Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Barred Owl Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California, 80329-80332 [2023-25032]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80329-80332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25032]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0074; ES11140100000-245-FF01E0000]


Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Barred Owl 
Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability; notice of virtual public meetings; 
request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed a 
proposed barred owl management strategy (management strategy) to 
address the threat of the nonnative, invasive barred owl (Strix varia) 
to the native northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and 
California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). In accordance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act, this notice announces the 
availability of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) 
evaluating the impacts on the human environment related to the proposed 
management strategy and associated take of barred owls, which is 
prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act unless authorized by the 
Service by permit or regulation. We invite public comments on the 
proposed management strategy and DEIS from the public and Federal, 
Tribal, State, and local governments.

DATES: Submitting Comments: Hardcopy comments must be received or 
postmarked on or before January 16, 2024. (See ADDRESSES.) Comments 
submitted online at https://www.regulations.gov/ must be received by 
11:59 p.m. eastern time on January 16, 2024.
    Virtual Public Meetings: We will hold two virtual public meetings, 
on December 4, 2023, and December 14, 2023, from 6 to 8 p.m. Pacific 
time. For more information, see Virtual Public Meetings under 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the 
following methods:
     Internet: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0074.
     U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing; Attn: Docket No. 
FWS-R1-ES-2022-0074; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: 
PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post online any personal information that 
you provide. We request that you submit comments by only the methods 
above. For additional information about submitting comments, see Public 
Comments under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Public Meeting: A registration link and access instructions for the 
virtual meetings will be posted to https://www.fws.gov/office/oregon-fish-and-wildlife at least 1 week prior to the public meeting dates. 
Reviewing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Comments on the 
DEIS: See EPA's Role in the EIS Process under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Bown, by telephone at 503-231-
6923, or by email at [email protected]. Individuals in the United 
States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech 
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
developed a proposed barred owl management strategy (management 
strategy) to address the threat of nonnative invasive barred owl on two 
native owl subspecies in the West, the northern spotted owl (Strix 
occidentalis caurina) and California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 
occidentalis). Implementation of the management

[[Page 80330]]

strategy would involve the reduction of barred owl populations in 
targeted management areas in Washington, Oregon, and California. On 
July 22, 2022, the Service published a notice of intent (87 FR 43886) 
to develop a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) evaluating the 
impacts on the human environment from implementation of the proposed 
management strategy and a reasonable range of alternatives, consistent 
with the purpose and goals of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Service, with input from several 
Federal, State, and Tribal cooperating agencies, has prepared this DEIS 
pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) implementing 
NEPA regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-
1508, which became effective on May 20, 2022 (April 20, 2022, 87 FR 
23453). We invite public comments on the proposed management strategy 
and DEIS from the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local 
governments.

Background

    Spotted owls are native to western North America. Competition from 
the nonnative invasive barred owls has been identified as a primary 
threat to the northern spotted owl, listed as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as well as a 
threat to the persistence of California spotted owl, which the Service 
has proposed to list as endangered in some areas and threatened in 
others (88 FR 11600, February 23, 2023). Additional primary threats 
include the loss of habitat to timber harvest on non-Federal lands and 
to wildfires on Federal lands.
    Barred owls, native to eastern North America, began to expand their 
range around 1900, concurrent with European settlement and facilitated 
by the subsequent human-caused changes to the Great Plains and northern 
boreal forest. These slightly larger and more aggressive owls quickly 
displaced spotted owls from their historic territories. Without 
management of barred owls, extirpation of northern spotted owls from 
major portions of their historic range is likely in the near future. 
While barred owls have not substantially impacted California spotted 
owl populations to date, the establishment of a small barred owl 
population in the northern Sierra Nevada, and the history of the 
invasion and impacts on northern spotted owls following such expansion, 
indicates that barred owls are also a significant threat to the 
persistence of California spotted owls.
    The barred owl is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
(MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-712), which prohibits take of protected migratory 
bird species unless authorized by the Service through permit or 
regulation (50 CFR 21.10).

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

    Using information from a recently completed barred owl removal 
experiment and other applicable studies and research findings, the 
Service determined that barred owl removal can be an effective method 
for the conservation of spotted owls. The purpose of this action is to 
reduce barred owl populations to improve the survival and recovery of 
northern spotted owls and to prevent declines in California spotted 
owls from barred owl competition. Relative to northern spotted owls, 
the purpose is to reduce barred owl populations within selected 
treatment areas in the short term and increase northern spotted owl 
populations in those treatment areas. Relative to the California 
spotted owl, the purpose is to limit the invasion of barred owls into 
the range of the subspecies and provide for a rapid response to reduce 
barred owl populations that may become established.
    This action is needed because invasive barred owls compete with 
northern and California spotted owls. Competition from the invasive 
barred owl is a primary cause of the rapid and ongoing decline of 
northern spotted owl populations. Due to the rapidity of the decline, 
it is critical that we manage invasive barred owl populations to reduce 
their negative effect before northern spotted owls are extirpated from 
large portions of their native range. There is also a need to focus on 
limiting the invasion of barred owls into the California spotted owl 
range, as we expect additional impacts to California spotted owl 
populations would be inevitable without barred owl management, and 
invasive species are very difficult to remove once established.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The proposed action is the issuance of a Migratory Bird Special 
Purpose permit under the MBTA (50 CFR 21.95) and implementation of the 
management strategy. The DEIS analyzes the proposed action, a no action 
alternative, and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed 
action, including the environmental consequences of each alternative. 
All action alternatives include issuance of an MBTA permit for 
management to reduce barred owl populations in areas within the 
northern spotted owl's range and to prevent establishment of barred owl 
populations within the California spotted owl's range. The locations 
and relative priorities for removal would vary by action alternative. 
None of the alternatives would require any entity to implement barred 
owl management; rather, they outline various combinations of management 
approaches, geographic areas, and other components that would allow for 
and guide management actions and the ability to prioritize areas of 
greatest need.
    Six alternatives are analyzed in detail in the DEIS:
    Alternative 1--No Action: under the no action alternative, a 
comprehensive management strategy would not be finalized or 
implemented, and the Service would not issue an MBTA permit for 
systematic management of barred owls. Ongoing barred owl removal as 
part of research efforts in California, and future research efforts 
that may be proposed anywhere in the range of the spotted owl, would 
still occur.
    Alternative 2--Management Strategy Implementation (Proposed 
Action): Under the proposed action, we would apply three approaches to 
barred owl management within the northern spotted owl range: spotted 
owl site management, General Management Areas with associated Focal 
Management Areas, and Special Designated Areas. Site management 
involves removing barred owls from within and around spotted owl sites, 
with priority given to recently occupied sites. General Management 
Areas are large areas within which barred owl management would occur on 
smaller Focal Management Areas. Focal Management Areas would be 
established at the time of removal by the implementing entity, based on 
general direction and prioritization provided in the management 
strategy. Special Designated Areas are areas mapped to support specific 
identified needs, such as connectivity between populations, buffer 
zones to provide a barrier to invasion, special emphasis areas, or 
management of early invasions. In the California spotted owl range, 
where we are focused on early detection and rapid response at the 
invasion front, the proposed action focuses on surveys, inventory, and 
monitoring to detect invading barred owls and rapid removal of any 
barred owls detected.
    Alternative 3--Management Across the Range: Under this alternative, 
barred owl management could be implemented anywhere within the range of 
the

[[Page 80331]]

northern or California spotted owls or within 15 miles of the range of 
the subspecies on up to 50 percent of the area. There would be no 
specific requirements for size or location of management areas.
    Alternative 4--Limited Management by Province/Population: Within 
the northern spotted owl range, this alternative would focus barred owl 
management on a single large General Management Area within each 
province. This approach supports a single, but larger, spotted owl 
population in each province. In the California spotted owl range, 
barred owl management would be delayed until detections reached 10 
percent of surveys in areas within the Sierra Nevada portion of the 
population, or 5 percent within the Coastal-Southern California portion 
of the province. This would allow barred owl populations to be 
established, but removed before they can substantially impact spotted 
owls.
    Alternative 5--Management Focused on Highest Risk Areas: In the 
northern spotted owl range, this alternative would focus barred owl 
management in the northern provinces, where the subspecies is at 
greatest risk of extirpation from barred owl competition in the 
Washington East Cascades, Washington West Cascades, Oregon East 
Cascades, Oregon West Cascades, Oregon Coast Ranges, and Olympic 
Peninsula Physiographic Provinces. In the California spotted owl range, 
barred owl management would be limited to the northern Sierra Nevada 
portion of the subspecies range, where the barred owl invasion 
initially occurred and represents the most likely pathway for larger 
numbers of barred owls to invade the California spotted owl range.
    Alternative 6--Management Focused on Best Conditions: This 
alternative would focus barred owl management in the southern portion 
of the northern spotted owl range, where spotted owl populations have 
not decreased to the degree they have in the north, including the 
Oregon Klamath, California Coast, California Klamath, and California 
Cascades Physiographic Provinces. In the California spotted owl range, 
barred owl management would be focused on areas with the best remaining 
habitat and areas with higher fire resiliency, including the Sierra 
Nevada portion of the range with the best remaining habitat, and the 
Coastal-Southern California portion of the range.

Summary of Impacts

    The DEIS describes the potential direct and indirect effects of 
each alternative on the human environment, focusing on impacts to 
barred owls, spotted owls, other wildlife species, recreation and 
visitor use, wilderness, socioeconomics, and climate change, as well as 
cumulative effects of the action when added to the effects of other 
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Effects to other 
resources were considered but dismissed from detailed analysis because 
significant effects on public health and safety, cultural resources, 
Tribes, ethical considerations, environmental justice, or geology, 
soils, water, vegetation, or air quality are not expected.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The Service is the lead agency for the NEPA process, including 
development of the DEIS. The following agencies are cooperating 
agencies in the NEPA process and provided input and assistance with the 
development of the EIS: U.S. Forest Service (Regions 5 and 6), Bureau 
of Land Management (Oregon), Bureau of Land Management (California), 
National Park Service (Interior Regions 8, 9, 10, 12), Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural 
Resources, Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the 
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Anticipated Permits and Authorizations

    In addition to compliance with the ESA and MBTA discussed above, 
compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
is required by law for all Federal undertakings. The proposed action of 
issuing an MBTA permit is a Federal undertaking. In this case, our 
preliminary analysis is that the proposed action has no potential to 
cause effects, because the proposed action, along with all action 
alternatives, does not involve any ground disturbing or other 
activities that might result in direct or indirect effects to known or 
potential cultural resources.
    Depending on the location and landowners involved in implementation 
of the management strategy, barred owl management could require 
additional Federal and State permits. We anticipate the potential need 
to acquire permits from the States of Washington, Oregon, and 
California to carry out the proposed barred owl removal actions under 
the proposed management strategy.

EPA's Role in the EIS Process

    The EPA is charged under section 309 of the Clean Air Act with 
reviewing all Federal agencies' EISs and commenting on the adequacy and 
acceptability of the environmental impacts of proposed actions. Under 
the CEQ NEPA regulations, EPA is also responsible for administering the 
EIS filing process. EPA is publishing a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing this DEIS. The publication date of EPA's notice of 
availability is the official beginning of the public comment period. 
EPA serves as the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared by 
Federal agencies. You may search for EPA comments on EISs, along with 
EISs themselves, at https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

Public Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials on the proposed 
management strategy and the DEIS by one of the methods in ADDRESSES. We 
specifically request information on the following:
    1. Biological information, analysis, and relevant data concerning 
the barred owl, spotted owl, and their interactions.
    2. Components of the barred owl strategy, including but not limited 
to:
    a. Locations where barred owl management should be focused or where 
management should be avoided;
    b. Specific techniques for removal of barred owls or reduction in 
barred owl populations; and
    c. Criteria and approaches for selecting management areas.
    3. The alternatives analysis conducted by the Service, including 
the alternatives analyzed, the range of alternatives analyzed, and the 
alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail.
    4. Potential effects of the proposed action and alternatives on 
other aspects of the human environment, including other wildlife 
species and habitats as well as aesthetic, historic, cultural, 
economic, social, environmental justice, or health resources.
    5. Cumulative effects, which are effects on the environment that 
result from the incremental effects of the action when added to the 
effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, as 
well as any connected actions that are closely related and should be 
discussed in the same DEIS.
    6. The alternatives, information, and analyses submitted during the 
public scoping period and the summary thereof.
    7. Other information relevant to the proposed management strategy 
and MBTA take authorization, and its impacts on the human environment.

[[Page 80332]]

Virtual Public Meeting

    To provide for the wide attendance of interested parties, two 
virtual public meetings will be conducted. See DATES and ADDRESSES for 
the dates and times of the virtual public meetings. During the 
meetings, the Service will present information about the management 
strategy and MBTA take authorization and provide an opportunity for the 
public to ask questions about the proposed management strategy and the 
DEIS. The first meeting will provide additional focus on barred owl 
management within the northern spotted owl's range. The second meeting 
will provide additional focus on management within the range of 
California spotted owls. No opportunity for oral comments will be 
provided. Written comments may be submitted by the methods listed in 
ADDRESSES.

Reasonable Accommodations

    Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to participate 
in the public meetings should contact the Service's Oregon Fish and 
Wildlife Office as soon as possible, using one of the methods listed in 
ADDRESSES. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, 
please make contact at least 10 days before the public meeting date. 
Information regarding this proposed action is available in alternative 
formats upon request.

Public Availability of Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods 
listed in ADDRESSES. Before including your address, phone number, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire 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. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and 
from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials 
of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public 
disclosure in their entirety.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as references for 
supporting documentation we used in preparing the DEIS, will be 
available for public inspection online in Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-
0074 at https://www.regulations.gov/ (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Next Steps and Decision To Be Made

    After public review and comment, the Service will review any 
comments received and prepare a final EIS (FEIS). The Service will also 
complete an ESA Section 7 biological opinion before making a final 
decision. At least 30 days after the FEIS is published, we expect that 
the Service will complete a record of decision pursuant to 40 CFR 
1505.2, in accordance with applicable timeframes established in 40 CFR 
1506.11. The current estimate for the issuance of the record of 
decision is July 2024.

Authority

    We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of NEPA 
and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1503.1 and 1506.6).

Bridget Fahey,
Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-25032 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P