Vol. 77 Tuesday, No. 233 December 4, 2012

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71876 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR telecommunications device for the deaf Comments From Federal Agencies (TDD), call the Federal Information Comments From State Agencies Fish and Wildlife Service Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Comments From Counties Public Comments SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 50 CFR Part 17 Economic Analysis Comments Organization of the Final Rule Environmental Assessment Comments [FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112; 4500030114] XIII. Required Determinations This final rule describes the revised Regulatory Planning and Review— RIN 1018–AX69 critical habitat designation for the Executive Order 12866/13563 northern spotted owl under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Endangered Species Act of 1973, as seq.) and Plants; Designation of Revised amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— Critical Habitat for the Northern The pages that follow summarize the Executive Order 13211 Spotted Owl comments and information received in Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. response to the proposed designation 1501 et seq.) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Takings—Executive Order 12630 Interior. published on March 8, 2012 (77 FR Federalism—Executive Order 13132 ACTION: Final rule. 14062), and in response to the notice of Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order availability of the draft economic 12988 SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and analysis and draft environmental Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Wildlife Service, designate revised assessment of the proposed revised U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) critical habitat for the northern spotted designation published on June 1, 2012 National Environmental Policy Act (42 owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) under (77 FR 32483), describe any changes U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) the Endangered Species Act. In total, from the proposed rule, and detail the Government-to-Government Relationship approximately 9,577,969 acres (ac) final designation for the northern With Tribes XIV. References Cited (3,876,064 hectares (ha)) in 11 units and spotted owl. To assist the reader, the Regulation Promulgation 60 subunits in California, Oregon, and content of the document is organized as Washington fall within the boundaries follows: I. Executive Summary of the critical habitat designation. I. Executive Summary Why we need to publish a rule. This DATES: The rule becomes effective on II. Background is a final rule to designate revised January 3, 2013. Introduction critical habitat for the northern spotted ADDRESSES: The final rule and the An Ecosystem-Based Approach to the owl. Under the Endangered Species Act associated economic analysis and Conservation of the Northern Spotted of 1973, as amended (Act), designations Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat environmental assessment are available Critical Habitat and the Northwest Forest and revisions of critical habitat can only on the Internet at http:// Plan be completed through rulemaking. www.regulations.gov at Docket No. Forest Management Activities in Northern We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112. Comments Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Service (Service), listed the northern and materials received, as well as Research and Adaptive Management spotted owl as threatened on June 26, supporting documentation used in The Biology and Ecology of the Northern 1990 (55 FR 26114), because of preparing this final rule, are available Spotted Owl widespread loss of habitat across its for public inspection, by appointment, III. Previous Federal Actions range and the inadequacy of existing IV. Changes From the Proposed Rule during normal business hours, at the V. Changes From Previously Designated regulatory mechanisms to conserve it. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Critical Habitat We previously designated critical Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th VI. Critical Habitat habitat for the northern spotted owl in Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; Background 1992 and 2008. The 2008 designation telephone 503–231–6179; facsimile Physical or Biological Features (73 FR 47326, August 13, 2008) was 503–231–6195. Physical Influences Related to Features subsequently challenged in court. In The coordinates or plot points or both Essential to the Northern Spotted Owl July 2009, the Federal Government from which the maps are generated are Biological Influences Related to Features requested voluntary remand of the 2008 included in the administrative record Essential to the Northern Spotted Owl Physical or Biological Features by Life- revised critical habitat designation. On for this critical habitat designation and History Function March 8, 2012, we published in the are available at http://www.fws.gov/ Primary Constituent Elements for the Federal Register a revised proposed oregonfwo, at http:// Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat designation for the www.regulations.gov at Docket No. Special Management Considerations or northern spotted owl (77 FR 14062). FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112, and at the Protection This rule complies with the court- Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see VII. Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat ordered deadline to submit a final FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The Occupied Areas revised critical habitat rule for the additional tools and supporting Summary of Determination of Areas That Are Essential northern spotted owl to the Federal information that we developed for this Unoccupied Areas Register by November 21, 2012. critical habitat designation are available VIII. Final Critical Habitat Designation Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web IX. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation the Secretary shall designate critical site and Field Office set out above and Section 7 Consultation habitat on the basis of the best available at http://www.regulations.gov. Determinations of Adverse Effects and scientific data after taking into FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Application of the ‘‘Adverse consideration the economic impact, Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Modification’’ Standard national security impact, and any other Section 7 Process Under This Critical Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Habitat Rule relevant impact of specifying any Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Ave., X. Exemptions particular area as critical habitat. The Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; XI. Exclusions critical habitat areas we are designating telephone 503–231–6179; facsimile XII. Summary of Comments and Responses in this rule constitute our current best 503–231–6195. If you use a Comments From Peer Reviewers assessment of the areas that meet the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71877

definition of critical habitat for the ecological processes where they have To assist us in determining critical northern spotted owl. been disrupted or suppressed (e.g., habitat, we integrated habitat and The rule revises our designation of natural fire regimes), and application of demographic information (relating to critical habitat in Washington, Oregon, ‘‘ecological forestry’’ management occupancy, survival, reproduction, and and California. Consistent with the best practices (e.g., Gustafsson et al. 2012, movement) to develop a modeling tool scientific data available, the standards entire; Franklin et al. 2007, entire; that assesses the distribution of habitat of the Act and our regulations, we are Kuuluvian and Grenfell et al. 2012 quality and population dynamics across designating 9,577,969 ac (3,876,064 ha) entire) within critical habitat to reduce the range, and provides a more accurate in 11 units and 60 subunits in the potential for adverse impacts picture of where high-quality northern California, Oregon, and Washington that associated with commercial timber spotted owl habitat exists. This model meet the definition of critical habitat. harvest when such harvest is planned synthesized more than 20 years of data The approximate totals by State and within or adjacent to critical habitat. In from on-the-ground demographic comparison to previous designations are sum, the Service encourages land surveys, and allowed for analysis of outlined below, as follows (note some managers to consider the conservation how northern spotted owl populations units and subunits overlap State of existing high-quality northern spotted would fare under different habitat boundaries; therefore, totals do not add owl habitat, the restoration of forest conservation scenarios. We determined up to 11 units and 60 subunits): ecosystem health, and the ecological what is essential to recovery of the • Approximately 2,918,067 ac forestry management practices northern spotted owl by evaluating the (1,180,898 ha) in 4 units and 26 recommended in the Revised Recovery performance of each potential critical subunits in Washington. Plan that are compatible with both the • habitat scenario considered against the Approximately 4,557,852 ac goals of northern spotted owl recovery recovery needs of the owl. (1,844,496 ha) in 8 units and 58 and Standards and Guidelines of the Peer reviewers support our methods. subunits in Oregon. NWFP. We solicited expert opinions from • Approximately 2,102,050 ac The basis for our action. This final knowledgeable individuals with (850,669 ha) in 5 units and 36 subunits critical habitat designation is based on scientific expertise that included in California. the current status and recent scientific • This designation increases familiarity with the species, the research on northern spotted owl geographic region in which the species previously designated critical habitat, populations. We used the best scientific including the addition of 272,026 ac occurs, and conservation biology information available to identify those principles. These peer reviewers (110,085 ha) ac of State lands. However, specific areas within the geographical this final critical habitat designation is generally concurred with our methods area occupied by the species at the time and conclusions and provided a decrease from the 13,962,449 ac it was listed on which are found those (5,649,660 ha) identified as meeting the additional information, clarifications, physical or biological features essential and suggestions to improve this final definition of critical habitat in the to the conservation of the species, and March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062) proposed rule. which may require special management Consistency with Presidential rule. considerations or protection. For the • Directive. On February 28, 2012, the We have also excluded areas of northern spotted owl, these features State and private land from this President issued a memorandum to the include particular forest types that are Secretary of the Interior regarding the designation of critical habitat under used or likely to be used by northern section 4(b)(2) of the Act, as explained proposed revised critical habitat for the spotted owls for nesting, roosting, northern spotted owl, specifically on in the Exclusions section of this rule. foraging, or dispersing habitat. In The Revised Recovery Plan for the minimizing regulatory burdens. The addition, we used the best available Service has fully addressed each of the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011; information to identify those areas that hereafter ‘‘Revised Recovery Plan’’) directives in this memo and has taken are otherwise determined to be essential steps to comply with this directive, recommends that land managers: (1) to the conservation of the species. conserve older forest, high-value including: We relied on the recovery criteria set • habitat, and areas occupied by northern forth in the Revised Recovery Plan for We conducted and completed, as is spotted owls; and (2) actively manage the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS the Service’s normal practice, an forests to restore ecosystem health in 2011) to determine what is essential to economic analysis on the probable many parts of the species’ range. In the conservation of the species; impacts of the proposed revised developing this critical habitat critical habitat. therefore we have identified a habitat • designation, we also recognize the network that meets the following We provided a description of importance of the Northwest Forest Plan criteria: ecological forestry management (NWFP) and its land management • Ensures sufficient habitat to support actions that may be compatible with strategy for conservation of native stable, healthy populations across the both northern spotted owl recovery species associated with old-growth and range, and also within each of the 11 and timber harvest, as late-successional forest, including the recovery units; recommended in the Revised northern spotted owl. The designation • Ensures distribution of northern Recovery Plan for the Northern of areas as critical habitat does not spotted owl populations across the Spotted Owl. This discussion change land use allocations or range of habitat conditions used by the appears in the following sections of Standards and Guidelines for species; this rule: management under the NWFP, nor does • Incorporates uncertainty, including Æ An Ecosystem-based Approach to this rule establish any management plan potential effects of barred owls, climate the Conservation of the Northern or prescriptions for the management of change, and wildfire disturbance risk; Spotted Owl and Managing Its critical habitat. However, we encourage and Critical Habitat land managers to consider • Recognizes that these protections Æ Special Management implementation of forest management are meant to work in concert with other Considerations or Protection practices recommended in the Revised recovery actions, such as barred owl Æ Determination of Adverse Effects Recovery Plan to restore natural management. and Application of the ‘‘Adverse

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71878 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Modification’’ Standard. 1,449,534 ac (585,612 ha) proposed for the northern spotted owl. Despite We note, however, that this discussion designation, or 10 percent of the total implementation of habitat conservation of ecological forestry is provided to lands included in the proposed measures in the early 1990s, Thomas et Federal, State, local and private land designation and that there is the al. (1990, p. 5) and USDI (1992, managers, as well as the public, for their potential for 307,308 ac (123,364 ha) of Appendix C) foresaw that owl consideration as they make decisions on private land to experience incremental populations would continue to decline the management of forest land under changes in harvests, or approximately 2 for several decades, even with habitat their jurisdictions and through their percent of total lands proposed. No conservation, as the consequence of lag normal processes. This critical habitat incremental changes in harvests are effects at both individual and rule itself does not take any action or expected on State lands. population levels. However, many adopt any policy, plan, or program in II. Background populations of northern spotted owls relation to active forest management. have declined at a faster rate than • It is our intent to discuss only those anticipated, especially in the northern As per the Service’s normal topics directly relevant to the revised practice, we solicited public review and parts of the subspecies’ range (Anthony designation of critical habitat in this et al. 2006, pp. 31–32; Forsman et al. comment on this rulemaking action, rule. For further details regarding using information thus gained to correct 2011, pp. 65, 76). We now know that the northern spotted owl biology and suite of threats (detailed below) facing and refine our designation. habitat, population abundance and • We fully considered exclusion of the northern spotted owl differs from trend, distribution, demographic those at the time it was listed; in private lands and State lands from the features, habitat use and conditions, final revised critical habitat, consistent addition to the effects of historical and threats, and conservation measures, ongoing habitat loss, the northern with the best available scientific and please see the Northern Spotted Owl 5- commercial information. spotted owl faces a new significant and year Review Summary and Evaluation, complex threat in the form of The Service appreciates, and is completed October 26, 2011, and the sensitive to, the potential for regulatory competition from the congeneric Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern (referring to a member of the same burden that may result from our Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011), completed designation of critical habitat for the genus) barred owl (USFWS 2011, pp. I– July 1, 2011. Both of these documents 7 to I–8). northern spotted owl under the Act. Our are available on the U.S. Fish and analysis indicated that the revision of Wildlife Service’s Endangered Species During the second half of the 20th critical habitat could have relatively Web site at http://ecos.fws.gov/; under century, barred owls expanded their little incremental effect above and ‘‘Species Search,’’ enter ‘‘northern range from eastern to western North beyond the conservation measures spotted owl.’’ As detailed below, America, and the range of the barred already required as a result of its Appendix C of the Revised Recovery owl now completely overlaps that of the threatened species status under the Act, Plan is particularly informative, as we northern spotted owl (Gutie´rrez et al. and thus is not expected to impose used the habitat modeling process it 1995, p. 3; Crozier et al. 2006, p. 761). substantial additional regulatory describes as a tool to help identify areas Barred owls compete with northern burdens. The Service appreciates, and containing the essential physical and spotted owls for habitat and resources relies on the many partners we have in biological features or areas that were for breeding, feeding, and sheltering, conservation, including private otherwise essential to the conservation and the presence of barred owls has landowners, Tribes, States, and local of the northern spotted owl in this significant negative effects on northern governments, and strongly desires to revised designation of critical habitat. spotted owl reproduction, survivorship, promote conservation partnerships to Furthermore, the recovery criteria for and successful occupation of territories conserve, protect, and enhance fish, the northern spotted owl, as described (see Population Status and Trends, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS below). The loss of habitat has the the continuing benefit of the American 2011, pp. I–1 to I–2), helped to potential to intensify competition with people. discriminate between the various barred owls by reducing the total Costs and benefits. In order to identify scenarios considered in the modeling amount of resources available to the and analyze the potential economic process in terms of assessing which of northern spotted owl and by increasing impacts of the designation of critical the habitat networks evaluated included the likelihood and frequency of habitat for the northern spotted owl, we what is essential to the conservation of competitive interactions. While there worked with a contractor to draft an the northern spotted owl in the most are important differences in the ecology economic analysis report, which was efficient configuration possible. between barred owls and northern released in May of 2012 and finalized spotted owls, barred owls select very following consideration and Introduction similar habitat for breeding, feeding, incorporation of public comment. The The northern spotted owl inhabits and sheltering, and loss of habitat has report looked at a variety of economic structurally complex forests from the potential to intensify competition activities including timber harvest, southwestern British Columbia through between species. While conserving wildlife management, road construction, Washington and Oregon to northern habitat will not completely alleviate the and other forest management activities, California. The northern spotted owl barred owl threat, Dugger et al. (2011, but focused primarily on timber was listed under the Act as a threatened pp. 2464–2465) found that northern management. It concludes that only a species in 1990 because of widespread spotted owl occupancy and colonization relatively small portion of the overall loss of habitat across its range and the rates decreased as both barred owl proposed revised designation may result inadequacy of existing regulatory presence increased and available habitat in more than minor incremental mechanisms to conserve it (55 FR decreased. Similar to another case in administrative costs. It found that 26114; June 26, 1990). Although the rate which increased suitable habitat was potential incremental changes in timber of loss of habitat due to timber harvest required to support two potentially harvests on Bureau of Land has been reduced on Federal lands over competing raptors, these authors Management and U.S. Forest Service the past two decades, both past and concluded that increased habitat lands may occur on approximately current habitat loss remain a threat to protection for northern spotted owls

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71879

may be necessary to provide for provide the physical or biological Given the continued decline of sustainable populations in the presence features essential for the conservation of northern spotted owl populations, the of barred owls in some areas (Dugger et the species, and which may require apparent increase in severity of the al. 2011, p. 2467). Maintaining high- special management considerations or threat from barred owls, and quality habitat has been important since protection, and (ii) specific areas information indicating a recent loss of the northern spotted owl was initially outside the geographical area occupied genetic diversity for the subspecies, listed as a threatened species in 1990, by the species at the time it was listed retaining both occupied northern and this competitive pressure from that are otherwise determined to be spotted owl sites and unoccupied, high- barred owls has intensified the need to essential to the conservation of the value northern spotted owl habitat conserve and restore large areas of species. However, like most critical across the subspecies’ range are key contiguous, high-quality habitat across habitat designations, this rule addresses components for recovery (USFWS 2011, the range of the northern spotted owl elements of risk management, because p. I–9). High-value habitat is defined in (Dugger et al. 2011, p. 2464; Forsman et we must make recommendations and the Revised Recovery Plan for the al. 2011, p. 76; USFWS 2011, Recovery decisions in the face of incomplete Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) as Action 32 [RA32], p. III–67). information and uncertainty about habitat that is important for maintaining It is becoming increasingly evident factors influencing northern spotted owl northern spotted owls on landscapes, that solely securing habitat will not be populations. This uncertainty exists including areas with current and effective in achieving the recovery of the even though the northern spotted owl is historic use by northern spotted owls. northern spotted owl when barred owls among the most thoroughly studied of We refer readers to the glossary are present (USFWS 2011, p. vi). While listed species. We understand a great (Appendix G) of the Revised Recovery conservation of high-quality habitat is deal about the habitats the subspecies Plan for definitions of forest stand essential for the recovery and prefers and the factors that influence its conditions and habitat types discussed conservation of the owl, habitat demographic trends. Nonetheless, in this rule. conservation alone is not sufficient to considerable uncertainty remains, Accordingly, in this rule, we have achieve recovery objectives. As stated in particularly about interactions among identified areas of habitat occupied at the Revised Recovery Plan, ‘‘* * * different factors that threaten the owl. the time of listing that provide the addressing the threats associated with In the face of such uncertainty, the physical or biological features essential past and current habitat loss must be Revised Recovery Plan proposes to the conservation of the northern conducted simultaneously with strategies to address the primary threats addressing the threats from barred owls. to the northern spotted owl from habitat spotted owl, and that may require Addressing the threat from habitat loss loss and barred owls (USFWS 2011, p. special management considerations or is relatively straightforward with I–7). The effects of climate change and protection. When occupied areas were predictable results. However, addressing of past management practices are not adequate to achieve essential a large-scale threat of one raptor on changing forest ecosystem processes and recovery goals, we also identified some another, closely related raptor has many dynamics, including patterns of unoccupied areas as critical habitat for uncertainties’’ (USFWS 2011, p. I–8). A wildfires, insect outbreaks, and disease, the northern spotted owl only upon a designation of critical habitat is to a degree greater than anticipated in determination that such areas are intended to ameliorate habitat-based the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) essential to the conservation of the threats to an endangered or threatened (Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 134–135; species (see the second part of the species; critical habitat cannot Carroll et al. 2010, p. 899; Spies et al. definition of critical habitat in section reasonably be expected to fully address 2010, entire; USFWS 2011, p. I–8). At (3)(5)(a)(ii), which states that critical other, non-habitat-related threats to the the same time, the expansion of barred habitat also includes ‘‘specific areas species. In the case of the northern owl populations is altering the capacity outside the geographical area occupied spotted owl, the recovery goal of of intact habitat to support northern by the species at the time of listing in supporting population viability and spotted owls. Projecting the effects of accordance with the provisions of demographically stable populations of these factors and their interactions into section 4 of this Act, upon a northern spotted owls will likely require the future leads to even higher levels of determination by the Secretary that such habitat conservation in concert with the uncertainty, especially considering how areas are essential for the conservation implementation of recovery actions that the influences of different threats may of the species.’’) However, it is address other, non-habitat-based threats vary across the owl’s large geographical important to note that this revised to the species, including the barred owl. range. It is clear that ecosystem-level designation of critical habitat does not In addition, recovery actions include changes are occurring within the include all sites where northern spotted scientific evaluation of potential northern spotted owl’s forest habitat. owls are presently known to occur. The management options to reduce the The development of a critical habitat habitat modeling that we used, in part, impact of barred owls on northern network for the northern spotted owl to assist us in developing this revised spotted owls (USFWS 2011, Recovery must take into account current designation was based primarily on Action 29 [RA29], p. III–65), and uncertainties, such as those associated present habitat suitability. While we did implementation of management actions with barred owl impacts and climate also consider the present known determined to be effective (USFWS change predictions (USFWS 2011, p. locations of northern spotted owls in 2011, Recovery Action 30 [RA30], p. III– III–10). These uncertainties require that refining the identified habitat network, 65). we make some assumptions about likely not all such sites were included in the When developing a critical habitat future conditions in developing, revised designation if those areas did rule, the Service must use the best modeling, and evaluating potential not make a significant contribution to scientific information available to critical habitat for the northern spotted population viability (for example, if identify critical habitat as defined in owl; those assumptions are identified known sites were too small or isolated section (3)(5)(A) of the Act, which are (i) clearly in this rule (see Criteria Used to to play a meaningful role in the the specific areas within the Identify Critical Habitat, below) and in conservation of the species; see Criteria geographical area occupied by the our supporting documentation (Dunk et Used to Identify Critical Habitat). This species at the time it was listed that al. 2012b, entire). is in accordance with section 3(5)(C) of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71880 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

the Act, which specifies that ‘‘critical Ricklefs 1979, pp. 31–32, 869). These listed and sensitive species with very habitat shall not include the entire ecosystem interactions and functions specific biological needs. In areas where geographical area which can be are often referred to as ecological prescribed management is needed to occupied by the threatened or relationships or processes. Thus, to maintain ecosystem function, such endangered species.’’ conserve the northern spotted owl as management is often expensive, Because of the uncertainties directed by the Act, one must also logistically difficult, and contentious associated with the effects of barred owl conserve the ecological processes that (Thompson et al. 2009, p. 29). Many interactions with the northern spotted occur within the ecological landscape scientists believe a single-species owl and habitat changes that may occur inhabited by the species. These approach to forest management is as a result of climate change, active processes—such as vegetation limited and that land managers need to adaptive forest management strategies succession, forest fire regimes, and focus on broader landscape goals that will be needed to achieve results in nutrient cycling—create and shape the address ecosystem process and future certain landscapes. Active adaptive physical or biological features that form habitat conditions (see, e.g., Thomas et forest management is a systematic the foundation of critical habitat. The al. 2006, p. 286; Boyd et al. 2008, p. 42; approach for improving resource northern spotted owl was initially listed Hobbs et al. 2010, p. 487; Mori 2011, pp. management by learning from the as a threatened species largely due to 289–290). The Revised Recovery Plan results of explicit management policies the loss or degradation of the late- (USFWS 2011) encourages the and practices and applying that learning successional forest ecosystems upon application of ecosystem management to future management decisions which it depends. A complex principles to ensure the long-term (USFWS 2011, p. G–1). This critical interaction of physical or biological conservation of the northern spotted habitat rule identifies key sources of factors contribute to the development owl and its habitat, as well as other uncertainty, and the need to learn from and maintenance of these ecosystems, species dependent on these shared our management of forests that provide which in turn provide the northern ecosystems. habitat for northern spotted owls. We spotted owl with the environmental We reference here the have designated a critical habitat conditions required for its conservation recommendations for habitat network that was developed based on and survival, such as large areas of management as made in the Revised what we determined to be the areas suitable habitat, nest structures, and Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted containing the physical and biological sufficient prey to sustain interconnected Owl (USFWS 2011). This discussion is features essential for the conservation of populations of owls across the provided primarily for consideration by the northern spotted owl or are landscape. A fundamental goal of Federal, State, local, and private land otherwise essential to owl conservation, critical habitat management should thus managers, as they make decisions on the after taking into consideration be to understand, describe, and management of forest land under their information on essential habitats, the conserve these processes, which in turn jurisdictions and through their normal current distribution of those habitats, will maintain the physical or biological processes. This critical habitat rule does and the best available scientific features essential to the conservation of not take any action or adopt any policy, knowledge about northern spotted owl the species. This ‘‘ecosystem approach’’ plan or program in relation to active population dynamics, while will ultimately have the highest forest management. acknowledging uncertainty about future likelihood of conserving listed species Critical Habitat and the Northwest conditions in Pacific Northwest forests. such as the northern spotted owl in the Forest Plan An Ecosystem-Based Approach to the long term (Knight 1998, p. 43). The U.S. Forest Service, which It is important to understand the Conservation of the Northern Spotted manages the great majority of areas relationship between northern spotted Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat being designated as revised northern owl critical habitat and the Northwest Section 2 of the Act states, ‘‘The spotted owl critical habitat, has Forest Plan (NWFP). In brief, the purposes of this Act are to provide a prioritized restoring and maintaining designation of areas as critical habitat means whereby the ecosystems upon natural ecological function and does not change land use allocations or which endangered species and resiliency to its forest lands (Blate et al. Standards and Guidelines for threatened species depend may be 2009, entire; USDA 2010, entire; management under the NWFP. Critical conserved.’’ Although the conservation Tidwell 2011, entire). Active adaptive habitat for the northern spotted owl was of the listed species is the specific forest management within critical first designated in 1992 (January 15, objective of a critical habitat habitat, as discussed herein for the 1992; 57 FR 1796). Since 1994, the designation, the essential physical or consideration of land managers, may be NWFP has also served as an important biological features that serve as the basis fully compatible and consistent with landscape-level plan that has of critical habitat are often essential these landscape-level ecosystems. Most contributed to the conservation of the components of the ecosystem upon importantly, this approach is northern spotted owl and late- which the species depends. In such compatible with the ecosystem-based successional forest habitat on Federal cases, a fundamental goal of critical approach of the Northwest Forest Plan. lands across the range of the species habitat management is not only to Revised critical habitat for the (Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 278–284). The conserve the listed species, but also to northern spotted owl includes a diverse NWFP introduced a system of reserves conserve the ecosystem upon which that forest landscape that covers millions of where conservation of late-successional species depends. This is the case with acres and contains several different forest, riparian habitats, northern the northern spotted owl. forest ecosystems and thousands of spotted owls, and other species An ecosystem is defined as a plant and animal species. It ranges from dependent on older forest would be the biological community of interacting moist old-growth conifer forest in the priority, and matrix areas where timber organisms and their physical western portion, to a mix of conifers and harvest would be the goal. The environment, or as the complex of a hardwood trees in the Klamath region, Standards and Guidelines for the NWFP community of organisms and its to dry, fire-prone forests in the eastern (USDA and USDI 1994) prescribe an environment functioning as an Cascades. Thousands of species occur in ecosystem-based approach to ecological unit (Krebs 1972, pp. 10–11; these forest ecosystems, including other management for the Federal action

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71881

agencies that manage these lands, and 2010, p. 2117; Hagar 2007, p. 109; Forest Management Activities in provide guidance for activities Swanson et al. 2011, p. 124) (‘‘seral’’ Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat conducted on different land use refers to developmental or successional As stated above, many areas of critical allocations. All Bureau of Land stages of the forest community that habitat do not require active Management and U.S. Forest Service influences species composition, i.e., management, and active forest lands identified as northern spotted owl early, mid, late seral stages). management within such areas could critical habitat in this rule fall under the Thomas et al. (2006, pp. 284–287) negatively impact northern spotted NWFP, and should be managed provided three recommendations to owls. We are not encouraging land consistent with its standards. Here we managers to consider active briefly provide a summary of how our improve the NWFP. These recommendations are highly relevant to management in areas of high-quality designation of critical habitat has been owl habitat or occupied owl sites; informed by and relates to forest northern spotted owl critical habitat conservation and management: rather, we encourage management management under the NWFP. actions that will maintain and restore In developing this critical habitat 1. Conserve old-growth trees and ecological function where appropriate. designation, the Service recognizes the forests on Federal lands wherever they In some areas, forest stands are not on importance of the NWFP as the are found (emphasis added), and a trajectory to develop into high-value overarching land management strategy undertake appropriate restoration habitat, ecological processes have been for conservation of the northern spotted treatment in the threatened forest types. disrupted by human actions, or owl and other native species associated projected climate change is expected to with old-growth and late-successional 2. Manage NWFP forests as dynamic further disrupt or degrade desired forest forest. The system of reserves within the ecosystems that conserve all stages of conditions. In these areas, land NWFP is essential for the conservation forest development (e.g., encompassing managers may choose to implement and development of large areas of late- the range of conditions between early- successional forest across the landscape; seral and old-growth), and where active management, as recommended in however, because the NWFP was tradeoffs between short-term and long- the Revised Recovery Plan for the designed to benefit multiple species not term risks are better balanced. Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011), every acre of the late-successional to improve ecological health and 3. Recognize the NWFP as an development of forest conditions more reserves (LSRs) provide high-quality integrated conservation strategy that habitat for northern spotted owls. In favorable to northern spotted owls and contributes to all components of other biodiversity. For example, LSRs addition, barred owls have become sustainability across Federal lands. increasingly abundant in the Pacific are to be managed to protect and Northwest and likely have a large effect It is our hope that management of enhance old-growth forest conditions on the continued decline of northern critical habitat for the northern spotted (defined in the Revised Recovery Plan spotted owl populations. With barred owl will be compatible with these as forests that have accumulated owls now sharing the range of the broader landscape management goals specific characteristics related to tree northern spotted owl, conservation of articulated by Thomas et al. (2006, pp. size, canopy structure, snags, and northern spotted owls outside NWFP 284–287). Furthermore, the Standards woody debris and plant associations). reserved areas is increasingly important and Guidelines for the NWFP encourage According to the NWFP Standards and for species recovery. an ecosystem-based approach to land Guidelines (USDA and USDI 1994), no In our designation of critical habitat management (e.g., USDA and USDI programmed timber harvest is allowed on Federal lands, we identified lands 1994, p. A–1, Standards and Guidelines, inside the reserves. However, thinning that contain the features essential to the pp. C–12, C–13). As discussed in the or other silvicultural treatments inside conservation of the species including Revised Recovery Plan, recovery of the these reserves may occur in younger lands both within NWFP reserves and northern spotted owl will likely require stands if the treatments are beneficial to matrix that function as highly valuable that an ecosystem management the creation and maintenance of late- northern spotted owl habitat. As noted approach that includes both passive and successional forest conditions. On the east of the Cascades and in Oregon and above, designation as critical habitat active management, to meet a variety of California Klamath Provinces, does not change these land use conservation goals that support long- additional management activities may allocations or Standards and Guidelines term northern spotted owl conservation, be considered both within and outside for management under the NWFP, and be implemented. We fully support the we fully recognize the ecological reserves to reduce risks of large-scale land use allocation goals and the functions and land management goals of disturbance (NWFP Standards and Standards and Guidelines for the different land use allocations as Guidelines, p. C–12—C–13). outlined under the NWFP. While the management under the NWFP (USDA We also recognize that ecological NWFP has been successful in and USDI 1994) as informed by the restoration is not the management goal conserving large blocks of late- recommendations of the Revised on all NWFP land use allocations (e.g., successional forest (Thomas et al. 2006, Recovery Plan. Some general matrix) within designated critical p. 283, Davis et al. 2011, p. 38), considerations for managing the threats habitat, and we provide a discussion of concerns have been expressed that it to the essential physical or biological options land managers could consider to provides less than the anticipated level features for the northern spotted owl are tailor traditional forest management of commercial timber harvest on matrix discussed in the Special Management activities on these lands to consistent lands, does not promote active Considerations or Protections and with conservation of current and future restoration in areas that may contain Determinations of Adverse Effects and northern spotted owl habitat (see, e.g., uncharacteristically high risk of severe Application of the ‘‘Adverse Gustafsson et al. 2012, entire; Franklin fire (Spies et al. 2006, pg. 359; Thomas Modification’’ Standard sections of this et al. 2007, entire; Kuuluvainen and et al. 2006, p. 277), and does not document, below, as well as in the Grenfell 2012, entire; North and Keeton promote development of complex early- Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern 2008; Long 2009, entire; Lindenmayer et seral forest in areas where regeneration Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, pp. III–11 to al. 2012; entire). Our discussion of harvest has been conducted (Betts et al. III–39). potential management considerations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71882 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

for the northern spotted owl are adaptive forest management approach, the management of forest land under intended to be fully compatible with the should agencies choose to implement their jurisdictions and through their objectives and Standards and ecological forestry practices, as we normal processes. Guidelines of the NWFP as informed by continue to learn from continuing Research and Adaptive Management the conservation guidelines presented in research on these methods (see Research the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the and Adaptive Management, below). The Service supports the goals of Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) to Some general considerations for maintaining and restoring ecological provide a means whereby the managing for the conservation of function and development of future ecosystems on which northern spotted essential physical or biological features northern spotted owl habitat. We owls depend will be conserved. within northern spotted owl critical encourage land managers to consider a Mimicking natural disturbance habitat are discussed in more detail in stronger focus on ecological forestry in regimes, such as fire, is an important the Special Management Considerations areas where commercial harvest and strategy in North American forest or Protections and Determinations of restoration are planned. We recognize management (Seymour and Hunter Adverse Effects and Application of the the need to balance both the 1999, p. 56; Long 2009, p. 1868; ‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard conservation of current owl sites and Gustafsson et al. 2012, p. 635; sections of this document, below. In the development of future owl habitat. Kuuluvainen and Grenfell 2012, entire). sum, vegetation and fuels management However, a better understanding of how This change is occurring in response to: in dry and mixed-dry forests may be ecological forestry approaches affect (1) The simplification of forests in terms appropriate both within and outside owls and their prey is needed. Studies of structure, age-class diversity, and designated critical habitat where the have shown negative effects of species composition as a result of goal of such treatment is to conserve commercial thinning and other management for timber production, and natural ecological processes or restore conventional forestry practices on both (2) a recognition of fundamental them (including fire) where they have northern spotted owls (Forsman et al. changes in ecosystem function and been modified or suppressed (Allen et 1984, pp. 16–17; Meiman et al. 2003, p. processes due to land management al. 2002, pp. 1429–1430; Spies et al. 1261) and their prey (Waters et al. 1994, practices, especially fire and 2006, pp. 358–361; Fielder et al. 2007, p. 1516; Luoma et al. 2003, pp. 343–373; successional patterns (Franklin et al. entire; Prather et al. 2008, entire; Wilson 2010, entire).This need was 2002, pp. 402–408; Hessburg et al. 2005, Lindenmayer et al. 2009, p. 274; recognized in Recovery Action 11 of the pp. 134–135; Drever et al. 2006, p. Tidwell 2011, entire; Stephens et al. Revised Recovery Plan, which states 2291). Although human disturbance is 2009, pp. 316–318; Stephens et al. ‘‘When vegetation management unlikely to precisely mimic natural 2012a, p. 13; Stephens et al. 2012b, pp. treatments are proposed to restore or forest disturbance, it can be used to 557–558; Franklin et al. 2008, p. 46; enhance habitat for northern spotted better maintain the resilience of Miller et al. 2009, pp. 28–30; Fule et al. owls (e.g., thinnings, restoration landscapes and wildlife populations to 2012, pp. 75–76). These types of projects, prescribed fire, etc.), consider respond to natural disturbance and management are encouraged in the designing and conducting experiments climate change (Lindenmayer et al. NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, p. C–13). to better understand how these different 2008, p. 87). In general, prescriptions Likewise, in some moist and mixed actions influence the development of (e.g., vegetation management, prescribed forests, management of northern spotted northern spotted owl habitat, northern fire, etc.) that apply ecological forestry owl critical habitat should be spotted owl prey abundance and principles to address the restoration and compatible with broader ecological distribution, and northern spotted owl conservation of broader ecological goals, such as the retention of high- demographic performance at local and processes in areas where this is needed, quality older forest, the continued regional scales.’’ Furthermore, the while minimizing impacts to treatment of young or homogenous recovery strategy outlined in the structurally diverse or mature and old forest plantations to enhance structural Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011) forest that does not require such diversity, heterogeneity and late- identifies monitoring and research, as management can be compatible with successional forest conditions, and the well as active adaptive forest maintaining the critical habitat’s conservation or restoration of complex management, as important steps in essential features in the long term at the early-seral forest habitat, where achieving recovery goals. landscape scale (USFWS 2011, p. III– appropriate (Spies et al. 2007b, pp. 57– Given these concerns, and recognizing 14). The Service has recently consulted 63; Betts et al. 2010, pp. 2117, 2126– that appropriate management actions on these types of management actions in 2127; Swanson et al. 2011, entire). will vary depending upon site-specific occupied northern spotted owl habitat In general, actions that promote conditions, we provide the following on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ecological restoration and those that suggestions regarding active forest and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands. apply ecological forestry principles at management for consideration by land Specifically prescribing such appropriate scales as described above managers within critical habitat as management is beyond the scope or and in the Revised Recovery Plan for the consistent with the recommendations of purpose of this document, and should Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, the Revised Recovery Plan for the instead be developed by the appropriate pp. III–11 to III–41) may be, in the right Northern Spotted Owl: land management agency at the circumstances, consistent with the 1. Focus active management in appropriate land management scale conservation of the northern spotted younger forest, lower quality owl (e.g., National Forest or Bureau of Land owl and the management of its critical habitat, or where ecological conditions Management District) (USDA 2010, habitat. However, we emphasize that are most departed from the natural or entire; Fontaine and Kennedy 2012, p. this rule does not take any action or desired range of variability. 1559; Gustafsson et al. 2012, pp. 639– adopt any policy, plan or program in 2. In moist forests on Federal lands, 641, Davis et al. 2012, entire) through relation to active forest management. follow NWFP guidelines as informed by the land managing agencies’ planning The discussion is provided only for the Revised Recovery Plan and focus on processes and with technical assistance consideration by Federal, State, local areas outside of LSRs (i.e., matrix). In from the Service, as appropriate. and private land managers, as well as dry forests, follow NWFP guidelines and Furthermore, we encourage an active the public, as they make decisions on focus on lands in or outside of reserves

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71883

that are most ‘‘at-risk’’ of experiencing (a) What vegetation management species under the Act throughout its uncharacteristic disturbance and where treatments best accelerate the range (55 FR 26114; June 26, 1990). the landscape management goal is to development of forest structure Within the United States, the northern restore more natural or resilient forest associated with northern spotted owl spotted owl ranges across 12 ecological ecosystems (see, e.g., Davis et al. 2012, habitat functions while maintaining or regions, based on recognized landscape entire; Franklin et al. 2008, p. 46). restoring natural disturbance and subdivisions exhibiting different 3. Avoid or minimize activities in provide greater ecosystem resiliency? physical and environmental features, active northern spotted owl territories (b) What are the effects of wildland often referred to as ‘‘physiographic (or the high-quality habitat within these and prescribed fire on the structural provinces’’ (Franklin and Dyrness 1988, territories). elements of northern spotted owl pp. 5–26; Thomas et al. 1990, p. 61; 4. Ensure transparency of process so habitat? USDA and USDI 1994, p. A–3). These the public can see what is being done, (c) Can strategically-placed restoration include the Olympic Peninsula, Western where it is done, what the goal of the treatments be used to reduce the risk of Washington Lowlands, Western action is, and how well the action leads northern spotted owl habitat being Washington Cascades, Eastern to the desired goal. burned by high severity fire within dry Washington Cascades, Oregon Coast 5. Practice active adaptive forest forest ecosystems? management by incorporating new Ranges, Western Oregon Cascades, (d) What are the effects of epidemic Willamette Valley, Eastern Oregon information and learning into future forest insect outbreaks on northern actions to make them more effective, Cascades, Oregon Klamath, California spotted owl occupancy and habitat use Klamath, California Coast Ranges, and focusing on how these actions affect immediately following the event and at northern spotted owls and their prey. California Cascades Provinces (based on specified time periods after treatment? USDA and USDI 1994, p. A–3). Very Towards this objective of learning Sound scientific information few northern spotted owls are found in critical new scientific insights from represents a vital component of our path British Columbia, in the Western research and adaptive management, we to recovery for the northern spotted owl Washington Lowlands or Willamette especially encourage research and active (and almost all threatened or Valley; therefore, the subspecies is adaptive forest management on the endangered species). We believe it restricted primarily to 10 of the 12 seven Forest Service Experimental would be counterproductive to inhibit Forests (H.J. Andrews Experimental or curtail research that is designed to provinces within its range. Forest, Pringle Falls Experimental benefit the northern spotted owl and the For the purposes of developing this Forest, South Umpqua Experimental ecosystem in which it is found, and rule, and based on Appendix C of the Forest, and Cascades Head Experimental therefore support research activities Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Forest in Oregon; Wind River within experimental forests. Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, pp. C–7 to Experimental Forest and Entiat C–13), we have divided the range of the Experimental Forest in Washington; and The Biology and Ecology of the Northern northern spotted owl into 11 different Yurok Redwood Experimental Forest in Spotted Owl regions. We used these 11 regions in the California) within designated northern Physical Description and Taxonomy habitat modeling that informed this spotted owl critical habitat. We revised designation of critical habitat. acknowledge the specific value and The northern spotted owl is a medium-sized owl and the largest of the The regions used here are more ‘‘owl contributions of research done within specific’’ than the physiographic experimental forests in furtherance of three subspecies of northern spotted owls currently recognized by the provinces used in the past. In addition the research and active adaptive forest to regional patterns of climate, management objectives in the Revised American Ornithologists’ Union (Gutie´rrez et al. 1995, p. 2). It is dark topography, and forest communities, Recovery Plan. These Experimental which the physiographic provinces also Forests have four principal scientific brown with a barred tail and white spots on the head and breast, and has dark considered, the 11 regions are based on advantages that support the specific specific patterns of northern spotted owl kinds of research needed to better brown eyes that are surrounded by prominent facial disks. The taxonomic habitat relationships and prey base understand how management affects relationships across the range of the and potentially enhances northern separation of these three subspecies is supported by numerous factors species. The 11 regions include the spotted owl habitat: North Coast Olympics; West Cascades (1) These sites are intended for and (reviewed in Courtney et al. 2004, pp. North; West Cascades Central; West enabled to conduct manipulative 3–3 to 3–31), including genetic Cascades South; East Cascades North; research to test forest management (Barrowclough and Gutie´rrez 1990, p. East Cascades South; Oregon Coast; strategies in a rigorous scientific 739; Barrowclough et al. 1999, p. 922; Klamath West; Klamath East; Redwood manner; Haig et al. 2004, p. 1353; Barrowclough (2) They have long-term baseline et al. 2005, p. 1113), morphological Coast; and Inner California Coast datasets that enable detailed climate/ (Gutie´rrez et al. 1995, pp. 2 to 3), Ranges. We additionally grouped these environmental change assessments; behavioral (Van Gelder 2003, p. 30), and 11 regions into 4 broad ecological zones (3) The sites represent a diversity of biogeographical characteristics (West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon forest types within the range of northern (Barrowclough et al. 1999, p. 928). and Washington; East Cascades; Redwood; and Klamath and Northern spotted owl; and Distribution and Habitat (4) Experimental forests have been the California Interior Coast Ranges). A map subject of intensive, long-term study The current range of the northern of the 11 regions used for the purposes that can serve as a backdrop for new spotted owl extends from southwest of habitat modeling, as well as the 4 research. British Columbia through the Cascade ecological zones, is provided in Figure Essential research and active adaptive Mountains, coastal ranges, and 1 of this document. We used these 11 forest management questions, detailed intervening forested lands in regions as the organizing units for our in the Revised Recovery Plan, that could Washington, Oregon, and California, as designation of critical habitat, and the 4 be conducted on Experimental Forests far south as Marin County, California. ecological zones for the identification of include (but are not limited to): The subspecies is listed as a threatened region-specific primary constituent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71884 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

elements (PCEs) for the northern spotted 1992). In this rule, we consider canopy prey base, as described below. Nesting owl. cover as a vertical measurement of the and roosting habitat always provides for Northern spotted owls generally rely amount of canopy that would cover the foraging, but in some cases owls also on older forested habitats because such ground. use more open and fragmented forests, forests contain the structures and The three essential functions served especially in the southern portion of the characteristics required for nesting, by habitat within the home range of a range where some younger stands may roosting, and foraging, and dispersal. northern spotted owl are: have high prey abundance and Forest characteristics associated with (1) Nesting. Nesting habitat is structural attributes similar to those of northern spotted owls usually develop essential to provide structural features older forests, such as moderate tree with increasing forest age, but their for nesting, protection from adverse density, subcanopy perches at multiple occurrence may vary by location, past weather conditions, and cover to reduce levels, multilayered vegetation, or forest practices, and stand type, history, predation risks. Habitat requirements for residual older trees. Foraging habitat and condition. Although northern nesting and roosting are nearly generally has attributes similar to those spotted owl habitat is variable over its identical. However, nesting habitat is of nesting and roosting habitat, but range, some general attributes are specifically associated with a high foraging habitat may not always support common to the owl’s life-history incidence of large trees with various successfully nesting pairs (USDI 1992, requirements throughout its range. To deformities (large cavities, broken tops, pp. 22–25). Foraging habitat can also support northern spotted owl mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) function as dispersal habitat. The reproduction, a home range requires infections, and other evidence of primary function of foraging habitat is to appropriate amounts of nesting, decadence) or large snags suitable for provide a food supply for survival and roosting, and foraging habitat arrayed so nest placement. Additional features that reproduction. that nesting pairs can survive, obtain support nesting and roosting typically Because northern spotted owls show resources, and breed successfully. In include a moderate to high canopy a clear geographical pattern in diet, and northern parts of the range where cover; a multilayered, multispecies different prey species prefer different nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat canopy with large overstory trees; large habitat types, prey distribution have similar attributes, nesting is accumulations of fallen trees and other contributes to differences in northern generally associated with late-seral or woody debris on the ground; and spotted owl foraging habitat selection old-growth forest in the core area sufficient open space below the canopy across the range. In the northern portion (Swindle et al. 1999, p. 1216). In some for northern spotted owls to fly (Thomas of their range, northern spotted owls southern portions of the range, northern et al. 1990, p. 164). Forested stands with forage heavily in older forests or forests spotted owl survival is positively high canopy cover also provide thermal with similar complex structure that associated with the area of old forest cover (Weathers et al. 2001, p. 686) and support northern flying squirrels habitat in the core, but reproductive protection from predators. Patches of (Glaucomys sabrinus) (Carey et al. 1992, output is positively associated with nesting habitat, in combination with p. 233; Rosenberg and Anthony 1992, p. amount of edge between older forest and roosting habitat, must be sufficiently 165). In the southern portion of their other habitat types in the home range large and contiguous to maintain range, where woodrats are a major (Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 573, 579). This northern spotted owl core areas and component of their diet, northern pattern suggests that where dusky- home ranges, and must be proximate to spotted owls are more likely to use a footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) are foraging habitat. Ideally, nesting habitat variety of stands, including younger the primary prey species, core areas that also functions as roosting, foraging, and stands, brushy openings in older stands, have nesting habitat stands interspersed dispersal habitat. and edges between forest types in with varied types of foraging habitat (2) Roosting. Roosting habitat is response to higher prey density in some may be optimal for northern spotted owl essential to provide for of these areas (Solis 1983, pp. 89–90; survival and reproduction. Both the thermoregulation, shelter, and cover to Sakai and Noon 1993, pp. 376–378; amount and spatial distribution of reduce predation risk while resting or Sakai and Noon 1997, p. 347; Carey et nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal foraging. As noted above, the same al. 1999, p. 73; Franklin et al. 2000, p. habitat influence reproductive success habitat generally serves for both nesting 579). Both the amount and distribution and long-term population viability of and roosting functions; technically of foraging habitat within the home northern spotted owls. ‘‘roosting habitat’’ differs from nesting range influence the survival and Population growth can occur only if habitat only in that it need not contain reproduction of northern spotted owls. there is adequate habitat in an those specific structural features used appropriate configuration to allow for for nesting (cavities, broken tops, and Dispersal Habitat and Habitat for the dispersal of owls across the mistletoe platforms), but does contain Nonresident Owls landscape. This includes support of moderate to high canopy cover; a Successful dispersal of northern dispersing juveniles, as well as multilayered, multispecies canopy; large spotted owls is essential to maintaining nonresident subadults and adults that accumulations of fallen trees and other genetic and demographic connections have not yet recruited into the breeding woody debris on the ground; and open among populations across the range of population. The survivorship of space below the canopy for northern the species. Habitats that support northern spotted owls is likely greatest spotted owls to fly. In practice, movements between larger habitat when dispersal habitat most closely however, roosting habitat is not patches that provide nesting, roosting, resembles nesting, roosting, and segregated from nesting habitat. Nesting and foraging habitats for northern foraging habitat, but owls may use other and roosting habitat will also function spotted owls act to limit the adverse types of habitat for dispersal on a short- as foraging and dispersal habitat. genetic effects of inbreeding and genetic term basis. Dispersal habitat, at a (3) Foraging. Foraging habitat is drift and provide demographic support minimum, consists of stands with essential to provide a food supply for to declining populations (Thomas et al. adequate tree size and canopy cover to survival and reproduction. Foraging 1990, pp. 271–272). Dispersing juvenile provide protection from avian predators habitat is the most variable of all northern spotted owls experience high and at least minimal foraging habitats used by territorial northern mortality rates (more than 70 percent in opportunities (57 FR 1805, January 15, spotted owls, and is closely tied to the some studies (Miller 1989, pp. 32–41;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71885

Franklin et al. 1999, pp. 25, 28; 55 FR short-term dispersal habitats must, at barred owl has expanded in recent years 26115; June 26, 1990)) from starvation, minimum, consist of stands with and now completely overlaps that of the predation, and accidents (Miller 1989, adequate tree size and canopy cover to northern spotted owl (Crozier et al. pp. 41–44; Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 18– provide protection from avian predators 2006, p. 761). The presence of barred 19). Juvenile dispersal is thus a highly and at least minimal foraging owls has significant negative effects on vulnerable life stage for northern opportunities. northern spotted owl reproduction spotted owls, and enhancing the Population Status and Trends (Olson et al. 2004, p. 1048), survival survivorship of juveniles during this (Anthony et al. 2006, p. 32), and period could play an important role in Demographic data from studies number of territories occupied (Kelly et maintaining stable populations of initiated as early as 1985 have been al. 2003, p. 51; Olson et al. 2005, p. northern spotted owls. analyzed every 5 years to estimate 928). The determination of population Successful juvenile dispersal may northern spotted owl demographic rates trends for the northern spotted owl has depend on locating unoccupied suitable and population trends (Anderson and become complicated by the finding that habitat in close proximity to other Burnham 1992, entire; Burnham et al. northern spotted owls are less likely to occupied sites (LaHaye et al. 2001, pp. 1994, entire; Franklin et al. 1999, entire; call when barred owls are also present; 697–698). Dispersing juveniles are likely Anthony et al. 2006, entire; Forsman et therefore, they are more likely to be attracted to conspecific calls, and may al. 2011, entire). The most current undetected by standard survey methods look for suitable sites preferentially in evaluation of population status and (Olson et al. 2005, pp. 919–929; Crozier the vicinity of occupied territories. trends is based on data through 2008 et al. 2006, pp. 766–767). As a result, it When all suitable territories are (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 1). Based on this is difficult to determine whether occupied, dispersers may temporarily analysis, populations on 7 of 11 study northern spotted owls no longer occupy pursue a nonresident (nonbreeding) areas (Cle Elum, Rainier, Olympic a site, or whether they may still be strategy; such individuals are sometimes Peninsula, Oregon Coast Ranges, H.J. present but are not detected. The 2011 referred to as ‘‘floaters’’ (Forsman et al. Andrews, Northwest California, and Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern 2002, pp. 15, 26). Floaters prospect for Green Diamond) were declining Spotted Owl concludes that ‘‘barred territorial vacancies created when (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64, Table 22). owls are contributing to the population Estimates of realized population residents die or leave their territories. decline of northern spotted owls, change (cumulative population change Floaters contribute to stable or especially in Washington, portions of across all study years) indicated that, in increasing populations of northern Oregon, and the northern coast of the more rapidly declining populations spotted owls by quickly filling territorial California.’’ (USFWS 2011, p. B–12). vacancies. Where large blocks of habitat (Cle Elum, Rainier, and Olympic with multiple breeding pairs occur, the Peninsula), the 2006 populations were British Columbia has a small opportunities for successful recruitment 40 to 60 percent of the population sizes population of northern spotted owls. of dispersers and floaters are enhanced observed in 1994 or 1995 (Forsman et al. This population has declined at least 49 due to the within-block production of 2011, pp. 47–49). Populations at the percent since 1992 (Courtney et al. potential replacement birds (Thomas et remaining areas (Tyee, Klamath, 2004, p. 8–14), and by as much as 90 al. 1990, pp. 295, 307). Southern Oregon Cascades, and Hoopa) percent since European settlement Juvenile dispersal occurs in steps showed declining population growth (Chutter et al. 2004, p. 6) to a 2004 (Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 13–14), rates as well, although the estimated breeding population estimated at about between which dispersing juveniles rates were not significantly different 23 birds (Sierra Legal Defence [sic] Fund settle into temporary home ranges for up from stable populations (Forsman et al. and Western Canada Wilderness to several months (Forsman et al. 2002, 2011, p 64). A meta-analysis combining Committee 2005, p. 16) on 15 sites p. 13). Natal dispersal distances, data from all 11 study areas indicates (Chutter et al. 2004, p. 26). Chutter et al. measured from natal areas to eventual that rangewide the population declined (2004, p. 30) suggested immediate home range, tend to be larger for females at a rate of about 2.9 percent per year action was required to improve the (about 15 mi (24 km)) than males (about for the period from 1985 to 2006. likelihood of recovering the northern 8.5 mi (13.7 km)) (Courtney et al. 2004, Northern spotted owl populations on spotted owl population in British p. 8–5). Forsman et al. (2002, pp. 15–16) Federal lands had better demographic Columbia. In 2007, the Northern reported dispersal distances of 1,475 rates than elsewhere, but still declined Spotted Owl Population Enhancement northern spotted owls in Oregon and at a mean annual rate of about 2.8 Team recommended to remove northern Washington for the period from 1985 to percent per year for 1985–2006 spotted owls from the wild in British 1996. Median maximum dispersal (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 67). Columbia. Personnel in British distance (the straight-line distance In addition to declines in population Columbia captured and brought into between the natal site and the farthest growth rates, declines in annual captivity the remaining 16 known wild location) for radio-marked juvenile male survival were reported for 10 of the 11 northern spotted owls. Prior to initiating northern spotted owls was 12.7 mi (20.3 study areas (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64, the captive-breeding program, the km), and that of female northern spotted Table 22). Number of young produced population of northern spotted owls in owls was 17.2 mi (27.5 km) (Forsman et each year showed declines at 5 areas Canada was declining by as much as 35 al. 2002, Table 2). (Cle Elum, Klamath, Southern Oregon percent per year (Chutter et al. 2004, p. Northern spotted owls can utilize Cascades, Northwest California, and 6). The amount of previous interaction forests with the characteristics needed Green Diamond), was relatively stable at between northern spotted owls in for nesting, roosting, foraging, and 3 areas (Olympic Peninsula, Tyee, Canada and the United States is dispersal, and likely experience greater Hoopa), and was increasing at 2 areas unknown (Chutter et al. 2004, p. 24). survivorship under such conditions. (Oregon Coast Ranges, H. J. Andrews) Although the status of the northern However, dispersing or nonresident (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64 Table 22). spotted owl in Canada is informative in individuals may also make use of other As noted above, the barred owl has terms of the overall declining trend of forested areas that do not meet the emerged as a greater threat to the the northern spotted owl throughout its requirements of nesting or roosting northern spotted owl than was range, and consequently the increased habitat on a short-term basis. Such previously recognized. The range of the need for conservation in those areas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71886 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

where it persists, the Service does not woodrats (Neotoma cinerea), and boreal (Forsman et al. 2004, pp. 226–227), designate critical habitat in foreign red-backed voles (Clethrionomys whereas in Washington owls rely countries (50 CFR 424.12(h)). gapperi) (Forsman et al. 2001, p. 144). primarily on the bushy-tailed woodrat In Oregon and northern California, (Forsman et al. 2001, p. 144). Habitats Life History northern flying squirrels in combination that support bushy-tailed woodrats Northern spotted owls are a long-lived with dusky-footed woodrats, bushy- usually include early-seral mixed- species with relatively stable and high tailed woodrats, red tree voles conifer/mixed-evergreen forests close to rates of adult survival, lower rates of (Arborimus longicaudus), and deer mice water (Carey et al. 1999, p. 77). Bushy- juvenile survival, and highly variable (Peromyscus maniculatus) comprise the tailed woodrats reach high densities in reproduction. Franklin et al. (2000, p. majority of diets (Courtney et al. 2004, both old forests with openings and 576) suggested that northern spotted pp. 41–31 to 4–32; Forsman et al. 2004, closed-canopy young forests (Sakai and owls follow a ‘‘bet-hedging’’ life-history p. 221). Northern spotted owls are also Noon 1993, pp. 376–378; Carey et al. strategy, where natural selection favors known to prey on insects, other 1999, p. 73), and use hardwood stands individuals that reproduce only during terrestrial mammals, birds, and in mixed-evergreen forests (Carey et al. favorable conditions. For such species, juveniles of larger mammals (e.g., 1999, p. 73). Bushy-tailed woodrats are population growth rate is more mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) important prey species south of the susceptible to changes in adult survival (Forsman et al. 2001, p. 146; 2004, p. Columbia River and may be more than to recruitment of new individuals 223). limited by abiotic features, such as the into the population. For northern Northern flying squirrels are availability of suitable rocky areas for spotted owls, recent demographic positively associated with late- den sites (Smith 1997, p. 4) or the analyses have indicated declining successional forests with high densities presence of streams (Carey et al. 1992, trends in both adult survival and of large trees and snags (Holloway and p. 234; 1999, p. 72). Dense woodrat recruitment across much of the species Smith 2011, p. 671). Northern flying populations in shrubby areas are likely range (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64, Table squirrels typically use cavities in large a source of colonists to surrounding 22). snags as den and natal sites, but may forested areas (Sakai and Noon 1997, p. Northern spotted owls are highly also use cavities in live trees, hollow 347); therefore, forested areas with territorial (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 2–7). branches of fallen trees, crevices in large nearby open, shrubby vegetation They maintain large home ranges; stumps, stick nests of other species, and generally support high numbers of however, they actively defend a smaller lichen and twig nests they construct woodrats. The main factors that may area, and overlap between the outer (Carey 1995, p. 658), as well as mistletoe limit woodrats are access to stable, portions of the home ranges of adjacent brooms when snags are not abundant brushy environments that provide food, pairs is common (Forsman et al. 1984, (Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, p. 593). Fungi cover from predation, materials for nest pp. 5, 17, 22–24; Solis and Gutie´rrez (mychorrhizal and epigeous types) are construction, dispersal ability, and 1990, p. 742; Forsman et al. 2005, p. prominent in their diet; however, seeds, appropriate climatic conditions (Carey 374). Pairs are nonmigratory and remain fruits, nuts, vegetation matter, insects, et al. 1999, p. 78), and arboreal and on their home range throughout the and lichens may also represent a terrestrial cover in the form of large year, although they often increase the significant proportion of their diet snags, mistletoe, and soft logs area used for foraging during fall and (summarized in Courtney et al. 2004, (Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, p. 376). winter (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 21; Sisco App. 4 p. 3–12). Northern flying squirrel 1990, p. 9), likely in response to densities tend to be higher in older Home Range and Habitat Use potential depletion of prey in the core forest stands with ericaceous shrubs Territorial northern spotted owls of their home range (Carey et al. 1992, (e.g., Pacific rhododendron remain resident on their home range p. 245; Carey 1995, p. 649; but see (Rhododendron macrophyllum)) and an throughout the year; therefore, these Rosenberg et al. 1994, entire). The abundance of large snags (Carey 1995, p. homes ranges must provide all the northern spotted owl shows strong year- 654), and higher tree canopy cover habitat components needed for the round fidelity to its territory, even when (Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, p. 591) likely survival and successful reproduction of not nesting (Solis 1983, pp. 23–28; because these forests produce a higher a pair of owls. Northern spotted owls Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 52–53) or after forage biomass. Wilson (2012, pp. i–ii) exhibit central-place foraging behavior natural disturbance alters habitat reported that dense mid-story canopy (Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, p. characteristics within the home range conditions can also be a limiting factor 1036), with much activity centered (Bond et al. 2002, pp. 1024–1026). A for flying squirrel abundance. Flying within a core area surrounding the nest discussion of northern spotted owl squirrel density tends to increase with tree during the breeding season. During home range size and use is included in stand age (Carey 1995, pp. 653–654; fall and winter as well as in the Primary Constituent Elements Carey 2000, p. 252), although managed nonbreeding years, owls often roost and section of this rule. and second-growth stands sometimes forage in areas of their home range more also show high densities of squirrels, distant from the core. In nearly all Prey especially when canopy cover is high studies of northern spotted owl habitat Northern spotted owl diets vary (e.g., Rosenberg and Anthony 1992, p. use, the amount of mature and old- across owl territories, years, seasons, 163; Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, pp. 589– growth forest was greater in core areas and geographical regions (Forsman et al. 591). The main factors that may limit and home ranges than at random sites 2001, pp. 146–148; 2004, pp. 217–220). northern flying squirrel densities are the on the landscape (Courtney et al. 2004, However, four to six species of availability of den structures and food, pp. 5–6, 5–13; also see USFWS 2011, nocturnal mammals typically dominate especially hypogeous (below ground) Appendix G for definitions of mature their diets (Forsman et al. 2004, p. 218), fungi or truffles (Gomez et al. 2005, pp. and old-growth forest), and forests were with northern flying squirrels being a 1677–1678), as well as protective cover less fragmented within northern spotted primary prey species in all areas. In from predators (Wilson 2010, p. 115). owl home ranges (Hunter et al. 1995, p. Washington, diets are dominated by For northern spotted owls in Oregon, 688). The amount of habitat at the core northern flying squirrels, snowshoe hare both dusky-footed and bushy-tailed area scale shows the strongest (Lepus americanus), bushy-tailed woodrats are important prey items relationships with home range

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71887

occupancy (Meyer et al. 1998, p. 34; 2005, p. 21; Forsman et al. 2005, p. 372), abundance resulting from climate Zabel et al. 2003, p. 1036), survival and data from studies are available to change may impact availability of (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 567; Dugger et describe areas used for these types of habitat across the historical range of the al. 2005, p. 873), and reproductive activities, so we retain it here to subspecies. The Revised Recovery Plan success (Ripple et al. 1997, pp. 155–156; structure our discussion of the physical for the Northern Spotted Owl provides Dugger et al. 2005, p. 871). A more or biological features of habitat essential a detailed discussion of the possible complete description of the home range to the conservation of the northern environmental impacts to the habitat of is presented in Population Spatial spotted owl. the northern spotted owl from the Requirements, below. Recent habitat modeling efforts have projected effects of climate change The size, configuration, and also accounted for differences in habitat (USFWS 2011, pp. III–5 to III–11). characteristics of vegetation patches associations across regions, which have Because both northern spotted owl within home ranges affect northern often been attributed to regional population dynamics and forest spotted owl survival and reproduction, differences in forest environments and conditions are likely to be influenced by a concept referred to as habitat fitness factors including available prey species large-scale changes in climate in the potential (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 542). (USFWS 2011, p. C–7). These recent future, we have attempted to account for Among studies that have estimated advances allowed for modeling of these influences in our designation of habitat fitness potential, the effects of northern spotted owl habitat by regions critical habitat by recognizing that forest forest fragmentation and heterogeneity to account for: (1) The degree of composition may change beyond the vary geographically. In the California similarity between nesting/roosting and range of historical variation, and that Klamath Province, locations for nesting foraging habitats based on prey climate changes may have unpredictable and roosting tend to be centered in availability; (2) latitudinal patterns of consequences for both Pacific Northwest larger patches of old forest, but edges topology and climate; (3) regional forests and northern spotted owls. This between forest types may provide patterns of topography, climate, and critical habitat designation recognizes increased prey abundance and forest communities; and (4) that forest management practices that availability (Franklin et al. 2000, p. geographical distribution of habitat promote ecosystem health under 579). In the central Oregon Coast Range, elements that influence the range of changing climate conditions will be northern spotted owls appear to benefit conditions occupied by northern important for northern spotted owl from a mixture of older forests with spotted owls (USFWS 2011, p. C–8). conservation. younger forest and nonforested areas in Detailed characterizations of each of III. Previous Federal Actions their home range (Olson et al. 2004, pp. these functional habitat types and their 1049–1050), a pattern similar to that relative distribution are described in The northern spotted owl was listed found in the California Klamath Physical or Biological Features, below. as a threatened species on June 26, 1990 Province. Courtney et al. (2004, p. 5–23) (55 FR 26114); a description of the Climate Change suggest that although in general large relevant previous Federal actions up to patches of older forest appear to be There is growing evidence that recent the time of listing can be found in that necessary to maintain stable climate change has impacted a wide final rule. On January 15, 1992, we populations of northern spotted owls, range of ecological systems (Stenseth et published a final rule designating home ranges composed predominantly al. 2002, entire; Walther et al. 2002, 6,887,000 ac (2,787,000 ha) of Federal of old forest may not be optimal for entire; Adahl et al. 2006, entire; Karl et lands in Washington, Oregon, and northern spotted owls in the California al. 2009, entire; Moritz et al. 2012, California as critical habitat for the Klamath Province and Oregon Coast entire; Westerling et al. 2011, p. S459; northern spotted owl (57 FR 1796). On Ranges Province. Marlon et al. 2012, p. E541). Climate January 13, 2003, we entered into a The northern spotted owl inhabits change, combined with effects from past settlement agreement with the American most of the major types of coniferous management practices, is exacerbating Forest Resources Council, Western forests across its geographical range, changes in forest ecosystem processes Council of Industrial Workers, Swanson including Sitka spruce (Picea and dynamics to a greater degree than Group Inc., and Rough & Ready Lumber sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga originally anticipated under the NWFP. Company, to conduct a 5-year status heterophylla), mixed conifer and mixed Environmental variation affects all review of the northern spotted owl and evergreen, grand fir (Abies grandis), wildlife populations; however, climate consider potential revisions to its Pacific silver fir (A. amabilis), Douglas- change presents new challenges as critical habitat (Western Council of fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), redwood systems may change beyond historical Industrial Workers (WCIW) v. Secretary (Sequoia sempervirens)/Douglas-fir (in ranges of variability. In some areas, of the Interior, Civ. No. 02–6100–AA (D. coastal California and southwestern changes in weather and climate may Or). On April 21, 2003, we published a Oregon), white fir (A. concolor), Shasta result in major shifts in vegetation notice initiating the 5-year review of the red fir (A. magnifica var. shastensis), communities that can persist in northern spotted owl (68 FR 19569), and and the moist end of the ponderosa pine particular regions. published a second information request (Pinus ponderosa) zone (Forsman et al. Climate change will present unique for the 5-year review on July 25, 2003 1984, pp. 15–16; Thomas et al. 1990, p. challenges to the future of northern (68 FR 44093). We completed the 5-year 145). Habitat for northern spotted owls spotted owl populations and their review on November 15, 2004, has traditionally been described as habitats. Northern spotted owl concluding that the northern spotted consisting of four functional types: distributions (Carroll 2010, entire) and owl should remain listed as a threatened Nesting, roosting, foraging, and population dynamics (Franklin et al. species under the Act (USFWS 2004, dispersal habitats. Recent studies 2000, entire; Glenn et al. 2010, entire; et entire). On November 24, 2010, we continue to support the practical value al. 2011a, entire; Glenn et al. 2011b, published in the Federal Register a of discussing northern spotted owl entire) may be directly influenced by notice initiating a new 5-year review for habitat usage by classifying it into these changes in temperature and the northern spotted owl (75 FR 71726); functional habitat types (Irwin et al. precipitation. In addition, changes in the information solicitation period for 2000, p. 183; Zabel et al. 2003, p. 1028; forest composition and structure as well this review was reopened from April 20, Buchanan 2004, p. 1334; Davis and Lint as prey species distributions and 2011, through May 20, 2011 (76 FR

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71888 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

22139), and the completed review was the modeling process was posted on our comment on the proposed rule as signed on September 29, 2011, Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ provided by Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the concluding that the northern spotted oregonfwo/). Of the approximately Act. In order to allow sufficient time for owl was appropriately listed as a 11,700 comments received on the Draft interagency review, the Court extended threatened species. Revised Recovery Plan, many requested the time for delivery of the final rule to In compliance with the settlement the opportunity to review and comment the Federal Register to November 21, agreement in the WCIW case, as on more detailed information on the 2012. amended, we published a proposed habitat modeling process in Appendix IV. Changes From the Proposed Rule revised critical habitat rule in the C. On April 22, 2011, we reopened the Federal Register on June 12, 2007 (72 comment period on Appendix C of the In preparing this final revised critical FR 32450). On May 21, 2008, we Draft Revised Recovery Plan (76 FR habitat designation for the northern published a notice announcing the 22720); this comment period closed on spotted owl, we reviewed and availability of a Recovery Plan for the May 23, 2011. On May 6, 2011, the considered comments from the public, Northern Spotted Owl (73 FR 29471; Court granted our request for an peer reviewers, and other interested May 21, 2008). We also announced the extension of the due date for issuance of parties on the proposed revised availability of a draft economic analysis the final revised recovery plan until July designation of critical habitat published on the proposed critical habitat 1, 2011. We published the notice of on March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062). We designation and the reopening of the availability of the final Revised also reviewed and considered comments public comment period on the proposed Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted on the draft environmental assessment revised critical habitat designation. The Owl in the Federal Register on July 1, and draft economic analysis. As a result 2008 recovery plan formed the basis for 2011 (76 FR 38575). of these comments and a reevaluation of the current designation of northern the revised proposed critical habitat On October 12, 2010, the Court spotted owl critical habitat. We boundaries, we have made changes in remanded the 2008 critical habitat published a final rule revising the this final designation, as follows: designation, which had been based on critical habitat designation in the (1) We responded to peer-review, the 2008 Recovery Plan for the Northern Federal Register on August 13, 2008 (73 public, stakeholder, and internal Spotted Owl, and adopted the Service’s FR 47325). comments on a wide variety of topics to Both the 2008 critical habitat proposed schedule to issue a new clarify and strengthen the supporting designation and the 2008 recovery plan proposed revised critical habitat rule for rationale of this final designation, were challenged in court in Carpenters’ public comment by November 15, 2011, clarify our meanings and descriptions, Industrial Council v. Salazar, Case No. and a final rule by November 15, 2012. and to refine specific aspects of the rule 1:08–cv–01409–EGS (D.DC). In addition, The Court subsequently extended the to include emerging research or provide on December 15, 2008, the Inspector date for delivery of the proposed rule to additional explanation. Included in General of the Department of the the Federal Register to February 28, these types of changes from the Interior issued a report entitled 2012. A proposed revision to the proposed to final rule are the following: ‘‘Investigative Report of The Endangered designated critical habitat for the • Clarifications to the language to Species Act and the Conflict between northern spotted owl was signed on specify that northern spotted owl Science and Policy,’’ which concluded February 28, 2012 and published in the occupancy data are not needed or that the integrity of the agency decision- Federal Register on March 8, 2012 (77 appropriate for an analysis of the effects making process for the northern spotted FR 14062), with a 3-month public of an action on northern spotted owl owl recovery plan was potentially comment period. On May 8, 2012, we critical habitat. jeopardized by improper political announced an extension of the comment • Clarifications to the language to influence. As a result, the Federal period through July 6, 2012 (77 FR more clearly describe the potential Government filed a motion in the 27010). A June 1, 2012 Federal Register management of hazard trees in critical lawsuit for remand of the 2008 recovery notice announced the availability of the habitat along roadways. plan and the critical habitat designation associated draft economic analysis and • In the Special Management which was based on it. On September 1, draft environmental assessment Considerations section, we reference 2010, the Court issued an opinion (conducted under NEPA), and invited Recovery Action 10 from the Revised remanding the 2008 recovery plan to us the public to comment on these Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted for issuance of a revised plan within 9 documents through July 6, 2012 (77 FR Owl (USFWS 2011), which focuses on months. 32483). We held seven public retaining existing northern spotted owls On September 15, 2010, we published information meetings and one public on the landscape. We have edited those a Federal Register notice (75 FR 56131) hearing. Two public information references to clarify that management of announcing the availability of the Draft meetings were held each night in critical habitat and the section 7 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Redding, California, on June 4, 2012; in evaluation under the Act that Spotted Owl, and opened a 60-day Tacoma, Washington, on June 12, 2012; management should focus on the comment period through November 15, and in Roseburg, Oregon, on June 27, habitat’s ability to support nesting 2010. On November 12, 2010, we 2012. One public information meeting northern spotted owls instead of announced by way of press release an was held in Portland, Oregon on June focusing on individual northern spotted extension of the comment period until 20, 2012 and the public hearing was owls. December 15, 2010. On November 30, held in Portland, Oregon, on June 20, • To determine how to conduct those 2010, we announced in the Federal 2012. On July 20, 2012, the Service sent evaluations under section 7 of the Act, Register the reopening of the public letters to all potentially affected the proposed revised critical habitat comment period until December 15, Counties and State fish and wildlife recommended assessing the impacts of 2010 (75 FR 74073). At that time we also agencies in Washington, Oregon and a timber management project in the announced the availability of a synopsis California advising them of the context of 500 ac (200 ha) around where of the population response modeling additional opportunity to comment the impacts would occur. After results for public review and comment. until August 20, 2012, to ensure that numerous discussions with section 7 The supporting information regarding they were able to thoroughly review and practitioners in different parts of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71889

range of the species, we are owl and the Northwest Forest Plan. removed matrix lands and incorporated recommending that the effects Numerous commenters were concerned habitat in LSRs in this process. determination for a section 7 that this critical habitat would (B) In response to peer review comments consultation be conducted at a scale undermine the Standards and about connectivity and population issues we identified specific areas providing high- consistent with ‘‘the localized biology of Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan, suitability habitat that were required to better the life-history needs of the northern or enable timber harvest activities in achieve population objectives in specific spotted owl (such as the stand scale, a Late-Successional Reserves that would lower-performing modeling regions. The 500-acre (200-ha) circle, or other not otherwise be permissible. We have additional areas consisted solely of Federal appropriate, localized scale).’’ Please see added language to the preamble to lands, primarily USFS LSR lands, that were detailed discussion of the distinction clarify that the revised designation of essential to provide connectivity between between effects determination and the critical habitat does not supersede the populations in the Oregon Coast Ranges and adverse modification standard in the Standards and Guidelines of the adjacent regions with larger spotted owl section Determinations of Adverse populations, as pointed out in peer review Northwest Forest Plan. Our discussion and public comments, and supported by Effects and Application of the ‘‘Adverse of potential active management within results of population modeling. In many Modification’’ Standard. critical habitat is intended to encourage • cases, areas added were specifically We have clarified that our land managers to consider the range of identified by the USFS or BLM as lands that discussion of ecological forestry and management flexibility already should be added to compensate for removal active management is intended for land contained in the Northwest Forest Plan. of other, lower value lands. To the degree managers to consider when developing (2) In the proposed rule we requested possible, we attempted to situate additions management plans or planning projects, specific information regarding the within LSRs and balanced additions by as in many areas this approach may be amount and distribution of northern removing lower-quality areas in matrix land allocations. In some cases, additions were consistent with critical habitat for the spotted owl habitat that should be northern spotted owl, but that such made to balance areas removed in (A) above. included in the designation. We refined No additional State or private lands were management is not mandated by the the designation based on input from designated in this process, and all areas are Service and is not required as the result peer-review, public comment, and within the critical habitat units as described of this rulemaking. We have also comments from Federal land in the proposed rule. clarified this issue in the final rule management agencies, combined with The changes described in (A) and (B) above language by stating that we have made further evaluation of modeled had the desired effect of bringing population the 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i) population response to the potential results back up to levels similar to proposed critical habitat, while simultaneously determination that essential biological revisions of the critical habitat network, and physical features in occupied areas reducing the area of matrix and lower-quality and including the following. habitat in the designation thus ensuring that may require special management only essential habitat is designated. Overall, considerations or protection, but that (A) Formal comments from the Forest Service requested that we consider large about 318,296 acres of BLM and USFS lands the rule does not require land managers numbers of specific areas to be removed were removed from critical habitat, 74 to implement, or preclude land from, or added to, critical habitat, submitted percent (236,887 acres) of which were matrix managers from implementing, such to us in the form of GIS data. This proposal lands of relatively lower value to northern measures. would have greatly reduced matrix lands in spotted owls. • We have provided land managers moist forest areas (Western Cascades, Oregon (C) We identified and removed lands based with a discussion of relevant emerging Coast Range, and North Coast Olympics) and on information we received during the public science and greater detail regarding the eliminated Adaptive Management Areas and comment period indicating that they did not appropriate application of active Experimental Forests from critical habitat. In meet the definition of critical habitat. In general, lands removed had recently lost management and ecological forestry to addition, BLM requested removal of approximately 300,000 acres of selected BLM their ability to function as northern spotted benefit forest ecosystem restoration, as owl habitat either through stand-replacing recommended in the Revised Recovery lands in western Oregon. We evaluated a new map of relative habitat suitability (Composite wildfire or through timber harvest conducted Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. In 8, as described in our Modeling Supplement, after 2006 (the date of our most recent addition, we received extensive Dunk et al. 2012b) that incorporated all of comprehensive vegetation layer). When such comments regarding the appropriateness these requested changes. Population lands were identified, we removed them from of developing diverse early-seral forest modeling results for Composite 8 indicated critical habitat because they were unlikely to at the expense of older forest stands. We that many of the lands proposed for removal support northern spotted owls, and did not have clarified language regarding were essential to conservation of the northern contain the PCEs or could not be otherwise spotted owl because the rangewide considered essential. development of diverse, early-seral (D) We further refined the critical habitat forest to indicate that: (1) We do not population declined by 39 percent and population risk increased by 44 percent. To boundaries to better conform to identifiable recommend these actions in older forest landscape features or administrative bring the spotted owl population results back stands or areas that currently function boundaries, and to improve consistency with up to levels comparable to proposed critical our goal of prioritizing high value Federal as owl habitat; and (2) this type of habitat, the final critical habitat designation lands to include in critical habitat while management is most appropriate where includes areas recommended by those removing relatively lower value lands in all more traditional forestry methods have agencies for elimination (and that had been ownerships. The USFS provided a number of typically been conducted on matrix removed in our test of Composite 8) because specific suggestions in their public comment lands. As stated in both the proposed we determined they are essential to the for this type of refinement. Overall, these conservation of the species. To increase rule and in this final rule, our first refinements resulted in a small net reduction efficiency and ensure that the designation recommendation for northern spotted of critical habitat area. owl critical habitat is the conservation included only occupied habitat containing (E) Correcting ownership boundary errors of old growth trees and forests on the features essential to conservation or identified in peer-review and public habitat that is otherwise essential to the Federal lands wherever they are found, comment. When the underlying land species’ conservation, we further refined the ownership was corrected, we determined that and to undertake appropriate restoration boundaries of some subunits by moving the treatment in the threatened forest types. some lands originally labeled as private lands • boundaries to include more high-value were in fact Federal or State lands. We have clarified the relationship habitat while simultaneously and less lower- between this revised designation of value habitat in the network. To the greatest In the State of Washington, in critical habitat for the northern spotted degree possible, wherever possible we response to public comment and upon

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71890 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

further review using the underlying Washington do not provide the PCEs for (3,370 ha). This correction reflects a aerial photo imagery from the 2011 northern spotted owls, nor are they land transfer between WDFW and the National Agricultural Imagery Program essential to the conservation of the Washington Department of Natural (NAIP) and Ruraltech’s 2007 forestland species; thus, these areas do not meet Resources, as well as a mistaken usage parcel data, we determined that the vast the definition of critical habitat, and we of a mineral rights GIS layer instead of majority of Small Forest Landowner have removed them from the final a landownership layer. parcels we examined had either highly designation of critical habitat. Additional changes that were made fragmented, little, or no northern Also in the State of Washington, we were minor and included corrections of spotted owl habitat currently present. corrected ownership of Washington mapping errors, removing lower value Based on the combination of parcel size, Department of Fish and Wildlife areas that were inadvertently included, current habitat conditions, and spatial (WDFW) lands. In the proposed rule, we or correctly identifying administrative distribution, we concluded that private identified 1,752 ac (709 ha) as under the boundaries. Changes in total area are lands identified as Small Forest ownership of WDFW. In this rule, we detailed in Table 1, below, and are Landowner parcels in the State of have corrected this acreage to 8,328 ac shown by land ownership.

TABLE 1—LANDS IN THE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DETERMINED NOT TO CONTAIN THE PHYSICAL AND BIO- LOGICAL FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO CONSERVATION OF THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL OR NOT OTHERWISE ESSEN- TIAL TO ITS CONSERVATION AND THEREFORE NOT INCLUDED IN FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT

State Ownership Acres Hectares

Washington ...... USFS ...... 11,864 4,793 Oregon ...... USFS ...... 55,788 22,538 BLM ...... 62,862 25,396 STATE ...... 14,114 5,702 California ...... USFS ...... 64,114 25,902 BLM ...... 17,152 6,929

Total ...... 225,894 91,261

(3) We have exempted 14,313 ac numerous areas under consideration for outweighed the benefits of inclusion in (5,782 ha) of Department of Defense exclusion from the final designation, critical habitat and that excluding these lands at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in and solicited public comment on areas will not lead to the extinction of Washington from critical habitat for the whether the benefits of exclusion of the species. Therefore, the Secretary is northern spotted owl, in accordance these lands would outweigh the benefits exercising his discretion to exclude with section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see of inclusion, for example, based on specific areas covered under Exemptions). These lands comprised active conservation agreements or conservation agreements, programs, and subunit NCO–3 in the proposed revision conservation plans. We did a thorough partnerships under section 4(b)(2) of the of critical habitat, and represented the evaluation of all the areas identified in Act (see Exclusions section of this only entirely unoccupied unit of critical the proposed rule, as well as others document). The total area excluded habitat proposed for the northern identified through our review and from the final critical habitat spotted owl. through information received from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the (4) In the proposed revised rule (77 public, and found that the benefits of Act are given in Table 2, below, again FR 14062; March 8, 2012), we identified exclusion for many of these areas shown by land ownership.

TABLE 2—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OR EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 4(a)(3) OF THE ACT

Proposed Proposed Excluded or Excluded or State (Ownership) area area Final area Final area exempted exempted

(ac) (ha) (ac) (ha) (ac) (ha)

Washington: USFS ...... 3,601,564 1,455,032 2,909,739 1,177,528 680,197 274,800 NPS ...... 835,510 337,546 0 0 835,510 337,546 Other Federal (Joint Base Lewis-McChord; 4(a)(3) exemption) ...... 14,313 5,782 0 0 14,313 5,782 STATE ...... 226,708 91,590 8,328 3,370 218,380 88,225 PRIVATE ...... 178,310 72,037 0 0 178,310 72,037 Oregon: * USFS ...... 3,555,630 1,436,475 3,114,637 1,260,448 458,965 185,422 BLM ...... 1,297,529 524,202 1,230,417 497,932 25,785 10,417 NPS ...... 35,161 14,205 0 0 35,161 14,205 STATE ...... 228,733 92,408 212,798 86,116 0 0 California: USFS ...... 2,367,916 956,638 1,933,411 782,423 389,387 157,312 BLM ...... 186,082 75,177 98,195 39,738 70,735 28,577 NPS ...... 127,913 51,677 0 0 127,913 51,677 STATE ...... 215,333 86,995 70,444 28,508 144,889 58,487

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71891

TABLE 2—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OR EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 4(a)(3) OF THE ACT—Continued

Proposed Proposed Excluded or Excluded or State (Ownership) area area Final area Final area exempted exempted

(ac) (ha) (ac) (ha) (ac) (ha)

PRIVATE ...... 1,091,747 441,066 0 0 1,091,747 441,066

Grand Totals...... 13,962,449 5,640,829 9,577,969 3,876,064 4,271,291 1,725,553 (* Please note that no private lands in Oregon were proposed or included in this final designation.)

Note the difference in area between area, which was excluded from this under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see the proposed and final rules will not final designation, reflected in this final Exemptions). In the Redwood Coast align exactly with the sum total of areas rule. The difference of nearly 14,000 ac Region, subunits RDC–3 and RDC–4 removed because they did not meet the (5,655 ha) will not be reflected in the were made up of private lands excluded definition of critical habitat and areas difference between areas proposed and under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see excluded or exempted from the final areas excluded in the final rule, as it Exclusions). was not really in the proposed critical designation. Some minor discrepancies (5) Not all areas identified for habitat to begin with (and thus, was not in area are due to mapping errors in the potential exclusion in the proposed proposed designation have been excluded). The number of subunits in the final revised rule were excluded from the corrected here, and may not be readily critical habitat designation have final designation. Based on the best apparent through simple addition or changed as a result of exclusions under available scientific information, we have subtraction of the total areas identified section 4(b)(2) or exemptions under found that the benefits of excluding under various land categories. For section 4(a)(3). There were 11 critical other areas proposed or considered for example, the proposed rule mistakenly habitat units and 63 subunits in the exclusion do not outweigh the benefits identified 16,031 ac (6,487 ha) of lands proposed rule. Eleven critical habitat of including them in the designation for under the ownership of SDS and units and 60 subunits comprise the final the reasons discussed below. Therefore, Broughton Lumber Companies in designation. In the North Coast the Secretary has determined not to Washington as under consideration for Olympics, subunit NCO–3, composed exercise his discretion to exclude these exclusion. The accurate area included entirely of Department of Defense lands lands. These areas are identified in within the proposed critical habitat was, at Joint-Base Lewis McChord, was Table 3 and are discussed further, in fact, 2,035 ac (824 ha), and it is that exempted from the final designation below.

TABLE 3—LANDS THAT WERE PROPOSED FOR EXCLUSION, OR OTHERWISE CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION, WHICH ARE RETAINED IN THE FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

Type State Landowner Acres Hectares

State Lands ...... WA Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Lands 1 ...... 8,328 3,370 State Lands ...... OR Oregon Department of Forestry ...... 212,798 86,116 State Lands ...... CA California State Forests ...... 49,760 20,137 CA Local Government Lands 2 ...... 20,684 8,371

Total ...... 291,570 117,994 (a) State, County, and Municipal Lands Not Excluded.

California promotes movement of northern spotted (b) management activities typically do owls, and maintains the potential for not involve a Federal nexus. Therefore, We retained a relatively limited area genetic interchange. Including these the Secretary has chosen not to exclude of State, County, and municipally lands would increase the awareness of the following California State, County, owned or managed lands in California. State, County and local agencies about or municipal lands from the final Retained areas include lands managed the status of and threats to spotted owls, designation of critical habitat for the as State Forests, County Parks, and a the conservation actions needed for northern spotted owl: Municipal Water District. No habitat recovery, and the essential conservation California Demonstration State conservation plans (HCPs) or sage role this habitat plays. It also increases Forests—Two California State Forests harbor agreements (SHAs) are currently the potential for educating visitors to are included in the final critical habitat in place on these lands. Most of these State Forests and County Parks and designation: (1) Jackson Demonstration lands are in areas that have repeatedly Open Space areas about northern State Forest (DSF), within subunit 2 in been identified as critical to maintaining spotted owl conservation needs. the Redwood Coast CHU in Mendocino linkages among northern spotted owl Excluding these lands would have little County, California; and (2) Las Posadas populations in California. These State impact on regulatory burdens because DSF within subunit 6 of the Interior and County lands play an essential (a) current management of these lands is Coastal California CHU in Napa County, conservation role in this area of limited generally consistent with maintenance California. The California Department of Federal ownership. Retaining these of habitat values, limiting the potential Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) lands in the critical habitat designation for adverse effects to critical habitat, and requested that the Jackson DSF be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71892 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

excluded from the final critical habitat negative impacts on the mission of the decrease, and there are no corrective designation for the northern spotted Jackson DSF on implementing mechanisms in the 2008 Plan to account owl. restoration and research projects; (3) for this possibility. This dual problem of CALFIRE developed the Las Posadas that the draft economic analysis for the the suitability and occupancy of activity DSF Management Plan (California proposed critical habitat concluded that sites is further complicated by barred Department of Forestry and Fire the designation would not affect timber owl intrusion, and likewise is not Protection, 1992) for the Las Posadas harvest on State lands; and (4) addressed by total reliance on a take- DSF and characterizes current designation does not provide avoidance strategy. In addition, in the management on the forest as meaningful wildlife benefits any monitoring chapter for the 2008 Plan we ‘‘custodial.’’ Goals for fish and wildlife different from those already in place. find that there is continuous monitoring under the plan include maintenance of The Service responds, as follows, to of northern spotted owl activity sites the ‘‘* * * Forest’s status as one of the the four elements in CALFIRE’S request (CALFIRE 2008, p. 149), but it is not last relatively undisturbed fish and for exclusion. (1) While there are efforts spelled out in detail. (For example, it wildlife habitats in Napa County.’’ by CALFIRE in the development of a does not include the detail and However, the management plan is quite forest management plan and adaptability (i.e., adaptive management dated, having been approved in 1992. environmental assessment for the provisions) as are specified for instream There is acknowledgment of the Jackson DSF, the plan does not conditions and fisheries (CALFIRE presence of northern spotted owl specifically provide for northern spotted 2008, pp. 153–154). In addition, the activity sites in the management plan, owl conservation. We believe that the 2008 Plan does not appear to contain but no specific provisions for owl Jackson DSF Management Plan guidance on how to process, evaluate, management or conservation actions in (CALFIRE, 2008) could provide and interpret the continuous data that is the plan. There have been no publicly- potential benefits to the northern currently being collected on northern available amendments or updates to the spotted owl, in that there is a high spotted owl activity sites, or on how to plan since its enactment in 1992 and the likelihood that land allocations stated in apply that information to agency timeframe in which any revisions to the the plan, along with the long-term decision-making in the event that plan may take place is uncertain. The activity sites and demographic desired conditions for forest designation of critical habitat on these performance are not maintained or composition will improve habitat over lands would perform an important increased under the existing time. However, we find that: (a) Existing educational function in highlighting management direction. In summary, management direction in the Plan their essential role in owl conservation although the 2008 Jackson DSF relating to the northern spotted owl is as the State updates its plan and Management Plan can potentially vague; (b) the stated conservation policy conducts management activities. Habitat produce positive long-term outcomes for for the owl is limited to a take- within the plan area is not typical the northern spotted owl, it contains an avoidance strategy; and (c) while forested habitat often associated with incomplete conservation plan for the CALFIRE collects monitoring data on the northern spotted owl but includes species. oak woodlands and grasslands in this northern spotted owl activity sites on a (2) We do not agree with CALFIRE’s southern part of the species range and continuous basis, there is no apparent contention that the designation would represents a unique ecological setting strategy for evaluating that information potentially have negative impacts on its for the species; the educational benefit or applying it to the benefit of the ability to implement restoration and of including this area in critical habitat species. The only overt policy statement research projects. The fact that a Federal is therefore high, as landowners may not in the 2008 Plan regarding the northern agency (i.e., U.S. Forest Service) is a be aware that the northern spotted owl spotted owl states that ‘‘* * * forest research cooperator does not, by itself, inhabits this atypical habitat type. After management objectives * * * are to create a section 7 nexus. The Service reviewing the information available, we maintain or increase the number and contacted the senior Forest Service find that the benefits of including these productivity of nesting owl pairs scientist connected with the research areas as critical habitat will assist in through forest management practices program at Jackson DSF who described maintaining linkages and movement that enhance nesting/roosting the Forest Service research activities as among and between northern spotted opportunities and availability of a simply a scientific examination of the owl populations, and heightening the suitable prey base.’’ The terms State’s proposed actions. At this time, awareness and educating visitors of the ‘‘maintain’’ and ‘‘increase’’ are not we see no Federal regulatory conservation role this habitat plays for supported with measurable standards or mechanism in connection with the recovery of the northern spotted owl. As targets; and there are no remedial Jackson DSF’s existing cooperative a result we are not excluding the areas measures or mechanisms in the 2008 research program that would trigger designated as critical habitat within the Plan that are triggered by a decrease in consultation under section 7 of the Act. Las Posadas DSF. activity sites or demographic Therefore, we believe any regulatory CALFIRE has also developed a productivity. The northern spotted owl burden from designation would be management plan for the Jackson DSF conservation strategy in the 2008 Plan is minimal. (Jackson Demonstration State Forest predicated on take-avoidance (CALFIRE (3) The Service agrees with Management Plan (dated January 2008) 2008, pp. 109 and 267). Take avoidance CALFIRE’s observation, in their July 6, and CALFIRE has requested that the alone is not a sufficient conservation 2012 correspondence, that the economic area be excluded from the final strategy and it will not necessarily analysis rightly concluded that critical designation. In their request for satisfy CALFIRE’s direction to maintain habitat designation would have no effect exclusion CALFIRE stated that the or increase owl activity sites or on Jackson DSF harvest levels. The only designation of the Jackson DSF as demographic performance. If there are potential effect on harvest schedules critical habitat was unnecessary given: local variations in the ‘‘true’’ optimal would occur if Federal permits or (1) Extensive conservation planning and forest conditions that support owl grants-of-funds were connected to the environmental assessment has already occupancy, strict adherence to the take- harvest activity. been completed for the area; (2) the avoidance provisions may not be (4) We disagree with CALFIRE’s designation would potentially have satisfactory and occupancy rates may position that ‘‘designation would

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71893

provide no meaningful wildlife benefits closed to public motor vehicles. The Sonoma County Regional Parks from those already in place.’’ Our MMWD has produced several current Department—Lands within Hood response to item 1, above, indicates that management plans addressing specific Mountain Regional Park, administered there are potentially meaningful subject areas, including public access, by the Sonoma County (California) informational benefits that may assist vegetation management, road and trail Regional Parks Department (SCRPD), are implementation of the existing Jackson management, and long term fire and included in the designation in subunit DSF Management Plan. We believe fuels management. Several elements in 6 of the Interior California Coast CHU. designating these lands as critical those plans are compatible with long- The proposed critical habitat habitat would serve a very important term northern spotted owl conservation. designation includes all, or portions of, informational function as the However, there is no explicit discussion four assessor’s parcels totaling 460 ac management plan is implemented; it about long-term owl management in any (186 ha) within the park boundary. The would highlight the fact that this habitat of the MMWD’s planning documents. SCRPD does not operate under an HCP is essential to the conservation of the The upcoming Vegetation Management or SHA. northern spotted owl. Plan (projected in 2013) may provide Hood Mountain Regional Park is While acknowledging that the 2008 additional information that is relevant minimally roaded; the Sonoma County Management Plan contains many to northern spotted owl habitat General Plan of 2008 indicates a modest features that have the potential to management. We are not aware of any program of trail construction and benefit the northern spotted owl over substantial benefits to excluding these management within the countywide the long term, and also recognizing that areas from critical habitat and find that regional parks system. Public there several remediable omissions in there would be significant educational information materials, along with maps that Plan, the Secretary has elected not benefits to including them in the showing the local road network, and the to exclude Jackson Demonstration State designation in that it would highlight types and locations of facilities within Forest from critical habitat designation the significance this area has for Hood Mountain Regional Park, indicate under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because northern spotted owl conservation in that the SCRPD is emphasizing non- we believe that the educational and future planning efforts. motorized recreation and protection of informational benefits of inclusion Marin County Parks and Open Space undeveloped land. Through public outweigh the benefits of exclusion. Department—We have included in the information sources in Sonoma County, Mount Tamalpais Municipal designation six Open Space Preserves we located a mission statement for the Watershed of the Marin Municipal SCRPD but were unable to find any (OSPs) totaling 3,626 ac (1,467 ha) Water District—We are not excluding planning or guidance documents to administered by the Marin County the Mount Tamalpais Watershed indicate how the regional parks system (California) Parks and Open Space (Watershed) from critical habitat would be managed over the long term. Department (Department). We have designation. The Watershed (18,500 ac The absence of planning direction and designated three contiguous OSPs (7,487 ha)) is administered by the Marin the reasons for inclusion are similar to adjacent to the Mount Tamalpais Municipal Water District (MMWD) in those for the Marin Municipal Water Watershed and south of the Marin County, California. The District and for the Marin County Parks communities of Lagunitas and Fairfax Watershed is flanked on all sides by and Open Space Department. We are not including Gary Giacomini (1,476 ac (597 public parks, county-administered open aware of any substantial benefits to space areas, grazing land, and ha)), White Hill (390 ac (158 ha)), and excluding these areas from critical residential areas within the triangle Cascade Falls (498 ac (202 ha)). We have habitat and find that there would be formed by U.S. Highway 101, California also designated three contiguous OSPs significant educational benefits to State Route 1 and Sir Francis Drake adjacent the Watershed and west of the including them in the designation. Boulevard. The MMWD currently does community of Corte Madera including not operate under a conservation plan Baltimore Canyon (193 ac (78 ha)), Oregon such as an HCP or SHA. Blithedale Summit (899 ac (364 ha), and In Oregon, we considered excluding A key management consideration for Camino Alto (170 ac (69 ha). The Parks 228,733 ac (92,565 ha) of State lands the MMWD is the practical need to limit Department currently does not operate managed by the Oregon Department of sediment delivery thereby extending the under a conservation plan such as an Forestry (ODF). These lands contain service life of the five reservoirs within HCP or SHA. both demographically productive sites the Watershed (Kent, Alpine, Bon Park management emphasizes non- for northern spotted owls and provide Tempe, Lagunitas, and Phoenix Lakes). motorized public use. Five of the six connectivity linkages among northern To that end, the policy of the MMWD OSPs are served only by fire roads that spotted owl populations in the Oregon is to maintain land in a natural are closed to public motor vehicle Coast and North Coast-Olympic condition and limit human activities to access. The exception is the Camino Modeling Regions. These lands are not those that have the least impact on the Alto OSP which is flanked on the east currently managed under any sort of Watershed. Within specified by a public street. Several land conservation plan or agreement with the constraints, permitted public activities management elements in the park Service, but are managed by ODF for include hiking, bicycling, horseback system strategic plan (Marin County multiple benefits including commodity riding, fishing and picnicking. Camping, Parks and Open Space Department, production. swimming and boating are prohibited. 2008) are compatible with northern The State of Oregon has indicated that There is limited public motor vehicle spotted owl. However, there is no the designation of their lands as critical access into the Watershed on Panoramic explicit discussion about long term owl habitat would have ‘‘virtually no Highway, Ridgecrest Boulevard and the management in this planning document. impact—positive or negative * * *’’ on Fairfax-Bolinas Road. These roads We are not aware of any substantial either the management of their lands or mostly access scenic vistas and day use benefits to excluding these areas from their ability to pursue HCPs, SHAs or areas around the reservoirs. The critical habitat and find that there other conservation agreements (ODF in remainder of the road network in the would be significant educational litt.). This is because there is rarely a Watershed is dedicated for firefighter benefits to including them in the Federal nexus that would trigger Service access and administrative use, and is designation. regulatory authority, such as the section

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71894 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

7 consultation process and the adverse (91,811 ha) of State lands managed by recovery. Excluding these lands would modification analysis. Thus, there the Washington Department of Natural impose little regulatory burden because would be little negative impact of Resources (225,013 ac; 91,059 ha), (a) management of these lands is including State lands in the critical Washington State Parks (104 ac; 42 ha), consistent with maintenance of habitat habitat designation. and Washington Department of Fish and values, limiting the potential for adverse Inclusion of these lands in the critical Wildlife (8,328 ac; 3,370 ha). We effects to critical habitat, and (b) habitat designation highlights their excluded the lands managed by the management activities typically do not essential conservation role and provides Washington Department of Natural involve a Federal nexus. Therefore, the opportunities for educating visitors to Resources from the final designation Secretary has chosen not to exercise his these areas, nearby landowners, and based on their HCP, and excluded 104 discretion to exclude lands managed by ODF about the potential conservation ac (42 ha) of State Parks and Department the Washington Department of Fish and contribution of these lands to northern of Fish and Wildlife Lands (see Wildlife from the final designation of spotted owls. If ODF were to pursue Exclusions). We retained 8,328 ac (3,370 critical habitat for the northern spotted some sort of conservation agreement, ha) of State-owned lands managed by owl. this critical habitat designation would the State Department of Fish and provide a blueprint not only for the Summary of Changes From the Wildlife for wildlife habitat in the final Proposed Rule lands that would be essential to include designation. No conservation in such an effort but also the types of agreements are currently in place on The areas identified in this final rule management that would be appropriate these lands, but some could be covered constitute a revision from the areas we there. If ODF does not pursue such an by an HCP which is currently under effort this designation clearly indicates designated as critical habitat for the development. Most of these lands are the value of these lands for the northern spotted owl in 2008 (August located in the central Cascades in an conservation of the northern spotted 13, 2008; 73 FR 47326), which was a area that has repeatedly been identified owl. We believe the value of the revision of the areas we initially as critical to maintaining linkages information included in the designation designated as critical habitat for the would provide an opportunity for among spotted owl populations in northern spotted owl in 1992 (January management direction that focuses on Washington. These State lands play an 15, 1992; 57 FR 1796; see Changes from benefits to the species. essential conservation role in this area Previously Designated Critical Habitat, Because we are unaware of any of limited or checkerboard Federal below). This final rule supersedes and negative impacts of including these ODF ownership. Retaining these lands in the replaces both of these earlier lands, the benefits of exclusion do not critical habitat designation promotes designations. The changes to the outweigh the benefits of inclusion for movement of northern spotted owls proposed revised critical habitat these lands, and the Secretary has between the northern and southern designation identified above result in a chosen not to exercise his discretion to Cascades Range, as well as between the final designation of 9,577,969 ac exclude these State of Oregon lands western and eastern slopes of the (3,876,064 ha), a decrease of 4,197,484 from the final designation. Cascades. Including these State lands ac (1,689,072 ha) from the 13,962,449 ac would increase the awareness of State (5,649,660 ha) identified as meeting the Washington agencies about the essential definition of critical habitat in the In Washington we proposed or conservation role these lands play and March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062) proposed considered excluding 226,869 ac the conservation actions needed for rule (Table 4, below).

TABLE 4—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROPOSED AND FINAL REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT. TOTALS MANY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING (ROUNDED TO NEAREST 100 UNITS). SMALL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROPOSED AND FINAL REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT THAT ARE NOT NOTED AS ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS ARE THE RESULT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE GIS MAP AND ROUNDING ERROR

Proposed Proposed Final Final Critical habitat unit acres hectares acres hectares

East Cascades North ...... 1,919,469 775,465 1,345,523 544,514 East Cascades South ...... 526,810 212,831 368,381 149,078 Inner California Coast Ranges ...... 1,276,450 515,686 941,568 381,039 Klamath East ...... 1,111,679 449,118 1,052,731 426,025 Klamath West ...... 1,291,606 521,809 1,197,389 484,565 North Coast Olympic ...... 1,595,821 644,712 824,500 333,663 Oregon Coast Ranges ...... 891,154 360,026 859,864 347,975 Redwood Coast ...... 1,550,747 626,502 180,855 73,189 West Cascades Central ...... 1,353,045 546,630 909,687 368,136 West Cascades North ...... 820,832 331,616 542,274 219,450 West Cascades South ...... 1,624,836 656,434 1,355,198 548,429

Total ...... 13,962,449 5,640,829 9,577,969 3,876,064

V. Changes From Previously Designated owl (73 FR 47326; August 13, 2008). In be consistent with the most current Critical Habitat this revision, we are designating assessment of the conservation needs of In 2008, we designated 5,312,300 ac 9,577,969 ac (3,876,064 ha) as critical the species, as described in the 2011 (2,149,800 ha) of Federal lands in habitat for the northern spotted owl. We Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern California, Oregon, and Washington as have revised the designation of critical Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, Appendix critical habitat for the northern spotted habitat for the northern spotted owl to B). In this final designation, 4,085,808

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71895

ac (1,653,468 ha) are the same as in the planning approach used to inform the areas essential to northern spotted owls 2008 designation. Of the current 1992 and 2008 designations of critical may have shifted from previous designation, 5,679,162 ac (2,298,275 ha) habitat for the northern spotted owl. designations based on the best are lands not formerly designated in These past designations relied on a information available regarding the 2008, and 1,229,119 ac (497,405 ha) of priori (predefined) rule sets derived spatial distribution of high-value lands that were included in the former from the best scientific information and habitat. These advances include designation are not included here, for expert judgment available at that time improvements in remotely-sensed reasons detailed below. regarding the size of reserves or habitat vegetation data, use of models that This revision of critical habitat conservation blocks, target number of better identify spatial configurations of represents an increase in the total land spotted owl pairs per reserve or block, habitat features important to owls, and area identified from previous and targeted spacing between reserves assessment of relative population designations in 1992 and 2008. This or blocks (USFWS 2011, p. C–4), which performance of northern spotted owls increase in area is due, in part, to: (a) we then assessed and refined based on under different critical habitat The unanticipated steep decline of the local conditions. This revised designations. In addition, negative northern spotted owl and the impact of designation reflects our use of a series effects of barred owls on northern the barred owl, requiring larger areas of of spatially explicit modeling processes spotted owl populations were habitat to maintain sustainable spotted to determine those specific areas where incorporated into the modeling process. owl populations in the face of biological features are essential to the Late-successional reserves (LSRs) competition with the barred owl (e.g., conservation of the northern spotted were not prioritized in this approach Dugger et al. 2011, p. 2467); (b) the owl, and in the case of unoccupied based solely on their status as a reserved recommendation from the scientific habitat, to determine the areas that are land allocation, but were included in community that the conservation of otherwise essential to the conservation the 2012 designation only where the more occupied and high-quality habitat of the owl, as described in Criteria Used habitat quality was high enough to meet is essential to the conservation of the to Identify Critical Habitat. These the selection criteria. In contrast, the species (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 77); (c) models enabled us to compare potential 2008 critical habitat identified lands in the need to provide for redundancy in critical habitat scenarios in a repeatable part based on status as LSRs. However, northern spotted owl populations, by and scientifically accepted manner LSRs were not originally designed maintaining sufficient suitable habitat (USFWS 2011, p. C–4), using current under the NWFP solely to meet the for northern spotted owls on a tools that capitalize on new spatial needs of the northern spotted owl, but landscape level in areas prone to information and algorithms (rule sets to may include areas designated for other frequent natural disturbances, such as solve problems) for identifying the most late-successional forest species. the drier, fire-prone regions of its range efficient habitat network containing Therefore, not all LSRs contain habitat (in other words, ‘‘back-up’’ areas of what is essential for conservation. of sufficient quality to be included in habitat so that owls have someplace to The areas designated are lands that the critical habitat network for the go if their habitat burns or trees die due were occupied at the time of listing and northern spotted owl. Connected to the to insect infestation, etc.) (Noss et al. that currently provide suitable nesting, decision to designate lands in part 2006, p. 484; Thomas et al. 2006, p. 285; roosting, foraging, or dispersal habitat because of their status as LSRs, we did Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, p. 565); for northern spotted owls, or that are not include NWFP matrix on Forest and (d) in contrast to the previous otherwise essential to the conservation Service lands in 2008. In this critical habitat designation, the of the species. However, as noted above, designation we have included NWFP inclusion of some State lands in areas not every site of known owl occupancy, matrix lands where they contain high where Federal lands are not sufficient to either at present or at the time of listing, quality habitat essential to the species’ meet the conservation needs of the is included in the designation. We did conservation. As described in the northern spotted owl. not include owl sites if they were section Changes from the Proposed The new delineation of areas isolated from other known occurrences Rule, we tested a habitat network that determined to provide the physical or or in areas of marginal habitat quality did not include many of these high- biological features essential for the such that they were unlikely to make a value matrix lands; doing so led to a conservation of the northern spotted significant contribution to the significant increase in the risk of owl, or otherwise determined to be conservation of the species, and extinction for the species, therefore essential for the conservation of the therefore were not considered to these lands are retained in this final species, was based, in part, on an provide the essential features. designation. improved understanding of the forest The critical habitat network Table 5 shows a comparison of areas characteristics and spatial patterns that development and evaluation strategy we included in the 2008 designation and influence habitat usage by northern used attempted to maximize the those included in this revision to spotted owls which were incorporated efficiency of the network by prioritizing critical habitat. The process we used to into the latest population evaluation Federal lands. Utilization of new determine occupied areas containing and mapping technology. The modeling scientific information and advanced essential features and unoccupied areas process we used to evaluate alternative modeling techniques accounts for many essential to the conservation of the critical habitat scenarios differed of the changes in the revised critical species is described in Criteria Used to fundamentally from the conservation habitat; in particular, the location of Identify Critical Habitat.

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF AREA INCLUDED IN 2008 CRITICAL HABITAT AND 2012 CRITICAL HABITAT BY REGION. THE 11 REGIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION

2012 Critical habitat 2008 Final critical habitat Modeling region acres hectares acres hectares

North Coast Olympics ...... 824,500 333,663 485,039 196,289

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71896 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF AREA INCLUDED IN 2008 CRITICAL HABITAT AND 2012 CRITICAL HABITAT BY REGION. THE 11 REGIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION—Continued

2012 Critical habitat 2008 Final critical habitat Modeling region acres hectares acres hectares

Oregon Coast ...... 859,864 347,975 507,082 205,209 Redwood Coast ...... 180,855 73,189 70,153 28,390 West Cascades North ...... 542,274 219,450 390,232 157,921 West Cascades Central ...... 909,687 368,136 546,333 221,093 West Cascades South ...... 1,355,198 548,429 700,421 283,450 East Cascades North ...... 1,345,523 544,514 687,702 278,303 East Cascades South ...... 368,381 149,078 207,291 83,888 Klamath East ...... 1,052,731 426,025 667,795 270,247 Klamath West ...... 1,197,389 484,565 667,795 270,247 Inner California Coast Ranges ...... 941,568 381,039 535,863 216,856

Grand total ...... 9,577,969 3,876,064 5,312,327 2,149,823

The reduction in the number of VI. Critical Habitat critical habitat does not affect land critical habitat units from 33 in 2008 to ownership or establish a refuge, Background 11 in 2012 is a reflection, in part, of our wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other decision to aggregate habitat by regions. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 conservation area. Such designation The 2008 designation included 33 of the Act as: does not allow the government or public critical habitat units; the 2012 revision (1) The specific areas within the to access private lands. Such includes 11 critical habitat units with 60 geographical area occupied by the designation does not require subunits. species, at the time it is listed in implementation of restoration, recovery, accordance with the Act, on which are or enhancement measures by non- Our determination of PCEs in this found those physical or biological Federal landowners. Where a landowner revised designation incorporates new features; requests Federal agency funding or information resulting from research (a) Essential to the conservation of the authorization for an action that may conducted since the last revision in species; and affect a listed species or critical habitat, 2008. This new information, along with (b) Which may require special the consultation requirements of section relevant older studies, allowed us to management considerations or 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even include a higher level of specificity in protection; and in the event of a destruction or adverse the PCEs in this revision. This final rule (2) Specific areas outside the modification finding, the obligation of also includes two changes in overall geographical area occupied by the the Federal action agency and the organization. The 2008 revised species at the time it is listed, upon a landowner is not to restore or recover designation considered nesting and determination that such areas are the species, but to implement roosting habitat as separate PCEs. In this essential for the conservation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives to designation, we have combined these species. avoid destruction or adverse habitat types, because northern spotted Conservation, as defined under modification of critical habitat. section 3 of the Act, means to use and Under the first prong of the Act’s owls generally use the same habitat for the use of all methods and procedures definition of critical habitat, areas both nesting and roosting; they are not that are necessary to bring an within the geographical area occupied separate habitat types, and function endangered or threatened species to the by the species at the time it was listed differs only based on whether a nest point at which the measures provided are included in a critical habitat structure is present. At the scale of a pursuant to the Act are no longer designation if they contain physical or rangewide designation of critical necessary. Such methods and biological features: (1) Which are habitat, nesting and roosting habitats procedures include, but are not limited essential to the conservation of the cannot be systematically distinguished, to, all activities associated with species, and (2) which may require and, therefore, we combined them in scientific resources management such as special management considerations or our analysis and resulting rulemaking. research, census, law enforcement, protection. For these areas, critical For project planning and management of habitat acquisition and maintenance, habitat designations identify, to the northern spotted owls at the local scale, propagation, live trapping, and extent known using the best scientific the distinction between nesting and transplantation, and, in the and commercial data available, those roosting habitat remains useful, extraordinary case where population physical or biological features that are especially in portions of the subspecies’ pressures within a given ecosystem essential to the conservation of the range where nesting structures are cannot be otherwise relieved, may species (such as space, food, cover, and conspicuous (e.g., mistletoe brooms). include regulated taking. protected habitat). In identifying those The second organizational change was Critical habitat receives protection physical or biological features within an to subdivide the range of the northern under section 7 of the Act through the area, we focus on the principal spotted owl into four separate regions, requirement that Federal agencies biological or physical constituent and to describe PCEs for foraging habitat ensure, in consultation with the Service, elements (PCEs—primary constituent separately for each of these to provide that any action they authorize, fund, or elements such as roost sites, nesting more appropriate region-specific carry out is not likely to result in the grounds, rainfall, canopy cover, soil information. destruction or adverse modification of type) that are essential to the critical habitat. The designation of conservation of the species.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71897

Under the second prong of the Act’s and outside the critical habitat woody debris; and specific resources, definition of critical habitat, we can designation, will continue to be subject such as food (prey and suitable prey designate critical habitat in areas to: (1) Conservation actions habitat), nest sites, cover, and other outside the geographical area occupied implemented under section 7(a)(1) of physiological requirements of northern by the species at the time it is listed, the Act, (2) regulatory protections spotted owls and considered essential upon a determination that such areas afforded by the requirement in section for the conservation of the species. are essential for the conservation of the 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to Below, we describe the life-history species. For example, an area that was insure their actions are not likely to needs of the species and the broader not occupied at the time of listing but jeopardize the continued existence of physical or biological features essential is essential to the conservation of the any endangered or threatened species, to the conservation of the northern species may be included in the critical and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of spotted owl, which informed our habitat designation. We designate the Act on taking any individual of the identification of the primary constituent critical habitat in areas outside the species, including taking caused by elements (PCEs). The following geographical area occupied by a species actions that affect habitat. Federally information is based on studies of the only when a designation limited to its funded or permitted projects affecting habitat, ecology, and life history of the range would be inadequate to ensure the listed species outside their designated species, as described in the final listing conservation of the species (50 CFR critical habitat areas may still result in rule for the northern spotted owl, 424.12(e)). jeopardy findings in some cases. These published in the Federal Register on Section 4 of the Act requires that we protections and conservation tools will June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114); the designate critical habitat on the basis of continue to contribute to recovery of Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern the best scientific and commercial data this species. Similarly, critical habitat Spotted Owl released on June 30, 2011 available. Further, our Policy on designations made on the basis of the (USFWS 2011); the Background section Information Standards Under the best available information at the time of of this document; and the following Endangered Species Act (published in designation will not control the information. the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 direction and substance of future Although the northern spotted owl is FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act recovery plans, habitat conservation typically considered a habitat and prey (section 515 of the Treasury and General plans (HCPs), or other species specialist, it uses a relatively broad Government Appropriations Act for conservation planning efforts if new array of forest types for nesting, Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. information available at the time of roosting, foraging, and dispersal. The 5658)), and our associated Information these planning efforts calls for a diversity of forest types used is a Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, different outcome. establish procedures, and provide reflection of the large geographical range guidance to ensure that our decisions Physical or Biological Features of this subspecies, and the strong gradation in annual precipitation and are based on the best scientific data In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) temperature associated with both available. They require our biologists, to and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations coastal mountain ranges and the the extent consistent with the Act and at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which Cascade Range. While the northern with the use of the best scientific data areas within the geographical area spotted owl is unquestionably available, to use primary and original occupied by the species at the time of associated with old-growth forests, sources of information as the basis for listing to designate as critical habitat, habitat selection and population recommendations to designate critical we consider the physical or biological performance involves many additional habitat. features essential to the conservation of features (Loehle et al. 2011, p. 20). This When we are determining which areas the species and which may require description of physical or biological should be designated as critical habitat, special management considerations or features summarizes both variation in our primary source of information is protection. These include, but are not habitat use and particular features or generally the information developed limited to: during the listing process for the (1) Space for individual and portions of the overall gradient of species. Additional information sources population growth and for normal variation that northern spotted owls may include the recovery plan for the behavior; preferentially select, and that we, species, articles in peer-reviewed (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or therefore, consider essential to their journals, conservation plans developed other nutritional or physiological conservation. We begin by considering by States and counties, scientific status requirements; the broad-scale patterns of climate, surveys and studies, biological (3) Cover or shelter; elevation, topography, and forest assessments, other unpublished (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or community type that act to influence materials, or experts’ opinions or rearing (or development) of offspring; northern spotted owl distributions and personal knowledge. and space for population growth and Habitat is dynamic, and northern (5) Habitats that are protected from dispersal. We then discuss the spotted owls may move from one area disturbance or are representative of the abundance and pattern of habitats used to another over time. We recognize that historical, geographical, and ecological for nesting, roosting, and foraging at the critical habitat designated at a particular distributions of a species. landscape scale that influence the point in time may not include all of the For the northern spotted owl, the availability and occupancy of breeding habitat areas that we may later physical or biological features essential sites and the survival and fecundity of determine are necessary for the recovery to the conservation of the species are northern spotted owls. Thus, we begin of the species. For these reasons, a forested areas that are used or likely to by considering factors that operate at critical habitat designation does not be used for nesting, roosting, foraging, broader spatial scales and proceed to signal that habitat outside the or dispersing. The specific factors that influence habitat quality at designated area is unimportant or may characteristics or components that the forest stand scale. When we discuss not be needed for recovery of the comprise these features include, for the physical or biological features, we species. Areas that are important to the example, specific ranges of forest stand focus on features that are common range conservation of the species, both inside density and tree size distribution; coarse wide, but also summarize specific

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71898 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

features or patterns of habitat selection 2000, p. 539; Olson et al. 2004, p. 1039; associated with reduced northern that characterize particular regions. Glenn et al. 2011a, p. 159), and spotted owl recruitment and survival recruitment (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 559; (Glenn et al. 2010, p. 2546). Drier, Physical Influences Related to Features Glenn et al. 2010, p. 2546). Cold, wet warmer summers and drought Essential to the Northern Spotted Owl weather may reduce reproduction or conditions during the growing season Climate, elevation, and topography survival during the breeding season, due strongly influence primary production are features of the physical environment to declines or decreased activity in in forests, food availability, and the that influence the capacity of a small mammal populations, so that less population sizes of small mammals landscape to support habitat with high food is available during this period (Glenn et al. 2010, p. 2546). Northern value for northern spotted owls and the when metabolic demands are high flying squirrels (one of the northern type of habitat needed by the species. (Glenn et al. 2011b, pp. 1290–1294). spotted owl’s primary prey), for The distribution and amount of habitat Wet, cold springs or intense storms example, forage primarily on on the landscape reflects interactions during this time may increase the risk ectomycorrhizal fungi (truffles), many of among these physical elements. Several of starvation in adult birds (Franklin et which grow better under moist studies have found that physical aspects al. 2000, pp. 559–590). Cold, wet conditions (Lehmkuhl et al. 2004, pp. of the environment, such as topographic weather may also limit abundance of 58–60). Drier, warmer summers, or the position, aspect, and elevation, prey (Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, pp. 589– high-intensity fires, which such influence the northern spotted owl’s 595), and reduce the male northern conditions support, may change the selection of habitat (e.g., Clark 2007, pp. spotted owl’s ability to bring food to range or availability of these fungi, 97–111; Stalberg et al. 2009, p. 80). incubating females or nestlings affecting northern flying squirrels and These features are also factors in (Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 559–590). the northern spotted owls that prey on determining the type of habitats Cold, wet nesting seasons have been them. Periods of drought are associated essential to northern spotted owl shown to increase the mortality of with declines in annual survival rates conservation. nestlings due to chilling (Franklin et al. for other raptors, due to a presumed Climate—Population processes for 2000, pp. 559–590), and reduce the decrease in prey availability (Glenn et northern spotted owls are affected by number of young fledged per pair per al. 2010, pp. 2546–2551). both large-scale fluctuations in climate year (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 559, Olson Mexican northern spotted owls (Strix conditions and by local weather et al. 2004, p. 1047; Glenn et al. 2011b, occidentalis lucida) and California variation (Glenn 2009, pp. 246–248). p. 1279). Wet, cold weather may northern spotted owls (S. o. The influence of weather and climate on decrease survival of dispersing juveniles occidentalis) have a narrow temperature northern spotted owl populations has during their first winter, thereby range in which body temperature can be been documented in northern California reducing recruitment (Franklin et al. maintained without additional (Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 559–583), 2000, pp. 559–590). metabolic energy expenditure (Ganey et Oregon (Olson et al. 2004, pp. 1047– Habitat quality may offset the negative al. 1993, pp. 653–654; Weathers et al. 1052; Dugger et al. 2005, pp. 871–877; effects of climate extremes. Franklin et 2001, pp. 682–686). Others (e.g., Glenn et al. 2010, pp. 2546–2551), and al. (2000, pp. 582–583) argued that Franklin et al. 2000, entire) have Washington (Glenn et al. 2010, pp. northern spotted owl populations are assumed the northern spotted owl to be 2546–2551). Climate and weather effects regulated or limited by both habitat similar in this regard. While winter on northern spotted owls are mediated quality and environmental factors, such temperatures are relatively mild across by vegetation conditions, and the as weather. Abundance and availability much of the northern spotted owl’s combination of climate and vegetation of prey may ultimately limit northern range, heat stress has been identified as variables improves models designed to spotted owl populations, and a potential stressor at temperatures predict the distribution of northern abundance of prey is strongly associated exceeding 30 °C (86 °F; Weathers et al. spotted owls (e.g., Carroll 2010, pp. with habitat conditions. As habitat 2001, p. 678). The northern spotted 1434–1437). quality decreases, other factors, such as owl’s selection for areas with older- Climate niche models for the northern weather, have a stronger influence on forest characteristics has been spotted owl identified winter demographic performance. In essence, hypothesized to be related, in part, to its precipitation as the most important the presence of high-quality habitat needing cooler areas in summer to avoid climate variable influencing ability to appears to buffer the negative effects of heat stress (Barrows and Barrows 1978, predict the distribution of northern cold, wet springs and winters on entire). spotted owl habitat (Carroll 2010, p. survival of northern spotted owls, as Elevation and Topography—Elevation 1434). This finding is consistent with well as ameliorate the effects of heat. and corresponding changes in previous demographic studies that High-quality northern spotted owl temperature or moisture regimes suggest there are negative effects of habitat was defined in a northern constrain the development of vegetation winter and spring precipitation on California study area as a mature or old- communities selected by northern survival, recruitment, and dispersal growth core within a mosaic of old and spotted owls, and may exceed the (Franklin et al. 2000; pp. 559–583). younger forest (Franklin et al. 2000, p. bounds of physiological tolerance of Niche modeling suggested that 559). The high-quality habitat can help northern spotted owls or their prey as precipitation variables, both in winter maintain a stable prey base, thereby well. Several studies have noted the and in summer, were more influential reducing the cost of foraging during the avoidance or absence of northern than winter and summer temperatures early breeding season, when energetic spotted owls above location-specific (Carroll 2010, p. 1434–1436). needs are high (Carey et al. 1992, pp. elevational limits (Blakesley et al. 1992, Wet, cold weather during the winter 223–250; Franklin et al. 2000, p. 559). pp. 390–391; Hershey et al. 1998, p. or nesting season, particularly the early In addition, mature and old forest with 1406; LaHaye and Gutie´rrez 1999, pp. nesting season, has been shown to high canopy cover typically remains 326, 328). In some locations, elevational negatively affect northern spotted owl cooler during summer months than limits occur despite the presence of reproduction (Olson et al. 2004, p. 1039; younger stands. forests that appear to have the structural Dugger et al. 2005, p. 863; Glenn et al. Drought or hot temperatures during characteristics typically associated with 2011b, p. 1279), survival (Franklin et al. the previous summer have also been northern spotted owl habitat. Where

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71899

forest structure is not the apparent cause shape the amount and distribution of fire-intolerant vegetation that had been of elevational limits, the mechanistic northern spotted owl habitat on the spatially separated have become more bases of these limits are unknown, but landscape. In moist forests west of the contiguous and are more prone to they could be related to prey Cascades in Washington and Oregon, conducting fire, insects, and diseases availability, presence of competitors, or and in the Redwood region in across larger swaths of the landscape extremes of temperature or California, anthropogenic activities have (Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 71–74, 77–78). precipitation. Habitat for northern a dominant influence on distribution This homogenized landscape may be spotted owls can occur from sea level to patterns of remaining habitat, with altering the size and intensity of current the lower elevation limit of subalpine natural disturbances typically playing a disturbances and further altering vegetation types. This upper elevation secondary role. In contrast, drier forests landscape functionality (e.g., Everett et limit varies with latitude from about east of the Cascades and in the Klamath al. 2000, pp. 221–222). 3,000 feet (ft) (900 meters (m)) above sea region have dynamic disturbance The intensity and spatial extent of level in coastal Washington and Oregon regimes that continue to exert a strong natural disturbances that affect the (Davis and Lint 2005, p. 32) to about influence on northern spotted owl amount, distribution, and quality of 6,000 ft (1,800 m) above sea level near habitat. Climate change may modify northern spotted owl habitat in dry the southern edge of the range (derived disturbance regimes across the range of forests are also influenced by local from Davis and Lint 2005, p. 32). the northern spotted owl, resulting in topographic features, elevation, and Topography also influences the substantial changes to the frequency and climate (Swanson et al. 1988, entire). At distribution of northern spotted owl extent of habitat disruption by natural local scales, these factors can be used to habitat and patterns of habitat selection. events. identify areas that are insulated from The effects of topography are strongest In drier forests, low- and mixed- recent or existing disturbance, and in drier forests, where aspect and severity fires historically contributed to consequently tend to persist without insolation (amount of solar radiation a high level of spatial and temporal disturbance for longer periods (Camp et received in an area) contribute to variability in landscape patterns of al. 1997, entire). These disturbance moisture stress that can limit forest disturbed and recovering vegetation. refugia are locations where northern density and tree growth. In drier forests However, anthropogenic activities have spotted owl habitat has a higher east of the Cascades and in the Klamath so altered these historical patterns and likelihood of developing and persisting region, suitable habitat can be composition of vegetation, fuels, and in drier forests. As a result of these concentrated at intermediate associated disturbance regimes, that unevenly distributed disturbance topographic positions, on north-facing contemporary landscapes no longer regimes, especially in the drier forests aspects, and in concave landforms that function as they did historically within its range, habitat for the northern retain moisture. This leads to a (Hessburg et al. 2000a, pp. 77–78; spotted owl naturally occurs in a patchy distribution of suitable habitat Hessburg and Agee 2003, pp. 44–51; mosaic in various stages of suitability in characterized by ribbon-like bands and Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 122–127, 134– these regions. Sufficient area to provide discrete patches. Ribbons occur along 136; Skinner et al. 2006, pp. 176–179; for these habitat dynamics and to allow drainages and valley bottoms, along the Skinner and Taylor 2006, pp. 201–203). for the maintenance of adequate north faces of ridges that trend from east Fire exclusion, combined with the quantities of suitable habitat on the to west, and at intermediate topographic removal of fire-tolerant structures (e.g., landscape at any one point in time is, positions between drier pine-dominated large, fire-tolerant tree species such as therefore, essential to the conservation forests at lower elevations, and ponderosa pine, western larch (Larix of the northern spotted owl in the dry subalpine forest types at higher occidentalis), and Douglas-fir), have forest regions. elevations. Discrete patches also occur reduced the resiliency of the landscape Pattern and Distribution of Habitat— on top of higher plateaus. Northern to fire and other disturbances, (Agee Historically, forest types occupied by spotted owl populations inhabiting drier 1993, pp. 280–319; Hessburg et al. the northern spotted owl were fairly forests have higher fecundity and lower 2000a, pp. 71–80; Hessburg and Agee continuous, particularly in the wetter survival rates than owls in other regions 2003, pp. 44–46). Understory vegetation parts of its range in coastal northern (Hicks et al. 2003, pp. 61–62; Anthony in these forests has shifted in response California and most of western Oregon et al. 2006, pp. 28, 30). The naturally to fire exclusion from grasses and and Washington. Suitable forest types in fragmented distribution of suitable shrubs to shade-tolerant conifers, the drier parts of the range (interior habitat in drier forests, and increased reducing fire tolerance of these forests, northern California, Klamath region, predation risk associated with traversing and increasing drought stress on interior southern Oregon, and east of the this landscape, may be one of many dominant tree species. Cascade crest in Oregon and features that contributed to the Anthropogenic activities have also Washington) occur in a mosaic pattern evolution of these life-history fundamentally changed the spatial interspersed with infrequently used characteristics. distribution of fire-intolerant stands vegetation types, such as open forests, Slope may also influence the among the fire-tolerant stands, changing shrubby areas, and grasslands. As distribution of suitable habitat. the pattern of fire activity across the described above, natural disturbance Intermediate slopes have been landscape. Past management has altered processes in these drier regions likely associated with northern spotted owl the natural disturbance regime, contributed to a pattern in which sites in some studies (e.g., Gremel 2005, homogenized the formerly patchy patches of habitat in various stages of p. 37; Gaines et al. 2010, pp. 2048–2050; vegetative network, and reduced the suitability shift positions on the USFWS 2011, Appendix C), but the complexity that was more prevalent landscape through time. In the Klamath mechanisms underlying this association during the presettlement era (Skinner Mountains Provinces of Oregon and are unclear, potentially including a 1995, pp. 224–226; Hessburg and Agee California, and to a lesser extent in the variety of features from soil depth to 2003, pp. 44–45; Hessburg et al. 2007, Coast and Cascade Provinces of competition with barred owls. p. 21; Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, pp. California, large areas of serpentine soils Disturbance Regimes—Natural 564–565). This alteration in the exist that are typically not capable of disturbances and anthropogenic disturbance regime further affects forest supporting northern spotted owl habitat (human-caused) activities continuously structure and composition. Patches of (Davis and Lint 2005, pp. 31–33).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71900 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Biological Influences Related to by northern spotted owls consistently most conducive to stable or increasing Features Essential to the Northern have greater amounts of mature and old- northern spotted owl populations. Spotted Owl growth forest compared to random Studies that use populations as units of Forest Community Type locations or unused areas. The analysis in order to investigate the (Composition)—Across their proportion of older or structurally effects of the landscape-scale geographical range, northern spotted complex forest within the home range configuration of habitat on the owl use of habitat spans several scales, varies greatly by geographical region, performance of northern spotted owl with increasing levels of habitat but typically falls between 30 and 78 populations have only begun recently. selection specificity at each scale. We percent (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–6). In Past models of northern spotted owl refer to these scales as the ‘‘landscape,’’ studies where circles of different sizes population dynamics have included ‘‘home range,’’ and ‘‘core area’’ scales. were compared, differences between predictions about the effects of habitat Nest stands within core areas are even northern spotted owl sites and random configuration on population locations diminished as circles of performance, but these predictions have more narrowly selected (see Functional increasing size were evaluated not been tested or validated by Categories of Northern Spotted Owl (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–7), suggesting empirical studies (Franklin and Habitat, in the Background section, habitat selection is stronger at the core Gutie´rrez 2002; p. 215). Recent above). Landscapes supporting populations of area scale than at the home range and demographic analyses suggested that northern spotted owls are the broadest landscape scales. recruitment was positively related to the Population Spatial Requirements— scale we considered, encompassing proportion of study areas covered by We have described a range of climatic, suitable habitat (see Forsman et al. areas sufficient to support numerous elevational, topographic, and 2011, pp. 59–62), but this covariate was reproductive pairs (roughly 20,000 to compositional factors, and associated not associated with other aspects of 200,000 ac (8,100 to 81,000 ha). At the disturbance dynamics typical of demographic performance, and few landscape scale, the northern spotted different regions, that constrain the other covariates were investigated. owl inhabits most of the major types of amount and distribution of northern When the northern spotted owl was coniferous forests across its spotted owl habitat across landscapes. listed as threatened in 1990 (55 FR geographical range, including Sitka Within this context, areas that contain 26114; June 26, 1990), habitat loss and spruce, western hemlock, mixed conifer the physical or biological features fragmentation of old-growth forest were and mixed evergreen, grand fir, Pacific described below must provide habitat in identified as major factors contributing silver fir, Douglas-fir, redwood/Douglas- an amount and distribution sufficient to to declines in northern spotted owl fir (in coastal California and support persistent populations, populations. As older forests were southwestern Oregon), white fir, Shasta including metapopulations of reduced to smaller and more isolated red fir, and the moist end of the reproductive pairs, and opportunities patches, the ability of northern spotted ponderosa pine zone (Forsman et al. for nonbreeding and dispersing owls to owls to successfully disperse and 1984, pp. 8–9; Franklin and Dyrness move among populations to be establish territories was likely reduced 1988, entire; Thomas et al. 1990, p. considered essential to the conservation (Lamberson et al. 1992, pp. 506, 508, 145). These forest types may be in of the northern spotted owl. 510–511). Lamberson et al. (1992, pp. early-, mid-, or late-seral stages, and Northern spotted owls maintain large 509–511) identified an apparent sharp must occur in concert with at least one home ranges that vary in size across threshold in the amount of habitat of the physical or biological features nearly an order of magnitude across the below which northern spotted owl characteristic of breeding and species’ range, from about 1,400 to population viability plummeted. nonbreeding (dispersal) habitat, 14,000 ac (570 to 5,700 ha), depending Lamberson et al. (1994, pp. 185–186, described below. on geographic latitude and prey 192–194) concluded that size, spacing, Landscape-level patterns in tree resources (see Home Range and shape of reserved areas all had species composition and topography Requirements, below). Overlap occurs strong influence on population can influence the distribution and among adjoining territories, but the persistence, and reserves that could density of northern spotted owls. These large size of territories nonetheless support a minimum of 20 northern differences in northern spotted owl means that populations of northern spotted owl territories were more likely distribution occur even when different spotted owls require landscapes with to maintain northern spotted owl forest types have similar structural large areas of habitat suitable for populations than smaller reserves. They attributes, suggesting that northern nesting, roosting, and foraging. For also found that juvenile dispersal was spotted owls may prefer specific plant example, in the northern parts of the facilitated in areas large enough to associations or tree species. Some forest subspecies’ range where territories are support at least 20 northern spotted owl types, such as pine-dominated and largest, a population of 20 resident pairs territories. subalpine forests, are infrequently used, would require at least 100,000 ac (about In addition to area size, spacing regardless of their structural attributes. 40,500 ha) of habitat that is relatively between reserves had a strong influence In areas east of the Cascade Crest, densely distributed and of high quality. on successful dispersal (Lamberson et northern spotted owls select forests with As described in the Background al. 1992, pp. 508, 510–511). Forsman et high proportions of Douglas-fir trees. section above, several studies have al. (2002, pp. 15–16) reported dispersal The effects of tree species composition examined patterns of northern spotted distances of 1,475 northern spotted owls on habitat selection also extend to owl habitat selection at the territory in Oregon and Washington for 1985 to hardwoods within conifer-dominated scale and the consequences on fitness of 1996. Median maximum dispersal forests (e.g., Meyer et al. 1998, p. 35). habitat configuration within a territory. distance (the straight-line distance For example, our habitat modeling We do not know if the features that between the natal site and the farthest indicated that habitat value in the contribute to enhancing northern location) for radio-marked juvenile male central Western Cascades was spotted owl occupancy and northern spotted owls was 12.7 miles negatively related to proportion of reproductive success at the territory (mi) (20.3 kilometers (km)), and that of hardwoods present. At the home range scale can be scaled up to predict what female northern spotted owls was 17.2 and core area scales, locations occupied landscape-scale patterns of habitat are mi (27.5 km) (Forsman et al. 2002: Table

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71901

2). Dispersal data and other studies on predominant prey (Zabel et al. 1995, p. the nest tree during the breeding season. the amount and configuration of habitat 436). Home range size also increases During fall and winter, as well as in necessary to sustain northern spotted with increasing forest fragmentation nonbreeding years, owls often roost and owls provided the foundation for (Carey et al. 1992, p. 235; Franklin and forage in areas of their home range more developing previous northern spotted Gutie´rrez 2002, p. 212; Glenn et al. distant from the core. The size of core owl habitat reserve systems. Given the 2004, p. 45) and decreasing proportions areas varies considerably across the range-wide declining trends in northern of nesting habitat on the landscape subspecies’ geographical range spotted owl populations, as well as (Carey et al. 1992, p. 235; Forsman et al. following a pattern similar to that of declining trends in the recruitment of 2005, p. 374), suggesting that northern home range size (Bingham and Noon new individuals into territorial spotted owls increase the size of their 1997, p. 133), varying from over 4,057 populations (Forsman et al. 2011, pp. home ranges to encompass adequate ac (1,642 ha) in the northernmost (flying 59–66, Table 22), we have determined amounts of suitable forest types squirrel prey) provinces (Forsman et al. that, to be essential, physical or (Forsman et al. 2005, p. 374). 2005, pp. 370, 375) to less than 500 ac biological features must be positioned Meta-analysis of features associated (202 ha) in the southernmost (dusky- on the landscape to enable populations with occupancy at the territory-scale footed woodrat prey) provinces (Pious to persist and to allow individual owls indicated that northern spotted owls 1995, pp. 9–10, Table 2; Zabel et al. to disperse among populations. consistently occupy areas having larger 2003, pp. 1036–1038). Owls often In contrast to earlier designations of patches of older forests that were more switch nest trees and use multiple core critical habitat, we did not develop an numerous and closer together than areas over time, possibly in response to a priori rule set to identify those areas random sites (Franklin and Gutie´rrez local prey depletion or loss of a that provide the physical or biological 2002; p. 212). In the Klamath and particular nest tree. features essential to the conservation of Redwood regions owls also consistently Core areas contain greater proportions the owl, using factors such as minimum occupy sites with higher forest of mature or old forest than random or size of habitat blocks, targeted numbers heterogeneity than random sites. nonuse areas (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5– of owl pairs, or maximum distance Occupied sites in the Klamath region, in 13), and the amount of high-quality between blocks of habitat. Instead, we particular, show a high degree of habitat at the core area scale shows the determined the spatial extent and vegetative heterogeneity, with more strongest relationships with occupancy placement of the areas providing the variable patch sizes and more perimeter (Meyer et al. 1998, p. 34; Zabel et al. physical or biological features that are edge than in other regions (Franklin and 2003, pp. 1027, 1036), survival essential to the conservation of the owl Gutie´rrez 2002; p. 212). In the Klamath (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 567; Dugger et based on the relative demographic region, ecotones, or edges between older al. 2005, p. 873), and reproductive performance of the habitat models forests and other seral stages, may success (Ripple et al. 1997, pp. 155 to tested. This process is summarized in contribute to improved access to prey 156; Dugger et al. 2005, p. 871). In some the section Criteria Used to Identify (Franklin and Gutie´rrez 2002, p. 215). areas, edges between forest types within Critical Habitat, presented later in this Several studies in the Klamath region northern spotted owl home ranges may document, and is presented in detail in and the Redwood region have found provide increased prey abundance and our supporting documentation (Dunk et that variables describing the availability (Franklin et al. 2000, p. al. 2012b, entire). This supporting relationship between habitat core area 579). For successful reproduction, core documentation, which describes in and edge length improve the ability of areas need to contain one or more forest detail the modeling process we used, is models to predict northern spotted owl stands that have both the structural available at our Web site. We refer to occupancy (e.g., Folliard et al. 2000, pp. attributes and the location relative to this document in the Summary of 79–81; Zabel et al 2003, pp. 1936–1938). other features in the home range that Comments and Recommendations In contrast, northern spotted owl sites in allow them to fulfill essential nesting, section, below, as our ‘‘Modeling the Oregon Coast Range had a more roosting, and foraging functions (Carey Supplement’’ (Dunk et al. 2012b). even distribution of cover types than and Peeler 1995, pp. 233–236; Home Range Requirements—Most random locations, and nest stands had Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, pp. adult northern spotted owls remain on a higher ratio of core to edge and more 1035–1037). their home range throughout the year; complex stand shapes than non-nest Areas to Support Dispersal and therefore, their home range must stands (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–9). Nonbreeding Owls—Northern spotted provide all the habitat components, A home range provides the habitat owls regularly disperse through highly including prey, needed for the survival components essential for the survival fragmented forested landscapes that are and successful reproduction of a and successful reproduction of a typical of the mountain ranges in territorial pair. The home range of a resident breeding pair of northern western Washington and Oregon, and northern spotted owl is relatively large, spotted owls. The exact amount, quality, have dispersed from the Coastal but varies in size across the range of the and configuration of these habitat types Mountains to the Cascades Mountains subspecies (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5– required for survival and successful in the broad forested regions between 24; 55 FR 26117; June 26, 1990). Home reproduction varies according to local the Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue range sizes are largest in Washington conditions and factors, such as the Valleys of Oregon (Forsman et al. 2002, (Olympic Peninsula: 9,231 ac (3,736 ha) degree of habitat fragmentation, p. 22). Corridors of forest through (Forsman et al. 2005, pp. 371–372), and proportion of available nesting habitat, fragmented landscapes serve primarily generally decrease along a north-south and primary prey species (Courtney et to support relatively rapid movement gradient to approximately 1,430 ac (580 al. 2004, p. 5–2). through such areas, rather than ha) in the Klamath region of Core Area Requirements—Northern colonization or residency of northwestern California and southern spotted owls often use habitat within nonbreeding owls. Oregon (Zabel et al. 1995, p. 436). their home ranges disproportionally, During the transience (movement) Northern spotted owl home ranges are and exhibit central-place foraging phase, dispersers used mature and old- generally larger where northern flying behavior (Rosenberg and McKelvey growth forest slightly more than its squirrels are the predominant prey and 1999, p. 1028), with much activity availability; during the colonization smaller where woodrats are the centered within a core area surrounding phase, mature and old-growth forest was

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71902 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

used at nearly twice its availability characteristics of suitable (nesting, maintaining stable populations by (Miller et al. 1997, p. 144). Closed pole- roosting, foraging) habitat. The promoting rapid filling of territorial sapling-sawtimber habitat was used suitability of habitat to contribute to vacancies when resident northern roughly in proportion to availability in successful dispersal of northern spotted spotted owls die or leave their both phases and may represent the owls is likely related to the degree to territories, and to providing adequate minimum condition for movement. which it ameliorates heat stress, gene flow across the range of the Open sapling and clearcuts were used provides abundant and accessible prey, species. less than expected based on availability limits predation risk, and resembles during colonization (Miller et al. 1997, habitat in natal territories (Carey 1985, Regional Variation in Habitat Use— p. 145). In comparison, nondispersing pp. 105–107; Buchanan 2004, pp. 1335– Differences in patterns of habitat subadults or nonbreeding adults that are 1341). associations across the range of the residents require habitats that are more Dispersal habitat is habitat that both northern spotted owl suggest four similar to the nesting, roosting, and juvenile and adult northern spotted different broad zones of habitat use, foraging habitats utilized by breeding owls must use when looking to establish which we characterize as the (1) West pairs. This suggests that juveniles and a new territory. Although optimal Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and transient dispersers either have a less dispersal habitat would be the same as Washington, (2) East Cascades, (3) developed ability to avoid areas where suitable nesting, roosting, or foraging Klamath and Northern California starvation or predation are more likely, habitat (mature and old-growth stands), Interior Coast Ranges, and (4) Redwood or they can use a greater variety of dispersing owls will use younger forest Coast (Figure 1. We configured these forested habitats than nondispersing for dispersal, and the Interagency zones based on a qualitative assessment adults, or both. Scientific Committee (Thomas et al. of similarity among ecological We currently do not have sufficient 1990) suggested the 50–11–40 rule for conditions and habitat associations information to permit formal modeling maintaining baseline forest conditions within the 11 different regions analyzed, of dispersal habitat and the influence of between blocks of old forest to enhance as these 4 zones efficiently capture the dispersal habitat condition on dispersal dispersal. Forests composed of at least range in variation of some of the success (USFWS 2011, p. C–15). We 50 percent of trees with 11 inches (in) expect, based on the studies discussed (28 centimeters (cm)) diameter at breast physical or biological features essential above, that dispersal success is highest height (dbh) or greater, and with to the conservation of the northern when dispersers move through forests roughly a minimum 40 percent canopy spotted owl. We summarize the physical that have the characteristics of nesting- cover, were considered to meet this or biological features for each of these roosting and foraging habitats. Northern baseline condition for northern spotted four zones, emphasizing zone-specific spotted owls can also disperse owl dispersal. Dispersal habitat can features that are distinctive within the successfully through forests with less occur between larger blocks of nesting, context of general patterns that apply complex structure, but risk of starvation foraging, and roosting habitat or within across the entire range of the northern and predation likely increase with blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging spotted owl. increasing divergence from the habitat. Dispersal habitat is essential to BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71903

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C form gaps in forested areas. Flying successional forests, resulting in small West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon squirrels are the dominant prey, with differences between nesting, roosting, and Washington voles and mice also representing and foraging habitat. important items in the northern spotted East Cascades This zone includes five regions west owl’s diet. of the Cascade crest in Washington and Our habitat modeling indicated that This zone includes the Eastern Oregon (Western Cascades North, vegetation structure had a dominant Cascades North and Eastern Cascades Central and South; North Coast Ranges influence on owl population South regions (USFWS 2011, p. C–13). and Olympic Peninsula; and Oregon performance, with habitat pattern and This zone is characterized by a Coast Ranges; USFWS 2011, p. C–13). topography also contributing. High continental climate (cold, snowy Climate in this zone is characterized by canopy cover, high density of large winters and dry summers) and a high high rainfall and cool to moderate trees, high numbers of subcanopy frequency of natural disturbances due to temperatures. Variation in elevation vegetation layers, and low to moderate fires and outbreaks of forest insects and between valley bottoms and ridges is slope positions were all important pathogens. Flying squirrels are the relatively low in the Coast Ranges, features. dominant prey species, but the diet of creating conditions favorable for Nesting habitat in this zone is mostly northern spotted owls in this zone also development of contiguous forests. In limited to areas with large trees with includes relatively large proportions of contrast, the Olympic and Cascade defects such as mistletoe brooms, bushy-tailed woodrats, snowshoe hare, ranges have greater topographic cavities, or broken tops. The subset of pika, and mice (Forsman et al. 2001, pp. variation with many high-elevation foraging habitat that is not nesting/ 144–145). areas supporting permanent snowfields roosting habitat generally had slightly Our modeling indicates that habitat and glaciers. Douglas-fir and western lower values than nesting habitat for associations in this zone do not show a hemlock dominate forests used by canopy cover, tree size and density, and pattern of dominant influence by one or northern spotted owls in this zone. Root canopy layering. Prey species (primarily a few variables (USFWS 2011, diseases and wind-throw are important northern flying squirrel) in this zone are Appendix C). Instead, habitat natural disturbance mechanisms that associated with mature to late- association models for this zone

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.000 71904 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

included a large number of variables, base for northern spotted owls in this structural characteristics typical of older each making a relatively modest zone is correspondingly diverse, but stands in other regions. Thus, relatively contribution (20 percent or less) to the dominated by dusky-footed woodrats, small patches of large remnant trees can predictive ability of the model. The bushy-tailed woodrats, and flying also provide nesting habitat structure in features that were most useful in squirrels. Northern spotted owls have this zone. predicting habitat quality were been well studied in the western Physical or Biological Features and vegetation structure and composition, Klamath portion of this zone (Forsman Primary Constituent Elements and topography, especially slope et al. 2004, p. 217), but relatively little position in the north. Other efforts to is known about northern spotted owl Under the Act and its implementing model habitat associations in this zone habitat use in the eastern portion and regulations, we are required to identify have yielded similar results (e.g., Gaines the California Interior Coast Range the physical or biological features et al. 2010, pp. 2048–2050; Loehle et al. portion of the zone. Our habitat essential to the conservation of the 2011, pp. 25–28). association models for this zone suggest northern spotted owl in areas occupied Relative to other portions of the that vegetation structure and at the time of listing, focusing on the subspecies’ range, nesting and roosting topographic features are nearly equally features’ primary constituent elements. habitat in this zone includes relatively important in influencing owl population Primary constituent elements are those younger and smaller trees, likely performance, particularly in the specific elements of the physical or reflecting the common usage of dwarf Klamath. High canopy cover, high levels biological features that provide for a mistletoe brooms (dense growths) as of canopy layering, and the presence of species’ life-history processes and are nesting platforms (especially in the very large dominant trees were all essential to the conservation of the north). Forest composition that includes important features of nesting and species. The physical or biological high proportions of Douglas-fir is also roosting habitat. Compared to other features essential to the conservation of associated with this nesting structure. zones, additional foraging habitat for the northern spotted owl are forested Additional foraging habitat in this zone this zone showed greater divergence lands that can be used for nesting, generally resembles nesting and roosting from nesting habitat, with much lower roosting, foraging, or dispersing. We habitat, with reduced canopy cover and canopy cover and tree size. Low to have further determined that these tree size, and reduced canopy layering. intermediate slope positions were physical or biological features may High prey diversity suggests relatively strongly favored. In the eastern Klamath, require special management diverse foraging habitats are used. presence of Douglas-fir was an considerations or protection, as Topographic position was an important important compositional variable in our described in the section Special variable, particularly in the north, habitat model (USFWS 2011, Appendix Management Considerations or possibly reflecting competition from C). Protection, below. For the northern barred owls (Singleton et al. 2010, pp. spotted owl, the primary constituent 289, 292). Barred owls, which have been Redwood Coast elements are the specific characteristics present for over 30 years in northern This zone is confined to the northern that make areas suitable for nesting, portions of this zone, preferentially California coast, and is represented by roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat. occupy valley-bottom habitats, possibly the Redwood Coast region (USFWS To be essential to the conservation of compelling northern spotted owls to 2011, p. C–13). It is characterized by a the northern spotted owl, these features establish territories on less productive, maritime climate with moderate need to be distributed in a spatial mid-slope locations (Singleton et al. temperatures and generally mesic configuration that is conducive to 2010, pp. 289, 292). conditions. Near the coast, frequent fog persistence of populations, survival and delivers consistent moisture during the reproductive success of resident pairs, Klamath and Northern California summer. Terrain is typically low-lying and survival of dispersing individuals Interior Coast Ranges (0 to 3,000 ft (0 to 900 m)). Forest until they can recruit into a breeding This zone includes the Klamath West, communities are dominated by population. Klamath East, and Interior California redwood, Douglas-fir–tanoak Models developed for the Revised Coast regions (USFWS 2011, p. C–13). (Lithocarpus densiflorus) forest, coast Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted This region in southwestern Oregon and live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and tanoak Owl (USFWS 2011, Appendix C) to northwestern California is characterized series. Dusky footed woodrats are the assess habitat suitability for the by very high climatic and vegetative dominant prey items for northern northern spotted owl across the range of diversity resulting from steep gradients spotted owls in this zone. the species and applied here to help of elevation, dissected topography, and Habitat association models for this identify potential critical habitat were large differences in moisture from west zone diverged strongly from models for based on habitat conditions within 500- to east. Summer temperatures are high, other zones. Topographic variables acre (200-ha) core areas. Because core and northern spotted owls occur at (slope position and curvature) had a areas support a mix of nesting, roosting, elevations up to 5,800 ft (1,768 m). dominant influence with vegetation and foraging habitats, their Western portions of this zone support a structure having a secondary role. Low characteristics provide a basis for diverse mix of mesic forest communities position on slopes was strongly favored, identification and quantification of interspersed with drier forest types. along with concave landforms. PCEs. Forests of mixed conifers and evergreen Several studies of northern spotted hardwoods are typical of the zone. owl habitat relationships suggest that Physical or Biological Features by Life- Eastern portions of this zone have a stump-sprouting and rapid growth of History Function Mediterranean climate with increased redwood trees, combined with high Each of the essential features—in this occurrence of ponderosa pine. Douglas- availability of woodrats in patchy, case, forested lands that provide the fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium intensively managed forests, enables functional categories of northern spotted douglasii) is rarely used for nesting northern spotted owls to occupy a wide owl habitat—comprises a complex platforms in the western part of the range of vegetation conditions within interplay of structural elements, such as northern spotted owl’s range, but is the redwood zone. Rapid growth rates tree size and species, stand density, commonly used in the east. The prey enable young stands to develop canopy diversity, and decadence.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71905

Northern spotted owls have been shown characteristics of older forests (legacy availability at the landscape scale (Carey to exhibit strong associations with features from previous stands before et al. 1992, pp. 236–237; Carey and specific PCEs; however, the range of disturbance). In the portions of the Peeler 1995, p. 235; Forsman et al. 2005, combinations of PCEs that may northern spotted owl’s range where pp. 372–373), but will forage in younger constitute habitat (particularly foraging Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe occurs, stands and brushy openings with high habitat) is broad. In addition, the infected trees provide an important prey densities and access to prey (Carey relative importance of specific habitat source of nesting platforms (Buchanan et al. 1992, p. 247; Rosenberg and elements (and subsequently their et al. 1993, pp. 4–5). Nesting northern Anthony 1992, p. 165; Thome et al. relevance as PCEs) is strongly spotted owls consistently occupy stands 1999, pp. 56–57; Irwin et al. 2012, pp. influenced by physical factors, such as having a high degree of canopy cover 208–210). Throughout much of the elevation and slope position, and the that may provide thermoregulatory owl’s range, the same habitat that degree to which physical factors benefits (Weathers et al. 2001, p. 686), provides for nesting and roosting also influence the role of individual PCEs allowing northern spotted owls a wider provides for foraging, although northern varies geographically. In addition to range of choices for locating thermally spotted owls have greater flexibility in forest type, the key elements of habitats neutral roosts near the nest site. A high utilizing a variety of habitats for with the physical or biological features degree of canopy cover may also conceal foraging than they do for nesting and essential for the conservation of the northern spotted owls, reducing roosting. That is, habitats that meet the northern spotted owl may be organized potential predation. Studies of roosting species’ needs for nesting and roosting as follows: locations found that northern spotted generally also provide for foraging (and owls tended to use stands with greater dispersal) requirements of the owl. Nesting and Roosting Habitat vertical canopy layering (Mills et al. However, in some areas owls may use Nesting and roosting habitat provides 1993, pp. 318–319), canopy cover (King other types of habitats for foraging, in structural features for nesting, 1993, p. 45), snag diameter (Mills et al. addition to those used for nesting and protection from adverse weather 1993, pp. 318–319), diameter of large roosting; thus, habitat that supports conditions, and cover to reduce trees (Herter et al. 2002, pp. 437, 441), foraging (or dispersal) does not always predation risks for adults and young. and amounts of large woody debris support the other PCEs, and does not Because nesting habitat provides (Chow 2001, p. 24; reviewed in necessarily provide for nesting or resources critical for nest site selection Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 5–14 to 5–16, roosting. Variation in the potential use and breeding, its characteristics tend to 5–23). Northern spotted owls use the of various foraging habitats throughout be conservative; stand structures at nest same habitat for both nesting and the range of the northern spotted owl is sites tend to vary little across the roosting; the characteristics of roosting described here. northern spotted owl’s range. Nesting habitat differ from those of nesting West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon stands typically include a moderate to habitat only in that roosting habitat and Washington high canopy cover (60 to over 80 need not contain the specific structural percent); a multilayered, multispecies features used for nesting (Thomas et al. In the West Cascades/Coast Ranges of canopy with large (greater than 30 in (76 1990, p. 62). Aside from the presence of Oregon and Washington, high-quality cm) dbh) overstory trees; a high the nest structure, nesting and roosting foraging habitat is also nesting/roosting incidence of large trees with various habitat are generally inseparable. habitat. Foraging activity is positively deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken Habitat modeling developed for the associated with tree height diversity tops, mistletoe infections, and other Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern (North et al. 1999, p. 524), canopy cover evidence of decadence); large snags; Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, Appendix (Irwin et al. 2000, p. 180; Courtney et al. large accumulations of fallen trees and C) and used as one means of helping us 2004, p. 5–15), snag volume, density of other woody debris on the ground; and identify potential critical habitat for the snags greater than 20 in (50 cm) dbh sufficient open space below the canopy northern spotted owl supports previous (North et al. 1999, p. 524; Irwin et al. for northern spotted owls to fly (Thomas descriptions of nesting habitat (57 FR 2000, pp. 179–180; Courtney et al. 2004, et al. 1990, p. 164; 57 FR 1798, January 1796, January 15, 1992; 73 FR 47326, p. 5–15), density of trees greater than or 15, 1992). These findings were recently August 13, 2008), and suggests a high equal to 31 in (80 cm) dbh (North et al. reinforced in rangewide models degree of similarity among the 11 1999, p. 524) density of trees 20 to 31 developed by Davis and Dugger (2011, ecological regions across the range of in (51 to 80 cm) dbh (Irwin et al. 2000, Table 3–1, p. 39), who found that stands the species. Across regions, moderate to pp. 179–180), and volume of woody used for nesting (moderate to high high suitability nesting habitat was debris (Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 179–180). suitability) exhibited high canopy cover characterized as having high canopy While the majority of studies reported of conifers (65 to 89 percent), large trees cover (65 to over 80 percent) and high strong associations with old-forest (mean diameter from 20 to 36 in (51 to basal area (240 ft2/ac; (55 m2/ha), mean characteristics, younger forests with 91 cm)), with a forest density of 6 to 19 dbh of conifers at least 16.5 to 24 in (42 some structural characteristics (legacy large trees (greater than 30 in dbh) per to 60 cm), and a significant component features) of old forests (Carey et al. 1992, acre (15 to 47 large trees (greater than of larger trees (greater than 30 in (75 pp. 245 to 247; Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 178 76 cm dbh) per hectare), and high cm)). to 179), hardwood forest patches, and diameter diversity. edges between old forest and hardwoods Foraging Habitat Recent studies have found that (Glenn et al. 2004, pp. 47–48) are also northern spotted owl nest stands tend to Habitats used for foraging by northern used by foraging northern spotted owls. have greater tree basal area, number of spotted owls vary widely across the canopy layers, density of broken-top northern spotted owl’s range, in East Cascades trees, number or basal area of snags, and accordance with ecological conditions Foraging habitats used by northern volume of logs (Courtney et al. 2004, pp. and disturbance regimes that influence spotted owls in the East Cascades of 5–16 to 5–19, 5–23) than non-nest vegetation structure and prey species Oregon, Washington, and California stands. In some forest types, northern distributions. In general, northern were similar to those used in the spotted owls nest in younger forest spotted owls select old forests for Western Cascades, but can also stands that contain structural foraging in greater proportion than their encompass forest stands that exhibit

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71906 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

somewhat lower mean tree sizes Redwood Coast over the owl’s range (e.g., drier site in (quadratic mean diameter 16 to 22 in (40 The preponderance of information the east Cascades or northern to 55 cm) (Irwin et al. 2012, p. 207). regarding habitats used for foraging by California). This may include younger However, foraging activity was still northern spotted owls in the Redwood and less diverse forest stands than positively associated with densities of Coast zone comes from intensively foraging habitat, such as even-aged, large trees (greater than 26 in (66 cm)) managed industrial forests. In these pole-sized stands, but such stands and increasing basal area (Irwin et al. environments, which comprise the should contain some roosting structures 2012, p. 206). Stands dominated by majority of the redwood region, and foraging habitat to allow for Douglas-fir and white fir/Douglas-fir, or interspersion of foraging habitat and temporary resting and feeding during grand fir/Douglas-fir were preferred in prey-producing habitat appears to be an the transience phase. some regions, whereas stands important element of habitat suitability. Habitat supporting nonbreeding dominated by ponderosa pine were Foraging habitat is used by owls to northern spotted owls, or the colonization phase of dispersal, is generally avoided (Irwin et al. 2012, p. access prey and is characterized by a generally equivalent to nesting, roosting, 207). wide range of tree sizes and ages. Foraging activity by owls is positively and foraging habitat and is described Klamath and Northern California associated with density of small to above, although it may be in smaller Interior Coast Ranges medium sized trees (10 to 22 in (25 to amounts than that needed to support nesting pairs. Because diets of northern spotted 56 cm)) and trees greater than 26 in (66 cm) in diameter (Irwin et al. 2007b, p. owls in the Klamath and Northern Primary Constituent Elements for the 19) or greater than 41 years of age California Interior Coast Ranges consist Northern Spotted Owl (MacDonald et al. 2006, p. 381). predominantly of both northern flying Based on our current knowledge of Foraging was also positively associated squirrels and dusky-footed woodrats, the physical or biological features and with hardwood species, particularly habitats used for foraging northern habitat characteristics required to tanoak (MacDonald et al. 2006, pp. 380– sustain the species’ life-history spotted owls are much more variable 382; Irwin et al. 2007a, pp. 1188–1189). than in northern portions of the species’ processes, we determine that the Prey-producing habitats occur within primary constituent elements specific to range. As in other regions, foraging early-seral habitats 6 to 20 years old northern spotted owls select stands with the northern spotted owl are as follows; (Hamm and Diller 2009, p. 100, Table note that PCE 1 must occur in concert mature and old-forest characteristics 2), typically resulting from clearcuts or such as increasing mean stand diameter with PCE 2, 3, or 4: other intensive harvest methods. Habitat (1) Forest types that may be in and densities of trees greater than 26 in elements within these openings include (66 cm) dbh (Irwin et al. 2012, p. 206) early-, mid-, or late-seral stages and that dense shrub and hardwood cover, and support the northern spotted owl across and a dominant canopy of large conifer woody debris. its geographical range; these forest types trees greater than 21 in (52.5 cm) dbh Nonbreeding and Dispersal Habitat are primarily: (Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p. 747), high (a) Sitka spruce, canopy cover (87 percent at frequently Although the term ‘‘dispersal’’ (b) Western hemlock, used sites; Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p. frequently refers to post-fledgling (c) Mixed conifer and mixed 747, Table 3), and multiple canopy movements of juveniles, for the evergreen, layers (Solis and Gutierrez 1990, pp. purposes of this rule we are using the (d) Grand fir, 744–747; Anthony and Wagner 1999, term to include all movement during (e) Pacific silver fir, pp. 14, 17). However, other habitat both the transience and colonization (f) Douglas-fir, elements are disproportionately used, phase, and to encompass important (g) White fir, particularly forest patches within concepts of linkage and connectivity (h) Shasta red fir, riparian zones of low-order streams among owl subpopulations. Population (i) Redwood/Douglas-fir (in coastal (Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p. 747; Irwin growth can only occur if there is California and southwestern Oregon), et al. 2012, p. 208) and edges between adequate habitat in an appropriate and conifer and hardwood forest stands configuration to allow for the dispersal (j) The moist end of the ponderosa (Zabel et al. 1995, pp. 436–437; Ward et of owls across the landscape. Although pine coniferous forests zones at habitat that allows for dispersal may al. 1998, pp. 86, 88–89). Foraging use is elevations up to approximately 3,000 ft currently be marginal or unsuitable for positively influenced by conifer species, (900 m) near the northern edge of the nesting, roosting, or foraging, it provides range and up to approximately 6,000 ft including incense-cedar (Calocedrus an important linkage function among (1,800 m) at the southern edge. decurrens), sugar pine (P. lambertiana), blocks of nesting habitat both locally (2) Habitat that provides for nesting Douglas-fir, and hardwoods such as and over the owl’s range that is essential and roosting. In many cases the same bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), to its conservation. However, as noted habitat also provides for foraging (PCE California black oak (Q. kelloggii), live above, we expect dispersal success is (3)). Nesting and roosting habitat oaks, and Pacific madrone (Arbutus highest when dispersers move through provides structural features for nesting, menziesii) as well as shrubs (Sisco 1990, forests that have the characteristics of protection from adverse weather p. 20; Irwin et al. 2012, pp. 206–207, nesting-roosting and foraging habitats. conditions, and cover to reduce 209–210), presumably because they Although northern spotted owls may be predation risks for adults and young. produce mast important for prey able to move through forests with less This PCE is found throughout the species. Within a mosaic of mature and complex structure, survivorship is likely geographical range of the northern older forest habitat, brushy openings decreased. Dispersal habitat, at a spotted owl, because stand structures at and dense young stands or low-density minimum, consists of stands with nest sites tend to vary little across the forest patches also receive some use adequate tree size and canopy cover to northern spotted owl’s range. These (Sisco 1990, pp. 9, 12, 14, 16; Zabel et provide protection from avian predators habitats must provide: al. 1993, p. 19; Irwin et al. 2012, pp. and at least minimal foraging (a) Sufficient foraging habitat to meet 209–210). opportunities; there may be variations the home range needs of territorial pairs

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71907

of northern spotted owls throughout the (vii) Large accumulations of fallen (iii) Increasing density of small-to- year. trees and other woody debris on the medium sized trees (10 to 22 in (25 to (b) Stands for nesting and roosting ground; and 56 cm)) increases foraging habitat that are generally characterized by: (viii) Sufficient open space below the quality; (i) Moderate to high canopy cover (60 canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. (iv) Trees greater than 26 in (66 cm) to over 80 percent); in diameter or greater than 41 years of (ii) Multilayered, multispecies (b) East Cascades age; and canopies with large (20–30 in (51–76 (i) Stands of nesting and roosting (v) Sufficient open space below the cm) or greater dbh) overstory trees; habitat; canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. (iii) High basal area (greater than 240 (ii) Stands composed of Douglas-fir (4) Habitat to support the transience ft2/ac (55 m2/ha)); and white fir/Douglas-fir mix; and colonization phases of dispersal, (iv) High diversity of different (iii) Mean tree size greater than 16.5 which in all cases would optimally be diameters of trees; in (42 cm) quadratic mean diameter; composed of nesting, roosting, or (v) High incidence of large live trees (iv) Increasing density of large trees foraging habitat (PCEs (2) or (3)), but with various deformities (e.g., large (greater than 26 in (66 cm)) and which may also be composed of other cavities, broken tops, mistletoe increasing basal area (the total area forest types that occur between larger infections, and other evidence of covered by trees measured at breast blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging decadence); height) increases foraging habitat habitat. In cases where nesting, roosting, (vi) Large snags and large quality; or foraging habitats are insufficient to accumulations of fallen trees and other (v) Large accumulations of fallen trees provide for dispersing or nonbreeding woody debris on the ground; and and other woody debris on the ground; owls, the specific dispersal habitat PCEs (vii) Sufficient open space below the and for the northern spotted owl may be canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. (vi) Sufficient open space below the provided by the following: (3) Habitat that provides for foraging, canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. (a) Habitat supporting the transience which varies widely across the northern phase of dispersal, which includes: spotted owl’s range, in accordance with (c) Klamath and Northern California (i) Stands with adequate tree size and ecological conditions and disturbance Interior Coast Ranges canopy cover to provide protection from regimes that influence vegetation (i) Stands of nesting and roosting avian predators and minimal foraging structure and prey species distributions. habitat; in addition, other forest types opportunities; in general this may Across most of the owl’s range, nesting with mature and old-forest include, but is not limited to, trees with and roosting habitat is also foraging characteristics; at least 11 in (28 cm) dbh and a habitat, but in some regions northern (ii) Presence of the conifer species, minimum 40 percent canopy cover; and spotted owls may additionally use other incense-cedar, sugar pine, Douglas-fir, (ii) Younger and less diverse forest habitat types for foraging as well. The and hardwood species such as bigleaf stands than foraging habitat, such as foraging habitat PCEs for the four maple, black oak, live oaks, and even-aged, pole-sized stands, if such ecological zones within the geographical madrone, as well as shrubs; stands contain some roosting structures range of the northern spotted owl are (iii) Forest patches within riparian and foraging habitat to allow for generally the following: zones of low-order streams and edges temporary resting and feeding during (a) West Cascades/Coast Ranges of between conifer and hardwood forest the transience phase. Oregon and Washington stands; (b) Habitat supporting the colonization phase of dispersal, which (i) Stands of nesting and roosting (iv) Brushy openings and dense young is generally equivalent to nesting, habitat; additionally, owls may use stands or low-density forest patches roosting, and foraging habitat as younger forests with some structural within a mosaic of mature and older described in PCEs (2) and (3), but may characteristics (legacy features) of old forest habitat; be smaller in area than that needed to forests, hardwood forest patches, and (v) High canopy cover (87 percent at support nesting pairs. edges between old forest and frequently used sites); This revised designation describes the hardwoods; (vi) Multiple canopy layers; physical or biological features and their (ii) Moderate to high canopy cover (60 (vii) Mean stand diameter greater than to over 80 percent); 21 in (52.5 cm); primary constituent elements essential (iii) A diversity of tree diameters and (viii) Increasing mean stand diameter to support the life-history functions of heights; and densities of trees greater than 26 in the northern spotted owl. We have (iv) Increasing density of trees greater (66 cm) increases foraging habitat determined that all of the units and than or equal to 31 in (80 cm) dbh quality; subunits designated in this rule were increases foraging habitat quality (ix) Large accumulations of fallen occupied by the northern spotted owl at (especially above 12 trees per ac (30 trees and other woody debris on the the time of listing, and that (depending trees per ha)); ground; and on the scale at which occupancy is (v) Increasing density of trees 20 to 31 (x) Sufficient open space below the considered) some smaller areas within in (51 to 80 cm) dbh increases foraging canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. the subunits may have been unoccupied habitat quality (especially above 24 trees at the time of listing. To address any (d) Redwood Coast per ac (60 trees per ha)); uncertainty regarding occupancy, we (vi) Increasing snag basal area, snag (i) Nesting and roosting habitat; in have also evaluated all of the areas volume (the product of snag diameter, addition, stands composed of hardwood identified here as critical habitat under height, estimated top diameter, and tree species, particularly tanoak; the standard of section 3(5)(a)(ii) of the including a taper function (North et al. (ii) Early-seral habitats 6 to 20 years Act, and determined that they are 1999, p. 523)), and density of snags old with dense shrub and hardwood essential to the conservation of the greater than 20 in (50 cm) dbh all cover and abundant woody debris; these species, as described in Criteria Used to contribute to increasing foraging habitat habitats produce prey, and must occur Identify Critical Habitat, below. The quality, especially above 4 snags per ac in conjunction with nesting, roosting, or criteria section also describes our (10 snags per ha); foraging habitat; evaluation of the configuration of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

physical or biological features on the as a threatened species due largely to occupied areas vary across the range of landscape to determine where those both historical and ongoing habitat loss the species. Some areas of northern features are essential to the conservation and degradation. The recovery of the spotted owl habitat, particularly in of the northern spotted owl. We have northern spotted owl therefore requires wetter forest types, are unlikely to be further determined that the physical or both protection of habitat and enhanced by active management biological features essential to the management where necessary to provide activities, but instead need protection of conservation of the northern spotted sufficient high-quality habitat to allow the essential features; whereas other owl require special management for population growth and to provide a forest areas would likely benefit from considerations or protection, as buffer against threats such as more proactive forestry management. described below. competition with the barred owl. For example, in drier, more fire-prone In areas occupied at the time of Recovery Criterion 3 in the Revised regions of the owl’s range, habitat listing, not all of the revised critical Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted conditions will likely be more dynamic, habitat will contain all of the PCEs, Owl (USFWS 2011) is the ‘‘Continued and more active management may be because not all life-history functions Maintenance and Recruitment of required to reduce the risk to the require all of the PCEs. Some subunits Northern Spotted Owl Habitat,’’ which essential physical or biological features contain all PCEs and support multiple is further described as the achievement from fire, insects, disease, and climate life processes, while some subunits may of a stable or increasing trend in change, as well as to promote contain only those PCEs necessary to northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, regeneration following disturbance. support the species’ particular use of and foraging habitat throughout the While we recommend conservation of that habitat. However, all of the areas range of the species. Meeting this high-quality and occupied northern occupied at the time of listing and recovery criterion will require special spotted owl habitat, long-term northern designated as critical habitat support at management considerations or spotted owl recovery could benefit from least the first PCE described (forest- protection of the physical or biological forest management where the basic type), in conjunction with at least one features essential to the conservation of goals are to restore or maintain other PCE. Thus PCE (1) must always the northern spotted owl in all of the ecological processes and resilience, as occur in concert with at least one critical habitat units and subunits, as discussed in detail in the Revised additional PCE (PCE 2, 3, or 4). described here. Special management Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, pp. III–11 to III–39). Special management Special Management Considerations or includes both passive and active considerations or protections may be Protection management. The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for required throughout the critical habitat When designating critical habitat, we the Northern Spotted Owl describes the to achieve these goals and benefit the assess whether the specific areas within three main threats to the northern conservation of the owl. The natural the geographical area occupied by the spotted owl as competition from barred ecological processes and landscape that species at the time of listing contain owls, past habitat loss, and current once provided large areas of relatively features that are essential to the habitat loss (USFWS 2011, p. III–42). As contiguous northern spotted owl habitat conservation of the species and which the barred owl is present throughout the (especially on the west side of the may require special management range of the northern spotted owl, Cascade Range) have been altered by a considerations or protection. The term special management considerations or history of anthropogenic activities, such critical habitat is defined in section protections may be required in all of the as timber harvest, road construction, 3(5)(A) of the Act, in part, as the specific critical habitat units and subunits to development, agricultural conversion, areas within the geographical areas ensure the northern spotted owl has and fire suppression. The resilience of occupied by the species, at the time it sufficient habitat available to withstand these systems is now additionally is listed, on which are found those competitive pressure from the barred challenged by the effects of climate physical or biological features essential owl (Dugger et al. 2011, pp. 2459, 2467). change. As recommended in the Revised to the conservation of the species and In particular, studies by Dugger et al. Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted ‘‘which may require special (2011, p. 2459) and Wiens (2012, entire) Owl, active forest management may be management considerations or indicated that northern spotted owl required throughout the range of the owl protection.’’ Accordingly, in identifying demographic performance is better with the goal of maintaining or restoring critical habitat in areas occupied at the when additional high-quality habitat is forest ecosystem structure, composition, time of listing, we determine whether available in areas where barred owls are and processes so they are sustainable the features essential to the conservation present. and resilient under current and future of the species on those areas may Scientific peer reviewers of the 2011 climate conditions, to provide for the require any special management actions Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern long-term conservation of the species or protection. Here we present a Spotted Owl (USFSW 2011, entire) and (USFWS 2011, p. III–13). For example, discussion of the special management Forsman et al. (2011, p. 77) in some areas, past management considerations or protections that may recommended that we address currently practices have decreased age-class be required throughout the critical observed downward demographic diversity and altered the structure of habitat for the northern spotted owl. In trends in northern spotted owl forest patches; in these areas, addition, for the benefit of land populations by protecting currently management, such as targeted managers, we provide management occupied sites, as well as historically vegetation treatments, could suggestions consistent with the occupied sites, and by maintaining and simultaneously reduce fuel loads and recommendations of the Revised restoring older and more structurally increase canopy and age-class diversity Recovery Plan for consideration. complex multilayered conifer forests on (Miller et al. 2009, p. 30; Stephens et al. An effective critical habitat strategy all lands (USFWS 2011, pp. III–42 to III– 2009, p. 316–318; Stephens et al. 2012b, needs to conserve extant, high-quality 43). The types of management or p. 554; Fontaine and Kennedy 2012, p. northern spotted owl habitat in order to protections that may be required to 1559; Chmura et al. 2011, p. 1134; reverse declining population trends and achieve these goals and maintain the USFWS 2011, p. III–18). address the threat from barred owls. The physical or biological features essential In moist forests that are currently northern spotted owl was initially listed to the conservation of the owl in providing mature and late-successional

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71909

forest that functions as habitat for specific type of management; it only either fuel loading or potential fire northern spotted owls, active requires that Federal agencies ensure behavior in these sites could have management is generally unnecessary to that their actions are not likely to undesirable ecological consequences as conserve older growth forests (Johnson destroy or adversely modify critical well (Johnson and Franklin 2009, p. 39; and Franklin 2009, p. 3). Within habitat, as those terms are used in Mitchell et al. 2009, pp. 653–654; younger, homogeneous stands, active section 7. However, because the Act USFWS 2011, p. III–17). Furthermore, management that retains larger and requires us to make a determination that commercial thinning has been shown to older trees but reduces density of the physical and biological features have negative consequences for smaller trees may be useful to accelerate essential to conservation of the species northern spotted owls (Forsman et al. development of within-stand structural may also need special management 1984, Meiman et al. 2003) and their prey diversity. Management insights, such as considerations or protection, we are (Waters et al. 1994, Luoma et al. 2003, those provided by Aubry et al. (2009, taking this opportunity to describe, for Wilson 2010). Active management may entire), Johnson and Franklin (2009, consideration by land managers, be more appropriate in younger entire), Johnson and Franklin (2012 specific management approaches and plantations that are not currently on a entire), Kerr 2012, entire), and Spies et types of forest where land managers trajectory to develop old-growth al. (2010, entire), provide examples of should consider applying them in order structure. These stands typically do not how such actions could occur in a to maintain sufficient suitable habitat provide high-quality northern spotted manner consistent with northern across the range of the owl. We have owl habitat, although they may spotted owl conservation in moist determined that the physical and occasionally be used for foraging and forests. biological features in habitat occupied dispersal. In dry forest regions, where natural by the species at the time it was listed, In general, to advance long-term disturbance regimes and vegetation as represented by the primary northern spotted owl recovery and structure, composition, and distribution constituent elements, may require ecosystem restoration in moist forests in have been substantially altered since special management considerations or the face of climate change and past Euro-American settlement, vegetation protection as required by 16 U.S.C. management practices, special and fuels management (through 1532(5)(A). However, nothing in this management considerations or influencing fire behavior, severity, and rule requires land managers to protections may be required that follow distribution) may be required to retain implement, or precludes land managers these principles as recommended in the and recruit northern spotted owl habitat from implementing, special 2011 Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS on the landscape (Buchanan 2009, pp. management or protection measures. 2011, p. III–18): 114–115; Healey et al. 2008, pp. 1117– Because these will vary (1) Conserve older stands that contain 1118; Roloff et al. 2012, pp. 8–9; Ager geographically, here we provide a more the conditions to support northern et al. 2007, pp. 53–55; Ager et al. 2012, detailed discussion of the types of spotted owl occupancy or high-value pp. 279–282; Franklin et al. 2009, p. 46; management considerations or northern spotted owl habitat as Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, pp. 564– protections that may be required to described in Recovery Actions 10 and 565), to conserve other biodiversity preserve or enhance the essential 32 (USFWS 2011, pp. III–43, III–67). On (Perry et al. 2011, p. 715), and to restore physical or biological features for the Federal lands this recommendation more natural vegetation and disturbance northern spotted owl in the West applies to all land-use allocations (see regimes and heterogeneity (e.g., Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and also Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 284–285). Stephens et al. 2012b, pp. 557–558). Washington, East Cascades, Klamath Special management considerations and Northern California Interior Coast (2) Management emphasis needs to be may be required to maintain adequate Ranges, and the Redwood Coast. placed on meeting northern spotted owl northern spotted owl habitat in the near recovery goals and long-term ecosystem West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon term, not only to allow northern spotted restoration and conservation. When and Washington owls to persist in the face of threats there is a conflict between these goals, from barred owl expansion and habitat Special management considerations actions that would disturb or remove modifications from fire and other or protection may be required in areas the essential physical or biological disturbances, but also to restore of moist forests to conserve or protect features of northern spotted owl critical landscapes to a more resilient state in older stands that contain the conditions habitat need to be minimized and the face of alterations projected to occur to support northern spotted owl reconciled with long-term ecosystem with ongoing climate change (USFWS occupancy (RA10: USFWS 2011, p. 43) restoration goals. 2011, p. III–32). or contain high-value northern spotted (3) Continue to manage for large, If land managers are actively owl habitat (RA32: USFWS 2011, p. 67). continuous blocks of late-successional managing forests, we recommend that Silvicultural treatments are generally forest. these activities be focused on lower not needed to maintain existing old- (4) In areas that are not currently late- quality owl habitat (lower relative growth forests and high-quality habitat seral forest or high-value habitat and habitat sustainability (RHS)); that these on moist sites (Wimberly et al. 2004, p. where more traditional forest activities focus on ecological 155; Johnson and Franklin 2009, pp. 3, management might be conducted (e.g. restoration, or apply principles of 39). In contrast to dry forests, short-term matrix), these activities should consider ecological forestry; and, where possible, fire risk is generally lower in the moist applying ecological forestry evaluate the effects of these treatments forests that not only dominate on the prescriptions. Some examples that on northern spotted owls and other west side of the Cascade Range, but also could be utilized include Franklin et al. species of concern using an active occur east of the Cascades as a higher- (2002, pp. 417–421; 2007, entire), Kerr adaptive forest management framework. elevation band or as peninsulas or (2012), Drever et al. (2006, entire), We recognize that the only regulatory inclusions in mesic forests. Disturbance- Johnson and Franklin (2009, pp. 39–41), effect of the designation of critical based management for forests and Swanson et al. (2010, entire), and others habitat is that section 7(a)(2) of the Act northern spotted owls in moist forest cited in the Revised Recovery Plan for applies, and that it does not require areas should be different from that the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS active management or mandate any applied in dry forests. Efforts to alter 2011, pp. III–14, III–17 to III–19).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

These special management (5) Retain and restore heterogeneity forest types. This region in considerations or protections apply to within stands; southwestern Oregon and northwestern Units 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the revised (6) Retain and restore heterogeneity California is characterized by very high critical habitat. among stands; climatic and vegetative diversity (7) Manage roads to address fire risk; resulting from steep gradients of East Cascades and elevation, dissected topography, and Special management considerations (8) Consider vegetation management large differences in moisture from west or protection may be required in the objectives when managing wildfires, to east. Summer temperatures are high, East Cascades to address the effects of where appropriate. and northern spotted owls occur at past activities associated with Euro- The above principles will result in elevations up to 1,768 m (5,800 ft). American settlement, such as timber treatments that have a variety of effects Western portions of this zone support a harvest, livestock grazing, fire on northern spotted owl habitat in the diverse mix of mesic forest communities suppression, and fire exclusion, that short and long term. For example, some interspersed with drier forest types. have substantially altered the inland restoration treatments may have an Forests of mixed conifers and evergreen northwest, modifying the patterns of immediate neutral or beneficial effect on hardwoods are typical of the zone. vegetation and fuels, and subsequent existing northern spotted owl habitat Eastern portions of this zone have a disturbance regimes to the degree that (e.g., roads management, some Mediterranean climate with increased contemporary landscapes no longer prescribed fire prescriptions). Other occurrence of ponderosa pine. Douglas- function as they did historically treatments, however, may involve fir dwarf mistletoe is rarely used for (Hessburg et al. 2000a, pp. 74–81; reductions in stand densities, canopy nesting platforms in the west, but Hessburg and Agee 2003, pp. 44–46; cover, or ladder fuels (understory commonly used in the east. The prey Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 134–135; vegetation that has the potential to carry base for northern spotted owls in this Skinner et al. 2006, pp. 178–179; up into a crown fire)—and thus affect zone is correspondingly diverse, but is Skinner and Taylor 2006, pp. 201–203; the physical or biological features dominated by dusky-footed woodrats, Miller et al. 2009, p. 30; Stephens et al. needed by the species. At the stand bushy-tailed woodrats, and flying 2009, pp. 316–318; Stephens et al. scale, this can result in a level of squirrels. Northern spotted owls have 2012b, p. 554; Fontaine and Kennedy conflict between conserving existing been well studied in the western portion 2012, p. 1559; Chmura et al. 2011, p. northern spotted owl habitat and of this zone (Forsman et al. 2005, p. 1134). This has affected not only the restoring dry-forest ecosystems. 219), but relatively little is known about existing forest and disturbance regimes, Resolution of such conflicts can be northern spotted owl habitat use in the but the quality, amount, and enhanced by considering the range of eastern portion and the California distribution of northern spotted owl forest conditions that comprise suitable Interior Coast Range portion of the zone. habitat on the landscape (Buchanan owl habitat and tailoring management High canopy cover, high levels of 2009, pp. 114–115; Healey et al. 2008, accordingly. canopy layering, and the presence of pp. 1117–1118; Roloff et al. 2012, pp. 8– Land managers should change from very large dominant trees were all 9; Ager et al. 2007, pp. 53–55; Ager et the practice of implementing many important features of nesting and al. 2012, pp. 279–282; Franklin et al. small, uncoordinated and independent roosting habitat. Compared to other 2009, p. 46; Kennedy and Wimberly fuel-reduction and restoration zones, models of foraging habitat for this 2009, pp. 564–565). In order to preserve treatments. Instead, coordinated and zone showed greater divergence from the essential physical or biological strategic efforts that link individual nesting habitat. Low to intermediate features, these dynamic, disturbance- projects to the larger objectives of slope positions were strongly favored. In prone forests should be managed in a restoring landscapes while conserving the eastern Klamath, presence of way that promotes northern spotted owl and recovering northern spotted owl Douglas-fir was an important conservation, responds to climate habitat are needed (sensu Sisk et al. compositional variable. Habitat change, and restores dry forest 2005, entire; Prather et al. 2008, entire; associations in the Klamath zone are ecological structure, composition and Gaines et al. 2010, entire). Some diverse and unique, reflecting the processes, including wildfire and other examples of this type of planning in the climate, topography, and vegetation of disturbances (USFWS 2011, p. III–20). east Cascades that may be emulated or this area. Nesting and roosting habitat The following restoration principles referenced include the Okanagon- somewhat resembles that of other zones, apply to the management that may be Wenatchee National Forest (USDA 2010, with a greater emphasis on topography required in this dry forest region entire), The Nature Conservancy (Davis that provides some relief from high (USFWS 2011, pp. III–34 to III–35): et al. 2012, entire), and the Deschutes temperatures while foraging habitat in (1) Conserve older stands that contain National Forest (Smith et al. 2011, this zone includes more open forests. the conditions to support northern entire). Consequently, management actions spotted owl occupancy or high-value The special management consistent with maintaining and northern spotted owl habitat as considerations or protections identified developing northern spotted owl habitat described in Recovery Actions 10 and here apply to Units 7 and 8 of the need to consider local conditions. In 32 (USFWS 2011, pp. III–43, III–67). On revised critical habitat. some areas, appropriate management will be more consistent with dry forest Federal lands this recommendation Klamath and Northern California management strategies, while in other applies to all land-use allocations (see Interior Coast Ranges also Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 284–285). areas wet forest management strategies (2) Emphasize vegetation management The special management will be more appropriate. treatments outside of northern spotted considerations or protections that may This region contains habitat owl territories or highly suitable habitat; be required in the Klamath and characteristics of both moist and dry (3) Design and implement restoration Northern California Interior Coast forests interspersed across a highly treatments at the landscape level; Ranges represent a mix of the diverse landscape (Halofsky et al. 2011, (4) Retain and restore key structural requirements needed to maintain or p. 1). The special management components, including large and old enhance the essential physical or recommendations from the moist and trees, large snags, and downed logs; biological features in mesic and dry dry forest sections, above, apply to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71911

management actions or protections that high-quality habitat for the northern occupied by the species’’ at the time it may be required in the Klamath and spotted owl’s primary prey, the dusky- was listed consistent with the species’ Northern California Interior Coast footed woodrat. Woodrat populations distribution, population ecology, and Ranges. Similar to the discussion in within recent openings probably peak use of space. We based our moist forests concerning conservation of by about stand age 10. Food sources and identification of occupied geographical small patches of early-seral habitat, understory cover decline steadily areas on: (1) The distribution of verified Perry et al. (2011, p. 715) noted that through about stand age 20, when the northern spotted owl locations at the replacement of early successional shrub- woodrat population-source diminishes. time of listing and (2) scientific hardwood communities by closed In northern spotted owl territories information regarding northern spotted forests in the absence of fire within the Redwood Zone, active owl population structure and habitat significantly impacts landscape management that creates small openings associations. diversity. Restoration of appropriate fire in proximity to nesting, roosting, or We determined the geographical area regimes and use of targeted silvicultural foraging habitat may enhance northern occupied by the species at the time of intervention may be effective where the spotted owl foraging opportunities. listing based in part on a habitat goal is to restore or maintain this The special management suitability model incorporating the diversity (Halofsky et al. 2011, p. 15). considerations or protections identified distribution of approximately 4,000 An example of this type of planning in here apply to Unit 3 of the revised known northern spotted owl territories this area that may be emulated or critical habitat. across the geographical range of the referenced is the Ashland Forest species (USFWS 2011, Appendix C). We Summary of Special Management Resiliency Project (USDA 2009, entire). used this model rather than just relying Considerations or Protection The special management on surveyed sites at that time because considerations or protections identified We find that each of the areas large areas within the species’ here apply to Units 9, 10, and 11 of the occupied at the time of listing that we geographical range had not been revised critical habitat. are designating as critical habitat surveyed; therefore the distribution of contains features essential to the northern spotted owl populations was Redwood Coast conservation of the species that may incompletely known at the time the Special management considerations require special management species was listed, and remains so or protection may be needed in the considerations or protection to ensure today. For this reason, designating Redwood Coast Zone to maintain or the conservation of the northern spotted critical habitat based solely on the enhance the essential physical or owl. These special management locations of territories identified biological features for the owl. Although considerations or protection may be through surveys would exclude a the Redwood Coast zone of coastal required to preserve and enhance the substantial proportion of the area that northern California is considered part of essential features needed to achieve the would have been occupied by the the wet/moist forest region within the conservation of the northern spotted species at the time of listing, and that range of the northern spotted owl, there owl. Additional information on provides the physical or biological are distinct differences in northern management activities compatible with features essential to the conservation of spotted owl habitat use and diet within northern spotted owl conservation can the species. To address this, we used this zone. The long growing season in be found within the Section 7 our descriptions of the physical and this region, combined with redwood’s Consultation section of this preamble. biological features to develop a habitat ability to resprout from stumps, allows suitability model that enabled us to map redwood stands to attain suitable stand VII. Criteria Used To Identify Critical the distribution of relative habitat structure for nesting in a relatively short Habitat suitability and reliably identify areas period of time (40–60 years) if legacy As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of that would have supported northern structures are present. Late-successional the Act, we use the best scientific and spotted owl territories at the time of forest is an important component of commercial data available to designate listing, based on habitat value (USFWS nesting and roosting habitat in the critical habitat. We have reviewed the 2011, Appendix C). Our habitat Redwood Zone, and demographic available information pertaining to the suitability model was based on GNN productivity on northern spotted owl habitat requirements of the species. In (Gradient Nearest Neighbor) vegetation breeding sites has been positively accordance with the Act and its data from 1996, and the locations of correlated with the density of legacy implementing regulations at 50 CFR approximately 4,000 known owl pairs trees in proximity to owl nest sites 424.12(e), based on this review, we have documented within 3 years of the date (Thome et al. 1999, p. 57). Forest identified the specific areas within the of the GNN vegetation data (USFWS management in this region should geographical area occupied by the 2011, p. C–20). Because our evaluations conserve older stands that contain the species at the time it was listed on of model performance demonstrated conditions to support northern spotted which are found those physical or that the models had good predictive owl occupancy or high-value northern biological features essential to the ability (USFWS 2011, Appendix C, p. spotted owl habitat as described in conservation of the species, and which C–38–42) we used the relative habitat Recovery Actions 10 and 32 (USFWS may require special management suitability models to predict the 2011, pp. III–43, III–67). On Federal considerations or protection. In distribution of areas that would have lands this recommendation applies to addition, we considered whether any supported occupancy by spotted owls at all land-use allocations (see also additional areas outside those occupied the time of listing. Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 284–285). In at the time of listing are essential for the Because the best available habitat and this region, some degree of fine-scale conservation of the species. owl location data and information fragmentation in redwood forests corresponded to 1996, we made an appears to benefit northern spotted Occupied Areas explicit assumption that the 1996-based owls. Forest openings aged 5 to 20 years For the purpose of developing and habitat suitability model would reliably (e.g., harvest units or burns), with dense evaluating this revised critical habitat predict the distribution of spotted owls shrub and hardwood cover, and designation for the northern spotted at the time of listing (1990). This abundant food sources, can provide owl, we identified ‘‘geographical area assumption was based on: (1) Our

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

expectation that patterns of habitat distribution of nonterritorial and range (Zabel et al. 1995, p. 436) up to selection by spotted owls would not dispersing owls is poorly known for any over 14,000 ac (5,700 ha) (USDI 1992, p. change over a 6-year period; (2) the high given northern spotted owl population. 23; USFWS 1994 in litt., p. 1) in the degree of site fidelity exhibited by However, they constitute essential northern portion of the species’ range. territorial spotted owls over many years; elements of northern spotted owl These large home ranges may overlap and (3) the fact that the amount and populations, and can reliably be with those of neighboring northern distribution of older forest habitat, assumed to occur in suitable habitat spotted owls, such that large landscapes which takes many decades to develop within the same landscapes occupied by may be fully occupied by population and is a primary component of northern territorial owls. As stated, the great clusters in areas where suitable habitat spotted owl habitat, would not have majority (85 percent) of the area within is well distributed. Some demographic increased significantly in the period the identified critical habitat is covered study areas still exhibit this pattern over between listing and 1996. Therefore, we by the home ranges of known owl large landscapes today, although concluded that the 1996 GNN layer is a territories at the time of listing. Because overlapping home ranges were more the reasonable representation of the habitat it is well established that dispersing case when the northern spotted owl was that would have been occupied by subadults and non-territorial northern first listed, prior to extensive northern spotted owls at the time of spotted owls regularly occupy high- colonization of the species’ range by the listing. quality habitat in the vicinity of other barred owl. We tested this assumption by territorial northern spotted owls, and To conservatively evaluate the analyzing the relationship between our because our relative habitat suitability proportion of each subunit that was 1996 habitat suitability map and the models exhibited high accuracy at composed of areas known to be distribution of 3,723 spotted owl sites predicting the probability of presence by occupied by northern spotted owls at known to be occupied at the time of owls, we conclude that these areas of the time of listing, we calculated the listing (1987–1996). This time period high-quality habitat were occupied by area within estimated home ranges reasonably represents the time of listing the species at the time of listing. (USFWS 2011, p. C–63 Table C–24) for because northern spotted owls are Therefore, based on the best available all verified northern spotted owl relatively long-lived and exhibit a high scientific information regarding locations known at the time of listing, degree of fidelity to territory core areas; population structure of northern spotted as described above. Overall, 85 percent their territory locations are, therefore, owls, ‘‘occupied at the time of listing’’ of the area designated is within relatively stable through time, unless encompasses (1) home ranges of estimated home ranges of verified substantial changes occur to territory resident, territorial northern spotted territorial northern spotted owls located habitat. For this reason, we consider it owls known from surveys to be present through surveys at the time of listing; highly likely that locations occupied at the time of listing, (2) home ranges of this area is entirely representative of between 1987 and 1990, and 1990 and territorial owls that would have been verified owl locations, and does not 1996 were also occupied at the time of present at the time of listing based on include habitat occupied based on listing in 1990. We found that over 85 a model developed specifically to habitat suitability or nonresident owls. percent of the proposed critical habitat predict owl presence based on relative Twenty-two (37 percent) of the 60 area was within the estimated home habitat suitability, and (3) areas used by subunits have at least 90 percent of their ranges of known spotted owl sites, nonterritorial and dispersing owls that area within verified known home strongly supporting our assumption that were likely to be present within the ranges; 41 (68 percent) have at least 70 the model reliably predicted areas were matrix of territories in a given landscape percent. As explained above, given that occupied at the time of listing. known to be occupied by resident owl these areas represent occupancy by However, restricting a definition of pairs. verified resident owls only, and occupancy to areas known to be used by Having determined our working considering the suitable habitat resident territorial owls overlooks a definition of the term ‘‘occupied,’’ in available at the time of listing in these large segment of the owl population that this instance, we then characterized same landscapes, we conclude that the is not generally reflected in standard ‘‘specific areas’’ as used in the remainder of these areas was occupied survey methodologies, as described definition of critical habitat in section by other resident owls that simply were below. Northern spotted owl 3(5)(A) of the Act, to conform with not within surveyed areas, nonterritorial populations consist of the territorial, known patterns of space-use and adult owls (floaters), or dispersing resident owls, for which we have distribution exhibited by northern subadults. documentation of occupancy spotted owls. Northern spotted owls are To help us identify and map potential throughout much of the owl’s range, wide-ranging organisms that maintain critical habitat for the owl, we used a described above, but also include large home ranges and disperse three-step modeling framework nonterritorial adult ‘‘floaters’’ and relatively long distances. Home ranges developed as part of the Revised dispersing subadult owls. Both are used regularly by territorial owls for Recovery Plan that integrates a northern dispersing subadults and nonterritorial foraging, raising young, and other spotted owl habitat model, a habitat floaters are consistently present on the activities, and are actively defended by conservation planning model, and a landscape and require suitable habitat to the resident pair year-round; as such, population simulation model. The support dispersal and survival until we consider these home ranges to be details of this modeling framework are they recruit into the breeding continually occupied by the species. presented in Appendix C of the Revised population; this habitat requirement is Although much activity is centered on Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011), and a in addition to that already utilized by core areas within the home ranges, detailed technical description of the resident territorial owls. Nonterritorial northern spotted owls are dependent modeling and habitat network owls are difficult to detect in surveys upon the entirety of the home range for evaluation process we used in this because most surveys rely on territorial prey resources and use it on a regular revised designation of critical habitat is defense behavior of resident owls basis throughout the year. As described provided in Dunk et al. (2012b, entire). (responding to artificial owl calls) to earlier, territorial northern spotted owls Both of these supporting documents are determine their presence. Because they cover home ranges from roughly 1,400 available at http://www.regulations.gov are difficult to detect, the number and ac (570 ha) at the southern end of their (see ADDRESSES), or by contacting the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71913

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see Step 3: In the last step, we determined owl habitat use and prey distribution, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). where the physical or biological and variation in ecological conditions The overall approach for critical features, as well as unoccupied areas, (USFWS 2011, C–7 to C–13). habitat modeling consisted of three are essential to the conservation of the In Step 2 of the modeling framework, main steps (USFWS 2011, Appendix C, species. To do this we used a spatially we used a habitat conservation planning p. C–3) to help refine, select, and explicit northern spotted owl model (Zonation) (Moilanen et al. 2005, evaluate a series of alternative critical population model (HexSim) (Schumaker entire; Moilanen and Kujala 2008, habitat networks for the northern 2008, entire) to predict relative entire) to develop a northern spotted spotted owl. Each of these steps helped responses of northern spotted owl owl conservation planning model. We us to identify a critical habitat network populations to different habitat network used this in the critical habitat process that meets the statutory definition of designs, and evaluated these responses to aggregate areas of greatest relative critical habitat, namely, the distribution against the recovery objectives and habitat suitability (areas occupied at the of the physical or biological features criteria for the northern spotted owl time of listing that provide the physical needed by the species across its using a rule set based on those criteria. or biological features, or areas of habitat geographical range occupied at the time Simulations from these models are not that may have been unoccupied at the of listing, and the identification of a meant to be estimates of what will occur time of listing, but have the potential to landscape configuration where these in the future, but rather provide play an essential conservation role, for features, as well as any necessary information on trends predicted to example, in providing connectivity unoccupied areas, are essential to the occur under different network designs; between isolated populations) from Step conservation of the species. These steps this allowed us to compare the relative 1 into discrete units. This process are summarized here, and then each is performance of various critical habitat provided a series of maps representing described in further detail. scenarios. a range of alternative critical habitat networks, each containing a different Step 1: At the outset, the attributes of In Step 1 of the modeling framework, amount and distribution of northern forest composition and structure and we used published research, input from spotted owl habitat quality (representing characteristics of the physical individual experts, and analysis of differing amounts and configurations of environment associated with nesting, northern spotted owl location and the primary constituent elements). The roosting, and foraging habitat—physical habitat data to develop models of Zonation model seeks to provide the or biological features used by the relative habitat suitability for northern most efficient design (most habitat value species—were identified based on spotted owls. These relative habitat on smallest land area) and allowed us to published research, input from suitability models identify areas with maximize reliance on public lands to individual experts, and analysis of habitat that provides the combination of provide what is essential to northern northern spotted owl location and variables (forest composition and spotted owl conservation. habitat data from nearly 4,000 known structure, and abiotic factors such as In Step 3 of the modeling framework, owl pairs (USFWS 2011, pp. C–20 to C– elevation, precipitation, and we developed a northern spotted owl 28). We then used these physical or temperature) with a high predictive population simulation model that biological features of nesting, roosting, probability of supporting northern allowed us to simulate the relative and foraging habitats to create a spotted owls, based on data gathered population responses of northern rangewide map of relative habitat from known owl sites. Based on the spotted owls to various habitat suitability using the model MaxEnt physical or biological features of conservation network scenarios (Phillips et al. 2006, entire; Phillips and nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats (HexSim) (Schumaker 2011, entire). In Dudik 2008, entire), based on the habitat known to be utilized by resident owls, developing this rule, we used this selection exhibited by these known owl we used these models to identify areas northern spotted owl population pairs. In addition to providing a map of containing those physical or biological simulation model to compare alternative relative habitat suitability, this process features required by the owl, and to map critical habitat networks and evaluate allowed us to evaluate an area’s their distribution across the range of the each design’s ability to meet the suitability and determine whether the owl (USFWS 2011, pp. C–27 to C–42, C– recovery goals and criteria for the presence of the species was likely based 62). Because the models are based in northern spotted owl (described further on an assessment of known species- large part on data from nearly 4,000 owl below, and in detail in Dunk et al. habitat relationships. sites (USFWS 2011, p. C–62), model 2012b). This step of the process enabled Step 2: We developed northern outputs highlight surveyed and verified us to determine the amount and spotted owl habitat networks based on owl home ranges. However, they also configuration of physical or biological the relative habitat suitability map using identify areas with habitat that features on the landscape that are the Zonation conservation planning supported territorial and non-territorial essential to the conservation of the owl, model (Moilanen and Kujala 2008, owls at the time of listing, based on as well as to determine those entire). The Zonation model used a habitat suitability, and areas that may unoccupied areas essential for the hierarchical prioritization of the have been unoccupied at the time of conservation of the species. By landscape based on relative habitat listing, but that may be essential for the evaluating northern spotted owl suitability and other user-specified conservation of the species based on population metrics, such as relative criteria (e.g., land ownership) to develop their relative habitat suitability as well population size, population trend, and the most efficient solutions for as the habitat characteristics needed for extinction risk that resulted from each incorporating high-value habitat. population growth or dispersal (see scenario evaluated, we are designating Zonation analyses were conducted below). To ensure that the variety of the most efficient habitat network separately for each region to ensure that physical or biological features used by necessary to conserve the northern reserves would be well-distributed northern spotted owls across their range spotted owl (efficient, as noted above, in across the range of the owl. Zonation is represented in the models, we applied terms of balancing greatest conservation also allowed for consideration of land separate habitat models for each of 11 value for the owl in proportion to acres ownership in development of reserve ecological regions, based on differences designated). This network has the designs. in forest environments, northern spotted potential to support an increasing or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

stable population trend of northern Recovery Criterion 1—Stable change, fire/disturbance risk, and spotted owls, exhibits relatively low Population Trend: The overall demographic stochasticity—in extinction risk, both rangewide and at population trend of northern spotted assessment of critical habitat design. the recovery unit scale (recovery units, owls throughout the range is stable or These critical habitat objectives of as identified in the Revised Recovery increasing over 10 years, as measured by supporting population viability and Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, are a statistically reliable monitoring effort. demographically stable populations are defined by physiographic provinces Recovery Criterion 2—Adequate intended to be met in concert with the (USFWS 2011, pp. III–1 to III–2)), and Population Distribution: Northern implementation of recovery actions to achieves adequate connectivity among spotted owl subpopulations within each address other nonhabitat-based threats recovery units, while prioritizing province (i.e., recovery unit), excluding to the owl. reliance on public lands. the Willamette Valley Province, achieve We applied this rule set to the We determined what is essential to viability, as informed by the HexSim outcome of HexSim modeling recovery of the northern spotted owl by population model or some other simulations on the various habitat evaluating the performance of each appropriate quantitative measure. scenarios considered (see Appendix C of potential critical habitat scenario Recovery Criterion 3—Continued the Revised Recovery Plan for the considered against the recovery needs of Maintenance and Recruitment of Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) the owl. In contrast with earlier Northern Spotted Owl Habitat: The and Dunk et al. 2012b, entire, for all conservation modeling efforts for the future range-wide trend in northern details). Each HexSim simulation began northern spotted owl, the modeling spotted owl nesting/roosting and with a population of 10,000 females (all framework we utilized does not rely on foraging habitat is stable or increasing population metrics are in numbers of a priori (predefined) rule sets for throughout the range, from the date of females), consisted of 100 replicates and features such as size of habitat blocks, Revised Recovery Plan approval, as 350 time steps for each habitat scenario number of owl pairs per block, or measured by effectiveness monitoring considered, and included the distance between blocks (USFWS 2011, efforts or other reliable habitat introduction of environmental p. C–4) to determine what is essential monitoring programs. stochasticity. We then evaluated the for the conservation of the species. We used the following rule set to relative performance of each habitat Instead, we evaluated northern spotted compare and evaluate the potential of scenario using numerous metrics to owl population metrics such as relative various habitat scenarios to meet these assess the ability of that scenario to population size and trend to determine recovery objectives and criteria, and meet the specified recovery goals for the what is essential to owl conservation, thus determine what is essential to the northern spotted owl, as laid out in our both in terms of where and how much conservation of the northern spotted rule set for identifying critical habitat; of the physical or biological features are owl: these metrics were evaluated at the scale essential and how much unoccupied (1) Ensure sufficient habitat to of each region, as well as collectively habitat is essential to meet the recovery support population viability across the rangewide. Our metrics of population objectives for the owl, as defined in the range of the species. performance resulting from each habitat (a) Habitat can support an increasing scenario considered included: Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern • Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, p. ix) and or stable population trend, as measured The percentage of simulations detailed in our supporting by a population growth rate of 1.0 or during which the rangewide population documentation (Dunk et al. 2012b, greater. fell below 1,250 individuals. (b) Habitat will be sufficient to insure • entire). The percentage of simulations a low risk of extinction. during which the rangewide population To accomplish this, we developed a (2) Support demographically stable fell below 1,000 individuals. rule set for the identification of critical populations in each recovery unit. • The percentage of simulations habitat based on the ability of that (a) Habitat can support an increasing during which the rangewide population habitat to meet the recovery objectives or stable population trend in each fell below 750 individuals. and criteria set forth in the Revised recovery unit. • The percentage of simulations Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted (b) Habitat will be sufficient to insure during which the population fell below Owl (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The recovery a low risk of extinction in each recovery 250 in each region (using 250 as a quasi- objectives for the northern spotted owl unit. extinction threshold). are: (c) Conserve or enhance connectivity • The percentage of simulations (1) Northern spotted owl populations within and among recovery units. during which the population fell below are sufficiently large and distributed (d) Conserve genetic diversity. 100 in each region (using 100 as a quasi- such that the species no longer requires (e) Ensure sufficient spatial extinction threshold). listing under the Act; redundancy in critical habitat within • The percentage of simulations that (2) Adequate habitat is available for each recovery unit. went to extinction (population = 0) in northern spotted owls and will continue (i) Accommodate habitat disturbance each region. • to exist to allow the species to persist due to fire, insects, disease, and The mean population size from without the protection of the Act; and catastrophic events. time step 150 to time step 350 in each (3) Ensure distribution of northern (3) The effects of threats have been region. spotted owl populations across • The mean population size at the last reduced or eliminated such that representative habitats. time step in each region. northern spotted owl populations are (a) Maintain distribution across the • The mean population size at the last stable or increasing and northern full ecological gradient of the historical time step rangewide. spotted owls are unlikely to become range. Measures of extinction risk are used threatened again in the foreseeable (4) Acknowledge uncertainty as an indirect measure of sufficient future. associated with both future habitat population abundance, as well as The recovery criteria for the northern conditions and northern spotted owl viability. spotted owl (aside from the requirement population performance—including These metrics were used to for post-delisting monitoring) are: influence of barred owls, climate comparatively evaluate the ability of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71915

each scenario under consideration to determining which of these scenarios species. Another element of an essential determine what is essential for the contained the physical or biological network was therefore the identification conservation of the species as informed features in the quantity and of sufficient areas of suitable habitat or by our rule set. We selected habitat configuration essential to the potentially suitable habitat not presently scenarios for further evaluation if they conservation of the species (i.e., the occupied by the northern spotted owl, outperformed the other scenarios under physical and biological features or that was not occupied at the time of consideration in terms of being better essential to the conservation of the listing, to achieve the conservation of able to meet the population abundance, species) was our evaluation of how well the species, in conjunction with viability, and trend criteria both across the network performed in terms of occupied habitat. regions and rangewide. In all cases, we contributing toward the recovery criteria Our final designation is the critical attempted to identify the most efficient for the northern spotted owl; we used habitat network that includes the (smallest) total area that would meet the the recovery criteria as our standard for quantity and spatial configuration of population goals essential to recovery. the conservation of the species. habitat that meets the requirement that Our final critical habitat designation is To ensure that we designated only it contain occupied areas with the based on the habitat network that best what is essential to the species’ essential physical and biological met all of these criteria, and then was conservation, our secondary features or unoccupied areas that are further refined, as described below. consideration was efficiency. For our themselves essential for conservation of We also focused on public lands to purposes, we evaluated efficiency both the species by achieving the recovery the maximum extent possible (see Dunk in terms of number of acres and criteria for the northern spotted owl et al. 2012b, entire, for specific details). landownership. Some of the networks while avoiding the designation of areas In this step, we compared scenarios that we evaluated were smaller than this of habitat that do not make an essential did not discriminate between various final designation, or did not include any contribution to the conservation of the land ownerships, and those that State or private lands; however, such species. This essential habitat network prioritized publicly owned lands. As networks failed to meet the recovery is composed predominantly of areas Federal agencies have a mandate under criteria required to achieve the occupied at the time of listing and that section 7(a)(1) of the Act to utilize their conservation of the species, and contain the essential physical or authorities in furtherance of the therefore could not be considered to biological features, in conjunction with purposes of the Act by carrying out provide the quantity and configuration some areas that may have been programs for the conservation of listed of the physical or biological features unoccupied at the time of listing, to species, we looked first to Federal lands essential to the conservation of the collectively comprise the habitat for critical habitat. However, in some species. Other potential designations configuration and quantity that most areas of limited Federal ownership, were significantly larger than this final efficiently meets the recovery criteria for State and private lands may provide designation and while they were also the species. All areas in this final areas determined to be essential to the capable of meeting the recovery criteria, critical habitat designation, whether northern spotted owl by contributing to they did not provide proportionately considered occupied at the time of demographic support and connectivity greater conservation value relative to the listing or unoccupied at the time of to facilitate dispersal and colonization. additional area (as measured, for listing, are therefore considered In all cases, if the scenarios under example, in relative projected numbers essential to the conservation of the consideration provided equal of owls). We concluded that such species. The specific modeling contribution to recovery, as measured networks therefore included large areas outcomes and our evaluation of each by the population metrics described of habitat that may contribute to potential critical habitat network are above, we chose the scenario that recovery, but that are not necessary to presented in detail in Dunk et al. 2012b. prioritized inclusion of federally owned achieve the recovery criteria for the It is important to recognize that lands. State and private lands were northern spotted owl, therefore these although the application of this included only if they were necessary to superfluous areas could not be modeling framework provided the achieve conservation of the species, and considered essential to the conservation foundation for identifying those areas were determined to provide either of the species. that meet the definition of critical occupied areas that support the PCEs or Finally, our assessment of potential habitat for the northern spotted owl, the unoccupied areas essential for the habitat networks, based not only on the models do not simply produce a map of conservation of the owl. We also population models but additionally critical habitat. Working from the model considered Indian lands in our refined by expert opinion, as described results, we then further refined the evaluations; if habitat scenarios below, indicated that critical habitat model-based map units, after performed equally well with or without limited to areas presently occupied by considering land ownership patterns, Indian lands, we did not include them the northern spotted owl would not be interagency coordination, and best (see Indian Lands, below). sufficient to achieve the recovery professional judgment, with the To determine which of the numerous criteria for the species, as such a objective of increasing the efficiency potential arrays of habitat we designation would lead to inadequate and effectiveness of the critical habitat considered contained only those areas population distribution and inadequate designation, as well as making that are essential to the conservation of population connectivity (50 CFR corrections based on ground truthing the northern spotted owl, we evaluated 424.12(e)). Modeling led us to a similar and local knowledge. The process each of them according to the rule set conclusion regarding areas that were generally consisted of modifying and criteria detailed above. Briefly occupied at the time of listing; networks boundaries to better conform to existing summarizing, all of the habitat networks limited to such areas were not capable administrative and landscape features, we assessed contained varying amounts of meeting the recovery criteria for the removing small areas of relatively of the physical or biological features species, and the models assisted us in lower-suitability habitat, and needed by the northern spotted owl in identifying those additional specific incorporating additional areas that may varying amounts and spatial areas of habitat unoccupied at the time have been unoccupied at the time of arrangements across the range of the of listing that are essential in terms of listing, but were determined to be species. Our first consideration in achieving the conservation of the essential for population connectivity,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

for population growth, or to in total size than this final designation, than would be minimally required to accommodate maintenance of suitable and some did or did not include Federal achieve low extinction risk. Although it habitat on the landscape for owls in the matrix lands, State lands, or private is impossible to predict with precision face of natural disturbance regimes (e.g., lands. The process of comparing how much redundancy may be required fire) or competition with the barred owl, alternative networks and population to deal with future changes in forest while retaining the overall configuration results is described in detail in the conditions, this is essential to of the model-based maps. In addition, as Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al. ameliorating the potential impacts of part of this refinement process, expert 2012b). When compared to other fire, insects, and forest disease on knowledge helped us to identify possible network scenarios, we spotted owls. essential areas such as the unique oak conclude the final identification of (5) The balancing of population woodland ecotype used by northern critical habitat either contains essential objectives and parsimony resulted in a spotted owls at the southernmost extent physical and biological features or is final designation that encompasses 50 of the species’ range in Napa, Sonoma, otherwise essential because it has the percent of the total available high- and Marin Counties, California. We highest likelihood of meeting recovery suitability habitat rangewide and less used the population simulation model objectives in the most efficient manner than nine percent of low-quality habitat, to evaluate whether this revised critical for the following reasons. and supported population size and habitat network continued to provide (1) It ensures that northern spotted extinction risk within the top 10 percent what is essential to the conservation of owl populations are sufficiently large to of all alternatives. Other larger the northern spotted owl, and used this exhibit low extinction risk at the alternatives had similar or slightly better same process to evaluate changes made rangewide scale. Under the final population characteristics, but between the proposed and final rule (see designation, modeled rangewide contained much larger proportions of Changes from Proposed Rule for populations have less than a 10 percent lower-suitability habitat. The small details). probability of declining to fewer than amount of low-quality habitat contained 1,000 females, and a 3 percent in the final designation is essential Summary of How We Determined Where probability of declining to fewer than Physical and Biological Features and because it provides for population 750 females. Modeled population size growth and connectivity both within Unoccupied Areas Are Essential to and extinction risk results for the Conservation of the Species regional populations and between designation are within the top 10 populations; however, we determined The decision of where the requisite percent of all alternative networks, yet that additional lower-suitability habitat physical and biological features and the designation is much smaller than was not necessary to the conservation of unoccupied areas are essential to the other top-ranking alternatives. the species. northern spotted owl was made by (2) It ensures that northern spotted identifying those areas in the range of owl populations are well-distributed We considered but rejected potential the owl that are necessary to achieving across the geographic range of the critical habitat networks that provided a relatively high likelihood of meeting species by selecting a habitat network less total area, that did not include the recovery objectives described in the that supports population sizes with low Federal matrix lands, or that did not Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, p. extinction risk within each of 11 include some State or private lands ix), while at the same time minimizing modeling regions. Modeling region- where Federal lands were lacking, the inclusion of areas that are relatively specific population sizes in the final because these networks had a less important or not necessary to designation are in the top 10 percent of significantly lower likelihood of spotted owl recovery. Striking this all alternative networks. meeting recovery objectives as measured balance required by the Act— (3) It ensures that adequate amounts by demographic modeling results and designating only those areas that of current and future habitat is available expert scientific opinion. For example, contain the essential features or are for spotted owls to persist and recover modeled rangewide population sizes in themselves essential for conservation of by designating a habitat network this final designation were 1.7 times the species and not unnecessarily consisting of approximately 50 percent larger than under the proposed rule’s designating the entire geographical area of the available high-suitability spotted Possible Outcome 4, which did not that is or can be occupied by the owl habitat rangewide. An additional 21 include any State or private lands, and species—was accomplished using the percent of high-quality habitat is nearly twice the size of populations best available information: a encompassed within Congressionally under 2008 critical habitat. This larger combination of scientific modeling, Reserved lands that are not designated, population size is essential because it expert scientific opinion of agency but will retain their value for spotted results in low extinction risk. Likewise, biologists and peer reviewers, and owls. This high-quality habitat, in we considered but rejected several careful consideration of public addition to areas required for potential networks that included comment. population connectivity, is necessary to significantly more total area than the We made sure that this final critical support rangewide populations with final designation. These potential habitat designation includes only what low extinction risk at both rangewide networks had a high probability of is essential to the species’ conservation and regional scales. meeting recovery objectives as measured by evaluating a variety of potential (4) Compared to previous spotted owl by model results and expert opinion, critical habitat networks and assessing conservation strategies, it provides but they did not confer much of a net their relative probability of meeting increased redundancy in habitat to help increase in the likelihood of meeting recovery objectives and, secondarily, buffer potential adverse impacts due to recovery objectives beyond what is their relative ‘‘efficiency’’ in meeting climate change and other stochastic (i.e., provided by the final designation. This these objectives. The various scenarios unpredictable) events by enlarging the lack of parsimony, combined with a lack were designed to bracket a variety of total area of the final designation within of a proportional increase in measurable conditions and included different the fire-prone portions of the northern demographic performance, justified the aggregations of total habitat area, spotted owl’s range. This means that the rejection of these larger potential landscape juxtaposition, and forest final designation supports larger networks when compared to the final conditions. Some were smaller or larger populations in some modeling regions designation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71917

This methodological approach was conservation of the species. Finally, as of developing the PCEs that support generally supported by the scientific noted earlier, as a result of our nesting, roosting, or foraging by peer reviewers. One peer reviewer felt application of the modeling framework northern spotted owls that will be the proposed critical habitat identified and refinement process described above, necessary for population growth. too much total area, and another peer in which we evaluated various habitat Typically the result of past timber reviewer felt that more land area should scenarios to identify the network that is harvest or wildfire, these areas of be included, but most peer reviewers essential to the conservation of the younger forest contain the elements felt the total area and the juxtaposition species by providing the quantity and conducive to fully developing the of land areas seemed reasonable and configuration of habitat essential for the physical or biological features essential scientifically justified given the current conservation of the species, we have to the conservation of the owl (they are status of the owl and the recovery additionally determined that all areas of suitable elevation, climate, and forest objectives. Most of these experts also identified here as critical habitat, community type). They may, however, concluded that the use of the modeling whether occupied at the time of listing be lacking some element of the physical process was justified for informing the or unoccupied at the time of listing, are or biological features, such as large trees final decision. essential for the conservation of the or dense canopies that are associated In sum, we believe this final species and therefore meet the with nesting habitat. In particular, of 60 designation of critical habitat for the definition of critical habitat under subunits designated, 4 (NCO–4, NCO–5, northern spotted owl meets the intent of section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act. and ORC–1) contain proportionally the Act by identifying those areas Thus, even if not occupied at the time greater areas of younger forests that are containing essential features or are of listing, all units and subunits essential for the conservation of the otherwise essential in a way that has a designated as critical habitat are species, because they can develop very high probability of providing for essential for the conservation of the additional habitat necessary to support the conservation of the species, while species because, in addition to nesting, viable northern spotted owl populations minimizing the potential for roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat, in the future. These subunits are located unnecessarily including areas of low they provide connectivity between within Southwestern Washington and conservation value to the species. occupied areas, room for population Oregon Coast Ranges Areas of Special growth, and the ability to provide Unoccupied Areas Concern (Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 66– sufficient suitable habitat on the 69), areas described as exhibiting a Based on the northern spotted owl’s landscape for owls in the face of natural scarcity of suitable habitat due to wide-ranging use of the landscape, and disturbance regimes (e.g., fire). extensive timber harvest. The recovery the distribution of known owl sites at In general, northern spotted owls goal of achieving viable populations the time of listing across the units and require large areas of habitat due to their distributed across the range of the owl subunits designated as critical habitat in expansive home range requirements and cannot be achieved without these areas; this rule, we find that all units and all the need for connectivity between therefore, we have determined them to subunits meet the Act’s definition of subpopulations to maintain genetic be essential for the conservation of the being within the geographical area diversity and support stable, viable species. occupied by the species at the time of populations over the long term. The listing. northern spotted owl was initially listed Finally, there are portions of two As noted above in Occupied Areas, in large part due to past habitat loss and subunits that function primarily for within the units and subunits degradation. In addition, recent work connectivity between populations. designated as critical habitat, each has confirmed that northern spotted Although portions of these subunits consists predominantly of habitat owls require additional areas of habitat may not have been occupied at the time occupied by the species at the time of to persist in the face of competition with of listing, these areas contain the listing. However, parts of most units and barred owls (Dugger et al. 2011, p. dispersal and foraging habitat to support subunits contain a forested mosaic that 2467). Given the effects of past habitat movement between adjacent subunits includes younger forests that may not loss and the increased habitat area and are therefore essential to provide have been occupied at the time of needed to offset competition from the population connectivity. Many of these listing; we evaluated such areas of barred owl, our assessment indicates areas are also anticipated to develop younger forest as unoccupied at the time that large areas of contiguous areas of into habitat capable of supporting of listing. Unoccupied areas must meet nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat nesting pairs in the future. In 1990, the the standard of section 3(5)(a)(ii) of the are essential to sustaining viable Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) Act: They must be determined to be northern spotted owl populations and (Thomas et al. 1990, entire) identified essential for the conservation of the meeting recovery goals. ‘‘Areas of Special Concern’’ in the Draft species. In addition, there are some In addition, because past habitat loss Strategy for the Conservation of the areas we have concluded were highly and degradation was identified as a Northern Spotted Owl. The ISC defined likely occupied at the time of listing, major threat to the northern spotted owl Areas of Special Concern as lands where based on the presence of suitable habitat at the time of listing and because this past natural occurrences and human and our predictive models, but threat currently continues, conservation actions had adversely affected habitat acknowledge there is some element of and recovery of the species is dependent more than in the remainder of the uncertainty to recognizing these areas as in part on development of additional physiographic province under occupied under the statutory definition habitat to allow for population growth consideration (Thomas et al. 1990, p. due to the lack of survey information. and recovery. Therefore, portions of the 66). Within the Areas of Special Therefore, we also evaluated all areas habitat mosaic in some subunits Concern described by the ISC (Thomas that we concluded were likely occupied designated as critical habitat within the et al. 1990, pp. 66–69), we identified but which lack survey information geographical area occupied by the areas that were strategically located applying the standard of section species at the time of listing consist of between subunits that would otherwise 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, and have younger or partially harvested forest. be demographically isolated. Of 60 determined that all such areas included These are essential for the conservation subunits designated, two (ORC–4 and in this designation are essential for the of the species because they are capable ECS–3) are identified as functioning

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71918 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

primarily for population connectivity landscape approach to managing critical • Manmade structures (such as with less than 70 percent of the subunit habitat. This landscape approach would buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, covered by survey-located owl sites. recognize that large areas are essential and other paved areas) and the land on Our evaluation of the various habitat in these regions to accommodate which they are located. scenarios considered in the modeling disturbance-driven shifts in the physical When determining critical habitat process described above enabled us to or biological features essential for the boundaries, we made every effort to determine the amount and configuration conservation of the northern spotted of habitat essential for the conservation avoid including these areas because owl, and that restorative management they lack physical or biological features of the owl, based on the relative ability actions may be needed across these for the northern spotted owl. Due to the of that habitat network to meet the landscapes to help manage for resilience limitations of mapping at such fine recovery criteria of stable or increasing in such a dynamic ecosystem. These scales, however, we were often not able populations and adequate distribution large landscapes, although essential to to segregate these areas from areas of viable populations. Although this provide for the conservation of the shown as critical habitat on critical evaluation was primarily based on areas northern spotted owl, do include within habitat maps suitable in scale for we know to have been occupied at the their boundaries several particular types publication within the Code of Federal time of listing, our evaluation of the of areas that are not included in critical Regulations. Thus, we have included distribution and configuration of the habitat, because they cannot support regulatory text clarifying that these areas physical and biological features northern spotted owl habitat. The essential to the conservation of the owl following types of areas are not critical are not included in the designation even additionally identified areas that may habitat for the northern spotted owl, and if within the mapped boundaries of not have been occupied at the time of are not included in the revised critical habitat, as a Federal action listing, if those areas were essential to designation: involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to meeting the recovery goals for the • Meadows and grasslands. These effects to critical habitat unless the species. We have determined these areas include dry, upland prairies and specific action would affect the physical to be essential for the conservation of savannas found in the valleys and or biological features in the adjacent the species, to provide for dispersal and foothills of western Washington, connectivity between currently critical habitat. Oregon, and northwest California; occupied areas, allow space for subalpine meadows; and grass and forb population growth, and provide habitat VIII. Final Critical Habitat Designation dominated cliffs, bluffs and grass balds replacement in the event of found throughout these same areas. Consistent with the standards of the disturbances, such as wildfires and Dominated by native grasses and diverse Act and our regulations we have competition with barred owls. Our forbs, they may include a minor savanna identified 9,577,969 ac (3,876,064ha) in evaluation of alternative habitat component of Oregon white oak, 11 units and 60 subunits as meeting the networks, described above, indicates Douglas-fir, or Ponderosa pine. definition of critical habitat for the that the specific areas identified in this • Oak and aspen (Populus spp.) northern spotted owl. The 11 units we designation are necessary to achieve the have identified as critical habitat are: (1) amount and configuration of habitat that woodlands. Oak woodlands are characterized by an open canopy North Coast Olympics, (2) Oregon Coast meets the recovery criteria for the Ranges, (3) Redwood Coast, (4) West species. Because these areas do so dominated by Oregon white oak but Cascades North, (5) West Cascades efficiently (without designating more may also include ponderosa pine, Central, (6) West Cascades South, (7) areas than are needed, or designating California black oak, Douglas-fir, or East Cascades North, (8) East Cascades areas that would not make a significant canyon live oak. The understory is South, (9) Klamath West, (10) Klamath contribution to conservation value), we relatively open with shrubs, grasses and have determined that these areas are wildflowers. Oak woodlands are East, and (11) Interior California Coast essential for the conservation of the typically found in drier landscapes and Ranges. All of the critical habitat units species. As described above, we have on south-facing slopes. Note this and subunits identified were occupied determined that a critical habitat exception for oak woodlands does not at the time of listing; however, some designation that does not include these include tanoak (Notholithocarpus units may include some smaller areas areas, even if they may not be occupied, densiflorus) stands, closed-canopy live that were not known to be occupied at would be inadequate to ensure the oak (Quercus agrifolia) woodlands and the time of listing but have been conservation of the species. The open-canopied valley oak (Quercus determined to be essential to the resulting revised critical habitat lobata) and mixed-oak woodlands in conservation of the species. In addition, represents the amount and spatial subunits ICC–6 and RDC–5 in Napa, as described above, we have determined distribution of habitats that we have Sonoma, and Marin Counties, that all areas being designated are determined to be essential for the California. Aspen woodlands are essential to the conservation of the conservation of the northern spotted dominated by aspen trees with a forb, species. Land ownership of the owl. grass or shrub understory and are designated critical habitat includes This designation is an improvement typically found on mountain slopes, Federal and State lands. No tribal lands over the previous designation in that it rock outcrops and talus slopes, canyon are included in the critical habitat anticipates that in geographical regions walls, and some seeps and stream designation. The approximate area of with drier forests and more dynamic corridors. This forest type also can each critical habitat unit is shown in natural disturbance regimes, land occur in riparian areas or in moist Table 6. Table 7 gives totals by land managers will consider taking a microsites within drier landscapes. ownership.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71919

TABLE 6—REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]

Critical habitat unit Land ownership Acres Hectares

Unit 1—North Coast Olympics ...... Federal ...... 696,230 281,754 State ...... 128,270 51,909

Total ...... 824,500 333,663 Unit 2—Oregon Coast Ranges ...... Federal ...... 788,919 319,264 State ...... 70,945 28,711

Total ...... 859,864 347,975 Unit 3—Redwood Coast ...... Federal ...... 111,258 45,025 State ...... 48,912 19,794 Local government ...... 20,684 8,371

Total ...... 180,855 73,189 Unit 4—West Cascades North ...... Federal ...... 541,476 219,127 State ...... 798 323

Total ...... 542,274 219,450 Unit 5—West Cascades Central ...... Federal ...... 908,861 367,802 State ...... 825 334

Total ...... 909,687 368,136 Unit 6—West Cascades South ...... Federal ...... 1,354,989 548,345 State ...... 209 85

Total ...... 1,355,198 548,429 Unit 7—East Cascades North ...... Federal ...... 1,338,988 541,869 State ...... 6,534 2,644

Total ...... 1,345,523 544,514 Unit 8—East Cascades South ...... Federal ...... 368,380 149,078 Unit 9—Klamath West ...... Federal ...... 1,186,750 480,260 State ...... 10,639 4,305

Total ...... 1,197,389 484,565 Unit 10—Klamath East ...... Federal ...... 1,049,826 424,850 State ...... 2,905 1,175

Total ...... 1,052,731 426,025 Unit 11—Inner California Coast Ranges ...... Federal ...... 940,721 380,696 State ...... 848 343

Total ...... 941,568 381,039

Grand Total ...... 9,577,969 3,876,064 Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

TABLE 7—REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT subunit, we describe the proportion of of areas in terms of occupancy at the UNITS FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED the area that is covered by verified time of listing, we evaluated all such OWL, DESCRIBING AREA INCLUDED northern spotted owl home ranges at the areas applying the standard under UNDER DIFFERENT time of listing. As described above in section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, and have the section Criteria Used to Identify LANDOWNERSHIPS determined that all such areas included Critical Habitat, all areas being in this designation are essential to the Acres Hectares designated that were occupied at the conservation of the species. In addition, time of listing contain the physical or as a result of our application of the USFS ...... 7,957,787 3,220,399 biological features essential to the modeling framework described earlier, BLM ...... 1,328,612 537,670 conservation of the northern spotted we have determined that all areas NPS ...... 0 0 owl, and which may require special State ...... 270,886 109,624 identified here as critical habitat, management considerations or whether occupied at the time of listing Local Govern- protection. In addition, there are smaller or unoccupied at the time of listing, are ment ...... 20,684 8,371 areas of suitable habitat within subunits Private ...... 0 0 essential to the conservation of the that we considered likely occupied by Other Federal species and therefore meet the nonterritorial owls and dispersing (DOD) ...... 0 0 definition of critical habitat under Tribal ...... 0 0 subadults, at the time of listing, as well as some smaller areas of younger forest section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act. This Total ...... 9,577,969 3,876,064 within the larger habitat mosaic that applies to all units and subunits may have been unoccupied at the time described below. We present brief descriptions of all of listing. Due to some potential for units and their subunits below. For each uncertainty in these latter two categories

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71920 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Unit 1: North Coast Ranges and located primarily in the watersheds of some smaller areas of younger forest Olympic Peninsula (NCO) Lyre, Hoko, Soleduck, Hoh, Quinault, within the habitat mosaic of this subunit Unit 1 consists of 824,500 ac (333,623 Queets, and Clearwater Rivers, and that were unoccupied at the time of ha) and contains five subunits. This unit includes the northern part of the Lower listing. We have determined that all of consists of the Oregon and Washington Chehalis River watershed. the unoccupied and likely occupied Our evaluation of sites known to be Coast Ranges Section M242A, based on areas in this subunit are essential for the occupied at the time of listing indicates section descriptions of forest types from conservation of the species to meet the that approximately 94 percent of the Ecological Subregions of the United recovery criterion that calls for the area of NCO–1 was covered by verified States (McNab and Avers 1994a, Section continued maintenance and recruitment northern spotted owl home ranges at the M242A). This region is characterized by of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS time of listing. When combined with 2011, p. ix). The increase and high rainfall, cool to moderate likely occupancy of suitable habitat and enhancement of northern spotted owl temperatures, and generally low occupancy by nonterritorial owls and habitat is necessary to provide for viable topography (1,470 to 2,460 ft (448 to 750 dispersing subadults, we consider this populations of northern spotted owls m)). High elevations and cold subunit to have been largely occupied at over the long term by providing for temperatures occur in the interior the time of listing. In addition, there population growth, successful dispersal, portions of the Olympic Peninsula, but may be some smaller areas of younger and buffering from competition with the northern spotted owls in this area are forest within the habitat mosaic of this barred owl. limited to the lower elevations (less subunit that were unoccupied at the NCO–3. We exempted subunit NCO– than 2,950 ft (900 m)). Forests in the time of listing. We have determined that 3 from the final designation of critical NCO are dominated by western all of the unoccupied and likely habitat under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act hemlock, Sitka spruce, Douglas-fir, and occupied areas in this subunit are (See Exemptions section below). This western red cedar (Thuja plicata). essential for the conservation of the subunit is comprised approximately Hardwoods are limited in species species to meet the recovery criterion 14,313 ac (5,792 ha) of lands managed diversity (consist mostly of bigleaf that calls for the continued maintenance by the Department of Defense as part of maple and red alder (Alnus rubra)) and and recruitment of northern spotted owl Joint Base Lewis-McChord under their distribution within this region, and habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The integrated natural resource management typically occur in riparian zones. Root increase and enhancement of northern plan (INRMP). pathogens like laminated root rot spotted owl habitat is necessary to NCO–4. The NCO–4 subunit consists (Phellinus weirii) are important gap provide for viable populations of of approximately 179,745 ac (72,740 ha) formers, and vine maple (Acer northern spotted owls over the long in Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook, and circinatum), among others, fills these term by providing for population Washington Counties, Oregon, and gaps. Because Douglas-fir dwarf growth, successful dispersal, and comprises Federal lands and lands mistletoe is unusual in this region, buffering from competition with the managed by the State of Oregon. Of this northern spotted owl nesting habitat barred owl. subunit, 117,033 ac (47,361 ha) are consists of stands providing very large NCO–2. The NCO–2 subunit consists managed as part of the Tillamook and trees with cavities or deformities. A few of approximately 213,633 ac (86,454 ha) Clatsop State Forests for multiple uses nests are associated with western in Kitsap, Clallam, Jefferson, Grays including timber revenue production, hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium Harbor, and Mason Counties, recreation, and wildlife habitat tsugense subsp. tsugense). Northern Washington, and comprises lands according to the Northwest Oregon State spotted owl diets are dominated by managed by the USFS. The USFS Forest Management Plan (ODF 2010a, species associated with mature to late- manages 173,682 ac (70,287 ha) as Late- entire). Federal lands encompass 62,712 successional forests (flying squirrels, red successional Reserves to maintain ac (25,379 ha) of this subunit and are tree voles), resulting in similar functional, interactive, late-successional managed as directed by the NWFP definitions of habitats used for nesting/ and old-growth forest ecosystems and (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special roosting and foraging by northern 39,083 ac (15,816 ha) under the adaptive management considerations or spotted owls. management area land use allocation. protection are required in this subunit Threats in this subunit include current to address threats from current and past Subunit Descriptions: Unit 1 and past timber harvest, competition timber harvest and competition with NCO–1. The NCO–1 subunit consists with barred owls, and isolation on a barred owls. This subunit is expected to of approximately 293,539 ac (118,791 peninsula (along with subunit NCO–1). function primarily for demographic ha) in Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, This subunit is expected to function support to the overall population. This and Mason Counties, Washington, and primarily for demographic support of subunit is isolated from the nearest comprises lands managed by U.S. Forest the overall population. NCO–2 is subunit to the north but is adjacent to Service (USFS) and State of located primarily in the watersheds of subunit NCO–5 to the south. Washington. The USFS manages the Elwha, Dungeness, Quilcene, Snow, Our evaluation of sites known to be 230,966 ac (93,309 ha) as Late- Skokomish, and Dosewallips rivers. occupied at the time of listing indicate successional Reserves to maintain Our evaluation of sites known to be that approximately 63 percent of the functional, interactive, late-successional occupied at the time of listing indicate area of NCO–4 was covered by verified and old-growth forest ecosystems and that approximately 95 percent of the northern spotted owl home ranges at the 62,966 ac (25,481 ha) under the adaptive area of this subunit was covered by time of listing. When combined with management area land use allocation. verified northern spotted owl home likely occupancy of suitable habitat and Threats in this subunit include current ranges at the time of listing. When occupancy by nonterritorial owls and and past timber harvest, competition combined with likely occupancy of dispersing subadults, we consider a with barred owls, and isolation on a suitable habitat and occupancy by large part of this subunit to have been peninsula (along with subunit NCO–2). nonterritorial owls and dispersing occupied at the time of listing. There are This subunit is expected to function subadults, we consider this subunit to some areas of younger forest in this primarily for demographic support of have been largely occupied at the time subunit that may have been unoccupied the overall population. NCO–1 is of listing. In addition, there may be at the time of listing. We have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71921

determined that all of the unoccupied of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS increasing proportion of the diet in the and likely occupied areas in this 2011, p. ix). The increase and southern portion of the modeling region. subunit are essential for the enhancement of northern spotted owl Subunit Descriptions—Unit 2 conservation of the species to meet the habitat in this subunit is especially recovery criterion that calls for the important for providing for population OCR–1. The OCR–1 subunit consists continued maintenance and recruitment growth and additional demographic of approximately 110,657 ac (44,781 ha) of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS support in this region. The development in Polk, Benton and Lincoln Counties, 2011, p. ix). The increase and of additional suitable habitat in this Oregon, and comprises lands managed enhancement of northern spotted owl subunit is needed to support viable by the State of Oregon, the BLM, and the habitat in this subunit is especially northern spotted owl populations over USFS. Of this subunit 6,612 ac (2,676 important for providing for population the long term. The recruitment of ha) are managed by the State of Oregon growth and additional demographic additional suitable habitat will also for multiple uses including timber support in this region. The development contribute to the successful dispersal of revenue production, recreation, and of additional suitable habitat in this northern spotted owls, and serve to wildlife habitat according to the subunit is needed to support viable buffer northern spotted owls from Northwest Oregon State Forest northern spotted owl populations over competition with the barred owl. Management Plan (ODF 2010a, entire). the long term. The recruitment of Federal lands comprise 104,045 ac additional suitable habitat will also Unit 2: Oregon Coast Ranges (OCR) (42,105 ha) and are managed as directed contribute to the successful dispersal of by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, Unit 2 consists of 859,864 ac (347,975 entire). Special management northern spotted owls, and serve to ha) and contains six subunits. This unit buffer northern spotted owls from considerations or protection are consists of the southern third of the required in this subunit to address competition with the barred owl. Oregon and Washington Coast Ranges NCO–5. The NCO–5 subunit consists threats from current and past timber Section M242A, based on section of approximately 142,937 ac (57,845 ha) harvest and competition with barred descriptions of forest types from in Yamhill, Lincoln, Tillamook, and owls. This subunit is expected to Ecological Subregions of the United Polk Counties, Oregon, and comprises function primarily for demographic States (McNab and Avers 1994a, Section lands managed by the State of Oregon, support to the overall population and M242A). We split the section in the the BLM, and the USFS. Of this subunit north-south connectivity between vicinity of Otter Rock, OR, based on 11,067 ac (4,479 ha) are managed by the subunits and critical habitat units. State of Oregon for multiple uses gradients of increased temperature and Our evaluation of sites known to be including timber revenue production, decreased moisture that result in occupied at the time of listing indicates recreation, and wildlife habitat different patterns of vegetation to the that approximately 55 percent of the according to the Northwest Oregon State south. Generally this region is area of OCR–1 was covered by verified Forest Management Plan (ODF 2010a, characterized by high rainfall, cool to northern spotted owl home ranges at the entire), and may be considered for moderate temperatures, and generally time of listing. When combined with exclusion from the final critical habitat low topography (980 to 2,460 ft (300 to likely occupancy of suitable habitat and designation. Federal lands comprise 750 m)). Forests in this region are occupancy by nonterritorial owls and 131,870 ac (53,666 ha) and are managed dominated by western hemlock, Sitka dispersing subadults, we consider a as directed by the NWFP (USDA and spruce, and Douglas-fir; hardwoods are large part of this subunit to have been USDI 1994, entire). Special management limited in species diversity (largely occupied at the time of listing. There are considerations or protection are bigleaf maple and red alder) and some areas of younger forest in this required in this subunit to address distribution, and are typically limited to subunit that may have been unoccupied threats from current and past timber riparian zones. Douglas-fir and at the time of listing. We have harvest and competition with barred hardwood species associated with the determined that all of the unoccupied owls. This subunit is expected to California Floristic Province (tanoak, and likely occupied areas in this function primarily for demographic Pacific madrone, black oak, giant subunit are essential for the support to the overall population and chinquapin (Castanopsis chrysophylla)) conservation of the species to meet the north-south connectivity between increase toward the southern end of the recovery criterion that calls for the subunits and critical habitat units. OCR. On the eastern side of the Coast continued maintenance and recruitment Our evaluation of sites known to be Ranges crest, habitats tend to be drier of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS occupied at the time of listing indicate and dominated by Douglas-fir. Root 2011, p. ix). The increase and that approximately 63 percent of the pathogens like laminated root rot are enhancement of northern spotted owl area of NCO–5 was covered by verified important gap formers, and vine maple habitat in this subunit is especially northern spotted owl home ranges at the among others fills these gaps. Because important for providing for population time of listing. When combined with Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is unusual growth and additional demographic likely occupancy of suitable habitat and in this region, northern spotted owl support in this region. The development occupancy by nonterritorial owls and nesting habitat tends to be limited to of additional suitable habitat in this dispersing subadults, we consider a stands providing very large trees with subunit is needed to support viable large part of this subunit to have been cavities or deformities. A few nests are northern spotted owl populations over occupied at the time of listing. There are associated with western hemlock dwarf the long term. The recruitment of some areas of younger forest in this mistletoe. Northern spotted owl diets additional suitable habitat will also subunit that may have been unoccupied are dominated by species associated contribute to the successful dispersal of at the time of listing. We have with mature to late-successional forests northern spotted owls, and serve to determined that all of the unoccupied (flying squirrels, red tree voles), buffer northern spotted owls from and likely occupied areas in this resulting in similar definitions of competition with the barred owl. subunit are essential for the habitats used for nesting/roosting and OCR–2. The OCR–2 subunit consists conservation of the species to meet the foraging by northern spotted owls. One of approximately 261,405 ac (105,787 recovery criterion that calls for the significant difference between OCR and ha) in Lane, Benton, and Lincoln continued maintenance and recruitment NCO is that woodrats comprise an Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71922 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

managed by the State of Oregon, the timber harvest and competition with recovery criterion that calls for the BLM, and the USFS. Of this subunit barred owls. This subunit is expected to continued maintenance and recruitment 18,504 ac (7,448 ha) are managed by the function primarily for demographic of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS State of Oregon for multiple uses support to the overall population and 2011, p. ix). The increase and including timber revenue production, for both north-south and east-west enhancement of northern spotted owl recreation, and wildlife habitat connectivity between subunits. habitat in this subunit is especially according to the Northwest Oregon State Our evaluation of sites known to be important for providing essential Forest Management Plan (ODF 2010a, occupied at the time of listing indicates connectivity between currently entire). Federal lands comprise 242,901 that approximately 97 percent of the occupied areas to support the successful ac (98,298 ha) and are managed as area of OCR–3 was covered by verified dispersal of northern spotted owls, and directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI northern spotted owl home ranges at the may also help to buffer northern spotted 1994, entire). Special management time of listing. When combined with owls from competition with the barred considerations or protection are likely occupancy of suitable habitat and owl. required in this subunit to address occupancy by nonterritorial owls and OCR–5. The OCR–5 subunit consists threats from current and past timber dispersing subadults, we consider this of approximately 176,905 ac (71,591ha) harvest and competition with barred subunit to have been largely occupied at in Coos and Douglas Counties, Oregon, owls. This subunit is expected to the time of listing. In addition, there and comprises lands managed by the function primarily for demographic may be some smaller areas of younger State of Oregon, the BLM, and the support to the overall population and forest within the habitat mosaic of this USFS. Of this subunit 40,747 ac (16,490 north-south connectivity between subunit that were unoccupied at the ha) are managed by the State of Oregon subunits. time of listing. We have determined that for multiple uses including sustained Our evaluation of sites known to be all of the unoccupied and likely economic benefit through timber harvest occupied at the time of listing indicates occupied areas in this subunit are and management, recreation, and that approximately 77 percent of the essential for the conservation of the wildlife habitat according to the Elliot area of OCR–2 was covered by verified species to meet the recovery criterion State Forest Management Plan (ODF northern spotted owl home ranges at the that calls for the continued maintenance 2011, entire). Federal lands comprise time of listing. When combined with and recruitment of northern spotted owl 136,158 ac (55,101 ha) and are managed likely occupancy of suitable habitat and habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The as directed by the NWFP (USDA and occupancy by nonterritorial owls and increase and enhancement of northern USDI 1994, entire). Special management dispersing subadults, we consider this spotted owl habitat is necessary to considerations or protection are subunit to have been largely occupied at provide for viable populations of required in this subunit to address the time of listing. In addition, there northern spotted owls over the long threats from current and past timber may be some smaller areas of younger term by providing for population harvest and competition with barred forest within the habitat mosaic of this growth, successful dispersal, and owls. This subunit is expected to subunit that were unoccupied at the buffering from competition with the function primarily for demographic time of listing. We have determined that barred owl. support to the overall population and all of the unoccupied and likely OCR–4. The OCR–4 subunit consists for north-south, and potentially east- occupied areas in this subunit are of approximately 8,263 ac (3,344 ha) in west, connectivity between subunits. essential for the conservation of the Lane and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and species to meet the recovery criterion comprises lands managed by the BLM as Our evaluation of sites known to be that calls for the continued maintenance directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI occupied at the time of listing indicates and recruitment of northern spotted owl 1994, entire). Special management that approximately 94 percent of the habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The considerations or protection are area of OCR–5 was covered by verified increase and enhancement of northern required in this subunit to address northern spotted owl home ranges at the spotted owl habitat is necessary to threats from current and past timber time of listing. When combined with provide for viable populations of harvest and competition with barred likely occupancy of suitable habitat and northern spotted owls over the long owls. This subunit is expected to occupancy by nonterritorial owls and term by providing for population function primarily for east-west dispersing subadults, we consider this growth, successful dispersal, and connectivity between subunits and subunit to have been largely occupied at buffering from competition with the critical habitat units, and between the the time of listing. In addition, there barred owl. Oregon coast and the western Cascades. may be some smaller areas of younger OCR–3. The OCR–3 subunit consists Our evaluation of sites known to be forest within the habitat mosaic of this of approximately 203,681 ac (82,427 ha) occupied at the time of listing indicates subunit that were unoccupied at the in Lane and Douglas Counties, Oregon, that approximately 43 percent of the time of listing. We have determined that and comprises lands managed by the area of OCR–4 was covered by verified all of the unoccupied and likely State of Oregon, the BLM, and the northern spotted owl home ranges at the occupied areas in this subunit are USFS. Of this subunit 5,082 ac (2,07 ha) time of listing. When combined with essential for the conservation of the are managed by the State of Oregon for likely occupancy of suitable habitat and species to meet the recovery criterion multiple uses including timber revenue occupancy by nonterritorial owls and that calls for the continued maintenance production, recreation, and wildlife dispersing subadults, we consider a and recruitment of northern spotted owl habitat according to the Northwest large part of this subunit to have been habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The Oregon State Forest Management Plan occupied at the time of listing. There are increase and enhancement of northern (ODF 2010a, entire). Federal lands some areas of younger forest in this spotted owl habitat is necessary to comprise 198,599 ac (80,369 ha) and are subunit that may have been unoccupied provide for viable populations of managed as directed by the NWFP at the time of listing. We have northern spotted owls over the long (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special determined that all of the unoccupied term by providing for population management considerations or and likely occupied areas in this growth, successful dispersal, and protection are required in this subunit subunit are essential for the buffering from competition with the to address threats from current and past conservation of the species to meet the barred owl.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71923

OCR–6. The OCR–6 subunit consists and rapid growth rates of redwoods, timber production, water quality, of approximately 81,900 ac (33,144 ha) combined with high availability of wildlife habitat, and research. in Coos and Douglas Counties, Oregon, woodrats in patchy, intensively Special management considerations and comprises lands managed by the managed forests, enables northern or protection are required in this BLM as directed by the NWFP (USDA spotted owls to maintain high densities subunit to address threats from the and USDI 1994, entire). Special in a wide range of habitat conditions barred owl. Suitable habitat within the management considerations or within the Redwood zone. subunit is relatively contiguous north- protection are required in this subunit to-south, and is capable of supporting a to address threats from current and past Subunit Descriptions—Unit 3 sustainable subpopulation of owls. The timber harvest and competition with RDC–1. This subunit contains 63,127 subunit is weakly connected to the barred owls. This subunit is expected to ac (25,547 ha) of lands managed by the adjacent CHU to the east (ICC) and to function primarily for demographic USFS and BLM in Curry County, the coastal subunit to the north (RDC– support to the overall population and Oregon and in Del Norte, Humboldt, 1); it is relatively well connected to the for north-south connectivity between and Trinity Counties, California. Special coastal subunit to the south (RDC–3). subunits and critical habitat units. management considerations or Our evaluation of sites known to be Our evaluation of sites known to be protection are required in this subunit occupied at the time of listing indicates occupied at the time of listing indicates to address threats from the barred owl. that approximately 85 percent of the that approximately 97 percent of the Suitable habitat within the subunit is area of RDC–2 was covered by verified area of OCR–6 was covered by verified relatively contiguous north-to-south, northern spotted owl home ranges at the northern spotted owl home ranges at the and is capable of supporting a time of listing. When combined with time of listing. When combined with sustainable subpopulation of owls. We likely occupancy of suitable habitat and likely occupancy of suitable habitat and expect that this subunit will provide occupancy by nonterritorial owls and occupancy by nonterritorial owls and strong connectivity among the adjacent dispersing subadults, we consider this dispersing subadults, we consider this critical habitat units to the north (OCR) subunit to have been largely occupied at subunit to have been largely occupied at and east (KLW, ICC). The subunit is the time of listing. In addition, there the time of listing. In addition, there weakly connected to the adjacent may be some smaller areas of younger may be some smaller areas of younger subunit to the south (RDC–2). forest within the habitat mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the forest within the habitat mosaic of this Our evaluation of sites known to be time of listing. We have determined that subunit that were unoccupied at the occupied at the time of listing indicates time of listing. We have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely that approximately 78 percent of the all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are area of RDC–1 was covered by verified occupied areas in this subunit are essential for the conservation of the northern spotted owl home ranges at the essential for the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion time of listing. When combined with species to meet the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance likely occupancy of suitable habitat and that calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of northern spotted owl occupancy by nonterritorial owls and and recruitment of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The dispersing subadults, we consider this habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of northern subunit to have been largely occupied at increase and enhancement of northern spotted owl habitat is necessary to the time of listing. In addition, there spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for viable populations of provide for viable populations of may be some smaller areas of younger northern spotted owls over the long northern spotted owls over the long forest within the habitat mosaic of this term by providing for population term by providing for population subunit that were unoccupied at the growth, successful dispersal, and growth, successful dispersal, and time of listing. We have determined that buffering from competition with the buffering from competition with the all of the unoccupied and likely barred owl. barred owl. occupied areas in this subunit are RDC–3. This subunit was comprised essential for the conservation of the entirely of private lands, which have Unit 3: Redwood Coast (RWC) species to meet the recovery criterion been excluded from the final rule. Unit 3 contains 180,855ac (73,189ha) that calls for the continued maintenance RDC–4. This subunit was comprised and three subunits. This unit consists of and recruitment of northern spotted owl entirely of private lands, which have the Northern California Coast Ecological habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The been excluded from the final rule. Section 263, based on section increase and enhancement of northern RDC–5. This subunit contains 20,684 descriptions of forest types from spotted owl habitat is necessary to ac (8,371 ha) in southern Marin County, Ecological Subregions of the United provide for viable populations of California and represents the southern States (McNab and Avers 1994b, entire). northern spotted owls over the long range limit of the subspecies. No private This region is characterized by low- term by providing for population lands are contained in this subunit. The lying terrain (0 to 2,950 ft (0 to 900 m)) growth, successful dispersal, and Mount Tamalpais Watershed (18,900 ac with a maritime climate, generally buffering from competition with the (7,649 ha)) of the Marin Municipal mesic conditions, and moderate barred owl. Water District is included in the final temperatures. Climatic conditions are RDC–2. This subunit contains 65,391 critical habitat designation. Six Open rarely limiting to northern spotted owls ac (26,463 ha) in Mendocino and Space Preserves (OSPs) in the Marin at all elevations. Forest communities are southwestern Humboldt Counties, County Parks and Open Space System, dominated by redwood, Douglas-fir- California. There are 16,479 ac (6,669 totaling 3,627 ac (1,468 ha), are tanoak forest, coast live oak, and tanoak ha) of Federal lands in the subunit, included in the final critical habitat series. The vast majority of the region is managed by the Bureau of Land designation, including Gary Giacomini, in private ownership, dominated by a Management. The California White Hill, Cascade Canyon, Baltimore few large industrial timberland Department of Forestry and Fire Canyon, Camino Alto, and Blithedale holdings. The results of numerous Protection operates the Jackson Summit OSPs. Special management studies of northern spotted owl habitat Demonstration State Forest (48,912 ac considerations or protection are relationships suggest stump-sprouting (19,794 ha)) for multiple uses including required in this subunit to address

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71924 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

incipient threats from the barred owl. fir; the western hemlock and Douglas-fir provide for viable populations of Suitable habitat within the subunit is forests typically used by northern northern spotted owls over the long continuous from east to west. It is spotted owls are more limited to lower term by providing for population unknown whether this subunit is elevations and river valleys (northern growth, successful dispersal, and capable of supporting a self-sustaining spotted owls are rarely found at buffering from competition with the subpopulation of owls without support elevations greater than 4,200 ft (1,280 barred owl. from the subunit to the north (RDC–4). m) in this region) grading into the mesic WCN–2. The WCN–2 subunit consists The lands between this subunit and the Puget lowland to the west. of approximately 103,988 ac (42,083 ha) nearest subunit to the east (ICC–6) are in King and Snohomish Counties, Subunit Descriptions—Unit 4 dominated by agricultural and urban Washington, and comprises lands land use, and are very weakly WCN–1. The WCN–1 subunit consists managed by the USFS, State of connected. of approximately 438,255 ac (177,355 Washington, and private landowners. Our evaluation of sites known to be ha) in Whatcom, Skagit, and Snohomish The USFS manages 82,316 ac (33,312 occupied at the time of listing indicates Counties, Washington, and comprises ha) as Late-successional Reserves to that approximately 82 percent of the lands managed by the USFS and the maintain functional, interactive, late- area of RDC–5 was covered by verified State of Washington. The USFS manages successional, and old-growth forest northern spotted owl home ranges at the 320,146 ac (129,559 ha) as Late- ecosystems and 834 ac (338 ha) under time of listing. When combined with successional Reserves to maintain the matrix land use allocation where likely occupancy of suitable habitat and functional, interactive, late- multiple uses occur, including most occupancy by nonterritorial owls and successional, and old-growth forest timber harvest and other silvicultural dispersing subadults, we consider this ecosystems and 6,147 ac (2,487 ha) activities. Threats in this subunit subunit to have been largely occupied at under the matrix land use allocation include current and past timber harvest, the time of listing. In addition, there where multiple uses occur, including competition with barred owls, and steep may be some smaller areas of younger most timber harvest and other topography with high-elevation ridges forest within the habitat mosaic of this silvicultural activities. Threats in this that separate relatively small, linear subunit that were unoccupied at the subunit include current and past timber strips of suitable habitat in valley time of listing. We have determined that harvest, competition with barred owls, bottoms. This subunit has a key role in all of the unoccupied and likely steep topography with high-elevation maintaining connectivity between occupied areas in this subunit are ridges that separate relatively small, northern spotted owl populations, both essential for the conservation of the linear strips of suitable habitat in valley north to south in the West Cascades and species to meet the recovery criterion bottoms, and location at the northern west to east between the West and East that calls for the continued maintenance limit of the subspecies range. This Cascades units. This role is shared with and recruitment of northern spotted owl subunit is expected to function the WCC–1 subunit to the south and the habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The primarily for demographic support of ECN–4 subunit to the east. This subunit increase and enhancement of northern the overall population and to maintain is also expected to provide demographic spotted owl habitat is necessary to the subspecies distribution in the support of the overall population. provide for viable populations of northernmost portion of its range. WCN–2 is located in the watersheds of northern spotted owls over the long WCN–1 is located in the watersheds of the Snohomish and Cedar/Sammamish term by providing for population the Stillaguamish, Skagit, and Nooksack Rivers. In this subunit, we have growth, successful dispersal, and rivers, and is bounded on the north by excluded lands covered under the buffering from competition with the the international boundary with British Washington Department of Natural barred owl. Columbia, Canada. In this subunit, we Resources State Lands HCP in the final have excluded lands covered under the designation. Unit 4: West Cascades North (WCN) Washington Department of Natural Our evaluation of sites known to be This unit contains 542,274 ac Resources State Lands HCP. occupied at the time of listing indicates (219,450 ha) and two subunits. This unit Our evaluation of sites known to be that approximately 79 percent of the coincides with the northern Western occupied at the time of listing indicates area of WCN–2 was covered by verified Cascades Section M242B, based on that approximately 92 percent of the northern spotted owl home ranges at the section descriptions of forest types from area of WCN–1 was covered by verified time of listing. When combined with Ecological Subregions of the United northern spotted owl home ranges at the likely occupancy of suitable habitat and States (McNab and Avers 1994a, Section time of listing. When combined with occupancy by nonterritorial owls and M242B), combined with the western likely occupancy of suitable habitat and dispersing subadults, we consider this portion of M242D (Northern Cascades occupancy by nonterritorial owls and subunit to have been largely occupied at Section), extending from the U.S.- dispersing subadults, we consider this the time of listing. In addition, there Canadian border south to Snoqualmie subunit to have been largely occupied at may be some smaller areas of younger Pass in central Washington. It is similar the time of listing. In addition, there forest within the habitat mosaic of this to the Northern Cascades Province of may be some smaller areas of younger subunit that were unoccupied at the Franklin and Dyrness (1988, pp. 17–20). forest within the habitat mosaic of this time of listing. We have determined that This region is characterized by high subunit that were unoccupied at the all of the unoccupied and likely mountainous terrain with extensive time of listing. We have determined that occupied areas in this subunit are areas of glaciers and snowfields at all of the unoccupied and likely essential for the conservation of the higher elevation. The marine climate occupied areas in this subunit are species to meet the recovery criterion brings high precipitation (both annual essential for the conservation of the that calls for the continued maintenance and summer) but is modified by high species to meet the recovery criterion and recruitment of northern spotted owl elevations and low temperatures over that calls for the continued maintenance habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The much of this modeling region. The and recruitment of northern spotted owl increase and enhancement of northern resulting distribution of forest habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The spotted owl habitat is necessary to vegetation is dominated by subalpine increase and enhancement of northern provide for viable populations of species, mountain hemlock and silver spotted owl habitat is necessary to northern spotted owls over the long

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71925

term by providing for population HCP, the Tacoma Water Green River Our evaluation of sites known to be growth, successful dispersal, and Water Supply Operations and occupied at the time of listing indicates buffering from competition with the Watershed Protection HCP as well as that approximately 96 percent of the barred owl. other private lands from the final area of WCC–2 was covered by verified designation. northern spotted owl home ranges at the Unit 5: West Cascades Central (WCC) Our evaluation of sites known to be time of listing. When combined with This unit contains 909,687 ac occupied at the time of listing indicate likely occupancy of suitable habitat and (368,136 ha) and three subunits. This that approximately 96 percent of the occupancy by nonterritorial owls and region consists of the midsection of the area of WCC–1 was covered by verified dispersing subadults, we consider this Western Cascades Section M242B, based northern spotted owl home ranges at the subunit to have been largely occupied at on section descriptions of forest types time of listing. When combined with the time of listing. In addition, there from Ecological Subregions of the likely occupancy of suitable habitat and may be some smaller areas of younger United States (McNab and Avers 1994a, occupancy by nonterritorial owls and forest within the habitat mosaic of this Section M242B), extending from dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit that were unoccupied at the Snoqualmie Pass in central Washington subunit to have been largely occupied at time of listing. We have determined that south to the Columbia River. It is similar the time of listing. In addition, there all of the unoccupied and likely to the Southern Washington Cascades may be some smaller areas of younger occupied areas in this subunit are Province of Franklin and Dyrness (1988, forest within the habitat mosaic of this essential for the conservation of the pp. 21–23). We separated this region subunit that were unoccupied at the species to meet the recovery criterion from the northern section based on time of listing. We have determined that that calls for the continued maintenance differences in northern spotted owl all of the unoccupied and likely and recruitment of northern spotted owl habitat due to relatively milder occupied areas in this subunit are habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The temperatures, lower elevations, and essential for the conservation of the increase and enhancement of northern greater proportion of western hemlock/ species to meet the recovery criterion spotted owl habitat is necessary to Douglas-fir forest and occurrence of that calls for the continued maintenance provide for viable populations of noble fir (A. procera) to the south of and recruitment of northern spotted owl northern spotted owls over the long Snoqualmie Pass. Because Douglas-fir habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The term by providing for population dwarf mistletoe occurs rarely in this increase and enhancement of northern growth, successful dispersal, and region, northern spotted owl nest sites buffering from competition with the are largely limited to defects in large spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for viable populations of barred owl. trees, and occasionally nests of other WCC–3. The WCC–3 subunit consists northern spotted owls over the long raptors. of approximately 394,501 ac (159,649 term by providing for population ha) in Clark, Skamania, and Yakima Subunit Descriptions—Unit 5 growth, successful dispersal, and Counties, Washington, and comprises buffering from competition with the WCC–1. The WCC–1 subunit consists lands managed by the USFS, the State barred owl. of approximately 225,847 ac (91,397 ha) of Washington, and private landowners. in King, Pierce, Thurston, Lewis, WCC–2. The WCC–2 subunit consists The USFS manages 242,929 ac (98,310 Kittitas, and Yakima Counties, of approximately 279,445 ac (113,087 ha) as Late-successional Reserves to Washington, and comprises lands ha) in Pierce, Lewis, Cowlitz, Skamania, maintain functional, interactive, late- managed by USFS and State of and Yakima Counties, Washington, and successional, and old-growth forest Washington. The USFS manages comprises lands managed by USFS, ecosystems and 122,641 ac (49,631 ha) 183,884 ac (76,843 ha) as Late- State of Washington, and private under the matrix land use allocation successional Reserves to maintain landowners. The USFS manages 92,835 where multiple uses occur, including functional, interactive, late- ac (37,569 ha) as Late-successional most timber harvest and other successional, and old-growth forest Reserves to maintain functional, silvicultural activities. Threats in this ecosystems and 35,145 ac (14,222 ha) interactive, late-successional, and old- subunit include current and past timber under the matrix land use allocation growth forest ecosystems and 88,655 ac harvest, competition with barred owls, where multiple uses occur, including (35,878 ha) under the matrix land use and the Columbia River as an most timber harvest and other allocation where multiple uses occur, impediment to northern spotted owl silvicultural activities. Threats in this including most timber harvest and other dispersal. This subunit is expected to subunit include current and past timber silvicultural activities. Threats in this provide demographic support of the harvest, competition with barred owls, subunit include current and past timber overall population and an opportunity and stand conversion. This subunit is harvest and competition with barred for demographic exchange between the expected to provide demographic owls. This subunit is expected to WCC Unit and the WCS Unit. WCC–3 is support of the overall population and to provide demographic support of the located primarily in the watersheds of maintain demographic connectivity overall population. WCC–2 is located the Lewis, Wind, and White Salmon between the Cascade Range and the primarily in the Cowlitz River Rivers, and is bounded on the south by Olympic Peninsula in conjunction with watersheds west of the Cascade Crest the Columbia River. In this subunit, we subunit NCO–3. WCC–1 is located and the headwaters of the Naches River have excluded lands covered under the primarily in the watersheds of the watershed east of the Crest. In this Washington Department of Natural Nisqually, Puyallup, White, Duwamish, subunit, we have excluded lands Resources State Lands HCP from critical and Green Rivers. In this subunit, we covered under the Washington habitat designation. have excluded lands from our final Department of Natural Resources State Our evaluation of sites known to be critical habitat designation that are Lands HCP, the West Fork Timber HCP, occupied at the time of listing indicates covered under the Washington and the Port Blakely Tree Farms L.P. that approximately 96 percent of the Department of Natural Resources State (Morton Block) SHA, Landowner Option area of WCC–3 was covered by verified Lands HCP, the Cedar River Watershed Plan, and Cooperative Habitat northern spotted owl home ranges at the HCP, the Plum Creek Timber Central Enhancement Agreement in the final time of listing. When combined with Cascades HCP, the West Fork Timber critical habitat designation. likely occupancy of suitable habitat and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71926 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

occupancy by nonterritorial owls and timber harvest and competition with occupied areas in this subunit are dispersing subadults, we consider this barred owls. This subunit is expected to essential for the conservation of the subunit to have been largely occupied at function primarily for demographic species to meet the recovery criterion the time of listing. In addition, there support to the overall population, as that calls for the continued maintenance may be some smaller areas of younger well as north-south and east-west and recruitment of northern spotted owl forest within the habitat mosaic of this connectivity between subunits and habitat (USFWS 2011 p. ix). The subunit that were unoccupied at the critical habitat units. increase and enhancement of northern time of listing. We have determined that Our evaluation of sites known to be spotted owl habitat is necessary to all of the unoccupied and likely occupied at the time of listing indicates provide for viable populations of occupied areas in this subunit are that approximately 88 percent of the northern spotted owls over the long essential for the conservation of the area of WCS–1 was covered by verified term by providing for population species to meet the recovery criterion northern spotted owl home ranges at the growth, successful dispersal, and that calls for the continued maintenance time of listing. When combined with buffering from competition with the and recruitment of northern spotted owl likely occupancy of suitable habitat and barred owl. habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The occupancy by nonterritorial owls and WCS–3. The WCS–3 subunit consists increase and enhancement of northern dispersing subadults, we consider this of approximately 319,736 ac (129,393 spotted owl habitat is necessary to subunit to have been largely occupied at ha) in Clackamas, Marion, Linn, and provide for viable populations of the time of listing. In addition, there Lane Counties, Oregon, and comprises northern spotted owls over the long may be some smaller areas of younger lands managed by the State of Oregon, term by providing for population forest within the habitat mosaic of this the BLM, and the USFS. Of this subunit, growth, successful dispersal, and subunit that were unoccupied at the 184 ac (75 ha) are managed by the State buffering from competition with the time of listing. We have determined that of Oregon primarily for recreation barred owl. all of the unoccupied and likely (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter occupied areas in this subunit are 736, entire). The remaining 319,552 ac Unit 6: West Cascades South (WCS) essential for the conservation of the (129,318 ha) are Federal lands managed Unit 6 contains 1,355,198ac (548,429 species to meet the recovery criterion as directed by the NWFP (USDA and ha) and contains six subunits. This unit that calls for the continued maintenance USDI 1994, entire). Special management consists of the southern portion of the and recruitment of northern spotted owl considerations or protection are Western Cascades Section M242B, based habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The required in this subunit to address on section descriptions of forest types increase and enhancement of northern threats from current and past timber from Ecological Subregions of the spotted owl habitat is necessary to harvest and competition with barred United States (McNab and Avers 1994a, provide for viable populations of owls. This subunit is expected to Section M242B), and extends from the northern spotted owls over the long function primarily for demographic Columbia River south to the North term by providing for population support to the overall population, as Umpqua River. We separated this region growth, successful dispersal, and well as north-south connectivity from the northern section due to its buffering from competition with the between subunits. relatively milder temperatures, reduced barred owl. Our evaluation of sites known to be summer precipitation due to the WCS–2. The WCS–2 subunit consists occupied at the time of listing indicates influence of the Willamette Valley to the of approximately 150,105 ac (60,745 ha) that approximately 85 percent of the west, lower elevations, and greater in Clackamas, Marion, and Wasco area of WCS–3 was covered by verified proportion of western hemlock/Douglas- Counties, Oregon, and comprises only northern spotted owl home ranges at the fir forest. The southern portion of this Federal lands managed by the BLM and time of listing. When combined with region exhibits a gradient between the USFS under the NWFP (USDA and likely occupancy of suitable habitat and Douglas-fir/western hemlock and USDI 1994, entire). Special management occupancy by nonterritorial owls and increasing Klamath-like vegetation considerations or protection are dispersing subadults, we consider this (mixed conifer/evergreen hardwoods), required in this subunit to address subunit to have been largely occupied at which continues across the Umpqua threats from current and past timber the time of listing. In addition, there divide area. The southern boundary of harvest and competition with barred may be some smaller areas of younger this region is novel and reflects a owls. This subunit is expected to forest within the habitat mosaic of this transition to mixed-conifer forest function primarily for demographic subunit that were unoccupied at the (Franklin and Dyrness 1988, pp. 23–24, support to the overall population, as time of listing. We have determined that 137–143). The importance of Douglas-fir well as north-south connectivity all of the unoccupied and likely dwarf mistletoe increases to the south in between subunits. occupied areas in this subunit are this region, but most northern spotted Our evaluation of sites known to be essential for the conservation of the owl nest sites are found in defective occupied at the time of listing indicates species to meet the recovery criterion large trees, and occasionally nests of that approximately 82 percent of the that calls for the continued maintenance other raptors. area of WCS–2 was covered by verified and recruitment of northern spotted owl northern spotted owl home ranges at the habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The Subunit Descriptions—Unit 6 time of listing. When combined with increase and enhancement of northern WCS–1. The WCS–1 subunit consists likely occupancy of suitable habitat and spotted owl habitat is necessary to of approximately 92,586 ac (37,468 ha) occupancy by nonterritorial owls and provide for viable populations of in Multnomah, Hood River, and dispersing subadults, we consider this northern spotted owls over the long Clackamas Counties, Oregon, and subunit to have been largely occupied at term by providing for population comprises only Federal lands managed the time of listing. In addition, there growth, successful dispersal, and by the BLM and the USFS under the may be some smaller areas of younger buffering from competition with the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). forest within the habitat mosaic of this barred owl. Special management considerations or subunit that were unoccupied at the WCS–4. The WCS–4 subunit consists protection are required in this subunit time of listing. We have determined that of approximately 379,130 ac (153,429 to address threats from current and past all of the unoccupied and likely ha) in Lane and Douglas Counties,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71927

Oregon, and comprises only Federal the time of listing. In addition, there Unit 7: East Cascades North (ECN) lands managed by the BLM and the may be some smaller areas of younger Unit 7 contains 1,345,523ac (557,002 USFS under the NWFP (USDA and forest within the habitat mosaic of this ha) and nine subunits. This unit USDI 1994, entire). Special management subunit that were unoccupied at the consists of the eastern slopes of the considerations or protection are time of listing. We have determined that Cascade range, extending from the required in this subunit to address all of the unoccupied and likely Canadian border south to the Deschutes threats from current and past timber occupied areas in this subunit are National Forest near Bend, OR. Terrain harvest and competition with barred essential for the conservation of the in portions of this region is glaciated owls. This subunit is expected to species to meet the recovery criterion and steeply dissected. This region is function primarily for demographic that calls for the continued maintenance characterized by a continental climate support to the overall population, as and recruitment of northern spotted owl (cold, snowy winters and dry summers). well as north-south connectivity habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The High-frequency, low-intensity fire between subunits. regimes occur at lower elevations, mid Our evaluation of sites known to be increase and enhancement of northern elevations have mixed-severity regimes, occupied at the time of listing indicates spotted owl habitat is necessary to that approximately 86 percent of the provide for viable populations of and high elevations have high-severity area of WCS–4 was covered by verified northern spotted owls over the long regimes. Increased precipitation from northern spotted owl home ranges at the term by providing for population marine air passing east through time of listing. When combined with growth, successful dispersal, and Snoqualmie Pass and the Columbia likely occupancy of suitable habitat and buffering from competition with the River has resulted in an increase of occupancy by nonterritorial owls and barred owl. moist forest conditions in this region (Hessburg et al. 2000b, p. 165). In dispersing subadults, we consider this WCS–6. The WCS–6 subunit consists Washington, ponderosa pine and subunit to have been largely occupied at of approximately 99,558 ac (40,290 ha) the time of listing. In addition, there Douglas-fir forest are dominant at low in Lane, Klamath, and Douglas elevations, Douglas-fir/grand fir mixed- may be some smaller areas of younger Counties, Oregon, and is managed by forest within the habitat mosaic of this conifer forest are characteristic of mid- the BLM and the USFS as directed by elevations, and higher elevations subunit that were unoccupied at the the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, time of listing. We have determined that support forests of silver fir, hemlock, entire). Special management and subalpine fir. The terrain is highly all of the unoccupied and likely considerations or protection are occupied areas in this subunit are dissected and mountainous. The terrain required in this subunit to address essential for the conservation of the and ecology are different on the threats from current and past timber species to meet the recovery criterion southern portion of the unit, where that calls for the continued maintenance harvest and competition with barred ponderosa pine predominates on flat and recruitment of northern spotted owl owls. This subunit is expected to terrain at low elevations, and owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The function primarily for east-west habitat is restricted to buttes and the increase and enhancement of northern connectivity between subunits and slopes of the Cascade Range in forests of spotted owl habitat is necessary to critical habitat units, and between the Douglas-fir, grand/white fir, and true provide for viable populations of Oregon coast and the western Cascades. firs. There is substantially less habitat in northern spotted owls over the long Our evaluation of sites known to be the Deschutes area of Oregon compared term by providing for population occupied at the time of listing indicates to the area north of Sisters, Oregon, and growth, successful dispersal, and that approximately 97 percent of the into Washington. The bulk of owls in buffering from competition with the area of WCS–6 was covered by verified this Unit are in Washington. barred owl. northern spotted owl home ranges at the Forest composition, particularly the WCS–5. The WCS–5 subunit consists time of listing. When combined with presence of grand fir and western larch, of approximately 356,415 ac (144,236 likely occupancy of suitable habitat and distinguishes this modeling region from ha) in Lane and Douglas Counties, occupancy by nonterritorial owls and the southern section of the eastern Cascades. While ponderosa pine forest Oregon, and comprises only Federal dispersing subadults, we consider this dominates lower and middle elevations lands managed by the USFS under the subunit to have been largely occupied at in both this and the southern section, NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). the time of listing. In addition, there Special management considerations or the northern section supports grand fir may be some smaller areas of younger protection are required in this subunit and Douglas-fir habitat at middle forest within the habitat mosaic of this to address threats from current and past elevations. Dwarf mistletoe provides an subunit that were unoccupied at the timber harvest and competition with important component of nesting habitat, barred owls. This subunit is expected to time of listing. We have determined that enabling northern spotted owls to nest function primarily for demographic all of the unoccupied and likely within stands of relatively younger and support to the overall population, as occupied areas in this subunit are smaller trees. well as north-south and east-west essential for the conservation of the Subunit Descriptions—Unit 7 connectivity between subunits and species to meet the recovery criterion critical habitat units. that calls for the continued maintenance ECN–1. The ECN–1 subunit consists Our evaluation of sites known to be and recruitment of northern spotted owl of approximately 101,661 ac (41,141 ha) occupied at the time of listing indicates habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The in Whatcom, Skagit, and Okanogan that approximately 83 percent of the increase and enhancement of northern Counties, Washington, and comprises area of WCS–5 was covered by verified spotted owl habitat is necessary to lands managed by USFS. The USFS northern spotted owl home ranges at the provide for viable populations of manages 60,173 ac (24,351 ha) as Late- time of listing. When combined with northern spotted owls over the long successional Reserves to maintain likely occupancy of suitable habitat and term by providing for population functional, interactive, late-successional occupancy by nonterritorial owls and growth, successful dispersal, and and old-growth forest ecosystems and dispersing subadults, we consider this buffering from competition with the 22,802 ac (9,228 ha) under the matrix subunit to have been largely occupied at barred owl. land use allocation where multiple uses

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

occur, including most timber harvest habitat in valley bottoms; the area of ECN–3 was covered by verified and other silvicultural activities. combination of Lake Chelan and the northern spotted owl home ranges at the Threats in this subunit include current Sawtooth Mountains acting as a barrier time of listing. When combined with and past timber harvest; competition to dispersal; and removal or likely occupancy of suitable habitat and with barred owls; removal or modification of habitat by forest fires, occupancy by nonterritorial owls and modification of habitat by forest fires, insects, and diseases. This subunit is dispersing subadults, we consider this insects, and diseases; steep topography expected to provide demographic subunit to have been largely occupied at with high-elevation ridges that separate support of the overall population. ECN– the time of listing. In addition, there relatively small, linear strips of suitable 2 is located primarily in the watersheds may be some smaller areas of younger habitat in valley bottoms; and location of the Chelan and Entiat Rivers. forest within the habitat mosaic of this at the northeastern limit of the range of Our evaluation of sites known to be subunit that were unoccupied at the the subspecies. This subunit is expected occupied at the time of listing indicates time of listing. We have determined that to provide demographic support of the that approximately 34 percent of the all of the unoccupied and likely overall population and maintain the area of ECN–2 was covered by verified occupied areas in this subunit are subspecies distribution in the northern spotted owl home ranges at the essential for the conservation of the northeastern portion of its range. ECN– time of listing. When combined with species to meet the recovery criterion 1 is located primarily in the watershed likely occupancy of suitable habitat and that calls for the continued maintenance of the Methow River and includes a occupancy by nonterritorial owls and and recruitment of northern spotted owl small portion of the upper Skagit River dispersing subadults, we consider this habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The watershed. It is bounded on the north by subunit to have been largely occupied at increase and enhancement of northern the international boundary with British the time of listing. In addition, there spotted owl habitat is necessary to Columbia, Canada. may be some smaller areas of younger provide for viable populations of Our evaluation of sites known to be forest within the habitat mosaic of this northern spotted owls over the long occupied at the time of listing indicates subunit that were unoccupied at the term by providing for population that approximately 41 percent of the time of listing. We have determined that growth, successful dispersal, and area of ECN–1 was covered by verified all of the unoccupied and likely buffering from competition with the northern spotted owl home ranges at the occupied areas in this subunit are barred owl. time of listing. When combined with essential for the conservation of the ECN–4. The ECN–4 subunit consists likely occupancy of suitable habitat and species to meet the recovery criterion of approximately 222,818 ac (90,171 ha) occupancy by nonterritorial owls and that calls for the continued maintenance in Kittitas County, Washington, and dispersing subadults, we consider this and recruitment of northern spotted owl comprises lands managed by the USFS subunit to have been largely occupied at habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The and the State of Washington. The USFS the time of listing. In addition, there increase and enhancement of northern manages 99,641 ac (40,323 ha) as Late- may be some smaller areas of younger spotted owl habitat is necessary to successional Reserves to maintain forest within the habitat mosaic of this provide for viable populations of functional, interactive, late- subunit that were unoccupied at the northern spotted owls over the long successional, and old-growth forest time of listing. We have determined that term by providing for population ecosystems and 118,676 ac (48,027 ha) all of the unoccupied and likely growth, successful dispersal, and under the matrix land use allocation occupied areas in this subunit are buffering from competition with the where multiple uses occur, including essential for the conservation of the barred owl. most timber harvest and other species to meet the recovery criterion ECN–3. The ECN–3 subunit consists silvicultural activities. The Washington that calls for the continued maintenance of approximately 301,219 ac (121,899 Department of Fish and Wildlife and recruitment of northern spotted owl ha) in Chelan County, Washington, and manages 4,498 ac (1,820 ha). Threats in habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The comprises lands managed by the USFS this subunit include current and past increase and enhancement of northern and private landowners. The USFS timber harvest, competition with barred spotted owl habitat is necessary to manages 187,103 ac (75,718 ha) as Late- owls, and removal or modification of provide for viable populations of successional Reserves to maintain habitat by forest fires, insects, and northern spotted owls over the long functional, interactive, late-successional diseases. This subunit is expected to term by providing for population and old-growth forest ecosystems and provide demographic support of the growth, successful dispersal, and 114,117 ac (46,181 ha) under the matrix overall population. This subunit also buffering from competition with the land use allocation where multiple uses has a key role in maintaining barred owl. occur, including most timber harvest connectivity between northern spotted ECN–2. The ECN–2 subunit consists and other silvicultural activities. owl populations, both north to south in of approximately 60,128 ac (24,333 ha) Threats in this subunit include current the East Cascades North Unit and west in Chelan County, Washington, and and past timber harvest, competition to east between the West and East comprises lands managed by USFS. The with barred owls, and removal or Cascades units. This role is shared with USFS manages 35,835 ac (14,502 ha) as modification of habitat by forest fires, the WCN–2 subunit and the WCC–1 Late-successional Reserves to maintain insects, and diseases. This subunit is subunit to the west. ECN–4 is located functional, interactive, late-successional expected to provide demographic primarily in the Upper Yakima River and old-growth forest ecosystems and support of the overall population. ECN– watershed. In this subunit, we have 17,545 ac (7,100 ha) under the matrix 3 is located primarily in the watershed excluded private lands and lands land use allocation where multiple uses of the Wenatchee River. In this subunit, covered under the Washington occur, including most timber harvest we have excluded private lands and Department of Natural Resources State and other silvicultural activities. lands covered under the Washington Lands HCP and the Plum Creek Timber Threats in this subunit include current Department of Natural Resources State Central Cascades HCP. and past timber harvest; competition Lands HCP. Our evaluation of sites known to be with barred owls; steep topography with Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing indicates high-elevation ridges that separate occupied at the time of listing indicates that approximately 78 percent of the relatively small, linear strips of suitable that approximately 71 percent of the area of ECN–4 was covered by verified

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71929

northern spotted owl home ranges at the subunit that were unoccupied at the increase and enhancement of northern time of listing. When combined with time of listing. We have determined that spotted owl habitat is necessary to likely occupancy of suitable habitat and all of the unoccupied and likely provide for viable populations of occupancy by nonterritorial owls and occupied areas in this subunit are northern spotted owls over the long dispersing subadults, we consider this essential for the conservation of the term by providing for population subunit to have been largely occupied at species to meet the recovery criterion growth, successful dispersal, and the time of listing. In addition, there that calls for the continued maintenance buffering from competition with the may be some smaller areas of younger and recruitment of northern spotted owl barred owl. forest within the habitat mosaic of this habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The ECN–7. The ECN–7 subunit consists subunit that were unoccupied at the increase and enhancement of northern of approximately 139,983 ac (56,649 ha) time of listing. We have determined that spotted owl habitat is necessary to in Hood River and Wasco Counties, all of the unoccupied and likely provide for viable populations of Oregon, and comprises only Federal occupied areas in this subunit are northern spotted owls over the long lands managed by the USFS under the essential for the conservation of the term by providing for population NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). species to meet the recovery criterion growth, successful dispersal, and Special management considerations or that calls for the continued maintenance buffering from competition with the protection are required in this subunit and recruitment of northern spotted owl barred owl. to address threats from current and past habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The ECN–6. The ECN–6 subunit consists timber harvest, removal or modification increase and enhancement of northern of approximately 81,852 ac (33,124 ha) of habitat by forest fires and the effects spotted owl habitat is necessary to in Skamania, Yakima, and Klickitat on vegetation from fire exclusion, and provide for viable populations of Counties, Washington, and comprises competition with barred owls. This northern spotted owls over the long lands managed by the USFS and the subunit is expected to function term by providing for population State of Washington. The USFS manages primarily for demographic support to growth, successful dispersal, and 32,400 ac (13,112 ha) as Late- the overall population, as well as north- buffering from competition with the successional Reserves to maintain south and east-west connectivity barred owl. functional, interactive, late- between subunits and critical habitat ECN–5. The ECN–5 subunit consists successional, and old-growth forest units. of approximately 201,108 ac (81,415 ha) ecosystems; and 49,452 ac (20,012 ha) Our evaluation of sites known to be in Kittitas and Yakima Counties, under the matrix land use allocation occupied at the time of listing indicates Washington, and comprises lands where multiple uses occur, including that nearly 100 percent of the area of managed by the USFS and the State of most timber harvest and other ECN–7 was covered by verified northern Washington. The USFS manages silvicultural activities. Threats in this spotted owl home ranges at the time of 115,289 ac (46,656 ha) as Late- subunit include current and past timber listing. When combined with likely successional Reserves to maintain harvest, competition with barred owls, occupancy of suitable habitat and functional, interactive, late- and the Columbia River as an occupancy by nonterritorial owls and successional, and old-growth forest impediment to northern spotted owl dispersing subadults, we consider this ecosystems and 83,849 ac (33,933 ha) dispersal. This subunit is expected to subunit to have been largely occupied at under the matrix land use allocation provide demographic support of the the time of listing. In addition, there where multiple uses occur, including overall population. ECN–6 is located may be some smaller areas of younger most timber harvest and other primarily in the watersheds of the forest within the habitat mosaic of this silvicultural activities. Threats in this Klickitat and White Salmon Rivers, and subunit that were unoccupied at the subunit include current and past timber is bounded on the south by the time of listing. We have determined that harvest, competition with barred owls, Columbia River. In this subunit, we all of the unoccupied and likely and removal or modification of habitat have excluded lands covered under the occupied areas in this subunit are by forest fires, insects, and diseases. Washington Department of Natural essential for the conservation of the This subunit is expected to provide Resources State Lands HCP as well as species to meet the recovery criterion demographic support of the overall private lands from the final designation. that calls for the continued maintenance population. ECN–5 is located primarily Our evaluation of sites known to be and recruitment of northern spotted owl in the watershed of the Naches River. In occupied at the time of listing indicates habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The this subunit, we have excluded from that approximately 88 percent of the increase and enhancement of northern final critical habitat designation lands area of ECN–6 was covered by verified spotted owl habitat is necessary to covered under the Washington northern spotted owl home ranges at the provide for viable populations of Department of Natural Resources State time of listing. When combined with northern spotted owls over the long Lands HCP, the Plum Creek Timber likely occupancy of suitable habitat and term by providing for population Central Cascades HCP, and private occupancy by nonterritorial owls and growth, successful dispersal, and lands. dispersing subadults, we consider this buffering from competition with the Our evaluation of sites known to be subunit to have been largely occupied at barred owl. occupied at the time of listing indicates the time of listing. In addition, there ECN–8. The ECN–8 subunit consists that approximately 85 percent of the may be some smaller areas of younger of approximately 94,622 ac (38,292 ha) area of ECN–5 was covered by verified forest within the habitat mosaic of this in Jefferson and Deschutes Counties, northern spotted owl home ranges at the subunit that were unoccupied at the Oregon, of Federal lands managed by time of listing. When combined with time of listing. We have determined that the USFS under the NWFP (USDA and likely occupancy of suitable habitat and all of the unoccupied and likely USDI 1994, entire). Special management occupancy by nonterritorial owls and occupied areas in this subunit are considerations or protection are dispersing subadults, we consider this essential for the conservation of the required in this subunit to address subunit to have been largely occupied at species to meet the recovery criterion threats from current and past timber the time of listing. In addition, there that calls for the continued maintenance harvest, losses due to wildfire and the may be some smaller areas of younger and recruitment of northern spotted owl effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, forest within the habitat mosaic of this habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The and competition with barred owls. This

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

subunit is expected to function essential for the conservation of the south and east-west connectivity primarily for demographic support to species to meet the recovery criterion between subunits and critical habitat the overall population, as well as north- that calls for the continued maintenance units. This subunit is adjacent to ECS– south connectivity between subunits. and recruitment of northern spotted owl 2 to the south. Our evaluation of sites known to be habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing indicate increase and enhancement of northern occupied at the time of listing indicates that approximately 61 percent of the spotted owl habitat is necessary to that approximately 78 percent of the area of ECN–8 was covered by verified provide for viable populations of area of ECS–1 was covered by verified northern spotted owl home ranges at the northern spotted owls over the long northern spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When combined with term by providing for population time of listing. When combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and growth, successful dispersal, and likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by nonterritorial owls and buffering from competition with the occupancy by nonterritorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this barred owl. dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit to have been largely occupied at subunit to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition, there Unit 8: East Cascades South (ECS) the time of listing. In addition, there may be some smaller areas of younger Unit 8 contains 368,381 ac (149,078 may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat mosaic of this ha) and three subunits. This unit forest within the habitat mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the incorporates the Southern Cascades subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We have determined that Ecological Section M261D, based on time of listing. We have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely section descriptions of forest types from all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are Ecological Subregions of the United occupied areas in this subunit are essential for the conservation of the States (McNab and Avers 1994c, Section essential for the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion M261D) and the eastern slopes of the species to meet the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance Cascades from the Crescent Ranger that calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of northern spotted owl District of the Deschutes National Forest and recruitment of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The south to the Shasta area. Topography is habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of northern gentler and less dissected than the increase and enhancement of northern spotted owl habitat is necessary to glaciated northern section of the eastern spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for viable populations of Cascades. A large expanse of recent provide for viable populations of northern spotted owls over the long volcanic soils (pumice region) (Franklin northern spotted owls over the long term by providing for population and Dyrness 1988, pp. 25–26), large term by providing for population growth, successful dispersal, and areas of lodgepole pine, and increasing growth, successful dispersal, and buffering from competition with the presence of red fir (Abies magnifica) buffering from competition with the barred owl. and white fir (and decreasing grand fir) barred owl. ECN–9. The ECN–9 subunit consists along a south-trending gradient further ECS–2. The ECS–2 subunit consists of of approximately 155,434 ac (62,902 ha) supported separation of this region from approximately 66,086 ac (26,744 ha) in in Deschutes and Klamath Counties, the northern portion of the eastern Klamath and Jackson Counties, Oregon, Oregon, and comprises only Federal Cascades. This region is characterized and Siskiyou County, California, all of lands managed by the USFS under the by a continental climate (cold, snowy which are Federal lands managed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994). Special winters and dry summers) and a high- BLM and USFS per the NWFP (USDA management considerations or frequency/low-mixed severity fire and USDI 1994, entire). Special protection are required in this subunit regime. Ponderosa pine is a dominant management considerations or to address threats from current and past forest type at mid-to-lower elevations, protection are required in this subunit timber harvest, losses due to wildfire with a narrow band of Douglas-fir and to address threats to the essential and the effects on vegetation from fire white fir at middle elevations providing physical or biological features from exclusion, and competition with barred the majority of northern spotted owl current and past timber harvest, losses owls. This subunit is expected to habitat. Dwarf mistletoe provides an due to wildfire and the effects on function primarily for demographic important component of nesting habitat, vegetation from fire exclusion, and support to the overall population, as enabling northern spotted owls to nest competition with barred owls. This well as north-south connectivity within stands of relatively younger, subunit is expected to function between subunits and critical habitat smaller trees. primarily for north-south connectivity units. between subunits, but also for Subunit Descriptions—Unit 8 Our evaluation of sites known to be demographic support in this area of occupied at the time of listing indicates ECS–1. The ECS–1 subunit consists of sparse Federal land and sparse high- that approximately 45 percent of the approximately 127,801 ac (51,719 ha) in quality nesting habitat. area of ECN–9 was covered by verified Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas Our evaluation of sites known to be northern spotted owl home ranges at the Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands occupied at the time of listing indicates time of listing. When combined with managed by the BLM and the USFS. that approximately 77 percent of the likely occupancy of suitable habitat and Special management considerations or area of ECS–2 was covered by verified occupancy by nonterritorial owls and protection are required in this subunit northern spotted owl home ranges at the dispersing subadults, we consider this to address threats to the essential time of listing. When combined with subunit to have been largely occupied at physical or biological features from likely occupancy of suitable habitat and the time of listing. In addition, there current and past timber harvest, losses occupancy by nonterritorial owls and may be some smaller areas of younger due to wildfire and the effects on dispersing subadults, we consider this forest within the habitat mosaic of this vegetation from fire exclusion, and subunit to have been largely occupied at subunit that were unoccupied at the competition with barred owls. This the time of listing. In addition, there time of listing. We have determined that subunit is expected to function may be some smaller areas of younger all of the unoccupied and likely primarily for demographic support to forest within the habitat mosaic of this occupied areas in this subunit are the overall population, as well as north- subunit that were unoccupied at the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71931

time of listing. We have determined that Unit 9: Klamath West (KLW) Our evaluation of sites known to be all of the unoccupied and likely occupied at the time of listing indicates occupied areas in this subunit are Unit 9 contains 1,197,389 ac (484,565 that approximately 96 percent of the essential for the conservation of the ha) and nine subunits. This unit area of KLW–1was covered by verified species to meet the recovery criterion consists of the western portion of the northern spotted owl home ranges at the that calls for the continued maintenance Klamath Mountains Ecological Section time of listing. When combined with and recruitment of northern spotted owl M261A, based on section descriptions of likely occupancy of suitable habitat and habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The forest types from Ecological Subregions occupancy by nonterritorial owls and of the United States (McNab and Avers increase and enhancement of northern dispersing subadults, we consider this 1994c, Section M261A). A long north- spotted owl habitat is necessary to subunit to have been largely occupied at south trending system of mountains provide for viable populations of the time of listing. In addition, there (particularly South Fork Mountain) may be some smaller areas of younger northern spotted owls over the long creates a rainshadow effect that forest within the habitat mosaic of this term by providing for population separates this region from more mesic subunit that were unoccupied at the growth, successful dispersal, and conditions to the west. This region is time of listing. We have determined that buffering from competition with the characterized by very high climatic and all of the unoccupied and likely barred owl. vegetative diversity resulting from steep occupied areas in this subunit are ECS–3. The ECS–3 subunit consists of gradients of elevation, dissected essential for the conservation of the approximately 112,179 ac (45,397 ha) in topography, and the influence of marine species to meet the recovery criterion Siskiyou County, California, all of air (relatively high potential that calls for the continued maintenance which are Federal lands managed by the precipitation). These conditions support and recruitment of northern spotted owl USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI a highly diverse mix of mesic forest habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The 1994, entire). Special management communities such as Pacific Douglas-fir, increase and enhancement of northern considerations or protection are Douglas-fir tanoak, and mixed evergreen spotted owl habitat is necessary to required in this subunit to address forest interspersed with more xeric provide for viable populations of threats to the essential physical or forest types. Overall, the distribution of northern spotted owls over the long biological features from current and past tanoak is a dominant factor term by providing for population timber harvest, losses due to wildfire distinguishing the Western Klamath growth, successful dispersal, and and the effects on vegetation from fire Region. Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is buffering from competition with the exclusion, and competition with barred uncommon and seldom used for nesting barred owl. platforms by northern spotted owls. The KLW–2. The KLW–2 subunit consists owls. The function of this subunit is to of approximately 148,929 ac (60,674 ha) provide demographic support in this prey base of northern spotted owls within the Western Klamath is diverse, in Josephine, Curry, and Coos Counties, area of sparsely distributed high-quality Oregon, and comprises lands managed habitat and Federal land, and to provide but dominated by woodrats and flying squirrels. by the USFS and the BLM as directed for population connectivity between by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, subunits to the north and south. Subunit Descriptions—Unit 9 entire). Special management Our evaluation of sites known to be considerations or protection are occupied at the time of listing indicates KLW–1. The KLW–1 subunit consists required in this subunit to address of approximately 147,326 ac (59,621 ha) that approximately 69 percent of the threats to the essential physical or in Douglas, Josephine, Curry, and Coos area of ECS–3 was covered by verified biological features from current and past Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands northern spotted owl home ranges at the timber harvest, losses due to wildfire managed by the State of Oregon and the time of listing. When combined with and the effects on vegetation from fire BLM. Of this subunit 7,682 ac (3,109 ha) likely occupancy of suitable habitat and exclusion, and competition with barred are managed by the State of Oregon for occupancy by nonterritorial owls and owls. This subunit is expected to multiple uses including timber revenue function for demographic support to the dispersing subadults, we consider a production, recreation, and wildlife large part of this subunit to have been overall population and for north-south habitat according to the Southwest and east-west connectivity between occupied at the time of listing. There are Oregon State Forests Management Plan some areas of younger forest in this subunits and critical habitat units. (ODF 2010b, entire). Federal lands Our evaluation of sites known to be subunit that may have been unoccupied comprise 139,644 ac (56,512 ha) and are occupied at the time of listing indicates at the time of listing. We have managed as directed by the NWFP that approximately 71 percent of the determined that all of the unoccupied (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special area of KLW–2 was covered by verified and likely occupied areas in this management considerations or northern spotted owl home ranges at the subunit are essential for the protection are required in this subunit time of listing. When combined with conservation of the species to meet the to address threats to the essential likely occupancy of suitable habitat and recovery criterion that calls for the physical or biological features from occupancy by nonterritorial owls and continued maintenance and recruitment current and past timber harvest, losses dispersing subadults, we consider this of northern spotted owl habitat (USFWS due to wildfire and the effects on subunit to have been largely occupied at 2011, p. ix). The increase and vegetation from fire exclusion, and the time of listing. In addition, there enhancement of northern spotted owl competition with barred owls. This may be some smaller areas of younger habitat in this subunit is especially subunit is expected to function for forest within the habitat mosaic of this important for providing essential demographic support to the overall subunit that were unoccupied at the connectivity between currently population and for north-south and east- time of listing. We have determined that occupied areas to support the successful west connectivity between subunits and all of the unoccupied and likely dispersal of northern spotted owls, and critical habitat units. This subunit sits at occupied areas in this subunit are may also help to buffer northern spotted the western edge of an important essential for the conservation of the owls from competition with the barred connectivity corridor between coastal species to meet the recovery criterion owl. Oregon and the western Cascades. that calls for the continued maintenance

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

and recruitment of northern spotted owl lands managed by the USFS and the likely occupancy of suitable habitat and habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The BLM that are managed as directed by occupancy by nonterritorial owls and increase and enhancement of northern the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, dispersing subadults, we consider this spotted owl habitat is necessary to entire). Special management subunit to have been largely occupied at provide for viable populations of considerations or protection are the time of listing. In addition, there northern spotted owls over the long required in this subunit to address may be some smaller areas of younger term by providing for population threats to the essential physical or forest within the habitat mosaic of this growth, successful dispersal, and biological features from current and past subunit that were unoccupied at the buffering from competition with the timber harvest, losses due to wildfire time of listing. We have determined that barred owl. and the effects on vegetation from fire all of the unoccupied and likely KLW–3. The KLW–3 subunit consists exclusion, and competition with barred occupied areas in this subunit are of approximately 143,862 ac (58,219 ha) owls. This subunit is expected to essential for the conservation of the in Josephine, Curry, and Coos Counties, function for demographic support to the species to meet the recovery criterion Oregon, and comprises lands managed overall population and for north-south that calls for the continued maintenance by the USFS, the BLM and the State of and east-west connectivity between and recruitment of northern spotted owl Oregon. There are 142,982 ac (57,863 subunits and critical habitat units. habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The ha) of Federal lands managed as Our evaluation of sites known to be increase and enhancement of northern directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI occupied at the time of listing indicates spotted owl habitat is necessary to 1994, entire). The 880 ac (356 ha) of that approximately 95 percent of the provide for viable populations of State of Oregon lands are managed area of KLW–4 was covered by verified northern spotted owls over the long according to the Southwest Oregon State northern spotted owl home ranges at the term by providing for population Forests Management Plan (ODF 2010b, time of listing. When combined with growth, successful dispersal, and entire). Special management likely occupancy of suitable habitat and buffering from competition with the considerations or protection are occupancy by nonterritorial owls and barred owl. required in this subunit to address dispersing subadults, we consider this KLW–6. The KLW–6 subunit consists threats from current and past timber subunit to have been largely occupied at of approximately 117,545 ac (47,569 ha) harvest, losses due to wildfire and the the time of listing. In addition, there in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Siskiyou effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, may be some smaller areas of younger Counties, California, all of which are and competition with barred owls. This forest within the habitat mosaic of this Federal lands managed by the USFS as subunit is expected to function for subunit that were unoccupied at the directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI demographic support to the overall time of listing. We have determined that 1994, entire). Special management population and for north-south all of the unoccupied and likely considerations or protection are connectivity between subunits and occupied areas in this subunit are required in this subunit to address critical habitat units. essential for the conservation of the threats to the essential physical or Our evaluation of sites known to be species to meet the recovery criterion biological features from current and past occupied at the time of listing indicates that calls for the continued maintenance timber harvest, losses due to wildfire that approximately 88 percent of the and recruitment of northern spotted owl and the effects on vegetation from fire area of KLW–3 was covered by verified habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The exclusion, and competition with barred northern spotted owl home ranges at the increase and enhancement of northern time of listing. When combined with spotted owl habitat is necessary to owls. This subunit is expected to likely occupancy of suitable habitat and provide for viable populations of function for demographic support. occupancy by nonterritorial owls and northern spotted owls over the long Our evaluation of sites known to be dispersing subadults, we consider this term by providing for population occupied at the time of listing indicates subunit to have been largely occupied at growth, successful dispersal, and that approximately 91 percent of the the time of listing. In addition, there buffering from competition with the area of KLW–6 was covered by verified may be some smaller areas of younger barred owl. northern spotted owl home ranges at the forest within the habitat mosaic of this KLW–5. The KLW–5 subunit consists time of listing. When combined with subunit that were unoccupied at the of approximately 31,085 ac (12,580 ha) likely occupancy of suitable habitat and time of listing. We have determined that in Josephine County, Oregon, and Del occupancy by nonterritorial owls and all of the unoccupied and likely Norte and Siskiyou Counties, California, dispersing subadults, we consider this occupied areas in this subunit are all of which are Federal lands managed subunit to have been largely occupied at essential for the conservation of the by the BLM and USFS per the NWFP the time of listing. In addition, there species to meet the recovery criterion (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special may be some smaller areas of younger that calls for the continued maintenance management considerations or forest within the habitat mosaic of this and recruitment of northern spotted owl protection are required in this subunit subunit that were unoccupied at the habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The to address threats to the essential time of listing. We have determined that increase and enhancement of northern physical or biological features from all of the unoccupied and likely spotted owl habitat is necessary to current and past timber harvest, losses occupied areas in this subunit are provide for viable populations of due to wildfire and the effects on essential for the conservation of the northern spotted owls over the long vegetation from fire exclusion, and species to meet the recovery criterion term by providing for population competition with barred owls. This that calls for the continued maintenance growth, successful dispersal, and subunit is expected to function for and recruitment of northern spotted owl buffering from competition with the demographic support. habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The barred owl. Our evaluation of sites known to be increase and enhancement of northern KLW–4. The KLW–4 subunit consists occupied at the time of listing indicates spotted owl habitat is necessary to of approximately 158,299 ac (64,061 ha) that approximately 98 percent of the provide for viable populations of in Josephine and Jackson Counties, area of KLW–5 was covered by verified northern spotted owls over the long Oregon, and Del Norte and Siskiyou northern spotted owl home ranges at the term by providing for population Counties, California, and comprises time of listing. When combined with growth, successful dispersal, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71933

buffering from competition with the time of listing. When combined with buffering from competition with the barred owl. likely occupancy of suitable habitat and barred owl. KLW–7. The KLW–7 subunit consists occupancy by nonterritorial owls and Unit 10: Klamath East (KLE) of approximately 255,779 ac (103,510 dispersing subadults, we consider this ha) in Del Norte, Humboldt, and subunit to have been largely occupied at Unit 10 contains 1,052,731ac Siskiyou Counties, California, all of the time of listing. In addition, there (426,025ha) and seven subunits. This which are Federal lands managed by the may be some smaller areas of younger unit consists of the eastern portion of BLM and USFS as directed by the forest within the habitat mosaic of this the Klamath Mountains Ecological NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). subunit that were unoccupied at the Section M261A, based on section Special management considerations or time of listing. We have determined that descriptions of forest types from protection are required in this subunit all of the unoccupied and likely Ecological Subregions of the United to address threats to the essential or occupied areas in this subunit are States (McNab and Avers 1994c, Section physical features from current and past essential for the conservation of the M261A), and portions of the Southern timber harvest, losses due to wildfire species to meet the recovery criterion Cascades Ecological Section M261D in and the effects on vegetation from fire that calls for the continued maintenance Oregon. This region is characterized by exclusion, and competition with barred and recruitment of northern spotted owl a Mediterranean climate, greatly owls. This subunit is expected to habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The reduced influence of marine air, and function for demographic support. increase and enhancement of northern steep, dissected terrain. Franklin and Our evaluation of sites known to be spotted owl habitat is necessary to Dyrness (1988, pp. 137–149) occupied at the time of listing indicates provide for viable populations of differentiate the mixed-conifer forest that approximately 91 percent of the northern spotted owls over the long occurring on the ‘‘Cascade side of the area of KLW–7 was covered by verified term by providing for population Klamath from the more mesic mixed northern spotted owl home ranges at the growth, successful dispersal, and evergreen forests on the western portion time of listing. When combined with buffering from competition with the (Siskiyou Mountains),’’ and Kuchler likely occupancy of suitable habitat and barred owl. (1977) separates out the eastern Klamath occupancy by nonterritorial owls and KLW–9. The KLW–9 subunit consists based on increased occurrence of dispersing subadults, we consider this of approximately 149,656 ac (60,564 ha) ponderosa pine. The mixed-conifer/ subunit to have been largely occupied at in Humboldt and Trinity Counties, evergreen hardwood forest types typical the time of listing. In addition, there California, all of which are Federal of the Klamath region extend into the may be some smaller areas of younger lands managed by the USFS as directed southern Cascades in the vicinity of forest within the habitat mosaic of this by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, Roseburg and the North Umpqua River, subunit that were unoccupied at the entire). Special management where they grade into the western time of listing. We have determined that considerations or protection are hemlock forest typical of the Cascades. all of the unoccupied and likely required in this subunit to address High summer temperatures and a occupied areas in this subunit are threats to the essential physical or mosaic of open forest conditions and essential for the conservation of the biological features from current and past Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) species to meet the recovery criterion timber harvest, losses due to wildfire woodlands act to influence northern that calls for the continued maintenance and the effects on vegetation from fire spotted owl distribution in this region. and recruitment of northern spotted owl exclusion, and competition with barred habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The owls. This subunit is expected to Northern spotted owls occur at increase and enhancement of northern function for demographic support. elevations up to 1,768 m. Dwarf spotted owl habitat is necessary to Our evaluation of sites known to be mistletoe provides an important provide for viable populations of occupied at the time of listing indicates component of nesting habitat, providing northern spotted owls over the long that approximately 89 percent of the additional structure and enabling term by providing for population area of KLW–9 was covered by verified northern spotted owls to occasionally growth, successful dispersal, and northern spotted owl home ranges at the nest within stands of relatively younger, buffering from competition with the time of listing. When combined with small trees. barred owl. likely occupancy of suitable habitat and Subunit Descriptions—Unit 10 KLW–8. The KLW–8 subunit consists occupancy by nonterritorial owls and of approximately 114,287 ac (46,250 ha) dispersing subadults, we consider this KLE–1. The KLE–1 subunit consists of in Siskiyou and Trinity Counties, subunit to have been largely occupied at approximately 242,338 ac (98,071 ha) in California, all of which are Federal the time of listing. In addition, there Jackson and Douglas Counties, Oregon, lands managed by the BLM and USFS may be some smaller areas of younger and comprises Federal lands managed as directed by the NWFP (USDA and forest within the habitat mosaic of this by the USFS and the BLM under the USDI 1994, entire). Special management subunit that were unoccupied at the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). considerations or protection are time of listing. We have determined that Special management considerations or required in this subunit to address all of the unoccupied and likely protection are required in this subunit threats to the essential physical or occupied areas in this subunit are to address threats to the essential biological features from current and past essential for the conservation of the physical or biological features from timber harvest, losses due to wildfire species to meet the recovery criterion current and past timber harvest, losses and the effects on vegetation from fire that calls for the continued maintenance due to wildfire and the effects on exclusion, and competition with barred and recruitment of northern spotted owl vegetation from fire exclusion, and owls. This subunit is expected to habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The competition with barred owls. This function for demographic support. increase and enhancement of northern subunit is expected to function Our evaluation of sites known to be spotted owl habitat is necessary to primarily for demographic support to occupied at the time of listing indicates provide for viable populations of the overall population, as well as north- that approximately 85 percent of the northern spotted owls over the long south and east-west connectivity area of KLW–8 was covered by verified term by providing for population between subunits and critical habitat northern spotted owl home ranges at the growth, successful dispersal, and units.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied areas in this subunit are in Jackson, Klamath, and Douglas occupied at the time of listing indicates essential for the conservation of the Counties, Oregon, and comprises that approximately 84 percent of the species to meet the recovery criterion Federal lands managed by the USFS and area of KLE–1 was covered by verified that calls for the continued maintenance the BLM under the NWFP (USDA and northern spotted owl home ranges at the and recruitment of northern spotted owl USDI 1994, entire). Special management time of listing. When combined with habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The considerations or protection are likely occupancy of suitable habitat and increase and enhancement of northern required in this subunit to address occupancy by nonterritorial owls and spotted owl habitat is necessary to threats to the essential physical or dispersing subadults, we consider this provide for viable populations of biological features from current and past subunit to have been largely occupied at northern spotted owls over the long timber harvest, losses due to wildfire the time of listing. In addition, there term by providing for population and the effects on vegetation from fire may be some smaller areas of younger growth, successful dispersal, and exclusion, and competition with barred forest within the habitat mosaic of this buffering from competition with the owls. This subunit is expected to subunit that were unoccupied at the barred owl. function primarily for east-west time of listing. We have determined that KLE–3. The KLE–3 subunit consists of connectivity between subunits and all of the unoccupied and likely approximately 111,410 ac (45,086 ha) in critical habitat units, but also for occupied areas in this subunit are Jackson, Josephine, and Douglas demographic support. essential for the conservation of the Counties, Oregon, and comprises Our evaluation of sites known to be species to meet the recovery criterion Federal lands managed by the USFS and occupied at the time of listing indicates that calls for the continued maintenance the BLM under the NWFP (USDA and that approximately 81 percent of the and recruitment of northern spotted owl USDI 1994, entire). Special management area of KLE–4 was covered by verified habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The considerations or protection are northern spotted owl home ranges at the increase and enhancement of northern required in this subunit to address time of listing. When combined with spotted owl habitat is necessary to threats to the essential physical or likely occupancy of suitable habitat and provide for viable populations of biological features from current and past occupancy by nonterritorial owls and northern spotted owls over the long timber harvest, losses due to wildfire dispersing subadults, we consider this term by providing for population and the effects on vegetation from fire subunit to have been largely occupied at growth, successful dispersal, and exclusion, and competition with barred the time of listing. In addition, there buffering from competition with the owls. This subunit is expected to may be some smaller areas of younger barred owl. function primarily for east-west forest within the habitat mosaic of this KLE–2. The KLE–2 subunit consists of connectivity between subunits and subunit that were unoccupied at the approximately 101,942 ac (41,255 ha) in critical habitat units, but also for time of listing. We have determined that Josephine and Douglas Counties, demographic support. This subunit all of the unoccupied and likely Oregon, and comprises Federal lands facilitates northern spotted owl occupied areas in this subunit are managed by the USFS and the BLM movements between the western essential for the conservation of the under the NWFP (USDA and USDI Cascades and coastal Oregon and the species to meet the recovery criterion 1994, entire). Special management Klamath Mountains. that calls for the continued maintenance considerations or protection are Our evaluation of sites known to be and recruitment of northern spotted owl required in this subunit to address occupied at the time of listing indicates habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The threats to the essential physical or that approximately 97 percent of the increase and enhancement of northern biological features from current and past area of KLE–3 was covered by verified spotted owl habitat is necessary to timber harvest, losses due to wildfire northern spotted owl home ranges at the provide for viable populations of and the effects on vegetation from fire time of listing. When combined with northern spotted owls over the long exclusion, and competition with barred likely occupancy of suitable habitat and term by providing for population owls. This subunit is expected to occupancy by nonterritorial owls and growth, successful dispersal, and function primarily for east-west dispersing subadults, we consider this buffering from competition with the connectivity between subunits and subunit to have been largely occupied at barred owl. critical habitat units, but also for the time of listing. In addition, there KLE–5. The KLE–5 subunit consists of demographic support. This subunit may be some smaller areas of younger approximately 38,283 ac (15,493 ha) in facilitates northern spotted owl forest within the habitat mosaic of this Jackson County, Oregon, and comprises movements between the western subunit that were unoccupied at the lands managed by the BLM and USFS. Cascades and coastal Oregon and the time of listing. We have determined that The BLM and USFS lands are managed Klamath Mountains. all of the unoccupied and likely per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied areas in this subunit are entire). Special management occupied at the time of listing indicates essential for the conservation of the considerations or protection are that approximately 92 percent of the species to meet the recovery criterion required in this subunit to address area of KLE–2 was covered by verified that calls for the continued maintenance threats to the essential physical or northern spotted owl home ranges at the and recruitment of northern spotted owl biological features from current and past time of listing. When combined with habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The timber harvest, losses due to wildfire likely occupancy of suitable habitat and increase and enhancement of northern and the effects on vegetation from fire occupancy by nonterritorial owls and spotted owl habitat is necessary to exclusion, and competition with barred dispersing subadults, we consider this provide for viable populations of owls. This subunit is expected to subunit to have been largely occupied at northern spotted owls over the long function primarily for north-south the time of listing. In addition, there term by providing for population connectivity between subunits, but also may be some smaller areas of younger growth, successful dispersal, and for demographic support. forest within the habitat mosaic of this buffering from competition with the Our evaluation of sites known to be subunit that were unoccupied at the barred owl. occupied at the time of listing indicates time of listing. We have determined that KLE–4. The KLE–4 subunit consists of that approximately 86 percent of the all of the unoccupied and likely approximately 254,442 ac (102,969 ha) area of KLE–5 was covered by verified

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71935

northern spotted owl home ranges at the northern spotted owls over the long the influence of the adjacent Central time of listing. When combined with term by providing for population Valley, summer temperatures in the likely occupancy of suitable habitat and growth, successful dispersal, and interior portions of this region are occupancy by nonterritorial owls and buffering from competition with the among the highest within the northern dispersing subadults, we consider this barred owl. spotted owl’s range. Forest communities subunit to have been largely occupied at KLE–7. The KLE–7 subunit consists of tend to be relatively dry mixed-conifer, the time of listing. In addition, there approximately 66,078 ac (26,741 ha) in blue and Oregon white oak, and the may be some smaller areas of younger Siskiyou County, California, all of Douglas-fir tanoak series. Northern forest within the habitat mosaic of this which are Federal lands managed by the spotted owl habitat within this region is subunit that were unoccupied at the BLM and USFS per the NWFP (USDA poorly known; there are no time of listing. We have determined that and USDI 1994, entire). Special Demographic Study Areas (DSAs—areas all of the unoccupied and likely management considerations or within forested habitats specifically occupied areas in this subunit are protection are required in this subunit surveyed to determine northern spotted essential for the conservation of the to address threats to the essential owl occupation and density), and few species to meet the recovery criterion physical or biological features from studies have been conducted here. that calls for the continued maintenance current and past timber harvest, losses Northern spotted owl habitat and and recruitment of northern spotted owl due to wildfire and the effects on occupancy data obtained during this habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The vegetation from fire exclusion, and project suggests that some northern increase and enhancement of northern competition with barred owls. This spotted owls occupy steep canyons spotted owl habitat is necessary to subunit is expected to function for dominated by live oak and Douglas-fir. provide for viable populations of demographic support and also for The distribution of dense conifer northern spotted owls over the long connectivity across the landscape. habitats most suitable for the northern term by providing for population Our evaluation of sites known to be spotted owl is limited to higher growth, successful dispersal, and occupied at the time of listing indicates elevations on the Mendocino National buffering from competition with the that approximately 96 percent of the Forest. barred owl. area of KLE–7 was covered by verified KLE–6. The KLE–6 subunit consists of northern spotted owl home ranges at the Subunit Descriptions—Unit 11 approximately 167,849 ac (67,926 ha) in time of listing. When combined with ICC–1. The ICC–1 subunit consists of Jackson County, Oregon, and Siskiyou likely occupancy of suitable habitat and approximately 332,042 ac (134,372 ha) County, California, all of which are occupancy by nonterritorial owls and in Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, and Federal lands managed by the BLM and dispersing subadults, we consider this Tehama Counties, California, all of USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI subunit to have been largely occupied at which are Federal lands managed by the 1994, entire). Special management the time of listing. In addition, there BLM and the USFS per the NWFP considerations or protection are may be some smaller areas of younger (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special required in this subunit to address forest within the habitat mosaic of this management considerations or threats to the essential physical or subunit that were unoccupied at the protection are required in this subunit biological features from current and past time of listing. We have determined that to address threats to the essential timber harvest, losses due to wildfire all of the unoccupied and likely physical or biological features from and the effects on vegetation from fire occupied areas in this subunit are current and past timber harvest, losses exclusion, and competition with barred essential for the conservation of the due to wildfire and the effects on owls. This subunit is expected to species to meet the recovery criterion vegetation from fire exclusion, and function primarily for north-south that calls for the continued maintenance competition with barred owls. This connectivity between subunits, but also and recruitment of northern spotted owl subunit is expected to function for demographic support. habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The primarily for demographic support, but Our evaluation of sites known to be increase and enhancement of northern also for connectivity between subunits occupied at the time of listing indicates spotted owl habitat is necessary to and critical habitat units. that approximately 97 percent of the provide for viable populations of Our evaluation of sites known to be area of KLE–6 was covered by verified northern spotted owls over the long occupied at the time of listing indicates northern spotted owl home ranges at the term by providing for population that approximately 97 percent of the time of listing. When combined with growth, successful dispersal, and area of ICC–1 was covered by verified likely occupancy of suitable habitat and buffering from competition with the northern spotted owl home ranges at the occupancy by nonterritorial owls and barred owl. time of listing. When combined with dispersing subadults, we consider this likely occupancy of suitable habitat and Unit 11: Interior California Coast (ICC) subunit to have been largely occupied at occupancy by nonterritorial owls and the time of listing. In addition, there Unit 11 contains 941,568 ac (381,039 dispersing subadults, we consider this may be some smaller areas of younger ha) and eight subunits. This unit subunit to have been largely occupied at forest within the habitat mosaic of this consists of the Northern California Coast the time of listing. In addition, there subunit that were unoccupied at the Ranges ecological Section M261B, based may be some smaller areas of younger time of listing. We have determined that on section descriptions of forest types forest within the habitat mosaic of this all of the unoccupied and likely from Ecological Subregions of the subunit that were unoccupied at the occupied areas in this subunit are United States (McNab and Avers 1994c, time of listing. We have determined that essential for the conservation of the Section M261B), and differs markedly all of the unoccupied and likely species to meet the recovery criterion from the adjacent redwood coast region. occupied areas in this subunit are that calls for the continued maintenance Marine air moderates winter climate, essential for the conservation of the and recruitment of northern spotted owl but precipitation is limited by species to meet the recovery criterion habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The rainshadow effects from steep that calls for the continued maintenance increase and enhancement of northern elevational gradients (328 to 7,847 ft and recruitment of northern spotted owl spotted owl habitat is necessary to (100 to 2,400 m)) along a series of north- habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The provide for viable populations of south trending mountain ridges. Due to increase and enhancement of northern

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

spotted owl habitat is necessary to exclusion, and competition with barred essential for the conservation of the provide for viable populations of owls. This subunit is expected to species to meet the recovery criterion northern spotted owls over the long function primarily for demographic that calls for the continued maintenance term by providing for population support, but also for north-south and recruitment of northern spotted owl growth, successful dispersal, and connectivity between subunits. habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The buffering from competition with the Our evaluation of sites known to be increase and enhancement of northern barred owl. occupied at the time of listing indicates spotted owl habitat is necessary to ICC–2. The ICC–2 subunit consists of that approximately 89 percent of the provide for viable populations of approximately 204,400 ac (82,718 ha) in area of ICC–3 was covered by verified northern spotted owls over the long Humboldt and Trinity Counties, northern spotted owl home ranges at the term by providing for population California, all of which are Federal time of listing. When combined with growth, successful dispersal, and lands managed by the BLM and the likely occupancy of suitable habitat and buffering from competition with the USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI occupancy by nonterritorial owls and barred owl. 1994, entire). Special management dispersing subadults, we consider this ICC–5. The ICC–5 subunit consists of considerations or protection are subunit to have been largely occupied at approximately 34,957 ac (14,147 ha) in required in this subunit to address the time of listing. In addition, there Lake and Mendocino Counties, threats to the essential physical or may be some smaller areas of younger California, all of which are Federal biological features from current and past forest within the habitat mosaic of this lands managed by the USFS and BLM timber harvest, losses due to wildfire subunit that were unoccupied at the per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, and the effects on vegetation from fire time of listing. We have determined that entire). Special management exclusion, and competition with barred all of the unoccupied and likely considerations or protection are owls. This subunit is expected to occupied areas in this subunit are required in this subunit to address function primarily for demographic essential for the conservation of the threats to the essential physical or support, but also for connectivity species to meet the recovery criterion biological features from current and past between subunits and critical habitat that calls for the continued maintenance timber harvest, losses due to wildfire units. and recruitment of northern spotted owl and the effects on vegetation from fire Our evaluation of sites known to be habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The exclusion, and competition with barred occupied at the time of listing indicates increase and enhancement of northern owls. This subunit is expected to that approximately 98 percent of the spotted owl habitat is necessary to function primarily for demographic area of ICC–2 was covered by verified provide for viable populations of support, but also for connectivity northern spotted owl home ranges at the northern spotted owls over the long between subunits and critical habitat time of listing. When combined with term by providing for population units. likely occupancy of suitable habitat and growth, successful dispersal, and Our evaluation of sites known to be occupancy by nonterritorial owls and buffering from competition with the occupied at the time of listing indicates dispersing subadults, we consider this barred owl. that approximately 78 percent of the subunit to have been largely occupied at ICC–4. The ICC–4 subunit consists of area of ICC–5 was covered by verified the time of listing. In addition, there approximately 120,997 ac (48,966 ha) in northern spotted owl home ranges at the may be some smaller areas of younger Mendocino, Glenn, and Colusa time of listing. When combined with forest within the habitat mosaic of this Counties, California, all of which are likely occupancy of suitable habitat and subunit that were unoccupied at the Federal lands managed by the BLM and occupancy by nonterritorial owls and time of listing. We have determined that USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI dispersing subadults, we consider this all of the unoccupied and likely 1994, entire). Special management subunit to have been largely occupied at occupied areas in this subunit are considerations or protection are the time of listing. In addition, there essential for the conservation of the required in this subunit to address may be some smaller areas of younger species to meet the recovery criterion threats to the essential physical or forest within the habitat mosaic of this that calls for the continued maintenance biological features from current and past subunit that were unoccupied at the and recruitment of northern spotted owl timber harvest, losses due to wildfire time of listing. We have determined that habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The and the effects on vegetation from fire all of the unoccupied and likely increase and enhancement of northern exclusion, and competition with barred occupied areas in this subunit are spotted owl habitat is necessary to owls. This subunit is expected to essential for the conservation of the provide for viable populations of function primarily for demographic species to meet the recovery criterion northern spotted owls over the long support. that calls for the continued maintenance term by providing for population Our evaluation of sites known to be and recruitment of northern spotted owl growth, successful dispersal, and occupied at the time of listing indicates habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The buffering from competition with the that approximately 93 percent of the increase and enhancement of northern barred owl. area of ICC–4 was covered by verified spotted owl habitat is necessary to ICC–3. The ICC–3 subunit consists of northern spotted owl home ranges at the provide for viable populations of approximately 103,971 ac (42,035 ha) in time of listing. When combined with northern spotted owls over the long Trinity, Tehama, and Mendocino likely occupancy of suitable habitat and term by providing for population Counties, California, all of which are occupancy by nonterritorial owls and growth, successful dispersal, and Federal lands managed by the BLM and dispersing subadults, we consider this buffering from competition with the the USFS per the NWFP (USDA and subunit to have been largely occupied at barred owl. USDI 1994, entire). Special management the time of listing. In addition, there ICC–6. The ICC–6 subunit consists of considerations or protection are may be some smaller areas of younger approximately 2,072 ac (839 ha) of State required in this subunit to address forest within the habitat mosaic of this and Federal lands in Napa and Sonoma threats to the essential physical or subunit that were unoccupied at the Counties, California. biological features from current and past time of listing. We have determined that Our evaluation of sites known to be timber harvest, losses due to wildfire all of the unoccupied and likely occupied at the time of listing indicates and the effects on vegetation from fire occupied areas in this subunit are that approximately 90 percent of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71937

area of ICC–6 was covered by verified provide for viable populations of definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse northern spotted owl home ranges at the northern spotted owls over the long modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (Gifford time of listing. When combined with term by providing for population Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and likely occupancy of suitable habitat and growth, successful dispersal, and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. occupancy by nonterritorial owls and buffering from competition with the 2004); Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and dispersing subadults, we consider this barred owl. Wildlife Service., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th subunit to have been largely occupied at ICC–8. The ICC–8 subunit consists of Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this the time of listing. In addition, there approximately 83,376 ac (33,742 ha) in regulatory definition when analyzing may be some smaller areas of younger Siskiyou and Shasta Counties, whether an action is likely to destroy or forest within the habitat mosaic of this California, all of which are Federal adversely modify critical habitat. Under subunit that were unoccupied at the lands managed by the BLM and the the statutory provisions of the Act, we time of listing. We have determined that USFS per the NWFP (USDA and USDI determine destruction or adverse all of the unoccupied and likely 1994, entire). Special management modification on the basis of whether, occupied areas in this subunit are considerations or protection are with implementation of the proposed essential for the conservation of the required in this subunit to address Federal action, the affected critical species to meet the recovery criterion threats from current and past timber habitat would continue to serve its that calls for the continued maintenance harvest, losses due to wildfire and the intended conservation function or and recruitment of northern spotted owl effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, purpose for the species. habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The and competition with barred owls. This If a Federal action may affect a listed increase and enhancement of northern subunit is expected to function both for species or its critical habitat, the spotted owl habitat is necessary to demographic support and for responsible Federal agency (action provide for viable populations of connectivity between subunits in an agency) must enter into consultation northern spotted owls over the long area of sparse Federal ownership. with the Service. Examples of actions term by providing for population Our evaluation of sites known to be that are subject to the section 7 growth, successful dispersal, and occupied at the time of listing indicates consultation process are actions on buffering from competition with the that approximately 84 percent of the State, Indian, local, or private lands that barred owl. area of ICC–8 was covered by verified require a Federal permit (such as a ICC–7. The ICC–7 subunit consists of northern spotted owl home ranges at the approximately 119,742 ac (48,458 ha) in permit from the U.S. Army Corps of time of listing. When combined with Engineers under section 404 of the Trinity and Shasta Counties, California, likely occupancy of suitable habitat and all of which are Federal lands managed Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) occupancy by nonterritorial owls and or a permit from the Service under by the BLM and USFS per the NWFP dispersing subadults, we consider this (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special section 10 of the Act) or that involve subunit to have been largely occupied at some other Federal action (such as management considerations or the time of listing. In addition, there protection are required in this subunit funding from the Federal Highway may be some smaller areas of younger Administration, Federal Aviation to address threats to the essential forest within the habitat mosaic of this physical or biological features from Administration, or the Federal subunit that were unoccupied at the Emergency Management Agency). current and past timber harvest, losses time of listing. We have determined that due to wildfire and the effects on Federal actions not affecting listed all of the unoccupied and likely species or critical habitat, and actions vegetation from fire exclusion, and occupied areas in this subunit are competition with barred owls. This on State, Indian, local, or private lands essential for the conservation of the that are not federally funded or federally subunit is expected to function both for species to meet the recovery criterion demographic support and for east-west authorized do not require section 7 that calls for the continued maintenance consultation. connectivity between subunits in an and recruitment of northern spotted owl area of sparse Federal ownership. habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The Section 7 consultation results in Our evaluation of sites known to be increase and enhancement of northern issuance of: occupied at the time of listing indicates spotted owl habitat is necessary to (1) A concurrence letter for Federal that approximately 73 percent of the provide for viable populations of actions that may affect, but are not area of ICC–7 was covered by verified northern spotted owls over the long likely to adversely affect, listed species northern spotted owl home ranges at the term by providing for population or critical habitat; or time of listing. When combined with growth, successful dispersal, and likely occupancy of suitable habitat and (2) A biological opinion for Federal buffering from competition with the occupancy by nonterritorial owls and actions that may affect, and are likely to barred owl. dispersing subadults, we consider this adversely affect, listed species or critical subunit to have been largely occupied at IX. Effects of Critical Habitat habitat. the time of listing. In addition, there Designation When we issue a biological opinion may be some smaller areas of younger concluding that a project is likely to forest within the habitat mosaic of this Section 7 Consultation jeopardize the continued existence of a subunit that were unoccupied at the Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires listed species and/or destroy or time of listing. We have determined that Federal agencies, including the Service, adversely modify critical habitat, we all of the unoccupied and likely to ensure that any action they fund, provide reasonable and prudent occupied areas in this subunit are authorize, or carry out is not likely to alternatives to the project, if any are essential for the conservation of the jeopardize the continued existence of identifiable, that would avoid the species to meet the recovery criterion any endangered species or threatened likelihood of jeopardy and/or that calls for the continued maintenance species or result in the destruction or destruction or adverse modification of and recruitment of northern spotted owl determinations of designated critical critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The habitat of such species. Decisions by the and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR increase and enhancement of northern Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of 402.02) as alternative actions identified spotted owl habitat is necessary to Appeals have invalidated our regulatory during consultation that:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(1) Can be implemented in a manner destroy or adversely modify such critical habitat unit and range-wide consistent with the intended purpose of habitat, or that may be affected by such scales. the action, designation. Proposed Federal actions that may (2) Can be implemented consistent Activities that may affect critical affect northern spotted owl critical with the scope of the Federal agency’s habitat, when carried out, funded, or habitat will trigger the consultation legal authority and jurisdiction, authorized by a Federal agency, should requirements under section 7 of the Act (3) Are economically and result in consultation for the northern and compliance with the section 7(a)(2) technologically feasible, and spotted owl under section 7(a)(2) of the standard described above. The (4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, Act. In general, there are five possible consultation process evaluates the avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the outcomes in terms of how proposed effects of a proposed action to continued existence of the listed species Federal actions may affect the PCEs or designated critical habitat regardless of and/or avoid the likelihood of physical or biological features of the species’ presence or absence. For an destroying or adversely modifying northern spotted owl critical habitat or action that may affect critical habitat, critical habitat. essential habitat qualities associated the next step is to determine whether it Reasonable and prudent alternatives with that critical habitat area: (1) No is likely to adversely affect critical can vary from slight project effect; (2) wholly beneficial effects (e.g., habitat. For example, where a project is modifications to extensive redesign or improve habitat condition); (3) both designed to reduce fuels such that the relocation of the project. Costs short-term adverse effects and long-term effect of wildfires will be reduced, but associated with implementing a beneficial effects; (4) insignificant or will also reduce foraging opportunities reasonable and prudent alternative are discountable adverse effects; or (5) within treatment areas, established similarly variable. interagency consultation teams should Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require wholly adverse effects. Actions with no effect on the PCEs and physical or determine whether the proposed project Federal agencies to reinitiate has more than an insignificant impact consultation on previously reviewed biological features of occupied areas or the essential habitat qualities in on the foraging PCEs for northern actions in instances where we have spotted owls. A localized reduction in listed a new species or subsequently unoccupied areas do not require section 7 consultation, although such actions foraging habitat within a stand may designated critical habitat that may be have such an insignificant impact on affected, and the Federal agency has may still require consultation if they have effects on the species itself as a foraging PCEs within the stand that a retained discretionary involvement or not likely to adversely affect result of its status as a threatened control over the action, or the agency’s determination is appropriate. Similarly, species under the Act. Actions with discretionary involvement or control is a hazard tree removal project in a stand effects to the PCEs, physical or authorized by law. Consequently, with many suitable nest trees may have biological features, or other essential Federal agencies sometimes may need to such a minimal reduction in nesting habitat qualities of northern spotted owl request reinitiation of consultation with PCEs of that stand that the effect to critical habitat that are discountable, us on actions for which formal nesting habitat is insignificant. In such insignificant, or wholly beneficial consultation has been completed, if a case, a ‘‘not likely to adversely affect’’ would be considered not likely to those actions with discretionary determination would be appropriate. involvement or control may affect adversely affect critical habitat, and do For actions that are likely to adversely subsequently listed species or not require formal consultation if the affect critical habitat, the agencies will designated critical habitat. Service concurs in writing with that enter into formal consultation. At this Federal action agency determination. stage of consultation, scale and context Determinations of Adverse Effects and Actions that are likely to adversely are especially important in evaluating Application of the ‘‘Adverse affect the physical or biological features the potential effects of forest Modification’’ Standard or other essential habitat qualities of management on northern spotted owl The key factor involved in the northern spotted owl critical habitat habitat. The degree to which various destruction/adverse modification require formal consultation and the forest management activities are likely determination for a proposed Federal preparation of a Biological Opinion by to affect the capability of the critical agency action is whether the affected the Service. The Biological Opinion sets habitat to support northern spotted owl critical habitat would continue to serve forth the basis for our section 7(a)(2) nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersal its intended conservation function or determination as to whether the will vary depending on factors such as purpose for the species with proposed Federal action is likely to the scope and location of the action, and implementation of the proposed action destroy or adversely modify northern the quantity of the critical habitat after taking into account any anticipated spotted owl critical habitat. affected. In addition, in analyzing cumulative effects (USFWS 2004, in litt. Activities that may destroy or whether an action will likely destroy or entire). Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are adversely modify critical habitat, the adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the essential physical or effects of the action on the factors that those that alter the physical or biological features or other essential were the basis for determining the area biological features to an extent that habitat qualities of the critical habitat to to meet the definition of critical habitat appreciably reduces the conservation an extent that appreciably reduces the should be considered. value of critical habitat for the northern conservation value of the critical habitat In general, we would anticipate that spotted owl. As discussed above, the for the listed species. As discussed management actions that are consistent role of critical habitat is to support life- above, the conservation role or value of with the overall purpose for which a history needs of the species and provide northern spotted owl critical habitat is critical habitat unit was designated for the conservation of the species. to adequately support the life-history would not likely destroy or adversely Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us needs of the species to the extent that modify critical habitat as those terms are to briefly evaluate and describe, in any well-distributed and interconnected used in the context of section 7(a)(2) of proposed or final regulation that northern spotted owl nesting the Act. Such actions include activities designates critical habitat, activities populations are likely to persist within whose intent is to restore ecological involving a Federal action that may properly functioning ecosystems at the processes or long-term forest health to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71939

forested landscapes that contain discussed in this final critical habitat relevant landform. Both PCE 2 (habitat northern spotted owl habitat, such as designation. that provides for nesting and roosting) those actions described in the Revised Finally, appropriate Service staff have and PCE 3 (habitat that provides for Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted been directed that all levels of foraging) provide life-history needs that Owl (USFWS 2011) and elsewhere in management and field teams stay fully function at a more localized landscape, this document. However, each proposed engaged in this process to ensure these which should help inform the scale at action will be considered on a case-by- commitments are met. which the determination of whether an case basis. Determining Whether an Action Is action will likely adversely affect critical habitat should be conducted. We Section 7 Process Under This Critical Likely to Adversely Affect Critical encourage the level one consultation Habitat Rule Habitat teams to tailor this scale of the effects The Presidential Memo, dated The 1992 northern spotted owl determination to the localized biology of February 28, 2012 (77 FR 12985; March critical habitat rule (57 FR 1796; January the life-history needs of the northern 5, 2012), directed the Service to address 15, 1992) identified the primary spotted owl (such as the stand scale, a six action items in the final revised constituent element (PCE) as the 500-ac (200-ha) circle, or other critical habitat rule for the northern fundamental scale of analysis at which appropriate, localized scale). spotted owl. One item in the Memo the ‘‘evaluation of actions that may If a project produces an effect on called for the Service to develop clear affect critical habitat for the northern critical habitat that is wholly beneficial, direction ‘‘for evaluating logging activity spotted owl’’ should occur. Those insignificant, or discountable, then the in areas of critical habitat, in accordance elements included nesting, roosting, project is not likely to adversely affect with the scientific principles of active foraging and dispersal habitats. In the critical habitat, and consultation would forestry management and to the extent 2008 northern spotted owl critical be concluded with a letter of permitted by law.’’ The following habitat rule (73 FR 47326; August 13, concurrence. Wholly beneficial effects summarizes the evaluation process for 2008), the forested stand is identified as include those that actively promote the logging activities in areas of northern the appropriate scale for determining development or improve the spotted owl critical habitat under whether an action was likely to functionality of critical habitat for the section 7 of the Act and its adversely affect northern spotted owl northern spotted owl without causing implementing regulations, and our critical habitat. The 2012 proposed adverse effects to the PCEs. Such actions plans for close coordination with the revised critical habitat rule identified a might involve variable-density thinning land management agencies to best meet 500-ac (200-ha) circle as a logical scale in forest stands that do not currently the dual goals of recovering the northern for determining the effects of a timber support nesting, roosting, or foraging spotted owl and managing our public sale to critical habitat because research habitat for the northern spotted owl, forest lands for multiple use. shows northern spotted owls respond which would speed the development of more favorably to an area larger than a these types of habitats, while Coordination With Land Management single tree when choosing where to live. Agencies maintaining dispersal habitat function. However, there are many variables to Thinning or other treatments in young The Service is committed to working be considered when determining plantations that are specifically closely with the U.S. Forest Service and whether the effects to critical habitat are designed to accelerate the development BLM to implement the active adverse or not. When making a of owl habitat, and either are in areas management and ecological forestry determination as to whether an action is that do not provide dispersal habitat or concepts discussed in the Revised likely to adversely affect critical habitat, where the effects to dispersal capability Recovery Plan and this critical habitat and thus require formal consultation, it would be insignificant or discountable, rule. Both recommend that land is not possible to design a ‘‘one size fits would also fall into the ‘‘not likely to managers use the best science to all’’ set of rules due to differences in adversely affect’’ category. While these maintain and restore forest health and project types, habitat types, and habitat wholly beneficial actions may affect resilience in the face of climate change needs across the range of the species critical habitat and would, therefore, and other challenges. (Fontaine and Kennedy 2012, p. 1559). require consultation under section 7 of To meet this goal, we have prioritized This determination should be the Act, they most likely would be the timely review of forestry projects conducted at a scale that is relevant to completed via an informal consultation that will be proposed in critical habitat. the northern spotted owl life-history with a determination that they are not We have already completed section 7 functions supplied by the PCEs and likely to adversely affect critical habitat. conference opinions on the proposed affected by the project. We note that this Likewise, if the adverse effects of a rule with the agencies, and have more localized scale differs from that proposed Federal action on the life- recently held interagency coordination used in determining whether an action history needs supported by physical or meetings with the section 7 Level 1 staff will destroy or adversely modify critical biological features of northern spotted in Oregon, Washington, and California. habitat, which is made at the scale of owl critical habitat are expected to be In these meetings, we identified ways to the designated critical habitat, as discountable or insignificant, that action streamline the section 7 process to described further below. would also be considered not likely to ensure that potential projects can be Northern spotted owl critical habitat adversely affect northern spotted owl implemented in a timely manner PCE 4 (habitat to support the transience critical habitat. In such cases, the consistent with northern spotted owl and colonization phases of dispersal) section 7 consultation requirements can conservation. We are also closely provides a life-history need that also be satisfied through the informal involved in and supportive of the functions at a landscape-level scale and concurrence process. Examples of such respective Forest Service and BLM should be assessed at a larger scale than actions may include: Pre-commercial or landscape-level planning efforts the other PCEs. Potential scales of commercial thinning that does not delay currently underway, and will work with analysis include the local watershed the development of essential physical or the agencies to incorporate the (e.g., fifth-field watershed) or biological features; fuel-reduction conservation planning recommended in subwatershed (e.g., sixth-field treatments that have a negligible effect the Revised Recovery Plan and watershed), a dispersal corridor, or a on northern spotted owl foraging habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

within the stand; and the removal of action (such as location, type and and unit within which it occurs, and the hazard trees, where the removal has an intensity of harvest, location of new entire critical habitat network. insignificant effect on the capability of roads and landings, or other proposed • The specific purpose for which the the stand to provide northern spotted activity effects), produce a post-project affected subunit was identified and owl nesting opportunities. habitat map such that the pre- and post- designated as critical habitat. Some proposed Federal forest project comparison of the PCEs can be • The cumulative effects of all management activities may have short- assessed. We also recommend the completed activities in the critical term adverse effects and long-term cooperative development of a spatial habitat unit. • beneficial effects on the physical or and temporal framework for evaluating The impact of the proposed action biological features of northern spotted the impact of both the short- and long- on the ability of the affected critical owl critical habitat. The Revised term effects of the proposed activities on habitat to continue to support the life- Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted history functions supplied by the PCEs. the northern spotted owl. Framework • Owl recommends that land managers examples include a landscape The impact of the proposed action actively manage portions of both moist assessment or a checklist of key on the subunit’s likelihood of serving its and dry forests to improve stand questions the answers to which will intended conservation function or conditions and forest resiliency, which illustrate how the project will impact purpose. • The impact of the proposed action should benefit the long-term recovery of the northern spotted owl (see Spies et on the unit’s likelihood of continuing to the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011, al. 2012, p. 11, for an example). p. III–11). For example, variable contribute to the conservation of the thinning in single-story, uniform forest Determining Whether an Action Will species. • stands to promote the development of Destroy or Adversely Modify Critical The overall consistency of the multistory structure and nest trees may Habitat proposed action with the intent of the recovery plan or other landscape-level result in short-term adverse impacts to If the effects of the project have more the habitat’s current capability to conservation plans. than an insignificant or discountable • The special importance of project support owl dispersal and foraging, but impact on the ability of the PCEs to have long-term benefits by creating scale and context in evaluating the provide life-history functions for the potential effects of timber harvest to higher quality habitat that will better northern spotted owl, then the project is support territorial pairs of northern northern spotted owl critical habitat. likely to adversely affect northern The first step is to describe the spotted owls. Such activities would spotted owl critical habitat, and formal have less impact in areas where foraging impacts to critical habitat in the action consultation is warranted. For projects area with respect to the subunit’s and dispersal habitat is not limiting, and that will adversely affect critical habitat, ideally can be conducted in a manner intended functions as identified in this it is the Service’s responsibility to rule. For example, if a particular subunit that minimizes short-term negative conduct an analysis of whether the impacts. Even though they may have was designated to support northern action is likely to ‘‘destroy or adversely spotted owl connectivity between long-term beneficial effects, if they have modify critical habitat’’ during the short-term adverse effects, such actions subunits, then the loss or impact to formal consultation process. As connectivity must be assessed. Subunits may adversely affect critical habitat, and discussed below, the determination of would require formal consultation that are expected to provide whether an action is likely to destroy or demographic support should be under section 7 of the Act. For adversely modify critical habitat is efficiency, such actions may be assessed for their ability to continue to made at the scale of the entire critical evaluated under section 7 support northern spotted owl nesting habitat network. However, a proposed programmatically at the landscape scale territories in conditions suitable for action that compromises the capability (e.g., USFS or BLM District). occupancy by pairs of owls (e.g., Habitat conditions in moist/wet and of a subunit or unit to fulfill its intended amount and location of nesting habitat, dry/fire-prone forests within the range conservation function or purpose could proximity of foraging habitat, etc.). The of the northern spotted owl vary widely, represent an appreciable reduction in analysis should describe the extent to as do the types of management activities the conservation value of the entire which the project is expected to designed to accelerate or enhance the designated critical habitat. Therefore, prevent, preclude, or significantly development of northern spotted owl the biological opinion should describe impair the ability of that subunit to meet habitat. ‘‘Wet’’ and ‘‘dry’’ are ends of a the relationship between the its intended function. The analysis spectrum, not distinct categories that conservation role of the action area, should not incorporate the effect of the adequately describe the full range of affected subunits, units, and the entire proposed action on individual northern forest types within the range of the designated critical habitat. This analysis spotted owls but, instead, on the life- northern spotted owl. Because these must incorporate all direct and indirect history functions supplied by the PCEs categories are broad, and conditions on effects and any cumulative effects from and the physical biological features. the ground are more variable, land the project within the action area. If, Effects to northern spotted owls should managers and cooperators should have after the formal consultation analysis, it be included in the effects to the species the expectation that multiple forest is determined that the proposed project section of a biological opinion, as types may be involved, and similar will not destroy or adversely modify appropriate. projects in different forest types may not critical habitat, then the action can be The analysis in a biological always lead to the same effect conducted. assessment or a biological opinion determination for purposes of Factors to consider in evaluating should include an evaluation of the compliance with section 7 of the Act. whether activities, including timber type, frequency, magnitude, and To make effects determinations, we harvest, are likely to destroy or duration of impacts likely to be caused recommend generating area-specific adversely modify critical habitat by the action on the PCEs of the action maps showing the current habitat pursuant to section 7 include: area, affected subunits and critical condition (such as types of habitat, • The extent of the proposed action, habitat units, and an assessment of how known nest trees, or other feature) and, both its temporal and spatial scale, those impacts are likely to influence the using information on the proposed relative to the critical habitat subunit capability of the affected critical habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71941

units to provide for a well-distributed conference opinions on the proposed conserve stands that support northern and self-sustaining northern spotted owl rule with several of your units, and we spotted owl occupancy or contain high- population. The analysis in a biological have recently held interagency value northern spotted owl habitat assessment or a biological opinion of coordination meetings with the section (USFWS 2011, p. III–17). Silvicultural cumulative effects on critical habitat 7 Level 1 staff in Oregon, Washington, treatments are generally not needed to should include a similar assessment for and California. In these meetings, we accomplish this goal. However, there is any future, non-Federal actions identified ways to streamline the section a significant amount of younger forest reasonably certain to occur in the action 7 process to ensure that potential that occurs between and around the area, and at the level of the affected projects can be implemented in a timely older stands, where silvicultural subunits and critical habitat units. manner consistent with northern treatments may accelerate the Consideration of the effects of the spotted owl conservation. We are also development of these stands into future action, together with any cumulative closely involved in and supportive of northern spotted owl nesting habitat, effects, will form the basis for the the respective FS and BLM landscape- even if doing so temporarily degrades biological opinion’s determination as to level planning efforts currently existing dispersal habitat, as is whether the action will destroy or underway and will work with you to recommended in Recovery Action 6 adversely modify critical habitat. In incorporate the conservation planning (USFWS 2011, p. III–19). The Revised accordance with Service policy, the reflected in the revised recovery plan Recovery Plan encourages silviculture adverse modification determination is and the final critical habitat designation. designed to develop late-successional made at the scale of the entire Finally, appropriate Service staff have structural complexity and to promote designated critical habitat, unless the been directed that all levels of resilience (USFWS 2011, pp. III–17 to critical habitat rule identifies another management and field teams—from III–19). Restoration or ecological basis for the analysis (FWS and NMFS Level 1 biologists up to the Assistant prescriptions can help uniform stands of 1998). The adverse modification Regional Director—stay fully engaged in poor quality develop more quickly into determination for the northern spotted this process to ensure these more diverse, higher quality northern owl will occur at the scale of the entire commitments are met. Any problems or spotted owl habitat, and provide designated critical habitat, as described disagreement should be promptly resiliency in the face of potential below, with consideration given to the elevated and resolved. climate change impacts in the future. need to conserve viable populations Within dry forests, the Revised Targeted vegetation treatments could within each of the recovery units Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted simultaneously increase canopy and identified in the Revised Recovery Plan Owl (USFWS 2011) emphasizes active age-class diversity, putting those stands for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS forest management that could meet on a more efficient trajectory towards 2011, Recovery Criterion 2). overlapping goals of northern spotted nesting and roosting habitat, while It is important to note that although owl conservation, climate change reducing fuel loads. Introducing varying the adverse modification determination response, and restoration of dry forest levels of spatial heterogeneity, both is made at the scale of the entire ecological structure, composition, and vertically and horizontally, into forest designated critical habitat, a proposed process, including wildfire and other ecosystems can contribute to both of the action that compromises the capability disturbances (USFWS 2011, pp. III–20). goals stated above. of a subunit or unit to fulfill its intended For the rest of the northern spotted conservation function or purpose could owl’s range that is not fire-prone, the On matrix lands under the NWFP represent an appreciable reduction in Revised Recovery Plan emphasizes where land managers have a range of the conservation value of the entire habitat management that accelerates the management goals, the Service designated critical habitat. Therefore, development of future habitat, restores anticipates that not all forest the biological opinion should describe larger habitat blocks, and reduces management projects in critical habitat the relationship between the habitat fragmentation. The following will be focused on the development or conservation role of the action area, discussion describes the type of conservation of northern spotted owl affected subunits, units, and the entire management approaches that would be habitat. Ideally, proposed actions within designated critical habitat. In this way, consistent with the Revised Recovery critical habitat should occur on the biological opinion establishes a Plan in the West Cascades/Coast Ranges relatively small patches of younger, sensitive analytical framework for of Oregon and Washington, East mid-seral forest stands that do not cause informing the determination of whether Cascades, and the Redwood Coast reductions in higher quality northern a proposed action is likely to zones, and in some cases includes spotted owl habitat. They should also be appreciably reduce the conservation consideration of possible corresponding planned in such a way that their net role of critical habitat overall. effect determinations for activities occurrence on the regional landscape is The Service has assured the BLM and implementing these approaches, for the consistent with broader ecosystem- FS that it is committed to working purpose of analyzing effects to critical based planning targets (e.g., Spies et al. closely with them to evaluate and habitat under section 7 of the Act. The 2007a, entire) to provide the physical or implement active management and Klamath and Northern California biological features that are essential to ecological forestry concepts of the Interior Coast Ranges regions contain the conservation of the northern spotted recovery plan and critical habitat rule conditions similar to the three regions owl. Within that context, thinning and into potential timber management discussed below, and similar targeted variable-retention harvest in projects. Both documents recommend management approaches would be moist forests could be considered where that land managers use the best science consistent with the recovery needs of the conservation of complex early-seral to maintain and restore forest health and the owl. forest habitat is a management goal. resilience in the face of climate change This approach provides a contrast to and other challenges. West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon traditional clearcutting that does not To meet this goal we have prioritized and Washington mimic natural disturbance or create the timely review of forestry projects The primary goal of the Revised viable early-seral communities that that will be proposed in critical habitat. Recovery Plan for this portion of the grow into high-quality habitat (Dodson We have already completed section 7 northern spotted owl’s range is to et al. 2012, p. 353; Franklin et al. 2002,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

p. 419; Swanson et al. 2011, p. 123; fire and other disturbances, including conservation and forest restoration Kane et al. 2011, pp. 2289–2290; Betts those projected to occur with climate needs. et al. 2010, p. 2127, Hagar 2007, pp. change. This will require more than Landscape assessments developed at 117–118). Swanson (2012, entire) reducing fuels and thinning trees to the scale of entire National Forests, provides a good overview and some promote low-severity fires; management Ranger Districts, or BLM Districts have management considerations. will need to develop ‘‘more natural the broad perspective that can improve In cases where these moist forest patterns and patch size distributions of ability to estimate effects of treatments in matrix are intended to forest structure, composition, fuels, and management activities on the function meet management goals other than fire regime area’’ (Hessburg et al. 2007, of critical habitat and better identify and northern spotted owl conservation, they p. 21). prioritize treatment areas and the can be designed to enable the actions that will restore landscapes Our prime objective for vegetation development of northern spotted owl while conserving northern spotted owl management activities within northern habitat over time at the landscape scale. habitat. The Okanogan-Wenatchee spotted owl critical habitat is to If planned well at this scale, these National Forest has developed a projects may have short-term adverse maintain adequate amounts of nesting, landscape evaluation process as part of effects, but are not expected to adversely roosting, foraging, or dispersal habitat their forest restoration strategy (USDA modify the role and function of critical where it currently exists, and to restore 2010, pp. 36–52) that can serve as an habitat units. In other words, such degraded habitat where it is essential to example for other administrative units treatments can be dispersed across the the owl and can be best sustained on the when developing their own assessment landscape and over time to both landscape, as recommended in the approaches. We suggest that the value of accommodate northern spotted owl Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern such assessments in guiding vegetation habitat needs and conservation of Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, Section III). management within critical habitat can diverse and complex early-seral habitat. Successfully accomplishing these be enhanced by spatially identifying Additional information about ecological objectives can be facilitated by spatially locations where restoration objectives forestry activities in moist forests can be and temporally explicit landscape and northern spotted owl habitat found in the Revised Recovery Plan assessments that identify areas valuable objectives converge, are in conflict, or under Northern Spotted Owls and for northern spotted owl conservation simply are not an issue (see, e.g., Davis Ecological Forestry (USFWS 2011, p. and recovery, as well as areas important et al. 2012, entire). We suggest the III–11) and Habitat Management in for process restoration (e.g., Prather et following approach for the East Moist Forests (USFWS 2011, p. III–17). al. 2008, p. 149; Franklin et al. 2008, p. Cascades: East Cascades 46; Spies et al. 2012, entire). Such 1. Spatially identify and map: assessments could answer questions a. Existing northern spotted owl The Revised Recovery Plan for the that are frequently asked about Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) habitat and northern spotted owl proposed forest management activities, nesting sites. recommends that the dynamic, fire- namely ‘‘why here?’’ and ‘‘why now?’’ prone portion of the northern spotted b. Places on the landscape where Providing well-reasoned responses to owl’s range be actively managed to northern spotted owl habitat is expected these questions becomes especially conserve northern spotted owls, but also to be retained longer on the landscape important when restoration activities address climate change and restore dry in the face of disturbance activities such degrade or remove existing northern forest ecological structure, composition, as fire and insect outbreaks. spotted owl habitat. By scaling up and processes (e.g., wildfire) to provide c. Places on the landscape where key for the long-term conservation of the conservation and restoration planning ecosystem structures and processes are species and its habitat in a dynamic from the stand to the landscape level, at risk and would benefit from ecosystem (USFWS 2011, pp. III–13, III– many apparent conflicts may disappear restoration (e.g. legacy trees, unique 20). To do this, management actions because management actions can be habitats). should be considered to balance short- prioritized and spatially partitioned 2. Overlay what is known about term adverse effects with long-term (Prather et al. 2008, p. 149; Rieman et landscape patterns of vegetation and beneficial effects. In some cases, formal al. 2010, p. 464). For example, portions disturbance processes with items from consultation on the effects of dry forest of the landscape can be identified where step 1 above to determine: management activities on northern there may be no conflict between a. Stands of high restoration value but spotted owl critical habitat is likely to objectives, and where relatively low value as existing northern spotted occur; in other cases, there may be no aggressive approaches to ecosystem owl habitat. adverse effects and consultation can be restoration can occur without placing b. Stands of low restoration value but concluded informally. listed species at substantial risk (Prather high value as existing northern spotted Management in dry forests should et al. 2008, pp. 147–149; Gaines et al. owl habitat. increase the likelihood that northern 2010, pp. 2049–2050). Conflicts between c. Stands of low restoration value and spotted owl habitat will remain on the objectives will remain in some low value as existing northern spotted landscape longer and develop as part of locations, such as in places where owl habitat. the dynamic fire- and disturbance- removing younger, shade-intolerant d. Stands of high restoration value adapted community. Several conifers to reduce competition with and high value as existing northern management approaches can be larger, legacy conifers may result in a spotted owl habitat. described for these systems. The first is substantial decrease in canopy cover In locations where there is high to maintain adequate northern spotted that translates into a reduction in restoration value and high value as owl habitat in the near term to allow northern spotted owl habitat quality. existing northern spotted owl habitat, a owls to persist on the landscape in the However, when this sort of treatment is landscape assessment can help to build face of threats from barred owl well designed, strategically located, and a strong rationale for impacting owl expansion and habitat alterations from justified within a landscape approach to habitat functionality to achieve broader fire and other disturbances. The next is treatments, it is easier to assess its landscape goals. Conditions that may to restore landscapes that are resilient to effectiveness in meeting both owl support management activities in these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71943

stands may include, but are not limited intrusion), but retention of those of land management are not expected to to the following: forested habitat elements is contrary to adversely modify critical habitat. 1. The patch of habitat is located in the overall goals of ecosystem Summary of Section 7 Process an area where it is likely unsustainable restoration and long-term security for and has the potential for conveying the owl. Restoration projects that This discussion has covered projects natural disturbances across the modify these elements, while sometimes that may or may not require formal landscape in ways that jeopardize large prudent and recommended (Franklin et section 7 consultation. It is important to patches of suitable northern spotted owl al. 2008, p. 46), may adversely affect distinguish between a finding that a habitat. northern spotted owls or their critical project is likely to adversely affect 2. There are nearby areas that are habitat, and may need to be evaluated critical habitat and a finding at the more likely to sustain suitable northern through the section 7 consultation conclusion of formal consultation that a spotted owl habitat and are either process. Additional information about project is likely to destroy or adversely currently habitat or will likely develop restoration activities in dry forests can modify critical habitat; these are two suitable conditions within the next 30 be found in the Revised Recovery Plan very different outcomes. It is not years. for the Northern Spotted Owl under uncommon for a proposed project to be 3. The patch of habitat does not Restoring Dry Forest Ecosystems considered likely to adversely affect appear to be associated with a northern (USFWS 2011, p. III–32). critical habitat, and thus require formal spotted owl home range or to promote consultation, but still warrant a Redwood Coast successful dispersal between existing conclusion that it will not destroy or home ranges. adversely modify critical habitat. An 4. The area will still retain some While the Redwood Coast region of action may destroy or adversely modify habitat function after treatment, while coastal northern California is similar to critical habitat if it adversely affects the still meeting the intended restoration the West Cascades/Coast region in many essential physical or biological features objective. For example, stands that are respects, there are some distinct suitable as foraging habitat may be differences in northern spotted owl to an extent that the intended degraded post treatment but remain habitat use and diet within this zone. conservation function or purpose of foraging habitat after treatment. Or, The long growing season, combined critical habitat for the northern spotted stands may be downgraded to dispersal with the redwood’s ability to resprout owl is appreciably reduced. habitat as a result of treatment. from stumps, allows redwood stands to The adverse modification We do not expect the desired attain suitable stand structure for determination is made at the scale of the landscape conditions will be achieved nesting in a relatively short period of entire designated critical habitat, unless within the next decade or two; a longer time (40 to 60 years) if legacy structures the final critical habitat rule identifies time will be required as younger forests are present. In contrast to the large, another basis for that determination, develop into northern spotted owl contiguous, older stands desired in such as at the scale of discrete units nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. other wet provinces, some degree of and/or groups of units necessary for In the interim, we recommend that land fine-scale fragmentation in redwood different life cycle phases, units managers consider management actions forests appears to benefit northern representing distinctive habitat to protect current habitat, especially spotted owls. These openings provide characteristics or gene pools, or units where it occurs in larger blocks on areas habitat for the northern spotted owl’s fulfilling essential geographical of the landscape, where it is more likely primary prey, the dusky-footed woodrat. distribution requirements of the species to be resistant or resilient to fires and High woodrat abundance is associated (USFWS and NMFS 1998, p. 4–39). In other disturbance agents. We also with dense shrub and hardwood cover the case of northern spotted owl critical encourage land managers to consider that persists for up to 20 years in recent habitat, the adverse modification actions to accelerate the restoration of forest openings created by harvesting or determination will be made at the scale habitat, especially where it is consistent burns. Under dense shrub and of the entire designated critical habitat. with overall forest restoration and hardwood cover, woodrats can forage, However, by describing the relationship occurs in those portions of the build nests, and reproduce, relatively between the conservation role of landscape that are less fire prone or are secure from owl predation. These sites affected subunits, units, and the entire resilient in the face of these quickly become overpopulated, and designated critical habitat in the disturbances. The careful application of surplus individuals are displaced into biological opinion, a sensitive analytical these types of activities is expected to adjacent older stands where they framework is established for informing achieve a landscape that is more become available as owl prey. When the determination of whether a resilient to future disturbances. As such, developing stands reach an age of proposed action is likely to appreciably we anticipate that projects designed to around 20 years, understory vegetation reduce the conservation role of the achieve this goal will need to be of a is increasingly shaded-out, cover and critical habitat overall. In this way, a larger spatial scale as to have a food sources become scarce, and proposed action that compromises the meaningful effect on wildfire behavior, woodrat abundance declines rapidly. By capability of a subunit or unit to fulfill regimes, and extent. The effects of these this time, the stand that once supported its intended conservation function or projects will vary depending on existing a dense woodrat population makes a purpose (e.g., demographic, genetic, or condition, prescriptions, proximity of structural transition into a stand where distributional support for northern habitat, and other factors. It is likely that woodrats are subject to intense owl spotted owl recovery) could represent such projects may affect northern predation. In northern spotted owl an appreciable reduction in the spotted owl critical habitat and require territories within the Redwood Forest conservation value of the entire section 7 consultation. zone, active management that creates designated critical habitat. This Some situations also exist in the final small openings within foraging habitat approach should avoid false no-adverse- critical habitat area where northern can enhance northern spotted owl modification determinations, when the spotted owl habitat has been created foraging opportunities and produce or functionality of a unit or subunit would through fire suppression activities (e.g., retain habitat suitability in the short actually be impaired by a proposed meadow conversion, white fir term. Actions consistent with this type action.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

As described above, in general, we do under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 May 2005, and is also in the process of not anticipate that activities consistent U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary being updated (Forest Management with the stated management goals or determines, in writing, that such plan Strategy 2005, entire). However, in recommended recovery actions of the provides a benefit to the species for 2012, JBLM amended their existing Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern which critical habitat is proposed for INRMP with specific regard to the Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, Chapters II designation.’’ northern spotted owl by completing an and III) would constitute adverse We consult with the military on the Endangered Species Management Plan modification of critical habitat, even if development and implementation of (ESMP) that includes guidelines for those activities may have adverse effects INRMPs for installations with listed protecting, maintaining, and enhancing in the short term, if the intended result species. We analyzed INRMPs habitat essential to support the northern over the long term is an improvement in developed by military installations spotted owl on JBLM. The Service has the function of the habitat to provide for located within the range of the found, in writing, that the amended the essential life-history needs of the designated critical habitat designation INRMP provides a net conservation northern spotted owl. However, such for the northern spotted owl to benefit to the species. activities will be evaluated under determine if they are exempt under The ESMP identifies management section 7, taking into account the section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following objectives for the conservation of the specific proposed action, location, and areas are Department of Defense lands northern spotted owl. Specifically, the other site-specific factors. with completed, Service-approved ESMP includes three focus areas for INRMPs that fell within the area we management of northern spotted owl. X. Exemptions proposed as revised critical habitat (77 The long-term objective for the first is Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act FR 14062; March 8, 2012). development of all four types of owl habitat (nesting, roosting, foraging, and The Sikes Act Improvement Act of Approved INRMPs dispersal). The long-term objectives for 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) U.S. Army Joint Base Lewis-McChord Focus Areas 2 and 3 are development of required each military installation that owl foraging and dispersal habitat. The includes land and water suitable for the Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), primary conservation goals for northern conservation and management of formerly known as Fort Lewis, is an spotted owl habitat on JBLM are to natural resources to complete an 86,500-ac (35,000-ha) U.S. Army protect and maintain existing northern integrated natural resources military reservation in western spotted owl suitable habitat; manipulate management plan (INRMP) by Washington, south of Tacoma and the unsuitable habitat to suitable habitat; November 17, 2001. An INRMP Puget Sound. JBLM contains one of the and ensure long-term suitable habitat integrates implementation of the largest remaining intact forest areas in and monitor northern spotted owl military mission of the installation with the Puget Sound basin, with habitat to assure that goals are met and stewardship of the natural resources approximately 54,400 ac (22,000 ha) of actions are successful. Although found on the base. Each INRMP forests and woodlands, predominantly northern spotted owls are not currently includes: of the dry Douglas-fir forest type and known to occupy JBLM, it is the only (1) An assessment of the ecological including some moist forest types significant Federal ownership in this needs on the installation, including the (Douglas-fir, red cedar, hemlock). The region of Washington, and it provides need to provide for the conservation of forested area of JBLM is managed by the the largest contiguous block of forest in listed species; Base’s Forestry Program, and the this area as well. The potential (2) A statement of goals and priorities; primary mission for the JBLM Forest is development of suitable owl habitat at (3) A detailed description of to provide a variety of forested JBLM provides one of the only feasible management actions to be implemented environments for military training. opportunities for establishing to provide for these ecological needs; JBLM has a history of applying an connectivity between owl populations and ecosystem management strategy to their in the Olympic Peninsula and the (4) A monitoring and adaptive forests to provide for multiple western Cascades Range. Connectivity management plan. conservation goals, which have allows gene flow between populations, Among other things, each INRMP included promoting native biological and further maintains northern spotted must, to the extent appropriate and diversity, maintaining and restoring owl distribution and metapopulation applicable, provide for fish and wildlife unique plant communities, and dynamics, which are important management; fish and wildlife habitat developing late-successional (older) components of the recovery strategy for enhancement or modification; wetland forest structure. There are 14,997 ac the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011, protection, enhancement, and (6,069 ha) of lands within the boundary p. III–1, III–44). The Forest Management restoration where necessary to support of JBLM that were identified in the Strategy (2005, p. 82) notes that the fish and wildlife; and enforcement of proposed critical habitat designation; mosaic of dry forest, woodland, and applicable natural resource laws. these lands comprised subunit NCO–3 prairie at JBLM is very different from The National Defense Authorization in the proposed rule (77 FR 14062; typical forest landscapes that support Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– March 8, 2012). northern spotted owls, and that while 136) amended the Act to limit areas JBLM has an INRMP in place that was suitable habitat for dispersal of northern eligible for designation as critical approved in 2008; JBLM is in the spotted owls can be achieved in the habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) process of updating that INRMP. To short term, at least 40 to 50 years may of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) date, JBLM has managed their forest be needed to meet the desired condition now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not lands according to their Forest for foraging, nesting, and roosting designate as critical habitat any lands or Management Strategy, first prepared for habitat. other geographical areas owned or then-Fort Lewis in 1995 by the Public Based on the above considerations controlled by the Department of Forestry Foundation based in Eugene, and in accordance with section Defense, or designated for its use, that Oregon, in collaboration with The 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have are subject to an integrated natural Nature Conservancy. The Forest determined that the identified lands are resources management plan prepared Management Strategy was last revised in subject to the JBLM INRMP and that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71945

conservation efforts identified in the tribal entities when making decisions addition to economic impacts INRMP through its ESMP for the under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The (discussed in the Economics Analysis northern spotted owl will provide a Secretary may also consider section, below), we considered a benefit to the species occurring in relationships with landowners, number of factors in a section 4(b)(2) habitats within or adjacent to JBLM, voluntary partnerships, and analysis. We considered whether including the northern spotted owl. conservation plans, and weigh the Federal or private landowners or other Therefore, lands within this installation implementation and effectiveness of public agencies have developed are exempt from critical habitat these against that of designation to management plans, habitat conservation designation under section 4(a)(3) of the determine which provides the greatest plans (HCPs) or Safe Harbor Agreements Act. We are not including conservation value to the listed species. (SHAs) for the area or whether there are approximately 14,997 ac (6,069 ha) of Consideration of relevant impacts of conservation partnerships or other habitat in this final critical habitat designation or exclusion under section conservation benefits that would be designation as a result of this 4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited encouraged or discouraged by exemption. to, any of the following factors: (1) designation of, or exclusion from, Whether the plan provides specific critical habitat in an area. We also XI. Exclusions information on how it protects the considered other relevant impacts that Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act species and the physical or biological might occur because of the designation. features, and whether the plan is at a To ensure that our final determination Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that geographical scope commensurate with is based on the best available the Secretary must designate or make the species; (2) whether the plan is information, we also considered revisions to critical habitat on the basis complete and will be effective at comments received on foreseeable of the best available scientific data after conserving and protecting the physical economic, national security, or other taking into consideration the economic or biological features; (3) whether a potential impacts resulting from this impact, national security impact, and reasonable expectation exists that designation of critical habitat from any other relevant impacts of specifying conservation management strategies and governmental, business, or private any particular area as critical habitat. actions will be implemented, that those interests and, in particular, any The Secretary may exclude an area from responsible for implementing the plan potential impacts on small businesses. critical habitat if he determines that the are capable of achieving the objectives, Based on the information provided by benefits of such exclusion outweigh the that an implementation schedule exists, entities seeking exclusion, as well as benefits of specifying such area as part and that adequate funding exists; (4) any additional public comments of the critical habitat, unless he whether the plan provides assurances received, we evaluated whether certain determines, based on the best scientific that the conservation strategies and lands in the proposed revised critical data available, that the failure to measures will be effective (i.e., habitat were appropriate for exclusion designate such area as critical habitat identifies biological goals, has from this final designation pursuant to will result in the extinction of the provisions for reporting progress, and is section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on our species. In making that determination, of a duration sufficient to implement the evaluation, we are excluding the statute on its face, as well as the plan); (5) whether the plan has a approximately 3,879,506 ac (1,567,875 legislative history, are clear that the monitoring program or adaptive ha) of lands that meet the definition of Secretary has broad discretion regarding management to ensure that the critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of which factor(s) to use and how much conservation measures are effective; (6) the Act from final critical habitat. weight to give to any factor. the degree to which the record supports Final Economic Analysis When considering the benefits of a conclusion that a critical habitat inclusion for an area, we consider the designation would impair the benefits of Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we additional regulatory benefits that area the plan; (7) the extent of public consider the economic impacts of would receive from the protection from participation; (8) a demonstrated track specifying any particular area as critical adverse modification or destruction as a record of implementation success; (9) habitat. In order to consider economic result of actions with a Federal nexus; the level of public benefits derived from impacts, we prepared a draft economic the educational benefits of mapping encouraging collaborative efforts and analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical essential habitat for recovery of the encouraging private and local habitat designation and related factors listed species; and any benefits that may conservation efforts; and (10) the effect (IEC 2012a). The draft analysis was result from a designation due to State or designation would have on made available for public review from Federal laws that may apply to critical partnerships. June 1, 2012, through July 6, 2012 (77 habitat. After evaluating the benefits of FR 32483). Following the close of the When considering the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, comment period, we developed a final exclusion, we consider, among other we carefully weigh the two sides to economic analysis (FEA) (IEC 2012b) of things, whether exclusion of a specific determine whether the benefits of the potential economic effects of the area is likely to result in the overall excluding a particular area outweigh the designation taking into consideration conservation of the northern spotted benefits of its inclusion in critical the public comments and any new owl through the continuation, habitat. If we determine that the benefits information. strengthening, or encouragement of of excluding a particular area outweigh The intent of the FEA is to quantify partnerships and the implementation of the benefits of its inclusion, then the economic impacts that may be directly management plans or programs that Secretary can exercise his discretion to attributable to the designation of critical provide equal or more conservation for exclude the area, provided that the habitat—that is, costs above and beyond the northern spotted owl than could be exclusion will not result in the what are considered ‘‘baseline’’ costs, as achieved through a designation of extinction of the species. described below. The economic impact critical habitat. The Secretary can Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we of the final critical habitat designation is consider the existence of conservation must consider all relevant impacts of analyzed by comparing scenarios both agreements and other land management the designation of critical habitat, ‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without plans with Federal, State, private, and including economic impacts. In critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline No incremental changes in harvests are Timber harvest was not anticipated to for the analysis, and considers the costs expected on State lands. change on State lands in response to incurred as a result of protections In addition, to address the uncertainty critical habitat designation. Timber already in place for the species (e.g., in the types of management and harvest effects on private lands were under the Federal listing and other activities that may or may not occur highly uncertain, and were only Federal, State, and local regulations); within the proposed critical habitat, the identified qualitatively as potential these are costs that are incurred FEA evaluated three scenarios to negative impacts associated with regardless of whether critical habitat is capture the full range of potential regulatory uncertainty, and possibly designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ economic impacts of the designation. (but speculative) new regulation in the scenario describes the ‘‘incremental’’ The first scenario contemplates that State of Washington. economic impacts associated minimal or no changes to current timber Under all three scenarios, linear specifically with the designation of management practices will occur, thus projects reflected administrative costs critical habitat for the species—these the incremental costs of the designation only, ranging from $10,800 to $19,500 costs are those not expected to occur but would be predominantly administrative. on an annualized basis. for the designation of critical habitat for The potential additional administrative Counties receive Federal lands the species. In other words, the costs due to critical habitat designation payments from a subset of four incremental costs are those attributable on Federal lands range from $185,000 to programs: The U.S. Forest Service 25% solely to the designation of critical $316,000 on an annualized basis for Fund; the BLM O&C lands payments; habitat above and beyond the baseline timber harvest. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT); and costs; these are the costs we consider in The second scenario posits that action Secure Rural Schools and Community the final designation of critical habitat. agencies may choose to implement Self-determination Act (SRS) (please see FEA pp. 3–19 to 3–21 for a thorough The FEA also addresses how potential management practices that yield an discussion of these programs). Counties economic impacts are likely to be increase in timber harvest relative to the have the option of receiving either SRS distributed, including an assessment of baseline (current realized levels of of 25%/O&C payments, but not both. any local or regional impacts of habitat timber harvest). For this scenario, For reasons unrelated to proposed conservation and the potential effects of baseline harvest projections were scaled critical habitat, the future of the PILT conservation activities on government upward by 10 percent, resulting in a and SRS programs is uncertain and agencies, private businesses, and positive impact on Federal lands depends on forces, including individuals. Decisionmakers can use ranging from $893,000 to $2,870,000 on Congressional action, unrelated to an annualized basis for timber harvest. this information to assess whether the critical habitat designation. If funding is effects of the designation might unduly The third scenario considers that not appropriated to PILT, or SRS is not burden a particular group or economic actions agencies may choose to be more reauthorized, payments from the USFS sector. Finally, the FEA considers those restrictive in response to critical habitat 25% Fund and the BLM O&C lands costs that may occur in the 20 years designation, resulting in a decline in become relatively more important. following the revised designation of harvest volumes relative to the baseline. Payments for these latter two programs critical habitat, which was determined To illustrate the potential for this effect, are based on commercial receipts, main to be the appropriate period for analysis baseline harvest projections were scaled from timber generated on Federal lands; because limited planning information downward by 20 percent, resulting in a payments from PILT and SRS are not as was available for most activities to negative impact on timber harvest on closely linked to fluctuations in timber forecast activity levels for projects Federal lands ranging from $2,650,000 sales. In recent years, most counties beyond a 20-year timeframe. The FEA to $6,480,000 on an annualized basis. have opted to receive SRS payments; for quantifies economic impacts of northern The USFS and BLM suggested certain example, in FY 2009 all 18 counties in spotted owl conservation efforts alterations to the baseline timber harvest Oregon that contain BLM lands opted to associated with timber harvests, wildfire projections, based on differing receive SRS payments instead of the management, barred owl management, assumptions regarding northern spotted LBM O&C lands revenue-sharing road construction, and linear projects owl occupancy in matrix lands and payment. Therefore, it is difficult to (road and bridge construction and projected levels of timber harvest quantify the effects that future changes maintenance, installation of power relative to historical yields. The FEA in timber harvests from Federal lands transmission lines and utility pipelines), presents the results of a sensitivity resulting from critical habitat as these are the types of activities we analysis considering these alternative designation would have on counties if determined were most likely to occur assumptions, which widen the range of SRS and PILT payment programs ended within northern spotted owl habitat. annualized potential impacts to Federal and the counties were forced to rely on The results of the FEA concludes that timber harvest relative to the scenarios revenue-sharing payments only. Given only a portion of the overall proposed described above (IEC 2012b, pp. 4–37 to the baseline uncertainty associated with revised designation will result in more 4–39). This sensitivity analysis the continuance of SRS and PILT than incremental, minor administrative contemplated a situation in which 26.6 payments, we were unable to quantify costs. Specifically, of the 13,962,449 ac percent of northern spotted owl habitat possible changes in county revenue proposed for designation, potential on BLM matrix lands is unoccupied, payments that could result from the incremental changes in timber harvest and a 20 percent increase in baseline critical habitat designation. However, practices were anticipated on only timber harvest in USFS Region 6 based on recent socioeconomic trends, 1,449,534 ac (585,612 ha) of USFS and relative to historical yields. The range of we were able to identify those counties BLM lands, or approximately 10 percent incremental impacts under these that may be more sensitive to future of the proposed designation. In alternative assumptions widens to a changes in timber harvests, industry addition, there was potential for the potential annualized increase of $0.7 employment, and Federal land owners of 307,308 ac (123,364 ha) of million under Scenario 2, and an payments. Potential timber harvest private land to experience incremental annualized decrease of $1.4 million changes related to critical habitat changes in harvests (approximately 2 under Scenario 3, relative to the results designation, whether positive, negative, percent of the proposed designation). reported above. or neutral, are one potential aspect of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71947

this sensitivity. The counties identified or managed by the Department of areas outside the geographical area as relatively more sensitive to future Defense (DOD) where a national security occupied by the species at the time of changes in timber harvests, impact might exist. In preparing this listing that are essential for the employment, and payments were Del final rule, we have determined that the conservation of the species. Norte and Trinity Counties, California; only lands within the proposed revised The identification of areas that Douglas and Klamath Counties, Oregon; designation of critical habitat for the contain the features essential to the and Skamania County, Washington. northern spotted owl that are owned or conservation of the species, or are With regard to jobs, increases or managed by the Department of Defense otherwise essential for the conservation decreases in timber harvests from have an active INRMP which provides of the species if outside the geographical Federal or private lands could result in a benefit to the species, and are thus area occupied by the species at the time positive or negative changes in jobs, exempt from critical habitat designation of listing, is a benefit resulting from the respectively. The FEA notes that many under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see designation. The critical habitat factors affect timber industry Exemptions, above). We therefore designation process includes peer employment (Chapter 6). The scope of anticipate no impact on national review and public comment on the our analysis was limited to the security from this designation. identified physical or biological features incremental effects of critical habitat Consequently, the Secretary is not and areas, and provides a mechanism to within the area proposed for designation exercising his discretion to exclude any educate landowners, State and local by the northern spotted owl. The FEA additional areas from this final revised governments, and the public regarding did not consider potential changes in designation based on impacts to the potential conservation value of an timber activities outside the proposed national security. area. This helps focus and promote critical habitat designation, and did not conservation efforts by other parties by evaluate the potential effects related to Relevant Impacts clearly delineating areas of high the timber industry as a whole. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we conservation value for the species, and Based on our economic analysis of the consider all relevant impacts, including is valuable to land owners and managers potential effects of the proposed revised but not limited to economic impacts and in developing conservation management designation of critical habitat for the impacts on national security. We plans by describing the essential northern spotted owl, there is a range of consider a number of factors including physical or biological features and potential outcomes, ranging from whether the landowners have developed special management actions or positive to negative impacts of the any HCPs or other management plans protections that are needed for designation. Most potential economic for the area, or whether there are identified areas. Including lands in impacts would occur, if at all, on conservation partnerships that would be critical habitat also informs State Federal matrix lands managed by BLM encouraged by designation of, or agencies and local governments about and the Forest Service, although we exclusion from, critical habitat. In areas that could be conserved under note that the amount of Federal matrix addition, we look at any tribal issues, State laws or local ordinances. lands has been reduced from the and consider the government-to- However, the prohibition on proposed rule, as described in Changes government relationship of the United destruction or adverse modification from the Proposed Rule, which would States with tribal entities. We also under section 7(a)(2) of the Act have the effect of reducing the range of consider any social impacts that might constitutes the only Federal regulatory potential economic impacts presented occur because of the designation. benefit of critical habitat designation. As by the FEA. While there is uncertainty Here we provide our analysis of areas discussed above, Federal agencies must over whether such impacts will occur that were proposed as revised consult with the Service on actions that and to what extent, even assuming designation of critical habitat for the may affect critical habitat and must higher economic impacts suggested by northern spotted owl, for which there avoid destroying or adversely modifying some commenters, we would not may be a greater conservation benefit to critical habitat. Federal agencies must exclude these lands from designation exclude rather than include in the also consult with us on actions that may under section 4(b)(2) because a critical designation. Our weighing of the affect a listed species and refrain from habitat designation on these lands will benefits of inclusion versus exclusion undertaking actions that are likely to have benefits in conserving this considered all relevant factors in order jeopardize the continued existence of essential habitat. In addition, our to make our final determination as to such species. The analysis of effects to evaluation of these matrix lands clearly what will result in the greatest critical habitat is a separate and demonstrates their importance to the conservation benefit to the owl. different analysis from that of the effects conservation of the northern spotted Depending on the specifics of each to the species. Therefore, the difference owl; as also discussed in the section situation, there may be cases where the in outcomes of these two analyses also Changes from the Proposed Rule, our designation of critical habitat will not represents the regulatory benefit of evaluation of a habitat network with necessarily provide enhanced critical habitat. For some species, and in reduced areas of high value habitat on protection, and may actually lead to a some locations, the outcome of these matrix lands indicated a significant net loss of conservation benefit. analyses will be similar because effects on habitat will often result in effects on increase in extinction risk to the species Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat as a result. the species. However, these two A copy of the FEA with supporting The process of designating critical regulatory standards are different. The documents may be obtained by habitat as described in the Act requires jeopardy analysis evaluates how a contacting the Oregon Fish and Wildlife that the Service identify those lands proposed action is likely to influence Office (see ADDRESSES) or by within the geographical area occupied the likelihood of a species’ survival and downloading from the Internet at by the species at the time of listing on recovery. The adverse modification http://www.regulations.gov. which are found the physical or analysis evaluates how an action affects biological features essential to the the capability of the critical habitat to National Security Impacts conservation of the species that may serve its intended conservation function Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we require special management or purpose (USFWS, in litt. 2004). consider whether there are lands owned considerations or protection, and those Although these standards are different,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

it has been the Service’s experience that Act is necessary, the process may what we achieve through multiple site- in many instances proposed actions that conclude informally when the Service by-site, project-by-project section 7(a)(2) affect both a listed species and its concurs in writing that the proposed consultations involving project effects to critical habitat and that constitute Federal action is not likely to adversely critical habitat. Management plans can jeopardy also constitute adverse affect the species or critical habitat. commit resources to implement long- modification. In some cases, however, However, if we determine through term management and protection to application of these different standards informal consultation that adverse particular habitat for at least one and results in different section 7(a)(2) impacts are likely to occur, then formal possibly other listed or sensitive determinations, especially in situations consultation is initiated. Formal species. Section 7(a)(2) consultations where the affected area is mostly or consultation concludes with a biological commit Federal agencies to preventing exclusively unoccupied critical habitat. opinion issued by the Service on adverse modification of critical habitat Thus, critical habitat designations may whether the proposed Federal action is caused by the particular project; provide greater benefits to the recovery likely to jeopardize the continued consultation does not require Federal of a species than would listing as existence of listed species or result in agencies to provide for conservation or endangered or threatened under the Act destruction or adverse modification of long-term benefits to areas not affected alone. critical habitat. by the proposed project. Thus, There are two limitations to the For critical habitat, a biological implementation of any HCP, or regulatory effect of critical habitat. First, opinion that concludes in a a section 7(a)(2) consultation is required management plan that incorporates determination of no destruction or enhancement or recovery as the only where there is a Federal nexus (an adverse modification may recommend action authorized, funded, or carried out management standard may often additional conservation measures to provide as much or more benefit than a by any Federal agency)—if there is no minimize adverse effects to primary Federal nexus, the critical habitat consultation for critical habitat constituent elements, but such measures designation. After reviewing all current designation of non-Federal lands itself would be discretionary on the part of does not restrict any actions that destroy HCPs, SHAs, and any other active the Federal agency. or adversely modify critical habitat. management plans or conservation Aside from the requirement that Federal The designation of critical habitat agreements, and weighing the benefits agencies ensure that their actions are does not require that any management of inclusion and exclusion (see below), not likely to result in destruction or or recovery actions take place on the we are excluding all State and private adverse modification of critical habitat lands included in the designation. Even lands covered by such agreements from under section 7, the Act does not in cases where consultation has been the final critical habitat designation. initiated under section 7(a)(2) of the Act provide any additional regulatory We are also excluding under section because of effects to critical habitat, the protection to lands designated as critical 4(b)(2) congressionally-reserved natural end result of consultation is to avoid habitat. areas such as national parks and adverse modification, but not Second, designating critical habitat wilderness areas, State parks, and other necessarily to manage critical habitat or does not create a management plan for private lands that had been proposed for institute recovery actions on critical the areas; does not establish numerical designation, for the reasons discussed habitat. On the other hand, voluntary population goals or prescribe specific below. These analyses are based in large management actions (inside or outside conservation efforts by landowners can remove or reduce known threats to a part on the particular conservation of critical habitat); and does not have a requirements of the northern spotted direct effect on areas not designated as species or its habitat by implementing recovery actions. We find that in many owl or the State laws aimed at critical habitat. The designation only protecting this species, and are specific limits destruction or adverse instances the regulatory benefit of to this designation. Thus, our modification of critical habitat, not all critical habitat is minimal when determination that the benefits of adverse effects. By its nature, the compared to the conservation benefit exclusion outweigh the benefits of prohibition on adverse modification that can be achieved through inclusion in these cases, as well as the ensures that the conservation role and implementing HCPs under section 10 of decision to exclude in these instances, function of the critical habitat network the Act, or other voluntary conservation is not appreciably reduced as a result of efforts or management plans. The do not necessarily have a bearing on any a Federal action. conservation achieved through future critical habitat designations. Once an agency determines that implementing HCPs, or other habitat Table 8 identifies all lands excluded consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the management plans can be greater than from the final rule.

TABLE 8—LANDS EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL REVISED DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL UNDER SECTION 4(B)(2) OF THE ACT

Critical habi- Type of agreement tat unit State Land owner/agency Acres Hectares

Safe Harbor Agreement ..... WCC ...... WA Port Blakely Tree Farms, L.P., Safe Harbor Agree- 195 79 ment, Landowner Option Plan, Cooperative Habitat Enhancement. WCC/ECN .... WA SDS Co. & Broughton Lumber Co. Conservation Plan 2,035 824 RWC ...... CA Forster-Gill, Inc...... 238 96 RWC ...... CA Van Eck Forest Foundation, Safe Harbor Agreement .. 2,774 1,122 Habitat Conservation Plan .. WCC ...... WA Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan ..... 3,244 1,313 WCC ...... WA Green River Water Supply Operations and Watershed 3,162 1,280 Protection Habitat Conservation Plan. WCC/ECN .... WA Plum Creek Timber Central Cascades I–90 Habitat 33,144 13,413 Conservation Plan.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71949

TABLE 8—LANDS EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL REVISED DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL UNDER SECTION 4(B)(2) OF THE ACT—Continued

Critical habi- Type of agreement tat unit State Land owner/agency Acres Hectares

WCC ...... WA West Fork Timber Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 5,105 2,066 RWC ...... CA Green Diamond Resource Company Habitat Con- 369,384 149,484 servation Plan. RWC ...... CA Humboldt Redwood Company, Habitat Conservation 208,172 84,244 Plan. RWC ...... CA Regli Estate Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 484 196 ICC ...... CA .... Terra Springs Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 39 16 ...... WA Washington Department of Natural Resources State 225,751 91,358 Lands HCP. Other Conservation Meas- ECN ...... WA Scofield Corporation...... 40 16 ures or Partnerships. RWC ...... CA Mendocino Redwood Company ...... 232,584 94,123 National Parks, State National Parks ...... 998,585 404,113 Parks, and Congression- ally Reserved Lands. State Parks and Natural Areas ...... 180,894 73,267 Congressionally Reserved USFS and BLM Lands ...... 1,625,068 657,644 Other Private Lands ...... WA ...... 42,513 17,204 ...... CA ...... 123,348 49,917

Total lands excluded ...... 4,056,759 1,641,777 under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Benefits of Excluding Lands With Safe consent if the landowner is in regulations for implementing SHAs on Harbor Agreements compliance with the permit and June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32706). A agreement and the activity is not likely correction to the final rule was A Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) is a to result in jeopardy to the listed announced on September 30, 1999 (64 voluntary agreement involving private species. FR 52676). The enhancement of survival or other non-Federal property owners Central to this approach is that the permit issued in association with an whose actions contribute to the recovery actions taken under the SHA must SHA authorizes incidental take of of listed species. The agreement is provide a net conservation benefit that species that may result from actions between cooperating non-Federal contributes to the recovery of the undertaken by the landowner under the property owners and the Service. In covered species. Examples of SHA, which could include returning the exchange for actions that contribute to conservation benefits include: property to the baseline conditions at the recovery of listed species on non- • Reduced habitat fragmentation; the end of the agreement. The permit Federal lands, participating property • Maintenance, restoration, or also specifies that the Service will not owners receive formal assurances from enhancement of existing habitats; require any additional or different the Service that, if they fulfill the • Increases in habitat connectivity; management activities by participants conditions of the SHA, the Service will • Stabilized or increased numbers or without their consent if the permittee is not require any additional or different distribution; in compliance with the requirements of management activities by the • The creation of buffers for protected the permit and the SHA and the participants without their consent. In areas; and permittee’s actions are not likely to addition, at the end of the agreement • Opportunities to test and develop result in jeopardy. period, participants may return the new habitat management techniques. The benefits of excluding lands with enrolled property to the baseline By entering into a SHA, property approved SHAs from critical habitat conditions that existed at the beginning owners receive assurances that land use designation may include relieving of the SHA. restrictions will not be required even if landowners, communities, and counties Because many endangered and the voluntary actions taken under the of any additional regulatory burden that threatened species occur exclusively, or agreement attract particular listed might be imposed as a result of the to a large extent, on privately owned species onto enrolled properties or critical habitat designation. Even if any property, the involvement of the private increase the numbers of distribution of additional regulatory burden would be sector in the conservation and recovery those listed species already present on unlikely due to a lack of a Federal of species is crucial. Property owners those properties. The assurances are nexus, the designation of critical habitat are often willing partners in efforts to provided through an enhancement of could nonetheless have an unintended recover listed species. However, some survival permit issued to the property negative effect on our relationship with property owners may be reluctant to owner, under the authority of section non-Federal landowners, due to the undertake activities that support or 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. To implement perceived imposition of government attract listed species on their properties, this provision of the Act, the Service regulation. An additional benefit of due to fear of future property-use and National Marine Fisheries Service excluding lands covered by approved restrictions related to the Act. To (NMFS) issued a joint policy for SHAs from critical habitat designation is address this concern, an SHA provides developing SHAs for listed species on that it may make it easier for us to seek that future property-use limitations will June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32717). The new partnerships with future SHA not occur without the landowner’s Service simultaneously issued participants, including States, counties,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

local jurisdictions, conservation 7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review on the property such that the trees will organizations, and private landowners, these actions for possible significant always average 12 to 24 in (30 to 60 cm) in cases where potential partners may habitat modification in accordance with dbh with a canopy cover of 60 to 100 be reluctant to encourage the the definition of harm, described in the percent. At the time of the agreement, development of habitat that supports Benefits of Excluding Lands with forest conditions were on the lower end endangered or threatened species. In Habitat Conservation Plans, below. of the diameter and canopy cover such cases, we may be able to We further note that SHAs may ranges. By the end of the agreement, the implement conservation actions that we include a provision that the landowner property will be at the upper end of the would be unable to accomplish may return the area to baseline diameter and canopy cover ranges. otherwise. By excluding these lands, we conditions upon expiration of the Under the SHA, Forster-Gill, Inc., agrees may preserve our current partnerships permit. The term of the permit is thus to: (1) Annually, survey and monitor for and encourage additional future an important consideration in weighing the location and reproductive status of conservation actions. the relative benefits of inclusion versus northern spotted owls on the property; In weighing the benefits of inclusion exclusion from the designation of (2) protect all active nest sites (locations versus the benefits of exclusion for critical habitat. However, the Service where nesting behavior is observed lands subject to approved SHAs, it is has the right to revise a critical habitat during any of the previous 3 years) with important to note that a fundamental designation at any time. Furthermore, a no-harvest area that buffers the nest requirement of an SHA is an advance the potential benefit of acknowledging site by no less than 300 ft (90 m) and determination by the Service that the the positive conservation contributions limits timber harvest operations within provisions of the SHA will result in a of landowners willing to enter into 1,000 ft (305 m) of an active nest site net conservation benefit to the listed voluntary conservation agreements with during the breeding season, allowing species. Approved SHAs have, the Service for the recovery of only the use of existing haul roads; and therefore, already been determined to endangered or threatened species may (3) manage the second-growth redwood provide a net conservation benefit to the nonetheless outweigh the loss of benefit timber on the property in a manner that listed species; in addition, the that may be incurred through a possible maintains suitable northern spotted owl management activities provided in an return to baseline following permit habitat, while creating, over time, the SHA often provide conservation benefits expiration. As stated above, such multilayered canopy structure with an to unlisted sensitive species as well. As circumstances require careful older, larger tree component associated described earlier, the designation of consideration on a case-by-case basis in with high-quality northern spotted owl critical habitat may not provide any order to make a final determination of habitat. The SHA is expected to provide, substantial realized conservation benefit the benefits of exclusion or inclusion in maintain, and enhance for the 80-year to the species on non-Federal lands a critical habitat designation. life of the agreement over 200 ac (80 ha) absent a Federal nexus for an activity. Below is a description of each SHA of northern spotted owl habitat within Especially where further Federal action and our analysis of the benefits of a matrix of private timberland. The is unlikely, the net conservation benefit including and excluding it from the cumulative impact of the agreement and provided by the terms of the SHA itself, critical habitat designation under the timber management activities it considered in conjunction with the section 4(b)(2) of the Act. covers, which are facilitated by the benefit of excluding lands subject to an State of California allowable incidental take, is expected to SHA by preserving our working provide a net benefit to the northern relationships with landowners who Forster-Gill, Inc., Safe Harbor spotted owl. have entered into SHAs with the Agreement Service, and the benefit of laying the Benefits of Inclusion—We find there positive groundwork for possible future In this final designation, the Secretary are minimal benefits to including these agreements with other landowners, may has exercised his authority to exclude lands in critical habitat. As discussed collectively outweigh the potentially 238 ac (96 ha) of lands from critical above, the designation of critical habitat limited benefit that would be realized habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, invokes the provisions of section 7. on these lands from the designation of that are covered by the Safe Harbor However, in this case, we find the critical habitat. However, as with all Agreement (SHA) of Forster-Gill, Inc., requirement that Federal agencies potential exclusions under within subunit 1 of the Redwood Coast consult with us and ensure that their consideration, lands subject to an SHA CHU in Humboldt County, California. actions are not likely to destroy or will only be excluded if we determine The enhancement of survival permit adversely modify critical habitat will that the benefits of exclusion outweigh associated with this SHA was noticed in not result in significant benefits to the the benefits of inclusion following a the Federal Register on March 22, 2002 species because the possibility of a rigorous examination of the record on a (67 FR 13357), and issued June 18, 2002. Federal nexus for a project on these case-by-case basis. The term of the agreement is 80 years, lands that might trigger such We note that permit issuance in and the term of the permit is 90 years. consultation is limited (there is little association with SHA applications The SHA provides for the creation and likelihood of an action that will involve requires consultation under section enhancement of habitat for the northern Federal funding, authorization, or 7(a)(2) of the Act, which would include spotted owl on 238 ac (96 ha) of lands implementation). In addition, since the the review of the effects of all SHA- in Humboldt County, California, and lands under the SHA in question are covered activities that might adversely provides for continued timber harvest occupied by the northern spotted owl, if impact the species under a jeopardy on those lands. There are two baseline a Federal nexus were to occur, section standard, including possibly significant conditions that will be maintained 7 consultation would already be habitat modification (see definition of under the SHA: (1) Protection of an triggered and the Federal agency would ‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3), even without 11.2-ac (5-ha) no-harvest area that will consider the effects of its actions on the the critical habitat designation. In buffer the most recent active northern species through a jeopardy analysis. addition, all other Federal actions that spotted owl nest site, but will also be Because one of the primary threats to may affect the listed species would still maintained in the absence of a nest site; the northern spotted owl is habitat loss require consultation under section and (2) maintenance of 216 ac (87 ha) and degradation, the consultation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71951

process under section 7 of the Act for become aware of the current status of effect on our relationship with non- projects with a Federal nexus will, in and threats to the northern spotted owl, Federal landowners due to the evaluating effects to the northern and the conservation actions needed for perceived imposition of redundant spotted owl, evaluate the effects of the recovery. government regulation. If lands within action on the conservation or The designation of critical habitat the Forster-Gill SHA are designated as functionality of the habitat for the may also indirectly cause State or critical habitat, it would likely have a species regardless of whether critical county jurisdictions to initiate their own chilling effect on our continued ability habitat is designated for these lands. additional requirements in areas to seek new partnerships with future The analytical requirements to support identified as critical habitat. These participants including States, counties, a jeopardy determination on excluded measures may include additional local jurisdictions, conservation land are similar, but not identical, to the permitting requirements or a higher organizations, and private landowners, requirements in an analysis for an level of local review on proposed which together can implement various adverse modification determination on projects. However, CALFIRE has conservation actions (such as SHAs, included land. However, the additional indicated to us that it is unlikely to HCPs, and other conservation plans, conservation that could be attained impose any new requirements on particularly large, regional Conservation through the supplemental adverse project proponents if critical habitat is Plans that involve numerous modification analysis for critical habitat designated in areas already subject to participants and/or address landscape- under section 7 would likely not be California Forest Practice Rules. level conservation of species and significant, and would be triggered only Therefore, we believe this potential habitats) that we would be unable to in the event of a Federal action. benefit of critical will be limited. accomplish otherwise. Furthermore, any such potential benefit Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of Excluding the approximately 238 ac would be small in comparison to the excluding from designated critical (96 ha) owned and managed by Forster- benefits derived from the SHA, which habitat the approximately 236 ac (96 ha) Gill, Inc. from critical habitat already incorporates measures that of lands currently managed under the designation will sustain and enhance specifically benefit the northern spotted SHA are substantial. We have created a the working relationship between the owl and its habitat, as described above, close partnership with Forster-Gill Service and this private lands partner. and remains in place regardless of the through the development of the SHA, The willingness of Forster-Gill to work designation of critical habitat. which incorporates protections and with the Service to manage federally management objectives for the northern listed species will continue to reinforce Another benefit of including lands in spotted owl and the habitat upon which those conservation efforts and our a critical habitat designation is that it it depends for breeding, sheltering, and partnership, which contribute toward serves to educate landowners, State and foraging activities, as described above. achieving recovery of the northern local governments, and the public The conservation approach identified in spotted owl. We consider this voluntary regarding the potential conservation the Forster-Gill, Inc. SHA, along with partnership in conservation vital to our value of an area. This helps focus and our close coordination with the understanding of the status of species promote conservation efforts by other company, addresses the identified on non-Federal lands and necessary to parties by identifying areas of high threats to northern spotted owl habitat implement recovery actions such as conservation value for northern spotted on the covered lands that contain the habitat protection and restoration, and owls. Any information about the physical or biological features essential beneficial management actions for northern spotted owl and its habitat that to the conservation of the species. species. By excluding these lands, we reaches a wider audience, including The conservation measures identified preserve our current conservation parties engaged in conservation within the SHA seek to achieve partnership with Forster-Gill and activities, is valuable. However, in this conservation goals for northern spotted encourage additional conservation case the landowners are aware of the owls and their habitat, and thus can be actions by this partner, and potentially needs of the species through the of greater conservation benefit than the others as well, in the future. We development of their SHA, in which designation of critical habitat, which consider the positive effect of excluding they have agreed to take measures to does not require specific, proactive proven conservation partners from protect the northern spotted owl on management actions. If there is a critical habitat to be a significant benefit their property and create and enhance Federal nexus, consultation under of exclusion. suitable habitat for the species as well. critical habitat requires only that the The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Any additional educational and action agency avoid actions that destroy the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed information benefits that might arise or adversely modify critical habitat. In and evaluated the exclusion of from critical habitat designation have contrast, SHA conservation measures approximately 238 ac (96 ha) of land been largely accomplished through the that provide a benefit to the northern owned and managed by Forster-Gill, public review of and comment on the spotted owl and its habitat have been, Inc. from our designation of critical SHA and the associated permit. The and will be, implemented continuously habitat. The benefits of including these release of the Revised Recovery Plan for beginning with the enactment of the lands in the designation are relatively the Northern Spotted Owl in 2011 was SHA in 2002 through the 80-year term small. The habitat on the covered lands also preceded by outreach efforts and of the ITP, through 2082, on all covered is already being monitored and managed public comment opportunities. In lands owned and managed by Forster- under the SHA to improve the habitat addition, the rulemaking process Gill, Inc. The key conservation measure elements that are equivalent to the associated with critical habitat is a provision that will lead to an physical or biological features that are designation included several approximate doubling of mean tree outlined in this critical habitat rule. The opportunities for public comment, and diameter from roughly 12 to 24 in (30 additional designation of critical habitat we also held multiple public to 60 cm) on covered lands over the life would provide unnecessarily information meetings across the range of of the permit, leading to enhancement of duplicative protections, and would in the species. Through these outreach habitat suitability. any case be unlikely to be triggered opportunities, land owners, State The designation of critical habitat under section 7, since there is little agencies, and local governments have could have an unintended negative probability of a Federal nexus for any

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

activity on these lands. Even if determined that the exclusion of 238 ac SHA does not provide for a return to triggered, since the lands in question are (96 ha) from the designation of critical baseline conditions at the end of the occupied by the species, section 7 habitat for the northern spotted owl of agreement term. Instead, the agreement consultation would already be required lands owned and managed by Forster- provides that if more than five northern under the jeopardy standard, and as Gill, Inc., as identified in their SHA will spotted owl activity centers should noted, the analysis under the adverse not result in extinction of the species become established on the property modification standard would be because current conservation efforts during the 90-year term, the landowner unlikely to provide additional under the plan adequately protect the would be allowed to remove such protections beyond those already in geographical areas containing the additional activity centers during the place under the SHA. The regulatory physical or biological features essential agreement period. benefit of additional Federal review on to the conservation of the species. For Under the SHA, the Fred M. van Eck individual proposed actions is episodic projects having a Federal nexus and Forest Foundation agrees to: (1) Conduct and confined to the scope and scale of affecting northern spotted owls in surveys annually to determine the the specific actions, whereas occupied areas, as in this case, the locations and reproductive status of any implementation of the SHA is jeopardy standard of section 7 of the northern spotted owls; (2) protect up to continuous and affects the entire Act, coupled with protection provided five activity centers with a no-harvest property. under the terms of the SHA, would area that buffers the activity center by Educational benefits are also limited. provide assurances that this species will no less than 100 ft (30 m); (3) utilize The landowner is already aware of the not go extinct as a result of excluding selective timber harvest methods such conservation needs of the species these lands from the critical habitat that suitable nesting habitat is through development of the SHA. designation. Based on the above maintained within 300 ft (91 m) of each Because there is no public access to the discussion, the Secretary is exercising activity center; (4) limit noise land, we are not aware of any public his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of disturbance from timber harvest constituency connected with this the Act to exclude from this final operations within 1,000 ft (305 m) of an ownership which would derive critical habitat designation portions of active nest during the breeding season; informational benefits from the the proposed critical habitat units or and (5) manage all second-growth designation of critical habitat. However, subunits that are within the Forster-Gill, redwood timber on the property in a as noted, we have conducted extensive Inc. SHA boundary totaling 238 ac (96 manner that maintains or creates outreach efforts, both in relation to the ha). suitable nesting and roosting habitat SHA and its associated permit, as well over time. The term of the SHA and ITP as our proposed critical habitat, which Van Eck Forest Foundation Safe Harbor is 90 years; there is no term limitation have provided opportunity for public Agreement on the easement deed held by the education and comment on critical In this final designation, the Secretary Pacific Forest Trust. Specific long-term habitat for the northern spotted owl. As has exercised his authority to exclude management targets for second-growth such, much of the potential educational lands from critical habitat, under timber are enumerated in the easement benefit of critical habitat on these lands section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are deed. All are expressed as propertywide has already been accomplished. covered by the SHA between the Fred averages; for example, a stocking target On the other hand, the SHA has M. Van Eck Forest Foundation and the of 100,000 board feet (bf) per acre, 75 provisions for protecting and Service within subunit 1 of the percent minimum conifer occupancy, 25 maintaining northern spotted owl Redwood Coast CHU in California. percent of standing inventory made up habitat that far exceed the conservation These lands are also protected under a of trees greater than 200 years of age, 15 benefits that could be obtained through conservation easement held by the dominant conifers per acre 36-inches section 7 consultation. These measures Pacific Forest Trust. The enhancement DBH or greater, 4 standing snags per will not only prevent the degradation of of survival permit associated with this acre 30-inches DBH or greater, 1,600 essential features of the northern SHA was noticed in the Federal cubic feet per acre of dead and down spotted owl, but they will maintain or Register on July 8, 2008 (73 FR 39026), logs. The cumulative impact of the SHA improve these features over time. and issued August 18, 2008. The term and the easement, is expected to Furthermore, landowners always have of the permit and the agreement is 90 provide a substantial net benefit to the the option not to return to baseline after years. The SHA provides for the northern spotted owl. the term of the SHA is over. Exclusion creation and enhancement of habitat for Benefits of Inclusion—We find there of these lands from critical habitat will the northern spotted owl on 2,774 ac are minimal benefits to including these help foster the partnership we have (1,122 ha) of lands in Humboldt County, lands in critical habitat. As discussed developed with Forster-Gill through the California, and provides for continued above, the designation of critical habitat development and continuing timber harvest on those lands. At the invokes the provisions of section 7. implementation of the SHA, and may time of the agreement, the lands under However, in this case, we find the encourage the landowner to continue consideration supported 1,730 ac (700 requirement that Federal agencies these cooperative efforts even after the ha) of northern spotted owl nesting and consult with us and ensure that their term of the SHA. In addition, this roosting habitat and one northern actions are not likely to destroy or partnership may serve as a model and spotted owl activity center (a location adversely modify critical habitat will aid in fostering future cooperative where owls are observed nesting or not result in significant benefits to the relationships with other parties in other roosting). We anticipate that under the species because the possibility of a locations for the benefit of listed northern spotted owl habitat creation Federal nexus for a project on these species. For these reasons, we have and enhancement timber management lands is limited (there is little likelihood determined that the benefits of regime proposed in the SHA that of an action that will involve Federal exclusion of lands covered by the approximately 1,947 ac (788 ha) of funding, authorization, or Forster-Gill, Inc. SHA outweigh the nesting and roosting habitat and implementation). In addition, since the benefits of critical habitat designation. potentially up to five northern spotted lands under the SHA in question are Exclusion Will Not Result in owl activity centers could exist on the occupied by the northern spotted owl, if Extinction of the Species—We have property at the end of 90 years. The a Federal nexus were to occur, section

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71953

7 consultation would already be comment, and we also held multiple The designation of critical habitat triggered and the Federal agency would public information meetings across the could have an unintended negative consider the effects of its actions on the range of the species. Through these effect on our relationship with non- species through a jeopardy analysis. outreach opportunities, land owners, Federal landowners due to the Because one of the primary threats to State agencies, and local governments perceived imposition of redundant the northern spotted owl is habitat loss have become aware of the current status government regulation. If lands within and degradation, the consultation of and threats to the northern spotted the Van Eck Forest Foundation SHA are process under section 7 of the Act for owl, and the conservation actions designated as critical habitat, it would projects with a Federal nexus will, in needed for recovery. likely have a chilling effect on our evaluating effects to the northern The designation of critical habitat continued ability to seek new spotted owl, evaluate the effects of the may also indirectly cause State or partnerships with future participants action on the habitat for the species county jurisdictions to initiate their own including States, counties, local regardless of whether critical habitat is additional requirements in areas jurisdictions, conservation designated for these lands. The identified as critical habitat. These organizations, and private landowners, analytical requirements to support a measures may include additional which together can implement various jeopardy determination on excluded permitting requirements or a higher conservation actions (such as SHAs, land are similar, but not identical, to the level of local review on proposed HCPs, and other conservation plans) requirements in an analysis for an projects. However, CALFIRE has that we would be unable to accomplish adverse modification determination on indicated to us that it is unlikely to otherwise. Excluding the approximately included land. However, the additional impose any new requirements on 2,774 ac (1,122 ha) owned and managed conservation that could be attained project proponents if critical habitat is by the Van Eck Forest Foundation from through the supplemental adverse designated in areas already subject to critical habitat designation will sustain modification analysis for critical habitat California Forest Practice Rules. and enhance this working relationship under section 7 would likely not be Therefore, we believe this potential between the Service and the significant, and would be triggered only benefit of critical will be limited. Foundation. The willingness of the in the event of a Federal action. Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of Foundation to work with us to manage Furthermore, any such potential benefit excluding from designated critical federally listed species will continue to would be small in comparison to the habitat the approximately 2,774 ac reinforce those conservation efforts and benefits already derived from the SHA, (1,122 ha) of lands currently managed our partnership, which contribute which already incorporates measures under the SHA are substantial. We have toward achieving recovery of the that specifically benefit the northern created a close partnership with the northern spotted owl. We consider this spotted owl and its habitat, as described Foundation through the development of voluntary partnership in conservation above, and remains in place regardless the SHA, which incorporates vital to our understanding of the status of the designation of critical habitat. protections and management objectives of species on non-Federal lands and Another benefit of including lands in for the northern spotted owl and the necessary for us to implement recovery a critical habitat designation is that it habitat upon which it depends for actions, such as habitat protection and serves to educate landowners, State and breeding, sheltering, and foraging restoration, and beneficial management local governments, and the public activities, as described above. The actions for species. Further, this regarding the potential conservation conservation approach identified in the partnership may aid in fostering future value of an area. This helps focus and Van Eck Forest Foundation SHA, along cooperative relationships with other promote conservation efforts by other with our close coordination with the parties in other locations for the benefit parties by identifying areas of high Foundation, addresses the identified of listed species. We consider the conservation value for northern spotted threats to northern spotted owl on positive effect of excluding proven owls. Any information about the covered lands that contain the physical conservation partners from critical northern spotted owl and its habitat that or biological features essential to the habitat to be a significant benefit of reaches a wider audience, including conservation of the species. exclusion. parties engaged in conservation The SHA conservation measures that The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh activities, is valuable. The landowners provide a benefit to the northern spotted the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed in this case are aware of the needs of the owl and its habitat have been, and will and evaluated the exclusion of species through the development of be, implemented continuously approximately 2,774 ac (1,122 ha) of their SHA, in which they have agreed to beginning with the enactment of the land owned and managed by the Van take measures to protect the northern SHA in 2008 through the 90-year term Eck Forest Foundation from our spotted owl on their property and create of the ITP, through 2088, on all covered designation of critical habitat. The and enhance suitable habitat for the lands owned and managed by the Van benefits of including these lands in the species as well. Any additional Eck Forest Foundation. Such measures designation are relatively small, since educational and information benefits include the examples we identified the habitat on the covered lands is that might arise from critical habitat above: A volume-based mean stocking already being monitored and managed designation have been largely target, mean conifer occupancy, mean under the SHA to improve the habitat accomplished through the public review percentages of standing inventory in elements that are equivalent to the of and comment on the SHA and the older age classes, mean size and density physical or biological features that are associated permit. The release of the of dominant conifers, mean size and outlined in this critical habitat rule. The Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern density of standing snags, and mean additional designation of critical habitat Spotted Owl in 2011 was also preceded volume of dead and down logs. The would provide unnecessarily by outreach efforts and public comment measures provided in the SHA are duplicative protections, and would in opportunities. In addition, the aimed at the maintenance and any case be unlikely to be triggered rulemaking process associated with enhancement of suitable nesting and under section 7, since there is little critical habitat designation included roosting habitat over time to benefit the probability of a Federal nexus on these several opportunities for public northern spotted owl. lands. Even if triggered, since the lands

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

in question are occupied by the species, determined that the exclusion of 2,774 northern spotted owls have historically section 7 consultation would already be ac (1,122 ha) from the designation of nested on adjacent Federal lands and required under the jeopardy standard, critical habitat for the northern spotted the 1.82-mile (2.9-km) radius circles and, as noted, the analysis under the owl of lands owned and managed by the around those sites that are used for adverse modification standard would be Van Eck Forest Foundation, as evaluating potential habitat availability unlikely to provide additional identified in their SHA will not result for northern spotted owls extend onto protections beyond those already in in extinction of the species because Port Blakely lands. Because of this, Port place under the SHA. current conservation efforts under the Blakely Tree Farms conducted habitat Educational benefits are also limited. plan adequately protect the geographical evaluations of their properties to The landowner is already aware of the areas containing the physical or determine the amount of suitable conservation needs of the species biological features essential to the northern spotted owl habitat present. through development of the SHA. conservation of the species. For projects The baseline estimate to be provided by Because the Van Eck lands, for the most having a Federal nexus and affecting the SHA is 8,360 ac (3,383 ha) of part, are not open to the general public, northern spotted owls in occupied northern spotted owl dispersal habitat. there is no public constituency that areas, such as in this case, the jeopardy Under the SHA, Port Blakely is would derive informational benefits standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled implementing conservation measures from the designation of critical habitat. with protection provided under the that are expected to provide net However, as noted, we have conducted terms of the SHA and Conservation conservation benefits to the northern extensive outreach efforts, both in Easement Agreement, would provide spotted owl and marbled murrelet. The relation to the SHA and its associated assurances that this species will not go SHA also provides that Port Blakely will permit, as well as our proposed revision extinct as a result of excluding these manage their tree farm in a manner that of critical habitat, which have provided lands from the critical habitat contributes to the goals of the Mineral opportunity for public education and designation. Based on the above Block Northern Spotted Owl Special comment on critical habitat for the discussion, the Secretary is exercising Emphasis Area (SOSEA) according to northern spotted owl. As such, much of his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of Washington Forest Practices Rules and the potential educational benefit of the Act to exclude from this final Regulations (Washington Forest critical habitat on these lands has critical habitat designation portions of Practices Board 2002, WAC 222–16– already been accomplished. the proposed critical habitat units or 080, WAC 222–16– 086). This area is On the other hand, the conservation subunits that are within the Van Eck intended to facilitate dispersal of measures identified within the SHA Forest Foundation SHA boundary juvenile northern spotted owls, as well seek to achieve conservation goals for totaling 2,774 ac (1,122 ha). as provide demographic support to core northern spotted owls and their habitat, northern spotted owl populations. and thus can be of greater conservation State of Washington Under the SHA, Port Blakely is benefit than the designation of critical Port Blakely Tree Farms L.P. (Morton habitat, which does not require specific, implementing enhanced forest- Block) Safe Harbor Agreement, management measures that would create proactive actions. Thus, the Landowner Option Plan, and implementation of the SHA provides a potential habitat for the northern Cooperative Habitat Enhancement spotted owl and marbled murrelet, such substantially greater benefit to the Agreement northern spotted owl than would be as longer harvest rotations, additional obtained through section 7 consultation. In this final designation, the Secretary thinning to accelerate forest growth, a The measures provided in the SHA will has exercised his authority to exclude snag-creation program, retention of not only prevent the degradation of lands from critical habitat, under more fallen wood than is required by essential features for the northern section 4(b)(2) of the Act, totaling Washington Forest Practices Rules, spotted owl, but they are designed to approximately 195 ac (79 ha) that are establishment of special management maintain or enhance these features over covered under the Port Blakely Tree areas and special set-aside areas, and time. Furthermore, landowners always Farms (also known as Morton Block) monitoring. The terms of the agreement have the option not to return to baseline SHA in the West Cascades Central CHU are intended to produce conditions that after the term of the SHA is over. in Washington. The enhancement of will facilitate the dispersal of the Exclusion of these lands from critical survival permit associated with this northern spotted owl across the Port habitat will help foster the partnership SHA was noticed in the Federal Blakely ownership. we have developed with the Van Eck Register on December 17, 2008 (73 FR At present, there are no known Forest Foundation through the 76680) and issued May 22, 2009. The nesting sites for owls in the covered development and continuing SHA and permit include both the area. However, portions of the covered implementation of the SHA and may marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus area are within owl management circles encourage the landowner to continue marmoratus) and the northern spotted associated with site centers on adjacent these cooperative efforts even after the owl, and covers an area of 45,306 ac ownerships. The majority of the stand- term of the SHA. In addition, this (18,335 ha) of managed forest lands management units are composed of 20- partnership may serve as a model and known as the ‘‘Morton Block,’’ in Lewis to 60-year-old timber. There are no aid in fostering future cooperative and Skamania Counties. The term of the stands that would provide nesting relationships with other parties in other permit and SHA is 60 years. opportunities for owls in the covered locations for the benefit of listed The covered lands have been area, and very little young forest species. For these reasons we have intensively managed for timber marginal habitat is present in the areas determined that the benefits of production and at the time the permit of the Morton Block with the potential exclusion of lands covered by the Van was issued were not known to be for utilization by owls that may occur Eck Forest Foundation SHA outweigh occupied by northern spotted owls. The on adjacent ownerships. The young the benefits of critical habitat environmental baseline was measured forest marginal habitat known to exist designation. in terms of dispersal habitat. There are on Port Blakely’s ownership is within Exclusion Will Not Result in no known northern spotted owls nesting circles that have greater than 40 percent Extinction of the Species—We have on Port Blakely lands. However, suitable habitat and, thus, may be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71955

harvested under Washington State avenues. Under section 7(a)(2) of the the Act for projects with a Federal nexus Forest Practices Rules. Act, Federal agencies that grant funds or likely would, in evaluating effects to the The SHA landscape-management issue permits for proposed actions on northern spotted owl, evaluate the approach contributes to owl recovery by private lands, whether or not those effects of the action on the conservation complementing the existing owl lands are designated critical habitat, are or functionality of the habitat for the landscape-management strategies on required to consult with the Service to species, regardless of whether critical adjacent Federal and State forestlands. ensure that the proposed action ‘‘* * * habitat is designated for these lands. The SHA goals and objectives for the is not likely to jeopardize the continued The analytical requirements to support northern spotted owl are to provide existence of any endangered species or a jeopardy determination on excluded demographic interchange through threatened species * * *’’ When lands land are similar, but not identical, to the dispersal and foraging habitat across are designated critical habitat, the requirements in an analysis for an their ownership on a dynamic basis, as section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement adverse modification determination on well as higher-quality habitat in harvest is expanded so that the granting or land designated as critical habitat. set-asides. These habitats provide for permitting Federal agencies and the However, the amount of conservation both dispersal and demographic Service are required to ensure that the that could be attained through the interchange. SOSEA goals are identified proposed action will not ‘‘* * * result addition of a critical habitat analysis to in the Washington State Forest Practices in the destruction or adverse the section 7 consultation would be Rules and shown on the SOSEA maps modification of critical habitat * * *’’ relatively low in comparison to the (see WAC 222–16–086). SOSEA goals of any endangered species or threatened conservation provided by the SHA. The provide for demographic and dispersal species. Critical habitat designation additional benefits of inclusion on the support as necessary to complement the adds a new element to the Federal section 7 process are therefore relatively northern spotted owl protection consultation: The consideration and small. strategies on Federal lands within or analysis of adverse effects to habitat that The benefits of inclusion are further adjacent to the SOSEA (WAC 222–16– might potentially arise from the minimized because, as mentioned 010). proposed action. In evaluating the above, the Port Blakely SHA provides Port Blakely will achieve these goals effects of proposed actions on critical for the needs of the northern spotted and objectives both in the near term and habitat, the Service must be satisfied owl by protecting and preserving over the term of the SHA by that the essential physical or biological landscape levels of suitable northern immediately protecting special features of the critical habitat likely will spotted owl nesting, roosting, and management areas and special set-aside not be altered or destroyed by proposed foraging habitat, as well as foraging and areas of northern spotted owl habitat, activities to the extent that the dispersal habitat over the term of the and managing commercial forested conservation function of the designated SHA in strategic landscapes, and lands in the plan area on an average critical habitat would be appreciably implementing species-specific rotation length of 60 years. In addition, diminished. Briefly, if the land conservation measures designed to the SHA provides silvicultural measures potentially affected by the proposed avoid and minimize effects to northern to benefit the northern spotted owl, action is not designated critical habitat, spotted owls. A fundamental including a thinning program and a the scope of the consultation must requirement of an SHA is a snag-retention and creation program. include a consideration of ‘‘jeopardy’’ to determination by the Service that the Port Blakely has agreed to collaborate provisions of the SHA will result in a threatened or endangered species; but if with State and Federal biologists in net conservation benefit to the listed the same land is designated critical research efforts to better understand species. Approved SHAs have, habitat, the consultation must include how their management will influence therefore, already been determined to considerations of both ‘‘jeopardy’’ and dispersal habitat conditions in the plan provide a net conservation benefit to the ‘‘adverse modification’’ of critical area. Port Blakely is working listed species. In addition, monitoring habitat. cooperatively with the Service, WDFW, will track SHA progress over the term of WDNR, and other entities that have We find that the conservation the permit and provide feedback on expertise, in designing a statistically achieved through implementing these management actions. Therefore, robust snag-monitoring study. Port types of agreements is typically greater designation of critical habitat would be Blakely will also map all leave tree than would be achieved through redundant on these lands, and would areas, and mark a sample of snag and multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, not provide additional measureable defective trees for use in snag- section 7 consultations involving protections. monitoring studies. The SHA consideration of critical habitat. In Another benefit of including lands in acknowledges uncertainty in some addition, it is unlikely that Federal a critical habitat designation is that it aspects of anticipated results. Areas of projects would be proposed on these serves to educate landowners, State and uncertainty include the likelihood that relatively remote forest lands unless it local governments, and the public green retention trees will become snags was a linear project such as a powerline, regarding the potential conservation during the period between commercial pipeline, or transportation project. Due value of an area. This helps focus and thinning and future entries, as well as to the scope of such projects, they promote conservation efforts by other the recruitment success and persistence would likely already have a Federal parties by identifying areas of high of snags. Port Blakely has committed to nexus regardless whether these lands conservation value for northern spotted work collaboratively with agencies in are designated as critical habitat. While owls. Designation of critical habitat these matters. The SHA also contains the SHA lands may not have nesting could inform State agencies and local monitoring and reporting requirements. sites on them at this time, degradation governments about areas that could be Benefits of Inclusion—Critical habitat of the habitats on the SHA or adjacent conserved under State laws or local designation on private lands introduces lands could be considered an adverse ordinances, such as the Washington a higher level of Federal scrutiny under effect to the species. Because one of the State Growth Management Act, which the interagency consultation process in primary threats to the northern spotted encourage the protection of ‘‘critical section 7 of the Act. This higher level owl is habitat loss and degradation, the areas’’ including fish and wildlife of scrutiny can arise through two consultation process under section 7 of habitat conservation areas. However, not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

only has the public process for this Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the excluding these lands from the critical rulemaking provided information to the Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we habitat designation. Based on the above landowner, State agencies and local determine that the benefits of excluding discussion, the Secretary is exercising governments and the public about the the Port Blakely SHA from the his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of importance of this area, but the process designation of critical habitat for the the Act to exclude from this final for approving a SHA, which requires northern spotted owl outweigh the critical habitat designation portions of public notice and comment, has served benefits of including this area in critical the proposed critical habitat units or this educational function as well. habitat. We find that including the Port subunits that are within the Port Blakely Through these opportunities, land Blakely SHA would result in minimal, SHA totaling about 195 ac (79 ha). owners, State agencies, and local if any, additional benefits to the SDS Company LLC and Broughton governments have become more aware northern spotted owl, as explained Lumber Company Safe Harbor of the status of and threats to listed above. We also find that the benefits of Agreement species, and the conservation actions including these lands are further needed for recovery particularly as it minimized by the fact that the In this final designation, the Secretary relates to this property. For this reason, management strategies of the Port has exercised his authority to exclude we believe that the educational benefits Blakely SHA are designed to maintain lands from critical habitat, under that might accrue from critical habitat and enhance habitat for the northern section 4(b)(2) of the Act, lands totaling designation would be minimal. spotted owl. The SHA includes species- about 2,035 ac (824 ha) that are covered Thus, we find that there is minimal specific avoidance and minimization under the SDS Lumber Company LLC benefit from designating critical habitat measures, monitoring requirements to and its registered business name for the northern spotted owl within the track success and ensure proper Stevenson Land Company (together Port Blakely SHA. implementation, and forest-management SDS) and Broughton Lumber Company Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of practices and habitat conservation (in total are related companies and are excluding from designated critical objectives that benefit the northern herein known as ‘‘the Companies’’) habitat the approximately 195 ac (79 ha) spotted owl and its habitat, which SHA, in Washington and Oregon. (Note of lands currently managed under the exceeds any conservation value the proposed rule contained an error, in SHA are substantial and include provided as a result of a critical habitat which we mistakenly identified maintaining our partnership with this designation. Furthermore, encouraging approximately 16,031 ac (6,487 ha) of landowner. This is important because it landowners to enter into voluntary SDS and Broughton lands for potential may encourage the company not to conservation agreements with the exclusion). The enhancement of return to baseline immediately after Service for the recovery of endangered survival permits associated with this expiration of the SHA. or threatened species which we believe SHA were noticed in the Federal Excluding lands with SHAs from would be one of the benefits of Register on August 21, 2012 (77 FR critical habitat designation may also exclusion may outweigh the loss of 50526) and issued to the Companies on enhance our ability to seek new benefit that may be incurred through a October 26, 2012. The term of each of partnerships with future participants possible return to baseline following the permits is 60 years. The Companies including States, counties, local permit expiration. collectively manage approximately jurisdictions, conservation Therefore, in consideration of the 83,000 ac (33,589 ha) of forestland in organizations, and private landowners, factors discussed above in the Benefits Skamania and Klickitat Counties in which together can implement of Exclusion section, including the Washington, and Hood River and Wasco conservation actions that we would be relevant impact to current and future Counties in Oregon. Much of this unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands partnerships, we have determined that ownership is composed of potential within the plan area are designated as the benefits of exclusion of lands habitat outside of any owl circles and, critical habitat, it could have a negative covered by the Port Blakely SHA therefore, is currently available for effect on our ability to work with outweigh the benefits of critical habitat harvest under Washington State Forest various companies to accomplish our designation. Practices Rules. However, 30 northern goals for the SHA program and recovery Exclusion Will Not Result in spotted owl home ranges overlap some of the northern spotted owl. This SHA Extinction of the Species—We have portion of the Companies’ land base. is located in a key landscape between determined that exclusion of a net of Most site centers are currently located the Mineral Block and other Federal approximately 195 ac (79 ha) of lands on Federal or State ownership; only one lands, and represents a unique within the Port Blakely SHA will not site center is located on Companies’ opportunity to maintain northern result in extinction of the northern ownership. Because the Companies spotted owls at the western extreme of spotted owl because current and future have committed to manage their the Cascades, which may support conservation efforts under the commercial forest lands for a dispersal between the Cascades and agreement provide management to substantially longer rotation than the Olympics. This SHA contributes facilitate dispersal of juvenile northern typical 45-year rotation, and to meaningfully to the recovery of the spotted owls, as well as provide implement additional conservation northern spotted owl and serves as an demographic support to core northern measures, northern spotted owls could example to other industrial companies. spotted owl populations. Further, occupy the covered area in the future This SHA was the first to combine a should nesting populations of the owl under the SHA. Federal SHA effort with similar become reestablished in this area (and The Companies’ landscape planning processes under State projects subsequently planned that have management approach contributes to jurisdiction and serves as a role model a Federal nexus and would potentially owl recovery by complementing the in combining SHA planning with State affect northern spotted owls), the existing owl landscape-management processes. By excluding these lands, we jeopardy standard of section 7 of the strategies on adjacent Federal and State preserve our current private and local Act, coupled with protection provided forestlands. The Companies’ SHA goals conservation partnerships and by the Port Blakely SHA, would provide and objectives for the northern spotted encourage additional conservation a level of assurance that this species owl are to provide dispersal and young actions in the future. will not go extinct as a result of forest marginal habitat across their

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71957

ownership on a dynamic basis, as well functionality of the habitat for the areas’’ including fish and wildlife as submature and higher quality habitat species, regardless of whether critical habitat conservation areas. However, not in harvest set-asides. These habitats habitat is designated for these lands. only has the public process for this provide both dispersal and demographic The analytical requirements to support rulemaking provided information to the support, an established goal for lands a jeopardy determination on excluded landowner, State agencies and local within the two northern spotted owl land are similar, but not identical, to the governments and the public about the special emphasis areas (SOSEAs). requirements in an analysis for an importance of this area, but the process SOSEA goals are identified in the Forest adverse modification determination on for approving a SHA, which also Practices Rules and shown on the land designated as critical habitat. requires public notice and comment, SOSEA maps (see WAC 222–16–086). However, the amount of conservation has served this educational function too. SOSEA goals provide for demographic that could be attained through the Through these opportunities, land and/or dispersal support as necessary to addition of a critical habitat analysis to owners, State agencies, and local complement the northern spotted owl the section 7 consultation would be governments have become more aware protection strategies on Federal lands relatively low in comparison to the of the status of and threats to listed within or adjacent to the SOSEA (WAC conservation provided by the SHA, as species, and the conservation actions 222–16–010). discussed below. The additional needed for recovery particularly as it The Companies will achieve these benefits of inclusion on the section 7 relates to this property. For these goals and objectives both in the near process are therefore relatively small. reasons, we believe that the educational term and over the term of the SHA by The benefits of inclusion are further benefits that might accrue from critical immediately protecting special set-aside minimized because this SHA provides habitat designation would be minimal. areas of northern spotted owl habitat for the needs of the northern spotted Therefore, we find that there is and managing commercial forested owl by protecting and preserving minimal benefit from designating lands in the plan area on an average landscape levels of suitable northern critical habitat for the northern spotted rotation length of 60 years. In addition, spotted owl nesting, roosting, and owl within this SHA. the SHA provides silvicultural measures foraging habitat, as well as foraging and Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of to benefit the northern spotted owl, dispersal habitat over the term of the excluding from designated critical including a snag-retention and creation SHA in strategic landscapes, and habitat the approximately 2,035 ac (824 program. implementing species-specific ha) of lands currently managed under The SHA includes an elevated conservation measures designed to the SHA are substantial and include baseline, provisions for a 240-acre avoid and minimize effects to northern maintaining our partnership with this nesting set-aside and a 411-acre reserve spotted owls. A fundamental landowner. This is important because it in the White Salmon SOSEA, a 10-year requirement of an SHA is a may encourage the company not to deferral of harvest of any habitat in the determination by the Service that the return to baseline immediately after 0.7-mile circle of the four site centers in provisions of the SHA will result in a expiration of the SHA. which the Companies’ covered lands net conservation benefit to the listed Excluding lands with SHAs from comprise greater than 15 percent, future species. Approved SHAs have, critical habitat designation may also nest site protection, and the support and therefore, already been determined to enhance our ability to seek new enhancement of existing conservation provide a net conservation benefit to the partnerships with future participants agreements. The SHA will include a listed species. In addition, funding for including States, counties, local monitoring and reporting schedule to management is ensured through the jurisdictions, conservation ensure that the anticipated benefits will Implementation Agreement. Such organizations, and private landowners, accrue both in the near term and over assurances are typically not provided by which together can implement the term of the SHA. section 7 consultations, which in conservation actions that we would be Benefits of Inclusion—We find that contrast to SHAs, do not commit the unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands there is minimal benefit from project proponent to long-term, special within the plan area are designated as designating critical habitat for the management practices or protections. In critical habitat, it could have a negative northern spotted owl within the SDS addition, monitoring will track SHA effect on our ability to work with SHA. It is unlikely that Federal projects progress over the term of the permit and various companies to accomplish our would be proposed on these relatively provide feedback on management goals for the SHA program and recovery remote forest lands unless it was a actions. Therefore, designation of of the northern spotted owl. This SHA linear project such as a powerline, critical habitat would be redundant on is located in key northern spotted owl pipeline, or transportation project. Due these lands, and would not provide landscapes and contributes to the scope of such projects, they additional measureable protections. meaningfully to the recovery of the would likely already have a Federal Another benefit of including lands in northern spotted owl. Two SOSEAs, the nexus regardless whether these lands a critical habitat designation is that it White Salmon and Columbia Gorge are designated as critical habitat. Even serves to educate landowners, State and SOSEAs, encompass approximately 54 where the SHA lands may not have local governments, and the public percent of the Companies’ lands in nesting sites on them at this time, regarding the potential conservation Skamania and Klickitat Counties. The degradation of the habitats on the SHA value of an area. This helps focus and Companies’ landscape-management or adjacent lands could be considered promote conservation efforts by other approach contributes to northern an adverse effect to the species. Because parties by identifying areas of high spotted owl recovery by complementing one of the primary threats to the conservation value for northern spotted the existing northern spotted owl northern spotted owl is habitat loss and owls. Designation of critical habitat landscape-management strategies on degradation, the consultation process could inform State agencies and local adjacent Federal and State forestlands. under section 7 of the Act for projects governments about areas that could be With the Companies’ participation in with a Federal nexus likely would, in conserved under State laws or local northern spotted owl conservation, it evaluating effects to the northern ordinances, such as the Washington will be the first time in these SOSEAs, spotted owl, evaluate the effects of the State Growth Management Act, which that a private landowner has joined action on the conservation or encourage the protection of ‘‘critical State and Federal land managers to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

implement a landscape approach for relevant impact to current and future these two analyses represents the northern spotted owl habitat. The partnerships, we have determined that regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For Companies’ lands provide a major link the benefits of exclusion of lands some species, and in some locations, the in the goal of managing both the covered by the Port Blakely SHA outcome of these analyses will be Columbia River and White Salmon outweigh the benefits of critical habitat similar, because effects on habitat will SOSEAs under a unified landscape- designation. often result in effects on the species. management regime rather than a Exclusion Will Not Result in However, the regulatory standard is competitive harvesting regime under Extinction of the Species—We have different: The jeopardy analysis looks at owl-circle management. determined that exclusion of a net of the action’s impact on survival and The designation of critical habitat approximately 2,035 ac (824 ha) of lands recovery of the species, while the could nonetheless have an unintended within the SDS SHA will not result in adverse modification analysis looks at negative effect on our relationship with extinction of the northern spotted owl the action’s effects on the designated non-Federal landowners due to the because, under this agreement, the habitat’s contribution to the species’ perceived imposition of redundant landscape management approach conservation. This will, in some government regulation. If lands within contributes to owl recovery by instances, lead to different results or the SDS SHA plan area are designated complementing the existing owl consultation where it might not have as critical habitat, it would likely have landscape-management strategies on otherwise occurred (e.g. in habitat not a negative effect on our ability to adjacent Federal and State forestlands. currently occupied by the species). establish new partnerships to develop The SDS SHA goals and objectives for Once an agency determines that SHAs, HCPs, and other conservation the northern spotted owl are to provide consultation under section 7 of the Act plans, particularly plans that address dispersal and young forest marginal is necessary, the process may conclude landscape-level conservation of species habitat across their ownership on a informally when we concur in writing and habitats. This SHA is being dynamic basis, as well as submature and that the proposed Federal action is not observed by other land and timber higher quality habitat in harvest set- likely to adversely affect critical habitat. companies in Washington and Oregon asides. These habitats provide both However, if the action agency and may serve as a model for ongoing dispersal and demographic support, an determines through informal and future efforts. By excluding these established goal for lands within the consultation that adverse effects are lands, we preserve our current private two northern spotted owl special likely to occur, then it would initiate and local conservation partnerships and emphasis areas (SOSEAs). Further, for formal consultation, which would encourage additional conservation projects having a Federal nexus and conclude when we issue a biological actions in the future. affecting northern spotted owls in opinion on whether the proposed Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the occupied areas, the jeopardy standard of Federal action is likely to result in Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we section 7 of the Act, coupled with destruction or adverse modification of determine that the benefits of excluding protection provided by the SDS SHA, critical habitat. A biological opinion the SDS SHA from the designation of would provide a level of assurance that that concludes in a determination of no critical habitat for the northern spotted this species will not go extinct as a destruction or adverse modification may owl outweigh the benefits of including result of excluding these lands from the contain discretionary conservation this area in critical habitat. We find that critical habitat designation. We find that recommendations to minimize adverse including it would result in minimal, if exclusion of these lands within the SDS any, additional benefits to the northern SHA will not result in extinction of the effects to critical habitat, but it would spotted owl, as explained above. We northern spotted owl. Based on the not contain any mandatory reasonable also find that the benefits of including above discussion, the Secretary is and prudent measures or terms and these lands are further minimized by the exercising his discretion under section conditions because these do not apply fact that the management strategies of 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this to critical habitat. In addition, we the SHA are designed to maintain and final critical habitat designation suggest reasonable and prudent enhance habitat for the northern spotted portions of the proposed critical habitat alternatives to the proposed Federal owl. The SHA includes species-specific units or subunits that are within the action only when our biological opinion avoidance and minimization measures, SDS SHA totaling about 2,035 ac (824 finds that the action may destroy or monitoring requirements to track ha). adversely modify critical habitat. success and ensure proper The process of designating critical implementation, and forest-management How We Evaluate Lands Protected habitat as described in the Act requires, practices and habitat conservation Under HCPs for Exclusion in part, that the Service identify those objectives that benefit the northern The consultation provisions under lands occupied at the time of listing on spotted owl and its habitat, which section 7(a)(2) of the Act constitute a which are found the physical or exceeds any conservation value regulatory benefit of critical habitat. biological features essential to the provided as a result of a critical habitat Federal agencies must consult with us conservation of the species, which may designation. Furthermore, encouraging on actions that may affect critical require special management landowners to enter into voluntary habitat and must avoid destroying or considerations or protection and any conservation agreements with the adversely modifying critical habitat. In unoccupied lands that are essential to Service for the recovery of endangered areas without designated critical habitat, the conservation of the species. In or threatened species which we believe Federal agencies consult with us on identifying those lands, the Service would be one of the benefits of actions that may affect a listed species must consider the recovery needs of the exclusion may outweigh the loss of and must refrain from undertaking species. Once critical habitat has been benefit that may be incurred through a actions that are likely to jeopardize the designated, Federal agencies must possible return to baseline following continued existence of the species. consult with the Service under section permit expiration. Thus, the analysis of effects to critical 7(a)(2) of the Act on their actions that Therefore, in consideration of the habitat is a separate and different may adversely affect the species or factors discussed above in the Benefits analysis from that of the effects to the critical habitat to ensure that their of Exclusion section, including the species. The difference in outcomes of actions are not likely to adversely

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71959

modify critical habitat or jeopardize the the section 7 consultation process have some component of adaptive forest continued existence of the species. already in place. management to address uncertainties in We find that in some cases, the Although parties whose actions may achieving their agreed-upon conservation benefits to a species and take listed species may still desire conservation objectives for the northern its habitat that may be achieved through incidental take permits to avoid liability spotted owl. The adaptive management the designation of critical habitat are under section 9 of the Act, failure to strategy helps to ensure management less than those that could be achieved exclude HCP lands from critical habitat will continue to be consistent with through the implementation of a habitat could reduce the conservation value of agreed-upon northern spotted owl conservation management plan that the HCP program in several ways. First, conservation objectives. includes specific provisions based on parties may be less willing to seek a Below is a brief description of each enhancement or recovery as the section 10 (a)(2) permit and develop an HCP and the lands proposed as critical management standard. Consequently, HCP where they are not certain their habitat covered by each plan that we the implementation of any HCP or actions will cause incidental take in have excluded from critical habitat management plan that considers order to avoid involving the Federal designation under section 4(b)(2) of the enhancement or recovery as the government when that involvement Act. could lead to future section 7 management standard will often provide State of California as much or more benefit than a section consultations because of critical habitat 7(a)(2) consultation under the Act. designation. Second, in any given HCP, Green Diamond Resource Company There may be some regulatory benefit applicants may reduce the amount of Habitat Conservation Plan protection to which they are willing to that results from designating critical In this final designation, the Secretary agree, in effect holding some additional habitat in the areas covered by the HCPs has exercised his authority to exclude protective measures ‘‘in reserve’’ for use because of section 7 consultation lands from critical habitat, under in any future discussions to address requirements; however, they are often section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are critical habitat. The failure to exclude minimal compared to the benefits of covered under the Green Diamond qualified HCP lands from critical habitat exclusion. Resource Company Northern Spotted designations could decrease the Non-Federal landowners are often program’s efficacy and have profound Owl Habitat Conservation Plan of 1992. motivated to work with the Service effects on our ability to establish and The Green Diamond Resource Company collaboratively to develop HCPs because maintain important conservation (Green Diamond, formerly Simpson of the regulatory certainty provided by partnerships with stakeholders. Timber Company) operates under a an incidental take permit under section Excluding qualified HCP lands from northern spotted owl HCP within the 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, including critical habitat provides permittees with Redwood Coast Critical Habitat Unit in assurances under the No Surprises the greatest possible certainty, and California. The Incidental Take Permit Policy (63 FR 8859; February 23, 1998). thereby may help foster the cooperation (ITP) issued in association with this The No Surprises Policy sets forth a necessary to allow the HCP program to HCP was initially noticed in the Federal clear commitment to incidental take achieve the greatest possible Register on May 27, 1992 (57 FR 22254) permittees that, to the extent consistent conservation benefit. Thus, excluding and issued September 17, 1992. Both with the Act and other Federal laws, the the lands covered by HCPs may improve the HCP and the permit had a term of government will not seek additional the Service’s ability to enter into new 30 years, with a comprehensive review mitigation under an approved HCP partnerships. In addition, permittees scheduled after 10 years to review the where the permittee is implementing who trust and benefit from the HCP efficacy of the plan. The permit allows the HCP’s terms and conditions. process may encourage future HCP incidental take of up to 50 pairs of Although the HCP process can be participants, such as States, counties, northern spotted owls and their habitat complex and time-consuming, the local jurisdictions, conservation during the course of timber harvest benefit to landowners in undertaking organizations, and private landowners, operations on 369,384 ac (149,484 ha) of this extensive process is not only leading to new HCPs that may result in forest lands in Del Norte and Humboldt incidental take authorization but the implementation of conservation actions Counties. resulting regulatory certainty, which we would be unable to accomplish At the time the permit was issued, translates into real savings for private otherwise. more than 100 northern spotted owl landowners in terms of opportunity Excluding lands covered under HCPs nest sites or activity centers were known costs, as well as direct savings and from the critical habitat designation may or suspected on the property. The avoided costs. Designation of critical also relieve landowners from the Service determined that the projected habitat within the boundaries of already possibility of any additional regulatory growth and harvest rates indicated more approved HCPs may be viewed as a burden and costs associated with the habitat of the age class primarily used disincentive by other entities currently preparation of section 7 documents by northern spotted owls would exist on developing HCPs or contemplating them related to critical habitat. While the the property at the end of the 30-year in the future, because it may be costs of providing these additional permit period. In addition, the HCP perceived as imposing duplicative documents to the Service is minor, there provided that nest sites would be regulatory burdens. In discussions with may be resulting delays that generate protected during the breeding season, the Service, HCP permittees have perceived or very real costs to private and no direct killing or injuring of owls indicated they view critical habitat landowners in the form of opportunity was anticipated. Green Diamond also designation as an unnecessary costs, as well as direct costs. agreed to continue their monitoring additional intrusion on their property, HCPs can provide other important programs, in which more than 250 adult and have expressed concern that the conservation benefits, including the owls and more than 100 juveniles were Service may request new conservation development of important biological already banded, as well as analyses of measures for the northern spotted owl, information needed to guide timber stands used by owls. As required even though they have an existing HCP conservation efforts and assist in species by the terms of the HCP, Green Diamond and associated incidental take permit conservation outside the HCP planning and the Service conducted a that has already gone through NEPA and area. Each of the HCPs evaluated below comprehensive review of the first 20

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

years of implementation, including a have been the largest single contributor designation of critical habitat, which comparison of actual and estimated of scientific information on the ecology does not require specific, proactive levels of owl displacement, a of northern spotted owls and their actions. HCPs typically provide for comparison of estimated and actual habitats on managed forest lands in the greater conservation benefits to a distribution of habitat, a reevaluation of redwood region, in the form of graduate covered species than section 7 the biological basis for the HCP’s theses and peer-reviewed papers. Since consultations because HCPs ensure the conservation strategy, an examination of the initial listing of the northern spotted long-term protection and management the efficacy of and continued need for owl in 1990, Green Diamond has of a covered species and its habitat. In habitat set-asides, and an estimate of maintained on their lands 1 of the 11 addition, funding for such management future owl displacements. During the demographic study areas within the is ensured through the Implementation comprehensive review, Green Diamond range of the northern spotted owl that Agreement. Such assurances are requested an amendment to the 1992 have been used for rangewide typically not provided by section 7 ITP to allow incidental take of up to monitoring and evaluation of consultations, which in contrast to eight additional northern spotted owl populations and population trends in HCPs, often do not commit the project pairs. This request was noticed in the the Pacific northwest. This important proponent to long-term, special Federal Register on February 26, 2007 demographic information is reported in management practices or protections. (72 FR 8393) and the modified permit a continuing series of monographs, the Thus, a section 7 consultation typically was issued in October 2007.The original most recent being Forsman et al. (2011). does not afford the lands it covers Green Diamond Northern Spotted Owl Benefits of Inclusion—We find there similar extensive benefits as an HCP. In HCP relied on extensive monitoring and are minimal benefits to including these addition, the protections of critical research to inform development of more lands in critical habitat. As discussed habitat come into play only in the event comprehensive conservation strategies above, the designation of critical habitat of a Federal action, whereas the for their lands. The outcome of 20 years invokes the provisions of section 7. protections of an HCP are in continuous of implementation of Green Diamond’s However, in this case, we find the force. Another potential benefit of including 1992 informed the Service and Green requirement that Federal agencies lands in a critical habitat designation is Diamond on how to develop new, or consult with us and ensure that their modify the original, conservation that the designation can serve to educate actions are not likely to destroy or strategies to further benefit the northern landowners, State and local government adversely modify critical habitat will spotted owl. agencies, and the public regarding the On April 16, 2010, we announced our not result in significant benefits to the potential conservation value of an area, intent to prepare an Environmental species because the possibility of a and may help focus conservation efforts Impact Statement (EIS) under the Federal nexus for a project on these on areas of high conservation value for National Environmental Policy Act lands that might trigger such certain species. Any information about (NEPA) in response to an expected new consultation is limited; there is little the northern spotted owl and its habitat HCP from Green Diamond, which would likelihood of an action that will involve that reaches a wider audience, including include provisions for the northern Federal funding, authorization, or parties engaged in conservation spotted owl and possibly the Pacific implementation. In addition, since the activities, is valuable. However, in this fisher (Martes pennanti), a species that lands under the HCP in question are case the educational value of critical may be considered for listing during the occupied by the northern spotted owl, if habitat is limited. Green Diamond has term of the HCP. This new HCP, if a Federal nexus were to occur, section already made substantial contributions completed and approved, would replace 7 consultation would already be to our knowledge of the species through the 1992 HCP, and would require the triggered and the Federal agency would research and monitoring without critical issuance of a new incidental take consider the effects of its actions on the habitat designated on their lands. In permit. The proposed new HCP is species through a jeopardy analysis. addition, the educational and intended to address the retention of While the jeopardy and adverse informational benefits that might arise suitable northern spotted owl nesting modification standards are different, the from critical habitat designation have habitat, the development of older forest additional conservation that could be been largely accomplished through the habitat elements and habitat structures, attained through the supplemental public review and comment on the HCP and future establishment of northern adverse modification analysis for and associated documents. The release spotted owl nest sites in streamside critical habitat under section 7 would of the Revised Recovery Plan for the retention zones. In addition, the new not be significant in light of the benefits Northern Spotted Owl in 2011 was also plan will help cluster owl sites in of the HCP, which already incorporates preceded by outreach efforts and public favorable habitat areas, and initiate protections and management objectives comment opportunities. Furthermore, future research on other wildlife species for the northern spotted owl and the we conducted extensive outreach efforts such as fishers and barred owls. Since habitat upon which it depends for on the proposed revision of critical this new draft HCP has not yet been breeding, sheltering, and foraging habitat, including multiple public completed, the draft HCP does not serve activities. The conservation approach information meetings and opportunities as the basis for exclusion and we only identified in the Green Diamond HCP, for public comment. Through these provide this information in terms of along with our close coordination with outreach opportunities, land owners, demonstrating the progression of the company, addresses the identified State agencies, and local governments involvement and partnership between threats to northern spotted owl on lands have become aware of the status of and the Service and Green Diamond. The covered by the HCP that contain the threats to the northern spotted owl, and existing HCP, originally completed in physical or biological features essential the conservation actions needed for 1992, is still in effect as of this date and to the conservation of the species. The recovery. serves, in part, as the basis for this conservation measures identified within The designation of critical habitat exclusion. the HCP seek to achieve conservation may also indirectly cause State or Since approval of the 1992 HCP, goals for northern spotted owls and county jurisdictions to initiate their own personnel from Green Diamond, along their habitat, and thus can be of greater additional requirements in areas with academic and research institutions, conservation benefit than the identified as critical habitat. These

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71961

measures may include additional with Green Diamond may serve as a and management of northern spotted permitting requirements or a higher model and aid in fostering future owl habitat and contributes to the level of local review on proposed cooperative relationships with other recovery of the species. The HCP projects. However, CALFIRE has parties in other locations for the benefit provisions for protecting and indicated to us that it is unlikely to of listed species. We consider the maintaining northern spotted owl impose any new requirements on positive effect of excluding proven habitat far exceed the conservation project proponents if critical habitat is conservation partners from critical benefits that would be obtainable designated in areas already subject to habitat to be a significant benefit of through section 7 consultation. The California Forest Practice Rules. exclusion. company’s current program of research Therefore, we believe this potential The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh on the northern spotted owl habitat and benefit of critical will be limited. the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed demographics could not be obtained Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of and evaluated the exclusion of through section 7 consultation. excluding from designated critical approximately 369,864 ac (149,484 ha) Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat the approximately 369,864 ac of land owned and managed by the habitat will help foster the partnership (149,484 ha) of lands currently managed Green Diamond Resource Company we have developed with Green under the Green Diamond HCP are from our designation of critical habitat. Diamond, partly through the significant. We have created a close The benefits of including these lands in development and continuing partnership with Green Diamond the designation are comparatively small, implementation of the HCP, and partly through development of the HCP, and since the habitat on the covered lands through the encouragement of elective they have proven to be an invaluable is already being monitored and managed actions by the company that are partner in the conservation of the under the current HCP to improve the unconnected to the HCP. For example, northern spotted owl. Green Diamond habitat elements that are equivalent to Green Diamond’s elective role in has made a significant contribution to the physical or biological features maintaining a demographic study area, our knowledge of the northern spotted outlined in this critical habitat rule. Any which is a key part of the network of owl through their support of continuing potential regulatory benefits of critical demographic study areas essential to research on their lands. Excluding the habitat would be minimal, at best, as determining the rangewide population approximately 369,864 ac (149,484 ha) additional Federal review on individual trends of the northern spotted owl, is owned and managed by Green Diamond proposed actions is episodic and integral to continuing research on the from critical habitat designation will confined to the scope and scale of the species. Our partnership with Green sustain and enhance the working specific Federal actions that take the Diamond not only provides a benefit for relationship between the Service and form of project review or granting of the conservation of the northern spotted Green Diamond. The willingness of funds. In any case, any potential owl, but it may also serve as a model Green Diamond to work with the regulatory benefit that would be gained and aid in fostering future cooperative Service in innovative ways to conduct from a supplemental adverse relationships with other parties in other solid scientific research and manage modification analysis, should section 7 locations for the benefit of listed federally listed species will continue to be triggered, would likely be minimal species. For these reasons, we have reinforce those conservation efforts and since the protections afforded by critical determined that the benefits of our partnership, which contribute habitat would be duplicative with the exclusion of lands covered by the Green toward achieving recovery of the protections provided through the HCP. Diamond Resource Company HCP northern spotted owl. Due to the Educational benefits to the company outweigh the benefits of critical habitat important research they are facilitating, that might be attributed to critical designation. we consider this voluntary partnership habitat designation are limited because Exclusion Will Not Result in in conservation vital to our the company already has an active Extinction of the Species—We have understanding of the northern spotted program of research and analysis that is determined that the exclusion of owl status of species on non-Federal embedded in company planning. In 369,864 ac (149,484 ha) from the lands and necessary for us to implement addition, extensive outreach efforts that designation of critical habitat for the recovery actions such as habitat have already occurred in conjunction northern spotted owl of lands owned protection and restoration, and with the HCP, Revised Recovery Plan, and managed by the Green Diamond beneficial management actions for and the proposed revision of critical Resource Company, as identified in species. habitat have raised awareness of the their HCP, will not result in extinction The designation of critical habitat current status of and threats to the of the species because current could have an unintended negative northern spotted owl, and the conservation efforts under the plan effect on our relationship with non- conservation actions needed for adequately protect the geographical Federal landowners due to the recovery. Green Diamond has made a areas containing the physical or perceived imposition of redundant significant contribution to the body of biological features essential to the government regulation. If lands within scientific information about the conservation of the species. For those the Green Diamond HCP are designated northern spotted owl in the redwood infrequent projects having a Federal as critical habitat, it would likely have region. nexus and affecting northern spotted a negative effect on our continued In this instance, the regulatory and owls on these lands, which are occupied ability to seek new partnerships with educational benefits of inclusion in by the species, the jeopardy standard of future participants including States, critical habitat are minimal compared to section 7 of the Act, coupled with counties, local jurisdictions, the significant benefits gained through protection provided by the current conservation organizations, and private our conservation partnership with Green Diamond HCP, would provide a landowners, which together can Green Diamond. In addition, the level of assurance that this species will implement various conservation actions conservation measures of their HCP not go extinct as a result of excluding (such as SHAs, HCPs, and other serves not only an educational function these lands from the critical habitat conservation plans) that we would be for the company and local and State designation. Based on the above unable to accomplish otherwise. In regulatory jurisdictions, but also discussion, the Secretary is exercising addition, our conservation partnership provides for significant conservation his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

the Act to exclude from this final additional suitable habitat for the Thus, a section 7 consultation typically critical habitat designation portions of northern spotted owl. does not afford the lands it covers the proposed critical habitat units or Benefits of Inclusion—We find there similar extensive benefits as an HCP. In subunits that are within the Green are minimal benefits to including these addition, the protections of critical Diamond HCP boundary totaling lands in critical habitat. As discussed habitat come into play only in the event 369,864 ac (149,484 ha). above, the designation of critical habitat of a Federal action, whereas the protections of an HCP are in continuous Humboldt Redwood Company Habitat invokes the provisions of section 7. force. Conservation Plan However, in this case, we find the requirement that Federal agencies The HCP conservation measures that In this final designation, the Secretary consult with us and ensure that their provide direct and indirect benefits to has exercised his authority to exclude actions are not likely to destroy or the northern spotted owl and its habitat lands from critical habitat, under adversely modify critical habitat will have been implemented continuously section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are not result in significant benefits to the since 1999 on all covered lands owned covered under the Humboldt Redwood species because the possibility of a and managed by the Humboldt Company (formerly Pacific Lumber) Federal nexus for a project on these Redwood Company. Northern spotted HCP in the Redwood Coast CHU in lands that might trigger such owl conservation measures are subject California. The permit under this HCP consultation is limited since there is to re-evaluation and modification with a term of 50 years was noticed on little likelihood of an action that will through active adaptive forest July 14, 1998 (63 FR 37900) and issued management provisions in the Plan, involve Federal funding, authorization, on March 1, 1999. The HCP includes which can be initiated by the Service or or implementation. In addition, since 208,172 ac (84,244 ha) of commercial by the Company. timber lands in Humboldt County, the lands under the HCP in question are Another benefit of including lands in essentially all of the formerly Pacific occupied by the northern spotted owl, if a critical habitat designation is that it Lumber timberlands outside of the a Federal nexus were to occur, section serves to educate landowners, State and Headwaters Reserve, which is currently 7 consultation would already be local governments, and the public under Bureau of Land Management triggered and the Federal agency would regarding the potential conservation administration. The Humboldt Redwood consider the effects of its actions on the value of an area. This helps focus and Company HCP includes nine nonlisted species through a jeopardy analysis. promote conservation efforts by other species (including one candidate Although the jeopardy and adverse parties by identifying areas of high species) and three listed species, modification standards are different, the conservation value for northern spotted including the northern spotted owl. additional conservation that could be owls. Any information about the Activities covered by the HCP include attained through the supplemental northern spotted owl and its habitat that forest management activities and mining adverse modification analysis for reaches a wider audience, including or other extractive activities. With critical habitat under section 7 would parties engaged in conservation regard to the northern spotted owl in not be significant because the HCP activities, is valuable. The landowners particular, the HCP addresses the incorporates protections and in this case are aware of the needs of the harvest, retention, and recruitment of management objectives for the northern species through the development of requisite habitat types and elements spotted owl and the habitat upon which their HCP, in which they have agreed to within watershed assessment areas and it depends for breeding, sheltering, and take measures to protect the northern individual northern spotted owl activity foraging activities. The conservation spotted owl and its habitat. Any sites. The management objectives of the approach identified in the HCP, along additional educational and information HCP are to minimize disturbance to with our close coordination with the benefits that might arise from critical northern spotted owl activity sites, Humboldt Redwood Company, habitat designation have been largely monitor to determine whether these addresses the identified threats to accomplished through the public review efforts maintain a high-density and northern spotted owl on lands covered of and comment on the HCP and the productive population of northern by the HCP that contain the physical or associated permit. The release of the spotted owls, and apply adaptive forest biological features essential to the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern management provisions as necessary to conservation of the species. The Spotted Owl in 2011 was also preceded evaluate or modify existing conservation conservation measures identified within by outreach efforts and public comment measures. In addition, there are specific the HCP seek to achieve conservation opportunities. In addition, the habitat retention requirements to goals for northern spotted owls and rulemaking process associated with conserve habitat for foraging, roosting, their habitat, and thus can be of greater critical habitat designation included and nesting at northern spotted owl conservation benefit than the several opportunities for public activity sites. The other conservation designation of critical habitat, which comment, and we also held multiple elements of the HCP are also expected does not require specific, proactive public information meetings across the to aid in the retention and recruitment actions. HCPs typically provide for range of the species. Through these of potential foraging, roosting, and greater conservation benefits to a outreach opportunities, land owners, nesting habitat in watersheds across the covered species than section 7 State agencies, and local governments ownership. For example, the HCP consultations because HCPs ensure the have become aware of the current status establishes a network of marbled long-term protection and management of and threats to the northern spotted murrelet conservation areas, outlines of a covered species and its habitat. In owl, and the conservation actions silvicultural requirements associated addition, funding for such management needed for recovery. with riparian management zones and is ensured through the Implementation The designation of critical habitat mass wasting avoidance areas, imposes Agreement. Such assurances are may also indirectly cause State or cumulative effects/disturbance index typically not provided by section 7 county jurisdictions to initiate their own restrictions, and contains a retention consultations, which in contrast to additional requirements in areas standard of 10 percent late seral habitat HCPs, often do not commit the project identified as critical habitat. These in each watershed assessment. Each of proponent to long-term, special measures may include additional these measures is likely to provide management practices or protections. permitting requirements or a higher

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71963

level of local review on proposed with the Humboldt Redwood Company partnerships with non-Federal projects. However, CALFIRE has may serve as a model and aid in landowners, such as the Humboldt indicated to use that it is unlikely to fostering future cooperative Redwood Company, which allow us to impose any new requirements on relationships with other parties in other achieve conservation measures that project proponents if critical habitat is locations for the benefit of listed would not otherwise be attainable on designated in areas already subject to species. We consider the positive effect these private lands. We have California Forest Practice Rules. of excluding proven conservation determined that our conservation Therefore, we believe this potential partners from critical habitat to be a partnership with the Humboldt benefit of critical will be limited. significant benefit of exclusion. Redwood Company HCP, in conjunction Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh with the conservation measures excluding from designated critical the Benefits of Inclusion—We have provided in the HCP, provide a greater habitat the approximately 208,172 ac reviewed and evaluated the exclusion, benefit than would the regulatory and (84,244 ha) of lands currently managed from critical habitat designation, of educational benefits of critical habitat under the Humboldt Redwood Company approximately 208,172 ac (84,244 ha) of designation. Furthermore, we have (formerly Pacific Lumber Company) land owned and managed by the determined that the additional HCP are significant. Although the HCP Humboldt Redwood Company. The regulatory benefits of designating was originally negotiated with Pacific benefits of including these lands in the Lumber, we have developed a good designation are comparatively small, critical habitat, afforded through the working rapport with Humboldt since the habitat on the covered lands section 7(a)(2) consultation process, are Redwood Company, and expect this is already being monitored and managed minimal because of limited Federal conservation partnership to continue under the current HCP to improve the nexus and because conservation through the implementation of the HCP. habitat elements that are equivalent to measures specifically benefitting the We consider conservation partnerships the physical or biological features that northern spotted owl and its habitat are with private landowners to represent an are outlined in this critical habitat rule. in place through the implementation of integral component of recovery for Because one of the primary threats to the HCP. Therefore, in consideration of listed species. However, the designation the northern spotted owl is habitat loss the factors discussed above in the of critical habitat could have an and degradation, the consultation Benefits of Exclusion section, including unintended negative effect on our process under section 7 of the Act for the relevant impact to current and relationship with non-Federal projects with a Federal nexus in areas future partnerships, we have landowners due to the perceived occupied by the species, such as is the determined that the benefits of imposition of redundant government case here, will, in evaluating effects to exclusion of lands covered by the regulation. If lands within the Humboldt the northern spotted owl, evaluate the Humboldt Redwood Company HCP Redwood Company HCP are designated effects of the action on the conservation outweigh the benefits of critical habitat as critical habitat, it would likely have or function of the habitat for the species designation. a chilling effect on our continued ability regardless of whether critical habitat is Exclusion Will Not Result in to seek new partnerships with future designated for these lands. The Extinction of the Species—We have participants including States, counties, analytical requirements to support a determined that the exclusion of local jurisdictions, conservation jeopardy determination on excluded 208,172 ac (84,244 ha) from the organizations, and private landowners, land are similar, but not identical, to the designation of critical habitat for the which together can implement various requirements in an analysis for an northern spotted owl of lands owned conservation actions (such as SHAs, adverse modification determination on and managed by the Humboldt HCPs, and other conservation plans) included land. However, the HCP Redwood Company, as identified in that we would be unable to accomplish provides habitat conservation measures their HCP, will not result in extinction otherwise. that apply for the benefit of northern of the species because current Excluding the approximately 208,172 spotted owl. In addition, educational conservation efforts under the plan ac (84,244 ha) owned and managed by benefits are limited, since outreach adequately protect the geographical the Humboldt Redwood Company from efforts associated with various areas containing the physical or critical habitat designation will sustain conservation actions for this species biological features essential to the and enhance the working relationship have been extensive, and members of between the Service and the Company, the public, as well as State and local conservation of the species. For projects and will bolster our ability to pursue agencies, are likely familiar with the having a Federal nexus and affecting additional conservation partnerships for species and its biological needs. northern spotted owls in occupied the benefit of listed species. The Company personnel are knowledgeable areas, which is the case here, the willingness of the Humboldt Redwood in the ecology of the northern spotted jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Company to work with us to manage owl and have contributed to the body of Act, coupled with protection provided their forest lands for the benefit of the scientific information about the by the current Humboldt Redwood northern spotted owl will continue to northern spotted owl in the redwood Company HCP, would provide a high reinforce those conservation efforts and region. In this case, the regulatory and level of assurance that this species will our partnership, which contributes to education benefits of inclusion are less not go extinct as a result of excluding the recovery of the species. We consider than the continued benefit of this these lands from the critical habitat this voluntary partnership in conservation partnership. designation. Based on the above conservation important to our Humboldt Redwood Company has discussion, the Secretary is exercising understanding of the status of northern made important contributions to our his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of spotted owls on non-Federal lands and understanding of the ecology of the the Act to exclude from this final necessary for us to implement recovery northern spotted owl and its habitats in critical habitat designation portions of actions such as habitat protection and the redwood region, and continues to do the proposed critical habitat units or restoration, and beneficial management so through HCP implementation and subunits that are within the Humboldt actions for species. In addition, as noted long-term monitoring. The Service Redwood Company HCP boundary above, our conservation partnership recognizes the conservation value of totaling 208,172 ac (84,244 ha).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Regli Estate Habitat Conservation Plan produce a net increase in forested have become aware of the current status In this final designation, the Secretary habitat for the species over time. The of and threats to the northern spotted has exercised his authority to exclude conservation measures identified within owl, and the conservation actions lands from critical habitat, under the HCP seek to achieve conservation needed for recovery. The designation of critical habitat section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are goals for northern spotted owls and may also indirectly cause State or covered under the Regli Estate HCP in their habitat can be of greater county jurisdictions to initiate their own the Redwood Coast CHU. The permit conservation benefit than the additional requirements in areas issued under this HCP in 1995 (noticed designation of critical habitat, which identified as critical habitat. These July 17, 1995 (60 FR 36432) and issued does not require specific, proactive measures may include additional August 30, 1995) covers 484 ac (196 ha) actions. HCPs typically provide for permitting requirements or a higher in Humboldt County, California, to be greater conservation benefits to a level of local review on proposed used for forest management activities. covered species than section 7 projects. However, CALFIRE has Two listed species, the marbled consultations because HCPs ensure the indicated to us that it is unlikely to murrelet and northern spotted owl, as long-term protection and management impose any new requirements on well as two nonlisted species, are of a covered species and its habitat. In project proponents if critical habitat is covered under the incidental take addition, funding for such management designated in areas already subject to permit. Provisions in the HCP for the is ensured through the Implementation California Forest Practice Rules. northern spotted owl include the Agreement. Such assurances are Therefore, we believe this potential mitigation of impacts from forest typically not provided by section 7 benefit of critical will be limited. management activities by using single- consultations, which in contrast to HCPs, often do not commit the project Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of tree selection silviculture that would excluding from critical habitat retain owl foraging habitat suitability in proponent to long-term, special management practices or protections. designation the approximately 484 ac all harvested areas; protecting an 80-ac (196 ha) of lands currently managed (32-ha) core nesting area for one of the Thus, a section 7 consultation typically does not afford the lands it covers under the HCP are greater than those two owl pairs known to exist in the HCP that would accrue from inclusion. We area; and planting conifer tree species similar extensive benefits as an HCP. In addition, the protections of critical have developed a conservation on approximately 73 ac (30 ha) of partnership with Regli Estate through currently nonforested habitat within the habitat come into play only in the event of a Federal action, whereas the the development and implementation of HCP area, which would result in a net the HCP. The conservation measures increase in forested habitat over time. In protections of an HCP are in continuous force. that provide a benefit to the northern addition, take of owls would be spotted owl and its habitat have been, minimized using seasonal protection Another benefit of including lands in and will continue to be, implemented measures specified in the HCP. a critical habitat designation is that it continuously beginning with the Benefits of Inclusion—We find there serves to educate landowners, State and issuance of the Incidental Taking Permit are minimal benefits to including these local governments, and the public in 1995 and continuing through the 20- lands in critical habitat. As discussed regarding the potential conservation year term of the permit, through 2015. above, the designation of critical habitat value of an area. This helps focus and These measures include use of single- invokes the provisions of section 7. promote conservation efforts by other tree selection silviculture to retain owl However, in this case, we find the parties by identifying areas of high foraging habitat suitability, protection of requirement that Federal agencies conservation value for northern spotted an 80-ac (32-ha) core nesting area for consult with us and ensure that their owls. Any information about the one of the two known owl pairs, and actions are not likely to destroy or northern spotted owl and its habitat that reforestation of approximately 73 ac (30 adversely modify critical habitat will reaches a wider audience, including ha) of ‘‘old-field’’ grasslands, the latter not result in significant benefits to the parties engaged in conservation which has already been accomplished species because the possibility of a activities, is valuable. The landowners and will result in a net increase in Federal nexus for a project on these in this case are aware of the needs of the forested habitat over time. A significant lands that might trigger such species through the development of benefit of exclusion would be the consultation is limited since there is their HCP, in which they have agreed to increased likelihood of this landowner little likelihood of an action that will take measures to protect the northern continuing with conservation actions for involve Federal funding, authorization, spotted owl and its habitat. Any the northern spotted owl and its habitat, or implementation. In addition, since additional educational and information such as the development of a new HCP the lands under the HCP in question are benefits that might arise from critical and application for a new incidental occupied by the northern spotted owl, if habitat designation have been largely take permit upon the expiration of their a Federal nexus were to occur, section accomplished through the public review current permit. 7 consultation would already be of and comment on the HCP and the The HCP incorporates protections and triggered and the Federal agency would associated permit. The release of the management objectives for the northern consider the effects of its actions on the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern spotted owl and the habitat upon which species through a jeopardy analysis. The Spotted Owl in 2011 was also preceded it depends for breeding, sheltering, and additional conservation that could be by outreach efforts and public comment foraging activities. The approach used attained through the supplemental opportunities. In addition, the in the HCP, along with our close adverse modification analysis for rulemaking process associated with coordination with the landowner, critical habitat under section 7 would critical habitat designation included addresses the identified threats to not be significant because this HCP several opportunities for public northern spotted owl on covered lands incorporates measures that specifically comment, and we also held multiple that contain the physical or biological benefit the northern spotted owl and its public information meetings across the features essential to the conservation of habitat. The HCP incorporates range of the species. Through these the species. The conservation measures protections and management objectives outreach opportunities, land owners, identified within the HCP seek to for the northern spotted owl designed to State agencies, and local governments maintain or surpass current habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71965

suitability for northern spotted owls, the northern spotted owl is habitat loss throughout the lands covered by this and thus can be of greater conservation and degradation, the consultation HCP. Finally, the Service acknowledges benefit than the designation of critical process under section 7 of the Act for the importance of conservation habitat, which does not require specific, projects with a Federal nexus in areas partnerships with private landowners in proactive actions. occupied by the species, such as is the achieving the recovery of listed species, Excluding the approximately 484 ac case here, will, in evaluating effects to such as the northern spotted owl, and (196 ha) of this covered land from the northern spotted owl, evaluate the recognizes the positive benefits that critical habitat designation will sustain effects of the action on the conservation accrue to conservation through the and enhance the working relationship or function of the habitat for the species exclusion of recognized conservation between the Service and the owner, and regardless of whether critical habitat is partners from critical habitat. Therefore, will increase the likelihood that the designated for these lands. The in consideration of the factors discussed owner will update the HCP and apply analytical requirements to support a above in the Benefits of Exclusion for a new incidental take permit when jeopardy determination on excluded section, including the relevant impact to the current permit expires in 2015. The land are similar, but not identical, to the current and future partnerships, we willingness of the landowner to work requirements in an analysis for an have determined that the benefits of with the Service to manage federally adverse modification determination on exclusion of lands covered by the Regli listed species will continue to reinforce included land. However, the HCP Estate Habitat Conservation Plan those conservation efforts and our provides habitat conservation measures outweigh the benefits of critical habitat partnership, which contribute toward that apply for the benefit of northern designation. achieving recovery of the northern spotted owl, and remains in place Exclusion Will Not Result in spotted owl. We consider this voluntary regardless of critical habitat. In addition, Extinction of the Species—We have partnership in conservation important for the reasons described above, the determined that the exclusion of 484 ac in maintaining our ability to implement educational benefits of designation in (196 ha) of Regli Estate lands from the recovery actions such as habitat this instance are minimal. designation of critical habitat for the protection and restoration, and Exclusion of these lands from critical northern spotted owl, as identified in beneficial management actions for habitat will help foster the partnership their HCP, will not result in extinction species on non-Federal lands. The we have developed with the company, of the species because current Service recognizes the importance of through the continuing implementation conservation efforts under the plan non-Federal landowners in contributing of the HCP. Furthermore, we believe adequately protect the geographical to the conservation and recovery of exclusion of these lands from critical areas containing the physical or listed species, and seeks to maintain habitat will increase the likelihood that biological features essential to the and promote these partnerships for the the owner will update the HCP and conservation of the species. For projects benefit of all threatened and endangered apply for a new incidental take permit having a Federal nexus and affecting species. when the current permit expires in northern spotted owls in occupied We consider conservation 2015, thereby ensuring continuing areas, as is the case here, the jeopardy partnerships with private landowners to benefits to the northern spotted owl and standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled represent an integral component of its habitat on these lands. The HCP has with protection provided under the recovery for listed species. However, the provisions for protecting and terms of the HCP, would provide designation of critical habitat could maintaining northern spotted owl assurances that this species will not go have an unintended negative effect on habitat that exceed the conservation extinct as a result of excluding these our relationship with non-Federal benefits that could be obtained through lands from the critical habitat landowners due to the perceived section 7 consultation. These measures designation. Based on the above imposition of redundant government will not only prevent the degradation of discussion, the Secretary is exercising regulation. If lands within the Regli essential features of the northern his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of Estate HCP are designated as critical spotted owl, but they will maintain or the Act to exclude from this final habitat, it would likely have a chilling improve these features over time. critical habitat designation portions of effect on our continued ability to seek Finally, this partnership may serve as a the proposed critical habitat units or new partnerships with future model and aid in fostering future subunits that are within the Regli Estate participants including States, counties, cooperative relationships with other Habitat Conservation Plan boundary local jurisdictions, conservation parties in other locations for the benefit totaling 484 ac (196 ha). organizations, and private landowners, of listed species. which together can implement various In summary, we have determined that Terra Springs Habitat Conservation Plan conservation actions (such as SHAs, our conservation partnership with the In this final designation, the Secretary HCPs, and other conservation plans) Regli Estate, in conjunction with the has exercised his authority to exclude that we would be unable to accomplish conservation measures provided in the 39 ac (16 ha) of lands from critical otherwise. We therefore consider the HCP, provide a greater benefit than habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, positive effect of excluding proven would the regulatory and educational that are covered under the Terra Springs conservation partners from critical benefits of critical habitat designation. LLC HCP in subunit 6 of the Interior habitat to be a significant benefit of We have determined that the additional California Coast CHU. The permit exclusion. regulatory benefits of designating issued in association with this HCP The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh critical habitat, afforded through the (noticed October 29, 2002 (67 FR the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed section 7(a)(2) consultation process, are 65998), and issued in 2004) has a term and evaluated the exclusion of minimal because the probability of a of 30 years and includes a total of 76 ac approximately 484 ac (196 ha) of land Federal nexus for projects on this land (31 ha) of covered land second-growth owned and managed by Regli Estate is limited in scope and will occur forest lands in Napa County, California. from our designation of critical habitat. episodically at most. On the other hand, This HCP addresses the effects of timber The benefits of including these lands in the conservation measures specifically harvest and conversion of forest lands to the designation are relatively small. benefitting the northern spotted owl and vineyard and subsequent maintenance, Because one of the primary threats to its habitat are in continuous effect in perpetuity, of suitable northern

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

spotted owl habitat characteristics on consultations, which in contrast to HCP are substantial. We have developed the remaining 39 ac (16 ha) of mature HCPs, often do not commit the project a conservation partnership with Terra (80–120 years) Douglas-fir forest on proponent to long-term, special Springs through the development and covered lands. The HCP provides a management practices or protections. implementation of the HCP. conservation program to minimize and Thus, a section 7 consultation typically Excluding the approximately 39 ac mitigate for the covered activities, does not afford the lands it covers (16 ha) owned and managed by Terra including a deed restriction that similar extensive benefits as an HCP. In Springs, LLC from critical habitat requires management in perpetuity of 39 addition, the protections of critical designation will sustain and enhance ac (16 ha) of the property as nesting and habitat come into play only in the event the working relationship between the roosting quality habitat for the northern of a Federal action, whereas the Service and the company. The spotted owl. In addition to mitigation, protections of an HCP are in continuous willingness of the company to work the Plan also includes measures to force. with the Service to manage federally minimize take of the northern spotted Another benefit of including lands in listed species will continue to reinforce owl. a critical habitat designation is that it those conservation efforts and our Benefits of Inclusion—We find there serves to educate landowners, State and partnership, which contribute toward are minimal benefits to including these local governments, and the public achieving recovery of the northern lands in critical habitat. As discussed regarding the potential conservation spotted owl. We consider this voluntary above, the designation of critical habitat value of an area. This helps focus and partnership in conservation important promote conservation efforts by other in maintaining our ability to implement invokes the provisions of section 7. parties by identifying areas of high recovery actions, such as habitat However, in this case, we find the conservation value for northern spotted protection and restoration, and requirement that Federal agencies owls. The landowners in this case are beneficial management actions for consult with us and ensure that their aware of the needs of the species species on non-Federal lands. The actions are not likely to destroy or through the development of their HCP, Service recognizes the importance of adversely modify critical habitat will in which they have agreed to take non-Federal landowners in contributing not result in significant benefits to the measures to protect the northern spotted to the conservation and recovery of species because the possibility of a owl and its habitat. Any additional listed species, and seeks to maintain Federal nexus for a project on these educational and information benefits and promote these partnerships for the lands that might trigger such that might arise from critical habitat benefit of all threatened and endangered consultation is limited since there is designation have been largely species. little likelihood of an action that will accomplished through the public review We consider conservation involve Federal funding, authorization, of and comment on the HCP and the partnerships with private landowners to or implementation. In addition, since associated permit. The release of the represent an integral component of the lands under the HCP in question are Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern recovery for listed species. However, the occupied by the northern spotted owl, if Spotted Owl in 2011 was also preceded designation of critical habitat could a Federal nexus were to occur, section by outreach efforts and public comment have an unintended negative effect on 7 consultation would already be opportunities. In addition, the our relationship with non-Federal triggered and the Federal agency would rulemaking process associated with landowners due to the perceived consider the effects of its actions on the critical habitat designation included imposition of redundant government species through a jeopardy analysis. The several opportunities for public regulation. If lands within the Terra additional conservation that could be comment, and we also held multiple Springs HCP are designated as critical attained through the supplemental public information meetings across the habitat, it would likely have a chilling adverse modification analysis for range of the species. Through these effect on our continued ability to seek critical habitat under section 7 would outreach opportunities, land owners, new partnerships with future not be significant because this HCP State agencies, and local governments participants including States, counties, incorporates measures that specifically have become aware of the current status local jurisdictions, conservation benefit the northern spotted owl and its of and threats to the northern spotted organizations, and private landowners, habitat. The HCP incorporates owl, and the conservation actions which together can implement various protections and management objectives needed for recovery. conservation actions (such as SHAs, for the northern spotted owl designed to The designation of critical habitat HCPs, and other conservation plans) maintain suitable habitat on the may also indirectly cause State or that we would be unable to accomplish property for the species in perpetuity. county jurisdictions to initiate their own otherwise. We therefore consider the The conservation measures identified additional requirements in areas positive effect of excluding proven within the HCP seek to achieve identified as critical habitat. These conservation partners from critical conservation goals for northern spotted measures may include additional habitat to be a significant benefit of owls and their habitat that can be of permitting requirements or a higher exclusion. greater conservation benefit than the level of local review on proposed The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh designation of critical habitat, which projects. However, CALFIRE has the Benefits of Inclusion—We reviewed does not require specific, proactive indicated to use that it is unlikely to and evaluated the exclusion of actions. HCPs typically provide for impose any new requirements on approximately 39 ac (16 ha) of land greater conservation benefits to a project proponents if critical habitat is owned and managed by Terra Springs, covered species than section 7 designated in areas already subject to LLC from our designation of critical consultations because HCPs ensure the California Forest Practice Rules. habitat. The benefits of including these long-term protection and management Therefore, we believe this potential lands in the designation are relatively of a covered species and its habitat. In benefit of critical will be limited. small. Because one of the primary addition, funding for such management Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of threats to the northern spotted owl is is ensured through the Implementation excluding from designated critical habitat loss and degradation, the Agreement. Such assurances are habitat the approximately 39 ac (16 ha) consultation process under section 7 of typically not provided by section 7 of lands currently managed under the the Act for projects with a Federal nexus

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71967

in areas occupied by the species, such containing the physical or biological watershed, consisted of approximately as is the case here, will, in evaluating features essential to the conservation of 13,889 ac (5,620 ha) of old growth forest effects to the northern spotted owl, the species. For projects having a (190–800 years old), 91 ac (37 ha) of evaluate the effects of the action on the Federal nexus and affecting northern late-successional (120–189 years old), conservation or function of the habitat spotted owls in occupied areas, as is the 1,074 ac (435 ha) of mature forests (80– for the species regardless of whether case here, the jeopardy standard of 119 years old), and 70,223 ac (28,418 critical habitat is designated for these section 7 of the Act, coupled with ha) of second growth forests (greater lands. The analytical requirements to protection provided under the terms of than 80 years old). Conservation support a jeopardy determination on the HCP would provide assurances that strategies in the HCP for covered lands excluded land are similar, but not this species will not go extinct as a are centered around protecting and identical, to the requirements in an result of excluding these lands from the preserving the remaining old growth, analysis for an adverse modification critical habitat designation. Based on late-successional, and mature forest determination on included land. the above discussion, the Secretary is habitats; accelerating the development However, the HCP provides habitat exercising his discretion under section of mature forest characteristics in the conservation measures that apply for the 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this existing second growth forests though a benefit of northern spotted owl, and final critical habitat designation combination of riparian, ecological, and remains in place regardless of critical portions of the proposed critical habitat restoration thinnings; and minimizing habitat. These measures will not only units or subunits that are within the human disturbance through road prevent the degradation of essential Terra Springs, LLC Habitat Conservation closures and road abandonments, features of the northern spotted owl, but Plan boundary totaling 76 ac (31 ha). elimination of commercial harvest on will preserve some suitable northern covered lands, and continued State of Oregon spotted owl habitat in perpetuity. management of the covered lands as a We have determined that the No lands covered under an HCP in the closed municipal watershed. preservation of our conservation State of Oregon are designated as critical At the time the HCP was approved, partnership with Terra Springs, in habitat. only two northern spotted owl conjunction with the conservation reproductive site centers and two single- measures provided by the HCP, provide State of Washington resident site centers had been identified a greater benefit than would the Cedar River Watershed Habitat on covered lands. In addition, two regulatory and educational benefits of Conservation Plan in King County, reproductive site enters located outside critical habitat designation. The Washington additional regulatory benefits of the watershed boundary had owl circles designating critical habitat, afforded In this final designation, the Secretary that partially overlap the Cedar River through the section 7(a)(2) consultation has exercised his authority to exclude watershed. The boundaries of all known process, are minimal because there is lands from critical habitat, under reproductive site centers are protected little probability of a Federal nexus on section 4(b)(2) of the Act, totaling by the City of Seattle’s commitment to these private lands. On the other hand, approximately 3,244 ac (1,313 ha) that conservation strategies and species- the conservation measures specifically are covered under the Cedar River specific measures in the Cedar River benefitting the northern spotted owl and Watershed HCP (Cedar River HCP) in HCP. The objectives of the northern its habitat are in continuous effect King County, Washington. The permit spotted owl conservation strategy are to throughout the lands covered by this associated with this HCP was noticed in avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts HCP. Finally, the Service acknowledges the Federal Register on December 11, of watershed activities to northern the importance of conservation 1998 (63 FR 68469), and issued on April spotted owls, provide a long-term net partnerships with private landowners in 21, 2000. The term of the permit and benefit to the northern spotted owl, and achieving the recovery of listed species, HCP is 50 years. The plan was prepared contribute to the owl’s recovery. These such as the northern spotted owl, and to address declining populations of objectives are to be accomplished by recognizes the positive benefits that salmon, steelhead, bull trout, northern protecting existing habitat; enhancing accrue to conservation through the spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and 76 and recruiting significantly more exclusion of recognized conservation unlisted species of fish and wildlife in nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal partners from critical habitat. Therefore, the Cedar River watershed. The City of habitat in the Cedar River watershed; in consideration of the factors discussed Seattle’s HCP covers 90,535 ac (36,368 and protecting nest sites, reproductive above in the Benefits of Exclusion ha) of City-owned land in the upper pairs, and their offspring from section, including the relevant impact to Cedar River watershed and the City’s disturbances. In addition, the City of current and future partnerships, we water supply and hydroelectric Seattle committed to implementing a have determined that the benefits of operations on the Cedar River, which monitoring and research program that exclusion of lands covered by the Terra flows into Lake Washington. will be used to help determine if the Springs Habitat Conservation Plan Participants involved in the conservation strategies for the northern outweigh the benefits of critical habitat development and implementation of the spotted owl achieve their conservation designation. Cedar River HCP include the City of objectives and support the adaptive Exclusion Will Not Result in Seattle, Seattle City Light, Seattle Public management program designed to Extinction of the Species—We have Utilities, Washington Department of provide a means by which conservation determined that the exclusion of 39 ac Fish and Wildlife, Washington measures could be altered to meet these (16 ha) from the designation of critical Department of Ecology, Muckelshoot conservation objectives. Elements of the habitat for the northern spotted owl of Indian Tribe, King County, and several monitoring and research program lands owned and managed by Terra conservation-oriented nongovernmental important to northern spotted owls Springs, LLC, as identified in their HCP, organizations. include a project to improve the City’s will not result in extinction of the At the time the HCP was approved, forest habitat inventory and data base, a species because current conservation the 90,535 ac (36,638 ha) in upper Cedar project to track changes in forest habitat efforts under the plan adequately River Watershed, owned and managed characteristics, a study to classify old- protect the geographical areas by the City of Seattle as a closed- growth types in the Cedar River

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

watershed, and projects to monitor all provide critical feedback on owl and its habitat have been forest restoration efforts. management actions that allow for implemented continuously since 1998 Benefits of Inclusion—We find that management changes in response to this on all covered lands owned and there is minimal benefit from feedback or to larger trends outside the managed under the Cedar River HCP. designating critical habitat for the HCP boundaries such as climate change. Excluding the lands managed under the northern spotted owl within the Cedar Therefore, designation of critical habitat Cedar River HCP from critical habitat River HCP because, as explained above, would be redundant on these lands, and designation will sustain and enhance these covered lands are already would not provide additional the working relationship between the managed for the conservation of the measureable protections. Service and the permit holder. species over the term of the HCP. As Another benefit of including lands in Excluding lands within HCPs from discussed above, the inclusion of these a critical habitat designation is that it critical habitat designation can also covered lands as critical habitat could serves to educate landowners, State and facilitate our ability to seek new provide some additional Federal local governments, and the public partnerships with future HCP regulatory benefits for the species regarding the potential conservation participants including States, counties, consistent with the conservation value of an area. This helps focus and local jurisdictions, conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit promote conservation efforts by other organizations, and private landowners, Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. A parties by identifying areas of high which together can implement benefit of inclusion would be the conservation value for northern spotted conservation actions that we would be requirement of a Federal agency to owls. Designation of critical habitat unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands ensure that their actions on these non- would inform State agencies and local within HCP plan areas are designated as Federal lands would not likely result in governments about areas that could be critical habitat, it would likely have a the destruction or adverse modification conserved under State laws or local negative effect on our ability to establish of critical habitat. However, this ordinances, such as the Washington new partnerships to develop HCPs, additional analysis to determine State Growth Management Act, which particularly large, regional HCPs that whether a Federal action is likely to encourage the protection of ‘‘critical involve numerous participants and/or result in destruction or adverse areas’’ including fish and wildlife address landscape-level conservation of modification of critical habitat is not habitat conservation areas. Any species and habitats. By excluding these likely to be significant because these information about the northern spotted lands, we preserve our current covered lands are not under Federal owl and its habitat that reaches a wider partnerships and encourage additional ownership making the application of audience, including parties engaged in conservation actions in the future. section 7 less likely, and we are not conservation activities, is valuable. Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the aware of any other potential Federal However, the additional educational Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we nexus. In addition, any Federal agency and informational benefits that might determine that the benefits of excluding proposing a Federal action on these arise from critical habitat designation the Cedar River HCP from the covered lands would have to consider here have been largely accomplished designation of critical habitat for the the conservation restrictions on these through the public review and comment northern spotted owl outweigh the lands and incorporate measures of the HCP, Environmental Impact benefits of including this area in critical necessary to ensure the conservation of Statement, and Implementation habitat. The regulatory and these resources, thereby reducing any Agreement. Through these processes, informational benefits of inclusion will incremental benefit critical habitat may this HCP included intensive public be minimal. Because one of the primary have. involvement. threats to the northern spotted owl is The incremental benefit from The designation of critical habitat habitat loss and degradation, the designating critical habitat for the may also indirectly cause State or consultation process under section 7 of northern spotted owl within the Cedar county jurisdictions to initiate their own the Act for projects with a Federal nexus River HCP is further minimized additional requirements in areas will, in evaluating effects to the because, as explained above, these identified as critical habitat. These northern spotted owl, evaluate the covered lands are already managed for measures may include additional effects of the action on the conservation the conservation of the species over the permitting requirements or a higher or functionality of the habitat for the term of the HCP and the conservation level of local review on proposed species regardless of whether critical measures provided by the HCP will projects. However, in Washington, State habitat is designated for these lands. provide greater protection to northern forest practices regulations provide an The analytical requirements to support spotted owl habitat than the designation exemption for review for lands managed a jeopardy determination on excluded of critical habitat. under an HCP. Thus, even should the land are similar, but not identical, to the The Cedar River HCP provides for the State respond to designation of critical requirements in an analysis for an needs of the northern spotted owl by habitat by instituting additional adverse modification determination on protecting and preserving thousands of protections, the HCP will not be subject included land. However, the additional acres of existing suitable northern to those protections as the species is benefits of inclusion on the section 7 spotted owl habitat in the Cedar River considered already addressed, and process are relatively unlikely because a watershed, committing to the therefore no additional benefit would Federal nexus on these relatively remote enhancement and recruitment of accrue through State regulations. forest lands would rarely occur. If one approximately 70,000 ac (28,328 ha) of Benefits of Exclusion—Compared to were to occur, it would most likely be additional habitat over the term of the the minimal benefits of inclusion of this a linear project such as a powerline, Cedar River HCP, and implementing area in critical habitat, the benefits of pipeline, or transportation. In the last 12 species-specific conservation measures excluding from designated critical years of the permit, none have occurred. designed to avoid and minimize impacts habitat the approximately 3,244 ac In addition, the management to northern spotted owls. Monitoring (1,313 ha) of lands currently managed strategies of the Cedar River HCP are and research and adaptive management under the HCP are more substantial. designed to protect and enhance habitat programs were developed to track HCP HCP conservation measures that for the northern spotted owl. The Cedar progress over the term of the permit and provide a benefit to the northern spotted River HCP includes species-specific

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71969

avoidance and minimization measures, Green River Water Supply Operations of age, no timber harvest will be monitoring requirements to track and Watershed Protection Habitat conducted and stands will be allowed to success and ensure proper Conservation Plan develop through natural succession. The implementation, and forest management In this final designation, the Secretary Commercial Zone contains 3,858 ac practices and habitat conservation has exercised his authority to exclude (1,561 ha) of covered lands. Stands in objectives that benefit the northern lands from critical habitat, under this zone will be managed sustainably spotted owl and its habitat which section 4(b)(2) of the Act, totaling for timber production on a 70-year further minimizes the benefits that approximately 3,162 ac (1,280 ha) that rotation. A considerable area of late- would be provided as a result of a are covered under Tacoma Water’s seral and mature forest capable of critical habitat designation. Green River Water Supply Operations supporting nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal of northern spotted owls On the other hand, the benefit of and Watershed Protection HCP (Green River HCP) in the State of Washington. is expected to develop over time in the excluding these lands is that it will help Natural Zone, Conservation Zone, and us maintain an important and successful The permit associated with this HCP was noticed in the Federal Register on to a lesser extent, riparian buffers. Over conservation partnership with a major the term of the permit, the amount of city, and may encourage others to join August 21, 1998 (63 FR 44918), and issued on July 6, 2001. The term of the late-seral forest is expect to increase in conservation partnerships as well. permit and HCP is 50 years. The Green from 41 ac (17 ha) to 292 ac (118 ha), For these reasons, we have determined and the amount of mature forest is River HCP addresses upstream and that the benefits of exclusion outweigh expected to increase from 268 ac (108 downstream fish passage issues, flows ha) to 4,027 ac (1,630 ha). the benefits of inclusion in this case. in the middle and lower Green River, Exclusion Will Not Result in At the time the permit was approved, and timber and watershed-management there were 16 known northern spotted Extinction of the Species—We have activities on 15,843 ac (6,411 ha) of owl activity centers within 1.8 miles of determined that exclusion of Tacoma-owned land in the upper Green covered lands. Fifteen were approximately 3,244 ac (1,313 ha) of River Watershed. The Green River HCP reproductive site centers and one was a lands covered under the Cedar River covers 32 species of fish and wildlife, single-resident site center. Only the HCP will not result in extinction of the including the northern spotted owl and single-resident site center was actually northern spotted owl because the Cedar 10 other listed species, under an located on covered lands. Species- River HCP provides for the needs of the agreement designed to allow the specific conservation measures are northern spotted owl by protecting and continuation of water-supply operations designed to protect habitat around preserving thousands of acres of existing on the Green River, forest management known nest sites and minimize suitable northern spotted owl habitat in practice in the upper Green River disturbance during the nesting season. the Cedar River watershed, committing watershed, and aquatic restoration and Benefits of Inclusion—We find that to the enhancement and recruitment of enhancement activities. The plan also there is minimal benefit from additional habitat over the term of the provides for fish passage into and out of designating critical habitat for the Cedar River HCP, and implementing the upper Green River Watershed. northern spotted owl within the Green species-specific conservation measures The City of Tacoma manages River HCP because, as explained above, designed to avoid and minimize impacts approximately 15,843 ac (6,411 ha) of these covered lands are already to northern spotted owls. In addition, covered lands in the upper Green River managed for the conservation of the watershed for water quality benefits and monitoring, research, and adaptive species over the term of the HCP. As timber harvest. The Green River HCP management programs were developed discussed above the inclusion of these divides Tacoma-owned lands into three to track HCP progress and provide covered lands as critical habitat could distinct management zones, and critical feedback on management actions provide some additional Federal contains a series of conservation that allow for management changes in regulatory benefits for the species measures that address upland forest consistent with the conservation response. Further, for projects having a management, riparian buffers, and avoid Federal nexus and affecting northern standard based on the Ninth Circuit or minimize impacts to covered species. Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. A spotted owls in occupied areas, the Each management zone has specific jeopardy standard of section 7 of the benefit of inclusion would be the goals and objectives that focus on water requirement of a Federal agency to Act, coupled with protection provided quality, fish and wildlife, and timber ensure that their actions on these non- by the Cedar River HCP, would provide management. The Natural Zone contains Federal lands would not likely result in a level of assurance that this species 5,850 ac (2,370 ha). In this zone, the destruction or adverse modification will not go extinct as a result of Tacoma is committed to conduct no of critical habitat. However, this excluding these lands from the critical timber harvest management except for additional analysis to determine habitat designation. The species is also danger tree removal. The long-term goal whether a Federal action is likely to protected from take under section 9 of is to allow these timber stands to result in the destruction or adverse the Act. For these reasons we find that develop into late-seral (greater than 155 modification of critical habitat is not exclusion of these lands within the years old) and mature timber (106–155 likely to be significant not only because Cedar River HCP will not result in years old) conditions through natural a Federal nexus is unlikely (these extinction of the northern spotted owl. succession. The Conservation Zone covered lands are not under Federal Based on the above discussion, the contains 5,180 ac (2,080 ha) of covered ownership), any Federal agency Secretary is exercising his discretion lands. In this zone, Tacoma will proposing a Federal action on these under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to conduct no even-aged harvest in conifer covered lands would likely consider the exclude from this final critical habitat stands and no harvest of any form in conservation value of these lands and designation portions of the proposed stands over 100 years old (except for take the necessary steps to avoid critical habitat units or subunits that are danger tree removal). Tacoma may adverse effects to northern spotted owl within the Cedar River Watershed HCP conduct uneven-aged harvest in stands habitat. If a Federal nexus did occur, it boundary totaling about 3,244 ac (1,313 less than 100 years old to improve stand would most likely be in the context of ha). condition. Once stands reach 100 years a linear project such as a powerline,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

pipeline, or transportation project. In exemption for review for lands managed adverse modification determination on the last 11 years of the permit, none under an HCP. Thus, even should the included land. However, any benefits have occurred. State respond to designation of critical from the section 7 process are unlikely Another factor that minimizes any habitat by instituting additional because Federal projects would be rare regulatory benefits that might result protections, the HCP will not be subject on these relatively remote forest lands. from critical habitat designation is that to those protections as the species is The regulatory benefits of inclusion are the Green River HCP already provides considered already addressed, and even more minimal in light of the fact for the needs of the northern spotted therefore no additional benefit would that the Green River HCP includes owl by protecting and preserving acres accrue through State regulations. species-specific avoidance and of existing suitable northern spotted owl Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of minimization measures, monitoring habitat in the Green River watershed, excluding from designated critical requirements to track success and committing to the enhancement and habitat the approximately 3,162 ac ensure proper implementation, and recruitment of additional area of (1,280 ha) of lands currently managed forest management practices and habitat suitable habitat over the term of the under the HCP are substantial. HCP conservation objectives that benefit the Green River HCP, and implementing conservation measures that provide a northern spotted owl and its habitat, species-specific conservation measures benefit to the northern spotted owl and which exceeds any conservation value designed to avoid and minimize impacts its habitat have been implemented provided as a result of a critical habitat to northern spotted owls. Monitoring continuously since 2001 on all covered designation. On the other hand, the was developed to track HCP progress lands owned and managed under the benefit of excluding these lands is that over the term of the permit and provide Green River HCP. Excluding the lands it will help us maintain an important critical feedback on management managed under the Green River HCP and successful conservation partnership actions, which allow for management from critical habitat designation will with a major city, and may encourage changes in response to this feedback or sustain and enhance the working others to join in conservation to larger trends outside the HCP relationship between the Service and partnerships as well. Therefore, we find boundaries such as climate change. the permit holder. that the benefits of exclusion of the Therefore, designation of critical habitat Excluding lands within HCPs from lands covered by Green River HCP would be redundant on these lands, and critical habitat designation may also outweigh the benefits of inclusion. would not provide additional support our continued ability to seek Exclusion Will Not Result in measurable protections. new partnerships with future HCP Another benefit of including lands in participants including States, counties, Extinction of the Species—We have a critical habitat designation is that it local jurisdictions, conservation determined that exclusion of serves to educate landowners, State and organizations, and private landowners, approximately 3,162 ac (1,280 ha) of local governments, and the public which together can implement lands covered under the Green River regarding the potential conservation conservation actions that we would be HCP will not result in extinction of the value of an area. This helps focus and unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands northern spotted owl because the Green promote conservation efforts by other within HCP plan areas are designated as River HCP provides for the needs of the parties by identifying areas of high critical habitat, it would likely have a northern spotted owl by protecting and conservation value for northern spotted negative effect on our ability to establish preserving acres of existing suitable owls. Designation of critical habitat new partnerships to develop HCPs, northern spotted owl habitat in the would inform State agencies and local particularly HCPs address landscape- Green River watershed, committing to governments about areas that could be level conservation of species and the enhancement and recruitment of conserved under State laws or local habitats. By excluding these lands, we additional area of suitable habitat over ordinances, such as the Washington preserve our current partnerships and the term of the Green River HCP, and State Growth Management Act, which encourage additional conservation implementing species-specific encourage the protection of ‘‘critical actions in the future. conservation measures designed to areas’’ including fish and wildlife Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the avoid and minimize impacts to northern habitat conservation areas. Any Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we spotted owls. Monitoring was developed information about the northern spotted determine that the benefits of excluding to track HCP progress over the term of owl and its habitat that reaches a wider the Green River HCP from the the permit and provide critical feedback audience, including parties engaged in designation of critical habitat for the on management actions, which allow for conservation activities, is valuable. northern spotted owl outweigh the management changes in response to this However, the additional educational benefits of including this area in critical feedback or to larger trends outside the and informational benefits that might habitat. The regulatory and HCP boundaries such as climate change. arise from critical habitat designation informational benefits of inclusion will The conservation measures provided by here have been largely accomplished be minimal. Because one of the primary this HCP have been implemented through the public review and comment threats to the northern spotted owl is continuously since 1998 on all covered on the HCP, Environmental Impact habitat loss and degradation, the lands owned and managed under the Statement, and Implementation consultation process under section 7 of Green River HCP. Further, for projects Agreement. the Act for projects with a Federal nexus having a Federal nexus and affecting The designation of critical habitat will, in evaluating effects to the northern spotted owls in occupied may also indirectly cause State or northern spotted owl, evaluate the areas, the jeopardy standard of section county jurisdictions to initiate their own effects of the action on the conservation 7 of the Act, coupled with protection additional requirements in areas or functionality of the habitat for the provided by the Green River HCP, identified as critical habitat. These species regardless of whether critical would provide a level of assurance that measures may include additional habitat is designated for these lands. this species will not go extinct as a permitting requirements or a higher The analytical requirements to support result of excluding these lands from the level of local review on proposed a jeopardy determination on excluded critical habitat designation. The species projects. However, in Washington, State land are similar, but not identical, to the is also protected by ESA section 9, forest practices regulations provide an requirements in an analysis for an which prohibits the take of listed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71971

species. For these reasons, we find that become more valuable for northern northern spotted owl within the Plum exclusion of these lands within the spotted owls at earlier ages than those Creek HCP because, as explained above, Green River HCP will not result in harvested using previous methods. these covered lands are already extinction of the northern spotted owl. At the time the permit was approved, managed for the conservation of the Based on the above discussion, the there were 107 known northern spotted species over the term of the HCP and the Secretary is exercising his discretion owl activity centers within 1.82 miles of conservation measures provided by the under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to covered lands, which included HCP will provide greater protection to exclude from this final critical habitat reproductive site centers, single-resident northern spotted owl habitat than the designation portions of the proposed site centers, and historic sites. A designation of critical habitat, which critical habitat units or subunits that are detailed description of each sites history provides regulatory protections only in within the Green River HCP boundary is provided in the HCP and associated the event of a Federal action. The Plum totaling about 3,162 ac (1,280 ha). technical papers. Creek HCP provides for the needs of the Benefits of Inclusion—We find there northern spotted owl by protecting and Plum Creek Timber Central Cascades are minimal benefits to including these Habitat Conservation Plan preserving landscape levels of suitable lands in critical habitat. As discussed northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, In this final designation, the Secretary above, the designation of critical habitat and foraging habitat as well as foraging has exercised his authority to exclude invokes the provisions of section 7. and dispersal habitat over the term of lands from critical habitat, under However, in this case, we find the the HCP in strategic landscapes, and section 4(b)(2) of the Act, totaling about requirement that Federal agencies implementing species-specific 33,144 ac (13,413 ha) that are covered consult with us and ensure that their conservation measures designed to under the Plum Creek Timber Central actions are not likely to destroy or avoid and minimize effects to northern Cascades HCP (Plum Creek HCP) in the adversely modify critical habitat will spotted owls. The HCP also provides for State of Washington. The permit not result in significant benefits to the the ability to make ongoing adjustments associated with the Plum Creek HCP species because the possibility of a in a number of forms including active was first noticed in the Federal Register Federal nexus for a project on these adaptive forest management. The ability on November 17, 1995 (60 FR 57722), lands is small unless it is a larger project to change is crucial to meet new issued on June 27, 1996, and later covering adjacent Federal lands as well, recovery challenges. The Service modified in December of 1999 as in which case section 7 consultation negotiated this plan with Plum Creek, noticed on February 10, 2000 (65 FR would already be triggered and the which contains mandatory permit 6590). The permit has a term of 50 years Federal agency would consider the conditions in the form of HCP (with an option to extend to 100 years effects of its actions on the species. In commitments, and continues to be if certain conditions are met) and addition, although the standards of involved in its ongoing implementation. currently covers 84,600 ac (34,236 ha) of jeopardy and adverse modification are The Service conducts compliance lands in the Interstate-90 corridor in different, the margin of conservation monitoring on the covered lands and King and Kittitas Counties, Washington. that could be attained through section 7 routinely meets with Plum Creek to The HCP includes over 315 species of would not be significant in light of the discuss ongoing implementation. The fish and wildlife, including the northern benefits already derived from the HCP. HCP contains provisions that address spotted owl and 7 other listed species. HCPs typically provide for greater ownership changes and the outcomes The plan addresses forest-management conservation benefits to a covered activities across an area of industrial species than section 7 consultations expected by the Service. Monitoring was timberlands in Washington’s central because HCPs ensure the long-term developed to track HCP progress over Cascade Mountains, and provides for protection and management of a covered the term of the permit and provide management of the northern spotted owl species and its habitat. In addition, feedback on management actions. based on landscape conditions tailored funding for such management is Therefore, designation of critical habitat to the guidelines provided by the NWFP ensured through the Implementation would be redundant on these lands, and by providing additional protection to Agreement. Such assurances are would not provide additional northern spotted owl sites near late- typically not provided by section 7 measureable protections. successional reserves. Wildlife trees are consultations, which in contrast to Another benefit of including lands in retained in buffers of natural features HCPs, often do not commit the project a critical habitat designation is that it (e.g., caves, wetlands, springs, cliffs, proponent to long-term, special serves to educate landowners, State and talus slopes) and streams, as well as management practices or protections. local governments, and the public scattered and clumped within harvest Thus, a section 7 consultation typically regarding the potential conservation units. The HCP also requires Plum does not afford the lands it covers value of an area. This helps focus and Creek to maintain and grow nesting, similar extensive benefits as a HCP. The promote conservation efforts by other roosting, and foraging habitat as well as development and implementation of parties by identifying areas of high habitat that can be used for foraging and HCPs provide other important conservation value for northern spotted dispersal. They are also required to conservation benefits, including the owls. Designation of critical habitat provide forests of various structural development of biological information would inform State agencies and local stages across all of their HCP to guide the conservation efforts and governments about areas that could be ownerships. This commitment of owl assist in species conservation, and the conserved under State laws or local habitat and forest stages, in combination creation of innovative solutions to ordinances, such as the Washington with wildlife trees retained within conserve species while meeting the State Growth Management Act, which harvest units and stream and landscape- needs of the applicant. In this case, encourage the protection of ‘‘critical feature buffers will provide a matrix of substantial information has been areas’’ including fish and wildlife habitat conditions that complements the developed from the research, habitat conservation areas. Any owl habitat provided in the Plum Creek monitoring, and surveys conducted information about the northern spotted HCP and nearby LSRs. Stands under the Plum Creek HCP. owl and its habitat that reaches a wider containing scattered leave trees There is minimal incremental benefit audience, including parties engaged in following harvest will be expected to from designating critical habitat for the conservation activities, is valuable.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

However, Plum Creek is knowledgeable regulation. If lands within the Plum are designated as critical habitat, it about the northern spotted owl and the Creek HCP area are designated as would likely have a negative effect on company has made substantial critical habitat, it would likely have a the willingness of various groups and contributions in research and science negative effect on our continued ability funding sources to accomplish these for the species. The additional to seek new partnerships with future conservation sales, and could also educational and informational benefits participants including States, counties, negatively affect Plum Creek’s that might arise from critical habitat local jurisdictions, conservation willingness to participate in these designation here have been largely organizations, and private landowners, acquisition processes. accomplished through the public review which together can implement Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the and comment of the HCP, conservation actions (such as SHAs, Benefits of Inclusion—The benefits of Environmental Impact Statement, and HCPs, and other conservation plans, including these lands in the designation Implementation Agreement, as well as particularly those that address are small. Because one of the primary the supplemental Environmental Impact landscape-level conservation of species threats to the northern spotted owl is Statements associated with the and habitats) that we would be unable habitat loss and degradation, the modification of the HCP and the I–90 to accomplish otherwise. This HCP is consultation process under section 7 of Land Exchange. Through these currently serving as a model for ongoing the Act for projects with a Federal nexus processes, this HCP included intensive and future efforts. Due to the high level will, in evaluating effects to the public involvement. This HCP of visibility in the Interstate-90 corridor northern spotted owl, evaluate the continues to receive a high degree of and the overlap with recreational lands effects of the action on the conservation scrutiny and study by academics, as used by many residents of the Seattle or functionality of the habitat for the well as informational releases to the metropolitan area, this HCP received an species regardless of whether critical general public and has resulted in unusual amount of scrutiny. Because it habitat is designated for these lands. improved understanding by the public. was one of the first HCPs to address The analytical requirements to support This level of exposure in local species using a habitat-based approach, a jeopardy determination on excluded newspapers and television stations it set a high standard for application of land are similar, but not identical, to the exceeds the level of education that the best available science. Plum Creek requirements in an analysis for an would come from a designation that has been a long-standing partner and adverse modification determination on would be read by few people in the advocate for HCPs across the nation. included land. However, the HCP public. Moreover, the rulemaking They are viewed as leaders in their contains provisions for protecting and process associated with critical habitat industry and as an example in the HCP maintaining northern spotted owl designation includes several community. By excluding these lands, habitat that far exceed the conservation opportunities for public comment, and we preserve our current private and benefits afforded through section 7 thus also provides for public education. local conservation partnerships and consultation. It provides for Through these outreach opportunities, encourage additional conservation comprehensive measures applied across land owners, State agencies, and local actions in the future. a large landscape that will benefit governments have become more aware spotted owls. Plum Creek personnel are of the status of and threats to the In addition, exclusion may encourage knowledgeable in the ecology of the northern spotted owl and the Plum Creek to engage in further land northern spotted owl and have conservation actions needed for exchanges or sales of their lands for contributed to the body of scientific recovery. conservation purposes. This HCP is information about the northern spotted The designation of critical habitat located in a key landscape between the owl. In this instance, the regulatory and may also indirectly cause State or I–90 and other Federal lands and educational reasons for inclusion have county jurisdictions to initiate their own represents a unique opportunity in much less benefit than the continued additional requirements in areas maintaining northern spotted owls at benefit of the HCP, including the identified as critical habitat. These the western extreme of the Cascades, educational benefits derived from the measures may include additional which may support dispersal between HCP. permitting requirements or a higher the Cascades. This HCP contributes On the other hand, the benefits of level of local review on proposed meaningfully to the recovery of the exclusion will continue the positive projects. However, in Washington, State northern spotted owl and serves as an relationship we currently have with forest practices regulations provide an example to other industrial companies. Plum Creek and encourage others to exemption for review for lands managed Since issuance of the Plum Creek HCP, engage in conservation partnerships under an HCP. Thus, even should the Plum Creek’s ownership has decreased such as HCPs as well. For these reasons, State respond to designation of critical from about 170,000 ac (68,797 ha) to we determine that the benefits of habitat by instituting additional about 81,000 ac (32,780 ha). This excluding the Plum Creek Cascades HCP protections, the HCP will not be subject decrease is mostly due to land from the designation of critical habitat to those protections as the species is exchanges and sales by Plum Creek for for the northern spotted owl outweigh considered already addressed, and conservation purposes. Conservation the benefits of including this area in therefore no additional benefit would sales have been completed on a number critical habitat. accrue through State regulations. of sensitive sites. Plum Creek has Exclusion Will Not Result in Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of worked to find conservation buyers and Extinction of the Species—We have excluding from designated critical has responded to requests from agencies determined that exclusion of habitat the approximately 33,144 ac and conservation groups. They have approximately 33,144 ac (13,413 ha) of (13,413 ha) of lands currently managed sold lands to a various parties using lands covered under the Plum Creek under the HCP are more substantial. The differing funding mechanisms, but sold HCP will not result in extinction of the designation of critical habitat could lands have been transferred to public northern spotted owl because the Plum have an unintended negative effect on ownership, primarily the U.S. Forest Creek HCP provides for the needs of the our relationship with non-Federal Service. All of these lands have been northern spotted owl by protecting and landowners due to the perceived placed in conservation status. If lands preserving landscape levels of suitable imposition of redundant government within the Plum Creek HCP plan areas northern spotted owl nesting, roosting,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71973

and foraging habitat as well as foraging nontimber activities such as some committed to providing a range of forest and dispersal habitat over the term of recreational activities. The HCP covers stages across the landscape to address the HCP in strategic landscapes, and all species, including the northern multiple species. This commitment of implementing species-specific spotted owl and other listed species. forest stages, in combination with conservation measures designed to The HCP addressed multiple species wildlife trees retained within harvest avoid and minimize effects to northern through a combination of strategies. The units and stream and landscape-feature spotted owls. Monitoring was developed HCP includes a series of Natural Area buffers, will provide a matrix of habitat to track HCP progress over the term of Preserves and Natural Resource conditions that will also provide some the permit and provide feedback on Conservation Areas. The marbled assistance in conserving northern management actions. The Plum Creek murrelet is addressed through a spotted owls. Stands containing HCP provides for the ability to make combination of steps culminating in the scattered leave trees following harvest ongoing adjustments in a number of development of a long-term plan to will become more valuable for northern forms, including active adaptive forest retain and protect important old-forest spotted owls at earlier ages than those management. The ability to change is habitat, which will also benefit the stands harvested using previous crucial to meet new recovery challenges. northern spotted owl. Riparian methods. Northern Spotted owls across The HCP contains provisions that conservation includes buffers on fish- the WDNR HCP are expected to benefit address ownership changes and the bearing streams as well as substantial from the combination of these strategies. outcomes expected by the Service. buffers on streams and wetlands At the time the permit was approved, Further, for projects having a Federal without fish, and deferring harvest on there were approximately 292 northern nexus and affecting northern spotted unstable slopes. Wildlife trees are spotted owl site centers overlapping on owls in occupied areas, the jeopardy retained in buffers of natural features WDNR covered lands, including 76 standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled (e.g., caves, wetlands, springs, cliffs, known site centers (excluding historic with protection provided by the Plum talus slopes) and streams, as well as sites and non-territorial singles). There Creek HCP, would provide a level of scattered and clumped within harvest were approximately 484,717 ac (196,158 assurance that this species will not go units. The HCP also requires WDNR to ha) of suitable habitat on covered lands, extinct as a result of excluding these maintain and grow forests of various which comprised over 10 percent of all lands from the critical habitat structural stages across all of their HCP suitable habitat in Washington State at designation. We find that exclusion of ownerships. Specifically for northern that time. these lands within the Plum Creek HCP spotted owls, they have identified Benefits of Inclusion—We find there will not result in extinction of the portions of the landscape upon which are minimal benefits to including these northern spotted owl. Based on the they will manage for nesting, roosting, lands in critical habitat. As discussed above discussion, the Secretary is and foraging (NRF) habitat for northern above, the designation of critical habitat exercising his discretion under section spotted owls. These areas are known as invokes the provisions of section 7. 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this NRF Management Areas (NRFMAs) and However, in this case, we find the final critical habitat designation were located to provide demographic requirement that Federal agencies portions of the proposed critical habitat support that would strategically consult with us and ensure that their units or subunits that are within the complement the NWFP’s Late- actions are not likely to destroy or Plum Creek HCP boundary totaling Successional Reserves as well as those adversely modify critical habitat will about 33,144 ac (13,413 ha). Adaptive Management Areas that have not result in significant benefits to the late-successional objectives. The species because the possibility of a Washington State Department of Natural NRFMAs also were situated to help Federal nexus for a project on these Resources State Lands Habitat maintain species distribution. lands is small unless it is a larger project Conservation Plan Generally, these NRFMAs will be covering adjacent Federal lands as well, Washington State lands totaling managed so that approximately 50 in which case section 7 consultation approximately 225,751 ac (91,358 ha) percent of those lands will develop into would already be triggered and the that are covered and managed under the NRF habitat for the northern spotted Federal agency would consider the Washington State Department of Natural owl over time. Within this 50 percent, effects of its actions on the species. In Resources State Lands Habitat certain nest patches containing high- addition, although the standards of Conservation Plan (WDNR HCP), are quality nesting habitat are to be retained jeopardy and adverse modification are excluded from this critical habitat and grown. Since the HCP was different, in this case, the benefits of designation under section 4(b)(2) of the implemented, within the NRFMAs, applying the latter standard would be Act. The WDNR HCP covers WDNR has carried out 5,100 ac (2,064 minimal in light of the benefits already approximately 1.7 million ac (730,000 ha) of pre-commercial thinning and derived from the HCP. ha) of State forest lands within the range 7,800 ac (3,156 ha) of timber harvest HCPs typically provide for greater of the northern spotted owl in the State specifically configured to enhance conservation benefits to a covered of Washington. The majority of the area northern spotted owl habitat. WDNR’s species than section 7 consultations covered by the HCP is west of the habitat-enhancement activities will because HCPs ensure the long-term Cascade Crest and includes the Olympic continue under the HCP. protection and management of a covered Experimental State Forest. The HCP area Some areas outside of the NRFMAs species and its habitat. Funding for such on the east side of the Cascade Range are managed to provide for dispersal management is ensured through the includes lands within the range of the and foraging conditions in 50 percent of Implementation Agreement. Such northern spotted owl. The permit the forests in those areas; these were assurances are typically not provided by associated with this HCP, issued strategically located in landscapes section 7 consultations, which in January 30, 1997, was noticed in the important for connectivity. The contrast to HCPs, often do not commit Federal Register on April 5, 1996 (61 FR Olympic Experimental State Forest is the project proponent to long-term, 15297), has a term of 70 to 100 years, managed to provide for northern spotted special management practices or and covers activities primarily owl conservation across all of its lands. protections. Thus, a section 7 associated with commercial forest Even in areas not specifically managed consultation typically does not afford management, but also includes limited for northern spotted owls, WDNR has the lands the same benefits as a HCP.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

The development and implementation governments about areas that could be funding sources to accomplish these of HCPs provide other important conserved under State laws or local land-ownership adjustments because of conservation benefits, including the ordinances, such as the Washington a reluctance to acquire lands designated development of biological information State Growth Management Act, which as critical habitat as well as a reduced to guide the conservation efforts and encourage the protection of ‘‘critical willingness on the part of WDNR to assist in species conservation, and the areas’’ including fish and wildlife accommodate the Services goals. This creation of innovative solutions to habitat conservation areas. Any HCP is located in key landscapes across conserve species while meeting the information about the northern spotted the State and contributes meaningfully needs of the applicant. In this case, owl and its habitat that reaches a wider to the recovery of the northern spotted substantial information has been audience, including parties engaged in owl. developed from the research, conservation activities, is valuable. If lands within the WDNR HCP plan monitoring, and surveys conducted However, WDNR, as the State’s natural area are designated as critical habitat, it under the WDNR HCP. resource agency, is knowledgeable about would also likely have a negative effect There is minimal incremental benefit the species and has made substantial on our ability to establish new from designating critical habitat for the contributions to our knowledge of the partnerships to develop HCPs, northern spotted owl within the WDNR species. In addition the additional particularly large, regional HCPs that HCP because, as explained above, these educational and informational benefits involve numerous participants and/or covered lands are already managed for that might arise from critical habitat address landscape-level conservation of the conservation of the species over the designation here have been largely species and habitats. This HCP has term of the HCP and the conservation accomplished through the public review served as a model for several completed measures provided by the HCP will and comment of the HCP, and ongoing HCP efforts, including the provide greater protection to northern Environmental Impact Statement, and Washington State Forest Practices HCP. spotted owl habitat than the designation Implementation Agreement, as well as By excluding these lands, we preserve of critical habitat, which provides the supplemental Environmental Impact our current private and local regulatory protections only in the event Statements associated with the conservation partnerships and of a Federal action. The WDNR HCP modification of the HCP. This HCP encourage additional conservation provides for the needs of the northern included intensive public involvement actions in the future because other spotted owl by protecting and and continues to be an example used parties see our exclusion as a sign that preserving landscape levels of suitable when discussing HCPs. The HCP is the Service will not impose duplicative northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, frequently a topic of open and public regulatory burdens on landowners who and foraging habitat as well as foraging discussion during meetings of the have developed an HCP. HCPs typically provide for greater and dispersal habitat over the term of Washington State Board of Natural conservation benefits to a covered the HCP in strategic landscapes, and Resources, whose meetings are open to species than section 7 consultations implementing species-specific the public and frequently televised. This because HCPs ensure the long-term conservation measures designed to level of exposure in local newspapers protection and management of a covered avoid and minimize effects to northern and television stations exceeds the level species and its habitat. In addition, spotted owls. The HCP also provides for of education that would come from a funding for such management is the ability to make ongoing adjustments designation that would be read by few ensured through the Implementation in a number of forms, including active people in the public. Moreover, the adaptive forest management. The ability Agreement. Such assurances are rulemaking process associated with to change is crucial to meet new typically not provided by section 7 critical habitat designation includes recovery challenges. The Service consultations, which in contrast to several opportunities for public continues to be involved in the HCPs often do not commit the project comment, and thus also provides for implementation of this HCP. The proponent to long-term, special public education. Service conducts compliance management practices or protections. monitoring on the covered lands and Benefits of Exclusion—A benefit of Thus, a section 7 consultation typically routinely meets with WDNR to discuss excluding lands within this HCP from does not afford the lands it covers ongoing implementation. The HCP critical habitat designation is that it similar extensive benefits as an HCP. contains provisions that address would encourage the State and other The development and implementation ownership changes and the outcomes parties to continue to work for owl of HCPs provide other important expected by the Service. Monitoring was conservation. Since issuance of this conservation benefits, including the developed to track HCP progress over HCP, a number of land transactions and development of biological information the term of the permit and provide land exchanges with the HCP area have to guide the conservation efforts and feedback on management actions. occurred. These transactions have assist in species conservation, and the Therefore, designation of critical habitat included creation of additional Natural creation of innovative solutions to would be redundant on these lands, and Resource Conservation Areas and conserve species while meeting the would not provide additional Natural Area Preserves (both land needs of the applicant. In this case, measureable protections. designations with high degree of substantial information has been Another benefit of including lands in protection) and have also included large developed from the research, a critical habitat designation is that it land exchanges and purchases that have monitoring, and surveys conducted serves to educate landowners, State and changed the footprint of the HCP. These under the WDNR HCP. Therefore, local governments, and the public land-based adjustments have facilitated exclusion is a benefit because it regarding the potential conservation better management on many important maintains and fosters development of value of an area. This helps focus and parcels and across larger landscapes biological information and innovative promote conservation efforts by other than would otherwise have been solutions. parties by identifying areas of high possible. If lands within HCP plan areas Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the conservation value for northern spotted are designated as critical habitat, it Benefits of Inclusion—The benefits of owls. Designation of critical habitat would likely have a negative effect on including these lands in the designation would inform State agencies and local the willingness of various groups and are small. Because one of the primary

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71975

threats to the northern spotted owl is term of the HCP in strategic landscapes, amount, and wide gaps between stands habitat loss and degradation, the and implements species-specific of dispersal habitat will be decreased. consultation process under section 7 of conservation measures designed to In addition, the West Fork HCP the Act for projects with a Federal nexus avoid and minimize effects to northern provides for leaving at least 10 percent will, in evaluating effects to the spotted owls. Monitoring was developed of the tree farm in reserves for the next northern spotted owl, evaluate the to track HCP progress over the term of 100 years. These reserves will primarily effects of the action on the conservation the permit and provide critical feedback take the form of riparian buffers or functionality of the habitat for the on management actions. Adaptive averaging at least 100 feet (30 m) on species regardless of whether critical management provides for responses to each side of all fish-bearing streams, as habitat is designated for these lands. this feedback. Further, for projects well as other buffers and set-a-side The analytical requirements to support having a Federal nexus and affecting areas. Other provisions of the HCP are a jeopardy determination on excluded northern spotted owls in occupied designed to ensure that all forest habitat land are similar, but not identical, to the areas, the jeopardy standard of section types and age classes currently on the requirements in an analysis for an 7 of the Act, coupled with protection tree farm, as well as special habitat adverse modification determination on provided by the WDNR HCP, would types such as talus slopes, caves, nest included land. However, the HCP provide a level of assurance that this trees, and den sites, are protected or contains provisions for protecting and species will not go extinct as a result of enhanced. Seasonal protection is maintaining northern spotted owl excluding these lands from the critical provided within 1⁄4 mile of an active habitat that far exceed the conservation habitat designation. We find that northern spotted owl nest site. benefits afforded through section 7 exclusion of these lands within the At the time the permit was approved, consultation. It provides for WDNR HCP will not result in extinction there were approximately 4,678 ac comprehensive measures applied across of the northern spotted owl. Based on (1,893 ha) of suitable habitat in small a large landscape that will benefit the above discussion, the Secretary is stands sporadically located, comprising spotted owls. Washington State DNR exercising his discretion under section about 8 percent of the ownership. The personnel are extremely knowledgeable 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this HCP included 3 resident northern regarding the ecology of the northern final critical habitat designation spotted owls and included about 20 spotted owl and have contributed to the portions of the proposed critical habitat percent of the ownership in dispersal body of scientific information about the units or subunits that are within the habitat. Benefits of Inclusion—We find there northern spotted owl. In this instance, WDNR HCP totaling about 225,751 ac are minimal benefits to including these the regulatory and educational benefits (91,358 ha). of inclusion have much less benefit than lands in critical habitat. As discussed the continued benefit of the HCP West Fork Timber Habitat Conservation above, the designation of critical habitat including the educational benefits Plan invokes the provisions of section 7. derived from the HCP. However, in this case, we find the The WDNR HCP provides for The Service has excluded requirement that Federal agencies significant conservation and approximately 5,105 ac (2,066 ha) of consult with us and ensure that their management within geographical areas lands from final critical habitat actions are not likely to destroy or that contain the physical or biological designation, under section 4(b)(2) of the adversely modify critical habitat will features essential to the conservation of Act, that are covered under the West not result in significant benefits to the the northern spotted owl and help Fork Timber HCP (West Fork HCP) species because the possibility of a achieve recovery of this species through (formerly known as Murray Pacific Federal nexus for a project on these the conservation measures of the HCP. Corporation) in the West Cascades lands is small unless it was a larger Exclusion of these lands from critical Central CHU in Washington. The West project covering adjacent Federal lands habitat will help foster the partnership Fork HCP was the first multispecies as well, in which case section 7 we have developed with WDNR, HCP on forested lands in the Nation. consultation would already be triggered through the development and The permit associated with the West and the Federal agency would consider continuing implementation of the HCP. Fork HCP has a term of 100 years and the effects of its actions on the species. Furthermore, this partnership may aid was first issued on September 24, 1993; In addition, although the standards for in fostering future cooperative amended on June 26, 1995; and jeopardy and adverse modification are relationships with other parties in other amended again on October 16, 2001 (66 not the same, the benefits of the section locations for the benefit of listed FR 52638). The HCP includes 53,558 ac 7 prohibition on adverse modification species. (21,674 ha) of commercial timber lands would be minimal in light of the For these reasons, we determine that managed as a tree farm in Lewis County, benefits already derived from the HCP. the benefits of excluding the WDNR Washington. The HCP is situated HCPs typically provide for greater HCP from the designation of critical between an area of Federal land known conservation benefits to a covered habitat for the northern spotted owl as the Mineral Block and the larger species than section 7 consultations outweigh the benefits of including this block of Federal lands in the Cascades. because HCPs ensure the long-term area in critical habitat. The HCP was first developed to allow protection and management of a covered Exclusion Will Not Result in for forest-management activities and species and its habitat. In addition, Extinction of the Species—We have provide for the conservation of the funding for such management is determined that exclusion of northern spotted owl; the amended HCP ensured through the Implementation approximately 225,751 ac (91,358 ha) of provides for all species, including six Agreement. Such assurances are lands covered under the WDNR HCP listed species. The HCP is designed to typically not provided by section 7 will not result in extinction of the develop and maintain northern spotted consultations, which, in contrast to northern spotted owl. The WDNR HCP owl dispersal habitat across 43 percent HCPs, usually do not commit the project protects and preserves landscape levels of the tree farm, and must also meet proponent to long-term, special of suitable northern spotted owl nesting, quantitative measures of amount and management practices or protections. roosting, and foraging habitat as well as distribution. As a result, total dispersal Thus, a section 7 consultation typically foraging and dispersal habitat over the habitat will more than double in does not afford the lands it covers

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

benefits similar to those provided by an owl and its habitat that reaches a wider which together can implement HCP. The development and audience, including parties engaged in conservation actions that we would be implementation of HCPs provide other conservation activities, is valuable. unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands important conservation benefits, However, this landowner is within the West Fork HCP plan area are including the development of biological knowledgeable about the species designated as critical habitat, it would information to guide the conservation through its implementation of the HCP. likely have a negative effect on our efforts and assist in species In addition the additional educational ability to establish new partnerships to conservation, and the creation of and informational benefits that might develop HCPs, particularly large, innovative solutions to conserve species arise from critical habitat designation regional HCPs that involve numerous while meeting the needs of the here have been largely accomplished participants and/or address landscape- applicant. through the public review and comment level conservation of species and There is minimal incremental benefit of the HCP, Environmental Impact habitats. If excluded, the willingness of from designating critical habitat for the Statement, and Implementation the landowner to work with the Service northern spotted owl within the West Agreement. Through these processes, to manage federally listed species will Fork HCP because, as explained above, this HCP included intensive public continue to reinforce those conservation these covered lands are already involvement. Moreover, the rulemaking efforts and our partnership, which managed for the conservation of the process associated with critical habitat contribute toward achieving recovery of species over the term of the HCP and the designation includes several the northern spotted owl. We consider conservation measures provided by the opportunities for public comment, and this voluntary partnership in HCP will provide greater protection to thus also provides for public education. conservation important in maintaining northern spotted owl habitat than the Through these outreach opportunities, our ability to implement recovery designation of critical habitat, which land owners, State agencies, and local actions such as habitat protection and provides regulatory protections only in governments have become more aware restoration, and beneficial management the event of a Federal action. The West of the status of and threats to the actions for species on non-Federal Fork HCP provides for the needs of the northern spotted owl and the lands. northern spotted owl by protecting and conservation actions needed for In summary, the designation of preserving landscape levels of suitable recovery. critical habitat could have an northern spotted owl dispersal habitat The designation of critical habitat unintended negative effect on our over the term of the HCP in strategic may also indirectly cause State or relationship with non-Federal landscapes, and implementing species- county jurisdictions to initiate their own landowners due to the perceived specific conservation measures designed additional requirements in areas imposition of redundant government to avoid and minimize effects to identified as critical habitat. These regulation. If lands within the West Fork northern spotted owls. The HCP also measures may include additional HCP area are designated as critical provides for the ability to make ongoing permitting requirements or a higher habitat, it would likely have a negative adjustments in a number of forms, level of local review on proposed effect on our continued ability to seek including active adaptive forest projects. However, in Washington, State new partnerships with future management. The ability to change is forest practices regulations provide an participants can implement crucial to meet new recovery challenges. exemption for review for lands managed conservation actions (such as SHAs, and The Service continues to be involved in under an HCP. Thus, even should the HCPs) that we would be unable to implementation of the HCP. It contains State respond to designation of critical accomplish otherwise. By excluding provisions that address ownership habitat by instituting additional these lands, we preserve our current changes and the outcomes expected by protections, the HCP will not be subject private and local conservation the Service. Monitoring was developed to those protections as the species is partnerships and encourage additional to track HCP progress over the term of considered already addressed, and conservation actions in the future. the permit and provide feedback on therefore no additional benefit would Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the management actions. Therefore, accrue through State regulations. Benefits of Inclusion—The benefits of designation of critical habitat would be Benefits of Exclusion—Compared to including these lands in the designation redundant on these lands, and would the minimal benefits of inclusion of this are comparatively small. Because one of not provide additional measureable area in critical habitat, the benefits of the primary threats to the northern protections. excluding it from designated critical spotted owl is habitat loss and Another benefit of including lands in habitat are more substantial. degradation, the consultation process a critical habitat designation is that it HCP conservation measures that under section 7 of the Act for projects serves to educate landowners, State and provide a benefit to the northern spotted with a Federal nexus will, in evaluating local governments, and the public owl and its habitat have been effects to the northern spotted owl, regarding the potential conservation implemented continuously since 1993 evaluate the effects of the action on the value of an area. This helps focus and on all covered lands owned and conservation or functionality of the promote conservation efforts by other managed under the HCP. Excluding habitat for the species regardless of parties by identifying areas of high these lands from critical habitat whether critical habitat is designated for conservation value for northern spotted designation will sustain and enhance these lands. The analytical requirements owls. Designation of critical habitat the working relationship between the to support a jeopardy determination on would inform State agencies and local Service and the permit holder. excluded land are similar, but not governments about areas that could be A related benefit of excluding lands identical, to the requirements in an conserved under State laws or local within HCPs from critical habitat analysis for an adverse modification ordinances, such as the Washington designation is the unhindered, determination on included land. State Growth Management Act, which continued ability to seek new However, the HCP contains provisions encourage the protection of ‘‘critical partnerships with future HCP for protecting and maintaining northern areas’’ including fish and wildlife participants including States, counties, spotted owl habitat that far exceed the habitat conservation areas. Any local jurisdictions, conservation conservation benefits afforded through information about the northern spotted organizations, and private landowners, section 7 consultation. It provides for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71977

comprehensive measures applied across of the northern spotted owl. Based on requirements and northern spotted owl a large landscape that will benefit the above discussion, the Secretary is habitat protection measures that are spotted owls. In this instance, the exercising his discretion under section implemented across the landscape. The regulatory and educational benefits of 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this SORP describes methodologies to locate inclusion have much less benefit than final critical habitat designation owls, assess reproductive status, and the continued benefit of the HCP portions of the proposed critical habitat provide a framework that includes including the educational benefits units or subunits that are within the habitat definitions and protections derived from the HCP. West Fork HCP boundary totaling about associated with northern spotted owl The West Fork HCP provides for 5,105 ac (2,066 ha). activity centers which provide significant conservation and measurable standards for habitat Other Conservation Measures or management within geographical areas conservation. MRC and the Service meet Partnerships that contain the physical or biological frequently to discuss northern spotted features essential to the conservation of State of California owl study results provided by the the northern spotted owl and help Mendocino Redwood Company company and this information is used achieve recovery of this species through by both the Service and MRC to develop the conservation measures of the HCP. In this final designation, the Secretary measures that conserve the species Exclusion of these lands from critical has exercised his authority to exclude through an iterative process that will habitat will help foster the partnership lands from critical habitat, under assist in the development of the HCP/ we have developed with West Fork, section 4(b)(2) of the Act, owned by The NCCP. In reviewing the SORP and through the development and Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC, monitoring results, we find that the continuing implementation of the HCP. the company) and totaling SORP and protective measures therein Furthermore, this partnership may aid approximately 232,584 total ac (94,123 provide substantial conservation in fostering future cooperative ha) in Unit 3—Redwood Coast, in benefits for the northern spotted owl relationships with other parties in other Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, and its habitat at a landscape scale. locations for the benefit of listed California. This land is distributed The standards and measures species. among three critical habitat subunits as described in the SORP are included in In summary, we determine that the described in the following. In subunit the ‘‘Planning Agreement’’ (dated benefits of excluding the West Fork HCP RDC–2, we proposed approximately August 5, 2009) that MRC entered into from the designation of critical habitat 209,550 ac (84,802 ha) for critical with the California Department of Fish for the northern spotted owl outweigh habitat designation. In subunit RDC–3, and Game (CDFG) for preparation of the the benefits of including this area in we proposed approximately 22,733 ac NCCP element of the HCP/NCCP. critical habitat. (9,200 ha) for critical habitat Planning Agreements are mandatory Exclusion Will Not Result in designation. In subunit RDC–4, we under the California Natural Extinction of the Species—We have proposed 301 ac (121 ha) for critical Community Conservation Planning Act, determined that exclusion of habitat designation. All company lands and inasmuch as the northern spotted approximately 5,105 ac (2,066 ha) of proposed for designation within these owl standards and measures are lands covered under the West Fork HCP three subunits have been excluded from included in MRC’s planning agreement, will not result in extinction of the critical habitat designation under they are mandatory. MRC has revised northern spotted owl because the section 4(b)(2) of the Act. them when requested by the Service, as conservation measures identified within MRC has a long-standing voluntary part of a voluntary partnership with the the HCP seek to maintain or surpass partnership with the Service to protect Service. current habitat suitability for northern the northern spotted owl on MRC lands. In addition, MRC has two State-level spotted owls. The HCP is designed to MRC initially approached the Service in planning documents that are in effect develop and maintain northern spotted 1998 to develop a combined habitat now and which contain substantial owl dispersal habitat; as a result, total conservation plan and a State-level long-terms benefits for northern spotted dispersal habitat will more than double counterpart draft natural communities owl habitat. One is the company’s 2008 in amount and wide gaps between conservation plan (HCP/NCCP). Option A plan, entered into with stands of dispersal habitat will be Knowing that the completion of an CALFIRE, which sets sustainable long- decreased. In addition, the West Fork HCP/NCCP would take an extended term timber harvest levels and controls HCP provides for reserves for the next period of time, MRC and the Service on standing forest inventory, and the 100 years, ensuring that all forest habitat worked together to develop a set of other is the companion 2012 types and age classes currently on the interim standards and measures to Management Plan, also entered into tree farm, as well as special habitat conserve and protect the northern with CALFIRE, which outlines types such as talus slopes, caves, nest spotted owl and its habitat, pending the company-specific management practices trees, and den sites, are protected or completion of the HCP/NCCP. These used in conjunction with the Option A enhanced. Seasonal protection is written interim standards and measures harvesting program. Together, these provided for active northern spotted owl are detailed and specific and have been documents have enabled the company nest sites. Further, for projects having a incorporated into each of MRC’s timber to maintain its forest certification Federal nexus and affecting northern harvest plans since their development. through the Forest Stewardship Council spotted owls in occupied areas, the These interim standards and measures (FSC) which gives the company access jeopardy standard of section 7 of the are detailed in MRC’s January 15, 2010, to certain wholesale lumber markets Act, coupled with protection provided Northern Spotted Owl Resource Plan/ that promote ‘‘green’’ certified wood by the West Fork HCP, would provide Management Plan (SORP) (MRC 2010, products. The State-level planning a level of assurance that this species pp. 1–30). The SORP was intended to documents have also enabled the will not go extinct as a result of serve as a bridge document to reduce company to obtain registration through excluding these lands from the critical resource impacts to both the northern the California Climate Action Registry habitat designation. We find that spotted owl and its habitat until the which is the designated clearinghouse exclusion of these lands within the West completion of the HCP/NCCP. The for carbon-credit sellers under Fork HCP will not result in extinction SORP includes monitoring and survey California’s developing cap-and-trade

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

program. The company’s long-term decade of the plan; (4) protection above, the designation of critical habitat management direction under Option A policies for unharvested old-growth invokes the provisions of section 7. (2008) and the Management Plan (2012) stands and previously harvested stands However, in this case, we find the is to greatly expand their stock of containing residual old-growth trees; (5) requirement that Federal agencies standing forest inventory, with a near- wildlife tree and snag retention consult with us and ensure that their doubling of that inventory over the next requirements that meet or exceed actions are not likely to destroy or nine decades. While we do not consider Service recommendations and exceed adversely modify critical habitat will here the northern spotted owl current State Forest Practice rules; (6) a not result in significant benefits to the conservation measures in the company’s minimum forest floor large woody species because the possibility of a proposed HCP in support of 4(b)(2) debris (LWD) standard on general forest Federal nexus for a project on these exclusion, since that plan is not yet land of 70 cubic feet per ac (4.9 cubic lands that might trigger such finalized, we do note that practically all meter per ha) based on minimum-sized consultation is limited since there is of the long-term habitat and logs 16 in (41 cm) diameter and 10 ft little likelihood of an action that will demographic objectives in the proposed (3.3 m) in length, increasing to 98 cubic involve Federal funding, authorization, HCP are dependent on the forest feet per ac (6.9 cubic meter per ha) in or implementation. In addition, since inventory trajectory that is established riparian areas; and (7) a hardwood the lands under in question are and in effect under Option A and the management policy that maintains a occupied by the northern spotted owl, if Management Plan, and are partly minimum hardwood basal area of 15 a Federal nexus were to occur, section dependent on the distribution and array square feet per ac (3.4 square m per ha) 7 consultation would already be of silvicultural treatments that is in mixed conifer-hardwood stands. Each triggered and the Federal agency would specified under the Management Plan. policy outlined above will result in: (a) consider the effects of its actions on the Time intervals, measurable targets, and A long term increase in standing forest species through a jeopardy analysis. enforcement mechanisms for forest biomass per unit of land area; or (b) Because one of the primary threats to inventory development are already in increased spatial continuity of the northern spotted owl is habitat loss place through the State-level forest vegetative types that are suitable and degradation, the consultation planning processes, whether or not the northern spotted owl habitat; or (c) process under section 7 of the Act for proposed HCP is finalized. The retention of specific features such as projects with a Federal nexus will, in company’s long term commitment to old-growth trees or stands, and retention evaluating effects to the northern expanding standing forest inventory is of a minimum level of hardwoods, spotted owl, evaluate the effects of the also demonstrated by their status as a snags, and wildlife trees. All of these action on the conservation or function seller in the State’s emerging carbon policies will either lead to maintenance of the habitat for the species regardless credit market. In order to sell carbon or enhancement of northern spotted owl of whether critical habitat is designated credits, the seller has to possess surplus habitat suitability or lead to emergence for these lands. Although the standards carbon; in forest management terms, the of suitable habitat where it is currently for jeopardy and adverse modification only way to have a continuous supply not present, thereby benefiting the are not the same, the additional of surplus carbon is to have a body of conservation of the northern spotted conservation that could be attained inventory that is on a continuous-net- owl and its habitat. through the section 7 prohibition on growth trajectory. The 2012 The company has completed a draft of adverse modification analysis would not their proposed HCP/NCCP, and the Management Plan also explicitly likely be significant in this case because northern spotted owl is one of the documents some of the company’s of the conservation agreements already covered species in this document. The internal management direction on the in place. company has submitted the HCP Another potential benefit of including northern spotted owl with regard to the application to the Service. If the HCP/ lands in a critical habitat designation is linkages between future forest NCCP is approved and permits issued, that the designation can serve to educate conditions and owl habitat utilization, the term of the incidental take permit landowners, State and local government direction on the acquisition and and counterpart State permit would be agencies, and the public regarding the analysis of owl breeding site surveys, 80 years. The combined draft potential conservation value of an area, and future development of northern Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and may help focus conservation efforts spotted owl habitat models. and State draft Environmental Impact on areas of high conservation value for Following are summaries of specific Report (EIR) is scheduled for issuance in certain species. Any information about measures in the 2012 Management Plan fall of 2012, and a final HCP/NCCP and the northern spotted owl and its habitat that will have direct, indirect, near-term final EIS/EIR is anticipated in spring or that reaches a wider audience, including and long-term benefits for the northern summer, 2013. However, as noted parties engaged in conservation spotted owl, and which are in effect above, we have not taken the proposed activities, is valuable. However, in this currently: (1) The company, having HCP/NCCP into account in determining case the educational value of critical inherited a severely depleted forest the level of protection currently habitat is limited. As evidenced by their inventory from the previous owners, has provided to the northern spotted owl on extensive forest management planning, a standing policy to rebuild inventories, MRC land, as we have not completed this forestland owner is knowledgeable which will result in a doubling of total processing the permit application and a about the species. standing volume by the ninth decade of final decision has not been made The designation of critical habitat the planning horizon; (2) total harvest whether it meets issuance criteria. We may also indirectly cause State or levels through the 100-year planning cite to the development of this HCP/ county jurisdictions to initiate their own horizon are constrained to a graduating NCCP only in terms of evidence of additional requirements in areas percentage of periodic growth volume, MRC’s commitment to partnering with identified as critical habitat. These from a current 48 percent to 84 percent the Service for the conservation of the measures may include additional in the tenth decade of the plan; (3) a northern spotted owl. permitting requirements or a higher shift in the use of uneven-aged Benefits of Inclusion—We find there level of local review on proposed silviculture from a current 65 percent of are minimal benefits to including MRC projects. However, CALFIRE has harvest acres to 99 percent in the fifth lands in critical habitat. As discussed indicated to us that it is unlikely to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71979

impose any new requirements on revenues for nearly 12 years to fulfill a voluntary conservation efforts by other project proponents if critical habitat is Management Plan that is not under parties in other locations for the benefit designated in areas already subject to Federal purview. Company policies of listed species. We consider the California Forest Practice Rules. embodied in the Management Plan will positive effect of excluding proven Therefore, we believe this potential result in (a) a long term increase in conservation partners from critical benefit of critical will be limited. standing forest biomass per unit of land habitat to be a significant benefit of Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of area; or (b) increased spatial continuity exclusion. excluding from designated critical of vegetative types that are suitable The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh habitat the approximately 232,584 ac northern spotted owl habitat; or (c) the Benefits of Inclusion—We have (94,123 ha) of lands currently owned by retention of specific features such as reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of the MRC are substantial. We have old-growth trees/stands, retention of a approximately 232,584 ac (94,123 ha) of created a close partnership with the minimum level of hardwoods, snags, land owned and managed by MRC from company through the development of and wildlife trees. All of these policies the critical habitat designation. The the SORP and the resulting draft HCP/ will either lead to maintenance of benefits of including these lands in the NCCP. The SORP contains provisions northern spotted owl habitat suitability designation are comparatively small, that will improve inventory of redwood, or lead to emergence of suitable habitat since the habitat on the covered lands Douglas-fir, and other conifers across where it is currently not present. is already being monitored and managed MRC’s ownership and includes Excluding the approximately 232,584 under the current Management Plan and measures that will return forest types to ac (94,123 ha) owned and managed by the Timber Management Plan to those that support the northern spotted MRC from critical habitat designation improve the habitat elements that are owl. In addition, the SORP stipulates a will provides significant benefit in equivalent to the physical or biological series of actions intended to increase terms of sustaining and enhancing the features that are outlined in this critical canopy cover and move management of excellent partnership between the habitat rule. We therefore anticipate forest stands to uneven-aged Service and the company, with positive little, if any, additional protections management to promote multilayered consequences for conservation. The through application of the section 7 canopies and protect old growth stands willingness of MRC to voluntarily prohibition on adverse modification due and individual trees with old-growth undertake conservation efforts for the to the designation of critical habitat on structural features. The SORP also benefit of the northern spotted owl and these lands. contain provisions that will result in work with the Service to develop new The potential educational benefits of stands being grown in Watercourse and conservation plans for the species will inclusion are also limited. The company Lake Protection Zones (WLPZ) that continue to reinforce those conservation has an active monitoring program on exceed current State Forest Practice efforts and our partnership, which over 150 northern spotted owl activity requirements and that meet the contribute toward achieving recovery of sites and is making increasing Service’s recommended standards for the northern spotted owl. We consider contributions to our knowledge of the standing tree basal area and retention of this voluntary partnership in species through focused research. In large woody debris in watercourse conservation vital to our understanding addition, there is a growing local protection zones. All of these measures of the northern spotted owl status of constituency for current land are consistent with recommendations species on MRC lands and in the management direction as a result of the from the Service for the conservation of redwood region, and necessary for us to company’s outreach efforts in the form the northern spotted owl, and will implement recovery actions such as of public informational presentations afford benefits to the species and its habitat protection and restoration, and and tours of the property. In this habitat. beneficial management actions for instance, any potential educational Other MRC actions also demonstrate species. benefits of inclusion would have much their commitment to the Federal-State- The designation of critical habitat less practical effect than any of the private partnership. The company’s could have an unintended negative scientific and informational activities Management Plan in connection to their effect on our relationship with non- that the company has initiated to date. FSC forest certification is already in Federal landowners due to the In contrast, the benefits derived from effect. That Plan has numerous perceived imposition of government excluding this ownership and measures within it that the company has regulation. If lands within the area enhancing our private lands partnership been implementing on the ground for managed by MRC for the benefit of the with MRC are significant. We have several years without any inducement northern spotted owl are designated as developed a solid working relationship from the cooperating Federal and State critical habitat, it could have a chilling with MRC, and expect this beneficial agencies. Much of the Management Plan effect on our continued ability to seek conservation partnership to continue. is concerned with harvest scheduling new partnerships with future The benefits of this partnership are and how the company will remedy its participants including States, counties, significant, because MRC has current deficit in standing forest local jurisdictions, conservation demonstrated that its actions will inventory. The major part of that organizations, and private landowners, contribute substantially to the remedy is found in the 10-decade which together can implement various conservation of the northern spotted harvesting schedule in the Management conservation actions (such as SHAs, owl and its habitat and influence long- Plan, which tightly constrains harvest HCPs, and other conservation plans, term management outcomes across the levels in the early decades of the Plan particularly large, regional Conservation entire ownership. We noted the positive and relaxes the constraint in later Plans that involve numerous conservation benefits that accrue from decades. The company has participants and/or address landscape- exclusion from critical habitat, implemented the designed harvest level conservation of species and including relief from perceived schedule since 2000, which is habitats) that we would be unable to potentially duplicative regulatory supported in the certification audit accomplish otherwise. In addition, MRC burden and the increased potential of reports of 2005 and 2010. This means serves as a model of voluntary pursuing additional conservation that MRC has, in fact, foregone a portion conservation by a private landowner, agreements with other private of their potential short-term harvest and may aid in fostering future landowners. As discussed above, MRC

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

has developed a long-standing practice purview, would provide assurances that forest marginal) at best, and surveys in of managing its lands in a sustainable this species will not go extinct as a the project area suggested low use by nature that benefits the northern spotted result of excluding these lands from the northern spotted owls. In addition, the owl and its habitat. We also discussed critical habitat designation. Based on no-harvest buffer along the highway the long-term value of the partnership the above discussion, the Secretary is ensured that is less than 40 ac (16 ha) with MRC, and evidence of the exercising his discretion under section was affected by the action, which is a company’s commitment to that 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from this small portion of the suitable habitat that partnership through voluntary final critical habitat designation is available for use by northern spotted implementation and coordination of portions of the proposed critical habitat owls within the median home range of conservation actions. We will not repeat units or subunits that are within the that site as well as the eastern Cascades. that discussion here, but point to it as Mendocino Redwood Company Under the HCP, about 55 percent of the strongest among all factors we ownership boundary totaling 232,854 ac the mature trees and 28 percent of the considered in the weighing of the (92,123 ha). total number of trees in the project area benefits of exclusion against the benefits were allowed to be harvested. Selective of inclusion. State of Washington harvest resulted in retention of different We have determined that the Scofield Corporation Deed Restriction size and age classes of trees to additional regulatory benefits of (Formerly Habitat Conservation Plan) contribute to stand structure and species designating critical habitat, afforded diversity, important components to In this final designation, the Secretary through the section 7(a)(2) consultation northern spotted owl habitat. Thinning has exercised his authority to exclude process, are minimal because of limited the stand will allow younger age-class 40 ac (16 ha) of lands from critical Federal nexus and because conservation trees to grow, and continue to contribute habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, measures specifically benefitting the to the multilayer structure of the stand. that are covered under the Scofield northern spotted owl and its habitat are Since the project area is being allowed Corporation Deed Restriction in the East in place as a result of our partnership to grow and develop into perpetuity, with the company and as demonstrated Cascades North CHU. A incidental take suitable northern spotted owl habitat by the provisions of the SORP and other permit based on an HCP, was issued to will be available in the future. This planning documents, as discussed Scofield Corporation in 1996 (noticed potential habitat will complement above. The potential educational and February 20, 1996 (61 FR 6381), issued habitat that is likely to occur on informational benefits of critical habitat April 3, 1996). The permit had a adjacent national forest lands being designation on lands containing the duration for only one year, but as managed as late-successional forest. In physical or biological features essential provided in the permit terms, the lands the long-term, the potential for the to the conservation of the northern under this HCP are now covered by a project area to become northern spotted spotted owl would be minimal, because Deed Restriction for those lands in owl habitat and remain in that condition MRC is making substantial perpetuity. This HCP and deed is substantially greater than it would contributions to our understanding of restriction include 40 ac (16 ha) of forest have been without the HCP. In addition, the ecology of the northern spotted owl lands in Chelan County, Washington. the Deed Restriction identified in the and its habitats in the redwood region, The HCP-covered forest-management land contract provides for the and continues to disseminate useful activities and the associated incidental permanent protection of this habitat. information through public education take permit included only the northern Benefits of Inclusion—We find that events. Therefore, in consideration of spotted owl. The HCP provided for there is minimal benefit from the factors discussed above in the mitigation and minimization measures designating critical habitat for the Benefits of Exclusion section, including by retaining a buffer of intact habitat, northern spotted owl within the the relevant impact to current and implementing selective timber harvest Scofield Deed Restriction because, as future partnerships, we have practices, and placing a perpetual deed explained above, these lands are already determined that the benefits of restriction on the property permanently managed for the conservation of the exclusion of lands owned by the MRC prohibiting further timber harvest or species under the deed restrictions. outweigh the benefits of designating tree removal except with the express Section 7 is unlikely to provide these areas as critical habitat. written consent of the Service. These additional regulatory protection, not Exclusion Will Not Result in measures were designed to ensure the only because Federal actions on this Extinction of the Species—We have retention of some northern spotted owl small 40-acre parcel are unlikely, but determined that the exclusion of habitat and approximately 72 percent of also because any such Federal action 232,584 ac (94,123 ha) from the the total number of trees after harvest. would have to be consistent with the designation of critical habitat for the At the time the permit was approved, Deed Restriction. Thus the existence of northern spotted owl on lands owned the HCP-covered lands included a single this Deed Restriction reduces any and managed by MRC will not result in northern spotted owl site with most of incremental benefits that may be extinction of the species. Conservation its habitat on adjacent Federal lands. provided by section 7. The Deed efforts that are currently in effect The amount of habitat was low, due to Restriction provides for the needs of the through the SORP (and not taking into natural eastside Cascades characteristics northern spotted owl by providing account the draft HCP/NCCP) will and recent fire. Approximately 55 northern spotted owl dispersal habitat adequately protect the geographical percent of the mature trees in the 40- and improving conditions. Therefore, areas containing the physical or acre project area were allowed to be designation of critical habitat would be biological features essential to the removed, which in the short term redundant on these lands, and would conservation of the species. For projects further reduced the availability of not provide additional measureable having a Federal nexus and affecting potential nesting, roosting, or foraging protections. In addition, the northern spotted owls in occupied sites for northern spotted owls. conservation measures identified within areas, as is the case here, the jeopardy However, the adverse effects on this the Deed Restriction seek to achieve standard of section 7 of the Act, coupled northern spotted owl pair due to loss of conservation goals for northern spotted with current land management habitat was likely low, because the owls and their habitat, and thus can be measures that are not under Federal habitat was marginal Type C (young of greater conservation benefit than the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71981

designation of critical habitat, which designed to maintain and enhance the owner and is subject to does not require specific management habitat for the northern spotted owl. administrative approval by CALFIRE. actions. The Scofield Deed Restriction includes The THP must be prepared by a State- A potential benefit of including lands forest-management practices and habitat registered professional forester, and in a critical habitat designation is that conservation objectives that benefit the must contain site-specific details on the the designation can serve to educate northern spotted owl and its habitat, quantity of timber involved, where and landowners and the public regarding the which exceeds any conservation value how it will be harvested, and the steps potential conservation value of an area, provided as a result of a critical habitat that will be taken to mitigate potential and may help focus conservation efforts designation. environmental damage. The THP and on areas of high conservation value for Exclusion Will Not Result in CALFIRE’s review process are certain species. However, the additional Extinction of the Species—We have recognized as the functional equivalent educational and informational benefits determined that exclusion of to the environmental review processes that might arise from critical habitat approximately 40 ac (16 ha) of lands required under the California designation have been largely covered under the Scofield Deed Environmental Quality Act of 1970 accomplished through the public review Restriction will not result in extinction (CEQA). The policy of the State with and comment of the HCP/ of the northern spotted owl because it regard to the northern spotted owl can Environmental Assessment, as well as provides northern spotted owl dispersal be characterized as one of take- the Implementation Agreement. In habitat and improves habitat conditions, avoidance. The Director of CALFIRE is addition, through the Deed Restriction, and it the possibility for the project area not authorized to approve any proposed the current landowner and any future to become northern spotted owl habitat THP that would result in take of a owner are made fully aware of the needs and remain in that condition is federally-listed species, including the of the northern spotted owl on this substantially greater than without the northern spotted owl unless that taking parcel. HCP. Further, the protection provided is authorized under a Federal Incidental Benefits of Exclusion—A benefit of by the Scofield Deed Restriction would Take Permit (review process is outlined excluding lands within HCPs from provide a level of assurance that this in 14 CCR 919.9 and 919.10). This latter critical habitat designation is the species will not go extinct as a result of point creates an incentive for private unhindered, continued ability to seek excluding these lands from the critical landowners to enter into Federal safe new partnerships with future HCP habitat designation. We find that harbor agreements or habitat participants including States, counties, exclusion of these lands within the conservation plans. CALFIRE also local jurisdictions, conservation Scofield Deed Restriction will not result regulates the conversion permitting organizations, and private landowners, in extinction of the northern spotted process in which private forest and which together can implement owl. Based on the above discussion, the woodland can be converted to conservation actions that we would be Secretary is exercising his discretion agricultural uses (in contrast, unable to accomplish otherwise. In under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to conversions of forest and woodlands to particular, if lands within the Scofield exclude from this final critical habitat residential, commercial, and industrial Corporation Deed Restriction area are designation portions of the proposed uses are evaluated and permitted under designated as critical habitat, it would critical habitat units or subunits that are local land use planning authorities). likely have a negative effect on our covered by the Scofield Corporation Benefits of Inclusion—We find there ability to establish new partnerships to Deed Restriction totaling about 40 ac (16 are minimal benefits to including these develop HCPs with smaller landowners ha). lands in critical habitat. As discussed who occupy key landscapes. It could be above, the principal benefit of including perceived as adding redundant Federal Exclusion of Private Lands an area in critical habitat is the regulation on top of the HCP’s State of California requirement that Federal agencies requirement to protect the land in consult with the Service under section perpetuity. By excluding these lands, Our proposed designation included 7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure actions they we may encourage additional 123,348 ac (49,917 ha) of privately- fund, authorize, or carry out are not conservation actions in the future. owned lands without existing Federal likely to result in the destruction or Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the conservation agreements in the State of adverse modification of any designated Benefits of Inclusion—In summary, we California that we identified as critical critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) also determine that the benefits of excluding habitat for the northern spotted owl. requires that Federal agencies must the Scofield Corporation lands subject Forest management and forest consult with us on actions that may to the Deed Restriction from the practices on private lands in California, affect a listed species and refrain from designation of critical habitat for the including harvesting for forest products undertaking actions likely to jeopardize northern spotted owl outweigh the or converting land to another use are the continued existence of such species. benefits of including this area in critical regulated by the State under Division 4 Our Final Economic Analysis (IEC habitat. We find that including this area of the Public Resources Code, and in 2012b) concludes that critical habitat in the designation would result in accordance with the California Forest designation for the northern spotted owl minimal, if any, additional benefits to Practice Rules (California Code of is unlikely to directly affect timber the northern spotted owl, as explained Regulations, (CCR) Title 14, Sections harvests on private lands in California above. Excluding this parcel from 895–1115). Under this framework, the because of the low likelihood that such critical habitat could result in real California Department of Forestry and harvests would be simultaneously benefits by encouraging other small Fire Protection (CALFIRE) is the connected to a Federal permitting or landowners to participate in northern designated authority on forest funding action. Without a pending spotted owl conservation efforts by management and forest practices on Federal action, there is no basis for demonstrating that we will not impose private lands in California. initiating a consultation process under redundant regulatory burdens when All private land timber harvesting in section 7 of the Act. In northern they undertake meaningful conservation California must be conducted in California, the Service has seen very few efforts. The management strategies of accordance with a site-specific timber section 7 actions resulting from Federal the Scofield Deed Restriction are harvest plan (THP) that is submitted by permitting or funding activity on private

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

lands. The U.S. Army Corps of contrast, come into effect only in the northern spotted owl are knowledgeable Engineers (Corps) through the U.S. event of a Federal action. about the species. The release of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Another benefit of including lands in Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern are the Federal agencies responsible for a critical habitat designation is that it Spotted Owl in 2011 was preceded by regulating section 404 of the Clean serves to educate landowners, State and outreach efforts and public comment Water Act, which deals with discharge local governments, and the public opportunities, and provided information of dredged or fill material into waters of regarding the potential conservation about the northern spotted owl and its the United States. In the areas identified value of an area. This helps focus and conservation needs to a wide as critical habitat for the northern promote conservation efforts by other constituency. Furthermore, we spotted owl the Corps has not taken parties by identifying areas of high conducted extensive outreach efforts on jurisdiction over activities associated conservation value for northern spotted the proposed revision of critical habitat, with stream alteration or fill and has owls. Any information about the including multiple public information deferred to the State of California for northern spotted owl and its habitat that meetings and opportunities for public reaches a wider audience, including regulating these activities. As a result comment. Through these outreach parties engaged in conservation many proposed actions involving water opportunities, land owners, State activities, is valuable. In the case of the agencies, and local governments have quality issues and stream disturbance northern spotted owl, any potential become aware of the status of and are not referred to the Service for educational benefits that might be threats to the northern spotted owl, and section 7 consultation. The majority of attributable to critical habitat the conservation actions needed for the water quality permitting actions in designation are minimized by the recovery. California are now administered by the existing State regulatory framework for Another potential benefit of the California Department of Fish and Game the northern spotted owl in timber designation of critical habitat is that it (CDFG) and by Regional Water Quality harvest planning. Private landowners may indirectly cause State or county Control Boards. Water quality permit who harvest timber in proximity to jurisdictions to initiate their own reviews by the Corps are very northern spotted owl activity sites are additional protective requirements in uncommon. When Federal consultation required to conduct surveys of owl areas identified as critical habitat. These does occur, the affected areas are activity and report those results in their measures may include additional typically limited to streams or roadways proposed timber harvest plans that are permitting requirements or a higher adjacent to streams and thus in areas not submitted to CALFIRE for approval, so level of local review on proposed considered habitat for the northern critical habitat designation will not projects. However, CALFIRE has spotted owl. CALFIRE has indicated (in result in any additional data collection. indicated to use that it is unlikely to its correspondence of July 6, 2012) that While the State’s existing take- impose any new requirements on it has no plans to enact additional avoidance strategy for the northern project proponents if critical habitat is requirements for protection of the spotted owl does not necessarily designated in areas already subject to northern spotted owl in response to a provide for long term conservation of California Forest Practice Rules. possible critical habitat designation of suitable habitat, it does serve an Therefore, we believe this potential private lands in the State. important informational service with benefit of critical will be limited. We, therefore, conclude that the private landowners through the timber Finally, there may be some ancillary requirement that permitting and funding harvest planning process. Thus, benefits if the designation resulted in changed timber management practices agencies consult with us and ensure that CALFIRE’s existing regulatory on these private lands. These benefits their actions are not likely to destroy or framework provides adequate and could include but are not limited to: adversely modify critical habitat will consistent education to the affected public safety benefits by increasing not result in significant benefits to the community regarding the northern spotted owl and its conservation needs. resiliency of timber stands, improved species because the possibility of a Similarly, the great majority of water quality, aesthetic benefits, and Federal nexus for a project on these industrial and non-industrial forest carbon storage. However, as discussed lands that might trigger such landowners, along with the in-house above, the possibility of a Federal nexus consultation is limited (there is little and consulting biologists who conduct on these private lands is limited, so likelihood of an action that will involve the owl survey work, already changes in timber management as a Federal funding, authorization, or voluntarily submit their survey results result of critical habitat, and any implementation). In addition, since the to the CDFG for entry into the California attendant ancillary benefits, are lands in question are occupied by the Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), anticipated to be minimal. northern spotted owl, if a Federal nexus which is the State’s clearinghouse for Benefits of Exclusion—The benefits of were to occur, section 7 consultation occupancy, activity, and spatial data on excluding from designated critical would already be triggered and the special status species. It is highly habitat the approximately 123,348 ac Federal agency would consider the unlikely that inclusion in the final (49,917 ha) of private lands in California effects of its actions on the species critical habitat designation could cause are relatively greater. through a jeopardy analysis. Because the any increases in landowner and Excluding the approximately 123,348 possibility of a Federal nexus on these biologist participation in the CNDDB ac (49,917 ha) of private lands from private lands is limited, the additional reporting. Voluntary participation rates critical habitat designation will sustain regulatory benefits to the species and its are currently very high, and we have no and enhance the conservation habitat through inclusion in critical evidence to suggest that inclusion in partnership between the Service and habitat, if any, are anticipated to be critical habitat would increase those CALFIRE. The Service is currently minimal. In addition, existing State rates any further. working with CALFIRE to explore regulations provide protections for the In this case the educational value of avenues for more comprehensive northern spotted owl and its habitat, critical habitat is further limited by the conservation planning for the northern and these protections are in continuous fact that the northern spotted owl is a spotted owl in northern California that effect. The protections to the critical high-profile species, and most goes beyond the existing take-avoidance habitat of the northern spotted owl, by forestland owners in the range of the strategy. Development of a landscape

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71983

scale analysis and plan (e.g., general based agreements have the long term habitat under section 7 of the Act. We conservation plan) would provide for potential for significantly more on-the- therefore anticipate little, if any, greater protections to the northern ground benefits for the northern spotted additional protections through a spotted owl and could incorporate owl on private lands than would the supplemental analysis of potential critical habitat conservation elements limited regulatory and educational adverse modification due to the within that planning process. Current benefits that would result from critical designation of critical habitat on these revisions and improvements to the habitat designation. lands. CNDDB database would aid in the The economic incentives for The potential educational benefits of development of this plan, with the landowners to enter into these inclusion are also limited. Under ability to evaluate status and trends agreements are independent of a critical existing State regulations, private across the region versus on a singular habitat designation. We are not certain landowners who harvest timber in THP or Non-industrial Timber how designation might affect proximity to northern spotted owl Management Plan (NTMP) level. Critical perceptions and priorities among the activity sites are required to conduct habitat designation would be viewed as grantors in agreements (i.e., the surveys of owl activity consistent with another layer of regulatory process to certification and registration entities the Service-recommended protocol and that already overseen by CALFIRE and and the land trusts). For example, land report those results in their proposed could impede landowner support for the trusts operate on limited funds and we timber harvest plans that are submitted development of this larger do not know how critical habitat to CALFIRE for approval, so landowners programmatic conservation plan and designation might influence them in are already aware of the presence of the undercut the efforts of CALFIRE to prioritizing properties for easement northern spotted owl and its habitat contribute to such a discussion. We acquisition; that is, whether it might needs, and critical habitat designation received several public comments lead them to look more or less favorably will not result in any additional data objecting to this perceived redundancy on designated lands, or treat some collection. The State of California’s in regulation. Excluding those private geographic areas preferentially over existing take-avoidance strategy for the lands from the designation would avoid others. Thus, exclusion from northern spotted owl provides an a chilling effect on the partnership designation could avoid any uncertain, important informational service with between the Service and the affected and possibly detrimental, effects on private landowners through the timber State regulatory agencies in California both buyers (land trusts, certification harvest planning process. Therefore, in regarding administration of their entities) and sellers (landowners) in this instance, any potential educational existing conservation programs to market-based conservation programs benefits of inclusion are minimal. protect and conserve northern spotted (IEC 2012b, p. 5–21). In contrast, the benefits derived from Excluding these lands may reduce the excluding private lands and enhancing owls on private lands. We consider the perception that some private our partnership with California State maintenance of our partnership between landowners have that they are being regulatory agencies are relatively the Service and the affected State subjected to redundant and unnecessary greater. The minimal benefits of regulatory agencies in California to be a regulation. As noted above, all private inclusion are outweighed by the benefits significant benefit of exclusion. land timber harvesting in California of fostering conservation partnerships In addition, there are many other must be conducted in accordance with with CALFIRE that would relieve opportunities for private landowners to a site-specific THP that is submitted by private landowners of what they might enter into conservation agreements the owner and is subject to perceive as duplicative regulations. without Federal involvement that will administrative approval by CALFIRE. Exclusion could also encourage the benefit northern spotted owls. The Director of CALFIRE is not partnership and collaboration in Landowners can obtain ‘‘green’’ forest authorized to approve any proposed development of the landscape certification through the Forest THP that would result in take of a conservation planning between the Stewardship Council (FSC) or the federally-listed species, including the Service and CALFIRE by focusing efforts Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) that northern spotted owl, unless that taking towards that planning effort versus enables access to certain wholesale is authorized under a Federal Incidental applying a regulatory process that lumber markets. They can register their Take Permit. The additional overlay of would have limited private land property with the California Climate Federal critical habitat on these private involvement. Action Registry to gain access to the lands may result in lack of support for We also considered the avoidance of emerging carbon credit market in the development of a programmatic potential issues associated with California, or they can sell conservation conservation agreement with CALFIRE regulatory uncertainty due to critical easement rights on their properties to a and their valuable contribution of habitat designation to be a significant land trust. In all cases, the landowner information to the CNDDB due to their benefit of exclusion. For example, there gains immediate economic benefits in perception of duplicative and may be a significant benefit of exclusion exchange for agreeing to a management burdensome regulation specific to the from designation that would accrue due program on their lands that meets the northern spotted owl. to the avoidance of any uncertain, and objectives of the certification or Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the possibly detrimental, effects on both registration entity, or the land trust. All Benefits of Inclusion—We have buyers (land trusts, certification entities) of these instruments, by design, involve reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of and sellers (landowners) in market- the conservation and expansion of approximately 123,348 ac (49,917 ha) of based conservation programs that stand standing forest inventory and forest privately-owned lands in the State of to provide significant conservation cover on the participating ownerships. California from the critical habitat benefits to the northern spotted owl. Whether by design or not, that will lead designation. The benefits of including We have determined that maintaining to the long-term improvement of these lands in the designation are our partnership with California State existing northern spotted owl habitat comparatively small. We find there is regulatory agencies provides a greater suitability and to the emergence of little likelihood of a Federal nexus on benefit than would the regulatory and suitable habitat in areas where it is these private lands that would trigger educational benefits of critical habitat currently unsuitable. These market- the regulatory protections of critical designation. Therefore, in consideration

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

of the factors discussed above, we have Practices Rules (FPR) and largely body) has a long-standing relationship determined that the benefits of located in SOSEAs. We have excluded with the Service and collaborates exclusion of private lands in California areas covered by HCPs and SHAs extensively on northern spotted owl outweigh the benefits of designating because, for the reasons discussed conservation. The Service provided these areas as critical habitat. above, the benefits of excluding them extensive technical assistance in the Exclusion Will Not Result in outweigh the benefits of including them development of the Board’s existing Extinction of the Species—We have in critical habitat. We sought to make northern spotted owl rules. The Board determined that exclusion of 123,348 ac our designation of private lands in was recognized in Recovery Action 18 (49,917 ha) of private lands in northern Washington as consistent as possible in the Revised Recovery Plan for the California that are not currently under a with Washington State regulations Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, p. Federal agreement from critical habitat governing forest practices on private III–57) for its ongoing owl conservation for the northern spotted owl will not lands. Most of the remaining private efforts and encouraged to continue to result in the extinction of the species. lands are located only within SOSEAs, use its existing processes ‘‘to identify Habitat protection provisions in the areas designated by the State to provide areas on non-federal lands in current California forest practice for demographic and/or dispersal Washington that can make strategic regulation on private forestlands support as necessary to complement the contributions to spotted owl provide some level of protection for the northern spotted owl protection conservation over time. The Service species and its habitats. We reiterate strategies on Federal land within or encourages timely completion of the here that under the California State adjacent to the SOSEAs. We find that for Board’s efforts and will be available to Code (14 CCR 919.9 and 919.10), the these lands, too, the benefits of assist as necessary.’’ The Board Director of CALFIRE is not authorized to excluding them in critical habitat convened the Northern Spotted Owl approve any proposed THP that would outweigh the benefits of including them. Implementation Team (NSOIT). The result in take of a federally-listed In Washington, any private timber NSOIT has been tasked to develop species unless that taking is authorized harvest must obtain a permit from, and incentives for landowners to conserve under a Federal Incidental Take Permit. comply with, the Washington Forest northern spotted owl habitat, identify For projects having a Federal nexus and Practices Act (RCW 76.09) as well as the the temporal and spatial allocation of affecting northern spotted owls in Washington Forest Practices Rules conservation efforts on non-federal occupied areas, as is the case here, the (WAC 222). In the absence of a lands, and make recommendations to jeopardy standard of section 7 of the federally-approved HCP covering the Board, should any rules need to be Act, coupled with current land northern spotted owls or a State- updated. The NSOIT is also conducting management measures that are not approved special wildlife management a pilot project testing different thinning under Federal purview, would provide plan, suitable northern spotted owl prescriptions in northern spotted owl assurances that this species will not go habitat in State-designated SOSEAs on habitat. These efforts have evolved over extinct as a result of excluding these non-federal lands is protected by the years of collaboration and are designed lands from the critical habitat special Washington Forest Practices to change the dynamic away from fear designation. Further, the exclusion of Rules in State-designated SOSEAs. and resistance to partnership and these lands from the final critical habitat Within SOSEAs, the Forest Practices participation. On November 13, 2012, designation does not preclude advances rules provide protection for suitable the Board took another step for northern in our scientific knowledge of the northern spotted owl habitat. The spotted owl conservation and expanded species and using that knowledge to Washington Forest Practices Rules the scope of the NSOIT to investigate effectively advocate future maintain the viability of each northern and recommend, in coordination with improvements in State forest practice spotted owl site center by protecting: (a) the Service, voluntary programmatic policies and procedures. Based on the All suitable spotted owl habitat within tools for private landowners to support preceding analysis, the Secretary is 0.7 mile of each spotted owl site center; northern spotted owl conservation and exercising his discretion under section and (b) a total of 2,605 acres of suitable provide regulatory certainty for 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude private spotted owl habitat within the median landowners (WDNR in litt.). This step lands totaling 123,348 ac (49,917 ha) home range circle with a radius of 1.8 further demonstrates Washington’s from the final critical habitat miles. Under the rules, proposed forest willingness to use its authority and designation. practices likely to adversely affect processes to support northern spotted spotted owl habitat in either category (a) State of Washington owl conservation. The Service has and or (b) above are likely to have significant continues to provide funding to support In Washington we proposed 133,895 adverse impacts to the northern spotted the work of the NSOIT. ac (54,186 ha) of private lands within owl, and such activities would require Benefits of Inclusion—The areas of Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Areas a Class IV special forest practices permit private land retained in our final (SOSEAs) as critical habitat; all of these and an environmental impact statement designation at issue here support both lands were identified as under per the State Environmental Policy Act. essential demographic and dispersal consideration for exclusion. However, The overarching policy goal of the needs of spotted owls, and highlight the as described in Changes from the Washington Forest Practices Rules is to important conservation roles of private Proposed Rule, many of the small, complement the conservation strategy lands in Washington. Designation of private parcels were removed from the on Federal lands, and as such the these private lands may raise public final designation upon a determination SOSEAs are adjacent to Federal lands. awareness of conservation actions that they did not meet the definition of SOSEAs are designed to provide a larger needed for spotted owl recovery, critical habitat, leaving. The remaining landscape for demographic and although the educational benefit of the areas of private lands in Washington dispersal support for northern spotted designation is somewhat limited contained in this designation covered by owls. The long-term goal is to support currently since these areas have already HCPs or SHAs and are private industrial a viable population of northern spotted been identified as SOSEAs, since 1997. forest lands; these private lands are not owls in Washington. We find there are minimal benefits to currently covered by HCPs or SHAs but In Washington, the Forest Practices including these lands in critical habitat. are covered under the WDNR Forest Board (the State regulatory rule-making The designation of critical habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71985

invokes the provisions of section 7. Our ownership changes and provides for the opportunities for public comment, and Final Economic Analysis (IEC 2012b, p. ability to make ongoing adjustments in thus also provides for public education. ES–17) concludes that critical habitat a number of forms, including active Finally, there may be some ancillary designation for the northern spotted owl adaptive forest management. The ability benefits if the designation resulted in is unlikely to directly affect timber to change is crucial to meet new changed timber management practices harvests on private lands in Washington recovery challenges. The Service on these private lands. These benefits because of the low likelihood that such continues to be work with WDNR to could include but are not limited to: harvests would be simultaneously provide technical assistance in the public safety benefits by increasing connected to a Federal permitting or implementation of these rules. The resiliency of timber stands, improved funding action. Without a pending WDNR FPR contains provisions that water quality, aesthetic benefits, and Federal action, there is no basis for address ownership changes and the carbon storage. However, as discussed initiating a consultation process under outcomes expected by the Service. above, the possibility of a Federal nexus section 7 of the Act. As discussed Therefore, designation of critical habitat on these private lands is limited, so previously, the designation of critical would be redundant on these lands, and changes in timber management as a habitat invokes the provisions of section would not provide additional result of critical habitat, and any 7. However, in this case, we find the measureable protections. attendant ancillary benefits, are requirement that Federal agencies Including lands in a critical habitat anticipated to be minimal. Benefits of Exclusion—With regard to consult with us and ensure that their designation does serve to educate the benefits of exclusion from actions are not likely to destroy or landowners, State and local designation, although the final adversely modify critical habitat will governments, and the public regarding economic analysis (FEA) noted that one not result in significant benefits to the the potential conservation value of an species. The possibility of a Federal possible outcome of the critical habitat area. This helps focus and promote designation would be that the State nexus for a project on these lands is conservation efforts by other parties by small unless it was a larger project could revise its regulations, and in a identifying areas of high conservation worst case scenario such revision could covering adjacent Federal lands as well, value for northern spotted owls. in which case section 7 consultation result in some private acres no longer Designation of critical habitat would being harvestable, we note that the would already be triggered and the inform State agencies and local Federal agency would consider the likelihood of such revision actually governments about areas that could be occurring is characterized as speculative effects of its actions on the species. In conserved under State laws or local addition, most of the habitat on these (IEC 2012b, p. 5–20). The FEA notes two ordinances, such as the Washington possible outcomes of critical habitat private lands would be assumed to be State Growth Management Act, which designation, one being no change in occupied, further minimizing to some encourage the protection of ‘‘critical Forest Practices Rules, the other is that extent the margin of conservation that areas’’ including fish and wildlife State would revise their regulations and could be attained through section 7. habitat conservation areas. Any designate all suitable habitat Any incremental benefits would be information about the northern spotted overlapping with Federal critical habitat further minimized because of the owl and its habitat that reaches a wider as ‘‘critical habitat state.’’ However, protections already in place In addition, audience, including parties engaged in Washington DNR representatives only it would be small in comparison to the conservation activities, is valuable. offered examples of potential responses benefits already derived under the However, WDNR, as the State’s natural to Federal designation of critical habitat WDNR FPR. resource agency, is knowledgeable about in Washington, and did not comment There is minimal incremental benefit the species and has made substantial upon the likelihood that any of these from designating critical habitat for the contributions to our knowledge of the scenarios would occur (IEC 2012b, p. 5– northern spotted owl within private species. The additional educational and 11). The FEA also makes note of the lands covered by the WDNR Forest informational benefits that might arise potential indirect effects of critical Practices Rules (FPR) because these from critical habitat designation here habitat on private lands, in terms of lands are already managed for the have been largely accomplished through private landowners possibly reacting by conservation of the species through the the public review and comment during changing their timber harvest practices WDNR FPR. The conservation measures reviews of the FPR and associated with in response to perceived regulatory provided by that process will provide the modification of the FPR, and uncertainty as a result of critical habitat greater protection to northern spotted through implementation of the FPR by (IEC 2012b, p. 5–19). owl habitat than the designation of landowners. The existing public process In particular, a benefit of excluding critical habitat, which provides for FPR development provides for lands covered under the WDNR FPR regulatory protections only in the event extensive opportunities for engagement from critical habitat designation is that of a Federal action. In addition, the final in the development and refinement of it would encourage the State and other rule designation would provide for the rules. The FPR includes intensive parties to continue to work for owl protection of fewer acres than the public involvement and is frequently a conservation. If lands within the WDNR existing FPR. The WDNR FPR provides topic of open and public discussion FPR area are designated as critical for the needs of the northern spotted during meetings of the Washington State habitat, it would also likely have a owl by protecting and preserving Forest Practices Board, whose meetings negative effect on our ability to continue landscape levels of suitable northern are open to the public and frequently to partner with the WDNR on this spotted owl nesting, roosting, and televised. This level of exposure in local conservation. In particular, the WDNR foraging habitat as well as foraging and newspapers and television stations comment letter (WDNR 2012) states that dispersal habitat in strategic landscapes, exceeds the level of education that if inclusion of private land is warranted, and implementing species-specific would come from a designation that then WDNR requests that the Service conservation measures designed to would be read by few people in the ‘‘create and bolster incentive based avoid and minimize effects to northern public. Moreover, the rulemaking conservation opportunities for private spotted owls. The WDNR FPR also process associated with critical habitat landowners’’. This recognizes the contains provisions that address designation includes several potential negative effects to their

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

existing collaborative approach. By features essential to the conservation of to northern spotted owls. The Board has excluding these lands, we preserve our the northern spotted owl and help adopted a Wildlife Work Plan that current private and local conservation achieve recovery of this species. requires rule review and revision should partnerships and encourage additional Exclusion of private lands already new information warrant that. We find conservation actions in the future covered under the WDNR FPR will help that exclusion of private lands currently because other parties see our exclusion foster the partnership we have covered under the WDNR FPR will not as a sign that the Service will not developed with WDNR. Furthermore, result in extinction of the northern impose duplicative regulatory burdens this partnership may aid in fostering spotted owl. Therefore, the Secretary is on landowners who are already have a future cooperative relationships with exercising his discretion under section regulatory responsibility under the other parties in other locations for the 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude these WDNR FPR. As described in Changes benefit of listed species. private lands from this final critical from the Proposed Rule, many of the In summary, we determine that the habitat designation that are currently small, private parcels were removed benefits of excluding private lands covered under the WDNR FPR totaling from the final designation upon a already covered under the WDNR FPR about 40,732 ac (16,483 ha). determination that they did not meet the from the designation of critical habitat Congressionally Reserved Natural Areas definition of critical habitat. The for the northern spotted owl outweigh and State Park Lands remaining areas of private lands (40,732 the benefits of including this area in ac; 16,483 ha) in Washington contained critical habitat. We find that including Our decision to exclude in this designation are private industrial these lands would result in minimal, if congressionally reserved natural areas forest lands; these private lands are not any, additional benefits to the northern and State park lands from this rule is currently covered by HCPs or SHAs but spotted owl, as explained above. The based on the unique circumstances are covered under the WDNR Forest WDNR FPR includes species-specific associated with this critical habitat Practices Rules (FPR). Of these, 37,000 avoidance and minimization measures, designation. Before making a final ac (14,974 ha) occur within the spotted rule enforcement procedures, and forest- decision of whether to exclude owl circles currently regulated by the management practices and habitat congressionally and State reserved existing FPR. It is unlikely that the conservation objectives that benefit the natural areas, we weighed the relative benefit of overlaying an additional northern spotted owl and its habitat, benefits and costs a designation of these regulatory burden within the SOSEAs to which exceeds substantially minimizes lands would confer and compared them protect an additional 4,000 ac (1,619 ha) the incremental any conservation value to the costs and benefits of no would be a significant benefit within the provided as a result of a critical habitat designation. Our final decision is that range of the owl. Excluding these designation. Given the active and these areas are essential to the private lands from the designation ongoing efforts of the State of conservation of the northern spotted would avoid a chilling effect on the Washington to address northern spotted owl, but a designation of these areas in partnership between the Service and the owl conservation, we have determined this particular case would confer no affected State regulatory agencies that maintaining our partnership with current or potential regulatory benefit regarding administration of their WDNR, in conjunction with the and a very minor education benefit. The existing conservation programs to conservation measures under the WDNR primary habitat threat to the northern protect and conserve northern spotted FPR, provides a greater benefit to the spotted owl is from commercial timber owls on private lands. We consider the northern spotted owl than would the harvest. Since commercial timber maintenance of our partnership between regulatory and educational benefits of harvest is not allowed on these lands, the Service and the affected State critical habitat designation. We also there would be little benefit to regulatory agencies to be a significant have determined that the potential additional section 7 consultation on benefit of exclusion. incremental educational and ancillary effects to critical habitat. We also agree Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the benefits of critical habitat designation with the National Park Service that a Benefits of Inclusion—The benefits of on lands containing the physical or designation would impose some, albeit including these lands in the designation biological features essential to the relatively small, additional are small. The WDNR FPR contains conservation of the northern spotted administrative costs to land managers provisions for protecting and owl would be minimal, because WDNR who would need to consult with the maintaining northern spotted owl has already made significant Service if their actions or programs habitat that provides for comprehensive contributions to our understanding of might affect northern spotted owl measures applied across a large the ecology of the northern spotted owl, critical habitat. Likewise, we find that landscape that will benefit spotted owls. and continues to do so through State Park lands could experience some WDNR personnel are extremely implementation of Recovery Action 18 additional minor administrative costs as knowledgeable regarding the ecology of and through participation in range wide a consequence of this designation, the northern spotted owl and have demographic studies. especially those State Parks jointly contributed to the body of scientific Exclusion Will Not Result in managed with Redwood National Park information about the northern spotted Extinction of the Species—We have and those that may use Federal funding owl. The landowners subject to these determined that exclusion of for research and monitoring or program State regulations are also informed by approximately 40,732 ac (16,483 ha) of and capital improvements. However, we them. In this instance, the regulatory private lands covered under the WDNR find that even these minimal costs and educational benefits of inclusion FPR will not result in extinction of the would outweigh the minor have much less benefit than the northern spotted owl. The WDNR FPR informational benefits of including continued benefit of the WDNR FPR protects and preserves landscape levels these areas in the critical habitat including the educational benefits of suitable northern spotted owl nesting, designation. derived from the FPR. roosting, and foraging habitat as well as Benefits of Inclusion—The proposed The WDNR FPR provides for foraging and dispersal habitat in critical habitat rule published on March significant conservation and strategic landscapes, and implements 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062), as part of management within geographical areas species-specific conservation measures ‘‘Possible Outcome 3’’ in Table 1 (p. that contain the physical or biological designed to avoid and minimize effects 14068), proposed to exclude 2,631,736

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71987

ac (1,065,026 has) of congressionally Act and reaffirmed by the General administrative costs but confer no reserved lands and 164,776 ac (66,682 Authorities Act, as amended, begins increase in regulatory protection. ha) of State Park lands from final critical with a mandate to conserve park Therefore, we believe there would be no habitat. These Federal reserved lands resources and values. This mandate is regulatory benefits to inclusion of these include all National Parks and independent of the separate prohibition lands in critical habitat. Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild on impairment and applies with respect We also believe that a critical habitat and Scenic Rivers, National Scenic to all park resources and values, even designation for these specific natural Areas, and other congressionally when there is no risk that any park areas would confer minimal additional designated areas identified in the resources or values may be impaired. educational benefit toward spotted owl proposed rule. State Parks lands See 16 U.S.C. sections 1–4. conservation. These areas are generally included Iron Horse State Park in Similarly, all of the State Parks lands well known for their value to the Washington, and all or portions of 30 proposed for exclusion occur in conservation of listed species due to the State Parks in California, including California except for 104 ac (42 ha) in education and communication programs Jedediah Smith, Del Norte Coast, Prairie Washington. California State Parks are of the natural area management agencies Creek, Grizzly Creek, Humboldt managed by the California Department during the time since the listing of the Redwoods, DeWitt Redwoods, of Parks and Recreation. This Agency’s spotted owl. Educational materials are Richardson Grove, Reynolds Wayside, mission is to ‘‘administer, protect, distributed and other communication Smithe Redwoods, Standish-Hickey, provide for recreational opportunity, programs occur regarding the Wm. Standley, Russian Gulch, and develop the State Park System conservation of late successional forests Mendocino Headlands, Mendocino * * *’’ We are unaware of any and the species that inhabit them such Woodlands, Van Damme, Montgomery commercial timber harvests in as the spotted owl (see, e.g., Olympic Woods, Navarro Redwoods, Hendy California or Washington State Parks. National Park Web site featuring spotted Woods, Mailliard, Salt Point, Austin Therefore, any habitat-disturbing owl information at http://www.nps.gov/ Creek, Armstrong State Reserve, activities that might occur as the land olym/naturescience/animals.htm, or Tomales Bay, Samuel P. Taylor, Mount managers carry out their conservation http://www.nps.gov/muwo/ Tamalpais, Robert Louis Stevenson, programs (e.g., trail maintenance, naturescience/life-of-spotted-owls.htm Bothe—Napa Valley, Sugarloaf Ridge, education and outreach, operations and for NPS lands in central California). We Jack London, and Annadel State Park. maintenance, etc.) are likely to be also note that the management agencies relatively minor and are unlikely to be overseeing these congressionally and A primary purpose of these regulated by a critical habitat State reserved natural areas have a congressional and State reserved natural designation. On the Federal reserved positive history of over 20 years of areas is to conserve natural ecosystems, lands, the section 7 prohibition on the conserving northern spotted owls and including those of the northern spotted destruction or adverse modification of supporting research and conservation of owl and its habitat, and educate the critical habitat would be redundant and the owl on their protected lands. While public regarding the conservation of unlikely to add any protection to these in other cases we have found benefits these areas. Unlike other Federal and important habitat areas. Likewise, many where critical habitat would highlight State lands that have multiple use of these State Parks have close working the importance of the habitat to owl mandates that include commercial relationships with Federal agencies and conservation for future planning and harvest of timber in the range of the may experience, through those Federal management purposes, in the case of spotted owl, such as National Forests, partners, a section 7 nexus or other these lands, management is already State Forests, and forests managed by administrative costs if the States utilize consistent with habitat protection. the BLM, these reserved natural areas Federal funds or require a Federal Therefore, it is unlikely that designation are unlikely to have uses that are permit for their activities. For example, of critical habitat of these areas would incompatible with the purposes of several State Parks in California (i.e., provide any significant informational critical habitat because the primary Del Norte Redwoods, Prairie Creek benefits to the land managers or the threat to spotted owl critical habitat— Redwoods, and Jedediah Smith public. commercial timber harvest—is Redwoods) are jointly managed with Benefits of Exclusion—We attempted prohibited on these lands. These natural Redwood National Park through an to quantify the potential increase in areas are managed under explicit agreement signed in 1994. In the San administrative costs for the Service Federal and State laws and policies Francisco Bay Area, the National Park associated with a proposed designation consistent with the conservation of the Service manages an inventory and of critical habitat in congressionally northern spotted owl, and there is monitoring program that includes reserved land allocations. There is generally little or no timber actions by State Parks and other Federal generally little or no timber management beyond the removal of partners such as the U.S. Geological management beyond removal of hazard hazard trees or fuels management to Survey. Further, land managers monitor trees or fuels reduction to protect protect structures, roads, human safety, spotted owl territories within these structures and road maintenance, in and important natural attributes. For reserved areas as part of long term addition to fire-management activities. example, the Wilderness Act provides population monitoring efforts, and Management guidelines for conservation for the northern spotted barred owl populations are also congressionally reserved lands are owl because it prohibits commercial monitored as part of spotted owl generally protective, so we do not activities unrelated to wilderness recovery efforts. For example, spotted anticipate requesting any changes of recreation. Thus, not only is commercial owl territories in Crater Lake National proposed management as a result of a timber harvest directly barred on these Park have been monitored since 1992, critical habitat designation, and we Federal lands, but the Wilderness Act and there are multiple spotted owl would not anticipate reaching an also precludes the construction of roads monitoring and conservation efforts adverse modification determination. In and most uses of mechanical occurring in many these parks reserve areas where we do consult, the equipment. 16 U.S.C. 1133. The throughout the species’ range. A critical designation of critical habitat would fundamental purpose of the National habitat designation on these State Parks likely add an adverse-modification Park System, established by the Organic may introduce some additional analysis to an existing consultation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71988 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Total incremental effects would likely designation of these reserve areas would not necessarily have a bearing on future be about 4–6 hours of staff time per confer little additional educational critical habitat designations. action for both the action agency and benefits associated with the Exclusion Will Not Result in the Service, although this estimate conservation of the spotted owl, as these Extinction of the Species—We conclude could vary widely depending on the educational messages are already being that this exclusion of congressionally size and scope of the action. communicated in many of these areas and State reserved natural areas would The final economic analysis (FEA) under existing programs; and (3) as not result in the extinction of the (IEC 2012b) quantified this potential for identified by the economic analysis and species. As described above, all of these an increase in administrative costs, and the NPS, there is the potential for a areas are managed under State and they described the potential indirect small but measureable increase in Federal law to provide for the impacts due to time delays for project administrative costs, time delays, and conservation of species and their natural processing and regulatory uncertainty. regulatory uncertainty for the Service habitat, including the northern spotted The analysis states, ‘‘While critical and Federal and State land managers if owl. A critical habitat designation habitat is not expected to generate these lands were designated, without would not enhance or incrementally changes to forest management practices any offsetting positive conservation improve this dedicated management or or to testing or training missions on NPS benefits to justify the increased increase the protections of these lands, or DOD lands, these areas may be administrative costs. nor would its absence somehow fail to subject to new or increasingly complex After weighing these relative costs provide protections that otherwise section 7 consultations as a result of and benefits, the Secretary has chosen to would not be present. Therefore, this critical habitat designation. Activities exercise his discretion under Section exclusion of lands from final critical that may involve section 7 consultations 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude these lands habitat would not result in any include the construction or maintenance from final critical habitat. As part of this appreciable risk of extinction to the of visitor facilities on NPS lands and review we have determined the Federal species because these lands will access roads to projects or military agencies are managing these reserved continue to be managed to provide for training including the use of vehicles, natural areas under statutes that already the conservation of the spotted owl. explosives, and soldiers. DOD and NPS impose a clear conservation mandate Cumulative Analysis—Exclusion Will will likely experience an additional consistent with the specific needs of the Not Result in Extinction of the Species administrative burden to provide northern spotted owl, and a critical We have determined that exclusion of biological assessments for projects in habitat designation would confer no consultations with the Service as a approximately 4,056,759 ac (1,641,777 additional conservation benefits to the result of critical habitat designation’’ ha) of lands from this final designation spotted owl that offset the potential (IEC 2012b, p. 4–4). The FEA forecast an of critical habitat will not result in increase in administrative costs. In additional 16 informal consultations extinction of the northern spotted owl. making this decision, we also note the with NPS on planned or ongoing We have excluded these areas based, in historic role of congressionally and recreation and habitat management part, on the significant conservation State reserved natural areas as part of projects (IEC 2012b, p. 4–27). (Although benefits afforded to the northern spotted northern spotted owl critical habitat. In the text refers to the NPS lands, the owl and its habitat on these lands 1992, the Service concluded that certain same rationale generally applies to other through the positive conservation congressionally reserved parks and federally reserved lands in the proposed measures provided through SHAs, exclusion.) The FEA did not quantify wilderness areas were essential to HCPs, or other agreements with private the potential for direct incremental spotted owl conservation, but we landowner partners with a proven track economic impacts on State Park lands, declined to include these lands in the record of conservation actions. Each of but it does identify the potential for final designation of critical habitat these agreements, as discussed here, indirect impacts due to time delays and because their current classification and provides significant conservation regulatory uncertainty. Again, it is management was deemed adequate to benefits to the species in terms of expected that these impacts would be meet spotted owl conservation goals maintaining, enhancing, or recruiting relatively minor, but they nevertheless (January 15, 1992; 57 FR 1796, p. 1806). additional suitable habitat for the are not offset by a proportional increase Likewise, in 2008, the Service revised northern spotted owl, and implementing in conservation benefits that would northern spotted owl critical habitat and species-specific conservation measures accrue as a consequence of this critical again concluded that congressionally designed to avoid and minimize impacts habitat designation on these lands. reserved natural areas would not be to northern spotted owls. Further, for Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the included in final critical habitat for the projects having a Federal nexus and Benefits of Inclusion—In sum, we find same reasons as those identified in the affecting northern spotted owls in the there are no regulatory benefits and 1992 decision (August 13, 2008; 73 FR excluded areas, all of which are such minimal educational benefits to 47325, p. 47334). Although not a factor occupied by the species, the jeopardy including these lands in the designation in this section 4(b)(2) weighing, this standard of section 7 of the Act provides that they are outweighed by the minor determination will maintain the a level of assurance that this species increase in administrative costs. We consistent management approach for will not go extinct as a result of reach this conclusion for several spotted owls that has occurred on these excluding these lands from the critical reasons: (1) A critical habitat lands over the last 20 years and should habitat designation. The species is also designation of these reserved areas in minimize the potential for confusion protected by section 9 of the Act, which the range of the spotted owl would among land managers and the public. prohibits the take of listed species. provide no additional regulatory This analysis is based in large part on Congressionally and State reserved benefits beyond what is already on these the particular conservation natural areas excluded are managed lands due to their permanent status as requirements of the northern spotted under State and Federal law and policy fully protected lands and, importantly, owl and is specific to this designation. to provide for the conservation of the fact that commercial timber harvest Thus, our determination that the species and their natural habitat, is not permitted on these lands under benefits of exclusion outweigh the including the northern spotted owl. Federal and State law and policy; (2) the benefits of inclusion in this case does These lands will continue to be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71989

managed under a clear conservation species. Furthermore, the habitat proposed revised rule on March 8, 2012 mandate, and exclusion of these lands scenarios under consideration included (77 FR 14062), and closed on June 6, from critical habitat will not deprive the a comparison of different prioritization 2012. On June 1, 2012, we published the species or its habitat of any protections schemes for landownership; we notice of availability of the draft that are not already present. Although prioritized areas under consideration for economic analysis and draft we did not assume that all private lands critical habitat such that we looked first environmental assessment associated without specific conservation to Federal lands, followed by State, with the proposed revised designation agreements would continue to fully private, and Indian lands. Indian lands of critical habitat (77 FR 32483), and provide for the conservation of the owl, are those defined in Secretarial Order extended the comment period for the we determined that the exclusion of 3206 ‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights, proposed rule an additional 30 days, these lands would not lead to the Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, through July 6, 2012, thereby providing extinction of the species, due to existing and the Endangered Species Act’’ (June a total comment period of 120 days. In State protections and the fact that the 5, 1997), as: (1) lands held in trust by addition, we held two public areas excluded constitute such a small the United States for the benefit of any information meetings in Redding, percentage of the overall designation. Indian tribe or individual; and (2) lands California on June 4, 2012; two in For these reasons, we conclude that the held by any Indian Tribe or individual Tacoma, Washington, on June 12, 2012; exclusion of these areas under section subject to restrictions by the United one in Portland, Oregon on June 20, 4(b)(2) of the Act will not cumulatively States against alienation. In evaluating 2012; and two in Roseburg, Oregon, on result in the extinction of the species. Indian lands under consideration as June 27, 2012. We also held a public potential critical habitat for the northern Consideration of Indian Lands hearing in Portland, Oregon, on June 20, spotted owl, we further considered the 2012. In addition, we contacted In accordance with the Secretarial directive of Secretarial Order 3206 that appropriate Federal, State, County, and Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal stipulates ‘‘Critical habitat shall not be local agencies; scientific organizations; Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust designated in such areas unless it is and other interested parties and invited Responsibilities, and the Endangered determined essential to conserve a listed them to comment on the proposed rule, Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997); the species. In designating critical habitat, draft economic analysis, and draft President’s memorandum of April 29, the Services shall evaluate and environmental assessment during these 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government document the extent to which the comment periods. In addition, in Relations with Native American Tribal conservation needs of the listed species response to requests from several Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive can be achieved by limiting the Counties, and to ensure that all affected Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and designation to other lands.’’ Counties and State fish and wildlife Coordination with Indian Tribal Although some Indian lands agencies in Washington, Oregon, and Governments’’ (November 6, 2000, and identified in our habitat modeling California were able to thoroughly as reaffirmed November 5, 2009); and demonstrated the potential to contribute review and comment as provided by the relevant provision of the to the conservation of the northern section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Departmental Manual of the Department spotted owl, our analysis did not Service provided an additional of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe suggest that these areas were essential to opportunity for those entities to that fish, wildlife, and other natural conserve the northern spotted owl. This comment until August 20, 2012. resources on Indian lands may be better determination was based on our relative managed under Indian authorities, evaluation of the various habitat During the comment period(s), we policies, and programs than through scenarios under consideration; if the received over 33,000 comments (many Federal regulation where Indian population performance results from of which were form letters), directly management addresses the conservation our habitat modeling indicated that we addressing the proposed revised critical needs of listed species. In addition, such could meet the recovery goals for the habitat designation. During the June 20, designation may be viewed as species without relying on Indian lands, 2012, public hearing, eight individuals unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion we did not consider the physical or or organizations provided comments on into Indian self-governance, thus biological features on those lands, or the the proposed revised designation. All compromising the government-to- lands themselves, to be essential to the substantive information provided by government relationship essential to conservation of the species, therefore commenters has either been achieving our mutual goals of managing they did not meet our criteria for incorporated directly into this final for healthy ecosystems upon which the inclusion in critical habitat. Our designation or addressed below. viability of threatened and endangered evaluation of the areas under Comments received were grouped into species populations depend. consideration for designation as critical general categories specifically relating to In developing the proposed revised habitat indicated that we could achieve the proposed revised critical habitat critical habitat designation for the the conservation of the northern spotted designation, and are addressed in the northern spotted owl, we considered owl by limiting the designation of following summary, and incorporated inclusion of some Indian lands. As revised critical habitat to other lands. into the final rule as appropriate. We described in the above section Criteria Therefore, no Indian lands are included received a number of highly technical Used to Identify Critical Habitat, and in the revised designation of critical comments regarding the modeling detailed in our supporting habitat. process used to develop critical habitat. documentation (Dunk et al. 2012b, These technical questions are addressed entire), we evaluated numerous XII. Summary of Comments and in the final Modeling Supplement potential habitat scenarios to determine Responses (Dunk et al. 2012b) rather than in the those areas that are essential to the We requested written comments from following section. We also received conservation of the northern spotted the public on the proposed revised several comments regarding perceived owl. In all cases, we assessed the designation of critical habitat for the effects attributed to the original listing effectiveness of the habitat scenario northern spotted owl during an initial of the northern spotted owl (June 26, under consideration in terms of its 90-day public comment period, which 1990; 55 FR 26114), but are not ability to meet the recovery goals for the opened with the publication of the addressing those comments because

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71990 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

they do not apply to this rulemaking, features were properly described. A science that was cited, or the which is limited to the revised number of these reviewers did have interpretation of that science, and noted designation of critical habitat for the suggestions for revising descriptions of that the discussion did not adequately northern spotted owl. these features in specific forest types address studies that have documented and we have incorporated these negative effects of timber management Comments From Peer Reviewers suggestions into the final rule. on northern spotted owls and their prey. In accordance with our peer review Question 2: Does the critical habitat Several reviewers recommended that policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR network adequately encompass the active management should be 34270), we solicited expert opinions geographic range of the northern spotted conducted in an adaptive management from 40 knowledgeable individuals with owl and represent the range of habitat framework. We addressed these issues scientific expertise that included types used by the species? in revisions to the section An familiarity with the species, the Peer Review Response: Only three Ecosystem-based Approach to the geographic region in which the species reviewers specifically addressed this Conservation of the Northern Spotted occurs, and conservation biology question. All agreed that the network Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat. principles. We received responses from encompassed the geographic range and Question 4b: Do the proposed 15 of the peer reviewers. habitat types used by owls. One guidelines for vegetation management, We reviewed all comments received reviewer expressed concern that including forest fuels treatments and from the peer reviewers for substantive additional lands in the southwest restoration of fire regimes, represent an issues and new information regarding Washington lowlands should be appropriate application of ecological critical habitat for the northern spotted included to improve landscape science? owl. The peer reviewers generally connectivity, and a second reviewer Peer Review Response: Responses to supported the modeling process used to indicated that maintaining areas of this question were varied. Eight inform the identification of critical marginal habitat where northern spotted reviewers expressed overall support for habitat and the resulting size and owls could persist in the face of the concept, although several distribution of the proposed revised encroachment by barred owls may be recommended providing more specific designation. Reviewers were divided on particularly important. See our response management information. Four the risks posed by climate change and to 0 for a detailed discussion regarding reviewers indicated that parts of the forest health, and whether active inclusion of lands in southwest document were unclear on whether management should be applied within Washington and inclusion of marginal ecological science was applied critical habitat. habitat. appropriately, and highlighted the lack We asked reviewers to address a Question 3: We have identified areas of understanding about how such number of specific questions with on Federal lands in the ‘‘Matrix’’ management actions may affect owls regard to the proposed rule. The classification (i.e., areas designated for and their prey. Two reviewers questions posed to the peer reviewers timber harvest under the NWFP) as specifically indicated that they did not and a summary of their responses are proposed critical habitat, as well as think that approach is appropriate. provided below; peer reviewer some State and private lands where Several recommended conducting active comments, clarifications, and Federal lands are lacking. Do you agree management activities in an adaptive suggestions have been incorporated into or disagree with this approach? Why or management framework, until the the final rule as appropriate. Our why not? science becomes clearer regarding how responses to issues raised by the peer Peer Review Response: Eight northern spotted owls are affected by reviewers are presented in the reviewers addressed this question, and projects intended to restore forest health subsequent summaries of comments and all agreed that inclusion of matrix lands or apply ecological forestry principles. responses. in critical habitat was supported. One We addressed active adaptive forest Question 1a: Given the assumptions reviewer noted that the barred owl issue management in the section An about barred owl effects, does this needs to be addressed (see response to Ecosystem-based Approach to the critical habitat network provide a 0 for detailed discussion of this issue), Conservation of the Northern Spotted sufficient amount and distribution of and another reviewer was surprised that Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat. habitat for the northern spotted owl? all habitat-capable lands in the western Question 4c: Do you believe the Peer Review Response: Of the seven portion of the species’ range were not proposed rule appropriately balances reviewers who provided a response to included in critical habitat (see 0 for a the potential risks of taking action with this question, four indicated that it was more detailed discussion of this issue). the potential risks of a passive (i.e., ‘‘no impossible to determine whether the Question 4a: Does the proposed rule action’’) management approach, critical habitat network was adequate appropriately cite the scientific especially in the face of ongoing climate with barred owls present across the literature on ecological forestry to change and the need to manage for the area. Two reviewers believed the recommend restoration of ecological entire forest ecosystem, not just network was adequate, and one believed processes and the conservation of late- northern spotted owls? it was too small given barred owl successional forests while also Peer Review Response: Peer reviewers impacts. providing sufficient habitat were split in their opinions on this Question 1b: Have the physical or conservation for northern spotted owls? question, and responded with varying biological features that are essential to Peer Review Response: Ten reviewers degrees of specificity. Eight reviewers the conservation of the owl been addressed this issue. Most supported generally supported the suggestion that properly described? Do the areas the idea that land managers consider the land managers consider an active identified as proposed critical habitat application of ecological forestry management approach in managing adequately capture these features? Are principles. Five believed the rule cited forest landscapes, although not all there areas we identified that should not appropriate literature, and several other stated whether the discussion of this be included in the designation? expressed general support, but concept in the proposed rule balanced Peer Review Response: Of the five recommended consideration of the respective tradeoffs. Five reviewers reviewers who addressed this question, additional published research. Three believed that the risks were not all believed the physical or biological reviewers disagreed with some of the appropriately balanced, that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71991

discussion was too vague in weighing Comments section below, as well as in Comments on Lands Included in Critical the tradeoffs, or that there is too little our separate Modeling Supplement Habitat and Exclusions specific scientific understanding of the (Dunk et al. 2012b). Comment (1): Several reviewers explicit tradeoffs to conduct an Question 5c: Does the proposed commented that proposed critical informed discussion. Several of these critical habitat rule correctly express the habitat failed to include habitat that reviewers indicated that there was too key assumptions and uncertainties linked the Olympic peninsula to other much emphasis on active management underlying the scientific and technical regions, and also did not include low- in the preamble to the proposed rule elevation habitat along the margins of given the lack of understanding about information it used, particularly in regard to northern spotted owl habitat, the Willamette Valley, Puget Trough, how ecological forestry and restoration Umpqua Valley, and Rogue River management might affect owls. In demographic trends, and influence of barred owls on northern spotted owls? Valley. Some reviewers indicated that contrast, one reviewer noted that the they thought this was a fault of the consequences of not applying Peer Review Response: In general, the modeling methods used. management in some areas (e.g., fire- reviewers agreed that the rule did Our Response: There are multiple prone areas) were not sufficiently address key assumptions and reasons why the areas described in the addressed. We have addressed the need uncertainties; however, most identified above comments were not included in to conduct additional research in an specific areas these could be improved. the revised critical habitat. First, the adaptive management framework in the We address these comments in more habitat model using MaxEnt was at the section An Ecosystem-based Approach detail in the Modeling Section below, as 500-ac (200-ha) scale, and was thus to the Conservation of the Northern well as in our separate Modeling unlikely to identify small, isolated Spotted Owl and Managing Its Critical Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b). habitat fragments. This is not a failure Habitat. of the modeling, but rather a Question 5a: Is there relevant Question 5d: Was the combination of consequence of these areas (identified in information available we did not analytical methods (MaxEnt, Zonation, the comments) having very little incorporate into the critical habitat HexSim) with professional judgment modeling process (thoroughness), and (please see Criteria Used to Identify northern spotted owl habitat; such have we interpreted the existing Critical Habitat, pp. 14096–14101 in the small, fragmented areas do not meet our scientific information in a reasonable proposed rule (March 8, 2012; 77 FR criteria for critical habitat, and are way (scientific consistency)? 14062) for details) appropriate for therefore not included in final the Peer Review Response: The 15 identifying critical habitat? Are there critical habitat designation. Second, to reviewers generally agreed that we did additional analyses you would incorporate additional information such include the appropriate information and recommend? as connectivity and unique forest situations, the Service also utilized interpreted it in a reasonable way. Peer Review Response: Of the 15 peer Recommendations to incorporate more expert knowledge and current owl reviewers, 1 thought that HexSim was location data (among other factors) to realistic barred owl encounter rates, use not an appropriate model given its individual home ranges rather than pair determine what is essential for complexity, and 2 expressed concern ranges in the modeling process, and conservation of the species. In Phase 3 about the utility of the MaxEnt model analyze the effects of proposed of the critical habitat development for identifying habitat. The majority of exclusions were suggested. We address process, as described in Dunk et al. these issues in our responses to peer reviewers thought that the 2012b, we evaluated areas where Comment (11), Comment (38), and combination of analytical methods we connectivity appeared to be deficient, Comment (139). One reviewer used was appropriate. We address the and added in habitat to strengthen questioned the accuracy of GNN data for question regarding the use of HexSim connectivity. However, most of the areas identifying northern spotted owl and MaxEnt in our responses to identified in these comments habitat. We address the question Comments (20, 21, 22, 26, and 43) as (particularly in western Washington) regarding the accuracy of GNN data in well as in our separate Modeling consist largely of cutover industrial our response to Comment (19). In Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b). timberlands, are not occupied by addition, some reviewers asked for more A number of peer reviewers had northern spotted owls, do not contain detail regarding the modeling process. additional comments about the concept the primary constituent elements for Many of the responses to comments of active management. Since the critical habitat, and are not otherwise provided here present such detail, and preambles to the proposed and final essential to the conservation of the we have incorporated additional rules discuss this concept, we have species because they do not provide discussion in our separate Modeling addressed their comments below. high-quality habitat or areas where Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b). However, we emphasize that this rule restoration of habitat is need to provide Question 5b: The modeling process does not take any action or adopt any essential connectivity or demographic attempted to incorporate both scientific policy, plan or program in relation to support. These areas were not included uncertainty and demographic active forest management. The in the 1992 or 2008 critical habitat (stochastic) variation. Were methods discussion is provided only for designations for the same reasons. Without additional information about used to incorporate uncertainty and consideration by Federal, State, and the location and habitat conditions of variability appropriate? local land managers, as well as the Peer Review Response: Six reviewers specific parcels in the areas mentioned public, as they make decisions on the addressed this question specifically. in this comment, we are unable to management of forest land under their Most had suggestions for improving our further evaluate the benefits of jurisdictions and through their normal methods including addressing temporal including them in the revised variation in demographic rates, processes. designation. providing confidence intervals on Additional peer reviewer comments Comment (2): One reviewer estimates, and conducting sensitivity are addressed in the following summary questioned the fact that portions of analyses. We address specific comments and incorporated into the final rule as several late-successional reserves (LSRs) in more detail in the Modeling appropriate. including a portion of the Okanogan-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71992 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Wenatchee National Forest in the Comment (5): Several reviewers Comments on Competition From the eastern Washington Cascades and lands indicated that the largest reserve designs Barred Owl in the Western Klamath region that were may be the best for northern spotted owl Comment (7): One reviewer indicated affected by the Biscuit Fire were not conservation. that recovery efforts need to focus on Our Response: Designation of critical included in the critical habitat proposal. barred owl management in addition to Our Response: Both of the areas habitat is constrained by the statutory critical habitat. described in this comment generally language in section 3(5) of the Act, Our Response: Barred owls and loss exhibit low relative habitat suitability which states that critical habitat must or degradation of habitat are primary (RHS) values. The portion of the either have been occupied by the factors impacting northern spotted owls. Okanogan-Wenatchee LSR that was not species at the time it was listed and As we noted in the proposed critical included contains much high-elevation contain the physical or biological habitat rule, habitat protection is forest and dry forest seldom occupied features essential to the conservation of necessary, but not sufficient alone, to by the northern spotted owl. The Biscuit the species, or, if unoccupied at the time recover the northern spotted owl. This Fire area described by the reviewer is of listing, be essential to the revised designation of critical habitat is composed of low RHS due to a conservation of the species. combination of fire effects and Furthermore, section 3(5)(c) of the Act only one of many conservation actions ultramafic soils. specifies that except in rare that will contribute to the recovery of Comment (3): One peer reviewer and circumstances, critical habitat should the northern spotted owl. The Service is several public commenters were not include the entire geographical area currently working on a final concerned about congressionally which can be occupied by the species. environmental impact statement under reserved areas not being included in We concur that in areas where high- NEPA for experimental barred owl proposed critical habitat. quality habitat is lacking, designating all removal to address the threat posed to Our Response: All congressionally areas capable of developing in to northern spotted owls by the barred reserved lands that met the criteria for suitable habitat in the future might owl. Nonhabitat-based threats, such as critical habitat were included in the provide more robust networks. barred owls, are specifically addressed proposed revised designation. We However, the addition of large areas of in the Revised Recovery Plan for the sought public comment on whether they currently unsuitable habitat as Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011), should be excluded from the final suggested in this comment would likely and do not fall within the scope of this critical habitat designation. Based on not meet the intent and mandate of the critical habitat rule. The Revised further analysis and public comment, statute. If occupied at the time of listing, Recovery Plan, not this critical habitat they are excluded in the final revised such lands would not provide the rule, should be considered the critical habitat designation. Our final requisite essential features. If comprehensive recovery document for decision is that these areas are essential unoccupied at the time of listing, such the northern spotted owl. to the conservation of the northern lands would only be included in critical Comments Regarding the Northwest spotted owl, but as these areas are habitat if we found them to be essential Forest Plan (NWFP) managed under a conservation mandate to the conservation of the species. Our that provides for the needs of the evaluation of various potential habitat Comment (8): Several reviewers northern spotted owl, we could find no networks as we developed this critical indicated that the relationship between benefits to the designation that habitat designation demonstrated that proposed critical habitat and the outweighed the minor administrative these lands are not likely to contribute Northwest Forest Plan was unclear. costs associated with including these substantially more owls to the Our Response: We have attempted to areas. Therefore the benefits of rangewide population than the area clarify the language regarding the exclusion outweighed those of designated as final critical habitat, thus relationship between critical habitat and inclusion, and since such exclusion will we did not consider them to be essential the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The not result in the extinction of the to the conservation of the species. NWFP provides land management species, these congressionally reserved Comment (6): One reviewer stressed guidance for most of the Federal lands areas have been excluded from the final the need to retain Recovery Action 10 identified as critical habitat, and we designation. and 32 lands in critical habitat. anticipate that the Standards and Comment (4): Several reviewers Our Response: Recovery Action 10 Guidelines for the NWFP will continue highlighted the importance of keeping and Recovery Action 32 do not to direct management actions on these State lands, congressionally reserved constitute specific areas of mapped lands, unless amended sometime in the lands, and some private lands without lands that could be included in critical future. We emphasize that critical HCPs or other agreements in critical habitat designation. Rather, they are habitat does not replace or supersede habitat. broad landscape-level conservation the Standards and Guidelines of the Our Response: We agree that these recommendations contained in the NWFP. Active management is discussed lands are important for the conservation Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern in the preamble of this rule only to of northern spotted owls. However, Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) for encourage land managers to consider Federal parks and wilderness areas (and identification and conservation of the range of management flexibility any other congressionally reserved important habitats that apply to all land already contained in the NWFP. We lands) including State parks, as well as ownership categories and Federal land acknowledge the importance of the private lands, have been excluded in the management allocations, including NWFP as a management strategy for final revised designation of critical designated critical habitat. While conserving northern spotted owls and habitat for the northern spotted owl. consistency with these and other late-successional forest habitat, and our Some State lands are included in the recovery actions is not required, Federal suggestions for special management final critical habitat designation, unless land management agencies generally try considerations needed to address the such lands had an HCP, SHA, or other to conduct activities in a manner threats to the physical or biological conservation measures in place that led consistent with the guidance provided features essential to the conservation of to their exclusion under section 4(b)(2) in the Revised Recovery Plan for the the northern spotted owl (see Special (see Exclusions). Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011). Management Considerations or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71993

Protections, above) are consistent with habitat, we use the term ‘‘efficient’’ to model would essentially be zeroed out, the directives of the NWFP. convey that we sought to include the since that bias would be the same across Comment (9): One reviewer noted that highest-quality habitat with the greatest all populations; in such a case, the net LSR areas and locations on the East potential contribution to recovery and relative difference would still be Cascades were designed under the minimize as much as possible the accurately reflected between assumption of static landscapes, not the amount of relatively lower quality populations. dynamic landscapes we now recognize. habitat in determining what is essential Comment (12): One reviewer noted Our Response: We have recognized to conservation of the species. In areas that we did not include baseline that the Standards and Guidelines for of insufficient high-quality habitat, scenarios that provide clear insight management under the NWFP differ lower quality habitat may still provide concerning the contributions that State, across eastern and western forests, and the PCEs and may be essential in terms private, and Indian lands might make in that eastern forests are very dynamic. of providing sufficient habitat overall to the long run. They note that excluding This condition was recognized in the sustain the population. We also sought consideration of some large areas by NWFP, and the Standards and to rely on public lands to the extent virtue of land ownership may have Guidelines of the NWFP allow for active possible. attendant effects on demographic results management in such areas (USDA and Efficiency never trumped owl by inadvertently imposing ‘‘pinch USDI 2004, pp. C–12—C–13). performance in our selection process; points’’ along the north-south axis of the Comments on the Modeling Process the population performance of the critical habitat area. The main concern northern spotted owl in response to the was that northern spotted owl recovery Here we provide a summary of scenarios evaluated was our first may be quite limited by the initial general comments received on the concern. However, given two or more assumptions made about excluding modeling process that we used, in part, nearly equal population performance State, private, and Indian lands based to identify revised critical habitat for the outcomes, we did look for efficient on their current conditions; remaining northern spotted owl. The habitat solutions; that is, given the choice alternatives considered may all be modeling framework we utilized was between two nearly equivalent habitat poorer as a result. originally developed for the Revised networks in terms of northern spotted Our Response: We did not make Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted owl population performance, we chose initial assumptions about the Owl (USFWS 2011), and Appendix C of the network that achieved roughly the population contributions potentially the Revised Recovery Plan provides a same level of performance provided by made by State, private, and Indian detailed description of the modeling a relatively greater proportion of public lands, or about the feasibility of framework and the extensive testing and lands or smaller overall designation. including those lands in proposed cross-validation that was done at each Old forest habitat and areas of high RHS critical habitat. Our initial comparisons stage of development. In addition, we are nearly identically represented in the of Zonation-derived reserve designs note that the modeling framework that largest networks we evaluated (Z70, included both ‘‘ALL lands’’ and we applied here to assist in the Composites 1, 3, 4, and 7). ‘‘PUBLIC lands’’ scenarios (Appendix C, identification of critical habitat for the Comment (11): One reviewer p. C–49–52); these habitat networks did northern spotted owl was suggested the use of individual, rather not restrict our evaluation to particular independently the subject of prior peer than pair home range size estimates in land ownerships, but allowed us to review and public comment for the the HexSim model. evaluate all lands regardless of recovery plan. Particularly detailed or Our Response: Because our spotted ownership. Thus, we evaluated the technical comments on the habitat owl population model is a females-only contribution of all land ownerships modeling that we received in relation to model, it was most appropriate to use before narrowing down the habitat this critical habitat rule are addressed individual home range sizes. Thus our network designs based on policy and separately in our Modeling Supplement, model will not simulate the resource cost-benefit analyses (meaning the Dunk et al. 2012b, in an effort to reduce constraints that could result from male weighing of relative population the length and improve the readability owl’s consumption of limited food performance versus total area in the of this rule. resources. We strove to construct the designation), as fully described in our Comment (10): One reviewer simplest model structure that captured Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al. suggested that the modeling of habitat the essential ecological processes; doing 2012b). As discussed in this rule and in networks and scenarios should consider so made our northern spotted owl that supplement, we sought to maximize a wider range of options or composites model more straightforward to develop the reliance on public lands to the with greater emphasis on sustainability and easier to understand. We evaluated extent possible, but only if it did not of owl populations, not efficiency. The how well the HexSim model was compromise the population metrics present document is biased in favor of calibrated to actual populations, by essential to conservation of the northern efficiency, not conservation of old forest comparing simulated spotted owl spotted owl. In addition, as described in habitat. populations from our model with actual the section Consideration of Indian Our Response: We evaluated each of densities of northern spotted owls as Lands, we conducted this analysis in the potential critical habitat networks measured within demographic study accordance with the Secretarial Order with respect to the guiding principles areas (Appendix C, p. C–73). We found 3206 directive to consider ‘‘the extent to we developed, which were based on the that simulated populations were quite which the conservation needs of the statutory definition of critical habitat similar to actual populations, suggesting listed species can be achieved by and informed by the recovery criteria for that the females-only model produced limited the designation to other [non- the northern spotted owl as established reasonably accurate estimates. Finally, Indian] lands.’’ As we did not identify in the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan. The because we used the HexSim model to any Indian lands that were essential to recovery criteria for the northern compare the relative differences in the conservation of the northern spotted spotted owl are aimed at achieving population size resulting from different owl, we did not include any such lands sustainable northern spotted owl reserve design assumptions, any biases in the designation. populations across the range of the that may have been introduced into the Comment (13): One reviewer asked species. In terms of identifying critical process from the use of a females-only whether foraging habitat was considered

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71994 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

separately from nesting/roosting habitat results from demographic studies, resulting models using both cross- in the Step 1 modeling, or if suitable where l is estimated as an annual validation and independent data sets. habitat was modeled as nesting/ interval. Based on the results of our evaluations, roosting/foraging? Our Response: Our use and estimate we disagree that our models are overfit. Our Response: Foraging habitat was of the finite rate of population change We have clarified the procedures used separate from nesting/roosting habitat, was not intended to be compared to and results of model testing in the final as explained in Appendix C to the estimates from demographic study areas Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern or the meta-analysis (e.g., Forsman et al. 2012b). MaxEnt is designed to reduce Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, p. C–24). 2011). We used lambda as one basis for the effects of the potential model over- Comment (14): One reviewer noted a comparison between the various fitting through its use of regularization. potential failure to acknowledge the alternative potential critical habitat The main consequence of overfitting importance of winter migration behavior networks considered to determine what that we wished to guard against was that to spatial and habitat requirements of is essential to the conservation of the of having models so tightly fit to the territorial northern spotted owls. northern spotted owl, using different training data that they were not Our Response: We attempted to assumptions related to the barred owl generalizable (i.e., that they did not incorporate some degree of winter and the amount of suitable habitat. work well at classifying test data or data habitat requirements by using annual Thus, our use of lambda at 10-year that did not contribute to the model’s home ranges in HexSim. To our intervals was appropriate for our development). Our extensive cross- knowledge, the data we could use in intended use of relative population validation (randomly removing 25 HexSim to incorporate broader performance between habitat scenarios percent of the data, each of 10 times movements does not exist throughout under consideration. within each modeling region) and the northern spotted owl’s range. To the Comment (17): One reviewer evaluation of each model’s full and extent that northern spotted owls move indicated that one aspect that seemed to cross-validated performance revealed away from their territories during the be lacking in the designation of critical that the models were not overfit (see nonbreeding period, and if habitat use habitat was whether the model correctly Table C–16). Furthermore, where we differs appreciably in the breeding predicted areas currently occupied by had adequate independent data, the season and nonbreeding season, it is northern spotted owls based on relative models performed almost identically on possible that our approach did not habitat suitability. The reviewer them as on the training data (see Table include all areas that may be important suggested that one way to accomplish C–17). We share the reviewers concerns to northern spotted owls. However, we this would be to examine the spatial with overfitting models, and we directly are unaware of a consistent distribution of critical habitat in relation evaluated whether the consequences of methodology that we could use to to the existing demographic study areas overfitting were realized and found that overcome this potential shortcoming. and other areas with a history of surveys they were not. Thus, the conclusions on Comment (15): One reviewer for northern spotted owls. page C–41 of the Revised Recovery Plan requested that we consider the effects of Our Response: To evaluate how well fire in the modeling process used to the modeling process identified areas (USFWS 2011) under ‘‘Model evaluation define critical habitat, and how critical likely to be occupied by northern summary’’ remain valid. habitat should be protected from the spotted owls, we tested the predictive Comment (19): Some reviewers and effects of fire. ability of the model by comparing our commenters suggested that the GNN Our Response: Our process RHS model outputs with the database used to develop the relative incorporated several different possible distribution of known northern spotted habitat suitability (RHS) map is vegetation growth and loss scenarios, owl locations (independent data sets) inappropriate for use in designating and modeled a variety of potential from the years 1996 and 2006, and in critical habitat because it does not northern spotted owl responses to both cases found a high predictive depict what actual vegetative differing management strategies. These accuracy. The results of this comparison components exist on the ground but is scenarios were based on observed rates are presented on pages C–38 to C–41 in a computer simulation of what might of habitat change measured between Appendix C of the Revised Recovery exist. The reviewer stated that since the 1996 and 2006. As such, they Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl base vegetation layer does not incorporate habitat loss to fire and other (USFWS 2011). accurately represent stand conditions on causes, and project it into the future as Comment (18): One reviewer the ground, it is impossible to show a rate of change. We considered indicated that the models are likely to what stands contain PCEs and which do explicitly modeling fire probabilities be ‘‘overfit’’ (an overfit model that is not. Several reviewers suggested that a and fire effects into the scenarios, but overly sensitive to small fluctuations in formal accuracy assessment of the GNN the complexity and high degree of data inputs, and will consequently have data is needed and suggested that model uncertainty made this unfeasible. poor predictive results), even though predictions of habitat conditions should Incorporating fire impacts would have cross-validation results by modeling be verified. One reviewer indicated that had a similar proportional effect to the region showed that all models were inaccuracies in the GNN database relative outputs of each modeled relatively robust to prediction (Table probably led to errors with MaxEnt scenario, thereby not elucidating real C19, Revised Recovery Plan for the predictions of owl distributions. The differences between the effectiveness of Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011)). reviewer suggested that there is little the modeled scenarios. The question of The reviewer indicated that this point science to support the assumptions that protecting critical habitat from the needs to be more clearly disclosed. GNN data for vegetative variables effects of fire is beyond the scope of this Several commenters expressed concern believed to be important to northern rulemaking. about the number of covariates in the spotted owls were equally accurate Comment (16): One reviewer RHS models, and the potential for across modeling regions, and there is suggested that estimating the rate of overfitting. little certainty that relevant processes population change (l, or lambda) at 10- Our Response: We carefully evaluated were sufficiently captured so as to year intervals makes interpretation more the modeling procedures we used to reliably predict owl population difficult, especially with respect to the identify spotted owl habitat and test the performance. The reviewer further

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71995

claims the Service did not assess the etc.) and modeled relationships between Our primary objective in Step 1 of the accuracy of the GNN data. Finally, the plots and predictor variables from modeling process was to develop reviewer states that Dr. Larry Irwin, Landsat thematic mapper imagery, MaxEnt models that perform well at National Council for Air and Stream climatic variables, topographic predicting northern spotted owl habitat Improvement (NCASI) conducted an variables, and soil parent materials. by developing models that had good analysis of how well the GNN–LT data The GNN maps come with a large discrimination ability, were well correlated with actual measurements on suite of diagnostics detailing map calibrated, were robust, and had good the ground, and concluded that there is quality and accuracy; these are generality. Our detailed evaluations of a very low correlation between GNN–LT contained in model region-specific model performance, cross-validation, predictions and reality. Further, the accuracy assessment reports available at and comparison with independent data reviewer states that GNN–LT was the LEMMA Web site (http:// sets (described in pages C–30 to C–41 in developed for mid- to large-scale spatial www.fsl.orstu.edu/lemma/). Accuracy Appendix C of the Revised Recovery analysis, not the designation of critical assessments apply to the GNN model(s), Plan) demonstrate that at the scale habitat. rather than the satellite imagery. We MaxEnt models were developed and Our Response: We concur that the provide Pearson correlation coefficients evaluated, we met these objectives. RHS models and subsequent modeling of GNN structural variables used in Acknowledging that all vegetation steps are dependent on the reliability of Table C–1 of the Revised Recovery Plan databases will exhibit some degree of the GNN vegetation layer. A description (USFWS 2011, pp. C–18 to C–19), and error, if the GNN layer was inadequate of our use of GNN and accuracy local accuracy assessments (kappa for predicting northern spotted owl assessments for the GNN variables used coefficients) for individual species’ habitat, we would not expect the in our RHS models are presented in variables in Table C–2. For developing reliable predictive models that we detail on pages C–16 to C–19 of the models of northern spotted owl habitat, obtained. Thus, as described above, Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern we generally selected GNN structural given our data needs, we believe the Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011). Based on variables with plot correlation GNN database represents the best our data needs, these accuracy coefficients greater than 0.5 for an available information for the purposes assessments, and independent individual modeling region (42 percent of identifying critical habitat for the verification of the performance of GNN had correlation coefficients greater than northern spotted owl. We are unaware estimates, we have determined that 0.7). On a few occasions when expert of any alternative existing scientific GNN represents the best scientific opinion or research results suggested a information, and no viable suggestions information available for habitat particular variable might be important, were offered by reviewers or modeling throughout the range of the we used variables with plot correlations commenters. northern spotted owl. Comment (20): One reviewer from 0.31 to 0.5. For species As described in detail in Appendix C, indicated that inaccuracies in the GNN composition variables, we attempted to we selected the GNN vegetation database and inherent problems with use only variables with kappas greater database for a number of reasons; most MaxEnt probably led to errors with than 0.3. However, because we importantly it is the layer developed for MaxEnt predictions of owl distributions. combined species’ variables into groups use in the Northwest Forest Plan The reviewer suggested that there is that expert opinion and research monitoring program. In addition, it is little science to support the assumptions the only vegetation layer available that suggested may represent influent that GNN data for vegetative variables covers all land ownerships across the community types, we occasionally believed to be important to northern entire range of the northern spotted owl. accepted variables with kappas greater spotted owls were equally accurate Past efforts to model, map, and quantify than 0.2 and less than 0.3 for individual across modeling regions, and there is habitat selection by northern spotted variables within a group. little certainty that relevant processes owls at regional scales have often The GNN vegetation database was were sufficiently captured so as to suffered from lack of important specifically developed for mid-to large- reliably predict owl population vegetation variables, inadequate spatial scale spatial analysis, suggesting that performance. coverage, or coarse resolution of accuracies at the 30-m pixel scale may Our Response: As noted earlier, no available vegetation databases (Davis be less influential to results obtained at vegetation database will be free of error; and Lint 2005). To develop rangewide larger scales. Because we were the important question is whether the models of relative habitat suitability for interested in the utility of GNN at our database used is accurate enough to northern spotted owls, we required analysis area (500 ac (200 ha)) spatial support the intended analysis maps of forest composition and scale, we additionally conducted less objectives. We acknowledge that there structure of sufficient accuracy to allow formal assessments where we compared may be some errors in the GNN discrimination of attributes used for the distribution of GNN variable values database, yet the MaxEnt models we nesting, roosting, and foraging by at a large sample of actual locations developed performed very well at northern spotted owls (the essential (known northern spotted owl nest sites predicting habitat suitability for physical or biological features). GNN, and foraging sites) to published northern spotted owls (one would not developed for the NWFP’s effectiveness estimates of those variables at the same expect reliable predictive models if the monitoring program, provides detailed scale. In addition, we received underlying databases were highly maps of forest composition and comparisons of GNN maps to a number inaccurate—one would expect poorly structural attributes for all lands within of local plot-based vegetation maps performing models). Our evaluation of the NWFP area (coextensive with the prepared by various field personnel. the MaxEnt models developed indicate range of the northern spotted owl). Based on these informal evaluations, we that the models for all modeling regions Although the GNN approach is a determined that GNN represents a were well calibrated and showed quite method for predictive vegetation dramatic improvement over past similar patterns in terms of strength of mapping, it is based on input of vegetation databases used for modeling selection (Figure C–5, USFWS 2011). empirical forest attribute data from and evaluating northern spotted owl Cross-validation results showed that all inventory plots (Forest Inventory and habitat, and used GNN maps as the models were robust (i.e., equally Analysis, current vegetation analysis, vegetation data for our habitat modeling. accurate when applied to different

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71996 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

subsets of the spotted owl sample; between our habitat modeling and the environmental conditions for optimal USFWS 2011, Table C–19), and identification of PCEs for the northern population performance among comparison of model results with spotted owl. We did not use the habitat northern spotted owls. independent test data showed the modeling to define the PCEs for the Our Response: Our models were models had good ability to predict species. As stated in the proposed rule developed to identify areas likely known northern spotted owl locations (March 8, 2012; 77 FR 14062, p. 14082), occupied at the time of listing based on (USFWS 2011, Table C–20). Overall, and reiterated in this rule, the physical relative habitat suitability (RHS), not to these evaluations suggest our models of or biological features essential to the identify areas that do not contain owls. relative habitat suitability were robust conservation of the species (and Furthermore, the presence of owls on and have good generality (are good at associated primary constituent elements territories can vary across space and predicting northern spotted owl habitat (PCEs)) of critical habitat for the time. There any many possible reasons in areas other than areas that provided northern spotted owl, are identified that an organism (northern spotted owl the data for development of the model). based on ‘‘* * * studies of the habitat, in this case) may not occupy apparently As detailed in our response to 0 based ecology, and life history of the species suitable habitat for a period of time (e.g., on our data needs, accuracy as described in the final listing rule death, competition, population is not at assessments, and independent published in the Federal Register on equilibrium with its environment). We verification, amongst other information, June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114), the did not use the RHS values to predict we believe the GNN database represents Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern the number of years a site would be the best available scientific data for our Spotted Owl released on June 30, 2011, occupied or the reproductive rates at purposes. the Background section of this proposal, territories. The RHS layers we We are uncertain about what and the following information.’’ The developed have been subjected to ‘‘inherent problems with MaxEnt’’ the following section of the proposed rule, rigorous cross-validation and testing reviewer may be referring to; MaxEnt titled Physical or Biological Features, with independent data, as explained in has been thoroughly evaluated in the provided an expansive discussion of the Appendix C of the Revised Recovery scientific literature and found to scientific basis for the identification of Plan (USFWS 2011). Our assessment of perform very well for predicting species the essential physical or biological the estimated on-the-ground conditions distributions and habitat suitability. features of critical habitat for the at high, intermediate, and low RHS Peer-reviewed papers by Elith et al. northern spotted owl, accompanied by values corresponds very closely to the (2006), Wisz et al. (2008), Graham et al. numerous supporting citations from the published literature on northern spotted (2008), Phillips et al. (2009), and scientific literature, which informed our owl habitat use and selection, thus Willems and Hill (2009) all compared description of the PCEs. The modeling addressing (b). See also our responses to MaxEnt to other modeling tools on was not used to describe the PCEs of Comments (19), (20), and (21), among identical data sets (sometimes hundreds critical habitat; rather, it was used to others. Comment (23): One reviewer stated of species), sample sizes, and identify the areas most likely to contain that comparisons with other evaluations geographic areas. MaxEnt always the PCEs and the areas most likely to of northern spotted owl habitat performed very well and was have been occupied by northern spotted demonstrate the flaws in the modeling. consistently a top-performing model. owls based on habitat suitability at the In comparison with NWFP land use Based on the accurate performance of time of listing, as well as identify the allocations, the modeling process the model and the thorough, specific areas essential to the independent scientific evaluations of includes 2.7 million ac (1.1 million ha) conservation of the species. This is an MaxEnt on a number of taxa, geographic of lands that, up until now, had not important distinction. The habitat regions, and sample sizes, we believe been viewed as being needed for the models were constructed from a we have utilized the best available recovery of the spotted owl. Overlaying rigorous assessment of current scientific information to model habitat the proposed critical habitat designation knowledge of the physical and suitability for the northern spotted owl. with USDA Pacific Northwest Research biological features that influence We note that 13 out of the 15 peer Station’s 2011 data on old growth northern spotted owl habitat suitability, reviewers agreed that the use of MaxEnt forests shows that only 36 percent of and are supported by a solid scientific was appropriate for our purposes. proposed critical habitat comprises late- Comment (21): One reviewer stated basis. We recognize that there may have successional old growth forest. that although the Service claimed in the been some poorly worded statements in Overlaying the proposed designation proposed rule that the modeling process the proposed rule that led to some with USDA Pacific Northwest Research defined areas that contain the physical confusion regarding the intersection of Station’s 2011 report allocating spotted and biological features essential for the PCEs and the modeling framework. owl habitat into unsuitable, marginal, conservation of the species, that in We have clarified the language in this suitable and highly suitable shows that reality MaxEnt provides no scientific final rule to make it clear that we did 50 percent of proposed critical habitat is support for the PCEs described in the not use models to define the PCEs for either unsuitable or marginal habitat, proposed rule, and the proposed rule the northern spotted owl, but that we and only 24 percent of the acres are cites no other scientific basis for them. used the PCEs to develop maps of classified as highly suitable. The reviewer indicates that MaxEnt relative habitat suitability across the Our Response: The designation of simply ranks pixels in an area based on range of the northern spotted owl as one critical habitat is guided by the statutory the ‘‘best’’ habitat definition supplied to step in the identification of critical language of the Act, and is highly it, and that the habitat definitions habitat for the species. species-specific in terms of its direction chosen by MaxEnt do not represent Comment (22): One reviewer to identify specific areas that provide what the spotted owl needs and do not recommended that the Service: (a) the physical or biological features delineate the physical or biological evaluate the rate at which MaxEnt may essential to the conservation of the features essential for the conservation of misclassify locations that do not contain listed species in question—in this case, the species. spotted owls; and (b) provide evidence the northern spotted owl. Late- Our Response: The comment that MaxEnt accurately incorporates the successional reserves under the NWFP, mischaracterizes the relationship factors that reflect the best on the other hand, were established for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71997

the conservation of multiple species of above, we disagree with the statement planning model (Zonation), thus the varying taxa (birds, mammals, that such comparison demonstrate flaws presence of PCEs is the foundation of amphibians, fishes, etc.) and, in some in our modeling. the entire habitat modeling framework, areas, encompass forest types not used Comment (24): One reviewer stated and is fundamental to our identification by northern spotted owls. For these that the Zonation model was not of critical habitat for the northern reasons, the comparison of critical designed to develop a conservation spotted owl. We used Zonation to habitat with NWFP land use allocations network and that this model does not provide a series of alternative networks is inappropriate, because they are make a judgment as to what is essential that were then compared in terms of intended to serve different purposes. for the conservation of the species. As relative simulated spotted owl The 2.7 million ac (1.1 million ha) of characterized by the reviewer, Zonation population performance (using lands the reviewer refers to are does not use the presence or absence of HexSim). After comparing a wide range presumably the congressionally PCEs as input so it does not show where of Zonation-derived scenarios, the top- reserved natural areas (wilderness areas the PCEs are essential. According to the performing alternatives for each reviewer, what it does is take the and national parks) that are now modeling region were assembled into relative habitat suitability index of the excluded in this designation. These composite maps for further evaluation MaxEnt model (which itself does not lands have consistently been viewed as in HexSim. Development of composite essential to the recovery of the northern depict the presence or absence of PCEs), further smooth them by assigning new maps also involved modification of spotted owl since the species was listed. reserve designs based on expert opinion However, they were not included in values at the home range size of 3,424 ac, (1,386 ha) and determines how little and policy. In many modeling regions, previous designations due to our the proposed critical habitat deviates interpretation of the definition of land is required to capture some percent of habitat values based on the substantially from the strictly Zonation- critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of derived reserve designs, because use of the Act at that time and because their parameters provided by the Service. It does this by removing the areas with the the modeling was only one step in the current classification and management process of identifying critical habitat. was deemed adequate to meet northern lowest habitat values first until the Finally, the Service verified that the spotted owl conservation goals. A specified percentage of the habitat resulting proposed critical habitat met primary purpose of these values are left. The reviewer contends the statutory criteria of critical habitat congressionally reserved natural areas is that the Service used Zonation outputs by evaluating the proportion of to conserve natural systems, including that captured 70 percent of the habitat proposed critical habitat that was threatened and endangered species and values as the basis for the proposed occupied by known northern spotted their habitats, including the northern revision of critical habitat, and that this owl home ranges at the time of listing spotted owl. These areas are managed in no way supports the premise that and that provides the essential physical consistent with the conservation of the these areas are essential for the or biological features, and by evaluating northern spotted owl, and we could find conservation of the species. The any areas that may have been no benefit of inclusion that would reviewer claims that Zonation only outweigh the potential administrative shows a computer’s calculation of the unoccupied at the time of listing to costs associated with the designation of minimum amount of land needed to determine whether they are essential to critical habitat on these lands. encompass 70 percent of the habitat the conservation of the species. In value, which is a purely artificial data addition, to address any uncertainty Based on our modeling process, we point created from smoothed indices of regarding occupancy, we evaluated all found that northern spotted owl a relative habitat suitability index based of the critical habitat under the higher population performance under a habitat on biased spotted owl locations overlaid standard of section 3(5)(a)(ii) of the Act. network represented by the 1994 NWFP on a hypothetical landscape using Please see Criteria Used to Identify was relatively poor compared with conglomerated data. The reviewer states Critical Habitat for further information. several other reserve designs (Dunk et there is no way to determine if the areas Comment (25): One reviewer stated al. 2012b). This result is not surprising captured by these solutions actually that the process used by the Service to considering the influence of barred owls contain the PCEs, and the Service has define what constitutes nesting, and continued habitat loss to wildfire. no idea how accurate the model is in roosting, and foraging habitats in the Similarly, the results of this predicting use by spotted owls. commenter’s comparison of proposed Our Response: We disagree with the proposed rule produced results in critical habitat to maps of old growth reviewer’s statement in that it staggering differences compared to forest and the nesting habitat model mischaracterizes the intended purpose historical definitions. According to this from the 2011 NWFP monitoring report of Zonation, the way the model works, reviewer, not only are they totally would be anticipated, because the and how the Service used it. The different from what has been viewed as NWFP models represent only a portion Zonation model was designed valid definitions for almost 20 years, but of the habitat elements and spatial specifically for the purpose of they are also totally unrecognizable on extent used by northern spotted owls. In developing conservation networks the ground. The reviewer claims the particular, the classification of habitat (Moilanen and Kojala 2008). However, proposed rule utilizes habitat into unsuitable, marginal, suitable, and we did not simply employ the Zonation definitions derived from analysis of the highly suitable pertains only to forest model to provide a critical habitat hypothetical GNN–LT vegetation layer structure used for nesting at the pixel network. As described in our response coupled with abiotic factors, which only scale, whereas our models are based on to Comment (21), and as detailed at make sense in computer modeling. The landscape-level habitat selection and length in our Modeling Supplement reviewer states that MaxEnt does not incorporate the broader array of habitats (Dunk et al. 2012b), we used the PCEs use these definitions to identify NRF used by northern spotted owls for the northern spotted owl to develop (nesting/roosting/foraging) habitat but (including non-old growth). We believe maps of relative habitat suitability for rather assigns an RHS value based on the commenter is attempting to make the species across its range; this step how many of the factors are present. ‘‘apples and oranges’’ type comparisons then informed the development of the Finally, the reviewer says that the of habitat, and for the reasons described spotted owl habitat conservation Service claims to be using these factors

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 71998 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

to determine if stands contain the PCEs of reserve design alternatives that were with the predictions. The reviewer when, in fact, they do not. subsequently tested in HexSim. claims this wipes out all the actual Our Response: We are unsure of the Appendix C and Dunk et al. (2012b) stands that might actually be used by basis for this comment, since the provide ample evidence that all of the spotted owls and instead assigns each definitions of nesting, roosting (NR) and composites contain the physical and pixel a conglomerate value for each foraging (F) habitats used in this critical biological features used by the owl; habitat variable based on averages. habitat rule are very similar to comparison of HexSim results is the Therefore, the reviewer asserts there are definitions used in past assessments, process by which the Service evaluates many areas that do not contain the including previous designations of what amount and distribution of these PCEs. critical habitat for the northern spotted features is essential to the conservation Our Response: This comment owl, and the definitions we use are of the northern spotted owl. As stated in mischaracterizes the method used to based primarily on the information our proposed rule, this final rule, and in evaluate habitat quality, and the basic found in the published scientific Dunk et al. 2012b, we assessed various definition of habitat for northern spotted literature. In fact, all NR and F models composites by comparing the relative owls. As described in Appendix C of the tested were derived from literature (emphasis added) performance of Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011), reviews and expert opinion, including various habitat scenarios. That is, we habitat suitability consists of several input from timber industry scientists used metrics such as relative differences factors including, but not limited to, the and managers. The relative habitat in extinction risk and population size actual forest ‘‘stands’’ used by owls. Our suitability models incorporate these NR (which include upper and lower relative habitat suitability models are and F definitions (submodels), as well confidence intervals) to evaluate the based on the amount, edge, and core of as broader environmental features such ability of different composites to actual stands classified as nesting/ as elevation and slope position, that are achieve recovery objectives for the roosting habitat and amount of foraging also well-described in the northern northern spotted owl. In fact, we habitat; i.e., the PCEs identified in this spotted owl literature. The remainder of expressly stated ‘‘simulations from these rule. We therefore do not ‘‘wipe out’’ the the comment mischaracterizes our models are not meant to be estimates of actual stands as suggested by the habitat suitability modeling; a thorough what will occur in the future, but rather reviewer, but rather measure their explanation of that modeling is found in provide information on trends predicted relative importance given additional Appendix C of the Revised Recovery to occur under different network landscape features such as elevation and Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl designs’’ (March 8, 2012; 77 FR 14062, slope position. This allowed us to better (USFWS 2011). In addition, please see p. 14097). There were statistically identify the landscape features where our response to Comment (19) for significant differences in population owls could establish a viable territory. details on how the PCEs were defined performance, both at the modeling Simply mapping out ‘‘the actual stands and incorporated into the process of region and range-wide scales among our that might be used’’ would have mapping RHS. composites (see Appendix C, USFWS provided a highly fragmented habitat Comment (26): One reviewer stated 2011 and the Modeling Supplement network consisting of many ‘‘stands’’ that the Service modified input (Dunk et al. 2012b) for additional not likely to be used by spotted owls. variables given to HexSim to produce details). We therefore disagree with the The comment also ignores the fact that ‘‘composites,’’ and the Service cannot commenter’s claims about misuse of we extensively tested the RHS model show that these contain the PCEs and modeling data and best available and found it accurately predicts spotted that they are essential, and there is no science. owl habitat, and we evaluated the statistical difference between the Comment (27): One reviewer stated proposed critical habitat network and different composites. By only displaying that the boundaries of the proposed found that the areas proposed were mean values, the reviewer claims the revision of critical habitat are predominantly occupied by known Service creates a false appearance that impossible to identify on the ground. spotted owl sites at the time of listing. the difference between these They can only be defined by use of See also our responses to Comment (19) alternatives is real. The Service does not global positioning satellite receivers that through Comment (24). show that the differences result in any have had the boundaries created by the Comment (29): One reviewer stated real difference in achieving recovery Zonation computer model inputted to that Phase 1 results suggested that the objectives, they merely state it as a them. Redwood Coast modeling region was matter of fact. This is a misuse of Our Response: Critical habitat is among the most stable, but questioned modeling data, the reviewer states, and defined by the features as discussed in how this could be when there are very not best available science. this final critical habitat designation and few remaining northern spotted owls in Our Response: This comment shown on accompanying maps. Specific Redwood National Park, where barred misunderstands the process used to coordinates and descriptions that define owls are now the predominate species. develop composite maps, and the the boundaries of critical habitat are The reviewer states this was also not subsequent comparison of HexSim available online at http://www.fws.gov/ reflected in the Phase 2 modeling results results. Composite maps are maps oregonfwo, at http:// (Table 6) (Dunk et al. 2012a). where different reserve designs were www.regulations.gov at Docket No. Our Response: We obtained recent selected for each modeling region based [FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112], and from the (2006) verified northern spotted owl on their ability to achieve recovery Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see location data from many sources in the goals. These region-specific designs FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT); Redwood Coast modeling region. These were combined across the range of the maps are available online at http:// data strongly suggest that the high owl to create a ‘‘composite map.’’ We criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/. densities of barred owls observed within evaluated composite maps in an Comment (28): One reviewer states Redwood National Park are not iterative manner to identify the design that the Service did not use pixel by occurring in the remainder of the that best met recovery goals and our pixel data, but conglomerated the pixel modeling region, where large numbers guiding principles. Composites were not data into indices that represent the 500- of northern spotted owl territories created by modifying HexSim input ac (200-ha) circle around each pixel, persist. We therefore used demographic variables; rather, they represent a range which increased the error associated data from the Green Diamond

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71999

monitoring study to parameterize (put or 95 percent confidence intervals. of exceeding pseudo-extinction variables into) HexSim for the region. Otherwise, the reviewer states, it is threshold X.’’ Comment (30): One reviewer difficult to determine how precise these Comment (36): One reviewer noted suggested that we include an appendix estimates were, especially when that model results showed that the that shows each of the decision points comparing different scenarios. barred owl encounter rate can have a in the development of the proposed Our Response: We agree, and this was disproportionately large influence on critical habitat network in systematic an oversight that we have corrected in persistence outcomes of the HexSim detail, and suggested this would be an the final version of our Modeling model. The reviewer states that the adequate remedy and make the entire Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b). Service evaluated four barred owl modeling process open and transparent, Comment (33): One reviewer thought scenarios (Dunk et al. 2012a), but none and repeatable by persons external to more could have been done to evaluate of these considered the more critical this process. uncertainty in the original habitat survival parameter and the major Our Response: We attempted to make suitability models by running replicate reductions in adult survival that barred explicit the key assumptions and samples in MaxEnt and then capturing owls generate in the model. Thus, the decision points used in the modeling the range of variation in resulting reviewer states that one is unable to process, and the guiding principles we habitat designations. assess the relative contributions of followed for application of professional Our Response: Table C–19 in barred owl encounter rates versus judgment in refining reserve networks Appendix C of the Revised Recovery barred owl survival reductions to were included in the proposed rule. Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl persistence of simulated northern Much of what the reviewer asks for is (USFWS 2011) presents results from the spotted owl populations. presented in Appendix C of the Revised cross-validation results, in terms of Our Response: In the northern spotted Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted performance differences between owl HexSim model we used, barred Owl (USFWS 2011). In addition, we models based on replicate samples. owls only affected northern spotted owl have tried to make assumptions and Those results showed that there was survival, not occupancy or decision points more explicit in our very little difference between the reproduction. Thus, the impact of final Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al. performance of the models when barred owls in HexSim results is only 2012b) that is available to the public at replicate samples were evaluated, giving from their reduction of northern spotted http://www.regulations.gov. us confidence in the generality of our owl survival. Based on advice we Comment (31): One reviewer model (that is, the model worked obtained from species experts, we suggested that a major flaw in the reliably well across a range of situations limited barred owl impacts on northern modeling is that the habitat is held tested). spotted owls to survival alone. We did constant for 350 years and any area with Comment (34): One reviewer not simulate barred owl impacts on an RHS value less than 35 is assumed requested additional sensitivity analysis reproduction, territory establishment, to be non-habitat. The reviewer states to quantify the influence of different site fidelity, or movement behavior. We that by holding the habitat constant and parameter settings within HexSim on also did not simulate barred owl not allowing it to grow, the Service modeled population performance, predation on northern spotted owl greatly overestimates the amount of land which would have been particularly nestlings. This recommendation (to needed to reach relative population useful for evaluating the implications of simulate barred owl impacts only on levels. The reviewer claims this also scientific uncertainty. northern spotted owl survival) was a results in a double standard for areas Our Response: We agree and in the reflection of limitations on rangewide currently classified by MaxEnt as having final Modeling Supplement (Dunk et al. data availability regarding these factors. low RHS values—in the modeling 2012b) we have incorporated the results Comment (37): One reviewer process they are excluded and not of sensitivity analyses conducted on suggested that we allow the barred owl allowed to grow into habitat, yet they nine HexSim parameters. effect in the HexSim model to vary with are included as critical habitat because Comment (35): One reviewer noted resource acquisition class. For example, the Service claims they will be that the original supplement on habitat the barred owl effect on survival might necessary for population growth. modeling that accompanied our be more severe when an owl is in the Our Response: The reviewer proposed rule (Dunk et al. 2012a) did ‘‘low’’ resource class but incrementally misunderstands the method we used to not report measures of variance in the reduced in the medium and high simulate habitat change through time. population estimates or pseudo- resource classes (i.e., as resources Habitat was not held constant during extinction thresholds used to compare become less limiting so do the negative the HexSim simulations; we measured habitat network scenarios. The reviewer effects of competition with barred owls). the rates of change in habitat quality noted that reporting standard errors or Our Response: Resource acquisition (RHS) between the 1996 and 2006 GNN ranges of those population estimates classes are a component of the HexSim layers and projected those rates into the would help in the comparison of the model. In the model, resources available future. This allowed for losses in habitat efficacy of different network designs. to an owl are a function of the mean quality caused by timber harvest, Our Response: Our failure to report RHS value of habitat within its home wildfires, and other causes as well as measures of variation in population range and fall into three categories: gains due to forest growth to occur estimates was an oversight that we have High, medium, or low (USFWS 2011, p. through time in a plausible fashion. corrected in the Modeling Supplement C–60). This is a good suggestion, and Because the remainder of this comment (Dunk et al. 2012b). The estimated could potentially help refine the is based on this faulty premise, the other extinction risk thresholds that we HexSim model for the northern spotted points in this comment are, in turn, reported were the total number of owl. It would not, however, improve the unfounded. simulations in which that threshold was model’s ability to identify those specific Comment (32): One reviewer noted exceeded (i.e., the population fell below areas that contain the physical or that throughout the modeling process, the extinction threshold). It would not biological features essential to the means of the response variables (e.g., be appropriate to provide measures of conservation of the northern spotted Table 8 of Dunk et al. 2012a) should be variation around these. The measure owl, or that are essential to the accompanied by either standard errors itself is interpreted as the ‘‘probability conservation of the species (section

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

3(5)(a) of the Act). The relative allowed us to discriminate between that the apparent sensitivity of the performance of various composite potential networks and isolate and HexSim model to the barred owl potential critical habitat networks evaluate the contribution of specific covariate indicates that barred owl would be unlikely to change if we were areas of habitat that are essential to the management will be the overriding to change the analysis as the reviewer conservation of the northern spotted factor in the success of critical habitat suggests, because the proposed change owl, as directed by the statute, was to being able to achieve the northern would affect all potential critical habitat adjust the encounter rates with barred spotted owl recovery goals. The networks in the same way. The relative owls to some reasonable level, as might reviewer suggested that if the Service performance of the habitat networks potentially be achieved through wants to capture uncertainty in this under consideration, which is what we management actions. This harkens back modeling exercise, the probability of were able to assess (as opposed to to our statement earlier that we do not controlling barred owl numbers should absolute outcomes), would therefore assume critical habitat will provide for be factored into the modeling process remain the same, and our ultimate the recovery of the species in a vacuum; based on logistical, ownership, and determination of the critical habitat rather, we must assume that other social factors. network that provides what is essential recovery actions will occur in Our Response: We agree with the to the conservation of the northern coincidence with the protections reviewer’s suggestions in theory. spotted owl in the most efficient design provided by critical habitat. We However, we are unaware of currently would be unchanged. assumed changes in barred owl available scientific information that Comment (38): One reviewer encounter probabilities in our would enable us to reliably estimate the suggested that modeling of habitat comparisons of potential critical habitat influence of ‘‘logistical, ownership, and networks should incorporate more networks that, in our judgment, social factors’’ on the probability of realistic encounter rates between represented changes that could effective barred owl control across the northern spotted owls and barred owls, realistically be achieved with range of the northern spotted owl (over so that estimates of sustainability of management aimed at reducing 50 million ac (20 million ha)). Lacking northern spotted owl populations are encounter rates (and without any such specific data, such exercise not overly optimistic. prescribing the nature of that would be arbitrary and speculative, and Our Response: As we have noted in management). In most cases, only would likely introduce greater both the proposed rule and this rule, the relatively modest changes to the uncertainty into the modeling. We designation of critical habitat is only currently estimated encounter appreciate that the reviewer recognizes one of many conservation actions that probabilities between barred owls and the sensitivity of the model to barred may contribute to the recovery of the northern spotted owls were required to owl encounter rates, and the reason why northern spotted owl. The designation allow us to discern the underlying we had to make slight adjustments to of critical habitat is intended to help differences between varying habitat those rates in some areas to identify address habitat-based threats to a listed network designs, and to enable the critical habitat for the northern spotted species; it is not expected to identification of the specific areas owl (see our response to Comment (38), independently lead to recovery absent essential to the conservation of the above). other actions to ameliorate additional, Comment (40): One reviewer species. In fact, for Phase 2 and 3 non-habitat based threats. We are also indicated that basing the demographic modeling (MaxEnt and HexSim; see bound, however, by the statutory trends on the last meta-analysis Dunk et al. 2012b for details), we definition of critical habitat, which (Forsman et al. 2011) is overly decreased barred owl encounter requires that we identify those areas that optimistic since these results are already probabilities in only 3 of 11 modeling provide the physical or biological badly outdated. The reviewer states that features essential to the conservation of regions, and increased encounter the last meta-analysis was conducted the species, or are otherwise essential (if probabilities in 8 of 11 modeling after the 2008 field season, with survival not occupied at the time of listing). The regions. The mean absolute value of rates estimated through 2007 and task of identifying where on the change (from currently estimated realized rate of population change landscape these essential areas lay was encounter probabilities to what we through 2006. The reviewer states that, complicated by the barred owl, a non- assumed in Phases 2 and 3) among according to personal communications habitat based threat. In some cases, the modeling regions was 0.081 (range = with researchers in other demographic negative influence of the barred owl on 0.005 (in the KLE) to 0.335 (in the study areas, many of the study areas the simulated performance of our OCR)). Our population performance shown as stable in the 2008 meta- modeled northern spotted owl results do not suggest that the habitat analysis are now in precipitous decline populations completely masked the scenarios considered were overly due to rapid increases in barred owl potential contribution of varying areas optimistic in regard to sustainability of populations. The reviewers suggests of relative habitat suitability, thus northern spotted owl populations (Dunk that, although it would only be rendering it impossible to determine et al. 2012b). qualitative, the Service could contact which specific areas provide the Comment (39): One reviewer the leads from the various northern essential physical or biological features. suggested incorporating the relative spotted owl demographic study areas to Our HexSim modeling suggested that if probability of controlling barred owls as see if there have been substantial barred owl encounter rates within each part of the designation of various critical changes in barred owl versus northern modeling region were to be maintained habitat units. The reviewer noted that to spotted owl numbers. at their currently estimated rates (from be able to assess habitat factors in the Our Response: This is a good point, Forsman et al. 2011), there was little modeling process, the barred owl effect and we heard similar comments from variation in northern spotted owl had to be set below known values in several field researchers and principal population performance among any of selected areas, suggesting that these investigators of the northern spotted owl the potential critical habitat networks designated critical habitat units will not demographic studies. In Step 3 of the (even doubling the size of the habitat contribute to northern spotted owl modeling process, we obtained the most network produced no discernible conservation in the absence of barred recent annual reports from the difference). The only avenue that owl control. The reviewer further stated demographic study areas and evaluated

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72001

the more recent estimates of barred owl uncertainty surrounding the specific of critical habitat because it enabled us densities, and included a scenario impacts of barred owls, and the analysis to evaluate numerous possible networks representing high barred owl densities in Appendix C of the Revised Recovery of habitat and compare simulated such as those described in this Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl population responses of northern comment. Because we used more recent further justify the need for an intensive spotted owls to environmental estimates of barred owl encounter rates, barred owl removal experiment to conditions in a spatially-explicit spotted owl population trends understand the overall impact that manner that enabled us to determine simulated in HexSim showed a more barred owls are having on northern those areas that meet the definition of rapid decline than that estimated in the spotted owls. critical habitat for the species. Our recent meta-analysis; this was especially Our Response: This point is well approach is detailed in the section evident in the Tyee demographic study taken by the Service. As the reviewer Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat, area. We therefore believe that our mentioned, ‘‘empirical information but in brief, the use of HexSim enabled modeling process incorporated the idea required for a realistic representation of us to evaluate which of the habitat expressed in this comment. barred owl interaction effects across the scenarios under consideration had the Comment (41): One reviewer range of the northern spotted owl is not greatest potential to meet the recovery indicated that bounding experiments available at this time.’’ The Service did objectives for the northern spotted owl, with HexSim are needed to suggest the evaluate several different barred owl based on relative population sort of spatial, temporal, and population encounter probabilities, which largely performance. controls that may be needed for the differed among the 11 modeling regions, To identify the areas that meet the barred owls to create a high likelihood but were identical within modeling definition of critical habitat for the of success for critical habitat. The regions. The modeling framework we northern spotted owl, we elected to use reviewer suggests the Service has thus used is capable of including a spatially a spatially explicit, individual-based far determined the barred owl encounter explicit barred owl effect, if such modeling approach. We did so because rates that were needed to achieve specific data should become available. we required an approach that enabled reasonably stable northern spotted owl Given the uncertainties about variation comparison of a wide range of spatially population dynamics. in barred owl impacts within modeling explicit conditions such as variation in Our Response: This is a good regions, it is possible that our modeling habitat conservation networks. suggestion, but not necessary to identify overestimated or underestimated Individual-based models allow for the lands meeting the definition of critical negative barred owl impacts. However, representation of ecological systems in a habitat. Because we evaluated northern because we used HexSim to compare manner consistent with the way spotted owl population performance relative population performance among ecologists view such systems as across a gradient of barred owl alternative potential critical habitat operating. That is, emergent properties encounter probabilities ranging from 0.0 networks, and used the best available such as population increases or declines to 0.7, our modeling already revealed estimates of barred owl effects, we are the result of a series of effects and that northern spotted owls are likely to believe the representation of barred owl interactions operating at the scale of do very poorly at high barred owl impacts we used allowed us to individuals. Individuals select habitat encounter probabilities. This provided a accurately evaluate which networks, on based on what is available to them, general understanding of the influence a comparative basis, best met the disperse as a function of their of various barred owl encounter rates objectives in our guiding principles for individual circumstance (age), compete and demonstrated the range of values identifying lands meeting the definition for resources, etc. (bounds) where population performance of critical habitat for the northern Grimm and Railsback (2005) noted that met recovery criteria was possible. spotted owl. that individual-based models need to be This is why we set 0.375 as a ceiling to Comment (43): One reviewer believed simple enough to be practical, but have barred owl encounter probabilities. The that the HexSim model was not an enough resolution to capture essential reviewer’s suggestion is more relevant to appropriate choice for this modeling structures and processes. We are the specifics of potential barred owl process because the reviewer indicated fortunate to have a tremendous quantity control efforts, such as have been it was overly complex, too individually and quality of data available for the recommended by the Revised Recovery based, and included variables where northern spotted owl; the species is Plan on an experimental basis (USFWS there was no, little, or very incomplete therefore ideally suited for a spatially- 2011). The Service is currently data, such as territory searching explicit, individual-based model, such considering such efforts and has behavior, and floater dynamics, etc. In as HexSim. While not developed published an environmental impact addition, the reviewer expressed specifically for the northern spotted statement on experimental barred owl skepticism that the modeling approach owl, HexSim (Schumaker 2011) was removal options. That is a separate used would be repeatable, because of its designed to simulate a population’s recovery effort, however, is not complexity. response to changing on-the-ground connected to this rulemaking. Our Response: We disagree. We have conditions by considering how those Comment (42): Several reviewers articulated our rationale for using the conditions influence an organism’s expressed concern that the way that HexSim model in Appendix C to the survival, reproduction, and ability to barred owl encounters were represented Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern move around a landscape. We in the model as homogeneous Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, pp. C–53– developed a HexSim spotted owl probabilistic reductions in northern C–56) and again in our Modeling scenario based on the most up-to date spotted owl survival may fail to capture Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b). We demographic data available on spotted important spatial patterns of interaction acknowledge that there are many owls (Forsman et al. 2011), published between the species within subregions, possible approaches to identifying and information on spotted owl dispersal and it may overestimate (one reviewer) evaluating alternative potential critical and home range sizes, as well as a or underestimate (second reviewer) the habitat networks. However, we contend variety of other parameters. Evaluation negative impacts of barred owls on that our approach represents the best and calibration of the HexSim output northern spotted owl population available science and is appropriate for included comparison with owl numbers persistence. The reviewers suggested the identifying areas meeting the definition in demographic study areas and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

dispersal histograms. Based on our techniques will take time, and will negative effects of these practices may assessment of the model, we are require continuation of the ongoing be further exacerbated by barred owls. confident it performs as intended, in dialogue between researchers and forest These reviewers were uneasy with such terms of allowing us to reliably assess management practitioners regarding types of activities occurring near owl the relative performance of alternative how to simultaneously meet the goals of territories, and recommended that if habitat conservation networks. We forest restoration and northern spotted conducted, these actions be done at further note that the majority of peer owl conservation. Coordination among small scales and be subject to rigorous reviewers supported the modeling research projects also will be essential scientific scrutiny. framework we applied in the to generating reliable information about Our Response: We are not identification of critical habitat for the diverse interactions as efficiently as recommending that commercial northern spotted owl. possible. thinning or other treatments be Comment (45): One reviewer and a conducted near active owl territories or Comments on Active Forest public comment suggested that the in good quality owl habitat. We also Management emphasis of management within encourage an active adaptive forest Comment (44): Five peer reviewers northern spotted owl critical habitat management approach to improve the and numerous public commenters should be on ecological restoration understanding about effects of indicated that active forest management rather than ecological forestry. ecological forestry approaches on should be conducted in areas that are Our Response: In general, in northern northern spotted owl, barred owls, and not currently high value for northern spotted owl critical habitat, we would other species of concern. spotted owls and in an adaptive like to see land managers consider Comment (47): Three reviewers management framework given the activities to restore and maintain recommended that we give full uncertainties regarding how such northern spotted owl habitat and the consideration to recent publications of management practices will impact natural ecological processes (e.g., fire Hessburg et al. (2007) and Baker (2012) northern spotted owls and their prey. regime, natural vegetational succession for guidance on how to restore and Our Response: The Service expects to patterns, etc.) of the owl’s forest manage dry forests in the eastern support and design, in concert with the ecosystems. However, we also recognize Cascades. BLM, USFS, and researchers, scientific that ecological restoration, in and of Our Response: Both this final critical studies on the effects of ecological itself, is often not the management goal habitat rule and the Revised Recovery forestry projects in northern spotted owl of all lands included in critical habitat. Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat, to gain a better This critical habitat rule does not dictate (USFWS 2011) cite Hessburg et al. understanding of the short-term and what land managers do on Federal State, (2007, p. 21), and we continue to long-term impacts of these silvicultural or private lands. However, in areas recommend land managers consider treatments on northern spotted owls, where land managers are considering their findings and recommendations their prey and forest vegetative competing land management goals (e.g., regarding dry forest management within structure. We are currently designing northern spotted owl habitat the range of the northern spotted owl. and funding just such a study through conservation vs. commercial timber Since publication of the proposed Oregon State University for the pilot harvest), we encourage them to consider critical habitat rule, we have reviewed project in the Middle Applegate an ecological forestry approach to better Baker (2012, entire) as well as many Watershed. We expect these types of meet the needs of the northern spotted other recently published studies research studies to inform the design of owl, the goals of the land managers, and addressing forest health and the risk of future ecological forestry projects within long-term forest health. As described in wildfire in the Pacific Northwest. We the range of the northern spotted owl. the Revised Recovery Plan for the acknowledge some of the conclusions of A key difference between using active Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011), Baker (2012, p. 21) and Williams and adaptive forest management to evaluate the field of ‘‘ecological forestry’’ is Baker (2012, p. 9) that portions of the risks associated with ecological forestry emerging as a dominant paradigm of dry forests of the Pacific Northwest and the Service’s ongoing efforts to forest management; related to this experienced high-severity fires as well address risks associated with expanding emergence are concepts such as ‘‘natural as mixed and low-severity fires. barred owl populations is that, for disturbance emulation’’ and ‘‘retention However, we also acknowledge the barred owls, a single experiment has the forestry’’ (see, e.g., Gustafsson et al. conclusions of many other researchers potential to address many of the most 2012, entire; Franklin et al. 2007, entire; that large areas within the range of the important uncertainties pertinent to Kuuluvainen and Grenfell 2012, entire; owl that once burned frequently with future management, allowing the North and Keeton 2008; Long 2009, low-moderate intensity regimes are Service to define a schedule for entire; Lindenmayer et al. 2012; entire). currently outside of historical progress. Addressing uncertainties The Service believes that application of conditions (cited below). A variety of about ecological forestry will likely these ecological forestry goals and management measures (e.g., prescribed require multiple research efforts, each principles, including those generally fire, mechanical treatment, etc.) can be tailored to specifics of different described in Johnson and Franklin considered in such areas where the goal geographic areas and different (2009, entire; 2012, entire), may result, is to influence wildfires to reduce ecological interactions. Collaboration in some situations, in fewer adverse adverse impacts of climate change, among programs, similar to the impacts to northern spotted owl critical manage forest carbon levels, reduce fire collaboration supporting long-term habitat when compared to application of severity and retain desirable forest demographic studies of northern spotted traditional silviculture as currently conditions (i.e., conserve older trees), or owls, will likely be needed to conduct applied or permitted on private, State, protect high-value wildlife habitats adaptive management studies of habitat and Federal matrix lands. (including northern spotted owls), treatments. Integrative initiatives, such Comment (46): Several reviewers riparian areas, and biodiversity (Davis et as the USFS’s Collaborative Forest commented that studies have al. 2012, entire; Stephens et al. 2009, Landscape Restoration Program, may demonstrated negative effects of forest p.310–318; Stephens et al. 2012a, p. 12; also play an important role. Adaptive thinning on northern spotted owls and Stephens et al. 2012b, entire; Chmura et management of ecological forestry their prey, and expressed concern that al. 2012, p. 1134; Syphard et al. 2011,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72003

p. 381; Safford et al. 2012, pp. 26–27; methods. The methods presented by Conservation of the Northern Spotted Roloff et al. 2012, pp. 7–9, Roberts et al. Johnson and Franklin (2009) are one Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat, 2011, p. 617, Messier et al. 2012, pp. example of how ecological forestry can Special Management Considerations or 67–70; Franklin et al. 2008, p. 46; Ager be applied. We recognize that there are Protections, and Determination of et al. 2007, pp. 53–55). a variety of approaches, and the best Adverse Effects and Application of the Such management considerations are management practices for any area are ‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard. completely consistent with the intent of highly dependent on site-specific Comment (52): There were a number the NWFP (Standards and Guidelines, p. conditions. of general comments about analysis of C–12—C–13). We continue to Comment (49): One reviewer fire risk and ecological benefits of recommend that land managers recommended a zoning process for contemporary fire regimes in dry and carefully distinguish and target areas determining where active management mixed-severity forests. that are high priority for ecological would be appropriate. Such a zoning Our Response: The issue of forest restoration (e.g., Franklin et al. 2008, p. process would include identification of health and fire risk in the Pacific 46; Schoennagel and Nelson 2011, areas where management is not needed Northwest is complex, and there is a entire; Ager et al. 2012, p. 280), and that or should be avoided, areas where wide variety of legitimate scientific they also minimize short-term impacts future habitat could be enhanced by viewpoints on forest management in the to northern spotted owls to the greatest treatment, and areas where management face of uncertainty. Although some possible extent. We suggest using a is needed to meet broader landscape scientists do not believe management process such as provided by Spies et al. goals. In addition, monitoring and intervention is appropriate and advocate (2012, entire) to help prioritize actions reporting of progress towards desired a mostly passive (i.e., hands-off) and consider tradeoffs such as northern goals is essential if this strategy is to be approach to forest ecosystem spotted owl conservation, restoration of successful. management, many others believe ecological conditions, and other land Our Response: The Service supports science-based intervention is necessary management goals. Given the wide the concept of land managers to restore and maintain important geographic area of this critical habitat identifying areas where active ecological processes and components of designation and the variety of landscape management would be appropriate on biodiversity, including the northern conditions and fire regimes, more the lands under their jurisdiction. spotted owl. precise planning and implementation However, it is not appropriate for this We agree with the majority of should be done at the appropriate critical habitat rule to attempt to do this; scientists who suggest that forest landscape scales such as the National it should be done by land managers ecosystems at global, national, and Forest scale, consistent with the goals of consistent with their planning regional levels are undergoing the Northwest Forest Plan. procedures. As the reviewer also significant changes due to climate Comment (48): One reviewer and a suggested, these details will need to be change and past management activities public comment recommended that the worked out at regional scales and (Collins et al. 2012, pp. 8–12; Miller et Johnson and Franklin (2009) ecological planning levels (see response to peer al., 2012, p. 201; Miller et al., 2009, p. forestry framework should not be used review comment 4, above). Several 28; Moritz et al. 2012, entire; Westerling because it is based on the wrong examples of strategies for prioritizing et al. 2011, p. S459; Marlon et al. 2012, reference framework. landscapes for management treatment in p. E541). Impacts from wildfire, changes Our Response: While we recognize eastern Washington include Davis et al. in precipitation, insect and invasive that there is some scientific (2012, entire) and Franklin et al. (2008, weed outbreaks, and forest disease disagreement about the specific pg. 46). appear to be increasing when compared ecological forestry practices Comment (50): One reviewer to historic patterns and are putting some recommended by Drs. Johnson and encouraged the Service to recognize the components of native biodiversity at Franklin,we believe the commenters highly transient nature of grand fir on risk (Perry et al. 2011, p. 712). Although may have misinterpreted our references the eastern Cascades. some researchers disagree on the to this unpublished report. First, Our Response: We have recognized magnitude of these changes and what to Johnson and Franklin (2009) is only this in the rule. While we did not do about them (e.g., Hanson et al. 2009, referenced three times in the final explicitly identify all forest types in all p. 5; Baker 2012, p. 21; Williams and critical habitat rule: Once as a general regions, we have recognized the patchy Baker 2012, p. 9; Dillon et al. pp. 18– reference for ecological forestry, once in and transient nature of east Cascades 20), our review of the recent scientific relation to how active management is forests. literature found that most researchers generally not necessary to maintain old Comment (51): One reviewer asked believe that changes in wildfire growth conditions in moist forests, and that we identify which (specific) frequency, severity, and total burned again to highlight that alteration of fuel ecological processes will be enhanced area are occurring or are expected to loads in moist forest could have by management and how management varying degrees in the Pacific undesirable ecological consequences will be coordinated across large Northwest. Most of these researchers and thus should be discouraged. landscapes. recommend consideration of certain Second, we continue to encourage forest Our Response: We agree that types of active management responses to land managers to consider the additional guidance and coordination achieve goals such as increasing forest application of ecological forestry among management agencies would be resilience to climate change, conserving principles to their commercial timber helpful to coordinate landscape-level extant biodiversity, and reducing harvest (see response to peer review planning; however, such guidance and wildfire severity (e.g., Stephens et al. question 4a-c, above), and we believe coordination is beyond the scope of this 2009, pp. 316–318; Safford et al. 2012, that application of these principles in rulemaking. To the extent possible we pp. 26–27; Messier et al. 2012, p. 69; many instances may result in better have provided additional detail Hessburg et al. 2007, entire; Chmura et long-term ecological conditions for regarding restoration and management al. 2012, p. 1134; Stephens et al. 2012b, northern spotted owls and other forest of ecological processes in revisions to pp. 557–558; Fule et al. 2012, p. 76; wildlife when compared to the the following sections of this rule: An Halofsky et al., pp. 15–16; Reinhardt et application of traditional silviculture Ecosystem-based Approach to the al. 2008, pp. 2003–2004; Heyerdahl et

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72004 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

al. 2008, p. 47; Latta et al. 2010; Littell the specific areas that meet the benefits of including them. In addition, et al. 2009, pp. 1018–1019, Littell et al. definition of critical habitat for the exclusion of these lands will have no 2010, p. 154; Spies et al. 2010, entire). northern spotted owl. In addition, we negative conservation impact on their Several of these studies identify the identify those types of measures that future management and they will potential for degraded ecological promote the conservation of critical continue to function as intended for conditions and increased fire risk to habitat, identify special management spotted owl recovery. affect northern spotted owls (Buchanan measures that may be needed within Comment (57): The Bureau of Land 2009, pp. 114–115; Healey et al. 2008, critical habitat, and identify activities Management (BLM) and several public pp. 1117–1118; Roloff et al. 2012, pp. 8– that may affect or adversely modify commenters identified specific concerns 9; Ager et al. 2007, pp. 53–55; Ager et critical habitat. Our overall emphasis in with the proposed critical habitat maps, al. 2012, pp. 279–282; Franklin et al. this designation is clearly on the including revisions to land ownership 2009, p. 46; Kennedy and Wimberly maintenance and restoration of northern or management on both public and 2009, pp. 564–565). We recommend that spotted owl habitat, but we also provide private land, and questions regarding these issues related to active general guidance for consideration by the mapping scale and resolution. management in dry forests be land managers on what types of Several commenters submitted revised considered by Federal land managers as activities may affect northern spotted or corrected maps for the Service to they follow the direction on pages C–12 owl habitat and how to minimize the consider in developing the final rule. and C–13 of the Northwest Forest Plan adverse impacts of those activities. Our Response: We thank the Standards and Guidelines. Reference to the principles of ecological commenters for the information Comment (53): One reviewer forestry as a suggestion for land provided. We have replaced the NWFP recommended that the Service prepare a managers to consider is a scientifically ownership designations used on the draft environmental impact statement appropriate way to help achieve this proposed critical habitat map with an (DEIS) under NEPA with regard to goal, and is consistent with the updated BLM ownership map to correct active management in northern spotted recommendations of the Revised many errors. In cases where mapping owl critical habitat. Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted errors may have been made in our Our Response: This rule revises the Owl (USFWS 2011), as well as the proposed critical habitat, such errors critical habitat designation for the Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP were corrected. northern spotted owl by identifying (e.g., USDA and USDI 1994, p. A–1, Comment (58): The BLM requested we those specific areas that meet the Standards and Guidelines, pp. C–12, C– provide maximum clarity with regard to definition of critical habitat for the 13). the Act’s section 7 consultation process species. It does not take any action or Comment (55): A number of reviewers in an effort to reduce the cost and adopt any policy, plan, or program submitted line-specific edits and burden of the consultation process. related to active forest management. The revisions. Our Response: We have provided only effect of critical habitat is that Our Response: These revisions have background and information to help the Federal agencies must consult with the been made to the text, where Federal action agencies assess whether Service on their activities that may appropriate. their projects ‘‘may affect’’ proposed affect designated northern spotted owl northern spotted owl critical habitat, the Comments From Federal Agencies critical habitat, and our discussion of standard to determine whether active forest management is not Comment (56): The USFS and several consultation is required. If further intended in any way to prescribe or public commenters supported the clarification is needed, the Service is mandate the types of activities Federal inclusion of congressionally reserved glad to provide action agencies with agencies must submit for consultation. It areas including Wilderness Areas, technical assistance to help determine is provided only for Federal, State, National Parks, and similar lands for a whether or not their proposed action local, and private land managers to variety of reasons, including accurately has the potential to affect critical consider as they make decisions on the reflecting the area contributing toward habitat. management of forest land under their recovery, highlighting the conservation Comment (59): The BLM requested jurisdictions and through their normal value and role of this minimally additional clarification about how the processes. managed habitat, and to encourage proposed critical habitat sought to Comment (54): One reviewer barred owl and other needed ‘‘ensure sufficient spatial redundancy in criticized the proposed rule for management activities. Critical Habitat within each recovery promoting ecological forestry for Our Response: National parks, unit,’’ and the purpose and expectations economic and political reasons rather wilderness areas, and similar lands for these inclusions. than basing recommendations on sound provide large areas of high-quality Our Response: In the development of science. habitat for the northern spotted owl. All habitat conservation networks, the Our Response: We disagree. We have congressionally reserved lands (e.g., intent of spatial redundancy is to included a discussion of ecological wilderness areas, national parks) increase the likelihood that the network forestry principles because, in many proposed for designation have been and populations can sustain habitat instances, it may represent a reasonable excluded in this final designation of losses by inclusion of multiple and solid scientific approach to critical habitat. We agree that such areas populations unlikely to be affected by a managing forest ecosystems where play an important role in the single disturbance event. This is multiple—and sometimes competing— conservation of the northern spotted essential to the conservation of the management goals need to be reconciled owl under their current management. northern spotted owl because or accommodated (see, e.g., Gustafsson However, their current conservation disturbance events such as fire can et al. 2012, entire; Franklin et al. 2007, value is so great that we could not find potentially remove large areas of habitat entire; Kuuluvainen and Grenfell 2012, any minimal benefits of including them with negative consequences for northern entire; North and Keeton 2008, entire; in that outweighed the relatively minor spotted owls. Redundancy provides a Long 2009, entire; Lindenmayer et al. administrative costs of including them type of ‘‘emergency back-up’’ system to 2012, entire). Our primary goal in this in critical habitat, therefore the benefits sustain populations in the wake of such critical habitat designation is to identify of excluding them outweighed the events. While the modeling and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72005

evaluation process used by the Service Critical Habitat) to provide additional realized on actively-managed Federal did not formally analyze redundancy, suggestions regarding what management lands, since the regulatory effect of we incorporated spatial redundancy at actions may benefit northern spotted critical habitat is the requirement that two scales: By (1) making critical habitat owls and what actions are unlikely to do Federal agencies ensure that any actions subunits large enough to support so. Additional guidance is available in that they carry out, fund, or authorize multiple groups of owl sites; and (2) the Revised Recovery Plan for the do not destroy or adversely modify distributing multiple critical habitat Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011). designated critical habitat. In addition, subunits within a single geographic Comment (62): The Washington Federal agencies have a mandate under region. This was particularly the case in Department of Fish and Wildlife section 7(a)(1) of the Act to carry out the fire-prone Klamath and Eastern supported a coordinated and strategic programs for the conservation of Cascades portions of the range. management plan for dry forest endangered species and threatened Comment (60): The BLM provided landscapes and expressed a need for the species. For these reasons, we looked additional data and mapping layers as critical habitat rule to consider first to Federal lands for the critical well as an alternative approach for coordination to implement effective habitat essential to the conservation of designating critical habitat on public management, reduce conflict, and the northern spotted owl, as described lands. explore the possibility of Federal in the section Criteria Used to Identify Our Response: Through a series of funding for landscape strategies. Critical Habitat and supporting meetings and work sessions, the Service Our Response: The landscape methodology (Dunk et al. 2012b). has reviewed the materials provided by assessment approach for the East Section 3(5)(A) of the Act states that the BLM, and we evaluated and Cascades provides the best basis for critical habitat is defined as (1) the incorporated many of their suggested development of strategies to manage dry specific areas within the geographical changes, where appropriate and forest landscapes. Products of the area occupied by the species at the time consistent with our criteria for landscape assessment can be used to it was listed that provide the physical or identifying critical habitat, in describe the rationale for management biological features essential to the developing the final critical habitat actions. The Service is available to work conservation of the species and which designation. Based on BLM’s with land managers to assist in the may require special management suggestions, we removed relatively development and implementation of considerations or protection; and (2) small areas of lower quality habitat that landscape assessments, but this rule specific areas outside the geographical had been included in proposed critical does not mandate any specific area occupied by the species at the time habitat and added in relatively small management within the critical habitat it was listed, upon a determination by areas of high-quality habitat that network, which would be beyond the the Secretary that such areas are improved connectivity or created larger scope of this rulemaking. essential for the conservation of the habitat blocks. Comment (63): Several State and species. Further, section 4(b)(2) of the public commenters disagreed with the Comments From State Agencies Act mandates that such determinations need to include private lands (and in shall be made on the basis of the best Comment (61): Washington DFW some cases State lands) in the final rule scientific data available and after taking requested that the rule clarify the extent for a variety of reasons. The commenters into consideration the economic impact, to which management actions with did not provide specific information on the impact on national security, and any short-term negative impacts to northern any particular lands, but provided other relevant impact, of specifying any spotted owl habitat is consistent with general reasons that they thought the particular area as critical habitat. the recovery needs of the northern broad categories of private and State The language of the Act does not spotted owl, particularly in areas of lands should be excluded from the final restrict the designation of critical habitat Washington State where northern designation, including concerns of to specific land ownership such as spotted owl populations are greatly economic issues, uncertainty, private Federal lands; thus, lands of all depressed. land stewardship, added regulatory ownerships are considered if they meet Our Response: Each situation should burdens (including a disproportionate the definition of critical habitat. Areas be considered on a case-by-case basis, burden on small landowners), reduction may be excluded from the final but, generally, actions that have short- in land value, State land overlays, designation if the Secretary finds that term negative impacts may be consistent consistency with existing laws and the benefits of exclusion outweigh the with the recovery needs of northern policy, potential disincentives for benefits of inclusion under section spotted owl when the intent of the conservation or negative impacts to 4(b)(2) of the Act, or if we determine, action is (1) to improve long-term habitat, the need to maintain based on public comment or other conditions for the species or (2) to partnerships with landowners, the need information received following the improve the overall condition of the to develop incentives for conservation issuance of the proposed rule, that such ecosystem. It could be argued either that partnerships, the need to compensate areas do not meet the definition of where populations are greatly depressed for lack of land use, the need to focus critical habitat (for example, areas that there is more need for these actions or, protections on public lands, the lack of were occupied at the time of listing but conversely, that there is less flexibility notification of private landowners by do not provide the essential physical or to conduct these actions depending on the Service about the proposed rule, biological features, or areas that may not the specifics of the action and the concern that designation penalizes have been occupied at the time of listing habitat needs of the owl in that area. landowners who have retained suitable and were proposed for designation, but These are issues that must be addressed habitat, and a lack of need for or are not essential to the conservation of in consultation and through the level benefits from additional protections. the species). one team process; assessing that level of One commenter suggested that Congress As described in the proposed rule detail is beyond the scope of this intended the Federal agencies to acquire (March 8, 2012; 77 FR 14076, p. 14099), rulemaking. We have revised the rule any private or State lands that are we evaluated critical habitat scenarios (see section: An Ecosystem-based designated as critical habitat. that prioritized Federal lands first as Approach to the Conservation of the Our Response: We recognize that the well as scenarios without regard to land Northern Spotted Owl and Managing Its greatest benefit of critical habitat may be ownership in determining what is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

essential to the northern spotted owl. In activities. Identifying non-Federal lands (wilderness areas, national parks), State all cases, if the scenarios under that are essential to the conservation of parks, and private lands from the final consideration provided equal a species alerts State and local designation. Please see the Exclusions contribution to recovery, we chose the government agencies and private section of this document for details of scenario that prioritized publicly owned landowners to the value of habitat on the analyses that led to the exclusion of lands. State and private lands were their lands, and may promote these areas from the final designation. included only if they were essential to conservation partnerships. There is no Comment (65): Numerous State the conservation of the species (i.e., indication that Congress intended the commenters (CALFIRE, Oregon were determined to have been occupied Service to acquire all private and State Department of Forestry, Washington at the time of listing and contain the property that is essential to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, physical or biological features essential conservation of listed species and Washington Department of Natural to northern spotted owl conservation or designated as critical habitat. Resources), Federal (USFS, BLM), and may have been unoccupied at the time We provided advance public notice of public commenters disagreed with the of listing but are essential to the the proposed rule to revise critical need to include public lands including conservation of the owl). However, habitat for the northern spotted owl Federal lands (e.g., ‘‘matrix’’ land, based on information received during through several avenues. Notice was adaptive management areas, the public comment period, in several provided with publication of the experimental forests, O&C Lands, and cases we refined the critical habitat proposed rule in the Federal Register on congressionally reserved wilderness boundaries to remove areas of private March 8, 2012 (77 FR 14062) as well as areas, national scenic areas, and lands that we determined do not meet through numerous local press releases at national parks), State lands (e.g., State the criteria and therefore do not meet that time. In addition, notice of public parks, State forests, State forest trust the definition of critical habitat. In other information meetings in each of the lands), and county lands in the final instances, the Secretary has chosen to three States affected by the proposed rule for a variety of reasons, including exert his discretion to exclude lands, rule, as well as a public hearing, was additional and redundant regulatory including private lands, based on a published in the Federal Register on burdens and requirements, economic careful weighing and balancing of the May 8, 2012 (77 FR 27010) and again on and social impacts, potential benefits of inclusion versus the benefits June 1, 2012 (77 FR 32483); the inconsistency with existing laws and of exclusion, as provided in section meetings and hearing were also policy, existing protections, a lack of 4(b)(2) of the Act, including announced in newspapers of local additional conservation benefits, limits consideration of conservation circulation in the affected areas. on research or needed management agreements, such as HCPs or SHAs, and Comment (64): Numerous activities (e.g., fuel reduction, the Service’s desire to support existing commenters (State and public) restoration, or insect control), mapping and effective State conservation requested that the final rule exclude errors, insufficient justification programs (see Exclusions). However, lands already covered by conservation supporting inclusion, and potential such exclusion does not indicate that agreements, such as habitat disincentives for preserving habitat. these areas are not essential for the conservation plans and safe harbor On the other hand, numerous conservation of the species, only that agreements, for a variety of reasons, commenters (both from other State the benefits of exclusion outweigh those including concerns about additional or agencies, as well as the public) of inclusion. duplicative Federal overlays and supported the inclusion of public lands We retained some State-owned lands regulatory burdens, a lack of need for including Federal lands, State lands, in all three states included in this inclusion, policy consistency, the tribal lands, and county lands for a critical habitat designation. In general potential for designation to jeopardize variety of reasons, highlighting the we retained these lands because we existing agreements or remove conservation the value of this habitat, found they provided essential incentives for additional conservation, consistency with the best available contributions to the conservation of and a recognition of the past science, the need for increased spotted owls, especially in terms of conservation benefits of these voluntary protections in some lands, and the complementing the distribution of agreements. In addition, it is argued that realization there would be limited to no habitat on Federal lands or filling gaps there is no need for an additional impacts to management. in Federal ownership. We also found Federal overlay on lands that already Our Response: The critical habitat that the benefits of inclusion associated have conservation designations or designation includes those lands that with public education and raising State governing regulations such as parks, meet the definition of critical habitat in and local agency awareness of the wilderness areas, HCPs, SHAs, and State the Act, and which the Service has conservation needs of spotted owls forest practices rules. determined are essential to provide for outweighed anticipated minor increases Our Response: Please see our the conservation of the northern spotted in regulatory requirements, when response to Comment (63), above. As owl. In designating these lands, we have Federal involvement occurred. See described, we individually evaluated further considered their ownership, Changes from the Proposed Rule for each conservation agreement in place management, contribution to northern more information on State lands within the proposed critical habitat spotted owl conservation, existing retained in the final critical habitat designation, including State and private protections, economic impacts, and designation. lands with HCPs, SHAs, conservation other relevant factors, and determined it The Service does not compensate easements, or other established is appropriate and necessary to include private or State landowners for conservation partnerships. Following a them in the final critical habitat network perceived limitations on land use careful weighing of the benefits of to best ensure successful northern associated with critical habitat exclusion versus inclusion, the spotted owl conservation. designation. Designation of private or Secretary has chosen to exert his Where possible we prioritized the other non-Federal lands as critical discretion to exclude lands covered by inclusion of Federal lands over other habitat has no regulatory impact on the such agreements. In addition, the land ownerships, but where Federal use of that land unless there is Federal Secretary has chosen to exclude all lands were sparse or nonexistent we involvement in proposed management congressionally-reserved natural areas incorporated other ownerships in order

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72007

to design and designate an effective Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl we did not consider the benefit of critical habitat network. As noted in our (USFWS 2011) as well as our proposed avoiding these costs through exclusion response to Comment 64, in cases where rule to revise critical habitat, suggested to outweigh the benefits of inclusion for our analysis of the benefits of exclusion that retention of high quality habitat in these areas. As noted in this document, outweighed those of inclusion, such as the matrix is essential for the we fully support the research activities when conservation agreements and conservation of the species. Population in these experimental forests and intend partnerships have been developed with performance based on reserves under to continue working cooperatively with the Service, we have excluded State or the NWFP, for example, fared very the Forest Service to ensure the other public lands from the final poorly compared to this final successful continuation of their designation (see Exclusions). designation of critical habitat. As scientific mission in these areas. Our proposed rule (77 FR 10462; described in the section Changes from In sum, the best scientific information March 8, 2012) identified several the Proposed Rule, we tested possible available indicates that the Federal different possible outcomes of that habitat networks without many of these lands we have included in this final proposed revision, depending on matrix lands, which resulted in a designation are essential to the various areas considered for exclusion. significant increase in the risk of conservation of the species, and we Among the exclusions of public lands extinction for the northern spotted owl. have retained such areas in the final under consideration were all Similarly, for the reasons outlined designation. Comment (66): Several State and congressionally-reserved natural areas above, we have retained experimental public commenters noted that the and all State lands. Of the forests on Forest Service lands in congressionally-reserved natural areas northern spotted owl critical habitat critical habitat. This designation under consideration, we have excluded designation includes areas of younger includes areas within seven Forest all congressionally-reserved natural forest that may not include the PCEs, Service experimental forests: H.J. areas and State Parks from this final and questioned whether this was an Andrews Experimental Forest, Pringle designation (see Exclusions). In artifact of the modeling process or an Falls Experimental Forest, South addition, private lands were also intentional inclusion of lands for the Umpqua Experimental Forest, and excluded, following a careful analysis of future development of PCEs and Cascade Head Experimental Forest in the benefits of inclusion versus expansion of the northern spotted owl Oregon; Wind River Experimental exclusion. In other cases, lands were population, as stated in the rule. Forest and Entiat Experimental Forest in retained in the final designation for a Our Response: The essential variety of reasons; for lands that were Washington; and Yurok Redwood conservation goal of the critical habitat considered or proposed for exclusion, Experimental Forest in California. Three network is to provide for a stable or but not excluded in this final of these seven experimental forests are increasing northern spotted owl designation, those decisions are already included in the 2008 critical population trend, which we determine described in the section Changes from habitat designation. Our evaluation of will result from, in part, the retention of the Proposed Rule. these seven experimental forests existing high-value habitat and the We recognize the concern over the demonstrates that these areas contain development of additional habitat to inclusion of certain Federal lands in the high value occupied habitat for northern support more northern spotted owls designation of critical habitat for the spotted owls within their borders. In than currently exist. Some areas of northern spotted owl, and particularly many cases, the habitat in these younger forest that do not currently of lands in the matrix land use experimental forests represents contain all of the PCEs are essential for allocation or the O&C lands. As essentially an island of high value this purpose. In such cases, we described in the section Criteria Used to habitat in a larger landscape of evaluated these areas as if they were Identify Critical Habitat and elsewhere relatively low value habitat; this is unoccupied at the time of listing, and in this rule, we looked to Federal lands especially true in the Coast Range, a included them in the designation only first for the conservation of the northern region where peer reviewers particularly if we determined that they are essential spotted owl, in part because Federal noted a need for greater connectivity to the conservation of the species. agencies have a statutory mandate to and preservation of any remaining high Comment (67): Several commenters contribute to the conservation of listed quality habitat. These considerations, in (State and public) identified specific species. Secondly, because the conjunction with the inherent benefits concerns with the proposed critical protections of critical habitat are of critical habitat on Federal lands, habitat maps, including revisions to triggered only in the case of a Federal described above, lead us to conclude land ownership or management on both nexus, those protections are always in that there are significant benefits to the public and private land, noting the place on Federal lands; thus the benefit inclusion of these experimental forests inadvertent inclusion of some lands that of including Federal lands in critical in critical habitat. As discussed earlier did not meet the definition of critical habitat can potentially be significant. in this document, we recognize the habitat and questions regarding the Finally, we only included lands in the valuable role of these experimental mapping scale and resolution. Several designation if they meet the definition forests, and we encourage continued commenters submitted revised or of critical habitat; that is, if they play a research and adaptive management on corrected maps for the Service to truly essential role in the conservation these forests. All of these forests are consider in developing the final rule. of the species. In some areas, for occupied by the northern spotted owl Our Response: We thank the example the O&C lands, our modeling and we are already consulting with the commenters for the information results indicated that those Federal Forest Service in these areas under the provided. Numerous edits and changes lands make a significant contribution jeopardy standard. The incremental were made to the maps in the final rule, toward meeting the conservation impact of critical habitat is therefore where appropriate, including objectives for the northern spotted owl limited to the cost of consultation for assessment of specific lands identified in that region, and that we cannot attain the additional adverse modification to determine whether they met the recovery without them. Likewise, in analysis and any potential project definition of critical habitat. For addition to our modeling results, peer modifications to avoid adverse example, in the State of Washington, we review of both the Revised Recovery modification or destruction, if needed; determined that many small woodlot

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

owners possess lands that do not owls. The extent to which northern Plans, and Partners for Fish and provide the PCEs for the northern spotted owls persist (sometimes Wildlife agreements). We highly spotted owl, or that the lands initially undetected) on areas with high barred encourage landowners to explore identified in the proposed rule are too owl densities is unclear; however, with opportunities to participate in these and fragmented or isolated to be essential to a second species competing for similar other conservation programs. the conservation of the species (see habitat, providing more of that habitat is Comment (73): The Washington Comment (107)); such lands were predicted to increase the ability for Department of Natural Resources removed from the final designation northern spotted owls to persist in the suggested the Service better align because they do not meet the definition presence of barred owls. We identified designated critical habitat with the of critical habitat. In several cases, critical habitat for the northern spotted agency’s management objectives, to landowners contacted us and asked for owl with this essential need in mind. more efficiently manage for northern the exclusion of their lands, but we The potential management of barred spotted owl conservation. determined that those landowners were owls is beyond the scope of this Our Response: California, Oregon, and not included in the proposed critical rulemaking, which is limited to the Washington have their own natural habitat. In some cases, changes have identification of critical habitat for the resource management paradigms; we been addressed narratively (e.g., the northern spotted owl. If management of intend to work with each State within clarification that no private lands in barred owls is implemented and the context of their management Oregon met the definition of critical assessed, as is currently occurring under objectives to protect northern spotted habitat and, therefore, were not a separate process, the Service may owl critical habitat and work together included in the proposed rule and are reconsider this critical habitat toward the recovery of the species. not included in the final designation). In designation and revise as appropriate. County Comments cases where mapping errors may have Comment (70): Two comments been made in our proposed critical suggested the definition of northern Comment (74): Jefferson County, habitat, such errors were corrected. spotted owl habitat and patterns of Washington, requested that we apply Comment (68): Several State, Federal habitat use were inadequate. critical habitat protections to a (USFS and BLM), and public Our Response: Northern Spotted owls considerable amount of owl habitat, and commenters requested clarification on require areas that are primarily closed suggested considering additional habitat the implementation of, or modification canopy with sufficient roost sites and designations between the Olympics and of, the 500-ac (200-ha) circle we small mammal populations to provide the Cascade Mountains, in order to recommended for assessing the effects prey. Descriptions of these habitats vary increase connectivity and ensure owl of an action to critical habitat. across the range of the species, beyond recovery. Our Response: Based on both public the simple categories of moist and dry Our Response: In our process of and agency comment and requests for forest, making a specific definition at identifying areas that meet the clarification, the final rule does not the landscape scale problematic. In definition of critical habitat for the identify the 500-acre (200-ha) circle as developing the final critical habitat northern spotted owl, we identified a a recommended scale for determining designation for the species, we have critical habitat network that provides the effects of an action, but does provided what we believe are the most the essential life-history functions for reference it as a potentially useful scale specific and useful descriptions of the the northern spotted owl, including that could be used in the section PCEs for northern spotted owls possible, demographic support and connectivity 7consultation process. How to best based on the best scientific information between populations. Our modeling apply it, or other potential scales, will available at this time. We have and will results indicate the spatial extent of the be determined during the consultation continue to seek new, more detailed critical habitat designation throughout process initiated by Federal action information on habitat use over time. the range, including between the agencies proposing projects that may Comment (71): A number of Olympic Peninsula and the Western affect areas designated as critical habitat comments (State and public) Cascades in Washington is sufficient to by this rule. encouraged an ecosystem approach to meet essential recovery requirements. Comment (69): Several State and land management. Other areas outside the designation, public commenters questioned the Our Response: The designation of such as those suggested by the county, relationship of the impact of barred owl critical habitat for the northern spotted do not meet the definition of critical competition on the northern spotted owl is consistent with the NWFP and habitat because they are not essential to owls, and amount of habitat needed in the Revised Recovery Plan for the the conservation of the species, even the critical habitat designation and Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011), though we agree with the county that whether recovery can be achieved both of which take an ecosystem these lands are important and will without addressing the impacts of the approach to management and recovery increase connectivity. barred owl. Some of these commenters actions. The requirement of any such Comment (75): Wasco County, believe barred owl management should management approach, however, is Oregon, commented that it was in the occur prior to designation of additional beyond the scope of this rulemaking, interest of the community to minimize critical habitat areas. which is limited to the identification of regulatory burdens from designated Our Response: The survival of critical habitat for the northern spotted critical habitat. northern spotted owls depends in large owl. Our Response: We recognize that the part on the protection of habitat. This Comment (72): Several comments designation of critical habitat is often protection remains crucial to the (State and public) suggested approaches perceived as a potential regulatory recovery of the northern spotted owl that provide incentives for landowners burden. However, we wish to reiterate regardless of whether barred owls are to conserve habitat. that the regulatory effect of critical present or not. However, given that Our Response: The Service habitat is the requirement for Federal barred owls and northern spotted owls administers several programs promoting agencies to consult with the Service on are now occupying similar habitats, it is incentive-based conservation efforts on actions they carry out, fund, or essential to maintain sufficient habitat non-Federal land (e.g., Safe Harbor authorize that may affect the designated that meets the needs of northern spotted Agreements, Habitat Conservation critical habitat of threatened species or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72009

endangered species. Critical habitat or avoid extinction, and a lack of need to specific land ownership such as does not directly impose regulatory for or benefits from additional Federal lands; thus, lands of all restrictions on State land managers or protections due to existing standards ownerships are considered if they on private landowners where there is no and guidelines. satisfy the scientific criteria indicating such Federal nexus. We do not believe Our Response: The critical habitat that they meet the definition of critical the designation of critical habitat will designation includes those lands the habitat for the specific species. Areas result in a significant regulatory burden Service determined are essential to may be removed from the final on Federal land activities because of (1) provide for the conservation of the designation should the Secretary the cooperative nature of our northern spotted owl through a state-of- exercise his discretion to exclude such consultation process under the Act with the-art modeling process that areas subsequent to a weighing of the the Forest Service and BLM, and (2) incorporated the latest expert benefits of exclusion versus inclusion because of the existing requirement that knowledge on the habitat needs of under section 4(b)(2), or if we should these agencies have to consult on the northern spotted owls. In designating determine, based on public comment or effects of proposed actions on northern these lands we have considered their other information received following the spotted owls. Our approach was to ownership, management, contribution issuance of the proposed rule, that such design a critical habitat network that to northern spotted owl conservation, areas do not meet the definition of provides for essential northern spotted existing protections, economic impacts, critical habitat (for example, areas that owl recovery needs but designate as etc., and determined it is appropriate were occupied at the time of listing but small an area as possible, and to rely and necessary to include them in the do not provide the essential physical or primarily on public lands. We have final critical habitat network to best biological features, or areas that may not excluded all congressionally-reserved ensure successful northern spotted owl have been occupied at the time of listing natural areas (wilderness areas, national conservation. Each of these counties and were proposed for designation, but parks), State parks, and private lands contains habitat that supports northern are not essential to the conservation of from this final designation of critical spotted owl populations that are the species). habitat. essential to the conservation of the As described in the proposed rule Comment (76): Del Norte County, species. (March 8, 2012; 77 FR 14076, p. 14099), California, expressed concern that the We recognize that the greatest benefit we evaluated critical habitat scenarios proposed critical habitat designation of critical habitat is realized on Federal that prioritized Federal lands first as will create a regulatory hurdle that will lands since the regulatory effect of well as scenarios without regard to impede the construction of vital critical habitat is the requirement that landownership. In all cases, if the infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, Federal agencies ensure that any actions scenarios under consideration provided power lines, and other utilities). that they carry out, fund, or authorize equal contribution to recovery, we chose Our Response: Chapter 7 of the DEA do not destroy or adversely affect the scenario that prioritized publicly discusses the potential economic designated critical habitat. In addition, owned lands. State and private lands impacts to road and bridge construction Federal agencies have a mandate under were included only if they were and maintenance, and installation and section 7(a)(1) of the Act to carry out essential to achieve conservation of the maintenance of power transmission programs for the conservation of species after considering the lines and other utility pipelines. The endangered species and threatened contribution of Federal lands. Based on analysis concludes that all potential species. For these reasons, we looked information received during the public conservation efforts associated with first to Federal lands for the critical comment period, in several cases we linear projects are expected to result habitat essential to the conservation of refined the critical habitat boundaries to from the presence of the northern the northern spotted owl, as described remove areas of private lands that do spotted owl, not the designation of in Criteria Used to Identify Critical not meet our criteria for critical habitat critical habitat, and are thus considered Habitat, above, and supporting (for example, new information baseline impacts (see paragraphs 315 methodology (Dunk et al. 2012b). indicating that the areas in question lack through 320 of the DEA). Incremental Section 3(5)(A) of the Act states that the PCEs, due to recent timber harvest, costs attributable to critical habitat are critical habitat is defined as (1) the stand-replacing fires, or other such limited to the administrative costs of specific areas within the geographical events). In others, the Secretary has additional staff time spent by Federal area occupied by the species at the time chosen to exclude lands from the agency staff and the Service to include it was listed that contain the physical or designation. In such cases, exclusion critical habitat effects analyses in the biological features essential to the does not signal a determination that section 7 consultation on these projects. conservation of the species and which these areas are not essential to the Therefore, we do not believe that the may require special management conservation of the species, but only designation of critical habitat for the considerations or protection; and (2) that the Secretary has determined that northern spotted owl will result in specific areas outside the geographical the benefits of exclusion outweigh those significant regulatory burden to these area occupied by the species at the time of inclusion. All congressionally- projects. it was listed, upon a determination by reserved natural areas (wilderness areas, Comment (77): Del Norte County, the Secretary that such areas are national parks), State parks, and private California; Wasco County, Oregon; and essential for the conservation of the lands have been excluded from this Klickitat and Skamania Counties, species. Further, section 4(b)(2) of the final designation of critical habitat for Washington, requested exclusion of all Act mandates that such determinations the northern spotted owl (see lands including Federal, State, and shall be made on the basis of the best Exclusions). private lands within these counties in scientific data available and after taking We reduced critical habitat in all four the final rule. They expressed concern into consideration the economic impact, of these counties across all ownerships regarding economic issues, a lack of the impact on national security, and any as we refined our proposal. In response appropriate northern spotted owl other relevant impact of specifying any to comments, we used additional habitat within the counties, a lack of particular area as critical habitat. information sources to very carefully evidence that including these lands The language of the Act does not identify and retain areas that were best would actually help the species recover restrict the designation of critical habitat suited to meeting the unique

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

conservation needs for northern spotted will be positive or negative, is agency must insure that any action owl conservation that are associated uncertain. Therefore, how critical authorized, funded, or carried out by the with the geographic location of these habitat designation may impact the agency is not likely to jeopardize the counties. timber industry in terms of future continued existence of any endangered The Columbia River, which forms the harvest levels, employment, and or threatened species or result in the southern boundaries of Skamania and revenue-sharing payments to counties is destruction or adverse modification of Klickitat counties, presents a formidable also uncertain. As outlined in the the designated ‘‘critical habitat’’ of the obstacle to dispersal of northern spotted economic analysis timber harvest may species. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). To help owls. Maintaining demographic increase, decrease or stay substantially action agencies comply with this exchange between northern spotted owl the same as recent timber harvest levels provision, section 7 of the Act and the populations in Washington and Oregon depending on how the Forest Service implementing regulations set out a requires both maintenance of a robust and BLM decide to manage their lands detailed consultation process for population of potentially dispersing within the designation. Furthermore, determining the impacts of a proposed owls, and quality habitat as near to the timber industry employment is affected activity on species listed as threatened Columbia River as possible to increase not only by harvest trends but also by or endangered, or its designated the likelihood of dispersing owls fluctuations in national and ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1536; 50 successfully crossing the river. Critical international markets; changes in land CFR part 402. In Seattle Audubon habitat in Skamania and Klickitat ownership; and increasing Society v. Lyons (‘‘Lyons’’), 871 F. Supp. counties plays a key role in preventing mechanization and productivity in the 1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994), the district the demographic isolation of industry. Our economic analysis also court held that ‘‘the O&[C Act] does not Washington spotted owls, and indicated the potential for beneficial allow the BLM to avoid its conservation preventing isolation is widely economic and ancillary effects of duties under NEPA or the Act * * *’’ recognized as an essential feature of spotted owl conservation due to critical Id. at 1314. The critical habitat sustaining wildlife populations. The habitat designation, but monetizing designation does not preclude the designated lands in Wasco County, effects such as improved water quality sustained-yield timber management of Oregon, contribute to this cross- and aesthetic improvements remains O&C lands consistent with the above Columbia River connection, as well as challenging. Finally, our analysis of the requirements of the Act. providing sites for northern spotted owl incremental impacts of critical habitat Comment (80): One commenter stated reproduction. In Del Norte County, designation suggested that the annual that the Service failed to explain why California, designated lands contribute administrative costs associated with revising the designation of critical to demographic support to the overall designation were likely to be relatively habitat for the northern spotted owl is northern spotted owl population, but low. ‘‘exempt’’ under sections 2 and 3 of the also function for connectivity across the Our weighing of the relative benefits Executive Order 13132 on Federalism. landscape and for habitat that can be of inclusion in critical habitat integrated Our Response: We have complied colonized by young owls. In short, the (1) the relative sensitivity of counties to with E.O. 13132 by explaining why the designated lands in all these counties economic impacts associated with rule does not have federalism are part of a network that supports critical habitat designation, (2) implications, impose substantial direct northern spotted owl sites for uncertainty regarding potential compliance costs on State and local reproduction, habitat available for economic effects, (3) our expectation governments, or preempt State law so colonization by young, and habitat that that incremental administrative costs that a federalism summary impact connects populations across the range of may be minor, and (4) modeling results statement pursuant to section 6 of the the species, all of which are, in concert, that indicated essential conservation executive order is not required. The essential to provide for the conservation functions of habitat in these counties. designation of critical habitat directly of the species. Based on these factors the Secretary has affects only the responsibilities of Our economic analysis indicated that chosen not to exert his discretion to Federal agencies through section 7(a)(2) Del Norte and Skamania counties may exclude these lands from critical of the Act. The Act does not directly be more sensitive to future changes in habitat. impose other duties with respect to timber harvests, industry employment, Comment (78): Del Norte County, critical habitat on either States or local and Federal land payments, due to California, requested that the Service governments and as a result does not recent socioeconomic trends. Timber exclude all congressionally reserved have substantial direct effects on the harvest changes related to critical areas from critical habitat. States and local governments, the habitat designation are one potential Our Response: All congressionally relationship between the national aspect of this sensitivity. Between 1989 reserved natural areas have been government and the States, or the and 2009, timber industry employment excluded from this final designation of distribution of powers and declined by 70 percent or more in Del critical habitat, as described in the responsibilities among the various Norte and Skamania counties. These Exclusions section of this document. levels of government. Sections 2 and 3 counties also experienced the greatest Comment (79): One commenter stated of E.O. 13132 set out Fundamental declines in timber harvests and timber that the O&C Act limits the authority of Federalism Principles and Federalism industry employment. Skamania County the Service in designating critical Policymaking Criteria, respectively. is also highly reliant on Federal habitat. Within the framework of the Act, which payments to counties, with these Our Response: The O&C Act requires the Service to designate critical payments representing between 26 and (pertaining to lands in Oregon and habitat to the maximum extent prudent 50 percent of total revenues. We California) does not limit the Service’s and determinable, we have adhered to considered all these factors while authority to designate critical habitat for the concepts discussed in these evaluating comments from these the northern spotted owl. The sections. For example, even though the counties. designation of critical habitat is not a rule does not have federalism The potential impact of the land use allocation and does not impose implications, we strongly urged the designation of critical habitat on timber management prescriptions. Under States and county governments to harvest levels, and whether that change section 7(a)(2) of the Act, each Federal provide comments to us and provided

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72011

them an additional period for comment Del Norte County, California, requested described below, with consideration to ensure they had an opportunity for that the Service promote active given to the need to conserve viable thorough review. Our economic analysis management activities within critical populations within each of the examined potential indirect impacts of habitat to reduce fire risk and reduce physiographic provinces identified in the rule on all who may participate in fuels, and raised the concern that the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS section 7 consultations, and that was critical habitat designation could reduce 2011, Recovery Criterion 2).’’ The available for comment by the States and or delay the ability of land managers to Service believes the entire designated counties as well. In addition, we have manage fuels and thus increase risks critical habitat is the appropriate scale also taken into account State law from wildfire. for this analysis because our protections for northern spotted owl Our Response: This rule does not determination is whether critical habitat in our decisions whether establish management prescriptions for implementation of the Federal action to exclude areas under section 4(b)(2) of lands designated as critical habitat. would preclude the critical habitat from the Act. However, the Service has made serving its intended conservation Comment (81): Several counties, considerable effort to discuss, for the function or purpose. That conservation including Del Norte County, California, benefit of land managers, potential role of critical habitat is to conserve the and Wasco County, Oregon, expressed approaches to active forest management listed species throughout its range, concerns about the impact of barred in dry forests, including actions that which is closely aligned with the entire owls on the northern spotted owl, and manage fuels and restore ecosystem critical habitat designation. Therefore, questioned whether recovery can be health. We encourage land managers to the entire designation is the most achieved without addressing the consider active management of their appropriate scale for the adverse impacts of the barred owl. Some of these forests that balances short-term impacts modification determination. However, a commenters believe barred owl with long-term beneficial effects that proposed action that compromises the management should occur prior to ultimately support long-term capability of a subunit or unit to fulfill designation of additional critical habitat conservation of the northern spotted its intended conservation function or areas. owl. In dry forests, this could include purpose (e.g., demographic, genetic, or Our Response: The survival of using a landscape assessment approach distributional support for spotted owl northern spotted owls depends in large to improve the estimation of effects of recovery) could represent an part on the protection of habitat—this management actions on northern appreciable reduction in the protection remains crucial to the spotted owl habitat and to better conservation value of the entire recovery of the northern spotted owl identify and prioritize areas for designated critical habitat. regardless of whether barred owls are treatments. The assessment may be used Comment (84): Wasco County, present or not. Given that barred owls to provide support and rationale for Oregon, requested that the Service do an and northern spotted owls are now treatment, especially in areas where Environmental Impact Statement to occupying similar habitats, it is active forest management actions appear ensure a full analysis of the effects of essential to maintain sufficient habitat to be in conflict with the conservation the critical habitat designation has been that meets the needs of northern spotted of high-value northern spotted owl done, including a fuller picture of owls. The extent to which northern habitat. potential economic and social impacts. spotted owls persist (sometimes The draft economic analysis (DEA) Our Response: The critical habitat undetected) on areas with high barred addressed the potential impacts of proposal was fully compliant with owl densities is unclear. With a second critical habitat on fire management in NEPA. Economic and social effects are species competing for similar habitat, Chapters 4 and 8. In Chapter 4, the DEA not intended by themselves to require providing more of that habitat may discussed the fact that ecological fire preparation of an environmental impact increase the ability for northern spotted salvage activities could result in statement. 40 CFR 1508.14. We have owls to persist in the presence of barred incremental economic effects. Due to determined, for the reasons contained in owls. If management of barred owls is data limitations and fire location our Finding of No Significance, that an implemented and assessed, the Service uncertainty, however, these effects were environmental impact statement is not may reconsider this critical habitat not quantified. In the benefits necessary. designation and revise as appropriate. discussion in Chapter 8, the DEA Comment (85): Klickitat County, In our separate actions investigating recognized that it is possible that the Washington, asserts that the Service has possible barred owl management, we designation could result in increased not adequately considered ‘‘forest can, and are, modeling some approaches resiliency of timber stands associated vulnerabilities’’ and potential economic with and without barred owl with improved timber management impacts to local communities, and is competition effects on the northern practices, such as thinning, partial inconsistent with the Presidential spotted owl, and will continue to do so cutting, and active adaptive forest Memorandum to the Secretary of the as new information becomes available. management and monitoring. These Interior dated February 28, 2012. Recent research (Wiens 2012) indicates efforts may reduce the threat of Our Response: We disagree with the that population performance of both catastrophic events such as wildfire, assertion that the Service has not northern spotted owls and barred owls drought, and insect damage. This in adequately considered ‘‘forest is greatest when high-quality habitat is turn may generate benefits in the form vulnerabilities’’ in this designation of most abundant, and most peer reviewers of reduced property damage. critical habitat. If we correctly supported the approach of conserving Comment (83): Jefferson County, understand ‘‘forest vulnerabilities’’ to more habitat to help offset the impact of Washington, encouraged the Service to include all those natural and human the barred owl on the northern spotted determine adverse modification at a induced disturbance processes that have owl. finer scale, such as the owl’s home the potential to change the structure and range. function of forests, these factors played County Comments on Active Our Response: The final rule a prominent role in our entire approach Management and Fire Management establishes that the scale of the adverse to this designation. We believe this rule, Comment (82): Several counties modification determination will be ‘‘the along with the Revised Recovery Plan including Wasco County, Oregon, and entire designated critical habitat, as for the Northern Spotted Owl, provides

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

a thorough explanation of how past improving native ecosystems is a benefit improve landscape and biological management and future disturbance can to the species that rely on them, is diversity. Within that context, thinning affect habitat quality for spotted owls, consistent with the goal of the Act and and targeted variable-retention harvest and especially how ecological forestry will improve all these ecosystem in moist forests could be considered, might be used to manage these effects. functions. where the conservation of complex The purpose of the economic analysis early-seral forest habitat is a Public Comments is to provide the Secretary of the Interior management goal. This approach with information to consider potential Active Forest Management provides a contrast to traditional clear- economic impacts and analyze whether Comment (87): One commenter agreed cutting that does not mimic natural the benefits of excluding a particular that the Service is not able to predict the disturbance or create viable early-seral area may outweigh the benefits of outcome of section 7 consultations, but communities that grow into high-quality including that particular area as critical expressed concern that land habitat (Dodson et al. 2012, p. 353; habitat based on potential management decisions would be made, Franklin et al. 2002, p. 419; Swanson et disproportionate economic impacts. using the critical habitat rule for al. 2011, p. 123; Kane et al. 2011, pp. Chapter 6 of the FEA provides a detailed 2289–2290; Betts et al. 2010, p. 2127, socioeconomic profile of each of the 23 justification of these outcomes. A suggestion was made to eliminate or Hagar 2007, pp. 117–118). Swanson counties (including Klickitat County, (2012, entire) provides a good overview Washington) containing proposed modify portions of the critical habitat rule that encourage active management and some management considerations. critical habitat subunits. The analysis The Revised Recovery Plan does not presents data on the percent change in within critical habitat. Our Response: The Revised Recovery suggest that high-quality owl habitat or timber production between 1990 and areas currently on a trajectory to become 2010 for each county, and on the Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) and the NWFP high-quality owl habitat be removed to percent growth of annual industry create early-seral conditions. The employment between 1989 and 2009 for recommends certain types of active forest management within the range of Revised Recovery Plan recommends each county. In addition, the analysis such treatments, if considered by the presents data on Federal land payments the northern spotted owl to meet various management goals. Our critical land management agencies, be applied to each of the 23 counties as a percent in matrix areas consistent with the of the total local government revenue in habitat rule refers to these recommendations. The Revised Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP. FY 2009, demonstrating the relative Comment (89): One commenter asked importance of these funds to each Recovery Plan encourages careful consideration and incorporation of how the Service and managers will County’s budget. We find the evaluate forest management strategies information provides sufficient context specific and appropriate information when deciding which actions, if any, are without information on the potential for understanding relative economic effects of these strategies to determine circumstances and the potential appropriate for active forest management within critical habitat. whether they are positive, neutral, or incremental impacts of the designation negative. to local communities across the However, we are not able to predict Our Response: Commercial thinning designation. where or what types of actions will be The section ‘‘Consistency with proposed within northern spotted owl has been shown to negatively affect Presidential Directive’’ in our Executive critical habitat, nor is it within the northern spotted owls and their prey, Summary describes how we have authority of this rulemaking to prescribe and we have included a more detailed addressed the points raised in President where or what types of actions will take discussion of this issue in the final rule. Obama’s Memorandum of February 28, place. The actual management activities In areas where active management may 2012. that may take place within critical be appropriate for consideration, the Comment (86): Jefferson County, habitat will depend on future goal is to conserve and restore Washington, encouraged the Service to management decisions by the land ecological function; however, we consider the effects of critical habitat managing agencies consistent with their recognize that management agencies designation on ecosystem services, such land use plans and the legal authorities may have multiple management goals. as drinking water, hunting and fishing, under which they operate, and in In areas where actions such as carbon storage, and erosion and flood consultation with us under section 7 of commercial thinning may be considered control. the Act for those activities involving a (e.g., the matrix land use allocation), we Our Response: The Service recognizes Federal nexus. are not encouraging them in areas of that much attention has been paid Comment (88): Several commenters high-quality owl habitat. nationally and globally to valuing raised concern over the creation of Comment (90): One commenter ecosystem services provided by early-seral habitats. The points raised a requested consideration of the forest landscapes. Published, peer-reviewed concern over the removal of current thinning direction contained in studies provide information on values of habitat to create early-seral habitat, Ecologically Appropriate Restoration multiple categories of ecosystem expressed a need to make use of natural Thinning in the Northwest Forest Plan services (e.g., agricultural production, disturbances to achieve early-seral Area (Kerr 2012) as an option for future water quality regulation, carbon storage habitat, and questioned the critical habitat management. and sequestration, recreation, aesthetic appropriateness of creating early-seral Our Response: We appreciate this values, etc.) across a variety of land use habitat inside critical habitat. suggestion and have integrated the types (e.g., wetlands, forests, etc.). Over Our Response: Recent research has information in this reference into our the past 20 years, multiple studies have informed land managers on the discussions of forest thinning. relied on this literature to develop large- biological value of complex early-seral Comment (91): One commenter scale benefits transfer analyses in order habitats. The Revised Recovery Plan for requested that special management to estimate a total value of a parcel of the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS considerations for the East Cascades land, a watershed, a State, or even the 2011) suggests that management of emphasize management for well- planet (e.g., Costanza 1997, as described early-seral habitats be considered where distributed, large, contiguous blocks in the comment letter). We believe that they are underrepresented and would habitat across the landscape.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72013

Our Response: Special Management from long-term adverse impacts Our Response: We recognize that Considerations for the East Cascades are wherever possible. more research would be helpful to better identified that management may be Comment (94): Several commenters understand how northern spotted owls required to address the threats to the expressed concern that logging in respond to various vegetation essential physical or biological features critical habitat and LSRs would increase management treatments, especially in this region from past activities. the risk of extinction of the northern those implemented to address long-term Widespread management of large, fully spotted owl, degrade owl habitat, forest health and increasing risk of contiguous blocks of habitat east of the increase the risk of fire, damage forest wildfire. Thinning and other vegetation Cascades is not ecologically sustainable health, and damage watershed health. management may have either negative in many places, due to the dynamic Commenters expressed concern about or beneficial impacts to northern ecological processes and fire regimes specific logging prescriptions that spotted owl habitat depending on how, that shape the distribution of forested appear to remove trees or degrade areas when, and where the treatments are habitats in this region (Williams 2012, that could function as habitat for implemented. entire). We do, however, recommend northern spotted owl, such as mistletoe The existing information about the land managers consider the removal, post-fire logging, or disease tradeoffs associated with active and conservation of larger blocks of current management activities. In addition, passive management in dry forests habitat on areas of landscapes where it several thousand commenters submitted indicates that strategic application of is more likely to be resistant or resilient similar comments in general support of active management may offer a higher to fire and other natural disturbance. We protections against logging the mature likelihood of achieving conservation encourage the use of landscape and old-growth forests of the Pacific objectives than no management. assessments to identify areas important Northwest and Northwest California due Although passive management can be for ecological process restoration and to economic and environmental viewed as more precautionary, this view areas that are valuable for northern benefits. is rooted in a perspective that considers spotted owl conservation and recovery Our Response: The critical habitat risks to northern spotted owl habitat from natural disturbance to be relatively (see, e.g., NWFP Standards and rule identifies habitats with high value low. However, we believe that the Guidelines p. C–13). to the recovery of the northern spotted Comment (92): One commenter noted weight of evidence from both tracking of owl that are essential and will receive that the Service should emphasize habitat removal due to natural regulatory protections under section 7 of protection of mid-seral forests so that disturbance and results from modeled the Act where a Federal nexus exists. they may develop into high-quality simulations of fire dynamics suggest We emphasize that careful habitat. that risks of habitat loss due to natural consideration should be given to any Our Response: We recommend that disturbance is high enough to warrant forest management activities occurring habitats with high value to the consideration of strategic active within northern spotted owl critical conservation of the northern spotted management within critical habitat by owl be conserved. High-value habitat habitat. The Revised Recovery Plan for land managers, especially in forested includes mid-seral forests as one the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS plant associations that typically have component. Mid-seral forests that are 2011) indicates that active forest frequent or mixed-severity fire regimes generally not occupied by northern management, when applied at (Buchanan 2009, pp. 114–115; Healey et spotted owls, however, may be appropriate scales and locations, could al. 2008, pp. 1117–1118; Roloff et al. appropriate areas for land management be a valuable tool in the recovery of the 2012, pp. 8–9; Ager et al. 2007, pp. 53– agencies to consider for active forest species and conservation of forest 55; Ager et al. 2012, pp. 279–282; management that may increase their rate ecosystems. Further, we recommend Franklin et al. 2009, p. 46; Kennedy and of development into high-quality that the focus of these treatments be Wimberly 2009, pp. 564–565). In the habitats. outside of high-value habitat for final rule, we have refined and Comment (93): One commenter noted northern spotted owls wherever expanded our discussion of ways land that past active management resulted in possible and that high-quality habitats managers might implement active excessive logging and road building, be conserved and recruited. Work inside management to minimize potential risks which led to the threatened and of LSRs should be in accordance with to northern spotted owls and their endangered status of species in the the NWFP Standards and Guidelines. habitat, and provide appropriate Pacific Northwest. Included in this We again note that, although we safeguards in the face of scientific comment are concerns over active encourage land management agencies to uncertainties surrounding disturbance management harming water quality, follow the recommendations for the dynamics in dry forests and northern diminishing recreational activities, and Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern spotted owl responses to management. increasing fire risk if followup actions Spotted Owl, it is beyond the authority In addition, active adaptive forest (e.g., removal of slash, removal of burn of this rulemaking to mandate specific management may prove to be an piles, prescribed fire) are not carried management activities within critical essential tool for reducing uncertainties out. habitat. The actual management and increasing the conservation Our Response: We have identified the activities that may take place within effectiveness of active management for major threats to owl recovery in this critical habitat will depend on future northern spotted owl habitat. rule, including traditional timber management decisions by the land Comment (96): Several commenters harvest that resulted in the removal of managing agencies consistent with their expressed concern over the justification large areas of old forest. Active land use plans and the legal authorities of projects that encourage timber harvest management, in general, may affect under which they operate. in suitable northern spotted owl habitat, water quality and recreational Comment (95): One commenter including the pilot projects guided by opportunities, but it may also restore suggested our treatment of the effects of Drs. Johnson and Franklin that are habitat conditions or reduce fire risk if forest thinning on owls and of fire was occurring in BLM’s pilot projects out of implemented properly. We encourage incomplete and biased towards the Roseburg and Coos Bay BLM offices. land managers to be mindful of these supporting thinning treatments in Our Response: The Service is working concerns and to protect important areas critical habitat. with land managers and scientists to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

minimize impacts to northern spotted unclear, not only on how much high- reduction activities are needed, that fire owl’s essential habitat, and owl severity fire may be a risk to northern resiliency needs to be achieved, and that conservation as a consequence of timber spotted owls, but also regarding what we consider timber and nontimber harvest and other vegetation spatial arrangement and amount of resources to manage fuels. management projects. We worked burned and unburned vegetation or Our Response: The Service has made closely with Dr. Norm Johnson, Dr. Jerry different burn severities may be considerable effort to discuss Franklin, and the Roseburg and Coos beneficial or detrimental to northern recommendations and descriptions of Bay BLM offices to evaluate these pilot spotted owl occupancy and habitat use. active forest management in dry forests, projects, which are not in LSRs and are We address this issue in the Revised including actions that manage fuels and consistent with requirements of the Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted restore ecosystem health, in this critical NWFP. The Revised Recovery Plan for Owl (USFWS 2011), in which we also habitat rule. This rule is different from the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS suggested an adaptive management previous designations of northern 2011) recommends applying ecological framework to test hypotheses that will spotted owl critical habitat in that we forestry techniques as a way of reducing help address this uncertainty. Recovery are recommending a ‘‘hands on’’ impacts to northern spotted owl habitat Action 12 in the Revised Recovery Plan approach to forest management within in areas proposed for timber harvest. In summarizes the literature on post-fire critical habitat. We encourage land general, northern spotted owl habitat in logging and recommends that these managers to consider active moist forests that is on a trajectory for types of silvicultural activities focus on management of forests that balance development into late-successional conserving and restoring those habitat short-term impacts with long-term conditions is not in need of active elements that take a long time to beneficial effects, which ultimately management to enhance its develop (e.g., large trees, medium and supports long-term conservation of the development. The Service recommends large snags, downed wood). northern spotted owl. In dry forests, we that land managers consider thinning recommend that land managers consider Comments on Ecological Forestry and other regular management in a landscape assessment approach to critical habitat, when the goal is to Comment (98): One commenter noted improve the estimation of effects of improve or maintain northern spotted that the Service is promoting timber management actions on northern owl habitat and long-term forest health. harvest activities that are compatible spotted owl habitat and to better Specific conditions vary as will with northern spotted owl critical identify and prioritize areas for determinations of where, when and how habitat, but regulations prevent this treatments. The assessment may be to apply management. The actual work from occurring. helpful, especially in areas where other management activities that may take Our Response: We believe the landscape or biodiversity management place within critical habitat will depend activities recommended in the Revised goals may conflict with the conservation on future management decisions by the Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted of high-value northern spotted owl land managing agencies consistent with Owl (USFWS 2011) and discussed in habitat. We note that this rule can only their land use plans and the legal this critical habitat rule are compatible provide general advice as to those authorities under which they operate, with the Standards and Guidelines of activities that may be consistent with and in consultation with us under the NWFP. We encourage land the designation of critical habitat for the section 7 of the Act for those activities management agencies to consider active northern spotted owl. The actual involving a Federal nexus. management of forests that balance activities proposed within critical Comment (97): Several commenters short-term impacts with long-term habitat are dependent upon decisions by suggested that the Service should beneficial effects that ultimately support the land managers themselves, in include a full analysis of the risks to long-term conservation of the northern accordance with their land use plans northern spotted owl habitat from fire, spotted owl. and legal authorities. in an effort to support the Comment (99): One commenter noted Comments on Exclusions recommendations for active forest that ecological forestry practices are not management, and should also include clearly defined and according to the rule Comment (101): Several comments an analysis of the effects to northern will be different in each situation. questioned why the proposed critical spotted owl habitat from post-fire Our Response: Land management habitat did not include private lands in logging activities in the final rule. decisions on when and where to apply Oregon but did in Washington or Our Response: First, we must clarify ecological forestry practices are context- California, and encouraged the Service that this critical habitat rule does not specific, based on local conditions, and to exclude private lands in all three take any action or adopt any policy, will be made by the appropriate land States in the final rule, due to concerns plan, or program in relation to active managers. The prescription of specific around the regulatory burdens of critical forest management. The discussion is management practices is beyond the habitat and the lack of need for provided only for consideration by authority of this rule. This critical additional protections, in light of Federal, State, local, and private land habitat rule and the Revised Recovery existing conservation agreements and managers, as well as the public, as they Plan (USFWS 2011, entire) provide an State laws. make decisions on the management of overview and multiple scientific Our Response: In this designation of forest land under their jurisdictions and references on ecological forestry. We are critical habitat, we relied on public through their normal processes. Second, available to work with land managers to lands to the maximum extent possible there is considerable scientific provide technical assistance in further in determining what lands met the uncertainty over the risk of fire to defining ecological forestry practices at definition of critical habitat in that they northern spotted owl habitat. Where finer scales, should land managers be either contain essential physical or data are available, the literature shows interested in applying such techniques. biological features or are themselves that high-severity fire and increased Comment (100): Several commenters essential for the species’ conservation. frequency of fire may be a risk to the raised concerns that critical habitat We looked first to Federal lands for nesting function of northern spotted owl designation would reduce or delay the critical habitat; however, in areas of habitat (e.g., Kennedy and Wimberly ability of land managers to manage limited Federal ownership, some State 2009, p. 565). The literature so far is fuels, that more implementation of fuels and private lands provide areas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72015

determined to be essential to the California tiger salamander, and western final designation of critical habitat, the northern spotted owl, by contributing to snowy plovers as examples of increased concern regarding potential demographic support and connectivity regulatory impact resulting from critical exacerbation of regulatory burden is no to facilitate dispersal and colonization. habitat designation. longer relevant. State and private lands were included Our Response: Our economic analysis Comment (104): Numerous only where essential to achieve concluded that private lands in commenters supported including conservation of the species, and State California and subject to CEQA must private lands, and urged the Service not lands were prioritized over private comply with the California Forest to exclude these areas in the final rule lands. In Oregon, Federal and State Practice Rules already in place, for a variety of reasons, including the lands identified were sufficient to meet regardless of critical habitat. Further, conservation value of including all the conservation needs of the owl; in the economic analysis reports that lands identified as suitable habitat, the Washington and California, there were CALFIRE is unlikely to request need for connectivity, existing some areas where Federal and State additional protective measures for management flexibility and a lack of lands were not sufficient to meet the habitat beyond those already required additional regulatory burden, the population metrics essential to recovery by these regulations. Subsequently, we opportunity to build cooperative for the species, and some private lands conclude the incremental costs of the management agreements, and concerns were identified as essential for designation would be limited to the that exclusion is not supported by the contributing to the conservation of the potential for additional administrative best available science and would signal species. These private lands were burden under CEQA (IEC 2012b, p. 5– that these lands are not important to the subsequently excluded from the final 19). recovery of the species. designation under section 4(b)(2) of the The only other potential regulatory Our Response: The Act specifically Act (see Exclusions). As discussed in impact to private landowners which we requires the Service to designate critical our response to Comment (104), such would foresee from the designation of habitat for listed species to the exclusion does not signal that these northern spotted owl critical habitat maximum extent prudent and lands are not important for the may occur when a proposed project has determinable, and does not restrict such conservation of the northern spotted a Federal nexus (e.g., Federal funding or designation to particular land owl, but only that the Secretary has authorization) and the project may affect ownership. Rather, areas that meet the determined that the benefits of designated critical habitat. However, as definition of critical habitat, as excluding these areas outweighs the all private lands have been excluded determined on the basis of the best benefits of including them. from this final designation of critical scientific data available, are proposed We received several comments from habitat, this should no longer be a for designation. However, section 4(b)(2) private landowners expressing concern concern. of the Act further provides that the that their land uses would be restricted The Service is unaware that the Secretary, in designating critical habitat by the designation of critical habitat, or designation of critical habitat for the and making revisions, shall take into that jobs would be lost if critical habitat marbled murrelet, California red-legged consideration the economic impact, the is designated on private lands. Some frog, California tiger salamander, or the impact on national security, and any landowners were under the false western snowy plover has led to any other relevant impact of specifying any impression that their access to Federal increase in regulatory impacts to private particular area as critical habitat. The funds would be restricted, or that they landowners. While private landowners Secretary may then choose to exercise would be unable to complete forest may have experienced an increased his discretion to exclude any area from health improvement projects on their regulatory burden with the listing of critical habitat if he determines that the lands if critical habitat were designated these species under the Endangered benefit of exclusion outweighs the there. We reiterate that the regulatory Species Act, we are not aware of an benefits of specifying such areas as part effect of critical habitat is the increased regulatory impact associated of the critical habitat, unless that requirement for Federal agencies to with the designation of critical habitat exclusion would result in the extinction consult with the Service on actions they for these species. of the species. carry out, fund, or authorize that may Comment (103): One commenter Lands excluded under section 4(b)(2) affect the designated critical habitat of expressed concern that the regulatory are still considered essential to the endangered or threatened species. burden imposed by critical habitat conservation of the species. Such areas Activities can continue on private lands designation on private lands in were identified as critical habitat with critical habitat in place; it is only California will be exacerbated, because because they either provide the essential if Federal funding or permits are the Service is no longer providing physical or biological features, if required that the Federal agency technical assistance for California forest occupied, or were otherwise determined involved would need to consult with landowners who wish to prepare State- to be essential, if unoccupied. Exclusion the Service to insure that the proposed required timber harvest plans. should never be interpreted as meaning action does not destroy or adversely Our Response: We believe the that such areas are unimportant to the modify critical habitat. However, as a commenter was mistaken in stating that conservation of the species. Exclusion is consequence of the exclusion of all the Service is no longer available to based upon a determination by the private lands from this final designation assist private landowners in the Secretary that the benefit of excluding of critical habitat for the northern preparation of timber harvest plans in these essential areas outweighs the spotted owl, concerns such as those California, as the Service’s technical benefit of including them in critical expressed above should be moot. assistance program is still operational habitat. Comment (102): One commenter and available to assist private In this case, the Secretary has chosen expressed concern about the potential landowners in this regard. The Service to exercise his discretion to exclude impact of designating critical habitat on does not review every timber harvest non-Federal lands from the final private lands related to the California plan, but is available for review when designation of critical habitat if an Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requested after the initial review by existing conservation agreement or regulations, and cited to the marbled CALFIRE. In addition, since all private partnership is in place that provides murrelet, California red-legged frog, lands have been excluded from this benefits that are greater than the benefits

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72016 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

that would be provided by the Comment (106): Several commenters identified in comments on the proposed designation of critical habitat. Such requested that the final rule exclude rule, and thank landowners for bringing exclusions have only been made particular land areas in private these corrections to our attention. following a careful weighing of both the ownership (including but not limited to All specific requests for exclusion and benefits of inclusion and the benefits of Usal Redwood Forest Company, records of our consideration of those exclusion. We wish to emphasize that Hawthorne Timber Company, requests are in our record, and available the exclusion of lands from the critical Mendocino Redwood Company, upon request (see FOR FURTHER habitat designation should not be Rayonier, Sierra Pacific, Pope INFORMATION CONTACT). construed as a message that these lands timberlands, Merrill & Ring’s lands, Comment (107): More than 50 private are not important or essential for the Weyerhaeuser Mineral, SDS Lumber landowners in Washington State conservation of the northern spotted Co., Olympic Resource Management, requested individual exclusions for owl, nor should exclusion be Green Diamond, and Wauna Lake Club) their lands for a variety of reasons, interpreted as some indication that for a variety of reasons, including including economics, additional these lands are now somehow subject to economics, additional regulatory regulatory burdens, a lack of habitat degradation or destruction burdens and uncertainty, a lack of conservation benefits, fire risks, because they are not included in critical conservation benefits, mapping errors, mapping errors, existing conservation habitat. Lands excluded on the basis of effects on existing and future agreements, and disincentives for conservation agreements and the conservation easements and agreements, voluntary conservation measures and recognition of conservation partnerships State protections, ongoing voluntary for preserving habitat. are fully expected to continue to make conservation activities, potential Our Response: Upon further review, an important contribution to the disincentives for preserving habitat, and using the underlying aerial photo conservation and recovery of the owl possible negative impacts to existing imagery from the 2011 National absent the designation of critical habitat. partnerships and relationships. Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) Such lands are excluded only if we have Our Response: No private lands are and Ruraltech’s 2007 forestland parcel evidence that such expectations for included in the final designation of data, we determined that the vast majority of Small Forest Landowner future contributions of the habitat on critical habitat. Many of these lands parcels we examined had either highly these lands are well-founded, as were excluded under section 4(b)(2) of fragmented, little, or no northern evidenced by a conservation easement, the Act; our detailed evaluation of these spotted owl habitat currently present. habitat conservation plan, safe harbor exclusions is provided in the Exclusions Based on the combination of parcel size, agreement, or other instrument, or by a section of this document. In some cases, current habitat conditions, and spatial proven track record of conservation by lands were removed following a review distribution, we concluded that private the partner in question. The details of of habitat conditions on the specific lands coded as Small Forest Landowner our considered analyses of each area parcels identified using 2011 National parcels do not provide the PCEs for under consideration for exclusion are Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery, in response to public northern spotted owls, nor are they provided in the Exclusions section of essential to the conservation of the this document (above). comment. Upon review, we determined that lands identified by Rayonier, Pope species; thus, these areas do not meet Comment (105): Numerous Resources, Olympic Resource the definition of critical habitat, and we commenters requested that the final rule Management, and Weyerhauser Mineral have removed them from the final include lands covered by conservation did not meet the definition of critical designation of critical habitat for agreements in the final rule for a variety habitat. Therefore, these lands were Washington State. of reasons, including consistency with removed from the final designation. We removed from the final critical existing policy, a need for connectivity, Some landowners asked for exclusion habitat designation lands described in the habitat value of these areas, a lack from the proposed critical habitat, but 17 comments after confirming that these of explicit population recovery were not actually included in the lands did not contain the PCEs, or that objectives, a need for increased proposed designation in the first place. they were too small, fragmented, or protections and legal safeguards, An example of such a case is Merrill isolated to contribute to spotted owl concerns about the conservation and Ring lands. In other cases, conservation, and therefore did not meet effectiveness and appropriate commenters did not submit sufficient the definition of critical habitat. Lands implementation of these agreements, location information for us to be certain owned by 19 other commenters that and a need for additional analysis before of the location of the parcel in question; requested removal were not within they are excluded. Wauna Lake Club, for example, fell into proposed critical habitat. The land of Our Response: As described earlier, this category. one commenter was removed to correct the Service carefully evaluated each In cases where mapping errors may a mapping error in the proposed rule. conservation agreement or partnership have been made in our proposed critical We excluded another commenter’s under consideration for exclusion on its habitat designation, such that lands that lands due to their completion of a SHA. own merits, and weighed the benefits of do not meet the definition of critical Finally, 16 commenters did not provide exclusion versus inclusion. As habitat for the northern spotted owl sufficient location information to enable described in our response to Comment were inadvertently included within the us to unambiguously identify their (104), above, we emphasize that the proposed designation, the mapping in parcels. Of these 16, we inferred that we exclusion of such lands does not signal the final rule was corrected, so that likely removed 6 from the final critical that they are not important to the those lands are removed from the final habitat designation because the size of conservation or recovery of the northern designation. Sierra Pacific lands in the commenters’ parcels were very spotted owl, and indeed such California, for example, were small, making it likely that our process exclusions are made only on the basis inadvertently included in the proposed of removing small forest landowners of our determination that the benefits of designation due to a mapping error; from the final designation included the exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, these lands were removed from the final properties of these commenters. For the and that such exclusion will not result designation. We similarly made any remaining 10 commenters, lack of in the extinction of the species. corrections to area total errors that were location and parcel size information in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72017

the comments we received made it species. We have identified the specific spotted owl across its geographical impossible for us to determine or infer areas that were occupied at the time of range) identifies the specific forest types whether these parcels were included in listing through historical surveys. We that support northern spotted owl life- our final critical habitat designation. have determined that other areas were history needs across the species’ range, However, as all private lands were occupied at the time of listing (based on but is more narrowly refined in that it excluded from critical habitat under the presence of suitable habitat as well must exist in concert with one of the section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see as the high probability that other PCEs to meet the definition of Exclusions), no private lands remain in nonterritorial and dispersing subadult critical habitat. PCE 4 (habitat to the final designation. owls were present). In addition, we support the transience and colonization analyzed all areas as if they were not phases of dispersal) is described in the Public Comments on Critical Habitat occupied and applied the standard preamble of the proposed rule as those Boundaries applicable to unoccupied habitat. We forests with at least an average diameter Comment (108): One commenter used the methodology described in both at breast height (DBH) of 11 inches (28 noted that the inclusion of the term the proposed and final rules to centimeters) and at least a 40 percent ‘‘necessary’’ within the definition of determine which unoccupied areas are canopy cover. We have included these ‘‘conserve’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532(2)) indicates essential to the conservation of the metrics in the regulatory portion of the that Congress intended a ‘‘high species, and have explained why final rule to more narrowly clarify the threshold’’ for designating land as unoccupied habitat in each subunit is forest structure that meets this PCE. In critical habitat, and that land designated essential to the conservation of the addition, it is only where these PCEs in must be required to bring the species to species. the appropriate arrangement and the point of no longer needing the For occupied areas, the attributes of quantity are essential to the protection of the Endangered Species forest composition and structure, and conservation of the northern spotted Act. The commenter further asserts that characteristics of the physical owl that they are selected for the Service must show that all specific environment associated with nesting, designation as critical habitat. areas proposed as critical habitat are roosting, and foraging habitat—physical Comment (110): Several commenters necessary, essential, and required for or biological features used by the believe that additional lands beyond the continued existence of the species. species—were identified based on those already designated as northern Our Response: The use of ‘‘necessary’’ published research results and expert spotted owl critical habitat are not in the definition of conservation does opinion and incorporated into a necessary for northern spotted owl not change the requirements related to predictive habitat model. We recovery, and the increase in total area critical habitat. Furthermore, the Act determined that, for the most part, the is not supported by the science. The provides that the Service ‘‘to the physical or biological features commenters suggest that including them maximum extent prudent and supporting these known sites are will reduce or eliminate timber harvest determinable * * * shall * * * essential to the conservation of the on designated lands. designate any habitat of [the species] species (the exceptions are owl sites that Our Response: The continued decline which is then considered to be critical were isolated or in areas of marginal of the overall northern spotted owl habitat.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A); see quality). The special management population demonstrates that the threats also Center for Biological Diversity v. considerations are described by to the species are still having a FWS, 450 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2006) geographic region and in the subunit significant impact on northern spotted (noting Congress’ use of the word descriptions. However, large areas owl occupancy, reproduction, and ‘‘shall’’ and holding that ‘‘[i]t follows within the species’ geographical range survival. As described in the Revised that critical habitat designations are had not been surveyed at the time of Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted mandatory’’). There are only two listing, and we have determined that a Owl (USFWS 2011), the main threats to exceptions to the mandate that critical designation based solely on the northern spotted owls are the past and habitat be designated at the time of locations of those known territories continued loss of habitat and the listing. First, designation may be would not be adequate to conserve the competitive effects of barred owls. The temporarily delayed if critical habitat is species. Therefore, we used habitat increase in designated critical habitat ‘‘not determinable,’’ e.g., it cannot be information based on habitat selected by area to help offset these threats is identified based on current scientific those known owl pairs to identify other supported by northern spotted owl information. 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A); 50 areas that were likely supporting experts, researchers, and scientific peer CFR 424.12(a). Second, designation is northern spotted owl territories at the reviewers. The results of our modeling not required if it is ‘‘not prudent,’’ see time of listing or that could support the efforts presented in Appendix C of the id., but Congress intended that finding species’ recovery in the future. We then 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the to be made ‘‘only rarely.’’ S. Rep. 106– determined where these areas are Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, 126, at 4 (1999); see also H.R. Rep. 95– essential to conservation of the species Appendix C) and in the Modeling 1625, at 16–17 (1978) (designation based on a spatially explicit northern Supplement for this rule (Dunk et al. required except in ‘‘rare spotted owl population model as 2012b) show that the 2008 critical circumstances’’). described in the proposed rule, and habitat network performed worse We agree that the rule should again in this final rule. (greater population declines over time, designate either (1) specific areas within Comment (109): One commenter higher extinction risk) than the 2012 the geographical area occupied by the stated that one or more of the PCEs are Revised Critical Habitat this revised species at the time of listing that contain too general in nature and should be designation. physical or biological features essential more narrowly clarified or defined. In The Revised Recovery Plan for the to the conservation of the species and particular, the comment suggested that Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) which may require special management PCE #1 and #4 seem to be met by all recommends active management of considerations or protection, or (2) forested lands. some forest lands using ecological specific areas outside the geographical Our Response: PCE 1 (Forest types forestry approaches in appropriate area occupied at the time of listing that that may be in early-, mid-, or late-seral stands such that we believe there are are essential to the conservation of the stages and that support the northern widespread opportunities for continued

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

timber harvest management within the spotted owls is more difficult, even may not currently be occupied by the range of the northern spotted owl. though they occupy many areas between species. As habitat develops over time, Comment (111): One commenter established home ranges of territorial both within occupied and unoccupied noted that the Endangered Species Act owls. The Service determined that most areas, we anticipate northern spotted requires that designated critical habitat of the areas within critical habitat that owls will colonize the unoccupied only include those areas ‘‘occupied at have the PCEs were occupied at the time habitat and positively contribute to the time of listing,’’ and that any of listing by the species. However, as population demographics which additional areas defined by the stated in the rule, we have determined contribute to conservation of the Secretary must be essential to all areas within critical habitat to be species. The closer these currently conserving the species. The commenter essential for the conservation of the unoccupied areas are to the improved argued that the standards for species. Areas essential to the sites over time the more likely designating critical habitat for occupied conservation of the species are not dispersing northern spotted owls will be and unoccupied habitat differ, and that required to be occupied at the time of able to successfully colonize them. By Congress did not intend the phrase listing to be included in critical habitat. evaluating northern spotted owl ‘‘conserve’’ to include extending the For the purpose of developing and population metrics, such as relative range of a species. The commenter also evaluating revised critical habitat for the population size, population trend, and asserted that stating that substantially northern spotted owl, we used a extinction risk that resulted from each all of the occupied and unoccupied area definition of ‘‘geographical area scenario evaluated, we designated only is necessary does not comply with the occupied by the species’’ at the time it those lands that contain the physical statutory requirements. was listed consistent with the species’ and biological features essential to Our Response: Congress specifically distribution, population ecology, and conserve the northern spotted owl, or provided for designating unoccupied use of space. We based our that are essential themselves. This areas where doing so is essential to the identification of ‘‘occupied’’ network has the potential to support an conservation of the species. Congress geographical area on: (1) The increasing or stable population trend of expressly recognized that distribution of verified northern spotted northern spotted owls that exhibits ‘‘conservation’’ could require owl locations and (2) scientific relatively low extinction risk, both designation of areas unoccupied at the information regarding northern spotted rangewide and at the recovery unit time of listing. In this rule, we are owl population structure and habitat scale, and achieves adequate designating unoccupied habitat in associations. While there were connectivity among recovery units. It places where it is essential to the approximately 1,500 northern spotted does not include every known northern species’ recovery; however, we are not owl pairs identified at the time of listing spotted owl site. Occupied northern designating critical habitat outside the (1990), subsequent surveys across a spotted owl sites that are not included historical range of the species. We are larger percentage of the landscape in the are isolated or in small groups with also not designating critical habitat mid and late 1990s detected more than other sites and will provide relatively everywhere within the present range of 4,000 pairs. Because adult northern less demographic contribution to the the northern spotted owl. spotted owls are long-lived and have population than those sites that are in The proposed rule did not say that high site fidelity, it is reasonable to larger, contiguous groups. Therefore, we ‘‘substantially all of the occupied and assume that these sites identified as determined that they did not contain the unoccupied area is necessary.’’ The occupied several years post-listing were physical and biological features proposed rule explained how much of also occupied by owls at the time of essential to northern spotted owl each subunit was occupied based on listing. conservation. historical survey data, and why the In addition, we are not stating that all Comment (114): Numerous areas of potentially unoccupied habitat critical habitat was occupied at the time commenters requested we maximize the in each subunit are essential to the of listing, but as clearly identified in the total area included in the designation by conservation of the species. In addition, proposed rule and this final rule under including the most area in any of the the methodology used to determine the section Unoccupied Areas (77 FR composites or by including all northern what is essential was explained in the 14062, p. 14099), we acknowledge the spotted owl habitat across all proposed rule and this final rule. uncertainty regarding whether some ownerships. Comment (112): Several commenters areas were occupied at the time of Our Response: We have designated suggested that there was insufficient listing or not (especially those areas critical habitat based on the evidence to determine whether lands used for dispersal or which were likely identification of those areas meeting the proposed as critical habitat were occupied based on habitat suitability). definition of critical habitat or that are occupied at the time of listing, and Therefore, we have evaluated these otherwise essential to the conservation questioned the data used for assessing areas as if they were unoccupied at the of the northern spotted owl. Toward this northern spotted owl populations, both time of listing and have found them to end, maximizing land area is not the key at the time of listing and at the present be essential to the conservation of the factor. Our goal was to designate critical time. species. habitat that is essential for northern Our Response: Occupancy by Comment (113): One commenter spotted owl recovery but achieves the individuals of wide-ranging species can questioned how some ‘‘occupied’’ desired results on as small an area as be difficult to definitively demonstrate habitat areas can be considered possible (i.e., it is efficient). This or verify, particularly when different nonessential while other ‘‘non- reduces any potential regulatory areas are utilized by individuals at occupied’’ habitat was considered burdens and land management conflicts, different times in their life stages, and essential for the conservation of the which will increase the likelihood of when the species responds to survey species. success at meeting our goals. In techniques in a variety of ways. Our Response: To conserve the addition, designating areas beyond that Effectively detecting territorial northern northern spotted owl it is essential to necessary to achieve the conservation of spotted owls in a home range is a well- have larger, connected areas that are the species would indicate that we had established technique, but locating managed for the development of their included areas beyond what is truly nonterritorial or transient northern habitat even though some of those areas essential to the conservation of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72019

species, and exceeded the intent of the Public Comments Regarding the well managed or protected, that area statute. Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) still qualifies as critical habitat under Comment (115): Several commenters Comment (116): Several commenters the statutory definition if special suggested revisions to the boundaries of stated that the rule needs to be more management is needed. Comment (118): Numerous the proposed critical habitat, including explicit about how it relates to the commenters asserted the proposed NWFP, and that the NWFP should several proposed additions (e.g., lands critical habitat rule would result in the direct the management of the critical near Cascade-Siskiyou National weakening of the NWFP, including the habitat lands. Monument, Coquille tribal land, Coos dismantling or eradication of the late- Our Response: We have clarified the Bay Wagon Road lands, the Olympics/ successional (and riparian) reserves, and relationship between the critical habitat Western Cascade area, etc.) for several that we should use a variety of rule and the NWFP under the ‘‘Forest reasons, including the conservation approaches explicitly elucidated in the Management Activities in Northern value of the habitat, increased final rule to maintain the LSR network. connectivity benefits for dispersal and Spotted Owl Critical Habitat’’ heading. Our Response: In designating critical gene flow, the need for additional The designation of critical habitat for habitat the Service is required to use the protections to avoid habitat degradation, the northern spotted owl identifies the best available science to identify and consistency with the best available areas essential for the conservation of specific areas that provide the PCEs or science and existing policy. the species; it does not supersede the are otherwise essential to the Standards and Guidelines for lands in conservation of the species. Our Our Response: When determining the NWFP. The Service believes the what is essential to the conservation of modeling effort and other data NWFP has functioned as intended for identified some nonreserved areas that the northern spotted owl, we prioritized the retention and development of late- Federal, then State, and finally private are high value for the northern spotted successional forest habitat (Thomas et owl and essential to the conservation of or Tribal lands. Where Federal and State al. 2006; Davis 2012). The NWFP was lands were sufficient to provide for the the species. Additionally, there are developed with the expectation that portions of reserved allocations that are essential conservation needs of the emerging scientific data would be of relatively low value to the northern northern spotted owl as demonstrated incorporated into the management of spotted owl. As a result of incorporating through our population modeling in Federal forest lands. The discussions of the best available science, our modeling HexSim, no additional lands were active forest management in the Revised process demonstrated that the critical added. In addition, in accordance with Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted habitat network identified here is more the provisions of the Act, not all habitat Owl (USFWS 2011) and this preamble effective at conserving the northern that could be occupied by northern are based on numerous recent scientific spotted owl than the NWFP network of spotted owls was included in the study results. We wish to be clear, reserves. This is not unexpected, as the designation. Only areas that meet the however, that the inclusion or exclusion LSR network was never intended solely definition of critical habitat for the of NWFP reserves in the designation of for the benefit of northern spotted owls, species were designated. critical habitat changes neither the land but was created to provide for many In Washington, we added suggested allocation nor the Standards and late-successional species. However, the areas to critical habitat only where Guidelines for those lands under the designation of critical habitat does not updated information about land NWFP. Nevertheless, we believe that change the existing NWFP land use ownership indicated a change in our discussion of active forest allocations or Standards and Guidelines. ownership from private ownership to management is consistent with the The inclusion or exclusion of NWFP Federal ownership. This was based on objectives of the NWFP. reserves as critical habitat changes Comment (117): One commenter our prioritization of landownerships in neither the land allocation nor the suggested that lands currently managed the designation, as described above, Standards and Guidelines for those under the NWFP do not require wherein we looked to Federal lands first lands. The Service encourages additional management considerations for critical habitat, and included State continued implementation of the NWFP or protections from designated critical and finally private or Tribal lands only and adherence to the Standards and habitat. where necessary to achieve the Guidelines for reserve management. Our Response: The Service is not Comment (119): Several commenters conservation of the species. These areas relieved of its statutory obligation to noted the critical habitat rule should had not initially been included in the designate critical habitat based on the adopt the Standards and Guidelines of proposal because the ownership contention that it will not provide the NWFP in an effort to protect information we used had indicated additional conservation benefit. We do northern spotted owl habitat, including these lands were privately owned, and not agree with the argument that all late-successional and old-growth therefore they were not prioritized for specific areas and essential features forests. inclusion. These additions occurred in within critical habitat do not require Our Response: In designating critical the central Cascade Range of special management considerations or habitat we are required to identify those Washington where many sections of protection because adequate protections lands essential to the conservation of industrial timberlands in checkerboard are already in place. In Ctr. for the species through application of the ownership with Federal lands had Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F. best available science. Our recently been transferred to Federal Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Ariz. 2003), the court incorporation of state-of-the-art ownership. This area of the central held that the Act does not direct us to modeling programs, techniques, and Cascades surrounding Snoqualmie Pass designate critical habitat only in those data identified those areas, many of has repeatedly been identified as areas where ‘‘additional’’ special which contained late-successional or essential to maintaining demographic management considerations or old-growth forest. However, the purpose linkages among spotted owl populations protection is needed. If any area of this rule is to designate critical from northern to southern Washington, provides the physical or biological habitat, not to adopt specific standards and from the west slope to the east slope features essential to the conservation of for its management. The Revised of the Washington Cascades. the species, even if that area is already Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72020 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Owl (USFWS 2011) recommends the Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl modeling process for evaluating habitat retention of structurally complex forests (USFWS 2011)), suggested that the suitability under MaxEnt assumes that where they currently exist (Recovery interpretation of RHS values was similar some moderate amount of edge and Action 32). We did not find, however, between/among regions. Furthermore, degree of forest fragmentation is good that retaining all northern spotted owl Zonation was run within modeling for demography and fitness of northern habitat is essential for the conservation regions (see Appendix C of the Revised spotted owls throughout their of the species, so not all habitat was Recovery Plan) to ensure that potential geographic range based on Franklin et included. critical habitat units and subunits were al. (2000), yet this relationship has been well distributed throughout the Public Comments on Competition From shown mainly for northern California northern spotted owl’s range. We are Barred Owls and one area in Oregon (Olson et al. aware of only one effort to date that has 2005), not the remainder of the Comment (120): Several commenters utilized random sampling of a relatively subspecies’ range in Oregon and recommended that the Service should large region within the range of the Washington. For example, Dugger et al. objectively determine whether the northern spotted owl (Zabel et al. 2003). (2005) found no relationship between barred owl threat has so overwhelmed The demographic study areas were not the amount of edge and demographic the northern spotted owl as to make randomly located, nor were the northern performance of northern spotted owls in additions to critical habitat unnecessary, spotted owl location data we used. southern Oregon; consequently, the and noted that dealing with the barred Thus, the chance exists that it is biased validity of this assumption for the entire owl and habitat threats separately could in some way. Nonetheless, given the range of the subspecies is questionable. be detrimental to northern spotted owl relatively large sample sizes, and the Our Response: We did use one spatial recovery. geographic and habitat variation that scale throughout the northern spotted Our Response: The scientific exists around northern spotted owl sites owl’s range for our MaxEnt modeling. information available at this time is not in the samples we used, we contend that adequate to statistically assess the effect We also assumed that territories, in our this is the best data available to use. The northern spotted owl HexSim model, of barred owls on any specific Service acknowledges that there is conservation strategy or agency action, were of uniform size (3 hexagons) uncertainty in this process, and that this throughout the northern spotted owl’s though these strategies include efforts to is unavoidable. There exists no perfect address barred owls. The extent to range. We did not, however, assume rangewide habitat map, no perfect home ranges were of equal size which northern spotted owls remain (large) random sample of owl locations, (sometimes undetected) on areas with throughout the range (see table C–24 in no randomly allocated demographic Appendix C of the Revised Recovery high barred owl densities is unclear. study areas from which to draw strong However, the threat posed by barred Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl range-wide inferences about population (USFWS 2011)). We also did not assume owls does not relieve the Service of its trends, nor a perfect understanding of statutory obligation to designate critical that edge or forest fragmentation was the northern spotted owl’s life history. good for northern spotted owl habitat for the northern spotted owl That said, we have used the best data under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act. demographic performance in our available, thoroughly documented our MaxEnt models. We did, however, allow Furthermore, suitable habitat is approach and presented our evaluation for edge metrics to be included in the essential for northern spotted owls to of the usefulness of the models we used, models where they had clear effects on persist, with or without barred owls. and we find they provide a strong the MaxEnt models; however, we did Our modeling approach for designating foundation using the best available not force them in to the models in critical habitat included barred owl science for informing decisions about modeling regions where they had no effects on spotted owl population critical habitat. performance. Recent research (Wiens Comment (122): One commenter effect. It is important to note that, unlike 2012) indicates that population indicated a need to clarify the basis for studies that have attempted to evaluate performance of both northern spotted the thinning of northern spotted owl competing mechanistic hypotheses owls and barred owls is greatest when location data used in modeling. regarding northern spotted owl habitat/ high-quality habitat is most abundant, Our Response: The basis of the climate-demographic relationships (e.g., and most peer reviewers supported the thinning is articulated on pages C–20 Franklin et al. 2000, Dugger et al. 2005), approach of conserving more habitat to and C–21 of Appendix C of the Revised in our MaxEnt modeling process, we did help offset the impact of the barred owl Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted not attempt to evaluate competing on the northern spotted owl. Owl (USFWS 2011). hypotheses. Instead, we attempted to Comment (123): One commenter develop MaxEnt models that had good Public Comments on the Modeling indicated that the assumptions for this discrimination ability, were well Process modeling process were not completely calibrated, and were robust (see our Comment (121): One commenter was spelled out nor were their validities response to Comment (20); additional critical that the process for combining addressed. For example, the modeling of discussion is provided on pages C–30 to different models in different modeling habitat suitability assumes that core use C–32 of the Revised Recovery Plan, regions was unclear, and was also areas and home ranges of northern USFWS 2011). critical that a nonrandom sampling of spotted owls are relatively constant in Comment (124): One commenter nesting centers and the approach used size throughout their geographic range, requested more justification for the to create a contiguous underlying RHS but this assumption is not well choice of features in MaxEnt modeling. (Relative Habitat Suitability) map using supported by the proposed critical For example, the threshold feature was MaxEnt modeling software. habitat, Appendix C of the 2011 used, but the product feature was Our Response: Although the RHS recovery plan, or the published excluded. They predicted that product values within one modeling region may literature. Core use areas and home features in particular might be relevant not be directly comparable to another’s, ranges increase in size for northern to biological hypotheses (e.g., when the similarity of each modeling region’s spotted owls in the northern part of nesting habitat is low, increases in strength of selection curves (see their range versus those in the southern foraging habitat don’t increase Appendix C of the Revised Recovery part (Thomas et al. 1990). Second, the occupancy, but when nesting habitat is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72021

greater, foraging habitat has a greater (5.625 million ha) and had an ending composite 3 and composite 5 was based, impact on occupancy). population that did not differ (95 in part, on that in composite 4. This Our Response: We could have percent confidence intervals sequence of models based on the poor allowed all MaxEnt feature types to be overlapped) from composites with from performance of composite 3 does not used in our process. The product 18.2 to more than 20 million ac (7.4 to make sense from an ecological or (interaction) feature would have more than 8.1 million ha)). In some conservation stand point. It is obvious resulted in even more complex models. modeling regions, our modeling results that composites 1–7 do not represent the However, we were able to develop suggest that owl populations are likely complete range of habitat networks that models without additional complexity to remain relatively low; in part due to might provide for sustainable (e.g. interaction terms) that worked well the relatively small amount of mid-to- populations of northern spotted owls in for the purposes for which they were high RHS area in them. The population most of the modeling regions. They developed. Results from model cross- results for Zonation 40, 60, 80 and 90 contend that there should have been validation and comparisons with are provided in our Modeling more attention paid to increasing habitat independent data sets (USFWS 2011, Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b). for northern spotted owls and providing Appendix C, Table 19, pp. C–39 to C– Comment (126): One commenter for sustainable populations in all 41) showed that our models were well indicated there were key assumptions modeling regions instead of increasing calibrated and had good ability to used in the modeling process that efficiency. They understood the need to predict spotted owl locations (USFWS should be more clearly documented. make any habitat network efficient but 2011, Appendix C, Table 20). The reviewer indicated that the believed that this was a case where Comment (125): Several commenters proposed critical habitat document efficiency has trumped conservation of requested more detail regarding how the refers the reader to the Dunk et al. habitat for the northern spotted owl and different Zonation scenarios from Phase (2012a) Modeling Supplement for a other species associated with old forest 1 in Appendix C of the Revised discussion of these assumptions but ecosystems. Recovery Plan were selected for they were unable to locate them in this Our Response: Relatively poorer inclusion in proposed critical habitat. In document. Not only should the performance (as noted by the reviewer) particular, the reviewers believed that assumptions of the modeling be is not equivalent to ‘‘poor performance.’’ Zonation 70 and 90 scenarios would included in the proposed critical In fact, the 95 percent confidence have provided better modeled northern habitat, but the validity of the intervals of the mean estimated spotted owl population performance. assumptions should also be addressed. population sizes at time-step 350 Our Response: We assume that the Our Response: The key assumptions overlapped for composites 1, 3, 4 question is about why the 30, 50, and used in our modeling process are (highest point estimate), 5, 6, and 7 70 percent of habitat value were chosen provided in Appendix C of the Revised indicating that the differences may not for the initial Zonation networks. They Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted be statistically significant. Furthermore, were chosen to provide relatively broad Owl (USFWS 2011), and referenced in although Composite 3 did perform side-boards, particularly in regard to our proposed rule. Appendix C also worse than Composite 1 in terms of network size. To have started with even provides a thorough discussion of our exceeding pseudo-extinction thresholds, more extreme side-boards (e.g., Z10 and process of testing and cross-validating Composite 7’s performance was nearly Z90) would have been excessive our models. We have also clarified this identical to Composite 1’s. Thus, we because these configurations would in the final version of our Modeling disagree with the assertion that our have included either a very large Supplement (Dunk et al. 2012b). sequence was based on poorly amount of land that doesn’t have Comment (127): One commenter performing composites. There are an features that would support owls (Z90) noted that the modeling of population infinite number of possible potential or an area so small (Z10) that viable owl response and viability under HexSim critical habitat networks that could have populations could not be sustained. It is assumed that recruits into the been evaluated. Efficiency, as used by true that a Z90 scenario would have population become co-owners of their the Service in this effort, did entail provided much more area of potential mother’s territories, yet most owls are reducing the size of potential critical critical habitat, but the amounts of high recruited into the population in habitat networks, because our charge RHS (> 0.5) in Z70 are nearly identical different areas after extensive dispersal under the statutory definition of critical to those in Z90. In fact, Z50ALL over several months and sometimes habitat is to designate only those lands contained 92%, 98%, 99%, and 100% of years. They asked to what extent are occupied at the time of listing that RHS bins 0.6–0.7, 0.7–0.8, 0.8–0.9, and these assumptions valid, and how contain essential physical and biological > 0.9, respectively. Z90ALL contained would lack of validity potentially affect features or unoccupied lands that are 100% of the RHS from each bin, but the results of the modeling process? essential. encompassed a much larger area (i.e., Our Response: In the northern spotted Comment (129): One commenter for very little added inclusion of high owl HexSim model we assumed that indicated that the process for comparing RHS areas, Z90 included millions of juvenile birds, prior to dispersal, co- GNN (vegetation) data with owl nest additional acres). In effect, moving from owned their mother’s territory. sites and foraging areas is unclear. The Z70 to Z90 adds a lot more area; However, juveniles were forced to reviewer asked whether GNN data however, the additional lands added do disperse in the model. The recruits are indicated that nest site centers were not contribute much to spotted owl only co-owners until they fledge, and characterized by large, old trees with population performance. fledging always takes place in the first closed canopy forests and stated that Zonation 70 was considered, and year of life. Further, in the modeling this process needs better explanation. subsequently modified in various two post-fledging females did not share Our Response: The process for composite networks we evaluated. We a territory. developing models of nesting and found that simply increasing the area of Comment (128): One commenter foraging habitat is described in detail on potential critical habitat networks did noted that composite 3 performed pages C–14 through C–43 in Appendix not always result in better performance poorer than composite 1 based on C of the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for of simulated owl populations in HexSim population performance, yet composite the Northern Spotted Owl. Nesting and (e.g., Composite 7 was 13.9 million ac 4 was based on the network in roosting habitat was characterized by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

large, old trees with closed canopies; within the range of the northern spotted assumptions about barred owl however, the specific vegetation owl (Zabel et al. 2003). Because of the encounter probabilities in each of the 11 characteristics included in the models spatial extent of the range of the modeling regions. The assumed changes varied by region. Our confidence that northern spotted owl (more than 23 in encounter probabilities we used in the GNN layer was sufficiently accurate million acres), we do not have the Phases 2 and 3 of our modeling were, to support our modeling process was luxury of having equal survey effort in most cases, relatively modest changes based on several formal and informal throughout the region. The demographic from the currently estimated encounter evaluations. First, we evaluated study areas are not randomly located, probabilities. In fact, for Phase 2 and 3 northern spotted owl habitat modeling nor are the northern spotted owl modeling, we decreased barred owl conducted by the Northwest Forest Plan location data we used. Nonetheless, encounter probabilities in only 3 of 11 Interagency Monitoring Program (Davis given the relatively large sample sizes, modeling regions, and increased et al. 2011), which was also based on and the geographic and habitat variation encounter probabilities in 8 of 11 the GNN data. This effort used GNN and that exists around northern spotted owl modeling regions. Mean absolute value MaxEnt to predict northern spotted owl sites in the samples we used, we of change (from currently estimated to nesting habitat, obtaining models quite consider this information to represent what we assumed in Phases 2 and 3) similar to the NR models in our the best available scientific data for our among modeling regions was 0.081 modeling effort. We also obtained less purposes, and are not aware of any (range = 0.005 (in the KLE) to 0.335 (in formal, but very useful, feedback from a alternative data sets. the OCR)). For additional detail, please number of USFS scientists who had Comment (131): One commenter see our response to Comment (38). made comparisons between GNN output expressed concern that the encounter Comment (132): One commenter and their own field-typed northern rates of northern spotted owls with suggested that we use an occupancy spotted owl nesting habitat with good barred owls found in Forsman et al. analysis on the long-term demographic results. Finally, as described in (2011) were reduced downward to a study areas rather than modeling habitat Appendix C of the Revised Recovery maximum rate of 0.375 even though with MaxEnt to better address barred Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl there is strong evidence in Forsman et owl effects. (USFWS 2011), we evaluated the al. (2011) that the rate is higher in some Our Response: Barred owl impacts reliability of the MaxEnt models’ modeling regions, and Wiens et al. were included in HexSim. In our predictions (RHS) and found that the (2011) has shown that abundance of response to comments made on models had good ability to predict barred owls (and encounter rates) is Appendix C in the Draft Revised northern spotted owl locations. much higher in the Coast Ranges of Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Systematic inaccuracy of the GNN data Oregon than initially thought or is Owl (75 FR 56131; September 15, 2010), would be unlikely to result in the documented in Forsman et al. (2011). the Revised Recovery Plan for the accurate predictions we obtained in our The lower encounter rates of northern Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) modeling. In addition, please see our spotted owls with barred owls that were addressed the choice we made to use responses to Comment (19) through used in Phases 2 and 3 of the modeling MaxEnt and the full data set of owl site Comment (22) for details on our testing, represent more optimistic performances center locations that was available to us, cross-validation, and use of GNN and of northern spotted owls to habitat rather than rely solely on data from the MaxEnt. conditions than is likely to occur in Demographic Study Areas. Comment (130): One commenter reality. The reviewer contends that it Comment (133): One commenter stated that more information on the would have been more appropriate to contended that a separate analysis of ‘‘independent test data sets’’ used for use Zonation 70 or even 90 to a greater BLM checker-boarded lands in western model cross-validation is necessary extent in some modeling regions, than Oregon is needed in order to understand before they are acceptable as an to arbitrarily reduce the barred owl the performance of northern spotted owl adequate test. In particular, if these data encounter rate to a maximum of 0.375 populations under the different habitat sets suffer from the same non-random in order to provide for sustainable networks and composites on those sampling as the training data, then they populations in all modeling regions. lands. will not aid in determining whether the Our Response: The modeling we Our Response: The number of RHS and AUC values are biased by the conducted suggested that the larger the possible owner/district/region-centric nature of the sampling or not. barred owl encounter probability was, analyses that we could have evaluated Our Response: As described in there was less variation in northern was nearly infinite. The BLM’s Appendix C of the Revised Recovery spotted owl population performance ownership was considered in the same Plan (USFWS 2011, p. C–20), we among potential critical habitat way that other ownerships were. In expended substantial effort on the networks (even when network size developing the critical habitat verification of both the spatial accuracy varied by more than a factor of 2); designation, we prioritized public lands and territory status of each site center effectively all populations did over private lands. used in our data set. We received high uniformly poorly. However, when Comment (134): One commenter quality data from northern spotted owl barred owl encounter probabilities were noted that for most of the study areas, demographic study areas (DSAs), and lower (e.g., 0.25), considerable variation the estimates from HexSim compared obtained a large set of additional in northern spotted owl performance favorably to the empirical estimates locations from the NWFP Effectiveness among potential critical habitat from the field studies except for the Monitoring Program. We also obtained networks resulted. Thus, under South Cascades (CAS) and Klamath and verified data sets from private extremely high barred owl encounter (KLA) Study Areas. In one case (CAS), timber companies, the USFS Region 5 probabilities, our modeling suggested the estimate from HexSim was much NRIS database, and a number of that even large amounts of area in larger than that from the field studies, research and monitoring projects potential critical habitat networks did and in the other case (KLA) the estimate throughout the range of the northern not compensate for those barred owl from HexSim was significantly smaller spotted owl. We are aware of only one impacts. Thus, in order to identify than from the field studies. These effort to date that has utilized random potential critical habitat areas for the differences and inconsistencies raise sampling of a relatively large region northern spotted owl, we made some concerns for the validity of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72023

modeling results from HexSim. The regions, with both DSAs residing partly predict specific future outcomes. We are commenter asked for some explanation in the Klamath East region. Because the confident in the ability of the modeling for these differences and Klamath East modeling region exhibits routine to rank a set of scenarios from inconsistencies, and whether the input high rates of simulated immigration and best to worst and provide insights about parameters for HexSim need to be emigration with the other two modeling the degree of difference among them. revised. regions in question (see previous But population metrics provided by the Our Response: We are aware of these paragraph), the discrepancy in models are better viewed as relative differences, as noted in Appendix C of simulated DSA population sizes is not indices than as predictions. This the Revised Recovery Plan for the a big concern. The sum of the simulated caution about interpretation of model Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011). CAS and KLA DSA population sizes is output is particularly relevant to We evaluated multiple changes to the almost exactly equal to the combined modeling regions with low amounts of northern spotted owl HexSim model’s field estimates for those two regions. total habitat area, such as in the State of settings, but those changes did not This suggests that HexSim’s simulated Washington. In the modeling result in overall better agreement northern spotted owl population size environment, small population sizes between HexSim population estimates and distribution is quite accurate at the tend to lead to high variation in and empirical estimates from scale of the DSA for most DSAs, and for outcomes among iterations. demographic study areas (DSAs). To these two DSAs in particular, it is Furthermore, competitive effects of some extent, this issue is the result of similarly accurate, just at a slightly barred owls played a large role in the spatial scale at which we ran the larger spatial scale. determining population outcomes, northern spotted owl HexSim model. Comment (135): One commenter especially in Washington where The overall results, in our view, were asked what publication or data set were encounter rates between barred owls quite good—but not in every specific used for establishing the barred owl and northern spotted owls are high. case. Although there were discrepancies influence on northern spotted owl We used the objectives and criteria in at these local areas, we believe that the reproduction in the HexSim model. the Revised Recovery Plan for the scale at which we evaluated information Our Response: In the northern spotted Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) to for potential critical habitat networks owl HexSim model we used, barred guide our critical habitat proposal. Only (modeling regions and the entire owls did not have any influence on after we had a critical habitat network geographic range of the northern spotted northern spotted owl reproduction, but that we considered essential to meet owl in the United States, which is at did on adult survival. This has been recovery objectives did we impose the least an order of magnitude larger than clarified. secondary criterion of network a demographic study area) was Comment (136): Several commenters efficiency. We retested networks after appropriate. We provide additional requested that the Service integrate efficiency modifications were made to justification in the following industry data into the modeling process ensure they were still likely to meet paragraphs. and that attention be given to the recovery objectives. We included State The KLA DSA is quite small, and is assumptions and limitations of the or private lands only where our distributed across the Klamath East and models and whether or not the modeling results indicated Federal land Klamath West modeling regions. The assumptions and model outputs have was insufficient to provide what is CAS DSA is large, and is distributed been validated. essential for recovery. across the Klamath East and East Our Response: The modeling process As described in the section Criteria Cascades South modeling regions. There incorporated data sets, expert opinion, Used to Identify Critical Habitat, we were no simulated northern spotted owl and published information from the have included in this designation only life-history parameters that varied based timber industry. We carefully evaluated those areas occupied at the time of on demographic study area location. the appropriateness of our models, data listing that provide the essential Some demographic data (resource target sets, and assumptions and tested the physical or biological features, or areas and home range size) did, however, vary outputs and products of the modeling unoccupied at the time of listing that we by modeling region. effort; we therefore are confident that have determined are otherwise essential HexSim simulation data show that the our process was rigorous and met our to the conservation of the northern East Cascades South modeling region objectives. Please see Appendix C of the spotted owl. We appreciate the exchanged owls principally with the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern commenter’s suggestion of additional Klamath East and West Cascades South Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) for a areas for consideration, and we did modeling regions. The Klamath East discussion of the rigorous testing and evaluate all areas on the basis of RHS modeling region exchanged owls cross-validation we conducted on our throughout the range of the northern principally with the East Cascades models, as well as our responses to spotted owl, including State and private South and Klamath West modeling Comment (19) through Comment (22). lands in southwest Washington. We regions, with relatively small numbers Comment (137): One commenter have included in this final designation of immigrants coming from the West raised concerns about leaving out high all areas that we have determined are Cascades South region. The Klamath RHS value habitat on State and private essential to the conservation of the West modeling region exchanged owls lands in Washington, and provided species. A determination that certain principally with the Klamath East recommendations of specific areas to areas are not essential should not, modeling region, with the next highest include in critical habitat designation. however, be interpreted to mean that number of emigrants and immigrants Our Response: The modeling process such areas do not have the potential to being associated with the Oregon Coast that the Service developed to help contribute to the recovery of the species, and Redwood Coast regions, identify potential critical habitat is most and we encourage landowners to respectively. appropriately used to make relative participate in other recovery efforts to The simulated CAS DSA population comparisons of alternative scenarios. achieve conservation on their lands (for size is roughly 45 owls too large, While we sought to make the models as example, as identified in Recovery whereas the KLA DSA population size realistic as possible to achieve Actions 14 and 15 of the Revised is about 55 owls too small. These two meaningful relative comparisons, these Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011)). In DSAs are spread across three modeling modeling tools are not designed to addition, we identified some State and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

private lands in Washington as essential species. The Service clearly noted in the assumption that barred owls would be for the conservation of the northern proposed rule that the areas proposed as addressed through their extirpation spotted owl, but all of the private lands critical habitat are essential, but not from wide swaths of the Pacific and some of the State lands were sufficient absent other management Northwest (‘‘Modeling and Analysis subsequently excluded under section actions, to recover the northern spotted Procedures used to Identify and 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions). As owl. Evaluate Potential Critical Habitat discussed in our response to Comment Comment (139): One commenter was Networks for the Northern Spotted (104), above, exclusion of areas is not concerned that the proposed rule did Owl,’’ USFWS Feb. 28, 2012, pp. 14– the same as a determination that those not present an effects analysis for the 15), an assumption that is neither areas are not essential; it only reflects proposed exclusions that indicates how legally nor scientifically supportable. the Secretary’s determination that the northern spotted owl populations would Our Response: The Service made no benefits of excluding such areas likely respond if these lands were assumption, written or otherwise, that outweighs the benefits of including excluded. the barred owl would be extirpated from them in critical habitat. Our Response: Many of the potential any portion of the northern spotted Comment (138): One commenter exclusions put forth in the proposed owl’s range. The ‘‘ceiling’’ on barred claimed that critical habitat includes critical habitat rule would be unlikely to owl encounter rates that was used in the nearly all suitable habitat—occupied or affect the outcome of our population modeling (Phases 2 and 3 from Dunk et not—and was driven by the artificial modeling. This is because those al. 2012a) was not arbitrary, but based constraints incorporated into the exclusions, if made, would be based on on the results from several scenarios recovery plan—namely the their having some existing habitat presented and compared during Phase 1 manipulation of the barred owl protections (e.g., wilderness areas, modeling. As explained in both interaction model. According to the national parks, HCPs, SHAs) that we Appendix C of the Revised Recovery commenter, absent these artificial would reasonably expect to continue Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl constraints, the model would have into the future, and thus our treatment (USFWS 2011) and Dunk et al. 2012b, predicted that none of the alternatives of them in the modeling would be the the barred owl encounter rates used in will conserve the species in the face of same as if they were included in a the testing and selection of the proposed barred owls, therefore none of the lands critical habitat network. If we were to critical habitat designation are, in most wherein there is significant barred owl exclude lands without consideration of modeling regions, similar to or even interaction are ‘‘essential’’ for the continued conservation, we agree that slightly above the currently estimated survival of the species. The commenter this could change the results of our encounter rates. Only in portions of further stated that given the significant population modeling. However, since Washington were encounter rates impact on the human environment by this is not the case, and no such lands reduced in order to identify essential restricting management of the lands were excluded from this final rule, we habitat absent the undue influence of within this region, the Service needs to did not need to conduct such an barred owls, but certainly not to the clearly provide the public with an analysis in this final rule. extent of ‘‘extirpation of wide swaths’’ estimation of the scientific reliability of Comment (140): One commenter was as suggested in this comment. For their ability to conserve the northern critical that no analysis was provided as additional details, please see our spotted owl, and this information is to the relative effectiveness of the new response to Comment (38). critical to weighing the social and critical habitat network in also Comment (142): One commenter economic ramifications of the proposed capturing habitat for other late-seral/ stated that the original critical habitat action. old-growth-associated species of designations were based on forest stand Our Response: The proposed critical concern, and encouraged an analysis of characteristics whereas the new habitat rule did not include ‘‘nearly all the effects of the proposed critical designations are based on computer suitable habitat’’ and our evaluation habitat network on multi-species simulations that are untested and indicated that the large majority of the conservation goals, by overlaying unreliable, and that this is not an proposed designation was occupied at critical habitat boundaries on data on improvement on the existing science. the time of listing and contains the occurrence and habitat distribution for The commenter states that northern physical and biological features other species of concern. spotted owl populations have continued essential to conservation of the species. Our Response: Analyzing the effects to decline as suitable habitat has It also identified other areas essential to of the proposed critical habitat network increased; therefore, there are factors the species’ conservation, which on multi-species conservation goals is other than habitat that are decimating represent only a small portion of the beyond the scope of the critical habitat northern spotted owls, namely barred proposed critical habitat. Contrary to the designation process for the northern owls and catastrophic fires, and commenter’s assertion, the barred owl spotted owl. Furthermore, the results of increasing the size of habitat will do impacts used in the population such an analysis would not affect the nothing to save them. modeling process were similar to or selection of the final critical habitat Our Response: While it is true that slightly higher than those reported in designation for the northern spotted northern spotted owl populations most modeling regions; barred owl owl, as the statutory language defines continue to decline, we have no effects were reduced in only three of 11 critical habitat with reference to a evidence to suggest that suitable habitat regions (Table 2 in Modeling particular listed species. has increased rangewide. Furthermore, Supplement). This was done to enable Comment (141): One commenter we recognize that loss or degradation of the identification of areas essential to suggests that the Service fails to explain habitat is not the only threat affecting the spotted owl’s recovery; threats that to the public why, in order to model northern spotted owl populations. are not habitat-based are addressed sustainable northern spotted owl However, as we have stated, through implementation of actions in populations, it was required to comprehensive recovery actions for the the recovery plan. The current influence arbitrarily select an interaction rate with northern spotted owl are provided in of barred owls on occupancy by barred owls that was not based on the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS northern spotted owls does not negate science-based field studies. Rather, the 2011). The existence of other, non- the role of habitat in the recovery of the commenter states, it was based on the habitat based threats does not relieve

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72025

the Service of its statutory obligation to implement alternative active northern spotted owl movement across designate critical habitat for the species management practices. Given that we do broad landscapes, to provide to the maximum extent prudent and not know whether land managers will connectivity between established determinable. even attempt to implement active populations, or to provide for We believe the commenter may not management, much less how often or on population expansion. Population have understood that the computer what scale, attempting to model the expansion, as used here, is meant to programs that we used were developed, effects of those actions on RHS would describe population growth in terms of to the extent that it was defensible to do be purely speculative and, for our increased numbers of individuals so, with empirically derived purposes, uninformative. within an area, not range expansion. In information, and thus were also Oregon we have designated two areas Other Public Comments ultimately based on real forest stand specifically to assist in the movement of characteristics. In cases where this was Comment (144): Two comments were northern spotted owls between the not possible, a rationale for parameter submitted regarding how proposed Oregon coast (ORC) and the western inputs was provided (see Appendix C of critical habitat (not specific to a Cascades south (WCS) critical habitat the Revised Recovery Plan for the particular land use allocation) will units. In Washington, many historically Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) negatively impact future development occupied areas included in critical and Dunk et al. 2012b). For example, within counties. habitat are currently unoccupied due to actual weather station data are not Our Response: The forested areas reductions in spotted owl populations. available across the entire range of the included in the critical habitat Full occupancy of these formerly northern spotted owl; however, designation are primarily managed for occupied areas (population growth or temperature and precipitation models forest products, including timber expansion) would provide for that provide site-specific climate data production. We are not aware of any conservation of the spotted owl without across the species’ range provide these development projects proposed within expanding the range. Relative to past data. Additional explanation of the the area of this revised designation, and critical habitat designations for the extensive degree to which our models our final economic analysis did not spotted owl, we also included were tested and cross-validated is also identify any such potential impacts. additional areas in northern Washington provided there, as well as in our Comment (145): Two commenters into the current critical habitat responses to Connet (19) through asserted that the regulatory mechanisms designation. These areas may increase Comment (22), among others. for protecting critical habitat on State the potential for dispersal of owls to and Comment (143): Several commenters and private lands were insufficient to from British Columbia, Canada, in the noted that the Service should redo its adequately protect northern spotted owl future. Currently, such exchange is habitat modeling by including active habitat. unlikely due to low abundance of management as a setback of owl habitat Our Response: The statutory authority spotted owls in this landscape on both and to determine how long it will take defining and regulating critical habitat sides of the international border. All of for treated areas to recover to suitable is the Endangered Species Act (Act). this area is within the current nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act specifically geographic range of the northern spotted Our Response: The analysis suggested provides that protections to critical owl, and does not expand that range in this comment is predicated on the habitat via consultation are triggered by beyond its historical boundaries. availability of reliable information on actions authorized, funded, or carried Comment (147): One commenter the extent to which active management out by Federal agencies (referred to as questioned how the Service had applied may potentially be implemented within a ‘‘Federal nexus’’). If there is no a ‘‘significant contribution’’ standard to the boundaries of critical habitat, if at Federal nexus involved in a proposed occupied and unoccupied areas. all. As we have noted throughout this action, the law does not require Our Response: We considered a rule, the discussion of active consultation with the Service. The Act specific area to make a ‘‘significant management provided is for use by does not provide a direct regulatory contribution’’ to the conservation of the Federal, State, local, and private land mechanism for protecting critical species if adding or removing that area managers, as well as the public, as they habitat on State or private lands absent from the habitat network under make decisions on the management of a Federal nexus. consideration resulted in an appreciable forest land under their jurisdictions and Comment (146): One commenter change in the population performance through their normal processes. We are requested that the Secretary identify in that modeling region. attempting to emphasize that critical those lands being designated for the Comment (148): One commenter habitat is not necessarily a ‘‘hands off’’ purpose of expanding the range or requested additional clarification of the designation, depending on the nature of dispersing the northern spotted owl into terms ‘‘largely occupied’’ or the habitat and the action under unoccupied areas. ‘‘approximately occupied’’ at the time of consideration, and we encourage land Our Response: The designated lands listing for particular subunit areas. managers to consider the flexibility of are entirely within the range of the Our Response: These terms have been management options available to them northern spotted owl and the vast clarified in the final rule. For each consistent with the Revised Recovery majority of lands were occupied by subunit, the proposed rule explained Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl northern spotted owls at the time of that the specified percentage ‘‘was (USFWS 2011) and the Standards and listing. This designation does not covered by verified northern spotted Guidelines of the NWFP (USDA, USDA identify any areas for the purpose of owl home ranges at the time of listing.’’ 1994). However, as noted in our expanding the range of the species. We As an example, such subunit economic analysis of the designation, have included some small areas that descriptions then went on to say: predicting what land managers may may have been unoccupied at the time ‘‘[w]hen combined with likely choose to do is an exercise in of listing for the purposes of occupancy of suitable habitat and uncertainty; land managers may choose accommodating potential population occupancy by nonterritorial owls and to refrain from any management actions, growth. Each of the subunit descriptions dispersing subadults, we consider this may continue to manage lands as they in this rule describes the subset of area, subunit to have been largely occupied at currently do, or make choose to if any, that was identified to assist with the time of listing. In addition, there

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

may be some smaller areas of younger Our Response: We are not aware of the conservation value of the entire forest within the habitat mosaic of this any research or scientific publications designated critical habitat. subunit that were unoccupied at the on grazing and northern spotted owl Comment (153): Several commenters time of listing. We have determined that foraging use, and the commenter did not suggested that the Service cannot legally all of the unoccupied and likely provide supporting information. In any designate land as critical habitat that occupied areas in this subunit are case, this rule does not prescribe does not currently contain primary essential for the conservation of the limitations on grazing. constituent elements (PCEs), and should species to meet the recovery criterion Comment (151): One commenter not designate lands that may become that calls for continued maintenance requested that regeneration harvest be habitat in the future. and recruitment of northern spotted owl restored on all Federal forests within the Our Response: In our proposed habitat. The increase and enhancement Northwest Forest Plan boundary, in designation of critical habitat for the of northern spotted owl habitat is particular on the Olympic Peninsula. northern spotted owl, we identified necessary to provide for viable The commenter suggested that primarily areas that were occupied at populations of northern spotted owls regeneration harvest would help restore the time of listing as critical habitat; all over the long-term by providing for forest health, create jobs, provide such areas support the PCEs and population growth, successful dispersal, revenue from timber harvest, and reduce subsequently the essential physical or and buffering from competition with the effects of forest fires on northern spotted biological features as identified in this barred owl.’’ Thus, the specified owl habitat. rule. In addition, some areas that may percentage is based on actual surveys. Our Response: This rule is limited to not have been occupied at the time of However, as described in Criteria Used the designation of critical habitat for the listing are designated as critical habitat, to Identify Critical Habitat, we also northern spotted owl. While the because we determined that such areas are essential to the conservation of the determined that all areas designated are preamble discusses some management species. These areas make up a essential to the conservation of the techniques for consideration by land relatively small percentage of the total northern spotted owl, using the more managers, specific management designation. Because the loss or restrictive standard for unoccupied prescriptions for Federal lands within degradation of habitat was one of the areas, to ensure all areas were the NWFP is beyond the scope of this primary threats that led to the listing of appropriately designated even if there rulemaking. the species, the restoration of habitat is was any uncertainty about its Comment (152): Several commenters occupancy status at the time of listing. required to achieve the recovery of the suggested narrowing the scale at which species, as identified in the Revised Comment (149): One commenter the Service assesses whether a proposed Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted requested additional clarification about action destroys or adversely modifies Owl (USFWS 2011). In some areas, the how the ‘‘time of listing’’ occupancy critical habitat to better reflect northern recovery goal of achieving viable analysis relates to information spotted owl biology, to better capture populations across the range of the owl suggesting that old growth and late- localized negative trends, or to align cannot be achieved without the successional habitat features may not be with the intent of the Endangered development of some areas that are optimal for the northern spotted owl in Species Act. presently younger forest into additional the Oregon Coast Range. Our Response: In accordance with habitat capable of supporting northern Our Response: Northern spotted owls Service policy, the adverse modification spotted owl populations into the future. live in a variety of forest types and rely determination is made at the scale of the We evaluated all areas anticipated to on forests of varying structure to survive entire designated critical habitat, unless develop into suitable habitat in the during different parts of their life cycles. the critical habitat rule identifies future as if they were unoccupied at the The occupancy data from the time of another basis for the analysis (USFWS time of listing, to determine whether listing reinforces that the northern and NMFS 1998). The adverse such areas are essential to the spotted owl requires older forest modification determination for the conservation of the species. We structure to maintain viable reproducing northern spotted owl will occur at the included such areas in the final populations throughout much of its scale of the entire designated critical designation of critical habitat only if range. This commenter appeared to be habitat, as described above in the they were essential to the conservation referring to studies that have shown that section Determinations of Adverse of the species because they provide northern spotted owls will use younger Effects and Application of the ‘‘Adverse connectivity between occupied areas, forests in the Oregon Coast Ranges Modification’’ Standard, with room for population expansion or (Glenn et al. 2004) and appear to benefit consideration given to the importance of growth, or the ability to provide from some degree of younger forest the conservation function of units and sufficient suitable habitat on the interspersed in older forest in southwest subunits within each of the recovery landscape for owls in the face of natural Oregon (Olson et al. 2004) and northern units identified in the Revised Recovery disturbance regimes, such as fire. In California (Franklin et al. 2000). Plan (USFWS 2011, Recovery Criterion addition, recent research indicates that However, none of these studies suggest 2). The Service believes the entire northern spotted owls require additional that old growth and late-successional designated critical habitat is the habitat area to persist in the face of forest are not optimal habitat for appropriate scale for this analysis, competition with barred owls. Finally, northern spotted owls. because our determination is based on in some areas where habitat loss or Comment (150): One commenter whether implementation of the Federal degradation was historically severe, requested that the Service acknowledge action would preclude the critical areas of currently degraded habitat may the benefits of grazing on public lands habitat as a whole from serving its be in need of restoration to provide the as a tool to manage vegetation which intended conservation function or large, contiguous areas of nesting, provides the northern spotted owl with purpose. However, a proposed action roosting and foraging habitat required easier access to prey. The commenter that compromises the ability of a by the species. Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the also expressed concern that the subunit or unit to fulfill its intended Act provides for the designation of expansion of critical habitat would limit conservation function or purpose could critical habitat in specific areas outside grazing. represent an appreciable reduction in the geographical area occupied at listing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72027

upon a determination that such areas the section Changes from the Proposed about the distribution of timber are essential for the conservation of the Rule for more details. harvested from Federal lands, and stated species. As the Secretary has Comment (155): CALFIRE provides that the average estimated annual yield determined that these areas of younger additional information describing the per acre may understate actual timber forest that may have been unoccupied at current management of the Jackson harvest, as well as the assumption that the time of listing are essential to the Demonstration State Forest and USFS harvest projections include only conservation of the species, the law northern spotted owl habitat. thinning activities and do not anticipate provides for their designation as critical Our Response: We have added future regeneration harvest activities. habitat. additional discussion of baseline Our Response: In an ideal world, the practices at Jackson Demonstration State economic analysis would utilize Economic Analysis Comments Forest to Chapter 5 of the FEA. detailed geospatial data showing when Comments From States Comments From Federal Land Managers and where Federal timber harvest is projected to occur. However, lacking Comment (154): The California Comment (156): U.S. Bureau of Land data on the narrowly defined areas Department of Forestry and Fire Management (BLM) asked for where timber harvest is projected to Protection (CALFIRE) states that the clarification as to how the DEA used the occur, and where critical habitat may designation of Jackson Demonstration data provided by their agency. have an incremental effect on these State Forest land as critical habitat Our Response: The BLM provided harvests, the analysis broadly applies could result in costly section 7 more detailed geospatial data than other projected timber harvest across all consultations that might prohibit or agencies; therefore, when BLM data are Federal land acres. Using this approach, delay the approval or implementation of aligned with the Service data layers and the DEA used timber harvest projections environmental restoration projects. It USFS historical and projected timber ranging from 14 to more than 200 bf per identifies water quality permits under harvest, the analysis endeavors to utilize acre per year across critical habitat the Clean Water Act for timber a consistent data set across land subunits, as described in Chapter 4 of harvesting plans as a potential future ownership types. For example, while the DEA (IEC 2012a, p. 4–18). The DEA nexus, while noting that currently, a BLM provided data on 30 years of based FS Region 6 projections on waiver of waste discharge requirements planned timber harvest, as well as stand historical timber harvest quantities can be applied to discharges related to age (i.e., over and under 80 years of age), provided by USFS. Therefore, planned timber harvest activities on non-Federal the analysis focuses on timber harvest changes to timber harvest were not lands in the North Coast Region. It projections for the first decade to derive contemplated. To address this identifies current litigation threatening a 20-year projection and does not uncertainty in the amount of timber that this exemption. incorporate stand age, because this could potentially be harvested in the information was not available for other future (i.e., if changes to timber harvest Our Response: Chapter 5 of the Final areas. Specifically, the draft economic should occur), the FEA scales existing Economic Analysis (FEA) provides analysis (DEA) used a filtering approach baseline projections upward to account extensive discussion of the potential to identify those specific areas where for a potential 20-percent increase in Federal nexuses necessitating section 7 incremental timber harvest effects may timber harvest projection on USFS consultation on State and private lands occur. Further explanatory detail on lands. The FEA also revised the (paragraphs 209 through 221). these methods has been added to language regarding projected timber Specifically, it discusses the Clean Chapter 4 of the final economic analysis activities to clarify that they may Water Act (CWA) permitting (FEA). include both thinning and regeneration requirements and a recent ruling by the Comment (157): The BLM requested harvest. Ninth Circuit that has the potential to further clarification on how the Service Comment (159): The U.S. Forest increase permitting requirements for considered the effects on long-term, Service stated that the DEA assumption silviculture operations as sources of sustained-yield timber production due about the distribution of timber point-source pollution. Northwest to the shift in management objectives for harvested from Federal lands is Environmental Defense Ctr. v. Brown, the Matrix lands that are proposed to be problematic and that the average 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir.). However, in designated as critical habitat. estimated yield of 63 BF per acre per light of the fact the United States Our Response: The DEA and FEA year may understate actual timber Supreme Court has granted a writ of state that the obligation of the agencies harvest. In Region 6, the FY 2013 and certiorari to review this ruling, the is to consult with the Service to ensure FY 2013 NWFP timber program is economic analysis concludes that that their actions are not likely to expected to increase by 20 percent in considerable uncertainty surrounds this destroy or adversely modify critical terms of acres and volume. USFS also litigation and whether it will in fact habitat and may opt from a wide range disagrees with the assumption that change the permitting requirements for of management options, consistent with ‘‘USFS harvest projections include only silvicultural operations within the next their land use plans and statutory thinning activities and do not anticipate 20 years. Due to this uncertainty, we authorities. It is challenging to predict future regeneration harvest activities assume for purposes of our economic how the land management agencies will (page 4–18).’’ analysis the current CWA exemption respond or on what actions they will Our Response: In the Final Economic and subsequent lack of a Federal nexus consult. Therefore, there is considerable Analysis, we rely on data provided by continues, and therefore do not uncertainty regarding long-term effects, USFS Region 5 and Region 6 to estimate anticipate direct effects on private or if any, on sustained yield timber annual projected timber harvest State lands associated with Clean Water production due to a potential shift in amounts. Each region provided an Act permitting activities, and therefore management objectives within the annualized projection of future timber do not anticipate any significant revised critical habitat designation. A harvest (Region 5) or a 5-year historical impacts to the restoration projects range of potential effects are discussed annual average timber harvest (Region resulting from the designation of critical qualitatively in the analysis. 6) by national forest. Using GIS acreage habitat. Please see the discussion of the Comment (158): The U.S. Forest data for each national forest, we Jackson Demonstration State Forest in Service questioned the DEA assumption calculate an average annual timber

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72028 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

harvest yield in BF/acre/year. We then critical habitat in matrix lands that may designation in these areas will likely estimate a baseline average annual potentially experience incremental have regulatory benefits in conserving timber harvest yield for each critical impacts, we calculate a reduction of this essential habitat. habitat subunit based on the number of approximately 11.1 MMBF (20 percent Comment (160): The USFS suggested acres and the proportion of the subunit of 55.5 MMBF), versus a reduction of that additional person-hours for within each national forest. 21.1 MMBF (20 percent of 105.4 consultations to consider critical habitat To estimate potential incremental MMBF). In sum, our baseline timber issues may be higher than described in economic impacts of the proposed yield and harvest projections are the DEA. critical habitat designation, we focused consistent with the USFS data cited in Our Response: The USFS currently on matrix lands that are likely to be the comment; we are simply assessing plans projects outside of existing critical unoccupied by the northern spotted impacts on a more constrained set of habitat that may be included in the owl. We did not estimate that there will acres where incremental impacts are revised critical habitat. Therefore, the be incremental economic impacts across relatively more likely to occur. administrative burden may include the entire proposed critical habitat, so Note also that the DEA based USFS additional consultations beyond the the comparison to the USFS expected Region 6 projections on historical additional hours contemplated for harvest for the entire National Forest timber harvest quantities provided by consultations that would already occur System across the entire range of the USFS. Therefore, planned changes to absent critical habitat. The FEA makes northern spotted owl is inappropriate. timber harvest were not contemplated. note of this potential incremental There are approximately 9.5 million To address this uncertainty, the FEA increase in administrative burden. acres of USFS lands in the proposed scales existing baseline projections critical habitat. Of these, 6.9 million upward to account for a potential 20 Comments on the Economic Analysis acres are reserves and 2.6 million are percent increase in timber harvest From the Public matrix lands. Of the matrix lands, projection on USFS lands. The FEA also Comment (161): One submission approximately 1.1 million acres are revises the language regarding projected noted that the proposed rule does not predominantly younger forests timber activities to clarify that they may make clear the specific restrictions (considered to be unoccupied) and 1.6 include both thinning and regeneration imposed on designated private lands. million acres are northern spotted owl harvest. However, this does not Furthermore, many submissions note habitat. Furthermore, we estimate that materially affect the results of the that the resulting regulatory uncertainty approximately 6.5 percent of northern analysis. will likely reduce the market value of spotted owl habitat is likely to be Finally, we note that our estimate of designated private lands, contributing to unoccupied. We find that incremental the area of younger forest in the matrix the loss of multiple-use, working forests economic impacts to USFS timber where incremental impacts may occur is that provide other valuable types of harvest are relatively more likely in most likely an overestimate. As stated habitat and jobs, or result in timber unoccupied matrix lands or above, we estimated that of the matrix management practices designed to approximately 1,158,314 acres of lands, approximately 1.1 million acres ensure private lands do not become 2,629,031 total acres of all USFS matrix are predominantly younger forests lands. (considered to be unoccupied). This northern spotted owl habitat. Potential For example, in USFS Region 5, there estimate, however, was based on the third-party litigation risk also are approximately 956,000 acres of total area of younger forest in the matrix contributes to this uncertainty. matrix lands. The data provided by within the proposed designation Our Response: The proposed rule Region 5 suggest that the annualized regardless of patch size. As we noted in provided a detailed description of the projected timber harvest in these matrix our incremental effects memorandum protection provided to areas designated lands is 105.4 MMBF (as noted in the (IEC 2012b, p. B–7), it would be unusual as critical habitat (see 77 FR 14081; comment). However, we estimate that for an agency to contemplate a timber March 8, 2012). Specifically, section 7 incremental economic impacts due to sale or other activity on a very small of the Act requires that Federal agencies the critical habitat designation would be patch of younger forest; based on our ensure, in consultation with the Service, relatively more likely to occur in experience, we assumed roughly 40 ac that any action they authorize, fund, or unoccupied areas. We presume that (16 ha) as the minimum patch size of carry out is not likely to result in the there will not be incremental impacts to younger forest on which we would destruction or adverse modification of timber harvest due to critical habitat in anticipate potential incremental critical habitat. Chapter 5 of the DEA occupied areas as these areas are already impacts. As the estimate of younger provided explicit discussion of the sufficiently managed for NSO forest within the matrix used in the potential for State and private conservation in the baseline. In Region economic analysis did not screen out landowners to request Federal permits, 5, there are approximately 502,500 acres patches less than 40 ac (16 ha) in size, thereby necessitating consultation under of matrix lands that are likely to be the resulting total of 1.1 million acres is section 7. Furthermore, the chapter unoccupied (100 percent of likely an overestimate of the area of acknowledged the concerns raised in predominantly younger forests and 6.5 younger forest where incremental the comments regarding the potential percent of northern spotted owl habitat). impacts may occur on matrix lands. In impact of regulatory uncertainty on the Thus our area of potential impact is addition, the final designation market value of private lands, including smaller than that contemplated in the represents a net reduction of matrix potential changes in State regulations in comment. Our estimate of baseline lands where economic impacts are response to the designation and changes timber yield within these areas, relatively more likely to occur and this in private timber harvest practices however, is consistent with those reduction was not analyzed in the FEA resulting from greater perceived presented in the comment and FS data. (see Changes from the Proposed Rule). investment risk, and discusses the Specifically, the annualized projected It is also important to note that, even if existing data limitations preventing timber harvest in these unoccupied there were likely to be higher economic estimation of the monetary value of matrix lands is 55.5 MMBF. Therefore, impacts, we would not exclude these such impacts (see DEA paragraphs 259 when we contemplate a 20 percent lands from designation under section through 281). Additional information reduction in timber harvest due to 4(b)(2) because a critical habitat provided through public comment and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72029

supporting the existing analysis has DEA, interviews with Washington State under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the been added to Chapter 5 of the FEA. regulators revealed that even if all Service may consider economic All private lands have been excluded private lands were designated and impacts, and other relevant impacts of from this final designation of critical subsequently defined by the State as designating a specific area as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (see suitable habitat, the State would defer to habitat. Therefore, when designating Exclusions). approved habitat conservation plans critical habitat and evaluating specific Comment (162): One submission (HCPs) or Safe Harbor Agreements areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for states that all private and State lands in (SHAs). Thus, indirect incremental potential exclusion, we consider the Washington are already subject to State impacts for 60,519 ac (24,491 ha) are incremental impacts of critical habitat and Federal regulations providing unlikely. Of the remaining 117,628 ac designation, above the ‘‘baseline’’ protection for the northern spotted owl; (47,602 ha), much of this area may conservation measures resulting from therefore, designating these lands already fall within mapped Home Range listed status. These incremental impacts results in duplicative regulation that is Circles for the northern spotted owl and (economic or other factors) are then contrary to Executive Order 13563 and thus are already considered to be evaluated relative to the conservation the President’s memorandum dated suitable habitat. Finally, whether the benefit of including the specific area in February 28, 2012. An additional State will make any changes to its the critical habitat designation. If the submission recommends that the regulations is highly uncertain. costs outweigh the benefits, then the Service rely instead on existing State However, as all private lands in the Secretary may exercise his discretion to regulations and cooperative approaches. State of Washington have been excluded exclude the area, provided that the Our Response: The Service is required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see exclusion does not result in the under the Act to designate critical Exclusions), the concerns expressed by extinction of the species. habitat to the maximum extent prudent the commenter are moot. Comment (167): One submission takes and determinable for listed species Comment (164): One submission issue with the DEA’s conclusion that the regardless of State laws. This process is states that the DEA does not account for approval of HCPs and reinitiation of separate from and additional to the additional, unforeseen regulatory costs consultations on existing HCPs will listing of a species under the Act and is and project delays associated with the result only in minor administrative specifically needed for the northern regulation of critical habitat by burden. Interpretive disputes around the spotted owl because habitat loss is one California State agencies. adverse modification of critical habitat of the primary threats to its Our Response: Chapter 5 of the DEA can readily lead to costly delays, conservation. The requirement to provides a detailed account of our litigation, and pressure to modify designate critical habitat is not replaced discussions with the California existing and proposed HCPs as well as by State regulations or classification of Department of Forestry and Fire other projects. Critical habitat lands. Please note that, as discussed in Protection (CALFIRE) to understand designations on private lands our section on Exclusions, above, we whether the State would regulate discourage the development of HCPs were able to exclude all private lands harvests on private timberlands and take away stability over long-term proposed as critical habitat in the State differently if those lands are federally investment horizons. of Washington and California. designated critical habitat (see Our Response: The reinitiation of Comment (163): One submission paragraphs 246 through 257). Given the consultation on an existing HCP is the questions the DEA’s estimate that extensive baseline protections provided responsibility of the Service and 117,628 ac (47,602 ha) in Washington by California’s Forest Practice Rules and requires the formulation and addition of may be subject to incremental effects, the California Environmental Quality an adverse modification analysis. Those noting that the calculation is unclear. Act, CALFIRE does not anticipate any consultations that already include an The comment suggests the correct changes as a result of the designation. effects determination and no jeopardy acreage is 133,895 ac (53,558 ha). Comment (165): Two submissions determination for northern spotted owls Furthermore, two submissions express note that private landowners obtain will have incorporated an analysis of concern that the State could change the Federal funding for forest health the effects of the action (the HCP) on definition of suitable habitat to include improvements, fire resiliency projects, northern spotted owl habitat, which will all designated private lands, implying and watercourse restoration. Access to be similar to the adverse modification the potential increased regulatory these funds may be restricted or delayed analysis except that additional analysis burden identified in the DEA may be because of the designation, resulting in could be needed on impacts to the understated. decreased incentives for landowners to conservation function of the critical Our Response: As noted in Exhibit 5– complete such projects. habitat subunit. Only where an HCP 6 of the DEA, area calculations in the Our Response: As all private lands would be anticipated to cause adverse DEA were based on the GIS data layers have been excluded from this final modification of a newly designated provided by the Service to the designation of critical habitat for the critical habitat network would economists preparing the DEA on March northern spotted owl, the concerns significant modification likely be 1, 2012. The area estimates derived from expressed by these commenters are no necessary, and we have not found any these data layers differ slightly from longer relevant. HCPs that fall into this category for this those provided in the proposed rule due Comment (166): One private designation. As for HCPs that are under to minor boundary adjustments under landowner stated that the economic development the need to minimize consideration by the Service. A total of impacts of the northern spotted owl impacts to northern spotted owl habitat 178,147 ac (72,094 ha) of private land in listing and protection prior to critical in an effort to minimize impacts to Washington were proposed for habitat designation are relevant northern spotted owls is likely to suffice designation, of which 60,519 (24,491 ha) considerations in the exclusion process. to bring the impacts below the threshold were subject to existing or proposed Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of of destruction or adverse modification, conservation plans, leaving 117,628 ac the Act provides that the listing of a thereby reducing the time and energy (47,602 ha) that may be subject to species is determined based solely on necessary to complete an HCP as indirect impacts. As discussed in detail the basis of the best scientific and indicated in the Economic Analysis. We in paragraphs 227 through 235 of the commercial data available. However, note that we have excluded all lands

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

covered by an HCP pursuant to section landowners of small woodlots in the impact of such a small change in 4(b)(2). Washington were removed from critical harvestable acres on employment is Comment (168): Several comments habitat upon a determination that their difficult and likely to be highly provided additional information on the lands either do not provide the PCEs or dependent on the location and timing of relationship between the amount of are not essential to the conservation of the foregone harvests. The relationships private forestland available for harvest the species. Finally, the remaining between acres and jobs, revenues, or and employment. The three comment 307,308 ac (124,364 ha) of private lands fees and taxes presented in the letters refer to the results of a recent in the proposed designation in comments may not be applicable to study prepared by Forest2Market on the California and Washington, which we such small, marginal changes in economic contribution of forestry- identified as possibly subject to harvestable acres. related industries to Washington State’s incremental changes in harvests as a For example, the ratio of 5 jobs for economy. They state that for every 1,000 result of the indirect effects of critical every 1,000 ac (400 ha) likely represents ac (400 ha) of private forestland in habitat designation should a Federal the average jobs created per acre when Washington, there are 5 jobs in forestry- nexus exist, have been excluded from total acres of forestland are divided by related industries (or 11 to 15 jobs the final designation (see Exclusions). total timber employment in the State including indirect and induced However, here we explain how we (the Forest2Market report is not clear employment), an associated $224,000 to derived our estimates of the relationship about whether its ratios represent $233,000 in wages (or $495,000 to between private timberland, harvest average or marginal changes). A $631,000 including indirect and levels, and employment in the economic marginal estimate, on the other hand, induced employment), and up to analysis. would look at the number of jobs $30,000 in taxes and fees annually. The On some private lands, uncertainty on associated with the ‘‘next’’ 1,000 acres commenters then use these the part of landowners over whether the of harvest given existing employment relationships to estimate the total designation will result in future levels and harvestable acres, as the number of jobs supported by private restrictions may create an incentive for relationship between jobs and acres may working forestland proposed for critical those landowners to shorten harvest not be perfectly linear. Employment habitat designation. rotations, cutting timber earlier than is associated with the next 1,000 acres of They conclude that if private acres in financially optimal (see paragraphs 263 harvest may be larger or smaller than Washington are designated as critical through 269 of the FEA). We did not the average. Furthermore, it is possible habitat, all of these jobs, and the anticipate that private landowners will that other private acres may be associated wages, taxes, and fees, will be precluded from harvesting timber as harvested as substitutes for the 21,715 be lost. In other words, a total of 1,650 a result of the designation; rather, we ac (8,788 ha) that could be restricted if jobs, $74.3 million in annual wages, and assumed they may harvest earlier than the State changes its regulations, $4.5 million in annual taxes and fees to they would have absent the designation. diminishing the rule’s effect on counties will be lost. If the Washington As a result, the estimates noted in the employment. Thus, even if we knew multipliers are extended to all 1.3 comment of lost employment and with certainty that the State of million private acres proposed in associated wages, fees, and revenues Washington will change its regulations Washington and California, more than anticipated in the comments are likely as a result of the designation, forecasting 19,000 jobs could be affected. A separate overstated. potential changes in employment is comment states that for every 1,000 ac In Washington, 21,715 ac (8,788 ha) of challenging given existing data (400 ha) of private working forestland in private land in the proposed designation limitations. California taken out of production, 12 are identified by the State as suitable Comment (169): One comment states jobs are lost. Using the resultant habitat for the northern spotted owl, but that the SDS Lumber Company is the multiplier of 0.012 jobs per acre, the are not currently designated as ‘‘critical only remaining mill in Klickitat County, comment states that the 1.27 million ac habitat state.’’ It is possible that the and that designating approximately (514,000 ha) of private land proposed State may reclassify these areas as 29,000 ac (11,700 ha) of private forest in for critical habitat designation in ‘‘critical habitat state’’ in response to the Klickitat and Skamania Counties, California represents more than 15,000 Federal designation, which would including approximately 16,000 ac jobs. impose significant administrative costs (6,500 ha) of SDS and Broughton Our Response: The comments assume on landowners, such that landowners Lumber Company land, will have direct the designation of critical habitat would likely forego future harvests. and significant impacts on its 300 precludes any timber harvests on However, such a regulatory change on employees. private lands (i.e., all employment the part of the State is uncertain (see Our Response: SDS and Broughton associated with designated acres will be complete discussion in paragraphs 231 Lumber Company have developed a lost). Chapter 5 of the economic analysis through 235, 269, and 276 through 279 Safe Harbor Agreement in collaboration examines the potential for harvests to be of the FEA). These private lands are not with the Service. As described in the precluded on private lands and included in the final designation, as the Exclusions section of this document, concludes that existing baseline result of either refinements to critical SDS lands within the proposed critical protections in the form of habitat habitat (determinations that small habitat covered by this SHA have been conservation plans (HCPs) and Safe private landholdings either do not excluded from the final designation. Harbor Agreements (SHAs) are likely to contain the PCEs, or are not essential to Comment (170): One comment states provide sufficient protection to much of the conservation of the species) or that Rayonier (a forest products the habitat without additional exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the company) already protects 100 of the restrictions (see paragraphs 211 and 212 Act. 540 ac (40 of the 220 ha) of its land in of the DEA). We note that all private Thus, the DEA estimated that at Washington proposed for critical landowners with HCPS or SHAs that worst, it is possible that 21,715 ac (8,788 habitat, making the remaining 440 ac were proposed for exclusion from ha) in Washington may not be (180 ha) especially important to critical habitat in the proposed rule harvested, or approximately 1,086 ac Rayonier, local communities, and the were excluded from the final (439 ha) per year over the 20-year people who work in forest industry. A designation. In addition, private timeframe of our analysis. Estimating reduction in logging on these 440 ac

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72031

(180 ha) would directly reduce logging Order 12866, which requires the (i.e., Federal matrix lands), and trucking jobs and have downstream Secretary to base his decision on the quantification of ancillary benefits effects in the community. best reasonably available economic would not change the regulatory Our Response: We determined that information, and circular A–4, which outcome. the lands owned by Rayonier did not provides guidance for complying with With regard to baseline definition, the meet our definition of critical habitat, Executive Order 12866. The commenter comment suggests the analysis should therefore these lands are not included in states that the DEA applies different incorporate potential future changes in our final designation (see Comment standards of information and analysis in timber markets, changes in external (106)). Therefore, we do not anticipate its assessment of the effect of the factors affecting costs and benefits, any potential impact of critical habitat proposed rule on timber production and changes in future regulations, and likely in terms of possible reduced harvests on its assessment of other important future compliance with other Rayonier lands or effects on local ancillary benefits of the designation, as regulations. With regard to future employment due to this rulemaking. well as the baseline applied in the demand for timber, the analysis relies Comment (171): One comment noted analysis. on the best available data provided by that the ‘‘checkerboard’’ and Our Response: An assessment of the USFS and BLM regarding baseline intermingled Federal and private ancillary benefits is not possible harvest levels (see FEA paragraphs 166 ownership patterns make it difficult, if without first assessing the effect of the through 175). Data to predict future not impossible, for many timberland proposed rule on timber production; the changes in the demand of timber owners to haul their timber products ancillary benefits derive from changes products are highly speculative, given without the use of some type of Federal in timber management practices. current economic conditions (e.g., road use permit. Access to existing or Therefore, accurately assessing changes demand for timber is largely driven by new roads may be precluded by critical in timber production is critical for the housing market). We have no reason habitat concerns. multiple facets of the economic to anticipate other regulatory changes Our Response: This issue is addressed analysis. The results of this assessment that would affect the designation of in Chapter 5 (p. 5–6) of the FEA. The suggest that incremental changes in critical habitat, and the comment report notes that a review of Federal annual harvests are likely to be small, provides no additional information on consultations over the last 3 years less than one percent of total harvests in this topic. Finally, we consider the indicates that no consultations related the 56 counties overlapping the degree of compliance with section 7 of to the northern spotted owl have designation. While quantification of the the Act in the absence of critical habitat resulted from application for this type of value of foregone timber (or timber in determining the likelihood of future permit. Representatives of the USFS and brought back into production as a result consultations (see, for example, the BLM further noted that formal of the regulation) is relatively discussion in paragraphs 181 through consultation of this type of activity is straightforward, because market data 186 of the FEA). not prioritized, and that any request for provide an indication of the value of Comment (174): One comment claims consultation would likely be limited to this resource, estimating the marginal that the DEA distorts the impacts of the hauling activity and would not include changes in terms of the distributional proposed critical habitat designation on the timber harvest activity itself. As a impacts on communities of these small Douglas County by including result, we do not anticipate any direct changes in harvests, or the marginal ‘‘metropolitan areas that have little to no effects on State or private lands as a changes in ecosystem services, is critical habitat nor similarities to result of this potential nexus. challenging and requires significantly Douglas County’s social and economic Comment (172): One comment notes more data and sophisticated modeling environment.’’ that the DEA does not address potential tools. Thus, both are discussed Our Response: Chapter 6 of the DEA affects to the U.S. Treasury and Federal qualitatively in the FEA. provided a detailed socioeconomic job losses. Regarding the assessment of ancillary profile of each of the 23 counties Our Response: Project modification benefits, Circular A–4 states, ‘‘You (including Douglas County) containing costs quantified in the DEA result from should begin by considering and proposed critical habitat subunits with changes in the quantity of timber perhaps listing the possible ancillary higher proportions of Federal forests harvested on Federal lands. As benefits and countervailing risks. that are relatively more likely to discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the However, highly speculative or minor experience incremental impacts due to DEA, section 7 consultations on the sale consequences may not be worth further the designation of critical habitat. The of timber from Federal lands may result formal analysis. Analytic priority analysis presents data on the percent in an increase, decrease, or no change in should be given to those ancillary change in timber production between harvest levels, based on several benefits and countervailing risks that 1990 and 2010 for each county, and on plausible assumptions. The direct cost are important enough to potentially the percent growth of annual industry (or benefit) of these section 7 project change the rank ordering of the main employment between 1989 and 2009 for modifications is a loss (or gain) in alternatives of the analysis’’ (Circular each county. In addition, the analysis Federal revenues collected by the U.S. A–4, p. 26). This text provides some presents data on Federal land payments Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of discretion to the Agency to determine to each of the 23 counties as a percent Land Management resulting from the whether the quantification of ancillary of the total local government revenue in associated timber sales. Stumpage benefits is necessary. As described in FY 2009, demonstrating the relative values related to these effects are responses to earlier comments, the importance of these funds to each summarized in Exhibit ES–4 of the DEA. application of best available data and county’s budget. The analysis then With available data, we are unable to tools to estimate the incremental concludes that five counties (including discern how these timber harvest changes in ecosystem services resulting Douglas County) may be more sensitive changes may affect employment at from the designation of critical habitat to additional incremental changes in Federal agencies. would require significant effort and timber harvests, industry employment, Comment (173): One commenter some data that do not currently exist. and Federal land payments. Such data suggested that the DEA fails to comply Because the Service has not excluded are not readily available at a sub-county with the requirements of Executive areas where such benefits are possible level. We believe, however, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

information provides sufficient context currently elect to receive Secure Rural community well-being, which finds for for understanding relative economic Schools and Community Self- most relationships that ‘‘well-being circumstances across the designation. Determination Act (SRS) rather than went up as timber dependency went Comment (175): One comment states revenue-sharing payments from BLM down’’ (p. 163). Furthermore, the that designating O&C lands as critical under the O&C Act. These payments are committee cited studies suggesting that habitat is inconsistent and in direct supplemented by Payments in Lieu of ‘‘wilderness and amenity protection can conflict with the statutory provisions of Taxes (PILT) (see paragraphs 128 have a positive influence on certain the O&C Act and Sec. 701(b) of FLPMA through 130 of the FEA). Even absent measures of community well-being, (Federal Lands Policy management Act). the designation of critical habitat, the although in-migration brings its own (‘‘O&C lands’’ refers to certain areas in magnitude of future payments under difficulties’’ (NRC 2000, p. 164). western Oregon established under the these programs is highly uncertain given The NRC report concluded, ‘‘[d]iverse O&C Act of 1937, and ‘‘O&C’’ counties that these Federal programs have not economic conditions create diverse represent those counties containing been reauthorized (i.e., SRS) or funded opportunities and thus temper the O&C lands). The Association of O&C (i.e., PILT) by Congress. If SRS and PILT effects of timber industry fluctuations Counties asserts that the proposed payments continue, the changes in on local communities’’ (p. 165). It went critical habitat designation will prevent harvests on BLM lands will have on to note that ‘‘[a]s the importance of 18 O&C counties from receiving minimal to no effect on payments, extractive industry declines, the Pacific sufficient revenues on a sustainable because SRS and PILT are not directly Northwest communities are looking basis as required by the O&C Act, and linked to harvest levels. However, if toward tourism as a way to bolster their will result in employment and income Congress decides to reduce or end economies * * * However, tourism by impacts on a local and regional scale. payments under SRS and PILT, counties itself is not a substitute for timber Our Response: The designation of will shift back to receiving revenue- industry jobs’’ (NRC 2000, p. 167). critical habitat is not a land use sharing payments under the O&C Act, In summary, the NRC report suggests allocation. Under section 7(a)(2) of the and changes in timber harvests on BLM that economically diverse communities Act, each Federal agency must insure lands will affect the size of these are better off than communities that are that any action authorized, funded, or payments. Importantly, we note that highly dependent on the timber carried out by the agency is not likely under the third scenario analyzed in the industry, and preserving wilderness can to jeopardize the continued existence of DEA, the potential decrease in harvest attract new economic activity to any endangered or threatened species or from BLM lands represents communities. We have added text result in the destruction or adverse approximately 2 percent of total summarizing the NRC findings in the modification of the designated critical harvests from BLM lands in these FEA. However, the designation of habitat of the species. 16 U.S.C. counties (Based on BLM transaction critical habitat does not preserve 1536(a)(2). To help action agencies data over the last four quarters wilderness. Furthermore reducing comply with this provision, section 7 of (2011Q4–2012Q3) viewed at http:// timber harvests does not guarantee that the Act and the implementing www.blm.gov/or/resources/forests/blm- other sources of economic activity, such regulations set out a detailed timber-data.php). Thus, if affected, as tourism or in-migration by wealthy, consultation process for determining the impacts to revenue payments resulting highly educated individuals, will impacts of a proposed activity on from the designation are likely to be generate enough new economic activity species listed as threatened or small. to replace lost timber-related jobs and endangered, or its designated critical Comment (176): One commenter wages. Finally, the designation is likely habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536; 50 CFR Part states increased timber production often to reduce or increase annual timber 402. In Seattle Audubon Society v. has been associated with deteriorating harvests from Federal lands by less than Lyons (‘‘Lyons’’), 871 F. Supp. 1291 indicators of socio-economic well-being one percent. Thus, any changes in (W.D. Wash. 1994), the district court in nearby rural communities, including economic diversity resulting from the held that ‘‘the O & [C Act] does not income, percent living in poverty, and rule are likely to be difficult to measure. allow the BLM to avoid its conservation housing conditions, and noted a Comment (177): One comment duties under NEPA or ESA * * *’’ Id. positive relationship between the health suggests that the proposed critical at 1314. The critical habitat designation of local economies and the presence of habitat designation will create a does not preclude the sustained yield unlogged Federal forests. regulatory hurdle that will impede the timber management of O&C lands Our Response: The comment cites construction of vital infrastructure consistent with the above requirements extensively from a report by the projects (roads, bridges, power lines, of the Act. The economic impact to local National Resources Council (NRC) (NRC and other utilities). counties of this critical habitat 2000). The committee was asked to Our Response: Chapter 7 of the DEA designation will be determined by the evaluate the nature of possible discusses the potential economic timber management direction the economic and social costs and benefits impacts to road and bridge construction Federal land managers take within of alternative forest management and maintenance, and installation and critical habitat lands. We believe the practices. The committee wrote, maintenance of power transmission ecological forestry techniques discussed ‘‘[a]lthough the question is easy to ask, lines and other utility pipelines. The in this designation could allow for it is hard to answer. Few social-impact analysis concludes that all potential timber harvest that is consistent with studies clearly tie social and economic conservation efforts associated with critical habitat objectives and section outcomes with specific forest- linear projects are expected to result 7(a)(2), thereby providing increased management practices, such as old- from the presence of the northern revenues to affected counties. The growth harvest rates, the use of spotted owl, not the designation of Service encourages land managers to clearcutting as a harvest technique, or critical habitat, and are thus considered consider use of this type of forest the relative intensity of silvicultural baseline impacts (see paragraphs 315 management in critical habitat where practices’’ (p. 163). The committee went through 320 of the DEA). Incremental appropriate. on to review a meta-analysis of the costs attributable to critical habitat are As discussed in detail in Chapters 3 relationship between varying levels of limited to the administrative costs of and 6 of the FEA, the O&C counties timber dependence and measures of additional hours spent by Federal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72033

agency staff and the Service to consider (businesses, governments) may be evaluate the potential impacts to those critical habitat during section 7 affected by the designation of critical entities not directly regulated. The consultation on these projects. habitat as third parties involved with language from the Cement Kiln case Comment (178): Many comments consultation under section 7 of the Act quoted by the commenter merely describe the adverse impacts that with Federal action agencies. However, restates the language of the RFA itself. changes in the timber industry have had we disagree that these entities are Several court decisions, including the on local and regional employment directly regulated. This position is Cement Kiln decision, have interpreted levels, government revenues, and supported by existing case law that language to require Federal overall socioeconomic conditions. regarding the certification requirements agencies to analyze the rule’s effects on Several of these comments request that under the Regulatory Flexibility Act any small entities that are subject to— these impacts be taken into (RFA), the Small Business Regulatory that is, directly regulated by—the rule, consideration in the economic analysis. Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) rather than requiring Federal agencies to Our Response: Chapter 3 of the DEA (see paragraphs 378 through 381 of the consider every potential impact that a describes how, over the past 20 years, DEA), and SBA’s handbook, ‘‘A guide regulation may have on indirectly the Pacific Northwest timber industry for Government Agencies: How To affected small entities. See also Am. has undergone significant changes that Comply With the Regulatory Flexibility Trucking Ass’ns v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, have manifested in reduced timber- Act (2003). However, we believe it is 175 F.3d. 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Mid-Tex related jobs and revenues. The analysis good policy to assess these indirect Elec. Coop. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory provides detailed data on the changes in impacts to third parties if we have Comm’n, 773 F.3d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985); timber production levels between 1990 sufficient available data to complete the et al. and 2010, and on the changes in necessary analysis, whether or not this The regulatory mechanism through industry employment and payroll analysis is strictly required by the RFA. which critical habitat protections are between 1989, 1999, and 2009 in each Therefore, where third parties are realized is section 7 of the Act, which of the 56 counties where critical habitat anticipated to participate in requires Federal agencies, in was proposed. This information is consultations under section 7 of the Act consultation with the Service, to insure intended to provide context for the with Federal action agencies, these that any action authorized, funded, or analysis and illustrate the importance of entities are included in the screening carried out by the Agency is not likely the timber industry to local economies. analysis (see paragraphs 383 through to adversely modify critical habitat. The In addition, Chapter 6 of the DEA 392 of the DEA). Please refer to the designation of critical habitat for an provides a detailed socioeconomic discussion under Regulatory Flexibility endangered or threatened species only profile of the 23 counties containing Act later in this final rule and the FEA has a regulatory effect where a Federal proposed critical habitat subunits that for a more complete discussion of our action agency is involved in a particular contain a higher proportion of Federal factual basis for certification under RFA action that may affect the designated lands that are relatively more likely to that this rule will not result in a critical habitat. Under these experience incremental impacts due to significant impact to a substantial circumstances, only the Federal action the designation of critical habitat. The number of small entities. agency is directly regulated by the chapter examines trends in timber Comment (180): An additional entity designation, and, therefore, consistent harvests, industry employment, and asserts that the Service is incorrect in with the Service’s current interpretation Federal land payments in these stating that only Federal agencies will of RFA and recent case law, the Service counties, and concludes that certain be ‘‘directly regulated’’ by critical may limit its evaluation of the potential counties may be more sensitive to habitat designation. It contends that impacts to those identified for Federal additional incremental changes in private sector entities relying directly or action agencies. Under this timber harvests, industry employment, indirectly on Federal timber sales are interpretation, there is no requirement and Federal land payments. also directly regulated. The entity cites under the RFA to evaluate the potential Comment (179): The Small Business case law, stating, ‘‘The RFA requires impacts to entities not directly Administration (SBA) expressed consideration of ‘the small entities regulated, such as small businesses. concern that the Service does not have which will be subject to the proposed However, EO’s 12866 and 13563 direct an adequate factual basis for certifying regulation—that is, those small entities Federal agencies to assess costs and that the rule will not have a significant to which the proposed rule will apply.’ benefits of available regulatory economic impact on a substantial Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. alternatives in quantitative (to the extent number of small businesses. It disagrees E.P.A., 225 F. 3d 855, 869 (DC Cir. feasible) and qualitative terms. with the Service’s assertion that small 2001).’’ A critical habitat designation Consequently, it is the current practice businesses are not directly regulated by ‘‘applies to’’ private parties as much as of the Service to assess to the extent the proposed rule and states that the Federal agencies; a private party seeking practicable these potential impacts if Service incorrectly analyzes the a Federal permit that may affect sufficient data are available, whether or universe of affected small businesses by designated critical habitat cannot obtain not this analysis is believed by the counting the number of consultations the permit until a consultation is Service to be strictly required by the required by the designation, as opposed completed under section 7 of the Act, RFA. In other words, while the effects to the number of all small businesses and has the statutory right to participate analysis required under the RFA is affected by these consultations. SBA in that consultation. Thus, such entities limited to entities directly regulated by also notes that the DEA states private must be considered under the RFA. the rulemaking, the effects analysis landowners may be affected if they have Our Response: The Service’s current under the Act, consistent with the EO federally funded or permitted activities understanding of recent case law, regulatory analysis requirements, can on Federal or private land, such as including the Cement Kiln case, is that take into consideration impacts to both participation in timber sales or timber Federal agencies are only required to directly and indirectly impacted management projects or application for evaluate the potential incremental entities, where practicable and a section 10 permit. impacts of rulemaking on those entities reasonable. Our Response: The Service agrees directly regulated by the rulemaking; Therefore, as discussed in the with SBA’s statement that small entities therefore, they are not required to previous response, where third parties

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72034 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

are anticipated to participate in section impacts is not available to the agency at Federal land managers have not 7 consultations, these entities are still this time. achieved this level of timber harvest included in the screening analysis if The direct cost (or benefit) of these over the past several years, and do not sufficient data is available to complete section 7 project modifications is a loss anticipate this level of harvest in the the necessary analysis. The direct (or gain) in Federal revenues collected future, providing further confirmation compliance costs of section 7 by the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. that the identified long-term sustained consultations concerning timber sales Bureau of Land Management resulting yield of 840 MMBF associated with are the administrative costs of from the associated timber sales. these plans would overstate the conducting the consultation, which are Stumpage values related to these effects baseline. primarily borne by the Service and the are summarized in Exhibit ES–4 of the For those matrix areas where Federal Action Agency, and potential DEA. In the FEA, we include additional incremental effects may be relatively changes in revenues to Federal agencies information in the RFA/SBREFA more likely to occur, the FEA utilizes a from timber sales. screening analysis (Appendix A) variety of planned, historical actual, and Potential impacts to the profitability describing these project modification projected actual timber harvest data of timber industry entities resulting costs, which are borne entirely by provided by BLM and FS to derive the from changes in the price or availability Federal agencies. annual baseline projection, which totals of timber represent an indirect effect of The potential indirect effects of these approximately 123 MMBF. This the regulation. In this case, we note that lost Federal revenues, in terms of projection is then appropriately potential changes in timber harvests are implications for County revenue sharing caveated, with the FEA noting that anticipated to be less than one percent programs, are discussed in Chapter 6 of within the discrete areas of each subunit of average annual harvests in the region the DEA (see paragraphs 293 through where incremental effects may occur, subject to the designation. 299). In addition, Chapter 6 also the subunit level projection could vary identifies the counties with Federal Comment (181): The SBA states that materially from future actual timber lands more likely to experience changes the Service underestimates the harvest in these areas. in harvest levels as a result of the We note further, however, that based economic impact of the rule on the designation and provides background on comments received from Federal timber industry and private landowners information on harvest and employment land managers, we have added an because, in its screening analysis, it trends in these counties. additional sensitivity analysis to only considers administrative costs of Comment (182): Several commenters Chapter 4 of the FEA. Specifically, the section 7 consultations, rather than stated that the DEA misrepresented the sensitivity analysis tests alternative quantifying the costs of project baseline or underestimates timber assumptions concerning: (a) The modifications resulting from those harvest impacts on Federal lands. One percentage of northern spotted owl consultations. commenter in particular asserts that the habitat on BLM matrix lands that is Our Response: Project modification true baseline is best represented by the likely to be unoccupied, which costs quantified in the DEA result from land management plans that have been increases the acreage where incremental changes in the quantity of timber adopted by BLM and FS, in which timber harvest impacts may occur and harvested on Federal lands. As planned annual harvest volumes may thus the baseline projection; and (b) the discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the total 840 MMBF across all lands baseline harvest projection for USFS DEA, section 7 consultations on the sale encompassed by the NWFP. Region 6, where we assume a 20 percent of timber from Federal lands may result Our Response: The baseline increase in baseline timber harvest in an increase, decrease, or no change in projection should represent the best relative to historical yields. harvest levels, based on several estimate of the world absent critical Comment (183): Several commenters plausible assumptions. We note that if habitat, given the best available data. questioned whether the DEA was future harvests are restricted, total Relying on this criterion, the baseline meaningful, because it displays results annual harvests could decrease by 24.56 projection first focuses on areas of the as a menu of choices, including a million board feet (MMBF). This proposed designation where potential increase in timber harvest on decrease represents less than one incremental impacts to Federal timber Federal lands. In addition, one percent of 2010 total harvest and the harvest are relatively more likely to commenter contemplated a potential average annual harvests between 2006 occur as a result of critical habitat. As reduction in annual planned harvest and 2010 across the 56-county area identified in the Incremental Effects volumes of 500 MMBF as a result of overlapping proposed critical habitat. Memorandum, these areas include critical habitat designation. The designation may also result in an matrix lands that are likely to be Our Response: The DEA presented increase in annual harvests of 12.28 unoccupied by the northern spotted alternative scenarios due to MMBF, or less than half a percent of owl, representing approximately 1.4 considerable uncertainty regarding the total annual harvests in the 56-county million acres of matrix lands out of specific projects that may be proposed area. Finally, it is possible that harvest approximately 12 million Federal acres or management options that Federal levels will not change a result of the in the proposed designation. Given that land managers may consider. These designation. In summary, the proposed incremental impacts, if any, are likely to scenarios are intended to present a rule is anticipated to have a minor occur primarily in these more discrete range of estimates for the potential impact on future harvest levels. areas, a projection utilizing the range- incremental impacts of various options Although the Service has estimated wide planned harvest levels for complying with section 7 available these potential impact scenarios relative contemplated under the NWFP would to Federal agencies. Based on the best to the total harvest, the agency overstate baseline conditions. available data and information, these acknowledges that the designation of Second, based on historical decisions, including the adoption of critical habitat may have indirect experience, projected actual timber ecological forestry practices, may result impacts on industry subsectors and/or harvest in the baseline on USFS and in harvest levels being maintained (as related sectors with high concentrations BLM lands is likely to be less than that described in Scenario #1), increased of small businesses. However, a more in the formally-approved land (Scenario #2), or decreased (Scenario detailed analysis capturing these management plans under the NWFP. #3). This range of estimates is not meant

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72035

to be interpreted as ‘‘over 100 potential stumpage values across USFS National coverage of this issue in the draft outcomes.’’ Statistical analyses Forests and BLM districts within the economic analysis. One comment frequently account for uncertainty by proposed critical habitat designation for asserts that critical habitat makes fuel presenting a range of estimates in which each Federal land manager. These management more difficult, resulting in each individual data point is not values best represent the average price the destruction of habitat. Another considered an independent outcome. of timber sold in areas of concern where comment notes the prospect of reduced One purpose of this analysis was to aid incremental effects are relatively more fire risk under critical habitat due to the Secretary in determining if any likely to occur. Please see chapter 4.4.3 restoration of riparian forests or road lands should be excluded due to the of the FEA for further explanation of closure. financial burden associated with the how we arrived at these values. Our Response: The FEA addresses the designation, and this analysis does so by However, even if we apply the $350/mbf potential impacts of critical habitat on identifying the subunits and relevant figure, the annual high-impact result fire management in Chapters 4 and 8. In landowners for whom incremental would increase by $2.5 to $2.9 million, Chapter 4, the FEA discusses the fact impacts are relatively more likely to which is still a relatively small that ecological fire salvage activities occur, as demonstrated through these incremental impact. contemplated as part of proposed scenarios. Comment (186): One submission critical habitat designation on both With respect to the representation of noted that a number of Pacific reserved and nonreserved lands may the potential 500 MMBF reduction in Northwest Ski Areas Association result in incremental economic effects. annual timber harvest, this figure (PNSAA) member ski areas operate on Due to data limitations and fire location overstates any possible effect of critical National Forest System (NFS) land uncertainty, however, these effects are habitat. This volume is roughly potentially within the range of the not quantified. In the benefits equivalent to the total harvest on the northern spotted owl. The primary discussion in Chapter 8, the FEA National Forest System and BLM lands request of the comment is that areas recognizes that it is possible that the in the NWFP area in recent years, and covered by special use permits (SUPs) designation could result in increased is roughly five times the baseline under which the ski areas operate be resiliency of timber stands associated harvest projection for potentially- excluded from the final designation. with improved timber management affected areas. The figure implies that The comment goes on to note potential practices, such as thinning, partial the designation will largely preclude burdens critical habitat designation may cutting, and adaptive management and any timber harvest whatsoever on entail for these areas and their economic monitoring. These efforts may reduce Federal lands operated under the impact. This economic activity and any the threat of catastrophic events such as NWFP. Based on the historical record of related regulatory impacts are not wildfire, drought, and insect damage. actual timber harvest volumes and the addressed in the draft economic This in turn may generate benefits in the best available information concerning analysis. form of reduced property damage. potential future harvest activity under Our Response: While ski areas are Comment (188): One comment noted the designation, we reject this found on a very small proportion of the that the DEA only considers impacts representation. forested lands in the Pacific northwest, related to logging, and limits its Comment (184): One comment our analysis found these lands provide coverage of many other economic suggested that the DEA underestimated essential high-value northern spotted purposes that critical habitat may the administrative costs associated with owl habitat to the critical habitat negatively affect. consultations. network. Currently, impacts to northern Our Response: Based on a review of Our Response: The additional burden spotted owl habitat in these areas are the consultation record, recognized of 4 to 6 hours described in the FEA subject to the section 7 consultation threats to the species, and other related reflects an incremental impact to process for effects to northern spotted information, the FEA focuses on those consultations that would already occur owls. Our experience shows that ski economic activities that could be due to the listing of the species. These area development actions generally tend materially affected by the designation. costs do not reflect the total cost of not to conflict with northern spotted These activities include timber harvest consultations that would occur absent owl and critical habitat conservation on public and private lands, fire the critical habitat designation. The FEA needs, so we do not anticipate any management activities, and linear discusses additional consultations that significant regulatory burden associated projects (roads, gas pipelines, utility would not have occurred but for the with the designation of these lands as lines, etc.). We are not aware of other critical habitat designation. critical habitat. Removing lands economic activities that will be Comment (185): One commenter managed under ski area special use materially affected by the designation. stated that the high-impact economic permits would increase fragmentation of In addition, the FEA qualitatively estimate based on a $250/mbf stumpage the critical habitat network and considers potential benefits from the value underestimates the true economic potentially continuous tracts of northern designation on certain activities, costs of the proposed designation, and spotted owl habitat. Therefore, there is including recreation. that a stumpage rate of $350/mbf is a greater benefit to the species Comment (189): Multiple submissions more realistic. associated with retaining ski areas in the assert that the DEA does not sufficiently Our Response: The stumpage values critical habitat designation. In situations consider the cumulative economic in the economic analysis ($100 to $250/ involving the imminent loss of human impacts of northern spotted owl mbf) reflect a wide range of historical life or property the managing agency conservation efforts since the time of its values for timber harvest from Federal should implement emergency section 7 listing, instead focusing primarily on lands for the years 2000 to 2011 (the measures to avoid compromising public the potential incremental impacts of the most recent estimates that were safety. A note regarding ski area proposed critical habitat designation available). Average stumpage prices activities and their economic impact has prospectively. vary by forest, species, product, and been added to Chapter 1 of the FEA. Our Response: The U.S. Office of year, reflecting, among other things, Comment (187): Several submissions Management and Budget’s (OMB) shifts in economic demand. Exhibit 4– commented upon how critical habitat guidelines for best practices concerning 11 presents a weighted average of may affect wildfire risks and related the conduct of economic analysis of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Federal regulations direct agencies to are unreliable and irrelevant where the likely to support the conservation and measure the costs of a regulatory action only benefit of relevance to the recovery of the northern spotted owl. As against a baseline, which it defines as decisionmaker is the conservation of a described in Chapter 8 of the DEA the ‘‘best assessment of the way the listed species. The Act calls for a cost- (paragraphs 342 through 343), the world would look absent the proposed effectiveness approach where the benefits of the regulation in terms of action.’’ (OMB, ‘‘Circular A–4,’’ Service should seek to minimize the improved probability of northern September 17, 2003, available at http:// economic costs and burdens that must spotted owl conservation and recovery www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/ be incurred to designate only that are difficult to quantify due to existing a004/a-4.pdf.) The baseline utilized in habitat that is essential for species data limitations. the DEA is the existing state of conservation. Other benefits are Comment (192): Several commenters regulation, prior to the designation of irrelevant and should not be offset asserted that in not attempting to critical habitat, which provides against the costs. quantify environmental and ecosystem protection to the species under the Act, Our Response: The valuation of services benefits, the Service is not as well as under other Federal, State, nonmarket goods as part of the employing the best available science and local laws and guidelines. To evaluation of the benefits of proposed regarding the benefits that endangered characterize the ‘‘world without critical Federal regulations is a widely accepted species and their critical habitat habitat,’’ the DEA also endeavors to and regularly applied practice. The U.S. provide, and is undervaluing the forecast these conditions into the future Office of Management and Budget economic benefits of the designation. over the timeframe of the analysis, (OMB) explicitly recommends the use of The comment asserts that multiple recognizing that such projections are revealed preference (recreational global efforts have been developed to subject to uncertainty. This baseline demand models, hedonics) and stated quantify ecosystem services in order to projection recognizes that the northern preference methods (contingent inform policy, promote incorporating spotted owl is already subject to a valuation) in its guidance to Federal ecosystem services into decision variety of Federal, State, and local agencies (Circular A–4) on best practices making, and provide guidelines to protections throughout most of its range, for preparing regulatory analysis assess costs and benefits of policies and due to its threatened status under the required by Executive Order 12866. better account for ecosystem service Act and regardless of the designation of Circular A–4 includes criteria for effects. Commenters encourage the critical habitat. conducting and applying stated Service to make a credible (if rapid) Significant debate has occurred preference studies, which are commonly attempt to value ecosystem service regarding whether assessing the impact used to measure existence values. benefits and consider ecosystem of critical habitat designations using this Chapter 8 of the FEA describes the data services. baseline approach is appropriate, with limitations preventing the Service from Our Response: The Service recognizes several courts issuing divergent quantifying or estimating the value of that much attention has been paid opinions. Courts in several parts of the these benefits. Thus, the direct benefits nationally and globally to valuing country, including the 9th Circuit Court of the designation are described ecosystem services provided by of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in qualitatively. landscapes. Published, peer-reviewed Washington, Oregon, and California, In weighing the benefits of including studies provide information on values of have ruled that the consideration of an area in critical habitat as opposed to multiple categories of ecosystem economic impacts in the designation of excluding it, ancillary benefits may be services (e.g., agricultural production, critical habitat should be based on the considered, although we agree with the water quality regulation, carbon storage incremental impacts of the designation. comment that the most relevant benefit and sequestration, recreation, aesthetic See, e.g., Home Builders Association of of designating critical habitat for the values, etc.) across a variety of land use Northern California v. United States northern spotted owl are the benefits to types (e.g., wetlands, forests, etc.). Over Fish and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983 the species’ conservation and recovery. the past 20 years, multiple studies have (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 179 L. Ed. However, ancillary benefits are relevant relied on this literature to develop large- 2d 301; Arizona Cattle Growers v. only to a decision whether to exclude an scale benefits transfer analyses in order Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010), area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, not to estimate a total value of a parcel of cert. denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300. to the threshold determination that an land, a watershed, a State, or even the Chapter 3 of the FEA provides area meets the definition of critical planet (e.g., Costanza 1997, as described extensive discussion of the historical habitat. We agree that only lands that in the comment letter). and current economic conditions meet the definition of critical habitat The first comment focuses in against which critical habitat is (areas occupied at the time of listing particular on the potential relevance to designated. Specifically, the document containing features essential to the the DEA of a large-scale benefits transfer provides data, by each of the 56 species’ conservation or unoccupied estimate developed for the Skykomish counties overlapping the proposed rule, areas that are themselves essential to the watershed. This study is characterized on changes in timber harvests, timber species’ conservation) should be as a ‘‘rapid ecosystem service industry employment, and timber designated. valuation.’’ In general, the authors first industry payroll since 1989. It also Comment (191): One comment states identified land cover types present in provides a detailed discussion of the that most of the economic benefits (e.g., the watershed, identified the categories existing revenue-sharing programs existence value, wildlife viewing, of ecosystem services relevant to those related to timber harvests and the data ecosystem services) derive from the types, and then researched existing describing which counties are most listing; the incremental benefit of studies valuing those categories of reliant on these programs. critical habitat is negligible to ecosystem service benefits. From the Comment (190): One comment states nonexistent. available literature, the authors that, while accepted in the academic Our Response: As discussed in detail estimated a range of values for each literature, existence values, contingent in the DEA, particularly Chapter 4, the category of ecosystem service by relying values, recreational hedonic values, and designation of critical habitat may result on the low end and high end estimates other nonmarket values that might be in changes in timber management identified. The authors then summed assigned to critical habitat designation practices. These physical changes are across relevant ecosystem service values

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72037

to estimate a value range for each land changes in the condition or quality of an benefits of critical habitat for the cover type, and summed across the land ecosystem on the associated service northern spotted owl. The tool cover types within the watershed to values. The Skykomish study assigns an comprises a series of biophysical and estimate a value range for the entire equal value to all ‘‘forest’’ acres and economic models that aim to translate Skykomish watershed of $245 million to therefore does not provide any changes in a given landscape into $3.3 billion per year. information to support an analysis of changes in the delivery of multiple While case- and site-specific the ecosystem service benefits of ecosystem services. These models are modeling to value ecological benefits is changes in the management of a forest. data-intensive and require site-specific preferable, the Service agrees that It is the incremental change in the value information. benefits transfer methods may be useful of a service provided that is relevant to For each ecosystem service, InVEST in the absence of resources for intensive the DEA. For example, the DEA relies on two separate models: One that primary research. To use these methods concludes critical habitat designation estimates the biophysical change in the in support of Federal rulemakings, OMB for the northern spotted owl may result delivery of a service and, for some has developed guidelines for conducting in the harvest of fewer board feet of services, a second economic model that credible benefits transfer. A rapid timber in a portion of the forests. monetizes that change. For example, to assessment of ecosystem services, such Decreased harvest of trees may not estimate the change in water quality as that developed for the Skykomish, is change the land cover type (forest) as resulting from changes in the unlikely to meet the criteria specified by characterized in the rapid assessment; it management of a given forest, the OMB. Multiple responses to similar simply affects the density of the trees in following types of detailed, on-the- large-scale benefits transfer studies have given areas. The rapid assessment ground, data would be required as highlighted the theoretical and practical approach does not address such inputs to the biophysical model: A problems associated with estimating differences across areas within a land digital elevation model, soil depth, and extrapolating per-acre estimates of use type (i.e., forests); rather, it is more plant available water content (the values taken from other studies of useful in comparing the ecosystem fraction of water that can be stored in ecosystem services (e.g., Bockstael et al., services provided across different land the soil profile for plants’ use), root 2000). use types (i.e., deserts, prairie, forests, depth of vegetative cover, First, this approach ignores site- marshes) and is therefore of limited use evapotranspiration, nutrient or sediment specific factors affecting the production in evaluating tradeoffs associated with loading for each land use type across the of services by not accounting for changes in the condition of a given landscape, the vegetation filtering variations in the condition or quality of ecosystem. capacity of the land cover (as a function an ecosystem. For example, a less dense Consequently, absent a full-scale of the type and density of vegetation), or degraded forest area stores less change from one ecosystem type to and pre-existing water quality carbon than a dense, healthy forest. The another, the rapid assessment approach conditions for model calibration (e.g., extent to which a given acre of land to valuing benefits of critical habitat nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment delivers ecosystem services also designation does not provide a valid concentrations). While some of these depends on the surrounding land uses. approach to quantifying the ecological data are available; some would need to For example, a wetland downslope of benefits of critical habitat designation be generated at a relatively fine level of cropland may provide a valuable service for the northern spotted owl. While the resolution in order to model the by filtering nitrogen runoff and DEA provides information on the types incremental changes in the ability of the decreasing the total amount of the of services associated with the landscape to filter pollutants likely to nutrient reaching a water supply, ecosystems types potentially affected by result from the designation. The InVEST whereas a wetland surrounded by forest the designation, it does not attempt to tool values this service in terms of is unlikely to intercept such runoff to perform a rapid assessment of the values changes in treatment costs for nutrients begin with and, therefore, would not of these services, for the reasons stated. or sediment. These costs are likewise provide this service. By relying on site- Comment (193): One commenter site-specific. specific studies valuing these types of suggested that the Service could employ This effort is particularly significant services in other areas—the Skykomish any of three approaches to value in light of the conclusion of the DEA study relies on a variety of studies of ecosystem service benefits of critical that the critical habitat designation is ecosystems all across the country—these habitat designation: (1) The Integrated most likely to generate only minor differences are not taken into account. Valuation of Ecosystem Services and incremental changes in the management In addition, benefits transfer for rapid Tradeoffs (InVEST) model; (2) the of land uses within the designation. The assessments, such as the Skykomish Ecosystem Services Review Method; key change is a potential increase or study, fail to account for differences in and (3) the Wildlife Habitat Benefits decrease in timber harvest of less than values associated with differences in Estimation Toolkit. The comment states one percent in the region. While the socioeconomic context between sites. that all three are available and ready for analysis describes qualitatively that this For example, the recreational value of a immediate, widespread use. A second change potentially could generate some forest depends on multiple site-specific comment states that the Service is far marginal improvements in services such socioeconomic factors such as behind the ecosystem services valuation as water quality regulation, these accessibility (landownership and curve. benefits are expected to be relatively proximity to roads and towns). In Our Response: The Service recognizes minor, ancillary benefits of the rule. The transferring values of ecosystem services that multiple tools exist that focus on same is true of application of other from other studies, the Skykomish study evaluating ecosystem service benefits of models to evaluate benefits, such as the fails to account for such ecological and land management changes. The authors Multiscale Integrated Model of socioeconomic context affecting these of the DEA have experience with a Ecosystem Services (MIMES), also values. This represents one reason we number of these methods, including the described in the comment. Finally, the do not rely on the values presented in InVEST tool and the Wildlife Habitat areas most likely to produce these this study in the DEA. Benefits Estimation Toolkit. As a ancillary benefits (e.g., Federal matrix Second, rapid assessments do not practical matter, the InVEST tool could lands) are included in the final provide information on the effects of be used to evaluate potential ancillary designation; thus additional analysis of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72038 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

the ancillary benefits of including these Our Response: The economic the total value of all services provided areas would not change the final analysis’s focus on changes in timber by forests included in proposed regulatory decision. The DEA therefore harvest practices is appropriate because designation. Then, our analysis would provides qualitative information to the this activity is the conduit for all other estimate the value of the incremental Service regarding potential ancillary ‘‘on-the-ground’’ changes, positive or change in quality and quantity of these benefits. negative, resulting from the designation. services as a result of the designation. The objective of the Ecosystem Increases or decreases in timber harvests Such an effort would be equivalent, on Services Review (ESR) Method is to could positively or negatively affect the cost side of the analysis, to first provide companies with information on regional socioeconomic conditions. presenting the total value (in terms of how their business depends on Thus, Chapter 3 of the DEA provides stumpage prices) of all the timber found ecosystem services, whether their context explaining historical and in proposed critical habitat, and then business affects their (or others’) ability current conditions, and Chapter 6 presenting the value of the change in the to access these services, and identifies counties that may experience amount of timber harvested as a result opportunities to capitalize on and the greatest impacts. The same changes of the regulation. On both sides of the minimize effects on these services. The in timber harvests could affect the equation, providing a monetized ESR is not a quantitative tool but a northern spotted owl’s conservation and estimate of the value of the baseline series of steps embedded in a recovery, discussed in Chapter 8 of the resources is not a necessary step to spreadsheet model to help users DEA. Finally, these changes in timber understanding the value or the change incorporate consideration of ecosystem harvests are the driver of the potential in services resulting from the services into business decisionmaking. changes in other ecosystem services, designation. Correctly characterizing the While useful to corporations, it is including recreational opportunities, baseline conditions is necessary, but unclear how this tool may be used to described in the comment. These valuation efforts appropriately focus on improve the benefits discussion in the ancillary benefits are also described in what will change, rather than what DEA. Section 8.2 of the DEA describes Chapter 8 of the DEA. exists today. potential categories of ancillary Responses provided to earlier Substantial debate surrounds the ecosystem service benefits that may comments review the best available selection of appropriate discount rates result from the designation and where modeling tools for quantifying and for ecosystem services. While Circular (in which units) these benefits may valuing ecosystem services and describe A–4 recommends applying discount occur. This information is provided for why these tools were not employed in rates of 7 and 3 percent for regulatory the Service to consider alongside the this instance. In the FEA, we expand analyses, it does not preclude the costs. The ESR does not provide a our qualitative discussion of potential application of alternative discount rates means to value these services. ancillary benefits to include the broader for comparison. The comment The Wildlife Habitat Benefits set of ecosystem service categories recommends assessing ecosystem Estimation Toolkit is a benefits transfer discussed in the comment. services benefits using discount rates of tool developed by the Defenders of Comment (195): One organization zero and one percent, in addition to Wildlife and Colorado State University states that OMB’s Circular A–4 is three and seven percent. Because for the purposes of valuing ecosystem fundamentally flawed in excluding the ecosystem services are not quantified in services associated with species and flow of ecosystem services from the the economic analysis, we do not habitat conservation, such as property baseline and recommending discounting consider additional sensitivity analysis values, recreation, and existence values. practices that are inconsistent with around the discount rate assumption. The benefits transfers facilitated by this ecosystem service valuation. The Further, such an effort would require toolkit suffer from some of the same comment further states that Circular A– some data that are not currently issues as the rapid assessment described 4 is insufficient because it provides the available. above. The policy context or sites Service with a rationale to avoid Comment (196): One comment states subject to analysis are most often not quantifying the benefits of critical that the cost of avoiding carbon transferable to the issue being evaluated: habitat designation by allowing for a emissions is less than the cost of climate In this case, the land management qualitative assessment where benefits mitigation, and several studies have changes resulting from the critical are ‘‘difficult to quantify.’’ shown that changing forest practices is habitat designation for the northern Our Response: The conceptual one of the more efficient and spotted owl. framework of the FEA is to evaluate economical ways to store carbon and Comment (194): One organization impacts by comparing the world reduce emissions. Given that carbon stated the DEA is incomplete, in part without critical habitat (baseline) to the storage is just one of the many because it focuses too narrowly on world with critical habitat. The important ecological services provided impacts to the timber industry, while difference between these two states by mature and old forest, every effort the final designation will also affect the represents the incremental impacts of should be made to avoid as much economies of the region in other ways. the rule. Thus, the FEA does not warming as possible by protecting Specifically, two comments stressed exclude the flow of ecosystem services mature forests. that the analysis should consider the from the baseline. To understand how Our Response: We have added total value of the goods and services the flow of ecosystem services may discussion of the potential for increased provided by forests in this region, change, one must first understand the carbon sequestration to Chapter 8 of the including reduced wildfire threats, categories and magnitude of existing FEA. reduced impacts of droughts, reduced services. In this way, while not Comment (197): A comment asserts threat of insect damage, reduced explicitly quantified in the analysis, the that the Presidential Memorandum to property damage due to these risk current flow of ecosystem services is the Secretary of the Interior on the reductions, increased quality or quantity implicitly captured in our northern spotted owl is not consistent of recreational activities, aesthetic characterization of the baseline with the Endangered Species Act improvements for people passing on condition. because it states that ‘‘the benefits of nearby roads, carbon sequestration, and Put another way, the organization excluding private lands and State lands improved water quality. appears to be asking us to first present may be greater than the benefits of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72039

including those areas in critical in different answers using the same total annual harvests could decrease by habitat.’’ The commenter is concerned basic accounting approach. 24.56 million board feet (MMBF). This that this statement is made in the CRS also notes that the USFS sells decrease represents less than one Presidential Memorandum without an timber for many reasons, such as ‘‘to percent of 2010 total harvest and the attempt to quantify ecosystem services generate receipts, to supply wood for average annual harvests between 2006 benefits of the designation on these manufacturers, to provide employment, and 2010 across the 56-county area lands, and these benefits are therefore to expand access for motorized vehicles, overlapping proposed critical habitat. given an effective price of zero. to alter the composition and distribution The designation may also result in an Our Response: We do not believe that of vegetation in the area, and more’’ (p. increase in annual harvests of 12.28 the directive in the Presidential 5). The ‘‘value’’ of all of these positive MMBF, or less than half a percent of memorandum is inconsistent with attributes of the sales may not be total annual harvests in the 56-county section 4(b)(2) of the Act, which states captured in the stumpage price paid by area. Finally, it is possible that harvest that the Secretary may exclude areas the loggers or mills purchasing the levels will not change as a result of the from critical habitat if the benefits of timber, as many of these attributes designation. In summary, the exclusion outweigh the benefits of represent market externalities. designation is anticipated to have a inclusion, as long as failure to designate Furthermore, ‘‘the multiple outputs, minor impact on future harvest levels. such areas will not result in extinction environmental impacts, and differing The DEA used a filtering approach to of the species. The purpose of the time scales of timber sales and related identify those specific areas where economic analysis is to provide the activities make identifying relevant incremental timber harvest effects may Secretary of the Interior with costs and comparing them with relevant occur. Further explanatory detail on information to support analysis of revenues problematic. Two decades of these methods has been added to where the benefits of excluding a debate have not resolved the dilemma, Chapter 4 of the FEA. In addition, the particular area may outweigh the and further debate seems unlikely to chapter also notes the potential effects benefits of including that particular area result in widespread agreement’’ (Gorte, to the baseline timber projection related as critical habitat. In providing the R.W. 2004, p. 7). to increasing the percentage of matrix qualitative discussion of benefits, the Thus, whether the Federal agency lands with northern spotted owl habitat costs of baseline timber sales FEA does not assign zero values to these that are likely to be unoccupied. anticipated in the absence of critical Comment (200): Two small county potential benefits; this discussion is habitat, or new sales potential generated governments submitted comment stating provided for the Secretary to consider by the designation, exceed revenues is the proposed rule would have alongside the quantitative information unknown. However, the fact that these disproportionate impacts on local provided. sales are often conducted for multiple employment, payroll, and county Comment (198): One commenter purposes, such as improved ecosystem services funded by revenues-sharing stated that the DEA estimates the services or regional employment, and programs and taxes. They provide data benefits of increased timber production those purposes may have value that is describing economic conditions in the in terms of the market value of the logs, not captured in stumpage prices, 1970s and 1980s, and describe the but ignores the costs to Federal agencies suggests that our assumption that the economic decline experienced since the of producing the logs (i.e., costs of benefits of the sales exceed costs is not owl was listed in 1991. managing the land for timber unreasonable. Our Response: We recognize that production and executing the timber many small governments have sales), and that the total cost to Comments on the Economic Analysis experienced significant changes in taxpayers may exceed the logs’ market From Counties employment, payroll, and county value. Comment (199): Several counties revenues as a result of the decline in the Our Response: In support of its including Wasco, Del Norte, Klickitat, timber industry over the last 21 years. comment that the costs to Federal and Skamania Counties expressed Chapter 3 of the DEA provides detailed agencies (and ultimately taxpayers) of criticism of the Draft Economic data by county describing these changes timber sales exceeds the revenues from Analysis, including concerns about the and providing context for the analysis. the sales, the commenting organization incremental analysis approach and the Chapter 6 provides information specific cites several studies from the early negative economic impact of reducing to the counties where changes in 1980s, as well as a more recent report or restricting commercial timber harvest Federal timber harvests are relatively published by the Congressional on local communities (employment, tax more likely. We note that these counties Research Service (CRS) in 2004 (Gorte, base, quality of life, and other are not directly regulated by the R.W. 2004, Below Cost Timber Sales: An socioeconomic impacts). designation of critical habitat for the Overview, CRS, Order Code RL32485). Our Response: The economic impact northern spotted owl; rather, potential We agree that whether the net benefit to local counties of this critical habitat impacts result from changes in harvest of timber sales in terms of costs and designation will be determined in large practices on Federal lands or where revenues is positive has been the subject part by the timber management other Federal actions may be involved. of much debate. CRS summarizes this direction the Federal land managers Given the numerous factors affecting debate and notes ‘‘the estimates of take within critical habitat lands. Project the future of the industry, including financial results of [USFS] timber sales modification costs quantified in the FEA changes in the availability of Federal vary widely. This disparity is due to primarily result from changes in the timber, mechanization, transfer of differences in basic approach—profit- quantity of timber harvested on Federal capital investment away from the and-loss, cash flow, or other approach— lands. As discussed in detail in Chapter region, closure of less efficient mills, and in assumptions about relevant 4 of the DEA, section 7 consultations on and fluctuating demand for wood costs’’ (Gorte, R.W. 2004, summary the sale of timber from Federal lands products, we are unable to provide page). In particular, CRS notes differing may result in an increase, decrease, or quantitative projections of future assumptions regarding which Agency no change in harvest levels, based on timber-related employment. costs are relevant and how to allocate several plausible assumptions. We note Furthermore, as discussed in Chapters 3 those costs to specific sales may result that if future harvests are restricted, and 6 of the DEA, uncertainty regarding

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72040 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

the future of existing county revenue- DEA argues the loss of 30,000 jobs in the mills that handled only larger trees sharing programs, such as PILT and timber industry between 1990 and 2010 coupled with less old-growth timber SRS, confound our ability to predict was offset by regional gains in available, and shipping raw logs and potential changes in county revenues. population and employment of 15 cants out of the region for processing However, we note that reasonable percent and 18 percent, respectively. elsewhere. Additional study is needed’’ assumptions suggest overall changes in They state that the DEA errs by (page 31). harvest levels resulting from the assuming that job gains in one time Teasing out the precise location of designation are likely to be less than one period offset losses in another, and that potential regional impacts resulting percent of current levels. Chapter 6 of job gains (and losses) are equally from critical habitat designation is the DEA discusses the counties most distributed across the region. In particularly challenging due to the likely to see the largest changes. In addition, they claim that the DEA does relatively small overall change in addition, most of the costs cited by the not analyze or sufficiently discuss the harvest anticipated to result from the commenter, if not all, are attributable to issue of disparity and does not discuss final rule (at worst, a less than one the listed status of the northern spotted how areas with a proportionally greater percent decline in annual harvest). This owl, rather than the incremental effects amount of employment in the timber marginal change in available Federal of critical habitat. industry are affected by the proposed timber is unlikely to cause large-scale Comment (201): Several county critical habitat designation. changes in the regional industry. governments reference a report prepared Our Response: The authors are Identification of who will experience by the Sierra Institute for Community referring to information provided in impacts requires better understanding of and Environment and Spatial paragraphs 14 and 106 of the DEA, potential substitutes and the degree of Informatics Group, titled ‘‘Response to which present regional job loss figures flexibility in the current production the Economic Analysis of Critical and changes in regional population and system, as well as proprietary Habitat Designation for the Northern employment. The DEA simply presents information about the financial Spotted Owl by Industrial Economics,’’ these facts; it makes no assumptions, characteristics and operations of and submitted as a public comment. and draws no conclusions, about individual mills. Such data are not Funding for the report was provided by whether lost timber jobs are offset by available to us and are not provided in the National Forest Counties and overall employment gains in the region the Sierra Institute for Community and Schools Coalition. The report states that or how job losses and gains are Environment’s report. the DEA’s assessment is insufficient in distributed across the region. Detailed Comment (203): The Sierra Institute its documentation of cumulative analysis of rate and nature of for Community and Environment report socioeconomic impacts and current reemployment of former timber industry states that the DEA fails to link job socioeconomic conditions. It provides employees is complex and beyond the losses to socioeconomic conditions and detailed discussion and data concerning scope of the DEA. that this is required by the February a variety of characteristics for Chapter 6 of the DEA attempts to 2012 Presidential Memo. communities potentially affected by the address potential disparity in the Our Response: The Presidential designation, including: Number of mills distribution of regional impacts of the Memorandum directs the Secretary of and mill closures; employment patterns; designation. It combines background the Interior to: (1) Publish, within 90 revenue-sharing payments to counties; information on timber industry harvest days of the date of this memorandum, family income; poverty levels; home and employment trends (presented in a full analysis of the economic impacts ownership; health outcomes and factors; Chapter 3), and county dependency on of the proposed rule, including job and enrollment in programs such as revenue-sharing payments, with impacts, and make the analysis School Free and Reduced-Price Meals information about subunits where available for public comment. The DEA (FRPM). changes in timber harvest are possible satisfied this direction. It estimates the Our Response: Chapter 3 of the DEA (Chapter 4). It highlights the counties incremental change in social costs and is intended to provide context to the most likely to be affected by the rule benefits that may result from the decision maker regarding historical based on proximity to affected subunits, proposed rule, as required by Executive changes in the timber industry in the and identifies which of these counties Order 12866, following OMB’s guidance Pacific Northwest in terms of have already experienced the most on best practices as defined in Circular production, employment, income, and significant declines in the industry over A–4, and consistent with existing case county revenues. It also discusses the last 20 years. The report notes that law; and, it provides a separate analysis multiple possible causes contributing to these counties may be more sensitive to of potential job impacts in Chapter 6. these changes, including protection of future changes in timber harvests. The memorandum did not require the the northern spotted owl. The Sierra Definitely linking changes in timber Secretary to take the additional step of Institute for Community and harvests to timber-related jobs in certain developing complex models to link Environment report provides additional communities is challenging. Timber changes in timber industry employment socioeconomic information industry jobs are not necessarily closely to changes in socioeconomic conditions, supplementing the background correlated with the amount of timber such as poverty rates, homeownership, information provided in Chapter 3. Text being harvested in that specific county; and participation in food assistance summarizing the contents and some mills or related manufacturers programs, as suggested by the report availability of this report has been (e.g., wood product manufacturers) may authors. Furthermore, the authors of the added to the FEA. We note that rely on resources harvested from outside Sierra Institute for Community and verification of the data provided by the their immediate community. In its Environment report acknowledge that Sierra Institute for Community and presentation of historical data on linking changes in socioeconomic Environment is complicated by the fact regional mill closures, the Sierra factors to changes in land management, that citations are not provided for the Institute for Community and and specifically to critical habitat majority of the report’s figures and data. Environment acknowledges, ‘‘Other designation, is challenging due to time Comment (202): The Sierra Institute reasons for mill closure also include, constraints and complex data for Community and Environment states but are not limited to, industry closing requirements (see, for example, pages in several places in its report that the older, less efficient mills, closure of 94, 105, 168 of the Sierra Institute for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72041

Community and Environment report). Comment (205): The Sierra Institute subcontract to Industrial Economics, As a result, the organization does not for Community and Environment report Incorporated (IEC), the authors of the estimate these changes in its report. states that the DEA is insufficient 2012 analysis, and project managers Comment (204): The Sierra Institute because it does not adequately from IEC worked closely on both efforts. for Community and Environment report characterize cumulative socioeconomic The difference in the two analyses states that an unintended consequence impacts. The authors state that regarding whether to quantify impacts of critical habitat designation is that ‘‘understanding current condition resulting from baseline regulatory private landowners ‘‘do nothing’’ due to requires an understanding of what has protections is due to the change in case the increased cost of compliance, and transpired in recent years and trend law described in the previous that this has real social and [sic], which are, for the most part, not paragraph. environmental costs, such as reducing factors in the analysis.’’ They also Comment (206): The Sierra Institute job availability and revenues and question why the Entrix report and the for Community and Environment report increasing fire risk. 2012 analysis ‘‘ended up in inconsistent questions why the background data Our Response: As described in places with respect to baseline and provided on timber industry Chapter 5 of the DEA, there is a included incremental impacts.’’ employment and harvests do not factor potential for increased compliance Our Response: The DEA provides data into the overall assessment and analysis costs, such as preparing environmental on historical changes in timber industry of impacts. The report states that the impact statements. In Washington, the production, employment, and income analysis does not address localized and DEA indicated that this may occur only (see Chapter 3). It also provides community-level impacts. in the event that the State Forest information about trends in county Our Response: As described above, Practices Board redefines all suitable revenue-sharing payments. This Chapter 6 of the DEA combines data habitat overlapping Federal critical information is included in order to from Chapters 3 and 4 of the analysis to habitat within SOSEAs as ‘‘critical provide the Secretary with context for identify counties that may be habitat state’’ (see paragraphs 227 the incremental impacts of the analysis. particularly susceptible to changes in through 232 of the DEA). The likelihood The OMB guidelines for best practices timber harvests resulting from the of such an outcome is uncertain. If it (Circular A–4) concerning the conduct designation. Employment and harvest occurs, we estimated that at most 21,715 of economic analysis of Federal trend data are generally available at the ac (8,788 ha) of proposed private lands regulations direct agencies to measure county level through publicly available could be incrementally affected. The the costs of a regulatory action against sources, such as State natural resource remaining lands are already considered a baseline, which it defines as the ‘‘best agencies, the U.S. Census, and the U.S. ‘‘critical habitat state’’ or are protected assessment of the way the world would Bureau of Labor Statistics. Assessing by existing or proposed HCPs and look absent the proposed action.’’ The distributional impacts as a finer level of SHAs. The potential social and baseline utilized in the DEA is the resolution is challenging given a lack of environmental costs of not harvesting existing state of regulation, prior to the data. In addition, linking changes in these 21,715 ac (8,788) over the 20-year designation of critical habitat, which community outcomes to the designation timeframe of the analysis are too small provides protection to the species under would require complex modeling that is to measure. the Act, as well as under other Federal, beyond the scope of this analysis given In California, the FEA states that one State, and local laws and guidelines. To the numerous other confounding factors stakeholder noted that landowners may characterize the ‘‘world without critical and the relatively small changes in be required to provide additional habitat,’’ the DEA also endeavors to annual harvest that could result from documentation under CEQA to forecast these conditions into the future the designation. demonstrate that their management plan over the timeframe of the analysis, Comment (207): The Sierra Institute timber harvest plan will mitigate recognizing that such projections are for Community and Environment report impacts to critical habitat. Since subject to uncertainty. This baseline states that counties, municipalities, and CALFIRE has stated that it is unlikely to projection recognizes that the northern schools were ‘‘given short shrift’’ in the require additional protective measures spotted owl is already subject to a DEA and that there was no substantive for designated critical habitat beyond variety of Federal, State, and local exchange about the conditions of those already required by State protections throughout most of its range, counties or municipalities for the regulation, any incremental costs would due to its threatened status under the analysis. In addition, other economist be limited to the possibility for Act, and regardless of the designation of commenters also said that they were not additional CEQA review. critical habitat. consulted for the DEA. The FEA also identifies possible Significant debate has occurred Our Response: During preparation of changes to timber harvest practices regarding whether assessing the impact the draft, IEC contacted many suggested by private parties as of critical habitat designations using this stakeholders, including Federal potentially occurring due to regulatory baseline approach is appropriate, with agencies, State governments, and uncertainty, ranging from harvesting several courts issuing divergent representatives of the timber industry, existing trees as early as feasible to opinions. In 2010 and 2011, courts in and sought to obtain economic and discontinuing use of the property for several parts of the country, including other relevant information from publicly timber production. However, due to the the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, available sources. They collected and high degree of uncertainty over whether which has jurisdiction in Washington, analyzed data on historical changes in these impacts may occur, we were not Oregon, and California, ruled that timber harvests and timber industry able to quantify the potential effects. decisions concerning designation of employment and payroll for each of the We note that all private lands were critical habitat should be based on the 56 counties overlapping the proposed excluded from critical habitat for the incremental impacts of the rule. The 9th designation and reviewed literature northern spotted owl under section Circuit cases were appealed to the related to impacts to regional 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions), Supreme Court, which declined to hear communities, including counties. IEC therefore none of the potential scenarios them. conducted research on county revenue considered by the DEA are germane to The Entrix report analyzing the 2008 sharing programs and presented data on the final designation. designation was prepared under the proportion of total county revenues

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72042 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

derived from these programs. Two of the well as for each State and for the entire habitat may have an incremental effect eight report chapters in the FEA focus study area), is the U.S. Census Bureau’s on these harvests, the analysis broadly exclusively on historical and current County Business Patterns. Data for the applies projected timber harvest across conditions in the counties, identifying County Business Patterns excludes data all Federal lands. Using this approach, those that are most likely to experience on self-employed individuals, the FEA uses timber harvest projections incremental impact and those that are employees of private households, ranging from 14 to more than 200 BF- likely to be more sensitive to changes in railroad employees, agricultural per-acre per-year across critical habitat in harvests resulting from the proposed production employees, and most subunits, as described in Chapter 4. In regulation. government employees. More sum, the FEA does not rely exclusively IEC also reached out directly to information on these exclusions can be on historical data, and variable County representatives. On June 6, found at http://www.census.gov/econ/ projected harvests are linked to specific 2012, IEC emailed representatives of cbp/methodology.htm. While a certain subunits to the extent possible. Siskiyou, Skamania, and Douglas amount of undercoverage may occur, we Comment (211): The Sierra Institute Counties, as well as the Association of believe the data provide the best for Community and Environment O & C Counties, the Association of available information from a reliable questions the baseline timber harvest Oregon Counties, and the Washington source. The exhibits list the SIC and projection used in the DEA, stating that State Association of Counties, and NAICS codes that were used to estimate it fails to draw a distinction between dry offered to meet with them via industry employment, as well as the and wet forests and those that are conference call. On June 25, 2012, IEC Web site where the data can be found commercially viable and those that are received a letter from representatives of (http://censtats.census.gov). not. Skamania, Douglas, and Siskiyou Comment (209): The Sierra Institute Our Response: As noted in the prior Counties requesting a meeting with all for Community and Environment report response, the economic analysis of the counties that may be affected by states active forest management occurs endeavors to distinguish potential the designation. Since the comment on National Park Service lands in Shasta future harvest levels by forest type and period closed on July 6, 2012, the County. characterization, and by areas within Service determined that there was not Our Response: We make note of this each subunit, to the extent possible time to arrange a meeting with all 56 representation in the FEA. given the best available information. counties. However, on July 20, 2012, per Comment (210): The Sierra Institute Comment (212): The Sierra Institute section 4(b)(5) of the Act, we again for Community and Environment report for Community and Environment report invited all State agencies and affected disagrees with the results of Scenario 3 claims that the DEA does not provide jurisdictions to submit their comments of the Federal lands analysis (described sufficient analysis of indirect on the proposed critical habitat revision. in Section 4.4.2.3 of the DEA). The incremental effects of the critical habitat Comment (208): The Sierra Institute authors state that the DEA bases its designation on private landowners. To for Community and Environment report analysis of incremental changes in assess the effects of potential changes in questions the DEA’s statement that timber harvests on a period in which Washington State regulations resulting employment in California, Oregon, and there is a severe downturn in the from critical habitat designation, the Washington increased only three economy and wood products industry authors suggest, ‘‘There may not be percent between 2000 and 2010. The and that this results in an undercount of adequate estimates of the probability or report states that reliance on Bureau of likely impacts. They state that the the total number of acres that could be the Census and Bureau of Labor analysis ‘‘relies on 5 years (2006 to included, but probabilistic models Statistics for employment data, such as 2010) of harvest data to base future coupled with a sensitivity analysis the data presented in Exhibits 3.6 and timber harvests.’’ In addition, they state could offer insight into the impact and 3.7 of the DEA, will result in an that estimates of harvest totals are are possible to develop’’ (Sierra Report undercount of employment. Lastly, the generalized and not linked to subunit 2012, p. 13). authors state that they were unable to timber harvest totals. Our Response: Chapter 5 of the FEA replicate the numbers in the tables Our Response: The DEA and FEA rely provides a detailed discussion of the because the methodology is on historical actual harvest data for sources of the data required to quantify inadequately specified. USFS Region 6 because it represented the potential indirect effects of the Our Response: In both the Executive the best available data for purposes of designation on private lands (see Summary and Chapter 3, the DEA the analysis. For USFS Region 5, the paragraphs 279 through 287), including reported that total employment in analysis relies on projected actual the number of acres where landowners California, Oregon, and Washington timber harvests by forest, provided by are likely to alter current timber increased by three percent between USFS. For BLM lands, the FEA utilizes management practices; the 2000 and 2010. IEC has added the BLM-provided data on timber harvest characteristics of the stands (type of source for this data, which is the Bureau projections by critical habitat subunit tree, age, etc.) subject to changes in the of Economic Analysis (BEA), to the for three decades of incremental impact timing of harvests; current and revised FEA. The BEA provides data on total estimates, by land allocation type, forest harvest schedules; financial models of annual State employment, which IEC conditions, and harvest type. To the change in the present value of used to determine the tri-State area conduct the analysis, these various existing lands that incorporate employment increase between 2000 and timber projections needed to be information about stumpage prices, 2010. The data is publically available converted to board feet, per-acre, per- stand growth curves, and the and can be found online at BEA’s year measurements, by critical habitat opportunity cost of capital to private Interactive Data Web site at http:// subunit. In an ideal world, the FEA timber managers; and information www.bea.gov/itable/. would utilize detailed geospatial data regarding the probability that the The data source for Exhibits 3.6 showing when and where Federal Washington Forest Practices Board will through 3.8 of the DEA, which present timber harvest is projected to occur. undertake regulatory changes. Basic historical timber industry employment However, lacking data on the narrowly data are not available for most of these and payroll data for each county that defined areas where timber harvest is elements, and thus, information contains proposed critical habitat (as projected to occur, and where critical necessary to create distributions

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72043

describing these data elements and that is made up of payments from these assessment, we did not formally appoint assumptions, which are required for programs. Current SRS and PILT any agency as a cooperating agency. probabilistic models, are scarce. Any payments are based on historical Comment (215): Several commenters distributions would likely be vague (for revenue payments under preexisting requested the Service complete an example, the probability of the programs and are allocated based on environmental impact statement to Washington Forest Practices Board formulas considering a variety of address the effects of thinning, changing its regulations would range factors. If these programs are re- ecological forestry, and other active from zero to 100%, with an equal authorized and funded, changes in management activities on northern probability of any point in between revenues from Federal lands designated spotted owl populations. Commenters these two endpoints). While it is as critical habitat would first filter believe an EIS needs to be done for the technically possible to build a Monte through the national allocation scheme critical habitat rule for a number of Carlo-type probabilistic model using and then through the State formulas, reasons, including that effects are such vague probability distributions, the making it difficult to predict changes in significant; critical habitat designation lack of data for meaningful inputs payments. If these programs are not could harm, rather than recover, the would render the results uninformative. reauthorized and funded, then the northern spotted owl; there is a need to We also note that private lands have payments would change each year based accurately identify relevant been excluded from the final rule on a 7-year rolling average of receipts environmental concerns and to take a pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. for USFS lands and the prior year’s ‘‘hard look’’ at these concerns; and the Comment (213): The Sierra Institute receipts for BLM O&C lands, and would analysis in the draft environmental for Community and Environment report also be filtered through the State’s assessment is insufficient to prove states that it is important for the DEA to allocation formulas. Given the effects are not significant (i.e., presents quantify potential impacts of critical uncertainty associated with the future of no information to justify a finding of no habitat designation on SRS and PILT SRS and PILT, the varying allocation significant impact (FONSI)). payment programs. The authors state schemes associated with the programs, Our Response: This rulemaking is that it is not difficult to quantify the and the relatively small change in limited to the designation of critical effects that future changes in timber anticipated harvests, the potential habitat for the northern spotted owl. harvests from Federal lands resulting change in revenue-sharing payments is This final rule does not mandate or from critical habitat designation would difficult to predict. Importantly, we note prescribe specific management have on these payment programs. The that the reauthorization and funding of activities, and the implementation of authors also state that the analysis does SRS and PILT is unrelated to the thinning, ecological forestry, or other not make clear that the revenue-sharing decision to designate critical habitat for types of activities is not required by this programs for Federal lands only the northern spotted owl. rulemaking. Should any such activities continues if SRS is reauthorized after be proposed by the land management 2013. Environmental Analysis Comments agencies when implementing specific Our Response: The Sierra Institute for Comment (214): One commenter projects on their managed lands, the Community and Environment is believed that the Secretary has not met only effect of this critical habitat rule is mistaken in its statement on page 14 of the NEPA standard of full cooperation that Federal agencies will have to its report that the revenue-sharing with State and county agencies in two consult with the Service on their programs for Federal lands only different ways: (1) By setting a public activities that may affect designated continue if SRS is reauthorized after comment timeframe that limits the northern spotted owl critical habitat and 2013. It is true that if SRS is not agencies’ ability to fully and knowingly ensure that their actions are not likely reauthorized, the payments received by provide comments; and (2) by denying to destroy or adversely modify critical counties could be substantially the county the opportunity to be a habitat, as those terms are used in different. However, as described in cooperating agency under CEQ section 7 of the Act. Our critical habitat paragraphs 128 through 129 of the FEA, regulations and DOI policy. proposal was fully compliant with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 25% Our Response: We believe the 30-day NEPA, although we note that we elected Fund and the Bureau of Land public comment period is adequate for to develop an environmental assessment Management Oregon and California review and comment on the draft pursuant to NEPA in this case entirely Land Grant (BLM O&C) Revenue- environmental analysis and is at our discretion, and not as a legal Sharing Payments (50 percent of consistent with the public comment requirement. The proposal presented an commercial receipts) are permanently period on many NEPA documents. In overview of the state of the science on authorized by Congress and have addition, we provided counties with an active management for consideration by dedicated funding sources in the form of extended opportunity to comment, as land managers. It does not require any commodity receipts. States and counties described in Previous Federal Actions, specific management actions. Any plans currently elect to receive SRS payments above. With regard to cooperating or project-level decisions concerning instead of revenue-sharing payments agencies, neither CEQ nor DOI active forest management are from the USFS 25% Fund and the BLM regulations discuss cooperating agencies appropriately made by land managers in O&C Revenue-Sharing Program. In the in the context of environmental accordance with their normal planning absence of SRS (and possibly a second assessments because they are generally and project implementation procedures, program called Payments in Lieu of concise documents prepared to and are beyond the authority of this Taxes, or PILT), the older programs determine whether the proposed action rulemaking. Actions proposed on would still be available and would serve will significantly affect the quality of Federal lands must be consistent with as the sources of revenue-sharing the human environment and whether an the requirements of the NWFP and payments. environmental impact statement (EIS) is associated plans, and these plans have Exhibit 3–9 in the FEA illustrates the needed. Thus, environmental already undergone NEPA compliance. relative magnitude of historical assessments normally do not warrant Step-down implementation of specific payments under all four programs, and use of formally designated cooperating actions such as thinning projects on Exhibit 3–10 provides information on agencies. Because we initiated the USFS or BLM lands also require NEPA percent of local government revenue NEPA analysis with an environmental compliance on a case-by-case basis.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72044 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Comment (216): One commenter that we did not disclose our purpose Salazar, 734 F. Supp. 2d126 (D.D.C. stated that the barred owl EIS should and need during the scoping process. 2010) * * *); we have clarified this not be a separate analysis document Our Response: Public scoping is not point in the final environmental from the NEPA analysis done for the required for the development of an assessment, available at http:// critical habitat rule, but that a single EIS environmental assessment. As stated in www.regulations.gov and at http:// should be prepared to address the entire the environmental assessment, we used www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/ proposal. internal scoping (internal discussions NorthernSpottedOwl/CriticalHabitat/ Our Response: The barred owl EIS among Service divisions regionally and default.asp. Regarding item number 3, represents an action entirely separate nationally, and among staff with long- the purpose of an action proposed by from the present critical habitat term experience with land-use activities the Service or any other Federal agency, rulemaking, and is an evaluation of an conducted within critical habitat on based on common NEPA practice and experiment stemming from the Federal and non-Federal lands) to Federal NEPA guidance includes but is recommendations of the Revised identify concerns, potential impacts, not limited to statutory authority. The Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted relevant effects of past actions, and Service cannot carry out an action that Owl (USFWS 2011). The Federal action possible alternative actions (October 15, is inconsistent with our authorities, requiring NEPA for the barred owl EIS 2008; FR 73 61292). hence our purpose explicitly included is the issuance of a permit under the Comment (219): One commenter reference to those authorities. Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the described several errors and Comment (220): One commenter scientific collection of barred owls, as inaccuracies in defining the purpose believed there was an inadequate range well as additional permits that may be and need. Specifically: (1) The stated of alternatives. Furthermore, they required for the experiment. In contrast, purpose of achieving the greatest believed that the alternatives the Service the designation of critical habitat is a conservation and recovery for the noted in the draft environmental statutory requirement under the Act, northern spotted owl is erroneous and assessment as considered but not fully and is an entirely separate action from more than required to meet the Act, and developed were not fully considered the issuance of necessary permits for is also too narrow, overly restricting the because there was no environmental research, take, or special use. We have range of reasonable alternatives; (2) the review of these alternatives. court-ordered due date of November 15 Our Response: NEPA requires that we addressed the barred owl EIS as an does not drive the need but rather the must analyze those alternatives ongoing action in the cumulative effects need is whatever was the Service’s necessary to permit a reasoned choice analysis section of the environmental motivation in arranging the date with (40 CFR 1502.14). When there are assessment of this rulemaking. the court; and (3) the purpose of potentially a very large number of Comment (217): Commenters believed complying with the Act is not a purpose alternatives, NEPA requires that we that the Draft Environmental but an agency duty. analyze only a reasonable number to Assessment is predecisional because it Our Response: Regarding item cover the full spectrum of alternatives has committed to completing the NEPA number 1, the commenter only partially that are consistent with the purpose and process in a preordained timeline that described the purpose. The full purpose need. We did consider but excluded does not allow sufficient time to meet stated in the draft environmental some modeling outcomes from further the NEPA requirements of an EIS. assessment was to ‘‘achieve the greatest analysis. NEPA allows the elimination Our Response: An EIS is required relative conservation and recovery goals of an action alternative from detailed only when an action is determined to for the northern spotted owl but analysis for a variety of reasons have likelihood of significant impact on simultaneously minimize effects to including ineffectiveness, technical or the human environment. Completion of other land and resources uses.’’ We economic infeasibility, inconsistency an environmental assessment is a step disagree that the purpose, as a whole, is with management objectives of the area, in the NEPA process to determine more than required to meet the Act. remote or speculative implementation, whether or not impacts of the Federal Rather, our intent is to designate lands and substantial similarity in design and action are significant and thus require meeting the definition of critical habitat effects of an alternative that has been an EIS. We have not predetermined the (i.e., areas occupied at the time of listing analyzed. We disagree with the outcome of our environmental that contain the features essential to the commenter in that NEPA does not assessment. Rather, we have used the species’ conservation or unoccupied require an ‘‘environmental review’’ of environmental assessment to establish areas that are themselves essential to the alternatives eliminated from detailed whether or not impacts of the species’ conservation), determining study, but rather, a brief discussion of designation of critical habitat for the what is essential in a way that the reasons for their having been northern spotted owl are significant. minimizes effects on resource uses to eliminated (40 CFR 1502.16(a)). We Although there is a court-ordered the extent possible, and then using the have further clarified our reasons for schedule for completion of this critical exclusion process provided by section eliminating these alternatives from habitat rule, if our environmental 4(b)(2) of the Act to weigh the benefits further analysis in the final NEPA assessment had determined that impacts of inclusion versus the benefits of document. were significant, we would have sought exclusion. This is what we mean by Comment (221): One commenter an extension of time to complete our using the term ‘‘relative.’’ This balance believed we did not adequately identify NEPA analysis. Our environmental does not result in more action than is the range of issues that could be affected analysis was consistent with the spirit required to meet the provisions of the by critical habitat designation. They and intent of NEPA, and was not Act, and we have clarified this in the further pointed out that limiting our predecisional. Further, our experience environmental assessment. Regarding analysis to threatened and endangered of evaluating the possible effects of item number 2, we did not mean to species and stating in the environmental critical habitat under NEPA suggested imply that the court deadline drives the assessment that it is not possible to that an environmental assessment was need. The need is to revise critical analyze effects on the other 1,200 the appropriate place to start. habitat pursuant to a court-ordered species is wrong because it is possible Comment (218): One commenter remand of the 2008 designation and has been done for such actions as described errors in public scoping in (Carpenters’ Industrial Council (CIC) v. the NWFP.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72045

Our Response: Only potentially we merely need to disclose the effects include those actions that are highly significant issues must be the focus of of each alternative on the relevant speculative or indefinite.’’ 43 CFR the environmental analysis. Issues that issues, in this case, primarily northern 46.30. We contend that the actions we are not significant (i.e., related to spotted owl populations, to provide consider not reasonably foreseeable potentially significant effects) can be information to decisionmakers. meet this definition. eliminated from detailed study, Recovery of northern spotted owls will Comment (226): Two commenters ‘‘narrowing the discussion of these require addressing multiple issues, of indicated we failed to examine issues in the statement to a brief which habitat loss is only one and will cumulative and connected actions in an presentation of why they will not have be partly addressed through critical economic and social context. a significant effect on the human habitat designation. Our Response: We have completed an environment.’’ (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(2), 40 Comment (223): One commenter economic analysis that addresses CFR 1501.7(a)(3)). We have further noted we did not analyze the effects of economic and social aspects of the elaborated in the final environmental eliminating LSRs as part of the critical designation of critical habitat. In assessment (available at habitat designation. addition, the Council on Environmental www.regulations.gov and at http:// Our Response: This comment is based Quality’s implementing regulations www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/ on a misunderstanding of the critical indicate that economic and social effects NorthernSpottedOwl/CriticalHabitat/ habitat designation, which does not are not by themselves intended to default.asp) why we found that these eliminate the Late-Successional Reserve require preparation of an EIS, but issues will not have a significant effect Network of the Northwest Forest Plan. should be considered if an EIS is on the human environment. Regarding Comment (224): One commenter prepared (40 CFR 1508.14). Our purpose our statement that it is not possible to believed we failed to fully disclose the in preparing an environmental analyze effects on 1,200 species given existing regulatory structure, and also assessment was to determine whether that such an analysis was done in the failed to fully disclose the disincentives an EIS should be prepared. Because we NWFP, we agree this was in error and to landowners to retain habitat, determined that the critical habitat will remove that language from the final resulting in the potential elimination of revision resulted in a finding of no environmental assessment. However, we northern spotted owl habitat. significant impact (FONSI), it was do not find that this impels us to Our Response: We noted in the draft determined that an EIS was not analyze effects on all 1,200 late- environmental assessment the potential necessary to evaluate social and successional species. In the case of the for landowners to prematurely harvest economic impacts. NWFP, the intent of the revision to existing habitat, maintain shorter Comment (227): One commenter USFS and BLM land management plans harvest rotations, or change from forest noted we failed to analyze the economic was to provide comprehensive management to development. We effects of the northern spotted owl management of habitat for late- received several comments from listing decision as a cumulative and successional and old-growth forest landowners indicating their intention to connected action of critical habitat species. Thus, it was prudent to deforest their property if designated as designation. examine those species as part of the critical habitat. We acknowledge that Our Response: We agree that the NWFP analysis. We do not believe that possibility for some landowners in the environmental assessment should such a level of analysis is necessary for final environmental assessment consider all relevant cumulative effects, this purpose and have thus limited our (available at www.regulations.gov and at which may include the effects of past analysis to effects on listed species to http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/ actions, as necessary to determine ensure critical habitat designation does Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/ whether a finding of no significant not reduce their potential for recovery. CriticalHabitat/default.asp) based on impact is warranted. One element of Comment (222): Three commenters these comments, but cannot describe the that determination is ‘‘[w]hether the believed the analysis failed to disclose extent or degree of these effects based action is related to other actions with that current habitat set-asides have not on the comments we received. We also individually insignificant but produced measurable success in note that, in our preferred alternative, cumulatively significant impacts. northern spotted owl recovery, and that all private lands were excluded from Significance exists if it is reasonable to expanding critical habitat will also fail this designation. anticipate a cumulatively significant because barred owls are the primary Comment (225): One commenter impact on the environment. causal factor in the northern spotted owl disagreed with what effects we Significance cannot be avoided by decline. On a related topic, one considered speculative and not terming an action temporary or by commenter felt the environmental reasonably foreseeable, and believed we breaking it down into small component assessment failed to describe how the are obligated to display environmental parts.’’ 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7). As proposed action would lead to recovery consequences of potential effects even if discussed in the previous comment, and why other alternatives would not. actual outcomes are unknown. ‘‘human environment’’ is defined to Our Response: Threats to northern Our Response: DOI NEPA regulations include the natural and physical spotted owls are described in the define reasonably foreseeable future environment and the relationship of Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern action as, ‘‘activities not yet undertaken, people with that environment except Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) as habitat but sufficiently likely to occur, that a that economic or social effects are not loss and competition from the barred Responsible Official of ordinary intended by themselves to require owl. We acknowledge in this rule and prudence would take such activities preparation of an environmental impact the final environmental assessment that into account in reaching a decision. statement. 40 CFR 1508.14. In this we need to address both of these threats These Federal and non-Federal environmental assessment we have if we are to recover the northern spotted activities that must be taken into considered the potential effects of the owl. As to the need to describe how the account include, but are not limited to, designation added to other past, present, proposed action would lead to recovery activities for which there are existing and reasonably foreseeable future while other alternatives would not, we decisions, funding, or proposals actions that would affect the identified do not need to show that alternatives identified by the bureau. Reasonably resources of concern to determine not chosen would not lead to recovery; foreseeable future actions do not whether this would result in significant

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72046 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

impacts to the human environment as for improvements in the nation’s determine if potential economic impacts defined for purposes of an regulatory system to promote to small entities may result from this environmental assessment. We have predictability, to reduce uncertainty, designation, and whether these added the past action of listing the and to use the best, most innovative, potential impacts may be significant, we northern spotted owl to our cumulative and least burdensome tools for considered the types of activities that effects analysis and considered those achieving regulatory ends. The might trigger regulatory impacts under effects on the resources of concern executive order directs agencies to this designation as well as types of identified in the environmental consider regulatory approaches that project modifications that may result. In assessment. reduce burdens and maintain flexibility general, the term ‘‘significant economic Comment (228): One commenter and freedom of choice for the public impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical contended that just because future where these approaches are relevant, small business firm’s business action will undergo NEPA analysis does feasible, and consistent with regulatory operations. not relieve the Service of its NEPA duty objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes The Service’s current understanding to analyze the effects of the critical further that regulations must be based of recent case law is that Federal habitat proposal. on the best available science and that agencies are only required to evaluate Our Response: We can analyze the the rulemaking process must allow for the potential impacts of rulemaking on indirect effects of the critical habitat public participation and an open those entities directly regulated by the designation only to the degree that we exchange of ideas. We have developed rulemaking; therefore, they are not are reasonably certain of the actions that this rule in a manner consistent with required to evaluate the potential may occur within critical habitat, how these requirements. impacts to those entities not directly they might be modified as a result of the regulated. The designation of critical Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 habitat for an endangered or threatened section 7 process, and what the et seq.) environmental impacts of those species only has a regulatory effect modifications might be. To that end, we Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act where a Federal action agency is have met our NEPA obligation. As (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended involved in a particular action that may individual Federal actions are by the Small Business Regulatory affect the designated critical habitat. developed with more information on Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of Under these circumstances, only the location, activity type, magnitude, 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an Federal action agency is directly duration, and intensity, all things we agency must publish a notice of regulated by the designation, and, cannot assess at this point in time, those rulemaking for any proposed or final therefore, consistent with the Service’s actions will be subject to NEPA and rule, it must prepare and make available current interpretation of RFA and recent analyzed in further detail. for public comment a regulatory case law, the Service may limit its Comment (229): One commenter flexibility analysis that describes the evaluation of the potential impacts to believed it was incorrect for the Service effects of the rule on small entities those identified for Federal action to assume agencies will implement (small businesses, small organizations, agencies. Under this interpretation, 100% of actions in the recovery plan and small government jurisdictions). there is no requirement under the RFA [Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern However, no regulatory flexibility to evaluate the potential impacts to Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011)] and that analysis is required if the head of the entities not directly regulated, such as we must assume agencies will agency certifies the rule will not have a small businesses. However, E.O.’s 12866 significant economic impact on a implement NWFP requirements without and 13563 direct Federal agencies to substantial number of small entities. further matrix restrictions. assess costs and benefits of available Our Response: We have included as The SBREFA amended the RFA to regulatory alternatives in quantitative require Federal agencies to provide a part of our range of possible outcomes (to the extent feasible) and qualitative certification statement of the factual the possibility that agencies will terms. Consequently, it is the current basis for certifying that the rule will not implement only the NWFP practice of the Service to assess to the have a significant economic impact on requirements, without implementing extent practicable these potential a substantial number of small entities. impacts if sufficient data are available, any additional recovery plan actions According to the Small Business that may restrict actions in the matrix. whether or not this analysis is believed Administration, small entities include by the Service to be strictly required by However, we believe that is not the only small organizations such as possible scenario, given that we have the RFA. In other words, while the independent nonprofit organizations; effects analysis required under the RFA examples of agencies implementing small governmental jurisdictions, discretionary actions from the northern is limited to entities directly regulated including school boards and city and by the rulemaking, the effects analysis spotted owl recovery actions that are in town governments that serve fewer than under the Act, consistent with the E.O. addition to the Standards and 50,000 residents; and small businesses regulatory analysis requirements, can Guidelines of the NWFP. (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses take into consideration impacts to both XIII. Required Determinations include manufacturing and mining directly and indirectly impacted concerns with fewer than 500 entities, where practicable and Regulatory Planning and Review employees, wholesale trade entities reasonable. (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) with fewer than 100 employees, retail We acknowledge that in some cases, Executive Order 12866 provides that and service businesses with less than $5 third-party proponents of the action the Office of Information and Regulatory million in annual sales, general and subject to permitting or funding, though Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant heavy construction businesses with less not directly regulated, may participate rules. The Office of Information and than $27.5 million in annual business, in a section 7 consultation with the Regulatory Affairs has determined that special trade contractors doing less than Federal action agency. Moreover, E.O.’s this rule is significant because it will $11.5 million in annual business, and 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies raise novel legal or policy issues. forestry and logging operations with to assess all costs and benefits of Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the fewer than 500 employees and annual available regulatory alternatives in principles of E.O. 12866 while calling business less than $7 million. To quantitative (to the extent feasible) and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72047

qualitative terms. We believe it is good time horizon of the DEA related to Please refer to Appendix A of the FEA policy to assess these impacts if we have timber harvest management, providing for further details of our evaluation. sufficient data before us to complete the an assumption of 50 consultations per Next, we explored the potential necessary analysis, whether or not this year. We predict that many of these impact to third parties that may be analysis is strictly required by the RFA. consultations will not involve third involved with consultations related to While the Service does not consider this parties, but data is lacking about third- linear projects (i.e., roads, pipelines, regulation to directly regulate these party participation rates. For the sake of and powerlines). On the basis of similar entities, in our draft economic analysis, our evaluation, we took a more conservative assumptions explained in we have conducted an evaluation of the inclusive approach and assumed that the DEA, we concluded that there may potential number of third parties third parties are involved with these be a total of 11 projects in a given year participating in consultations on an consultations and that each party is a that may involve third parties. If we annual basis in order to ensure a more small entity, providing an annual similarly assume that each of these complete examination of the potential estimate of 50 small entities that may be parties represent small entities, then we incremental effects of this rule in the involved over the 20-year time horizon estimate that 11 small entities in a given context of the RFA. As discussed earlier of the study. This is likely an year could be impacted by the in our March 8, 2012, proposed rule (77 overestimate of the number of third designation. While there is greater FR 14062), our notice of availability of parties involved with timber uncertainty as to the number of small the draft economic analysis (77FR management consultations and therefore entities involved with linear projects, 32483; June 1, 2012), and in the draft an even greater overestimate of the we believe that the relative proportion economic analysis itself, we determined number of small entities involved these 11 entities represent is unlikely to that the incremental effects of this because many of those third parties will constitute a substantial number. revised designation are relatively small not be small entities. The DEA further Further, the projected impacts to third due to the extensive conservation explored the projection of small parties resulting from the consultations measures already in place for the businesses in timber-related sectors in on linear projects are anticipated to be species, due to its being listed under the the geographic areas overlapping the solely administrative in nature. Thus, Act, and because of measures provided critical habitat designation, which even with the uncertainty as to whether under the NWFP and other conservation differed depending on the specific data the proportion of entities potentially programs. The FEA affirms these sets used, either 7,140 entities or 2,616 effected is may be substantial (although conclusions, and we have determined entities. Using our conservative estimate we think that it is not), we have that these conclusions are applicable to of 50 small entities involved annually, determined that the potential impacts to this final revised designation of critical the proportion of entities in the timber these entities would not be significant habitat for the northern spotted owl. harvest management sector potentially as they would only be the result of Thus, even taking into account those impacted by the designation would be additional administrative costs, which entities not directly regulated, we certify 0.70 percent and 1.9 percent, are relatively minor. Therefore, based on that the revised designation of critical respectively, over the 20-year time our conservative estimates in habitat for the northern spotted owl will horizon of the study. identifying third parties in this sector not have a significant economic impact that potentially may be impacted, the The RFA does not explicitly define on a substantial number of small projected number of entities and types the specific proportion of any given entities. of impacts, we concluded that the Importantly, the incremental sector that would represent a substantial designation would not result in a regulatory and economic impacts of the number, but leave that determination to significant impact to a substantial rule must be both significant and the discretion of the agency issuing the number of small business entities in this substantial to prevent certification of the regulation. While the Service or the sector. rule under the RFA and to require the Department of Interior does not have a These conclusions were reaffirmed in preparation of a regulatory flexibility specific policy concerning what our FEA. Please refer to Appendix A of analysis. If a substantial number of proportion of any given sector impacted the FEA for further details of our small entities are affected by the critical would represent a substantial number, evaluation. In development of the final habitat designation, but the per-entity the Service, as a matter of practice, uses economic analysis (FEA) and taking into economic impact is not significant, the a value of 3% to evaluate whether the consideration all information and Service may certify. Likewise, if the per- regulation may impact a substantial comments received, and based on our entity economic impact is likely to be number. In other words, if a regulation conservative evaluation of the number significant, but the number of affected is determined to have an impact on less of entities in the timber management entities is not substantial, the Service than 3% of entities in a given sector, and linear project sectors potentially may also certify. Because per-entity then the agency makes a determination impacted, the proportion of the affected impacts are currently uncertain, our that a substantial number is not affected. entities to those representing the sector evaluation focused on the number of Whereas, if it is determined that the in the study area, and the types of small entities potentially affected as proportion of entities impacted by a impacts, we again determined that the third parties to consultation with given regulation is equal to or greater revised critical habitat designation will Federal agencies that may be directly than 3%, then the agency further not have a significant economic impact regulated by the designation evaluates available data to make a on a substantial number of small While developing our draft economic specific determination for that business entities. In Appendix A of the analysis (DEA), we determined that regulation. FEA, we acknowledge that the primary there may be third-party participants to Applying the aforementioned criteria economic impact of the project consultations involved with timber to the specific proportion of the timber modifications resulting from the harvest and linear projects. In harvest management sector, we have consultations described above is a estimating the potential number of concluded that these proportions do not change in Federal revenues generated by entities involved with consultations on represent a substantial number of small timber sales. In other words, if harvests timber harvest, we used the projection business entities potentially affected in are increased or decreased as a result of of 1,000 consultations over the 20-year the timber harvest management sector. the designation, the USFS and BLM will

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72048 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

receive more or less revenues, the baseline timber harvest projections, the presence of the listed species. We respectively, from the sale of this to better inform the alternative impact estimate that the vast majority of the timber. However, these Federal agencies scenarios in the FEA. The economic areas being designated in this rule were are not, as noted, small businesses. analysis uses a baseline harvest occupied at the time of listing. Furthermore, entities bidding for new projection of approximately 122.80 Finally, our analysis of potential timber sales on Federal lands would not million board feet (MMBF) per year. In impacts to small entities is incur costs as a result of this critical the sensitivity analyses, the baseline overestimated because it was based on habitat designation because they will timber harvest projection increases by the proposed designation, which has only pay for the value of the sale after up to an additional 27.99 MMBF per been reduced by 4,197,484 ac (1,697,903 any modifications are made as part of year. Therefore, the range of incremental ha) in this final rule. Designated Federal the section 7 consultation process. In impacts to Federal timber harvest lands are reduced by 2,849,745 ac other words, any impact of this widens from a potential increase in (1,151,297 ha) due to the elimination of regulation on those entities would be stumpage value of $3,580,000 (under the lands that we have determined do not indirect. increased timber harvest scenario) to a meet the definition of critical habitat, In the FEA, we evaluated the potential potential decrease of $7,860,000 (under the exemption of DOD lands under indirect economic effects on small the decreased timber harvest scenario) section 4(a)(3) of the Act, and the business entities resulting from per year. exclusion of Congressionally-reserved conservation actions related to the In addition, Exhibit ES–4 of the FEA lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. listing of the northern spotted owl and presents our qualitative conclusions Designated State and private lands are the designation of critical habitat. The concerning potential timber harvest reduced by 1,647,170 ac (665,843 ha) analysis is based on the estimated impacts to private lands, and notes that due to the elimination of some lands impacts associated with the rulemaking, there may be possible negative impacts that do not meet the definition of as described in Chapters 4 through 8 associated with regulatory uncertainty, critical habitat and the exclusion of and Appendix A of the analysis, and and new regulation in the State of State parks and private lands under evaluates the potential for economic Washington, and concludes that zero section 4(b)(2) of the Act. impacts related to: (1) Timber timber harvest impacts are likely to In summary, we considered whether management, (2) barred owl occur on State lands. Finally, Exhibit this designation would result in a management, (3) northern spotted owl ES–4 notes the potential incremental significant economic impact on a surveys and monitoring, (4) fire administrative costs related to linear substantial number of small entities. management, (5) linear projects (i.e., projects, which are estimated to be Based on the above reasoning, relevant roads, pipelines, and powerlines), (6) between $10,800 on the low end and case law, and currently available restoration, (7) recreation, and (8) $19,500 on the high end. information, we concluded that this rule administrative costs associated with The FEA also confirms our conclusion will not result in a significant economic consultations under section 7 of the Act. that between less than one percent and impact on a substantial number of small With respect to Federal lands, two percent of potentially effected small entities. We are reaffirming our consultations with Federal land entities in the 56 county study area may certification that this revised managers, the Service, and other experts participate as third parties in section 7 designation of critical habitat for the indicate varying opinions regarding consultations related to timber harvests northern spotted owl will not have a potential critical habitat effects on on an annual basis. In addition, significant economic impact on a timber management practices, and noted approximately 11 electricity substantial number of small entities, the difficulty and limitations of deriving transmission or natural gas pipeline and a regulatory flexibility analysis is precise measures of positive or negative companies may participate in section 7 not required. incremental change. Therefore, the FEA consultations in a given year. While we considered three alternative scenarios, believe that this number does not Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use which are described in Chapter 4 and represent a significant proportion of (Executive Order 13211) summarized in Exhibit ES–4 of the FEA. entities in this sector, the impacts to Executive Order 13211 (Actions These scenarios include: (1) these entities are expected not to be Concerning Regulations That Administrative costs only; (2) potential significant as they are anticipated to be Significantly Affect Energy Supply, positive incremental impacts to timber solely administrative in nature. Distribution, or Use) requires agencies harvest on Federal lands; and (3) The FEA also explains that these to prepare Statements of Energy Effects potential negative incremental impacts estimates almost certainly overstate when undertaking certain actions. to timber harvest on Federal lands. rather than understate the number of While this final rule to designate revised Furthermore, the economic analysis affected entities, perhaps to a significant critical habitat for the northern spotted presents a potential low impact and degree, because: (1) Not all section 7 owl is a significant regulatory action high impact outcome for each of the consultations will involve a third party; under Executive Order 12866, it is not three scenarios. Thus under the positive (2) not all third parties will be small expected to significantly affect energy impact scenario, the estimated entities; and (3) the same entity may supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, annualized increase in timber harvest consult more than once in a single year. this action is not a significant energy revenue on Federal lands range from We have also constrained the action, and no Statement of Energy $1,230,000 to $3,070,000. Under the population of potentially affected Effects is required. negative impact scenario, the entities to those found in counties annualized decrease in timber harvest overlapping critical habitat, as opposed Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 revenue on Federal lands ranges to including others within the States of U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) $2,460,000 to $614,000,000. In all three Washington, Oregon, and California. In In accordance with the Unfunded scenarios, the estimated annualized addition, as described elsewhere in this Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et administrative costs on Federal lands rule, the greatest impact of section 7 seq.), we make the following findings: are from $185,000 to $316,000. will likely occur in unoccupied habitat, (1) This rule will not produce a In response to public comment, a due to the fact that consultation would Federal mandate. In general, a Federal sensitivity analysis was performed on already occur in occupied habitat due to mandate is a provision in legislation,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72049

statute, or regulation that would impose shift the costs of the large entitlement requires Federal agencies—and only an enforceable duty upon State, local, or programs listed above onto State Federal agencies—to ensure that the Indian governments, or the private governments. actions they authorize, fund, or carry sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal (2) We have determined that this rule out are not likely to destroy or adversely intergovernmental mandates’’ and will not significantly or uniquely affect modify critical habitat. The Act imposes ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ small governments because the no other duties with respect to critical These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. designation of critical habitat imposes habitat, either for States and local 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental no obligations on State or local governments, or for anyone else. As a mandate’’ includes a regulation that governments. By definition, Federal result, the rule does not have substantial ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty agencies are not considered small direct effects either on the States, or on upon State, local, or Indian entities, although the activities they the relationship between the national governments’’ with two exceptions. It fund or permit may be proposed or government and the States, or on the excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal carried out by small entities. distribution of powers and assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty Consequently, we do not believe that responsibilities among the various arising from participation in a voluntary the critical habitat designation would levels of government. However, in Federal program,’’ unless the regulation significantly or uniquely affect small keeping with Department of the Interior ‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal government entities. As such, a Small and Department of Commerce policy program under which $500,000,000 or Government Agency Plan is not and the federalism principles set forth more is provided annually to State, required. Further, it will not produce a in Executive Order 13132, we requested local, and Indian governments under Federal mandate of $100 million or information from, and coordinated entitlement authority,’’ if the provision greater in any year, that is, it is not a development of, this revised critical would ‘‘increase the stringency of ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under habitat designation with appropriate conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. State resource agencies in Washington, upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Takings (Executive Order 12630) Oregon, and California, on the effects of Government’s responsibility to provide revised designation of critical habitat. In accordance with Executive Order funding,’’ and the State, local, or Indian We received comments from the 12630 (Government Actions and governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust Washington State Department of Natural Interference with Constitutionally accordingly. At the time of enactment, Resources, Washington Department of Protected Private Property Rights), we these entitlement programs were: Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department have analyzed the potential takings Medicaid; Aid to Families with of Forestry, the State of Oregon, and implications of designating critical Dependent Children work programs; California Department of Forestry and habitat for the northern spotted owl in Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Fire Protection (CALFIRE), as discussed a takings implications assessment. As Services Block Grants; Vocational in the Summary of Comments and discussed above, the designation of Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Responses section of the rule, above. In critical habitat affects only Federal Adoption Assistance, and Independent addition, we received comments from actions. Although private parties that Living; Family Support Welfare the following counties: receive Federal funding or assistance or • Services; and Child Support Washington: Jefferson County, require approval or authorization from a Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector Klickitat County, Skamania County, and Federal agency for an action may be Skagit County; mandate’’ includes a regulation that indirectly impacted by the designation • Oregon: Hood River County, ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty of critical habitat, the legally binding Jackson County, Linn County, Douglas upon the private sector, except (i) a duty to avoid destruction or adverse County, and the Association of O&C condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a modification of critical habitat rests Counties; and duty arising from participation in a squarely on the Federal agency. The • California: Del Norte County, voluntary Federal program.’’ takings implications assessment Tehama County, Regional Council of The designation of critical habitat concludes that this designation of Rural Counties, Siskiyou County, and does not impose a legally binding duty critical habitat for the northern spotted Trinity County. on non-Federal Government entities or owl does not pose significant takings We used this information to more private parties. Under the Act, the only implications for lands within or affected thoroughly evaluate the probable regulatory effect is that Federal agencies by the designation. economic and regulatory effects of the must ensure that their actions do not proposed designation in our final destroy or adversely modify critical Federalism (Executive Order 13132) economic analysis, to inform the habitat under section 7. While non- In accordance with Executive Order development of our final rule, and to Federal entities that receive Federal 13132 (Federalism), we have consider the appropriateness of funding, assistance, or permits, or that determined that this rule does not have excluding specific areas from the final otherwise require approval or direct federalism implications that rule. We found that the revised authorization from a Federal agency for would require a federalism summary designation of critical habitat for the an action, may be indirectly impacted impact statement; however, we are northern spotted owl has little by the designation of critical habitat, the aware of the State-level interest in this incremental impact on State and local legally binding duty to avoid rule, and we both summarize below and governments and their activities. destruction or adverse modification of explain in more detail in other parts of The revision of critical habitat also is critical habitat rests squarely on the this package activities and not expected to have substantial indirect Federal agency. Furthermore, to the responsibilities on Federal, State, and impacts. As explained in more detail extent that non-Federal entities are private lands. above, activities within the areas indirectly impacted because they From a federalism perspective, the proposed to be designated as critical receive Federal assistance or participate designation of critical habitat directly habitat are already subject to a broad in a voluntary Federal aid program, the affects only the responsibilities of range of requirements, including: (1) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would Federal agencies. As explained in detail The various requirements of the not apply, nor would critical habitat earlier, section 7(a)(2) of the Act Northwest Forest Plan, including those

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

applicable to its Late-successional to the conservation of the species are environmental assessment for the Reserves, Riparian Reserves, and specifically identified. It may also assist proposed rule, for review and comment. ‘‘survey and manage’’ restrictions; (2) local governments in long-range We took all substantive comments into the prohibition against ‘‘taking’’ planning (rather than having them wait consideration, both to make revisions or northern spotted owls under sections for case-by-case section 7 consultations corrections in the environmental 4(d) and 9 of the Act; (3) the prohibition to occur). assessment, and in the decisionmaking against Federal agency actions that Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order process made in finalizing the jeopardize the continued existence of 12988) determination. In our final the northern spotted owl under section environmental assessment, we were able 7(a)(2) of the Act; (4) the prohibition In accordance with Executive Order to make a finding of no significant against taking other federally listed 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office impact (FONSI) from this rulemaking species that occur in the area of the of the Solicitor has determined that the action. The final environmental designated critical habitat (e.g., salmon, rule does not unduly burden the judicial assessment is available at bull trout, and marbled murrelets); and system and that it meets the www.regulations.gov and at http:// (5) the prohibition against Federal requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/ agency actions that jeopardize the of the Order. We have revised critical NorthernSpottedOwl/CriticalHabitat/ continued existence of such other listed habitat in accordance with the default.asp. species. All of these requirements are provisions of the Act. To assist the currently in effect and will remain in public in understanding the habitat Government-to-Government effect after the final revision of critical needs of the species, the rule identifies Relationship With Tribes habitat. the elements of physical or biological In accordance with the President’s Some indirect impacts of the rule on features essential to the conservation of memorandum of April 29, 1994 States are, of course, possible. Section the species. The designated areas of (Government-to-Government Relations 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal critical habitat are presented on maps, with Native American Tribal agencies (action agencies) to consult and the rule provides several options for Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive with the Service whenever activities the interested public to obtain more Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and that they undertake, authorize, permit, detailed location information, if desired. Coordination with Indian Tribal or fund may affect a listed species or Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Governments’’ (November 6, 2000, and designated critical habitat. States or U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) as reaffirmed November 5, 2009), and local governments may be indirectly the Department of the Interior’s manual affected if they require Federal funds or This rule does not contain any new at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge formal approval or authorization from a collections of information that require our responsibility to communicate Federal agency as a prerequisite to approval by OMB under the Paperwork meaningfully with recognized Federal conducting an action. In such instances, Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 Tribes on a government-to-government while the primary consulting parties are et seq.). This rule will not impose basis. The United States recognizes the the Service and the Federal action recordkeeping or reporting requirements right of Indian tribes to self-government agency, State and local governments on State or local governments, and supports tribal sovereignty and self- may also participate in section 7 individuals, businesses, or determination, and recognizes the need consultation as an applicant. It is organizations. An agency may not therefore possible that States may be conduct or sponsor, and a person is not to consult with tribal officials when required to change project designs, required to respond to, a collection of developing regulations that have tribal operation, or management of activities information unless it displays a implications. In accordance with taking place within the boundaries of currently valid OMB control number. Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 the designation in order to receive (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal- National Environmental Policy Act (42 Federal funding, assistance, permits, Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) approval, or authorization from a Endangered Species Act), we readily Federal agency. Also, to the extent that It is our position that, outside the acknowledge our responsibilities to the designation of critical habitat affects jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals work directly with tribes in developing timber harvest amounts on Federal land, for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to programs for healthy ecosystems, to county governments that receive a share prepare environmental analyses acknowledge that Indian lands are not of the receipts from such harvests may pursuant to the National Environmental subject to the same controls as Federal be affected. However, while non-Federal Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et public lands, to remain sensitive to entities that receive Federal funding, seq., in connection with designating Indian culture, and to make information assistance, or permits, or that otherwise critical habitat under the Act for the available to tribes. Even though we have require approval or authorization from a reasons outlined in a notice published determined that there are no Indian Federal agency for an action, may be in the Federal Register on October 25, lands that meet the definition of critical indirectly impacted by the designation 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was habitat for the northern spotted owl, and of critical habitat, the legally binding upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for therefore no Indian lands are included duty to avoid destruction or adverse the Ninth Circuit (in a challenge to the in this designation, we will continue to modification of critical habitat rests first rulemaking designating critical coordinate and consult with tribes squarely on the Federal agency. habitat for the northern spotted owl. regarding resources within the revised On the other hand, the designation of Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 designation that are of cultural critical habitat will likely have some (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. significance to them. benefit to State and local governments 1042 (1996)). XIV. References Cited because the areas that contain the However, at our discretion, we physical or biological features essential undertook an environmental assessment A complete list of references cited in to the conservation of the species are for this revised critical habitat this rulemaking is available on the more clearly defined, and the elements designation, and notified the public of Internet at http://www.regulations.gov of the features of the habitat necessary the availability of the draft and upon request from the Oregon Fish

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72051

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER (J) The moist end of the ponderosa younger forests with some structural INFORMATION CONTACT). pine coniferous forest zones at characteristics (legacy features) of old elevations up to approximately 3,000 ft forests, hardwood forest patches, and Authors (900 m) near the northern edge of the edges between old forest and The primary authors of this package range and up to approximately 6,000 ft hardwoods. are the staff members of the Oregon Fish (1,800 m) at the southern edge. (2) Moderate to high canopy cover (60 and Wildlife Office. (ii) Primary constituent element 2: to over 80 percent). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Habitat that provides for nesting and (3) A diversity of tree diameters and roosting. In many cases the same habitat heights. Endangered and threatened species, also provides for foraging (primary (4) Increasing density of trees greater Exports, Imports, Reporting and constituent element (3)). Nesting and than or equal to 31 in (80 cm) dbh recordkeeping requirements, roosting habitat provides structural increases foraging habitat quality Transportation. features for nesting, protection from (especially above 12 trees per ac (30 Regulation Promulgation adverse weather conditions, and cover trees per ha)). to reduce predation risks for adults and (5) Increasing density of trees 20 to 31 Accordingly, we amend part 17, young. This primary constituent in (51 to 80 cm) dbh increases foraging subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the element is found throughout the habitat quality (especially above 24 trees Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth geographical range of the northern per ac (60 trees per ha)). below: spotted owl, because stand structures at (6) Increasing snag basal area, snag PART 17—ENDANGERED AND nest sites tend to vary little across the volume (the product of snag diameter, THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS northern spotted owl’s range. These height, estimated top diameter, and habitats must provide: including a taper function), and density ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 (A) Sufficient foraging habitat to meet of snags greater than 20 in (50 cm) dbh continues to read as follows: the home range needs of territorial pairs all contribute to increasing foraging of northern spotted owls throughout the habitat quality, especially above 10 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– year; and snags/ha. 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. (B) Stands for nesting and roosting (7) Large accumulations of fallen trees ■ 2. Amend § 17.95(b) by revising the that are generally characterized by: and other woody debris on the ground. (1) Moderate to high canopy cover (60 (8) Sufficient open space below the critical habitat entry for ‘‘Northern to over 80 percent). canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis (2) Multilayered, multispecies (B) East Cascades. caurina)’’ to read as follows: canopies with large (20–30 inches (in) (1) Stands of nesting and roosting § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. (51–76 centimeters (cm)) or greater habitat. * * * * * diameter at breast height (dbh)) (2) Stands composed of Douglas-fir (b) Birds. overstory trees. and white fir/Douglas-fir mix. (3) High basal area (greater than 240 (3) Mean tree size (quadratic mean * * * * * 2 2 diameter greater than 16.5 in (42 cm)). Northern Spotted Owl (Strix ft /acre; 55 m /ha). (4) High diversity of different (4) Increasing density of large trees occidentalis caurina) (greater than 26 in (66 cm)) and (1) Critical habitat units are depicted diameters of trees. (5) High incidence of large live trees increasing basal area (the cross-sectional for the States of Washington, Oregon, with various deformities (e.g., large area of tree boles measured at breast and California on the maps below. (2) Critical habitat for the northern cavities, broken tops, mistletoe height), which increases foraging habitat spotted owl includes the following four infections, and other evidence of quality. primary constituent elements set forth decadence). (5) Large accumulations of fallen trees (6) Large snags and large in paragraph (2)(i) (primary constituent and other woody debris on the ground. accumulations of fallen trees and other (6) Sufficient open space below the element 1) through paragraph (2)(iv) woody debris on the ground. canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. (primary constituent element 4) of this (7) Sufficient open space below the (C) Klamath and Northern California entry. Each critical habitat unit must canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. Interior Coast Ranges. include primary constituent element 1 (iii) Primary constituent element 3: (1) Stands of nesting and roosting and primary constituent element 2, 3, or Habitat that provides for foraging, which habitat; in addition, other forest types 4: varies widely across the northern with mature and old-forest (i) Primary constituent element 1: spotted owl’s range, in accordance with characteristics. Forest types that may be in early-, ecological conditions and disturbance (2) Presence of conifer species such as mid-, or late-seral stages and that regimes that influence vegetation incense-cedar, sugar pine, and Douglas- support the northern spotted owl across structure and prey species distributions. fir and hardwood species such as bigleaf its geographical range. These forest Across most of the owl’s range, nesting maple, black oak, live oaks, and types are primarily: (A) Sitka spruce; and roosting habitat is also foraging madrone, as well as shrubs. (B) Western hemlock; habitat, but in some regions northern (3) Forest patches within riparian (C) Mixed conifer and mixed spotted owls may additionally use other zones of low-order streams and edges evergreen; habitat types for foraging as well. The between conifer and hardwood forest (D) Grand fir; foraging habitat PCEs for the four stands. (E) Pacific silver fir; ecological zones within the geographical (4) Brushy openings and dense young (F) Douglas-fir; range of the northern spotted owl are stands or low-density forest patches (G) White fir; generally the following: within a mosaic of mature and older (H) Shasta red fir; (A) West Cascades/Coast Ranges of forest habitat. (I) Redwood/Douglas-fir (in coastal Oregon and Washington. (5) High canopy cover (87 percent at California and southwestern Oregon); (1) Stands of nesting and roosting frequently used sites). and habitat; additionally, owls may use (6) Multiple canopy layers.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 72052 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(7) Mean stand diameter greater than at least 11 in (28 cm) dbh and a woodlands does not include tanoak 21 in (52.5 cm). minimum 40 percent canopy cover; and (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) stands, (8) Increasing mean stand diameter (2) Younger and less diverse forest closed-canopy live oak (Quercus and densities of trees greater than 26 in stands than foraging habitat, such as agrifolia) woodlands and open-canopied (66 cm) increases foraging habitat even-aged, pole-sized stands, if such valley oak (Quercus lobata) and mixed- quality. stands contain some roosting structures oak woodlands in subunits ICC–6 and (9) Large accumulations of fallen trees and foraging habitat to allow for RDC–5 in Napa, Sonoma, and Marin and other woody debris on the ground. temporary resting and feeding during Counties, California. (10) Sufficient open space below the the transience phase. (C) Aspen (Populus spp.) woodlands canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. (B) Habitat supporting the (D) Redwood Coast. colonization phase of dispersal, which are dominated by aspen trees with a (1) Nesting and roosting habitat; in is generally equivalent to nesting, forb, grass or shrub understory and are addition, stands composed of hardwood roosting and foraging habitat as typically found on mountain slopes, tree species, particularly tanoak. described in PCEs 2 and 3, but may be rock outcrops and talus slopes, canyon (2) Early-seral habitats 6 to 20 years smaller in area than that needed to walls, and some seeps and stream old with dense shrub and hardwood support nesting pairs. corridors. This forest type also can cover and abundant woody debris; these (3) Critical habitat does not include: occur in riparian areas or in moist habitats produce prey, and must occur (i) manmade structures (such as microsites within drier landscapes. in conjunction with nesting, roosting, or buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, (4) We have determined that the foraging habitat. other paved areas, or surface mine sites) physical and biological features in (3) Increasing density of small-to- and the land on which they are located; habitat occupied by the species at the medium sized trees (10 to 22 in; 25 to and time it was listed, as represented by the 56 cm), which increases foraging habitat (ii) meadows, grasslands, oak primary constituent elements, may quality. woodlands, or aspen woodlands as require special management (4) Trees greater than 26 in (66 cm) in described below existing on January 3, considerations or protection as required diameter or greater than 41 years of age. 2013 and not containing primary by 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A). However, (5) Sufficient open space below the constituent elements 1 and 2, 3, or 4 as nothing in this rule requires land canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. described in paragraph (2) of this entry. managers to implement, or precludes (iv) Primary constituent element 4: (A) Meadows and grasslands include: land managers from implementing, Habitat to support the transience and dry, upland prairies and savannas in special management or protection colonization phases of dispersal, which valleys and foothills of western measures. in all cases would optimally be Washington, Oregon, and northwest composed of nesting, roosting, or California; subalpine meadows; and (5) Critical habitat map units. The foraging habitat (PCEs 2 or 3), but which grass and forb dominated cliffs, bluffs designated critical habitat units for the may also be composed of other forest and grass balds found throughout these northern spotted owl are depicted on types that occur between larger blocks same areas. These areas are dominated the maps below. The coordinates or plot of nesting, roosting, and foraging by native grasses and diverse forbs, and points or both on which each map is habitat. In cases where nesting, roosting, may include a minor savanna based are available at the field office or foraging habitats are insufficient to component of Oregon white oak, Internet site (http://www.fws.gov/ provide for dispersing or nonbreeding Douglas-fir, or Ponderosa pine. oregonfwo), http://www.regulations.gov owls, the specific dispersal habitat PCEs (B) Oak woodlands are characterized at Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112, for the northern spotted owl may be by an open canopy dominated by and at the Service’s Oregon Fish and provided by the following: Oregon white oak. These areas may also Wildlife Office. You may obtain field (A) Habitat supporting the transience include ponderosa pine, California office location information by phase of dispersal, which includes: black oak, Douglas-fir, or canyon live contacting one of the Service regional (1) Stands with adequate tree size and oak. The understory is relatively open offices, the addresses of which are listed canopy cover to provide protection from with shrubs, grasses and wildflowers. at 50 CFR 2.2. avian predators and minimal foraging Oak woodlands are typically found in (6) Note: Index map of critical habitat opportunities; in general this may drier landscapes and on south-facing units for the northern spotted owl in the include, but is not limited to, trees with slopes. This exception for oak State of Washington follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72053

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P (7) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl in the State of Oregon follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.001 72054 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(8) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl in the State of California follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72055

(9) Unit 1: North Coast Ranges and Coast Ranges and Olympic Peninsula, Olympic Peninsula, Oregon and Oregon and Washington, follow: Washington. Maps of Unit 1: North

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.003 72056 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Unit Coast Subunits - NCO 2, \Ah"",,,i,~,,tr,,,

Habitat

Subunit Boundary

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.004 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72057

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Coast NC04-

Critical Habitat

Highway Subunit County

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.005 72058 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(10) Unit 2: Oregon Coast Ranges, Oregon. Map of Unit 2, OregonCoast Ranges, Oregon, follows:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owt (Strix occidentalis caurina) Unit 2: Coast OCR 1 - OCR 6,

Oregon

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72059

(11) Unit 3: Redwood Coast, Oregon and California. Map of Unit 3, Redwood Coast, Oregon and California, follows:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurlna) Unit 3: Redwood Coast, Subunits ROC 1 - ROC 5, and California

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.007 72060 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(12) Unit 4: West Cascades North, Washington. Map of Unit 4, West Cascades North, Washington, follows:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Unit 4: North, WeN 1 -

Subunit Boundary

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72061

(13) Unit 5: West Cascades Central, Washington. Map of Unit 5, West Cascades Central, Washington, follows:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Unit 5: West Cascades Subunits WCC 1 - WCC 3, \1V"""""'''''I"'''

Critical Habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.009 72062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(14) Unit 6: West Cascades South, Washington. Map of Unit 6, West Cascades South, Washington, follows:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Str/x oce/dentalis caurina) Unit 6: West Cascades South, Subunits WCS 1 - WCS 6,

A Critical Habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72063

(15) Unit 7: East Cascades North, 7, East Cascades North, Washington and Washington and Oregon. Maps of Unit Oregon, follow:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Unit 7: East Subunits 1 - ECN 5,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.011 72064 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalls caurina) Unit 7: North, ECN 6 - ECN 9, \M""h;,~".""

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72065

(16) Unit 8: East Cascades South, East Cascades South, California and California and Oregon. Map of Unit 8, Oregon, follows:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Str/x occldentalls caurlna) Unit 8: East Cascades Subunits ECS 1 - ECS 3, California and

A

• Cily /'/ ...... Subunit Boundaf\l Counly

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.013 72066 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(17) Unit 9: Klamath West, Oregon and California. Map of Unit 9: Klamath West, Oregon and California, follows:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidenta/is caurina) Unit 9: Klamath Subunits KLW 1 - KLW 9, and California

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72067

(18) Unit 10: Klamath East, California. Map of Unit 10: Klamath East, California, follows:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Unit Klamath East, Subunits KLE 1 KLE California and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.015 72068 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(19) Unit 11: Interior California Coast, California. Map of Unit 11: Interior California Coast, California, follows:

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owt (Strix occidentalis caurina) Unit 11: Interior California Coast, Subunits ICC 1 -ICC 6, California

* * * * * Dated: November 20, 2012. Rachel Jacobson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 2012–28714 Filed 12–3–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:32 Dec 03, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04DER2.SGM 04DER2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER04DE12.016