Experimental Removal of Barred Owls To Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls; Final Environmental Impact Statement, 44588-44589 [2013-17620]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44588
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Notices
comment—including your personal
identifying information—might be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Authority
We provide this notice pursuant to
section 10(c) of the Act and the NEPA
public-involvement regulations (40 CFR
1500.1(b), 1500.2(d), and 1506.6).
Next Steps
We will evaluate the permit
application, including the Applicant’s
HCP, and comments we receive to
determine whether the application
meets the requirements of section 10(a)
of the Act. If the requirements are met,
we will issue a permit to the Applicant
for the incidental take of the 13 Covered
Species from the implementation of the
Covered Activities described in the
Cross Valley Line HCP. We will make
the final permit decision no sooner than
September 23, 2013.
Dated: July 17, 2013.
Alexandra Pitts,
Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region,
Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. 2013–17772 Filed 7–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R1–ES–2013–N137;
FXES11130100000D2–134–FF01E00000]
Experimental Removal of Barred Owls
To Benefit Threatened Northern
Spotted Owls; Final Environmental
Impact Statement
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of the final environmental
impact statement (Final EIS) for
experimental removal of barred owls to
benefit threatened northern spotted
owls. The barred owl, a species recently
established in western North America,
is displacing the northern spotted owl
and threatening its viability. The Final
EIS analyzes a no-action alternative and
eight action alternatives to
experimentally determine if removing
barred owls will benefit northern
spotted owl populations and to test the
feasibility and efficiency of barred owl
removal as a management tool. The
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jul 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
Background
The Service listed the northern
spotted owl as a threatened species
under the Act in 1990, based primarily
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available at: on habitat loss and degradation (55 FR
26114). As a result, conservation efforts
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
for the northern spotted owl have been
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600
largely focused on habitat protection.
SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR
While our listing rule noted that the
97266; telephone 503–231–6179.
long-term impact of barred owls on the
• Internet: https://www.fws.gov/
spotted owl was of considerable
oregonfwo.
concern, the scope and severity of this
threat was largely unknown at that time
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
(55 FR 26114, p. 26190). The Recovery
Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon Fish
Plan summarized information available
and Wildlife Office, at 503–231–6179. If
since our listing rule and found that
you use a telecommunications device
competition from barred owls now
for the deaf, please call the Federal
poses a significant and immediate threat
Information Relay Service at 800–877–
to the northern spotted owl throughout
8339.
its range (USFWS 2011, pp. B–10
through B–12).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Historically, the barred owl and
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
northern spotted owl did not co-occur.
Service (Service), announce the
In the past century, barred owls have
availability of the Final EIS for
expanded their range westward,
experimental removal of barred owls to
reaching the range of the northern
benefit threatened northern spotted
spotted owl in British Columbia by
owls. We are publishing this notice in
about 1959. Barred owl populations
compliance with the National
continue to expand southward within
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
the range of the northern spotted owl,
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) the population of barred owls behind
and its implementing regulations at 40
the expansion-front continues to
CFR 1506.6. The Final EIS evaluates the increase, and barred owls now
impacts of eight action alternatives and
outnumber spotted owls in many
a no-action alternative related to: (1)
portions of the northern spotted owl’s
Federal involvement in barred owl
range (Pearson and Livezey 2003, p.
removal experiments, and (2) the
272).
possible issuance of one or more
There is strong evidence to indicate
scientific collecting permits under the
that barred owls are negatively affecting
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.
northern spotted owl populations.
703–712; MBTA) for lethal and
Barred owls displace spotted owls from
nonlethal take of barred owls.
high-quality habitat (Kelley et al. 2003,
p. 51; Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 274;
The northern spotted owl (Strix
Courtney et al., pp. 7–27 through 7–31;
occidentalis caurina) is listed as
Gremel 2005, pp. 9, 11, 17; Hamer et al.
threatened under the Endangered
2007, p. 764; Dugger et al. 2011, pp.
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.;
2464–1466), reducing their survival and
Act). Competition from barred owls
reproduction (Olson et al. 2004, p. 1048;
(Strix varia) is identified as one of the
main threats to the northern spotted owl Anthony et al. 2006, p. 32; Forsman et
al. 2011, pp. 41–43, 69–70). In addition,
in the 2011 Revised Northern Spotted
barred owls may physically attack
Owl Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan)
spotted owls (Gutierrez et al. 2007, p.
(USFWS 2011, p. III–62). To address
187). These effects may help explain
this threat, the Recovery Plan
declines in northern spotted owl
recommends designing and
territory occupancy associated with
implementing large-scale controlled
barred owls in Oregon, and reduced
experiments to assess the effects of
northern spotted owl survivorship and
barred owl removal on spotted owl site
sharp population declines in
occupancy, reproduction, and survival
Washington (e.g., in northern
(USFWS 2011, p. III–65). The study
Washington, spotted owl populations
would be conducted on from one to
declined by as much as 55 percent
several study areas in western
between 1996 and 2006) (Anthony et al.
Washington, western Oregon, and
2006, pp. 21, 30, 32; Forsman et al.
northwestern California. The action
2011, pp. 43–47, 65–66)). Without
alternatives vary by the number and
management intervention, it is
location of study areas, the type of
reasonable to expect that competition
experimental design, duration of the
from barred owls may cause extirpation
study, and the method of barred owl
of the northern spotted owl from all or
removal.
action alternatives vary by the number
and location of study areas, the type of
experimental design, duration of study,
and method of barred owl removal.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Notices
a substantial portion of its historical
range, reducing its potential for survival
and recovery.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Public Involvement
On December 10, 2009, the Service
published a notice of intent to prepare
an environmental impact statement
related to experimental removal of
barred owls for the conservation benefit
of threatened northern spotted owls
(notice of intent) in the Federal Register
(74 FR 65546), to solicit participation of:
Federal, State, and local agencies;
Tribes; and the public to determine the
scope of the EIS and provide input on
issues associated with the proposed
experiment. In addition to the
publication of the notice of intent, the
scoping process included informal
stakeholder and agency consultations,
and electronic or mailed notification to
over 1,000 interested parties. Public
scoping lasted until January 11, 2010. A
scoping report is appended to the Final
EIS.
In accordance with the NEPA, the
Draft EIS was circulated for public
review and comment. The public review
period was initiated with the
publication of the notice of availability
(NOA) in the Federal Register on March
8, 2012 (77 FR 14036). We conducted
one public meeting in Seattle on May 3,
2012, and five informational webinars
for the public. Comments were due June
6, 2012. A summary of the comments
and written responses are appended to
the Final EIS.
Alternatives
The alternatives vary by the number
and location of study areas, the method
of barred owl removal (lethal, or a
combination of lethal and nonlethal),
and the type of experimental design
(demography vs. occupancy). All action
alternatives are based on a simple
treatment and control study approach.
Under this approach, study areas are
divided into two comparable segments.
Barred owls are removed from the
treatment area but not from the control
area. Spotted owl populations are
measured using the same methodology
on both areas, and the population
measures (occupancy, survival,
reproduction, and population trend) are
compared between the control and
treatment areas.
The removal of barred owls under the
experiment would occur over a period
of 3 to 10 years, depending on the
alternative. The action alternatives
include from 1 to 11 study areas,
including from 0.31 to 6.55 percent of
the northern spotted owl’s habitat. A
brief description of each alternative
follows.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Jul 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
Under the No-action Alternative, the
Service would not conduct
experimental removal of barred owls,
thus not implementing one of the
recovery actions set forth in the
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001, p. III–65).
Data that would inform future barred
owl management strategies would not
be gathered.
Alternative 1 consists of a
demography study in a single study area
with existing pre-treatment spotted owl
demography data. The study area would
be located within an existing spotted
owl demography study area where longterm monitoring of northern spotted owl
populations has occurred (Lint et al.
1999, p. 17; Lint 2005, p. 7). Only lethal
removal methods would be used in this
alternative.
Alternative 2 consists of a
demography study in three study areas,
which would be located within existing
spotted owl demography study areas
and distributed across the range of the
northern spotted owl. A combination of
lethal and nonlethal removal methods
would be used.
Alternative 3 consists of a
demography study in two study areas.
Barred owl removal would occur
outside of existing spotted owl
demography study areas, but within
areas that have adequate data to conduct
pre-removal demography analyses. A
combination of lethal and nonlethal
removal methods would be used.
Alternative 4 includes two
subalternatives, 4a and 4b. Each
subalternative consists of a demography
study in two study areas outside
existing spotted owl demography study
areas. Each subalternative uses a
combination of lethal and nonlethal
removal methods. Subalternatives 4a
and 4b differ in that 4a delays barred
owl removal to collect pre-treatment
data for comparison with treatment
data, whereas 4b starts removal
immediately and foregoes pre-treatment
data collection.
Alternative 5 consists of an
occupancy study approach in three
study areas. Barred owl removal would
occur on areas outside of existing
spotted owl demography study areas.
Only lethal removal methods would be
applied in this alternative.
Alternative 6 includes two
subalternatives, 6a and 6b. Each
subalternative consists of an occupancy
study in three study areas. Barred owl
removal would occur on areas outside of
existing spotted owl demography study
areas. Each subalternative uses a
combination of lethal and nonlethal
removal methods. Subalternatives 6a
and 6b differ in that 6a delays removal
to collect pre-treatment data for
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
44589
comparison with treatment data,
whereas 6b starts removal immediately
and foregoes pre-treatment data
collection.
Alternative 7 consists of a
combination of demography and
occupancy analyses across 11 study
areas, some of which have current data.
Three existing spotted owl demographic
study areas would be included within
these study areas. A combination of
lethal and nonlethal removal methods
would be used.
Following public review of the Draft
EIS, the Service developed a Preferred
Alternative based on a combination of
the features of Alternatives 2 and 3. The
Preferred Alternative consists of a
demography study in four study areas as
in both draft alternatives. Barred owl
removal would occur on the Cle Elum
Study Area in Washington and the
Hoopa (Willow Creek) Study Area in
California from Alternative 2, the
Union/Myrtle (Klamath) Study Area in
southern Oregon from Alternative 3, and
one half of the combined Oregon Coast
Ranges and Veneta Study Areas in
northern Oregon. This last study area is
a combination of study areas from
Alternative 2 and 3. A combination of
lethal and non-lethal removal methods
would be used from Alternative 3.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this notice is available upon request
from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
National Environmental Policy Act
Compliance
We will make a decision no sooner
than 30 days after the publication of the
Final EIS. We anticipate issuing a
Record of Decision in the summer of
2013.
We provide this notice under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), and its implementing regulations
in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6. We also publish
this notice under authority of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.
703–712) and its specific implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 10.13 and 50 CFR
21.23.
Dated: July 17, 2013.
Robyn Thorson,
Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 2013–17620 Filed 7–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44588-44589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17620]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R1-ES-2013-N137; FXES11130100000D2-134-FF01E00000]
Experimental Removal of Barred Owls To Benefit Threatened
Northern Spotted Owls; Final Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of the final environmental impact statement (Final EIS)
for experimental removal of barred owls to benefit threatened northern
spotted owls. The barred owl, a species recently established in western
North America, is displacing the northern spotted owl and threatening
its viability. The Final EIS analyzes a no-action alternative and eight
action alternatives to experimentally determine if removing barred owls
will benefit northern spotted owl populations and to test the
feasibility and efficiency of barred owl removal as a management tool.
The action alternatives vary by the number and location of study areas,
the type of experimental design, duration of study, and method of
barred owl removal.
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available at:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone
503-231-6179.
Internet: https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office, at 503-231-6179. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal
Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the Final EIS for experimental removal of barred owls
to benefit threatened northern spotted owls. We are publishing this
notice in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6. The Final EIS evaluates the impacts of
eight action alternatives and a no-action alternative related to: (1)
Federal involvement in barred owl removal experiments, and (2) the
possible issuance of one or more scientific collecting permits under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; MBTA) for lethal and
nonlethal take of barred owls.
The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.;
Act). Competition from barred owls (Strix varia) is identified as one
of the main threats to the northern spotted owl in the 2011 Revised
Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) (USFWS 2011, p. III-
62). To address this threat, the Recovery Plan recommends designing and
implementing large-scale controlled experiments to assess the effects
of barred owl removal on spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and
survival (USFWS 2011, p. III-65). The study would be conducted on from
one to several study areas in western Washington, western Oregon, and
northwestern California. The action alternatives vary by the number and
location of study areas, the type of experimental design, duration of
the study, and the method of barred owl removal.
Background
The Service listed the northern spotted owl as a threatened species
under the Act in 1990, based primarily on habitat loss and degradation
(55 FR 26114). As a result, conservation efforts for the northern
spotted owl have been largely focused on habitat protection. While our
listing rule noted that the long-term impact of barred owls on the
spotted owl was of considerable concern, the scope and severity of this
threat was largely unknown at that time (55 FR 26114, p. 26190). The
Recovery Plan summarized information available since our listing rule
and found that competition from barred owls now poses a significant and
immediate threat to the northern spotted owl throughout its range
(USFWS 2011, pp. B-10 through B-12).
Historically, the barred owl and northern spotted owl did not co-
occur. In the past century, barred owls have expanded their range
westward, reaching the range of the northern spotted owl in British
Columbia by about 1959. Barred owl populations continue to expand
southward within the range of the northern spotted owl, the population
of barred owls behind the expansion-front continues to increase, and
barred owls now outnumber spotted owls in many portions of the northern
spotted owl's range (Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 272).
There is strong evidence to indicate that barred owls are
negatively affecting northern spotted owl populations. Barred owls
displace spotted owls from high-quality habitat (Kelley et al. 2003, p.
51; Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 274; Courtney et al., pp. 7-27 through
7-31; Gremel 2005, pp. 9, 11, 17; Hamer et al. 2007, p. 764; Dugger et
al. 2011, pp. 2464-1466), reducing their survival and reproduction
(Olson et al. 2004, p. 1048; Anthony et al. 2006, p. 32; Forsman et al.
2011, pp. 41-43, 69-70). In addition, barred owls may physically attack
spotted owls (Gutierrez et al. 2007, p. 187). These effects may help
explain declines in northern spotted owl territory occupancy associated
with barred owls in Oregon, and reduced northern spotted owl
survivorship and sharp population declines in Washington (e.g., in
northern Washington, spotted owl populations declined by as much as 55
percent between 1996 and 2006) (Anthony et al. 2006, pp. 21, 30, 32;
Forsman et al. 2011, pp. 43-47, 65-66)). Without management
intervention, it is reasonable to expect that competition from barred
owls may cause extirpation of the northern spotted owl from all or
[[Page 44589]]
a substantial portion of its historical range, reducing its potential
for survival and recovery.
Public Involvement
On December 10, 2009, the Service published a notice of intent to
prepare an environmental impact statement related to experimental
removal of barred owls for the conservation benefit of threatened
northern spotted owls (notice of intent) in the Federal Register (74 FR
65546), to solicit participation of: Federal, State, and local
agencies; Tribes; and the public to determine the scope of the EIS and
provide input on issues associated with the proposed experiment. In
addition to the publication of the notice of intent, the scoping
process included informal stakeholder and agency consultations, and
electronic or mailed notification to over 1,000 interested parties.
Public scoping lasted until January 11, 2010. A scoping report is
appended to the Final EIS.
In accordance with the NEPA, the Draft EIS was circulated for
public review and comment. The public review period was initiated with
the publication of the notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal
Register on March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14036). We conducted one public
meeting in Seattle on May 3, 2012, and five informational webinars for
the public. Comments were due June 6, 2012. A summary of the comments
and written responses are appended to the Final EIS.
Alternatives
The alternatives vary by the number and location of study areas,
the method of barred owl removal (lethal, or a combination of lethal
and nonlethal), and the type of experimental design (demography vs.
occupancy). All action alternatives are based on a simple treatment and
control study approach. Under this approach, study areas are divided
into two comparable segments. Barred owls are removed from the
treatment area but not from the control area. Spotted owl populations
are measured using the same methodology on both areas, and the
population measures (occupancy, survival, reproduction, and population
trend) are compared between the control and treatment areas.
The removal of barred owls under the experiment would occur over a
period of 3 to 10 years, depending on the alternative. The action
alternatives include from 1 to 11 study areas, including from 0.31 to
6.55 percent of the northern spotted owl's habitat. A brief description
of each alternative follows.
Under the No-action Alternative, the Service would not conduct
experimental removal of barred owls, thus not implementing one of the
recovery actions set forth in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001, p. III-
65). Data that would inform future barred owl management strategies
would not be gathered.
Alternative 1 consists of a demography study in a single study area
with existing pre-treatment spotted owl demography data. The study area
would be located within an existing spotted owl demography study area
where long-term monitoring of northern spotted owl populations has
occurred (Lint et al. 1999, p. 17; Lint 2005, p. 7). Only lethal
removal methods would be used in this alternative.
Alternative 2 consists of a demography study in three study areas,
which would be located within existing spotted owl demography study
areas and distributed across the range of the northern spotted owl. A
combination of lethal and nonlethal removal methods would be used.
Alternative 3 consists of a demography study in two study areas.
Barred owl removal would occur outside of existing spotted owl
demography study areas, but within areas that have adequate data to
conduct pre-removal demography analyses. A combination of lethal and
nonlethal removal methods would be used.
Alternative 4 includes two subalternatives, 4a and 4b. Each
subalternative consists of a demography study in two study areas
outside existing spotted owl demography study areas. Each
subalternative uses a combination of lethal and nonlethal removal
methods. Subalternatives 4a and 4b differ in that 4a delays barred owl
removal to collect pre-treatment data for comparison with treatment
data, whereas 4b starts removal immediately and foregoes pre-treatment
data collection.
Alternative 5 consists of an occupancy study approach in three
study areas. Barred owl removal would occur on areas outside of
existing spotted owl demography study areas. Only lethal removal
methods would be applied in this alternative.
Alternative 6 includes two subalternatives, 6a and 6b. Each
subalternative consists of an occupancy study in three study areas.
Barred owl removal would occur on areas outside of existing spotted owl
demography study areas. Each subalternative uses a combination of
lethal and nonlethal removal methods. Subalternatives 6a and 6b differ
in that 6a delays removal to collect pre-treatment data for comparison
with treatment data, whereas 6b starts removal immediately and foregoes
pre-treatment data collection.
Alternative 7 consists of a combination of demography and occupancy
analyses across 11 study areas, some of which have current data. Three
existing spotted owl demographic study areas would be included within
these study areas. A combination of lethal and nonlethal removal
methods would be used.
Following public review of the Draft EIS, the Service developed a
Preferred Alternative based on a combination of the features of
Alternatives 2 and 3. The Preferred Alternative consists of a
demography study in four study areas as in both draft alternatives.
Barred owl removal would occur on the Cle Elum Study Area in Washington
and the Hoopa (Willow Creek) Study Area in California from Alternative
2, the Union/Myrtle (Klamath) Study Area in southern Oregon from
Alternative 3, and one half of the combined Oregon Coast Ranges and
Veneta Study Areas in northern Oregon. This last study area is a
combination of study areas from Alternative 2 and 3. A combination of
lethal and non-lethal removal methods would be used from Alternative 3.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this notice is available
upon request from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
We will make a decision no sooner than 30 days after the
publication of the Final EIS. We anticipate issuing a Record of
Decision in the summer of 2013.
We provide this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its implementing
regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6.
We also publish this notice under authority of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and its specific implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 10.13 and 50 CFR 21.23.
Dated: July 17, 2013.
Robyn Thorson,
Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 2013-17620 Filed 7-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
