to
do about them (e.g., Hanson et al. 2009,
p. 5; Baker 2012, p. 21; Williams and
Baker 2012, p. 9; Dillon et al. pp. 18–
20), our review of the recent scientific
literature found that most researchers
believe that changes in wildfire
frequency, severity, and total burned
area are occurring or are expected to
varying degrees in the Pacific
Northwest. Most of these researchers
recommend consideration of certain
types of active management responses to
achieve goals such as increasing forest
resilience to climate change, conserving
extant biodiversity, and reducing
wildfire severity (e.g., Stephens et al.
2009, pp. 316–318; Safford et al. 2012,
pp. 26–27; Messier et al. 2012, p. 69;
Hessburg et al. 2007, entire; Chmura et
al. 2012, p. 1134; Stephens et al. 2012b,
pp. 557–558; Fule et al. 2012, p. 76;
Halofsky et al., pp. 15–16; Reinhardt et
al. 2008, pp. 2003–2004; Heyerdahl et
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
72004
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
al. 2008, p. 47; Latta et al. 2010; Littell
et al. 2009, pp. 1018–1019, Littell et al.
2010, p. 154; Spies et al. 2010, entire).
Several of these studies identify the
potential for degraded ecological
conditions and increased fire risk to
affect northern spotted owls (Buchanan
2009, pp. 114–115; Healey et al. 2008,
pp. 1117–1118; Roloff et al. 2012, pp. 8–
9; Ager et al. 2007, pp. 53–55; Ager et
al. 2012, pp. 279–282; Franklin et al.
2009, p. 46; Kennedy and Wimberly
2009, pp. 564–565). We recommend that
these issues related to active
management in dry forests be
considered by Federal land managers as
they follow the direction on pages C–12
and C–13 of the Northwest Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines.
Comment (53): One reviewer
recommended that the Service prepare a
draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS) under NEPA with regard to
active management in northern spotted
owl critical habitat.
Our Response: This rule revises the
critical habitat designation for the
northern spotted owl by identifying
those specific areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
species. It does not take any action or
adopt any policy, plan, or program
related to active forest management. The
only effect of critical habitat is that
Federal agencies must consult with the
Service on their activities that may
affect designated northern spotted owl
critical habitat, and our discussion of
active forest management is not
intended in any way to prescribe or
mandate the types of activities Federal
agencies must submit for consultation. It
is provided only for Federal, State,
local, and private land managers to
consider as they make decisions on the
management of forest land under their
jurisdictions and through their normal
processes.
Comment (54): One reviewer
criticized the proposed rule for
promoting ecological forestry for
economic and political reasons rather
than basing recommendations on sound
science.
Our Response: We disagree. We have
included a discussion of ecological
forestry principles because, in many
instances, it may represent a reasonable
and solid scientific approach to
managing forest ecosystems where
multiple—and sometimes competing—
management goals need to be reconciled
or accommodated (see, e.g., Gustafsson
et al. 2012, entire; Franklin et al. 2007,
entire; Kuuluvainen and Grenfell 2012,
entire; North and Keeton 2008, entire;
Long 2009, entire; Lindenmayer et al.
2012, entire). Our primary goal in this
critical habitat designation is to identify
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
the specific areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl. In addition, we
identify those types of measures that
promote the conservation of critical
habitat, identify special management
measures that may be needed within
critical habitat, and identify activities
that may affect or adversely modify
critical habitat. Our overall emphasis in
this designation is clearly on the
maintenance and restoration of northern
spotted owl habitat, but we also provide
general guidance for consideration by
land managers on what types of
activities may affect northern spotted
owl habitat and how to minimize the
adverse impacts of those activities.
Reference to the principles of ecological
forestry as a suggestion for land
managers to consider is a scientifically
appropriate way to help achieve this
goal, and is consistent with the
recommendations of the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl (USFWS 2011), as well as the
Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP
(e.g., USDA and USDI 1994, p. A–1,
Standards and Guidelines, pp. C–12, C–
13).
Comment (55): A number of reviewers
submitted line-specific edits and
revisions.
Our Response: These revisions have
been made to the text, where
appropriate.
Comments From Federal Agencies
Comment (56): The USFS and several
public commenters supported the
inclusion of congressionally reserved
areas including Wilderness Areas,
National Parks, and similar lands for a
variety of reasons, including accurately
reflecting the area contributing toward
recovery, highlighting the conservation
value and role of this minimally
managed habitat, and to encourage
barred owl and other needed
management activities.
Our Response: National parks,
wilderness areas, and similar lands
provide large areas of high-quality
habitat for the northern spotted owl. All
congressionally reserved lands (e.g.,
wilderness areas, national parks)
proposed for designation have been
excluded in this final designation of
critical habitat. We agree that such areas
play an important role in the
conservation of the northern spotted
owl under their current management.
However, their current conservation
value is so great that we could not find
any minimal benefits of including them
in that outweighed the relatively minor
administrative costs of including them
in critical habitat, therefore the benefits
of excluding them outweighed the
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
benefits of including them. In addition,
exclusion of these lands will have no
negative conservation impact on their
future management and they will
continue to function as intended for
spotted owl recovery.
Comment (57): The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and several public
commenters identified specific concerns
with the proposed critical habitat maps,
including revisions to land ownership
or management on both public and
private land, and questions regarding
the mapping scale and resolution.
Several commenters submitted revised
or corrected maps for the Service to
consider in developing the final rule.
Our Response: We thank the
commenters for the information
provided. We have replaced the NWFP
ownership designations used on the
proposed critical habitat map with an
updated BLM ownership map to correct
many errors. In cases where mapping
errors may have been made in our
proposed critical habitat, such errors
were corrected.
Comment (58): The BLM requested we
provide maximum clarity with regard to
the Act’s section 7 consultation process
in an effort to reduce the cost and
burden of the consultation process.
Our Response: We have provided
background and information to help the
Federal action agencies assess whether
their projects ‘‘may affect’’ proposed
northern spotted owl critical habitat, the
standard to determine whether
consultation is required. If further
clarification is needed, the Service is
glad to provide action agencies with
technical assistance to help determine
whether or not their proposed action
has the potential to affect critical
habitat.
Comment (59): The BLM requested
additional clarification about how the
proposed critical habitat sought to
‘‘ensure sufficient spatial redundancy in
Critical Habitat within each recovery
unit,’’ and the purpose and expectations
for these inclusions.
Our Response: In the development of
habitat conservation networks, the
intent of spatial redundancy is to
increase the likelihood that the network
and populations can sustain habitat
losses by inclusion of multiple
populations unlikely to be affected by a
single disturbance event. This is
essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl because
disturbance events such as fire can
potentially remove large areas of habitat
with negative consequences for northern
spotted owls. Redundancy provides a
type of ‘‘emergency back-up’’ system to
sustain populations in the wake of such
events. While the modeling and
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
evaluation process used by the Service
did not formally analyze redundancy,
we incorporated spatial redundancy at
two scales: By (1) making critical habitat
subunits large enough to support
multiple groups of owl sites; and (2)
distributing multiple critical habitat
subunits within a single geographic
region. This was particularly the case in
the fire-prone Klamath and Eastern
Cascades portions of the range.
Comment (60): The BLM provided
additional data and mapping layers as
well as an alternative approach for
designating critical habitat on public
lands.
Our Response: Through a series of
meetings and work sessions, the Service
has reviewed the materials provided by
the BLM, and we evaluated and
incorporated many of their suggested
changes, where appropriate and
consistent with our criteria for
identifying critical habitat, in
developing the final critical habitat
designation. Based on BLM’s
suggestions, we removed relatively
small areas of lower quality habitat that
had been included in proposed critical
habitat and added in relatively small
areas of high-quality habitat that
improved connectivity or created larger
habitat blocks.
Comments From State Agencies
Comment (61): Washington DFW
requested that the rule clarify the extent
to which management actions with
short-term negative impacts to northern
spotted owl habitat is consistent with
the recovery needs of the northern
spotted owl, particularly in areas of
Washington State where northern
spotted owl populations are greatly
depressed.
Our Response: Each situation should
be considered on a case-by-case basis,
but, generally, actions that have shortterm negative impacts may be consistent
with the recovery needs of northern
spotted owl when the intent of the
action is (1) to improve long-term
conditions for the species or (2) to
improve the overall condition of the
ecosystem. It could be argued either that
where populations are greatly depressed
there is more need for these actions or,
conversely, that there is less flexibility
to conduct these actions depending on
the specifics of the action and the
habitat needs of the owl in that area.
These are issues that must be addressed
in consultation and through the level
one team process; assessing that level of
detail is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. We have revised the rule
(see section: An Ecosystem-based
Approach to the Conservation of the
Northern Spotted Owl and Managing Its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Critical Habitat) to provide additional
suggestions regarding what management
actions may benefit northern spotted
owls and what actions are unlikely to do
so. Additional guidance is available in
the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011).
Comment (62): The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
supported a coordinated and strategic
management plan for dry forest
landscapes and expressed a need for the
critical habitat rule to consider
coordination to implement effective
management, reduce conflict, and
explore the possibility of Federal
funding for landscape strategies.
Our Response: The landscape
assessment approach for the East
Cascades provides the best basis for
development of strategies to manage dry
forest landscapes. Products of the
landscape assessment can be used to
describe the rationale for management
actions. The Service is available to work
with land managers to assist in the
development and implementation of
landscape assessments, but this rule
does not mandate any specific
management within the critical habitat
network, which would be beyond the
scope of this rulemaking.
Comment (63): Several State and
public commenters disagreed with the
need to include private lands (and in
some cases State lands) in the final rule
for a variety of reasons. The commenters
did not provide specific information on
any particular lands, but provided
general reasons that they thought the
broad categories of private and State
lands should be excluded from the final
designation, including concerns of
economic issues, uncertainty, private
land stewardship, added regulatory
burdens (including a disproportionate
burden on small landowners), reduction
in land value, State land overlays,
consistency with existing laws and
policy, potential disincentives for
conservation or negative impacts to
habitat, the need to maintain
partnerships with landowners, the need
to develop incentives for conservation
partnerships, the need to compensate
for lack of land use, the need to focus
protections on public lands, the lack of
notification of private landowners by
the Service about the proposed rule,
concern that designation penalizes
landowners who have retained suitable
habitat, and a lack of need for or
benefits from additional protections.
One commenter suggested that Congress
intended the Federal agencies to acquire
any private or State lands that are
designated as critical habitat.
Our Response: We recognize that the
greatest benefit of critical habitat may be
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
72005
realized on actively-managed Federal
lands, since the regulatory effect of
critical habitat is the requirement that
Federal agencies ensure that any actions
that they carry out, fund, or authorize
do not destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. In addition,
Federal agencies have a mandate under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act to carry out
programs for the conservation of
endangered species and threatened
species. For these reasons, we looked
first to Federal lands for the critical
habitat essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl, as described
in the section Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat and supporting
methodology (Dunk et al. 2012b).
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act states that
critical habitat is defined as (1) the
specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed that provide the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection; and (2)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed, upon a determination by
the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species. Further, section 4(b)(2) of the
Act mandates that such determinations
shall be made on the basis of the best
scientific data available and after taking
into consideration the economic impact,
the impact on national security, and any
other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
The language of the Act does not
restrict the designation of critical habitat
to specific land ownership such as
Federal lands; thus, lands of all
ownerships are considered if they meet
the definition of critical habitat. Areas
may be excluded from the final
designation if the Secretary finds that
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, or if we determine,
based on public comment or other
information received following the
issuance of the proposed rule, that such
areas do not meet the definition of
critical habitat (for example, areas that
were occupied at the time of listing but
do not provide the essential physical or
biological features, or areas that may not
have been occupied at the time of listing
and were proposed for designation, but
are not essential to the conservation of
the species).
As described in the proposed rule
(March 8, 2012; 77 FR 14076, p. 14099),
we evaluated critical habitat scenarios
that prioritized Federal lands first as
well as scenarios without regard to land
ownership in determining what is
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
72006
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
essential to the northern spotted owl. In
all cases, if the scenarios under
consideration provided equal
contribution to recovery, we chose the
scenario that prioritized publicly owned
lands. State and private lands were
included only if they were essential to
the conservation of the species (i.e.,
were determined to have been occupied
at the time of listing and contain the
physical or biological features essential
to northern spotted owl conservation or
may have been unoccupied at the time
of listing but are essential to the
conservation of the owl). However,
based on information received during
the public comment period, in several
cases we refined the critical habitat
boundaries to remove areas of private
lands that we determined do not meet
the criteria and therefore do not meet
the definition of critical habitat. In other
instances, the Secretary has chosen to
exert his discretion to exclude lands,
including private lands, based on a
careful weighing and balancing of the
benefits of inclusion versus the benefits
of exclusion, as provided in section
4(b)(2) of the Act, including
consideration of conservation
agreements, such as HCPs or SHAs, and
the Service’s desire to support existing
and effective State conservation
programs (see Exclusions). However,
such exclusion does not indicate that
these areas are not essential for the
conservation of the species, only that
the benefits of exclusion outweigh those
of inclusion.
We retained some State-owned lands
in all three states included in this
critical habitat designation. In general
we retained these lands because we
found they provided essential
contributions to the conservation of
spotted owls, especially in terms of
complementing the distribution of
habitat on Federal lands or filling gaps
in Federal ownership. We also found
that the benefits of inclusion associated
with public education and raising State
and local agency awareness of the
conservation needs of spotted owls
outweighed anticipated minor increases
in regulatory requirements, when
Federal involvement occurred. See
Changes from the Proposed Rule for
more information on State lands
retained in the final critical habitat
designation.
The Service does not compensate
private or State landowners for
perceived limitations on land use
associated with critical habitat
designation. Designation of private or
other non-Federal lands as critical
habitat has no regulatory impact on the
use of that land unless there is Federal
involvement in proposed management
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
activities. Identifying non-Federal lands
that are essential to the conservation of
a species alerts State and local
government agencies and private
landowners to the value of habitat on
their lands, and may promote
conservation partnerships. There is no
indication that Congress intended the
Service to acquire all private and State
property that is essential to the
conservation of listed species and
designated as critical habitat.
We provided advance public notice of
the proposed rule to revise critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl
through several avenues. Notice was
provided with publication of the
proposed rule in the Federal Register on
March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062) as well as
through numerous local press releases at
that time. In addition, notice of public
information meetings in each of the
three States affected by the proposed
rule, as well as a public hearing, was
published in the Federal Register on
May 8, 2012 (77 FR 27010) and again on
June 1, 2012 (77 FR 32483); the
meetings and hearing were also
announced in newspapers of local
circulation in the affected areas.
Comment (64): Numerous
commenters (State and public)
requested that the final rule exclude
lands already covered by conservation
agreements, such as habitat
conservation plans and safe harbor
agreements, for a variety of reasons,
including concerns about additional or
duplicative Federal overlays and
regulatory burdens, a lack of need for
inclusion, policy consistency, the
potential for designation to jeopardize
existing agreements or remove
incentives for additional conservation,
and a recognition of the past
conservation benefits of these voluntary
agreements. In addition, it is argued that
there is no need for an additional
Federal overlay on lands that already
have conservation designations or
governing regulations such as parks,
wilderness areas, HCPs, SHAs, and State
forest practices rules.
Our Response: Please see our
response to Comment (63), above. As
described, we individually evaluated
each conservation agreement in place
within the proposed critical habitat
designation, including State and private
lands with HCPs, SHAs, conservation
easements, or other established
conservation partnerships. Following a
careful weighing of the benefits of
exclusion versus inclusion, the
Secretary has chosen to exert his
discretion to exclude lands covered by
such agreements. In addition, the
Secretary has chosen to exclude all
congressionally-reserved natural areas
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(wilderness areas, national parks), State
parks, and private lands from the final
designation. Please see the Exclusions
section of this document for details of
the analyses that led to the exclusion of
these areas from the final designation.
Comment (65): Numerous State
commenters (CALFIRE, Oregon
Department of Forestry, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington Department of Natural
Resources), Federal (USFS, BLM), and
public commenters disagreed with the
need to include public lands including
Federal lands (e.g., ‘‘matrix’’ land,
adaptive management areas,
experimental forests, O&C Lands, and
congressionally reserved wilderness
areas, national scenic areas, and
national parks), State lands (e.g., State
parks, State forests, State forest trust
lands), and county lands in the final
rule for a variety of reasons, including
additional and redundant regulatory
burdens and requirements, economic
and social impacts, potential
inconsistency with existing laws and
policy, existing protections, a lack of
additional conservation benefits, limits
on research or needed management
activities (e.g., fuel reduction,
restoration, or insect control), mapping
errors, insufficient justification
supporting inclusion, and potential
disincentives for preserving habitat.
On the other hand, numerous
commenters (both from other State
agencies, as well as the public)
supported the inclusion of public lands
including Federal lands, State lands,
tribal lands, and county lands for a
variety of reasons, highlighting the
conservation the value of this habitat,
consistency with the best available
science, the need for increased
protections in some lands, and the
realization there would be limited to no
impacts to management.
Our Response: The critical habitat
designation includes those lands that
meet the definition of critical habitat in
the Act, and which the Service has
determined are essential to provide for
the conservation of the northern spotted
owl. In designating these lands, we have
further considered their ownership,
management, contribution to northern
spotted owl conservation, existing
protections, economic impacts, and
other relevant factors, and determined it
is appropriate and necessary to include
them in the final critical habitat network
to best ensure successful northern
spotted owl conservation.
Where possible we prioritized the
inclusion of Federal lands over other
land ownerships, but where Federal
lands were sparse or nonexistent we
incorporated other ownerships in order
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
to design and designate an effective
critical habitat network. As noted in our
response to Comment 64, in cases where
our analysis of the benefits of exclusion
outweighed those of inclusion, such as
when conservation agreements and
partnerships have been developed with
the Service, we have excluded State or
other public lands from the final
designation (see Exclusions).
Our proposed rule (77 FR 10462;
March 8, 2012) identified several
different possible outcomes of that
proposed revision, depending on
various areas considered for exclusion.
Among the exclusions of public lands
under consideration were all
congressionally-reserved natural areas
and all State lands. Of the
congressionally-reserved natural areas
under consideration, we have excluded
all congressionally-reserved natural
areas and State Parks from this final
designation (see Exclusions). In
addition, private lands were also
excluded, following a careful analysis of
the benefits of inclusion versus
exclusion. In other cases, lands were
retained in the final designation for a
variety of reasons; for lands that were
considered or proposed for exclusion,
but not excluded in this final
designation, those decisions are
described in the section Changes from
the Proposed Rule.
We recognize the concern over the
inclusion of certain Federal lands in the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, and particularly
of lands in the matrix land use
allocation or the O&C lands. As
described in the section Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat and elsewhere
in this rule, we looked to Federal lands
first for the conservation of the northern
spotted owl, in part because Federal
agencies have a statutory mandate to
contribute to the conservation of listed
species. Secondly, because the
protections of critical habitat are
triggered only in the case of a Federal
nexus, those protections are always in
place on Federal lands; thus the benefit
of including Federal lands in critical
habitat can potentially be significant.
Finally, we only included lands in the
designation if they meet the definition
of critical habitat; that is, if they play a
truly essential role in the conservation
of the species. In some areas, for
example the O&C lands, our modeling
results indicated that those Federal
lands make a significant contribution
toward meeting the conservation
objectives for the northern spotted owl
in that region, and that we cannot attain
recovery without them. Likewise, in
addition to our modeling results, peer
review of both the Revised Recovery
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl
(USFWS 2011) as well as our proposed
rule to revise critical habitat, suggested
that retention of high quality habitat in
the matrix is essential for the
conservation of the species. Population
performance based on reserves under
the NWFP, for example, fared very
poorly compared to this final
designation of critical habitat. As
described in the section Changes from
the Proposed Rule, we tested possible
habitat networks without many of these
matrix lands, which resulted in a
significant increase in the risk of
extinction for the northern spotted owl.
Similarly, for the reasons outlined
above, we have retained experimental
forests on Forest Service lands in
critical habitat. This designation
includes areas within seven Forest
Service experimental forests: H.J.
Andrews Experimental Forest, Pringle
Falls Experimental Forest, South
Umpqua Experimental Forest, and
Cascade Head Experimental Forest in
Oregon; Wind River Experimental
Forest and Entiat Experimental Forest in
Washington; and Yurok Redwood
Experimental Forest in California. Three
of these seven experimental forests are
already included in the 2008 critical
habitat designation. Our evaluation of
these seven experimental forests
demonstrates that these areas contain
high value occupied habitat for northern
spotted owls within their borders. In
many cases, the habitat in these
experimental forests represents
essentially an island of high value
habitat in a larger landscape of
relatively low value habitat; this is
especially true in the Coast Range, a
region where peer reviewers particularly
noted a need for greater connectivity
and preservation of any remaining high
quality habitat. These considerations, in
conjunction with the inherent benefits
of critical habitat on Federal lands,
described above, lead us to conclude
that there are significant benefits to the
inclusion of these experimental forests
in critical habitat. As discussed earlier
in this document, we recognize the
valuable role of these experimental
forests, and we encourage continued
research and adaptive management on
these forests. All of these forests are
occupied by the northern spotted owl
and we are already consulting with the
Forest Service in these areas under the
jeopardy standard. The incremental
impact of critical habitat is therefore
limited to the cost of consultation for
the additional adverse modification
analysis and any potential project
modifications to avoid adverse
modification or destruction, if needed;
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
72007
we did not consider the benefit of
avoiding these costs through exclusion
to outweigh the benefits of inclusion for
these areas. As noted in this document,
we fully support the research activities
in these experimental forests and intend
to continue working cooperatively with
the Forest Service to ensure the
successful continuation of their
scientific mission in these areas.
In sum, the best scientific information
available indicates that the Federal
lands we have included in this final
designation are essential to the
conservation of the species, and we
have retained such areas in the final
designation.
Comment (66): Several State and
public commenters noted that the
northern spotted owl critical habitat
designation includes areas of younger
forest that may not include the PCEs,
and questioned whether this was an
artifact of the modeling process or an
intentional inclusion of lands for the
future development of PCEs and
expansion of the northern spotted owl
population, as stated in the rule.
Our Response: The essential
conservation goal of the critical habitat
network is to provide for a stable or
increasing northern spotted owl
population trend, which we determine
will result from, in part, the retention of
existing high-value habitat and the
development of additional habitat to
support more northern spotted owls
than currently exist. Some areas of
younger forest that do not currently
contain all of the PCEs are essential for
this purpose. In such cases, we
evaluated these areas as if they were
unoccupied at the time of listing, and
included them in the designation only
if we determined that they are essential
to the conservation of the species.
Comment (67): Several commenters
(State and public) identified specific
concerns with the proposed critical
habitat maps, including revisions to
land ownership or management on both
public and private land, noting the
inadvertent inclusion of some lands that
did not meet the definition of critical
habitat and questions regarding the
mapping scale and resolution. Several
commenters submitted revised or
corrected maps for the Service to
consider in developing the final rule.
Our Response: We thank the
commenters for the information
provided. Numerous edits and changes
were made to the maps in the final rule,
where appropriate, including
assessment of specific lands identified
to determine whether they met the
definition of critical habitat. For
example, in the State of Washington, we
determined that many small woodlot
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
72008
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
owners possess lands that do not
provide the PCEs for the northern
spotted owl, or that the lands initially
identified in the proposed rule are too
fragmented or isolated to be essential to
the conservation of the species (see
Comment (107)); such lands were
removed from the final designation
because they do not meet the definition
of critical habitat. In several cases,
landowners contacted us and asked for
the exclusion of their lands, but we
determined that those landowners were
not included in the proposed critical
habitat. In some cases, changes have
been addressed narratively (e.g., the
clarification that no private lands in
Oregon met the definition of critical
habitat and, therefore, were not
included in the proposed rule and are
not included in the final designation). In
cases where mapping errors may have
been made in our proposed critical
habitat, such errors were corrected.
Comment (68): Several State, Federal
(USFS and BLM), and public
commenters requested clarification on
the implementation of, or modification
of, the 500-ac (200-ha) circle we
recommended for assessing the effects
of an action to critical habitat.
Our Response: Based on both public
and agency comment and requests for
clarification, the final rule does not
identify the 500-acre (200-ha) circle as
a recommended scale for determining
the effects of an action, but does
reference it as a potentially useful scale
that could be used in the section
7consultation process. How to best
apply it, or other potential scales, will
be determined during the consultation
process initiated by Federal action
agencies proposing projects that may
affect areas designated as critical habitat
by this rule.
Comment (69): Several State and
public commenters questioned the
relationship of the impact of barred owl
competition on the northern spotted
owls, and amount of habitat needed in
the critical habitat designation and
whether recovery can be achieved
without addressing the impacts of the
barred owl. Some of these commenters
believe barred owl management should
occur prior to designation of additional
critical habitat areas.
Our Response: The survival of
northern spotted owls depends in large
part on the protection of habitat. This
protection remains crucial to the
recovery of the northern spotted owl
regardless of whether barred owls are
present or not. However, given that
barred owls and northern spotted owls
are now occupying similar habitats, it is
essential to maintain sufficient habitat
that meets the needs of northern spotted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
owls. The extent to which northern
spotted owls persist (sometimes
undetected) on areas with high barred
owl densities is unclear; however, with
a second species competing for similar
habitat, providing more of that habitat is
predicted to increase the ability for
northern spotted owls to persist in the
presence of barred owls. We identified
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl with this essential need in mind.
The potential management of barred
owls is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, which is limited to the
identification of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl. If management of
barred owls is implemented and
assessed, as is currently occurring under
a separate process, the Service may
reconsider this critical habitat
designation and revise as appropriate.
Comment (70): Two comments
suggested the definition of northern
spotted owl habitat and patterns of
habitat use were inadequate.
Our Response: Northern Spotted owls
require areas that are primarily closed
canopy with sufficient roost sites and
small mammal populations to provide
prey. Descriptions of these habitats vary
across the range of the species, beyond
the simple categories of moist and dry
forest, making a specific definition at
the landscape scale problematic. In
developing the final critical habitat
designation for the species, we have
provided what we believe are the most
specific and useful descriptions of the
PCEs for northern spotted owls possible,
based on the best scientific information
available at this time. We have and will
continue to seek new, more detailed
information on habitat use over time.
Comment (71): A number of
comments (State and public)
encouraged an ecosystem approach to
land management.
Our Response: The designation of
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl is consistent with the NWFP and
the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011),
both of which take an ecosystem
approach to management and recovery
actions. The requirement of any such
management approach, however, is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking,
which is limited to the identification of
critical habitat for the northern spotted
owl.
Comment (72): Several comments
(State and public) suggested approaches
that provide incentives for landowners
to conserve habitat.
Our Response: The Service
administers several programs promoting
incentive-based conservation efforts on
non-Federal land (e.g., Safe Harbor
Agreements, Habitat Conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Plans, and Partners for Fish and
Wildlife agreements). We highly
encourage landowners to explore
opportunities to participate in these and
other conservation programs.
Comment (73): The Washington
Department of Natural Resources
suggested the Service better align
designated critical habitat with the
agency’s management objectives, to
more efficiently manage for northern
spotted owl conservation.
Our Response: California, Oregon, and
Washington have their own natural
resource management paradigms; we
intend to work with each State within
the context of their management
objectives to protect northern spotted
owl critical habitat and work together
toward the recovery of the species.
County Comments
Comment (74): Jefferson County,
Washington, requested that we apply
critical habitat protections to a
considerable amount of owl habitat, and
suggested considering additional habitat
designations between the Olympics and
the Cascade Mountains, in order to
increase connectivity and ensure owl
recovery.
Our Response: In our process of
identifying areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, we identified a
critical habitat network that provides
the essential life-history functions for
the northern spotted owl, including
demographic support and connectivity
between populations. Our modeling
results indicate the spatial extent of the
critical habitat designation throughout
the range, including between the
Olympic Peninsula and the Western
Cascades in Washington is sufficient to
meet essential recovery requirements.
Other areas outside the designation,
such as those suggested by the county,
do not meet the definition of critical
habitat because they are not essential to
the conservation of the species, even
though we agree with the county that
these lands are important and will
increase connectivity.
Comment (75): Wasco County,
Oregon, commented that it was in the
interest of the community to minimize
regulatory burdens from designated
critical habitat.
Our Response: We recognize that the
designation of critical habitat is often
perceived as a potential regulatory
burden. However, we wish to reiterate
that the regulatory effect of critical
habitat is the requirement for Federal
agencies to consult with the Service on
actions they carry out, fund, or
authorize that may affect the designated
critical habitat of threatened species or
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
endangered species. Critical habitat
does not directly impose regulatory
restrictions on State land managers or
on private landowners where there is no
such Federal nexus. We do not believe
the designation of critical habitat will
result in a significant regulatory burden
on Federal land activities because of (1)
the cooperative nature of our
consultation process under the Act with
the Forest Service and BLM, and (2)
because of the existing requirement that
these agencies have to consult on the
effects of proposed actions on northern
spotted owls. Our approach was to
design a critical habitat network that
provides for essential northern spotted
owl recovery needs but designate as
small an area as possible, and to rely
primarily on public lands. We have
excluded all congressionally-reserved
natural areas (wilderness areas, national
parks), State parks, and private lands
from this final designation of critical
habitat.
Comment (76): Del Norte County,
California, expressed concern that the
proposed critical habitat designation
will create a regulatory hurdle that will
impede the construction of vital
infrastructure projects (roads, bridges,
power lines, and other utilities).
Our Response: Chapter 7 of the DEA
discusses the potential economic
impacts to road and bridge construction
and maintenance, and installation and
maintenance of power transmission
lines and other utility pipelines. The
analysis concludes that all potential
conservation efforts associated with
linear projects are expected to result
from the presence of the northern
spotted owl, not the designation of
critical habitat, and are thus considered
baseline impacts (see paragraphs 315
through 320 of the DEA). Incremental
costs attributable to critical habitat are
limited to the administrative costs of
additional staff time spent by Federal
agency staff and the Service to include
critical habitat effects analyses in the
section 7 consultation on these projects.
Therefore, we do not believe that the
designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl will result in
significant regulatory burden to these
projects.
Comment (77): Del Norte County,
California; Wasco County, Oregon; and
Klickitat and Skamania Counties,
Washington, requested exclusion of all
lands including Federal, State, and
private lands within these counties in
the final rule. They expressed concern
regarding economic issues, a lack of
appropriate northern spotted owl
habitat within the counties, a lack of
evidence that including these lands
would actually help the species recover
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
or avoid extinction, and a lack of need
for or benefits from additional
protections due to existing standards
and guidelines.
Our Response: The critical habitat
designation includes those lands the
Service determined are essential to
provide for the conservation of the
northern spotted owl through a state-ofthe-art modeling process that
incorporated the latest expert
knowledge on the habitat needs of
northern spotted owls. In designating
these lands we have considered their
ownership, management, contribution
to northern spotted owl conservation,
existing protections, economic impacts,
etc., and determined it is appropriate
and necessary to include them in the
final critical habitat network to best
ensure successful northern spotted owl
conservation. Each of these counties
contains habitat that supports northern
spotted owl populations that are
essential to the conservation of the
species.
We recognize that the greatest benefit
of critical habitat is realized on Federal
lands since the regulatory effect of
critical habitat is the requirement that
Federal agencies ensure that any actions
that they carry out, fund, or authorize
do not destroy or adversely affect
designated critical habitat. In addition,
Federal agencies have a mandate under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act to carry out
programs for the conservation of
endangered species and threatened
species. For these reasons, we looked
first to Federal lands for the critical
habitat essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl, as described
in Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat, above, and supporting
methodology (Dunk et al. 2012b).
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act states that
critical habitat is defined as (1) the
specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection; and (2)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed, upon a determination by
the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species. Further, section 4(b)(2) of the
Act mandates that such determinations
shall be made on the basis of the best
scientific data available and after taking
into consideration the economic impact,
the impact on national security, and any
other relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
The language of the Act does not
restrict the designation of critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
72009
to specific land ownership such as
Federal lands; thus, lands of all
ownerships are considered if they
satisfy the scientific criteria indicating
that they meet the definition of critical
habitat for the specific species. Areas
may be removed from the final
designation should the Secretary
exercise his discretion to exclude such
areas subsequent to a weighing of the
benefits of exclusion versus inclusion
under section 4(b)(2), or if we should
determine, based on public comment or
other information received following the
issuance of the proposed rule, that such
areas do not meet the definition of
critical habitat (for example, areas that
were occupied at the time of listing but
do not provide the essential physical or
biological features, or areas that may not
have been occupied at the time of listing
and were proposed for designation, but
are not essential to the conservation of
the species).
As described in the proposed rule
(March 8, 2012; 77 FR 14076, p. 14099),
we evaluated critical habitat scenarios
that prioritized Federal lands first as
well as scenarios without regard to
landownership. In all cases, if the
scenarios under consideration provided
equal contribution to recovery, we chose
the scenario that prioritized publicly
owned lands. State and private lands
were included only if they were
essential to achieve conservation of the
species after considering the
contribution of Federal lands. Based on
information received during the public
comment period, in several cases we
refined the critical habitat boundaries to
remove areas of private lands that do
not meet our criteria for critical habitat
(for example, new information
indicating that the areas in question lack
the PCEs, due to recent timber harvest,
stand-replacing fires, or other such
events). In others, the Secretary has
chosen to exclude lands from the
designation. In such cases, exclusion
does not signal a determination that
these areas are not essential to the
conservation of the species, but only
that the Secretary has determined that
the benefits of exclusion outweigh those
of inclusion. All congressionallyreserved natural areas (wilderness areas,
national parks), State parks, and private
lands have been excluded from this
final designation of critical habitat for
the northern spotted owl (see
Exclusions).
We reduced critical habitat in all four
of these counties across all ownerships
as we refined our proposal. In response
to comments, we used additional
information sources to very carefully
identify and retain areas that were best
suited to meeting the unique
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
72010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
conservation needs for northern spotted
owl conservation that are associated
with the geographic location of these
counties.
The Columbia River, which forms the
southern boundaries of Skamania and
Klickitat counties, presents a formidable
obstacle to dispersal of northern spotted
owls. Maintaining demographic
exchange between northern spotted owl
populations in Washington and Oregon
requires both maintenance of a robust
population of potentially dispersing
owls, and quality habitat as near to the
Columbia River as possible to increase
the likelihood of dispersing owls
successfully crossing the river. Critical
habitat in Skamania and Klickitat
counties plays a key role in preventing
the demographic isolation of
Washington spotted owls, and
preventing isolation is widely
recognized as an essential feature of
sustaining wildlife populations. The
designated lands in Wasco County,
Oregon, contribute to this crossColumbia River connection, as well as
providing sites for northern spotted owl
reproduction. In Del Norte County,
California, designated lands contribute
to demographic support to the overall
northern spotted owl population, but
also function for connectivity across the
landscape and for habitat that can be
colonized by young owls. In short, the
designated lands in all these counties
are part of a network that supports
northern spotted owl sites for
reproduction, habitat available for
colonization by young, and habitat that
connects populations across the range of
the species, all of which are, in concert,
essential to provide for the conservation
of the species.
Our economic analysis indicated that
Del Norte and Skamania counties may
be more sensitive to future changes in
timber harvests, industry employment,
and Federal land payments, due to
recent socioeconomic trends. Timber
harvest changes related to critical
habitat designation are one potential
aspect of this sensitivity. Between 1989
and 2009, timber industry employment
declined by 70 percent or more in Del
Norte and Skamania counties. These
counties also experienced the greatest
declines in timber harvests and timber
industry employment. Skamania County
is also highly reliant on Federal
payments to counties, with these
payments representing between 26 and
50 percent of total revenues. We
considered all these factors while
evaluating comments from these
counties.
The potential impact of the
designation of critical habitat on timber
harvest levels, and whether that change
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
will be positive or negative, is
uncertain. Therefore, how critical
habitat designation may impact the
timber industry in terms of future
harvest levels, employment, and
revenue-sharing payments to counties is
also uncertain. As outlined in the
economic analysis timber harvest may
increase, decrease or stay substantially
the same as recent timber harvest levels
depending on how the Forest Service
and BLM decide to manage their lands
within the designation. Furthermore,
timber industry employment is affected
not only by harvest trends but also by
fluctuations in national and
international markets; changes in land
ownership; and increasing
mechanization and productivity in the
industry. Our economic analysis also
indicated the potential for beneficial
economic and ancillary effects of
spotted owl conservation due to critical
habitat designation, but monetizing
effects such as improved water quality
and aesthetic improvements remains
challenging. Finally, our analysis of the
incremental impacts of critical habitat
designation suggested that the annual
administrative costs associated with
designation were likely to be relatively
low.
Our weighing of the relative benefits
of inclusion in critical habitat integrated
(1) the relative sensitivity of counties to
economic impacts associated with
critical habitat designation, (2)
uncertainty regarding potential
economic effects, (3) our expectation
that incremental administrative costs
may be minor, and (4) modeling results
that indicated essential conservation
functions of habitat in these counties.
Based on these factors the Secretary has
chosen not to exert his discretion to
exclude these lands from critical
habitat.
Comment (78): Del Norte County,
California, requested that the Service
exclude all congressionally reserved
areas from critical habitat.
Our Response: All congressionally
reserved natural areas have been
excluded from this final designation of
critical habitat, as described in the
Exclusions section of this document.
Comment (79): One commenter stated
that the O&C Act limits the authority of
the Service in designating critical
habitat.
Our Response: The O&C Act
(pertaining to lands in Oregon and
California) does not limit the Service’s
authority to designate critical habitat for
the northern spotted owl. The
designation of critical habitat is not a
land use allocation and does not impose
management prescriptions. Under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, each Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
agency must insure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by the
agency is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
the designated ‘‘critical habitat’’ of the
species. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). To help
action agencies comply with this
provision, section 7 of the Act and the
implementing regulations set out a
detailed consultation process for
determining the impacts of a proposed
activity on species listed as threatened
or endangered, or its designated
‘‘critical habitat.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1536; 50
CFR part 402. In Seattle Audubon
Society v. Lyons (‘‘Lyons’’), 871 F. Supp.
1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994), the district
court held that ‘‘the O&[C Act] does not
allow the BLM to avoid its conservation
duties under NEPA or the Act * * *’’
Id. at 1314. The critical habitat
designation does not preclude the
sustained-yield timber management of
O&C lands consistent with the above
requirements of the Act.
Comment (80): One commenter stated
that the Service failed to explain why
revising the designation of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl is
‘‘exempt’’ under sections 2 and 3 of the
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism.
Our Response: We have complied
with E.O. 13132 by explaining why the
rule does not have federalism
implications, impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local
governments, or preempt State law so
that a federalism summary impact
statement pursuant to section 6 of the
executive order is not required. The
designation of critical habitat directly
affects only the responsibilities of
Federal agencies through section 7(a)(2)
of the Act. The Act does not directly
impose other duties with respect to
critical habitat on either States or local
governments and as a result does not
have substantial direct effects on the
States and local governments, the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or the
distribution of powers and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Sections 2 and 3
of E.O. 13132 set out Fundamental
Federalism Principles and Federalism
Policymaking Criteria, respectively.
Within the framework of the Act, which
requires the Service to designate critical
habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, we have adhered to
the concepts discussed in these
sections. For example, even though the
rule does not have federalism
implications, we strongly urged the
States and county governments to
provide comments to us and provided
E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM
04DER2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
them an additional period for comment
to ensure they had an opportunity for
thorough review. Our economic analysis
examined potential indirect impacts of
the rule on all who may participate in
section 7 consultations, and that was
available for comment by the States and
counties as well. In addition, we have
also taken into account State law
protections for northern spotted owl
critical habitat in our decisions whether
to exclude areas under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.
Comment (81): Several counties,
including Del Norte County, California,
and Wasco County, Oregon, expressed
concerns about the impact of barred
owls on the northern spotted owl, and
questioned whether recovery can be
achieved without addressing the
impacts of the barred owl. Some of these
commenters believe barred owl
management should occur prior to
designation of additional critical habitat
areas.
Our Response: The survival of
northern spotted owls depends in large
part on the protection of habitat—this
protection remains crucial to the
recovery of the northern spotted owl
regardless of whether barred owls are
present or not. Given that barred owls
and northern spotted owls are now
occupying similar habitats, it is
essential to maintain sufficient habitat
that meets the needs of northern spotted
owls. The extent to which northern
spotted owls persist (sometimes
undetected) on areas with high barred
owl densities is unclear. With a second
species competing for similar habitat,
providing more of that habitat may
increase the ability for northern spotted
owls to persist in the presence of barred
owls. If management of barred owls is
implemented and assessed, the Service
may reconsider this critical habitat
designation and revise as appropriate.
In our separate actions investigating
possible barred owl management, we
can, and are, modeling some approaches
with and without barred owl
competition effects on the northern
spotted owl, and will continue to do so
as
