Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Barred Owl Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California, 55647-55649 [2024-14724]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
required by 24 CFR 92.504(c) and 24
CFR 93.404(c).
In addition, participating jurisdictions
and HTF grantees that intend to comply
with the changes in the NSPIRE final
rule as of the effective date should
review the deficiencies established in
the NSPIRE Standards notice at 88 FR
40832 and compare these requirements
to their existing rehabilitation and
property standards and their inspection
procedures and checklists. While HUD
intends to publish a subset of the
deficiencies in the NSPIRE Standards
that are applicable to HOME and HTF
projects, participating jurisdictions and
HTF grantees that implement the
changes in the NSPIRE final rule before
publication of the subset of deficiencies
for HOME and HTF must implement the
full set of deficiencies in the NSPIRE
Standards in their rehabilitation and
ongoing property standards and policies
and procedures. Further, participating
jurisdictions and HTF grantees may not
implement the changes in the NSPIRE
final rule until such rehabilitation and
ongoing property standards and policies
and procedures are updated consistent
with NSPIRE.
V. Instructions for CoC, ESG, and
HOPWA Programs
CoC and ESG program recipients and
HOPWA grantees may apply the
NSPIRE standards at 88 FR 40832 before
October 1, 2025, provided that their
program documents reflect the
standards they are using and the date of
transition to those standards. Otherwise,
CoC and ESG recipients and HOPWA
grantees that are not ready to make the
transition to the new standards will be
expected to adhere to the former
program requirements until the new
compliance date. However, when HUD
issues the standards specific to the
HOPWA, ESG and CoC programs, all
grantees and recipients will be
encouraged to prepare for the
compliance date by updating their
policies and procedures to reflect the
program-specific standards.
HOPWA grantees are reminded of the
requirements for installing carbon
monoxide devices and smoke alarms as
required by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 and 2023,
respectively. HUD will update the
NSPIRE Standard for the new smoke
alarm requirements before the statutory
compliance date of December 23, 2024.
VI. Conclusion
Accordingly, HUD revises the October
1, 2024, compliance date for the changes
made to 24 CFR parts 92, 93, 574, 576,
578, 882, 982, and 983 to October 1,
2025, at which time PHAs, jurisdictions,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Jul 03, 2024
Jkt 262001
grantees, recipients, and participants
subject to these parts must comply with
the NSPIRE final rule. Until October 1,
2025, PHAs, jurisdictions, grantees,
recipients and participants subject to
these parts may instead choose to
comply with the provisions of these
parts that were amended by the NSPIRE
final rule as they existed prior to
October 1, 2023.
Maria Claudette Fernandez,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Community Planning and Development.
Dominique Blom,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public
and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 2024–14718 Filed 7–3–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2022–0074;
ES11140100000–245–FF01E0000]
Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Barred Owl Management
Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and
California
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; final
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) developed a proposed
barred owl management strategy
(strategy) to address the threat that the
nonnative and invasive barred owl
(Strix varia) poses to two native western
owl subspecies—the northern spotted
owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and the
California spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis occidentalis). In accordance
with the National Environmental Policy
Act, this notice announces the
availability of a final environmental
impact statement (FEIS) 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. With this notice, we also
make available the revised proposed
management strategy.
DATES: The Service’s decision on the
proposed management strategy will
occur no sooner than 30 days after
publication of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s notice of
availability of the FEIS in the Federal
Register, and will be documented in a
record of decision.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55647
You may obtain copies of
the strategy and FEIS documents by any
of the following methods:
• Internet: https://
www.regulations.gov (search for Docket
No. FWS–R1–ES–2022–0074) or at
https://www.fws.gov/project/barred-owlmanagement.
• Phone: You may call Robin Bown at
503–231–6923, to request alternative
formats of the documents.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robin Bown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Office, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES), by telephone at 503–
231–6923, or by email at robin_bown@
fws.gov. 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-ofcontact in the United States.
The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
announces the availability of a final
environmental impact statement (FEIS)
addressing the proposed barred owl
management strategy (strategy)
developed to address the threat that the
nonnative and invasive barred owl
poses to two native western owl
subspecies, the northern spotted owl
(Strix occidentalis caurina) and the
California spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis occidentalis).
Implementation of the proposed
management strategy would involve the
reduction of barred owl populations in
designated management areas in
Washington, Oregon, and northern
California. Where barred owls are in the
early stages of invasion in the California
spotted owl’s range, the proposed
strategy would allow for removal of all
barred owls in order to prevent
establishment of barred owl
populations.
This FEIS provides updates and
clarifications to information presented
in the draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS), including revisions in
response to issues raised in comments
received during the public review
period for that document, and identifies
a preferred alternative. The Service,
with input from 11 Federal and State
cooperating agencies, has prepared this
FEIS pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s)
implementing NEPA regulations at 40
CFR parts 1500–1508, which became
effective on May 20, 2022 (87 FR 23453;
April 20, 2022).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
55648
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2024 / Notices
Background
Spotted owls are native to western
North America. Competition from
nonnative and invasive barred owls has
been identified as a primary threat to
the northern spotted owl, which is
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 for
listing (88 FR 11600; February 23, 2023).
Additional primary threats include the
loss of habitat to timber harvest on nonFederal lands and to wildfires on
Federal and non-Federal lands.
Barred owls, native to eastern North
America, began to expand their range
around 1900. Barred owls are larger and
more aggressive than the northern
spotted owl and the California spotted
owl. Upon reaching the Pacific
Northwest, barred 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 mountains, and the history of
the invasion and impacts on northern
spotted owls following such expansion,
demonstrates 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).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Purpose and Need for the Proposed
Action
The purpose of this proposed 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 to 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 to provide for a rapid
response to reduce barred owl
populations that may become
established.
As described in the FEIS, these
actions are needed because barred owls
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Jul 03, 2024
Jkt 262001
compete with northern and California
spotted owls. Competition from the
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 barred owl populations to
reduce their negative effects 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 that 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, identified as the
preferred alternative in the FEIS, is the
issuance of a Migratory Bird Special
Purpose permit under the MBTA (50
CFR 21.95) and implementation of the
management strategy. The FEIS
analyzed the proposed action, a no
action alternative, and four 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 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 FEIS:
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 would still occur, and future
efforts that may be proposed anywhere
in the range of the spotted owl could
still occur.
Alternative 2—Management Strategy
Implementation (Preferred Alternative):
Under the preferred alternative, the
proposed strategy would include three
approaches to barred owl management
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
within the northern spotted owl’s range:
spotted owl site management, General
Management Areas with associated
Focal Management Areas, and Special
Designated Areas. In the California
spotted owl’s 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
northern or California spotted owls or
within 15 miles of the range of the
subspecies on up to 50 percent of the
area.
Alternative 4—Limited Management
by Province/Population: Within the
northern spotted owl’s range, this
alternative would focus barred owl
management on a single large General
Management Area within each
physiographic province. In the
California spotted owl’s 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.
Alternative 5—Management Focused
on Highest Risk Areas: In the northern
spotted owl’s 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 California spotted
owl’s range, barred owl management
would be limited to the northern Sierra
Nevada portion of the subspecies’ range.
Alternative 6—Management Focused
on Best Conditions: This alternative
would focus barred owl management in
the southern portion of the northern
spotted owl’s range. In the California
spotted owl’s range, barred owl
management would be focused on areas
with the best remaining habitat and
areas with higher fire resiliency.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The Service is the lead agency for the
NEPA process, including development
of the FEIS. The following agencies
were cooperating agencies in the NEPA
process and provided input and
assistance with the development of the
FEIS: 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), Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service–
Wildlife Services (U.S. Department of
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2024 / Notices
Agriculture), Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Oregon Department of
Forestry, Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife, California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, and California
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection.
Anticipated Permits and Authorizations
As described above, if an action
alternative is selected, the Service
expects to obtain a Migratory Bird
Special Purpose permit under the
MBTA to implement the selected
management strategy. 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 for implementors 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Public Involvement
The Service published a notice of
intent to prepare an EIS, opening a
public scoping period on July 22, 2022
(87 FR 43886), which closed on August
22, 2022. A virtual public scoping
meeting was held July 28, 2022. The
Service prepared a DEIS and opened a
60-day public comment period on the
DEIS and draft management strategy on
November 17, 2023 (88 FR 80329). Two
virtual public meetings were held, on
December 4, 2023, and December 14,
2023, during the comment period,
which ended on January 16, 2024. A
total of 8,613 public comments were
received during the DEIS comment
period, including duplicates.
In preparing the FEIS, the Service
considered all of the public comments
on the DEIS and draft strategy in
accordance with the requirements of
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
pursuant to the CEQ’s implementing
NEPA regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500–
1508.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Role in the EIS Process
The Environmental Protection Agency
(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 FEIS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Jul 03, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
Next Steps and Decision To Be Made
The Service will evaluate the
associated documents and public
comments received during the public
comment periods in reaching a final
decision on the proposed management
strategy and issuance of an MBTA
permit. At least 30 days after the FEIS
is published, the Service expects to
complete a record of decision pursuant
to 40 CFR 1505.2, in accordance with
applicable timeframes established in 40
CFR 1506.11. The Service expects to
issue a record of decision in August
2024.
Authority
We provide this notice in accordance
with the requirements of NEPA and its
implementing regulations (40 CFR
1503.1 and 1506.6).
Hugh Morrison,
Regional Director, Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2024–14724 Filed 7–3–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–MB–2024–0092;
FXMB1231092MFR0–245–FF09M28100;
OMB Control Number 1018–0185]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Online Eastern Population
Sandhill Crane Survey Data Entry
Portal
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), are proposing to renew
information collection without change.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
September 3, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the
information collection request (ICR) by
one of the following methods (please
reference ‘‘1018–0185’’ in the subject
line of your comments):
• Internet (preferred): https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2024–
0092.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55649
• U.S. mail: Service Information
Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg
Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), Falls Church,
VA 22041–3803.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madonna L. Baucum, Service
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, by email at Info_Coll@fws.gov,
or by telephone at (703) 358–2503.
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-ofcontact in the United States. You may
also view the information collection
request (ICR) at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we
provide the general public and other
Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on new, proposed, revised,
and continuing collections of
information. This helps us assess the
impact of our information collection
requirements and minimize the public’s
reporting burden. It also helps the
public understand our information
collection requirements and provide the
requested data in the desired format.
As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we are again soliciting
comments from the public and other
Federal agencies on the proposed ICR
that is described below. We are
especially interested in public comment
addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether or not the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize
the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of response.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55647-55649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14724]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0074; ES11140100000-245-FF01E0000]
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Barred Owl
Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; final environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed a
proposed barred owl management strategy (strategy) to address the
threat that the nonnative and invasive barred owl (Strix varia) poses
to two native western owl subspecies--the northern spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis caurina) and the California spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis occidentalis). In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act, this notice announces the availability of a
final environmental impact statement (FEIS) 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. With this notice, we also make available the revised
proposed management strategy.
DATES: The Service's decision on the proposed management strategy will
occur no sooner than 30 days after publication of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability of the FEIS in
the Federal Register, and will be documented in a record of decision.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain copies of the strategy and FEIS documents by
any of the following methods:
Internet: https://www.regulations.gov (search for Docket
No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0074) or at https://www.fws.gov/project/barred-owl-management.
Phone: You may call Robin Bown at 503-231-6923, to request
alternative formats of the documents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Bown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Office, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), 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)
announces the availability of a final environmental impact statement
(FEIS) addressing the proposed barred owl management strategy
(strategy) developed to address the threat that the nonnative and
invasive barred owl poses to two native western owl subspecies, the
northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and the California
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). Implementation of the
proposed management strategy would involve the reduction of barred owl
populations in designated management areas in Washington, Oregon, and
northern California. Where barred owls are in the early stages of
invasion in the California spotted owl's range, the proposed strategy
would allow for removal of all barred owls in order to prevent
establishment of barred owl populations.
This FEIS provides updates and clarifications to information
presented in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), including
revisions in response to issues raised in comments received during the
public review period for that document, and identifies a preferred
alternative. The Service, with input from 11 Federal and State
cooperating agencies, has prepared this FEIS pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) implementing NEPA regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500-1508, which became effective on May 20, 2022 (87 FR 23453;
April 20, 2022).
[[Page 55648]]
Background
Spotted owls are native to western North America. Competition from
nonnative and invasive barred owls has been identified as a primary
threat to the northern spotted owl, which is 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 for listing (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 and non-Federal lands.
Barred owls, native to eastern North America, began to expand their
range around 1900. Barred owls are larger and more aggressive than the
northern spotted owl and the California spotted owl. Upon reaching the
Pacific Northwest, barred 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 mountains, and the history of the invasion and impacts on
northern spotted owls following such expansion, demonstrates 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
The purpose of this proposed 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 to 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 to provide for a rapid response to reduce barred owl populations
that may become established.
As described in the FEIS, these actions are needed because barred
owls compete with northern and California spotted owls. Competition
from the 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 barred owl populations to reduce
their negative effects 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 that 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, identified as the preferred alternative in the
FEIS, is the issuance of a Migratory Bird Special Purpose permit under
the MBTA (50 CFR 21.95) and implementation of the management strategy.
The FEIS analyzed the proposed action, a no action alternative, and
four 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
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 FEIS:
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 would still occur, and future
efforts that may be proposed anywhere in the range of the spotted owl
could still occur.
Alternative 2--Management Strategy Implementation (Preferred
Alternative): Under the preferred alternative, the proposed strategy
would include three approaches to barred owl management within the
northern spotted owl's range: spotted owl site management, General
Management Areas with associated Focal Management Areas, and Special
Designated Areas. In the California spotted owl's 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 northern or California spotted owls or within 15 miles of the range
of the subspecies on up to 50 percent of the area.
Alternative 4--Limited Management by Province/Population: Within
the northern spotted owl's range, this alternative would focus barred
owl management on a single large General Management Area within each
physiographic province. In the California spotted owl's 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.
Alternative 5--Management Focused on Highest Risk Areas: In the
northern spotted owl's 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
California spotted owl's range, barred owl management would be limited
to the northern Sierra Nevada portion of the subspecies' range.
Alternative 6--Management Focused on Best Conditions: This
alternative would focus barred owl management in the southern portion
of the northern spotted owl's range. In the California spotted owl's
range, barred owl management would be focused on areas with the best
remaining habitat and areas with higher fire resiliency.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The Service is the lead agency for the NEPA process, including
development of the FEIS. The following agencies were cooperating
agencies in the NEPA process and provided input and assistance with the
development of the FEIS: 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), Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service-Wildlife Services (U.S. Department of
[[Page 55649]]
Agriculture), Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Oregon Department of
Forestry, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department
of Fish and Wildlife, and California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection.
Anticipated Permits and Authorizations
As described above, if an action alternative is selected, the
Service expects to obtain a Migratory Bird Special Purpose permit under
the MBTA to implement the selected management strategy. 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 for
implementors 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.
Public Involvement
The Service published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS, opening
a public scoping period on July 22, 2022 (87 FR 43886), which closed on
August 22, 2022. A virtual public scoping meeting was held July 28,
2022. The Service prepared a DEIS and opened a 60-day public comment
period on the DEIS and draft management strategy on November 17, 2023
(88 FR 80329). Two virtual public meetings were held, on December 4,
2023, and December 14, 2023, during the comment period, which ended on
January 16, 2024. A total of 8,613 public comments were received during
the DEIS comment period, including duplicates.
In preparing the FEIS, the Service considered all of the public
comments on the DEIS and draft strategy in accordance with the
requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and pursuant to the CEQ's
implementing NEPA regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
Environmental Protection Agency's Role in the EIS Process
The Environmental Protection Agency (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 FEIS. 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.
Next Steps and Decision To Be Made
The Service will evaluate the associated documents and public
comments received during the public comment periods in reaching a final
decision on the proposed management strategy and issuance of an MBTA
permit. At least 30 days after the FEIS is published, the Service
expects to complete a record of decision pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.2, in
accordance with applicable timeframes established in 40 CFR 1506.11.
The Service expects to issue a record of decision in August 2024.
Authority
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of NEPA
and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1503.1 and 1506.6).
Hugh Morrison,
Regional Director, Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2024-14724 Filed 7-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P