Experimental Removal of Barred Owls To Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls; Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement, 57171-57173 [2013-22556]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57171-57173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22556]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R1-ES-2013-N179; FXES11130100000D2-134-FF01E00000]


Experimental Removal of Barred Owls To Benefit Threatened 
Northern Spotted Owls; Record of Decision for 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 record of decision (ROD) for the final 
environmental impact statement (Final EIS) for experimental removal of 
barred owls to benefit threatened northern spotted owls. We completed a 
thorough analysis of the environmental, social, and economic 
considerations and presented it in our Final EIS, which we released to 
the public on July 24, 2013.

DATES: The Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, signed the ROD on September 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain copies of the Final EIS and ROD by 
any of the following methods:
     Agency Web site: Download a copy of the document at https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo.
     Telephone: Call and leave a message requesting the Final 
EIS or Record of Decision hard copy or CD, at 503-231-6901.
     In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, at 503-231-6179 to 
make an appointment to review or pick up a copy of the Final EIS and 
ROD during regular business hours at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 
Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266.
     U.S. Mail: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave., 
Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266.

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:

Introduction

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
availability of the ROD, which we developed in compliance with the 
agency decision-making requirements of 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. We completed a thorough 
analysis of impacts on the human environment in the Final EIS for 
experimental removal of barred owls to benefit threatened northern 
spotted owls. 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 a scientific collecting permit under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; MBTA) for lethal and nonlethal take of 
barred owls. The ROD documents the rationale for our decision.
    Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental 
consequences as described in our Final EIS, we selected a Preferred 
Alternative based on a combination of the features of Alternatives 2 
and 3. The Preferred Alternative consists of a demography study 
conducted on four study areas. The study would be conducted 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 (Strix occidentalis 
caurina) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 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 
(Strix varia) 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). Competition from barred owls 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). 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). 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).
    Historically, the barred owl did not occur in the Pacific 
Northwest. 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 the Northwest, 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;

[[Page 57172]]

Forsman et al. 2011, pp. 43-47, 65-66)). Without management 
intervention, it is reasonable to expect that competition from barred 
owls may cause extirpation of the northern spotted owl from all or a 
substantial portion of its historical range, reducing its potential for 
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 
included in Appendix B of 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 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 our 
written responses are appended to the Final EIS. We published a notice 
of availability of the Final EIS in the Federal Register on July 24, 
2013 (78 FR 44588).

Alternatives

    The action 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.

No-Action Alternative

    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.

Preferred Alternative

    The Preferred Alternative is based on a combination of the features 
of Alternatives 2 and 3. The Preferred Alternative consists of a 
demography study located within four study areas. These study areas 
include existing spotted owl demography study areas where long-term 
monitoring of northern spotted owl populations has occurred (Lint et 
al. 1999, p. 17; Lint 2005, p. 7) and areas with comparable levels of 
spotted owl data. A combination of lethal and nonlethal removal methods 
would be used.

Alternative 1

    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 one of the nine existing spotted owl demography 
study areas 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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.

Selected Alternative

    We selected the Preferred Alternative developed following public 
review of the Draft EIS. The Preferred Alternative consists of a 
demography study in four study areas. 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

[[Page 57173]]

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.

Decision Rationale

    Our decision is to adopt the Preferred Alternative as described in 
the Final EIS for experimental removal of barred owls to benefit 
threatened northern spotted owls. We provide a brief summary of our 
decision below; for the full basis of our decision, please see the 
Final EIS. We choose to implement an alternative with elements that 
would provide for a strong, scientifically credible experiment with a 
high power to detect the effect of the barred owl removal on spotted 
owl populations, and that would provide results applicable across the 
range of the northern spotted owl in a timely manner.
    To provide for high scientific credibility and power to detect any 
effect of the experimental removal of barred owls on spotted owl 
populations, we selected a demography study approach utilizing study 
areas with preexisting data on spotted owl populations and trends. The 
use of a demography study approach and the long history of spotted owl 
population data on these study areas provides for a very robust 
experiment.
    To ensure the results are applicable across the range of the 
northern spotted owl, we selected four study areas distributed in 
Washington, Oregon, and California. This includes study areas in 
Washington with a long history of barred owl presence, high barred owl 
density, and low spotted owl site occupancy. Oregon study areas have a 
shorter history of high barred owl populations and greater spotted owl 
site occupancy. The California study area is the most recently invaded, 
has lower barred owl densities, and higher spotted owl site occupancy. 
Thus, the selected alternative will provide information on the efficacy 
of the removal in all types of barred owl population condition.
    The combination of the number of study areas and the available pre-
treatment data provides for a timely result, with the study taking an 
estimated 4 years of removal to reach significant results.
    The use of a combination of lethal and non-lethal removal methods 
allows us to reduce the number of barred owl that would be killed under 
this study. To the extent that we are able to find organizations with 
the appropriate permits, adequate facilities to provide a high quality 
of care for the life of the bird, and an interest in having barred owls 
for educational purposes, we would capture birds to fill the 
opportunities. Our initial overtures to zoos and zoological parks 
resulted in interest in placing five individual barred owls. We will 
continue to look for opportunities to place barred owls, but given the 
expense, difficulty, and type of facility needed, we do not anticipate 
being able to place a large number of barred owls.

National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

    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: September 10, 2013.
Robyn Thorson,
Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 2013-22556 Filed 9-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P