[Federal Register: November 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 211)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56757-56770]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03no09-23]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R7-ES-2009-0049]
[MO 9221050083-B2]
[RIN 1018-AW32]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the
British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen Charlotte
Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the British Columbia distinct population segment (DPS) of the
Queen Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) as threatened,
except on the Queen Charlotte Islands (a significant portion of the
DPS's range), where we propose to list the goshawk as endangered, under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This proposal, if
made final, would extend the Act's protection to this subspecies in
British Columbia, Canada, on Vancouver Island and the surrounding
smaller islands, the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the coastal mainland
west of the Coast Mountains. The Service seeks data and comments from
the public on this proposal.
DATES: We will consider comments received on or before January 4, 2010.
We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in the ADDRESSES section by December 18, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R7-ES-2009-0049; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Brockmann, Juneau Fish and
Wildlife Field Office, 3000 Vintage Blvd. Suite 201, Juneau, AK 99801;
telephone (907) 780-1181; fax (907) 586-7154.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments
or suggestions from other government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments regarding:
(1) Biological information, population status, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this
subspecies,
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which
are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) The appropriate conservation status for the British Columbia
DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, and
(4) Specific information on the areas identified as significant
portions of the
[[Page 56758]]
range in this proposed rule, including threats.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the website. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 3000 Vintage Blvd, Suite 201, Juneau, AK 99801.
Final promulgation of the regulations concerning the listing of
this subspecies will take into consideration all comments and
additional information that we receive, and may lead to a final
regulation that differs from this proposal.
Queen Charlotte Goshawk Biology
The Queen Charlotte goshawk is a comparatively small, dark
subspecies of northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) that nests and
forages in the temperate, rainforest-dominated archipelagos and coastal
mainland of southeast Alaska and British Columbia. Natural history and
threats to the subspecies are described in detail in our status review
(USFWS 2007; USFWS 2008) and evaluated in our most recent finding,
published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2007 (72 FR 63123).
Below, we briefly summarize key aspects of the Queen Charlotte
goshawk's biology.
Goshawks typically nest and forage in old-growth forest, but use
mature second-growth (previously harvested, regenerating stands that
have developed adequate structure) where old-growth forest is limited
(Titus et al. 1994, pp. 19-24; Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 27-40; McClaren
and Pendergast 2003, pp. 4-6). Non-forested land, recently clear-cut
areas, and young second-growth stands are avoided (Iverson et al. 1996,
pp. 27-40).
Forest regeneration following timber harvest usually results in
dense second-growth stands that may support populations of some prey
species, but goshawks avoid these habitats, presumably because they are
too dense for the hawks to effectively hunt (DeStefano and McCloskey
1997, p. 38; Beier and Drennan 1997, p. 570; Greenwald et al. 2005, pp.
125-126; USFWS 2007, pp. 62-67).
As second-growth stands approach economic maturity, the forest
structure develops adequately to allow goshawks to forage below the
canopy. Second growth reaches economic maturity when its growth rate
begins to slow. Trees of this age typically have not reached maximum
size. Canopies of these stands are usually uniformly dense unless the
stand was harvested in a multi-age system or has been thinned. We refer
to such stands as ``mature'', or ``mature second growth.'' In this
document, ``young second growth'' refers to second growth that has not
yet reached maturity. Mature forest with structure suitable for goshawk
nesting and foraging may develop as early as 45 to 50 years following
harvest on the most productive sites in the southern portion of the
Queen Charlotte goshawk's range (Doyle 2004, pp. 27-28; McClaren 2003,
p. 19), but may take over 100 years on less productive sites (Iverson
et al. 1996, p. 71). These stands are typically harvested within a
decade or two of reaching economic maturity, if they are in an area
currently open to logging. On lands managed for sustained-yield timber
harvest, approximately 10 to 20 percent of the second growth is
typically mature and suitable as goshawk habitat, although this
percentage varies with harvest history, stand treatments, and current
demand for timber (Daniel et al. 1979, pp. 304-344). Unharvested
retention areas (e.g., stream buffers) provide old-growth habitat in
addition to any mature second growth in harvested landscapes.
``Old growth'' or ``old forest'' refers to a structural stage of
forest characterized by several age classes of trees, including
dominant trees that have reached the maximum size typical for the site,
accumulations of dead, dying, and decaying trees and logs, and younger
trees growing in gaps between the dominant trees. Such stands are
typically over 250 years old within the range of the Queen Charlotte
goshawk, and have not been previously harvested.
Goshawks hunt primarily by flying between perches and launching
attacks from those perches. They take a variety of medium-sized prey,
depending largely on local availability (Squires and Reynolds 1997, p.
1), which varies markedly among the islands in the Queen Charlotte
goshawk's range. Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) and sooty
grouse (Dendragopus fuliginosis) (formerly blue grouse, D. obscurus)
form the bulk of the diet in many locations, with thrushes, jays,
crows, ptarmigan, and woodpeckers frequently taken as well (Ethier
1999, pp. 21-22 and 32-47; Lewis 2001, pp. 81-107; Lewis et al. 2004,
pp. 378-382; Doyle 2005, pp. 30-31). During winter, many avian prey
species migrate from the region, reducing the variety and abundance of
prey available (Ethier 1999, p. 22; MacDonald and Cook 1999, pp. 23-24;
Nagorsen 2002, pp. 92-97; Doyle 2005, p. 31). Winter diets of the Queen
Charlotte goshawk are largely unknown.
Prey availability is defined by prey abundance and suitability of
habitat for successful hunting. Commercial logging can reduce both.
Mature and old-growth forest habitat provides productive habitat for
prey species in a setting where goshawks can effectively hunt. Timber
harvest typically results in prey population declines because few
potential prey species within the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk
are adapted to open and edge habitats (Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 59-61;
Doyle and Mahon 2003, p. 39; USFWS 2007, pp. 42-45). Where those logged
areas grow into dense second-growth stands, hunting is impaired because
these stands do not offer adequate flight space (DeStefano and
McCloskey 1997, p. 38; Beier and Drennan 1997, p. 570; Greenwald et al.
2005, pp. 125-126; USFWS 2007, pp. 62-67).
Queen Charlotte goshawk nests are typically located in large trees
within mature or old-growth forest stands that have greater volume and
canopy cover than the surrounding forest (Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 47-
56; Flatten et al. 2002, pp. 2-3; McClaren 2003, p. 12; McClaren and
Pendergast 2003, pp. 4-6; Doyle 2005, pp. 12-14; USFWS 2007, pp. 26-
30). Nesting pairs appear to be territorial, with nests spaced somewhat
uniformly across available habitat. Nesting density, as measured by
mean distance between adjacent nesting areas, appears to vary with
habitat quality (primarily prey availability). Queen Charlotte goshawks
appear to nest at lower densities than northern goshawks studied
elsewhere (McClaren 2003, pp.13 and 21; Doyle 2005, p. 15; USFWS 2007,
pp. 45-47).
The best available information suggests that viable nesting
territories (which are approximately 24,700 acres (10,000 hectares)
each) contain at least 40 percent mature and old-growth forest (Doyle
2005, p. 14; USFWS 2007, pp.
[[Page 56759]]
75-78). However, goshawks may nest in areas with lower proportions of
mature and old-growth forest where prey adapted to more open habitats
is abundant (Doyle 2006, pp. 135-140; Iverson et al. 1996, p. 55; USFWS
2007, p. 36).
Individual nests are frequently not used in subsequent years as
pairs often move to an alternate nest. Most alternate nests are
clustered within a few hundred acres (200 to 500 hectares) (McClaren
2003, p. 13; Flatten et al. 2001, pp. 9-11), although females have been
documented leaving the nesting area altogether and nesting in
subsequent years with a new mate in a different territory up to 95
miles (152 kilometers) away. Males have been documented moving up to 2
miles (3.2 kilometers) between subsequent nests, but apparently remain
in their nesting area in subsequent years (Flatten et al. 2001, pp. 9-
10).
Nest occupancy (percentage of nest areas with adult goshawks
present) and nesting activity (percentage of nest areas with eggs laid)
appear to vary with habitat suitability, prey availability, and
weather, with greater occupancy or activity in areas with less
fragmented forest habitat and in years with higher prey abundance and
warmer, drier weather (Desimone and DeStefano 2005, pp. 317-318; Doyle
and Smith 1994, p. 126; Ethier 1999, pp. 31 and 36; Fairhurst and
Bechard 2005, pp. 231-232; Finn et al. 1998, p. 1; Finn et al. 2002,
pp. 270-271; McClaren 2003, pp. 11 and 16; Patla 1997, pp. 34-35; Patla
2005, pp. 328-330; McClaren et al. 2002, p. 350; Salafsky et al. 2005,
pp. 242-244).
When prey availability and weather are suitable and nesting is
initiated, nest success (percent of active nests that fledge at least
one young) is typically high (87 percent rangewide, 1991 to 2004), as
is productivity (1.6 to 2.0 fledglings per active nest) (USFWS 2007, p.
54). Fledglings typically spend about 6 weeks within several hundred
yards (several hundred meters) of their nests learning flight and
hunting skills before dispersing (McClaren et al. 2005, p. 257).
Retention of mature forest structure near the nest is believed to be
important for supporting this developmental stage (Reynolds et al.
1992, pp. 15-16; Kennedy et al. 1994, p. 80; Ethier 1999, p. 31; Finn
et al. 2002, pp. 270-271; McClaren 2003, pp. 11 and 16; Desimone and
DeStefano 2005, pp. 317-318; McClaren et al. 2005, pp. 260-261; Patla
2005, pp. 328-330).
Range
In our previous status reviews and findings, we identified the
range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk as the islands and mainland of
southeast Alaska, and the Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island
in British Columbia (60 FR 33784; 62 FR 46710; 72 FR 63123; USFWS
2007). In April 2008, the ``Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis
laingi) Recovery Team'' (NGRT) in Canada released a draft recovery
strategy for the Queen Charlotte goshawk. The NGRT reviewed
morphometric and radio-telemetry data, and distribution of coastal
habitat and prey, and determined that, in addition to Vancouver Island
and the Queen Charlotte Islands, the coastal mainland of British
Columbia west of the Coast Range (including the Coastal Douglas-fir
biogeographic zone and wet Coastal Western Hemlock subzones and
variants) is also within the range of the subspecies (NGRT 2008, pp. 3-
6). We believe that the NGRT's determination is the best available
information on the range of the bird in Canada, and so for purposes of
this listing, we propose to adopt the range definition used by the NGRT
to define the range of the subspecies in British Columbia.
Previous Agency Action
On November 8, 2007, we published our ``Response to Court on
Significant Portion of the Range, and Evaluation of Distinct Population
Segments, for the Queen Charlotte Goshawk'' (72 FR 63123) (Response to
Court). That document contains a discussion of all previous Federal
actions relating to the petition to list the subspecies. In the
Response to Court, we found that Vancouver Island is a significant
portion of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's range, that southeast Alaska
and British Columbia each support distinct population segments, and
that listing is warranted for the British Columbia DPS, but not for the
southeast Alaska DPS. We indicated that we would publish a proposed
rule to list the British Columbia DPS as either threatened or
endangered. This proposal is the result.
New Information
Since our November 8, 2007, Response to Court, new information
relevant to goshawk conservation has become available. Specifically, a
draft recovery strategy for the Queen Charlotte goshawk in British
Columbia (NGRT 2008) defined the range of the subspecies to include the
coastal mainland west of the Coast Mountains, in addition to Vancouver
Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands. The strategy also reviewed
threats to the subspecies and identified potential strategies and
actions to recover populations in British Columbia.
Additionally, a new land use agreement was signed by the Haida
Nation and the Province of British Columbia. The agreement designates
new protected areas on the Queen Charlotte Islands and commits the
Province to ``Ecosystem Based Management'' of forest resources. Details
about how the of the Ecosystem Based Management scheme will be
implemented are currently being developed and are not yet available.
Finally, the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan, which defined
management for most of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's habitat in
adjacent Southeast Alaska, was revised and replaced with a new forest
plan in January 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2008). The new 2008 forest
plan retains most of the Conservation Strategy set forth in the 1997
plan for the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska, while
modifying some standards and guidelines related to goshawk nest
buffers, partial harvest requirements, and areas that would be
available for timber harvest (USDA Forest Service 2008).
Review of the British Columbia DPS
Section 3(16) of the Act defines ``species'' to include ``any
distinct population segment of and species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' To interpret and implement
the DPS provisions of the Act and Congressional guidance, the Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service published a ``Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (DPS policy) in the Federal Register
on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the DPS policy, three factors
are considered in a decision concerning the establishment and
classification of a possible DPS. The first two factors--discreteness
of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon and
the significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it
belongs--bear on whether the population segment is a valid DPS. If a
population meets both tests, we consider it a DPS and then the third
factor--the population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification, i.e.,
whether the population segment is endangered or threatened--is applied.
In our Response to Court (72 FR 63128), we determined that Queen
Charlotte goshawks in British Columbia were distinct from those in
southeast Alaska, with differences in conservation status, habitat
management, and
[[Page 56760]]
regulatory mechanisms. We also found that the population segments in
British Columbia and southeast Alaska were both significant as defined
by our DPS policy, and concluded that two valid DPSs exist.
We have estimated the effects of new protected areas on the Queen
Charlotte Islands, and inclusion of the mainland coast of British
Columbia, on future landscape condition in British Columbia (USFWS
2008), and have considered the modifications made to the 1997 Tongass
Land Management Plan, as reflected in the 2008 forest plan. Significant
differences in management regimes remain. For example, we estimate that
approximately 31 percent of the remaining old growth will ultimately be
harvested and thereby converted to second growth in British Columbia,
while only 12 percent of the remaining old growth will be harvested and
converted to second growth in Southeast Alaska (USFWS 2008, Table A-
17). When considered together with areas already harvested, we estimate
that 59 percent of the original productive old growth will ultimately
be harvested in British Columbia, but only 28 percent will be harvested
in Southeast Alaska (USFWS 2008, Table A-9). We conclude that
management of forest habitat remains sufficiently different between
Alaska and British Columbia to support our previous conclusion that the
international border separates two discrete populations based on
differences in habitat management and regulatory mechanisms. We also
conclude that the British Columbia population remains biologically and
ecologically significant within the meaning of the DPS policy, for the
reasons set forth in the Response to Court. Thus, we conclude that the
British Columbia population remains a distinct population segment under
the DPS policy.
Factors Affecting the British Columbia DPS
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species on the basis of any
of five factors, as follows: (A) the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Information regarding the status of,
and threats to, the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk
in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
is discussed below.
This proposed rule addresses the finding in our Response to Court
(72 FR 63128) that listing as threatened or endangered is warranted for
the British Columbia DPS. Below, we provide a summary of our analysis
of threats to the British Columbia DPS from the Response to Court,
along with a new analysis of threats to the DPS in light of relevant
new information. We have included statistics on habitat availability
and forest management where they are available. Our primary sources of
forest data include the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range
(especially Niemann 2006 for Vancouver Island and the coastal mainland)
and Leversee (2006) for the Queen Charlotte Islands. Our analysis of
forest statistics is detailed in an updated appendix to our status
review (USFWS 2008), in which our data sources, assumptions, and
calculations are described. We also rely on the NGRT evaluation of the
threats discussed below (NGRT 2008, pp. 16-21).
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Habitat or Range
Mature and old-growth forest provides nesting and foraging habitat
for goshawks, and supports populations of preferred prey (Iverson et
al. 1996, pp. 16-18 and 41-44; Ethier 1999, pp. 61-68; McClaren 2004,
pp. 6-7). Logging within and near nest stands has been implicated in
nest site abandonment, although effects of such logging have varied
from nest area abandonment in some study areas to no effect on
productivity elsewhere (Crocker-Bedford 1990, pp. 263-266; Penteriani
and Faivre 2001, p. 213; Doyle and Mahon 2003, p. 39; Mahon and Doyle
2005, pp. 338-340, Doyle 2006, pp. 138-139). Clearcut logging generally
reduces prey populations (USFWS 2007, pp. 62-64), although, in some
cases, sooty grouse populations may increase temporarily following
logging (Hartwig 2003). Logging also impacts foraging habitat by
removing perches and hunting cover, creating openings and dense second-
growth stands that are avoided by goshawks (Iverson et al. 1996, p.
36).
``Productive forest'' is defined by the British Columbia Ministry
of Forest and Range as forest capable of producing trees large enough
to be commercially viable as timber (i.e., ``merchantable'') (Niemann
2006, p. 1). Such forests, when mature, provide suitable structure for
goshawk nesting and foraging. We, therefore, use the British Columbia
Ministry of Forest and Range's definition of, and statistics on,
productive forest as a measurable approximation of goshawk habitat.
Unless otherwise specified, discussions of mature, old-growth, and
second-growth forests below refer to productive forest only. Areas of
non-productive (or ``scrub'') forest of smaller trees (which are not
included in the cited forest statistics) may be used by goshawks for
foraging or other activities, but are generally not used for nesting
(Iverson et al. 1996, pp. 41-44).
Studies of goshawk habitat within and outside the range of the
Queen Charlotte subspecies suggest that landscape with at least 40 to
60 percent mature or old forest are favored for nesting (Patla 1997,
pp. 71-72; Finn et al. 2002, pp. 434-435, Doyle 2005, pp. 12-18). For
example, each of the 10 nesting territories known on the Queen
Charlotte Islands in 2004 contained at least 41 percent mature and old-
growth forest, although only 4 territories (each containing at least 60
percent mature and old-growth forest) were successful during the
preceding 3-year period (2002-2004)(Doyle 2005, p. 14). Reynolds et al.
(1992, p. 27) recommended at least 40 percent of goshawk home ranges be
maintained in mature or old forest cover in the southwest United
States, with another 20 percent in middle-aged forest cover. Given
these observations, we consider landscapes on the coastal islands with
less than 40 percent cover by mature and old-growth forest to be poor-
quality habitat, those with 40 to 60 percent mature and old-growth
forest moderate-quality habitat, and those with greater than 60 percent
mature and old-growth habitat high-quality habitat.
Goshawks may nest successfully in areas with lower proportions of
mature and old-growth forest where prey adapted to more open habitats
is available, or during years with high prey populations (Doyle 2006,
pp. 138-139; Doyle 2007, p. 2; Doyle and Mahon 2003, p. 1; Iverson et
al. 1996, p. 55; USFWS 2007, p. 36). Snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus),
an important prey species for the goshawk in some areas, are found
along edges and in open habitats on the mainland coast (Nagorsen 2002,
pp. 92-93), so lower proportions of mature and old-growth forest may be
suitable there, depending on availability of prey. Cottontail rabbits
(Syvilagus floridans), a potential prey species that occurs along edges
of open habitats, have recently been introduced on Vancouver Island
(Nagorsen 2002, p.
[[Page 56761]]
96), but they are restricted to the southern edge of the island, and
have not been documented in the goshawk's diet there.
No studies definitively establish the amount of mature and old-
growth forest required where prey adapted to more open habitats are
available, but we expect it to be lower than where such prey are not
available, and we expect it to depend largely on prey density, which
varies spatially (across the landscape) and temporally (from year to
year). Snowshoe hares likely add flexibility to goshawk diets on the
mainland, especially during the winter, and probably allow nesting in
some areas where it may not otherwise occur, although this effect is
probably negligible during years of low hare populations. We conclude,
based on the available information, that on average, landscapes on the
mainland with less than 30 percent mature and old-growth forest cover
are poor habitat, 30 to 50 percent mature and old-growth forest
moderate habitat, and greater than 50 percent mature and old-growth
forest high-quality habitat.
Productive forest (capable of producing commercially viable timber)
covers approximately 45 percent of the 42-million-acre (ac) (17-
million-hectare (ha)) Coast Forest Region delineated by the British
Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, which approximates the range of
the Queen Charlotte goshawk in Canada (USFWS 2008, Table A-20).
Therefore, on average, habitat was probably only of moderate quality
for goshawks (30 to 50 percent mature and old growth) prior to wide-
scale timber harvest, although some areas would have been, and remain,
unsuitable (e.g., large alpine areas), while other areas had extensive
tracts of high-quality habitat before logging began.
Industrial-scale logging began in the coastal rainforests of
British Columbia in the early 1900s, peaked in the 1980s, and has
remained relatively high since then (USFWS 2007, pp. 89-90). By 2002,
timber harvest had converted approximately 5.2 million ac (2.1 million
ha) (28 percent) of the 19 million ac (7.6 million ha) of productive
forest in coastal British Columbia to second growth. This has reduced
mature and old forest cover to approximately 34 percent of the
landscape (USFWS 2008, Table A-20). This percentage translates, on
average, to poor-quality habitat on the islands (less than 40 percent
cover by mature and old-growth forest), and of moderate quality on the
mainland (30 to 50 percent mature and old-growth forest). Again,
naturally non-forested areas have always been unsuitable or poor-
quality habitat, and some areas likely still provide high-quality
habitat, but in general, habitat quality has declined and is probably
moderate-to-poor quality in many areas, due to timber harvest.
More than 100 new protected areas totaling approximately 3 million
ac (1.2 millon ha) were established on the British Columbia mainland
coast in 2006 (BCMAL 2006, p. 1). This was followed by a December 2007
land use agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the
Haida Nation, designating new protected areas totaling 628,000 ac
(254,000 ha) on the Queen Charlotte Islands (BCOP 2007, pp. 1-2).
Approximately 5.6 million ac (2.2 million ha) of the 42-million-ac (17-
million-ha) Coast Forest Region is now in protected status, where
timber harvest is not allowed. We estimate that protected areas include
approximately 2.9 million ac (1.2 million ha) of productive forest
(USFWS 2008, Table A-19). Most of this is likely old growth, although
statistics on forest age within the new protected areas are not
available.
Our status review in 2007 indicated that continued logging on the
coastal islands of British Columbia would convert another 1.2 million
ac (480,000 ha) (26 percent) of the remaining productive old-growth
forest to second growth over the next 50 years (USFWS 2007, Appendix A,
Tables A-9 and A-15). Future timber harvest in three of the seven
Forest Districts in the Coast Forest Region (North Coast, Central
Coast, and Queen Charlotte Islands Districts) will be planned using
``Ecosystem Based Management.'' Although the requirement is intended to
support a sustainable economy while protecting a healthy ecosystem, no
specifics have been released (BCMAL 2006, pp. 2-3; BCOP 2007, pp. 1-2,
BC 2008, p. 1). In the absence of any details about implementation of
this management scheme, we rely on data and projections currently
available based on existing management practices (summarized in USFWS
2007, pp. 82-101; USFWS 2008, Tables A-1 to A-20; NGRT 2008, pp. 6-23;
see also Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 939
F.Supp. 49 (D.D.C. 1996)). Future harvest levels are uncertain, but
additional conversion of old-growth forest to second growth is expected
to continue throughout the DPS.
For the purposes of evaluating threats and recovery strategies, the
NGRT has divided the British Columbia range of the Queen Charlotte
goshawk into four Conservation Regions: Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte
Islands), Vancouver Island, North Coast, and South Coast (NGRT 2008,
pp. 4-6). They reviewed the best-available scientific information and,
where data were unavailable, used expert opinion and data-derived
estimates (NGRT 2008, p. 16). They consider threats to the goshawk from
habitat loss and fragmentation to be low to moderate in the North Coast
region, moderate in the South Coast region, and moderate to high on the
Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island (NGRT 2008, pp. 16-17).
These conclusions are consistent with our understanding of the habitat
threats faced by goshawks in British Columbia. Thus, while some risk is
present throughout the DPS's range, habitat on the mainland coast,
particularly the North Coast, appears to be more secure than on the
islands.
In general, although new protected areas should help conserve some
of the remaining goshawk habitat, significant degradation has occurred,
and we expect continued decline in habitat quality within the range of
the British Columbia DPS as old-growth forest available for harvest is
converted to second growth. Ultimately, most of the harvested landscape
is likely to become low-quality or poor-quality habitat. Reductions in
prey populations and loss of perches and hunting cover are likely to
have increasingly negative effects on goshawks' ability to hunt prey
and feed their young. Based on the available information, we conclude
that habitat loss is likely to contribute substantially to loss of
long-term viability of Queen Charlotte goshawks in British Columbia.
Therefore, we conclude that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a significant
threat to the British Columbia DPS of the subspecies.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
In Canada, the laingi subspecies has been federally listed as
``Threatened'' under the Species at Risk Act since 2002 (51 Eliz. II,
Ch. 29). British Columbia has included the subspecies on its ``Red
List,'' indicating imperiled status, since 1994 (Cooper and Stevens
2000, pp. 3 and 14). In 2004, British Columbia designated the bird a
Schedule 1 Species at Risk, indicating vulnerability to forest
management and a need for protection beyond that provided by general
forest management regulations (BCMSRM 2002, pp. 1-2; Barisoff 2004, p.
2; USFWS 2007, pp. 11-12). Each of these designations provides some
protection from harvest. Birds may be taken illegally on occasion, but
we have no indication that such activity is common, or that it poses
any threat to the subspecies. We do not expect
[[Page 56762]]
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes to contribute to population declines or extinction
risk. The NRGT considers the threat of human persecution to be low to
none (NGRT 2008, pp. 17 and 21). We conclude that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes does not
now, or in the foreseeable future, pose a significant threat to the
British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease and predation associated with Queen Charlotte goshawks are
not well documented, but small populations such as those on Vancouver
Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands can be vulnerable to diseases,
particularly when simultaneously stressed by other factors such as prey
shortages. The NGRT considers the threat from disease low, but has
expressed concern that emerging diseases such as West Nile virus may be
difficult to mitigate, if outbreaks occur (NGRT 2008, pp. 16 and 21).
Predation can also suppress small populations, leaving them
vulnerable to other population stress factors. Goshawk predators within
the British Columbia DPS include great horned owl (Bubo virginianus),
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American marten (Martes
americana), wolverine (Gulo gulo), and black bear (Ursus americanus).
Raccoons (Procyon lotor), which could take eggs or nestlings, have also
been introduced on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Golumbia et al. 2003,
pp. 13-15). The NGRT considers predation risk low across the range of
the DPS (NGRT 2008, pp. 16-20).
No information suggests that disease or predation currently put
Queen Charlotte goshawks in danger of extinction in the British
Columbia DPS, but either disease or predation may contribute to
extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see Foreseeable Future
section below) if their effects are exacerbated by other population
stressors such as prey shortages, habitat limitations, or unfavorable
weather (which affect nesting effort). We conclude that disease and
predation do not currently put the Queen Charlotte goshawk at risk of
extinction, although there is moderate risk that either could affect
population viability in the foreseeable future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Direct Take: Throughout Canada, the Species at Risk Act protects
the Queen Charlotte goshawk from direct harm, harassment, and take on
Federal lands. Individuals, eggs, and occupied nests are protected on
all jurisdictions in British Columbia under the provincial Wildlife Act
(RSBC 1996, section 34). Possession and trade in the subspecies is
forbidden throughout Canada, as is destruction of nests. Based on the
available information, regulation of direct take appears to be adequate
throughout the DPS.
Habitat Protection: Two mechanisms exist to protect habitat under
the Federal Species at Risk Act in Canada: (1) Identification of
critical habitat, which may not be destroyed; and (2) conservation
agreements, which may be negotiated with any entity or individual.
Other mechanisms have been used by the Provincial government to protect
goshawk habitat (discussed below), but critical habitat has not yet
been formally designated under the Species at Risk Act (NGRT 2008, p.
31).
The Species at Risk Act requires development of a recovery
strategy, which identifies the scientific framework for recovery. The
NGRT, which includes experts from Provincial and Federal (U.S. and
Canadian) government agencies, private consultants, non-government
organizations, industry, and First Nations, has produced a draft
recovery strategy summarizing natural history, threats, knowledge gaps,
and recovery approach (NGRT 2008). A recovery action plan, to define
and guide implementation of the recovery strategy, is expected within 2
years after the recovery strategy is finalized (NGRT 2008, pp. i and
34).
The recovery strategy identifies many legal mechanisms for
protecting habitat at various scales. Land use planning is perhaps the
most broad-scale method used by the British Columbia Provincial
Government for establishing protected areas and limits on development
to conserve biodiversity across the Province. Approximately 13 percent
of the landscape across coastal British Columbia is protected from
logging in various parks and reserves. These reserves average
approximately 50 percent cover by productive forest (USFWS 2008, Table
A-23), so on average they appear to provide moderate- to high-quality
habitat. Special management zones, where timber harvest is allowed but
non-timber values such as wildlife and recreation are given additional
consideration, are also designated in some areas (BC 2000, p. 30).
Logging on Crown (Provincial) lands is regulated by the Forest and
Range Practices Act. This statute and its companion regulations set
objectives for many resources, and require timber harvest plans
describing how each objective will be met. Integrated with the Forest
and Range Practices Regulations is the Identified Wildlife Management
Strategy (IWM Strategy), which was developed by the British Columbia
Government to provide additional protection for species requiring
specific measures beyond the ``coarse filter'' system of protected
areas and the various regulations governing timber harvest generally.
The IWM Strategy provides for establishment of Wildlife Habitat Areas
around known goshawk nests, and allows prescription of management
measures within those areas (BCMWLAP 2004, pp. 1-4). Where nests are
identified, Wildlife Habitat Areas are proposed, usually by Provincial
biologists, although anyone may make a proposal. The proposed Area is
reviewed and may be modified by the Ministry of Environment, comments
are solicited from affected parties, a Timber Supply Impact Analysis is
conducted, the proposal is reviewed by a Provincial Committee, and a
final decision is made by the Ministry of Environment (BCMWLAP 2004,
pp. 4-10). The final decision may reflect compromises intended to
reduce impacts on timber operators or others.
Once a Wildlife Habitat Area is designated for goshawks, timber
harvest is not allowed in a core area of approximately 500 ac (200 ha)
to protect the active nest, alternate nests, and post-fledging habitat.
A management plan must be developed for timber harvesting and road
construction in the surrounding management zone of about 5,000 ac
(2,000 ha) to protect foraging habitat. Non-binding recommendations
have been developed to help guide these management plans (McClaren
2004, pp. 10-11). To date, at least 28 Wildlife Habitat Areas covering
36,470 ac (14,765 ha) have been designated for laingi goshawks in
British Columbia (USFWS 2007, p. 113).
Provincial policy limits the amount of land that may be protected
under the IWM Strategy (in Wildlife Habitat Areas or other such
mechanisms) to one percent of the short-term timber supply in each
Forest District, for all Identified Wildlife species combined. This
limitation may be waived with adequate justification, and does not have
legal force of law, but is considered a goal of government (BCMWLAP
2004, p. 4; FPB 2004, pp. 7-8). Because the one percent cap is on
impacts to the ``short-term'' timber supply, rather than the long-term
supply, calculations must be based on mature forest stands. In the
South Island Forest District (which covers southern Vancouver Island),
less than one-third
[[Page 56763]]
of the productive forest is at or near economic maturity, so Wildlife
Habitat Areas and other such retentions for Identified Wildlife are
limited to approximately one-third of 1 percent of the productive
forest in the Timber Harvesting Land Base. Similar situations exist
wherever past harvest is extensive, yet these areas have the greatest
need for conservation (FPB 2004, pp. 7-8).
Another potential limitation of the one percent cap on goshawk
conservation is apparent in areas with high numbers of other at-risk
species and continuing threats to those species (Wood and Flahr 2004,
pp. 394-395). Southern Vancouver Island, for example, is a biodiversity
``hot spot,'' with a large number of rare and endemic species (Scudder
2003). Some of these species have habitat needs that differ from those
of the goshawk, yet their legitimate conservation needs must be
accommodated along with the goshawk within the one percent limit. In
the South Island Forest District, Wildlife Habitat Areas are
approaching, and may have already exceeded, the one percent cap (Wood
et al. 2003, p. 53).
In 2004, the British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management established ``Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Objectives''
that must be addressed in Forest Stewardship Plans (Abbott 2004, pp. 1-
6). The order established ``Landscape Units'' and old growth forest
retention objectives for each of those units. Individual Landscape
Units are assigned to low, intermediate, or high biodiversity emphasis,
with lower percentages of old-growth retention identified for lower-
emphasis units. The exact amount of old growth that must be retained
depends on the forest type (biogeoclimatic zone) and the ``natural
disturbance regime'' identified for each biogeoclimatic zone variant.
Within the Coastal Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) Zone, old
growth retention objectives range from 9 to 13 percent; in the Mountain
Hemlock (T. mertensiana) Zone, objectives range from 19 to 28 percent;
and in the Coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Zone, 9 to 13
percent. The objectives are termed ``non-spatial'' because they
describe amounts but not specific areas to be retained, unlike other
orders that establish protection of specified areas. In order to meet
the non-spatial, old-growth objectives, tenure-holders and Timber
Supply Area managers can rely on existing protected areas such as
Wildlife Habitat Areas, riparian reserves, inoperable lands, and other
designations that result in retention of old-growth stands.
The Province of British Columbia has made significant progress in
implementation of several elements of their conservation program for
goshawks, as described above. A draft recovery strategy has been
released. Several of the actions identified in the draft strategy have
begun; others are likely to be implemented once the Recovery
Implementation Group completes an action plan (NGRT 2008, pp. 21-32).
It is likely that the identified strategies will assist in long-term
conservation of the subspecies in British Columbia. The strategy,
however, is currently in draft form with an action plan not anticipated
for 2 years (NGRT 2008, p. 34).
In summary, the Province's Protected Area Strategy protects 13
percent of the land area, and 13 percent of the productive forest, in
parks and other reserves within the range of the British Columbia DPS.
We believe that this is inadequate, by itself, to support a viable
population of goshawks because much of the protected land is not
forested, and because goshawks are dispersed at low densities across a
vast landscape and are likely to need more than 13 percent of the
landscape in suitable condition (specifically, mature and old-growth
forest). Management of timber lands within the province continues to
evolve with increasing emphasis on conservation of non-timber values
associated with forests, including goshawks. However, the Province's
Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, which allows for designation
and protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas around goshawk nests, is
limited by a policy-level cap of one percent of the short-term timber
supply. We acknowledge that much work is underway in the Province to
address the threats and conservation needs of Queen Charlotte goshawks.
Because much of the regulatory framework is relatively new, some key
elements of the recovery effort have not yet been fully developed or
implemented, so it is difficult at this time to assess their potential
effectiveness (see Conservation Efforts, below).
We conclude that continued development and implementation of
regulatory mechanisms will be required to minimize the risk of
extinction for the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk.
Existing regulatory mechanisms do not appear to adequately reduce the
threat posed to goshawk habitat from timber harvest at this time.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence
We are not aware of current population-level threats to Queen
Charlotte goshawks due to competition for either prey or nest sites.
The NGRT rates this threat as low across the DPS (NGRT 2008, p. 16).
Competition among herbivores has been implicated in grouse declines on
the Queen Charlotte Islands, however, where introduced deer have
reportedly overbrowsed blueberries and other important grouse foods,
resulting in grouse population declines (Golumbia et al. 2003, pp. 10-
11; Doyle 2004, pp. 15-16). This has probably reduced goshawk nesting
effort (number of pairs attempting to nest) on the Queen Charlotte
Islands during periods of low squirrel density, when goshawks might
otherwise have nested if grouse had been more abundant. Predation on
sooty grouse eggs and nestlings by introduced raccoons may also be a
factor contributing to grouse population declines on the Queen
Charlotte Islands (Golumbia et al. 2003, pp. 13-15).
Threats due to low prey diversity are considered low on the
mainland, moderate on Vancouver Island, and high on the Queen Charlotte
Islands (NGRT 2008, pp. 16 and 18) (see previous discussion under
Factor A).
We know of no contaminants that pose current or potential future
threats to goshawks within the British Columbia DPS.
Natural disasters such as windstorms, landslides, avalanches,
earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions could affect localized
areas within the British Columbia DPS, but are not believed to pose
population-level threats, either now or in the foreseeable future.
Large, landscape-altering forest fires, insect infestations, or tree
diseases could pose population-level threats to Queen Charlotte
goshawks in the British Columbia DPS if they affect major portions of
either Vancouver Island or the Queen Charlotte Islands, both of which
support contiguous blocks of forest habitat on one or two large
islands, rather than on many islands as in the southeast Alaska DPS.
Global climate change could increase the frequency and severity of
large fires, forest pests, or forest diseases (Bachelet et al. 2005,
pp. 2244-2248), but we do not know how likely such events might be.
Increases in forest cover, as cool-adapted species invade alpine areas
and plant communities generally shift northward (Hamann and Wang 2006,
pp. 2780-2782), could increase the amount of habitat available to
goshawks,
[[Page 56764]]
but such gains could be offset by loss of forest cover elsewhere. We
conclude that climate change is likely to have mixed effects on
goshawks. The possibility exists that landscape-level changes due to
climate change could negatively affect the British Columbia DPS of the
Queen Charlotte goshawk, but these threats do not currently place the
DPS in danger of extinction, nor do we expect them to in the
foreseeable future.
The small goshawk population on the Queen Charlotte Islands appears
to be genetically distinct from goshawks elsewhere and may be
genetically isolated (Gust et al. 2003, p. 22; Talbot et al. 2005, pp.
2-3; Talbot 2006, p. 1). Isolated populations such as the one on the
Queen Charlotte Islands are typically at greater risk of extinction or
genetic problems such as inbreeding depression and loss of genetic
diversity, particularly where populations are small (Lande 1988, pp.
1456-1457; Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 312-317). Inbreeding depression is
a reduction in viability and fecundity that occurs as large populations
decline and rapid inbreeding produces increased prevalence of harmful
genes that are typically rare in larger populations (Lande 1988, p.
1456). Loss of genetic diversity occurs as populations are reduced, and
can diminish future adaptability to a changing environment. The NGRT
considers threats from genetic isolation to be high for the Queen
Charlotte Islands, and low to none elsewhere in British Columbia (NGRT
2008, pp. 16, 18-19). We concur with this assessment.
Hybridization can be a threat when related species or subspecies
interbreed, diluting the genetics of the smaller population.
Populations on Vancouver Island apparently interbreed with the
subspecies of goshawk that inhabits much of mainland North America,
Accipiter gentilis atricapillus (Gust et al. 2003, p. 22; Talbot et al.
2005, pp. 2-3; Talbot 2006, p. 1). This seems likely given the
proximity of Vancouver Island to the mainland. On the mainland, the
Queen Charlotte goshawk (A. g. laingi) inhabits wet coastal forests,
but likely interbreeds with the interior subspecies (A. g.
atricapillus) within the drier coastal western hemlock zones between
coastal and interior forests. The NGRT considers this a transition zone
between the two subspecies, but concludes, based on limited sampling,
that ``Vancouver Island and (coastal) mainland B.C. populations (of A.
g. laingi) do not appear to be interbreeding with interior B.C.
populations (of A. g. atricapillus) (NGRT 2008, pp. 3, 6, and 18). We
have no information indicating that A. g. atricapillus goshawks are
expanding into the range of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, and we
consider the transition zones between the subspecies to be stable. We
therefore conclude that hybridization does not pose a significant
threat to the continued survival of the Queen Charlotte goshawk, now or
in the foreseeable future.
The breeding population across the British Columbia DPS appears to
be about 352 to 374 pairs (NGRT 2008, p. 8). Small populations such as
this are at greater risk of extinction than larger populations from
environmental stochasticity (random or otherwise unpredictable events
such as disease epidemics, prey population crashes, or environmental
catastrophes), which can reduce the population to a density at which it
is vulnerable to demographic stochasticity (fluctuations in birth and
mortality rates) (Engen et al. 2001, p. 794; Adler and Drake, 2008, p.
192).
We conclude that the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte
goshawk is not currently in danger of extinction due to other natural
and manmade factors (Factor E) such as competition, contaminants,
natural disasters, climate change, or genetic problems resulting from
hybridization or isolation. However, due to its small population size,
this DPS is likely to be vulnerable to prey fluctuations, hybridization
(on Vancouver Island), or inbreeding depression (on the Queen Charlotte
Islands) in the foreseeable future. Each of these potential threats
would likely become more important if habitat modification causes
population declines, exacerbating the impact of the threats.
Conservation Efforts
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to determine if a species
should be listed ``after taking into account those efforts, if any,
being made...to protect such species, whether by predator control,
protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation
practices.'' We consider existing regulatory mechanisms and other
efforts underway in British Columbia to conserve goshawks and goshawk
habitat in our analysis of the five listing factors, above. In many
cases, conservation actions are planned, but have not yet been
implemented. In other cases, conservation efforts may be underway, but
their effectiveness is uncertain. To help guide evaluation of such
efforts, the Service published a ``Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions'' (PECE Policy) (68
FR 15100, March 28, 2003). The PECE Policy ``applies to those
formalized conservation efforts that have not yet been implemented or
have been implemented, but have not yet demonstrated whether they are
effective at the time of a listing decision.'' For efforts meeting
these criteria, the policy directs us to consider (1) the certainty
that a conservation effort will be implemented, and (2) the certainty
that the effort will be effective.
British Columbia's draft Recovery Strategy identifies several broad
strategies and recommended approaches to address threats to the
goshawk, with specific actions listed to address each approach (NGRT
2008, pp. 26-30). Because the recovery strategy itself is draft, it
does not meet the PECE Policy's definition of a formalized conservation
effort (68 FR 15104, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Response 17). Many of
the actions listed in the draft recovery strategy, however, have
already been implemented and warrant evaluation as formalized
conservation efforts. We also evaluate actions identified in the draft
recovery strategy that have not yet been implemented, because we
believe that the NGRT intends to pursue them.
Among the actions that have not yet been implemented are
predictions of habitat changes resulting from climate change,
monitoring and modeling of West Nile Virus impacts, and monitoring of
edge-adapted competitors and predators. The draft Recovery Strategy is
a broad-scale document that does not provide details on who would be
responsible for implementing the identified actions, the source and
security of funding, legal authorities, procedural and legal
requirements (permits, authorizations and permissions, etc.), and
volunteer (e.g., landowner or timber tenure holder) participation
necessary to implement the actions, as required for us to conclude with
a high level of certainty that the actions will be implemented (PECE
Policy, 68 FR 15114-15115).
Among the actions identified in the draft strategy that have
already begun, the most highly developed is protection of habitat using
existing authorities and mechanisms. These are described in NGRT (2008)
Appendix 1, and are evaluated above under Factor D (inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms). We consider habitat protection an
effective strategy, but cannot conclude that implementation under
existing mechanisms adequately removes the threat posed to the Queen
Charlotte goshawk from habitat loss.
Other actions listed in the draft Recovery Strategy have been
implemented (or have begun and are ongoing), but have not yet been
proven effective. Included in this category are:
[[Page 56765]]
Development of general wildlife measures to ensure
sufficient foraging habitat outside Wildlife Habitat Areas,
Landscape modeling to identify habitat availability,
Research and implementation of silviculture methods to
promote prey populations,
Development and implementation of management plans for
introduced species,
Development and implementation of outreach and education
for landowners and resource managers,
Effectiveness monitoring of habitat management,
Development and use of spatially explicit population
models and genetic samples to define population and distribution
objectives,
Use of habitat conservation tools to conserve and recover
populations in each conservation region, and
Identification and monitoring of prey populations.
The PECE Policy lists six criteria necessary to establish that a
conservation effort will be effective in adequately reducing threats to
a level that listing a species as threatened or endangered is not
necessary. These criteria include (1) a description of the threats
addressed by the conservation effort, (2) explicit, incremental
objectives for the conservation effort and dates for achieving the
objectives, (3) the steps necessary to implement the conservation
effort, (4) quantifiable measures to demonstrate progress toward, and
achievement of, objectives, (5) provisions for monitoring and reporting
progress on implementation and effectiveness, and (6) incorporation of
adaptive management principles (68 FR 15115). The draft Recovery
Strategy is a broad-level planning document that describes threats to
the goshawk and provides recommendations for addressing those threats.
It lacks detail on implementation of the recommended actions. A
recovery action plan, which will likely provide much of the detail
described in the PECE Policy, is expected within 2 years of finalizing
the draft Recovery Strategy. Meanwhile, we are not aware of currently
available documents that provide the information (criteria 1 through 6,
immediately above) necessary to ascertain with a high level of
certainty that the actions will be effective.
A major conservation effort recently announced by the Province of
British Columbia is Ecosystem Based Management for lands managed for
multiple uses in the Central Coast, North Coast, and Haida Gwaii
regions (BCMAL 2006, pp. 1-3; BCOP 2007, pp. 1-2). Ecosystem Based
Management ``is a new adaptive approach to managing human activities
that ensures the coexistence of healthy ecosystems and communities. The
intent is to support a sustainable economy while protecting a healthy
ecosystem'' (BCMAL 2006, p. 2). Key elements include establishment of
protected areas; higher standards for key environmental values; use of
traditional, local, and scientific knowledge to develop management
targets; recognition of Aboriginal and other local interests in land
use planning and management; and promotion of stability, certainty, and
long-term resource use (BCMAL 2006, p. 2).
The British Columbia government has moved to implement Ecosystem
Based Management on the mainland coast and, more recently, the Queen
Charlotte Islands. Land use agreements have been reached with various
First Nations, and efforts are underway to identify lands for
protection. We have a high level of certainty that Ecosystem Based
management will be implemented in some form, although details of which
lands will be protected, and how timber harvest will be regulated, are
not yet available. We expect that protection of additional areas will
result in reduced logging overall, although the rate of logging on the
remaining lands is not known. We therefore cannot be sufficiently
certain that the program will reduce threats to goshawks to a level
that listing as threatened or endangered is no longer necessary.
Foreseeable Future
The term ``threatened species'' means any species (or subspecies
or, for vertebrates, distinct population segments) that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the
term ``foreseeable future.'' However, in a January 16, 2009, memorandum
addressed to the Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, concluded, ``.
. . as used in the ESA, Congress intended the term `foreseeable future'
to describe the extent to which the Secretary can reasonably rely on
predictions about the future in making determinations about the future
conservation status of the species.'' In a footnote, the memorandum
states, ``In this memorandum, references to `reliable predictions' are
not meant to refer to reliability in a statistical sense. Rather, I use
the words ``rely'' and ``reliable'' according to their common, non-
technical meanings in ordinary usage. Thus, for the purposes of this
memorandum, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to depend upon
it in making decisions'' (M-37021, January 16, 2009).
We assess foreseeable future in terms of the threats to the species
in question. Threats to the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte
goshawk are primarily related to habitat loss. Other threats are likely
to be significant only if populations decline to critically low levels.
We expect the amount of suitable goshawk habitat to continue to decline
until all the old growth available for harvest has been converted to
second growth. At that time, we expect the amount of habitat to
stabilize, with less habitat than is available today. Thereafter,
logging will be limited to the second growth, which we expect will be
harvested on a sustained-yield basis. Because second-growth stands
provide suitable goshawk habitat for only the final 10 to 20 percent of
each timber harvest rotation (USFWS 2007, pp. 62-67), we estimate that
approximately 15 percent of the second growth will be mature, at any
given time, and will provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat,
while 85 percent will be younger, and provide largely unsuitable
habitat (USFWS 2007, pp. 99 and 131). While we recognize that ongoing
changes in management regimes, market conditions and technology may
affect the intensity and pace of habitat loss, we consider logging
projections provided by the BC Ministry of Forests and Range, and by
the individual Tree Farm License holders, to be the best information
available at this time for evaluating habitat trends and threats into
the future. In our review, we used such projections to estimate how
much old-growth and mature second-growth forest would be available
after all available old growth has been converted to second growth,
which we expect to occur in approximately 50 years (USFWS 2007, pp. 85-
91 and pp. 103-104; USFWS 2008, Tables A-1 and A-10 to A17).
Wildlife populations typically continue to decline for several
generations after habitat loss has occurred, as the populations reach
equilibrium with their habitat and competitors (Tilman et al. 1994, pp.
65-66). Therefore, extinction may occur many years after habitat loss
has ceased. We do not know precisely how long it will take before the
population stabilizes or goes extinct following habitat loss, but we do
expect the goshawk population to continue to decline for several
generations after habitat loss peaks in about 50 years. We therefore
define foreseeable future for the British Columbia DPS as approximately
50 years plus a period of
[[Page 56766]]
up to several generations for the population to adjust.
Conclusion
Our analysis of threats suggests that as additional forest is
logged, habitat quality will continue to decline for the British
Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk and its prey. With reduced
prey populations, and less favorable habitats in which to hunt, we
expect that Queen Charlotte goshawks within the British Columbia DPS
would have reduced nesting success. Ultimately, this is expected to
result in even smaller populations than currently occur (352 to 374
breeding pairs). Smaller populations likely would become increasingly
vulnerable to factors such as predation, disease, prey fluctuations,
hybridization, and inbreeding depression. We conclude, therefore, that
while extinction is not imminent, the Queen Charlotte goshawk is in
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future within the British
Columbia DPS. Therefore, we propose to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk
in portions of British Columbia (not including the Queen Charlotte
Islands, as explained below) as a threatened species under the Act.
Significant Portions of the British Columbia DPS's Range
We now consider whether more immediate threats place the goshawk in
imminent danger of extinction in any significant portion of the DPS's
range. The Act defines an endangered species as one ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
a threatened species as one ``likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.'' The term ``significant portion of its range'' is not
defined by the statute.
For purposes of this finding, a significant portion of a species'
(or subspecies' or DPS's) range is an area that is important to the
conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. Adequate
representation ensures conserving the breadth of the genetic makeup of
the species needed to conserve its adaptive capabilities. Populations
in peripheral areas, for example, may be important in this aspect.
Resilience refers to the ability of a species to recover from periodic
disturbances or environmental variability. In general, a species is
usually most resilient in highest quality habitat. Redundancy of
populations is needed to provide a margin of safety for the species to
withstand catastrophic events. The contribution of the range portion
must be at a level such that its loss would result in a decrease in the
ability to conserve the species. It does not mean that if such portion
of the range were lost, the species as a whole would be in danger of
extinction immediately or in the foreseeable future; rather, that the
ability to conserve the species would be compromised.
Vancouver Island: We previously found that Vancouver Island is a
significant portion of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's entire range
(Response to Court, 72 FR 63128; November 8, 2007). This determination
was based on the amount of habitat and proportion of the rangewide
population still occurring on Vancouver Island, and the importance of
the population there to redundancy and resilience of the subspecies,
rangewide.
The NGRT estimates that Vancouver Island supports 165 (44 to 47
percent) of the 352 to 374 breeding pairs within British Columbia (NGRT
2008, p. 8). Loss of this large percentage of the small population
would clearly result in a meaningful decrease in redundancy across the
DPS. Geographically, Vancouver Island covers 27 percent of the DPS's
range (NGRT 2008, p. 6). Thus, although Vancouver Island comprises
about 25 percent of the DPS's range in British Columbia, it supports
nearly half of the breeding pairs.
Approximately half of the original goshawk habitat remains on
Vancouver Island (USFWS 2008, Table A-10). Goshawks there nest in both
old-growth and mature forest. Nesting densities (as measured by mean
distance between nesting areas) are higher on Vancouver Island than on
the Queen Charlotte Islands or in southeast Alaska (NGRT 2008, p. 8),
suggesting that prey availability is good and other necessary resources
are available. Because the remaining habitat appears to be of high
quality, we believe that the habitat on Vancouver Island contributes
significantly to the resiliency of the DPS, as defined above.
Preliminary genetic results suggest that goshawks on Vancouver
Island may be genetically distinct from goshawks on the Queen Charlotte
Islands (Talbot et al. 2005, pp. 2-3; Talbot 2006, p. 1). These
potentially significant findings, if confirmed, suggest that loss of
the Vancouver Island population would reduce both representation and
resilience of the subspecies, as defined above. This genetic diversity,
for example, may help the subspecies respond and adapt to future
environmental changes, particularly as warmer-adapted forest
communities move northward in response to climate change.
Because the Queen Charlotte goshawk population on Vancouver Island
contributes to the redundancy and resiliency of the British Columbia
DPS, and may provide important genetic representation, we conclude that
Vancouver Island is a significant portion of the DPS.
Threats on Vancouver Island: Approximately 13 percent of the
landscape, but only 9 percent of the productive forest, on Vancouver
Island is protected in reserves (USFWS 2008, Tables A-9 and A-23).
Mature and old-growth forest currently covers approximately 42 percent
of Vancouver Island (USFWS 2008, Table A-21), suggesting that habitat,
on average, is of moderate quality.
We estimate that an additional 16 percent of the productive forest
(or 31 percent of the remaining old-growth forest) is likely to be
harvested over the next 50 years (USFWS 2008, Table A-9), resulting in
a landscape with approximately 35 percent cover by mature and old-
growth forest (USFWS 2008, Table A-24). We consider this poor habitat.
Thus, habitat loss (Factor A) does not pose an immediate threat to the
goshawk population on Vancouver Island, but is likely to become a
significant threat within the foreseeable future.
The NGRT considers threats from habitat loss and fragmentation high
on Vancouver Island (NGRT 2008, p. 16).
There is evidence that goshawks on Vancouver Island hybridize with
the mainland (atricapillus) form of the northern goshawk to a greater
degree than goshawks elsewhere in the DPS or rangewide (Gust et al.
2003, p. 22; Talbot et al. 2005, pp. 2-3; Talbot 2006, p. 1), except
possibly in the ``transition zone'' on the mainland (see discussion
above, under Factors Affecting the British Columbia DPS, Factor E). We
consider Vancouver Island a ``stable hybrid zone'' (Haig et al. 2006,
p. 7), where the laingi phenotype will continue to be represented in
the population.
We do not expect that overutilization (Factor B), predation or
disease (Factor C), inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), or
other threats, such as prey fluctuations or inbreeding depression
(Factor E) will have a disproportionately greater impact on Vancouver
Island than elsewhere in the DPS's range.
We do not believe that habitat loss (Factor A) or hybridization
rates (Factor E) place goshawks on Vancouver Island in imminent threat
of extinction because these threats are of a chronic, long-term
[[Page 56767]]
nature. Continued habitat loss, however, is likely to result in a
progressively smaller, more vulnerable population. Therefore, we have
determined that proposing to list the species on Vancouver Island as
threatened is appropriate.
Queen Charlotte Islands: The Queen Charlotte Islands are believed
to support about 10 to 18 breeding pairs, though few nest during poor
prey years (Doyle 2005, p. 18; Doyle 2007, p. 8; McClaren 2006, p. 8;
NGRT 2008, p. 8). Currently available genetic analyses suggest that the
population there may be unique (Talbot 2006, p.1) and genetically
isolated (Talbot et al. 2005, p. 3). Birds from this population are
also apparently more consistently dark than birds from Vancouver Island
or southeast Alaska (Taverner 1940, p. 160; Beebe 1974, p. 54; Webster
1988, pp. 46-47). This genetic distinctiveness and strength of
phenotypic expression may represent adaptation to a dark, rainforest
habitat; lack of prey in open habitats; a diet dominated by avian prey;
a periodically prey-poor environment; and an absence of immigration by
the mainland subspecies. Loss of this population would eliminate a
small but significant pool of the genetic diversity and perhaps genetic
purity (genetic coding for the small, dark phenotype) within the
subspecies, which could substantially reduce the subspecies'
representation and environmental resilience. We conclude that the Queen
Charlotte Islands are a significant portion of the DPS's range.
Threats on the Queen Charlotte Islands: Habitat loss (Factor A) has
been significant on the Queen Charlotte Islands, where about 27 percent
of the productive forest has been converted to second growth (USFWS
2008, Table A-9). Mature and old-growth forest covers approximately 52
percent of the landscape, providing moderate-quality habitat, on
average (USFWS 2008, Table A-21).
As part of a recent Strategic Land Use Agreement between the Haida
Nation and the Province of British Columbia, new protected areas have
been established and future logging on the Queen Charlotte Islands will
be guided by ``Ecosystem Based Management Objectives'' (BC 2007, pp. 5-
22). These actions are likely to reduce future threats from logging,
but details of the management regime are not yet available.
New protected areas, announced in December 2007, added 628,000 ac
(254,000 ha) of land, including approximately 500,000 ac (202,000 ha)
of productive forest, to the reserves on the Queen Charlotte Islands.
An estimated 38 percent of the productive forest on the islands is now
protected in parks and other reserves (USFWS 2008, Table A-9) where
logging is forbidden. When considered in combination with old-growth
and mature stands retained within the otherwise harvested landscape, we
expect approximately 51 percent of the landscape of the Queen Charlotte
Islands to support mature and old-growth forests in the future (USFWS
2008, Table A-24). This should provide habitat of moderate quality.
Harvest of old growth is expected to continue, but projections of
future logging rates under the new management regime are not yet
available. We anticipate that habitat loss will be less than the 14
percent loss we projected under the previous management regime (USFWS
2007, pp. 99-101; USFWS 2008, Tables A-1, A-13 and A-15). NGRT
considers threats to nesting habitat moderate, but threats to foraging
habitat, and threats from habitat fragmentation, high on the Queen
Charlotte Islands (NGRT 2008, pp. 16-18).
We conclude that habitat loss has been significant and is expected
to continue, although this threat will likely be reduced to an unknown
extent by implementation of ecosystem based management objectives for
logging across the Queen Charlotte Islands. Ongoing logging is
constrained by several mechanisms that protect nesting habitat and some
foraging habitat. Habitat loss, therefore, does not put the Queen
Charlotte Islands at more immediate risk of extinction than elsewhere
in the DPS, because a higher proportion of productive old-growth forest
has been retained on these islands than elsewhere in the DPS.
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B) is not believed to be a significant
risk, and is not expected to contribute to population declines or
extinction risk on the Queen Charlotte Islands. The NGRT considers
these threats of low magnitude (NGRT 2008, pp. 16 and 21).
Disease and predation (Factor C) are not well documented, but small
populations can be vulnerable to diseases (some of which may be
currently unknown or just emerging, such as West Nile virus)
particularly when those populations are simultaneously stressed by
other factors such as prey shortages. The current population is very
small and apparently not supplemented by immigration (Talbot et al.
2005, pp. 2-3) and therefore has limited genetic diversity. This
limited genetic diversity is likely to reduce the population's ability
to survive outbreaks of exotic diseases. Small populations may also be
suppressed by predation. The NGRT considers threats from predation and
disease to be low (NGRT 2008, pp. 16-20), but acknowledges that
addressing impacts from disease may be difficult (NGRT 2008, pp. 17-
21). We conclude that disease and predation do not currently place
goshawks in danger of extinction on the Queen Charlotte Islands, but
may contribute to extinction risk, especially if their effects are
exacerbated by other population stressors such as prey shortages,
habitat limitations, or unfavorable weather (all of which affect
nesting effort).
Most of the existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are similar
to elsewhere in the DPS (as discussed above). We conclude that, as
elsewhere in the DPS, continued development of existing regulatory
mechanisms will be necessary to prevent goshawks on the Queen Charlotte
Islands from becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable
future, but inadequacies of the current regulatory regime do not put
these goshawks in immediate danger of extinction.
Other factors such as competition, natural disasters, loss of
genetic diversity, inbreeding depression, or prey fluctuations (Factor
E) can act alone or in combination to reduce survival or fecundity. The
goshawk population on the Queen Charlotte Islands is very small, with
an estimated 10 to 18 breeding pairs (NGRT 2008, p. 8). In 2007, 9 of
13 known territories were occupied, but only 3 pairs produced young.
This was the highest rate of nest activity observed since intensive
monitoring began in 2000 (Doyle 2007, pp. 5-9). This small population,
which is apparently reproductively isolated from adjacent populations
(Talbot et al. 2005, p. 3), likely has limited ability to adapt to
changes in the environment because its genetic diversity is low. There
is also risk of reduced reproductive success due to inbreeding
depression. Of particular concern is the limited prey available to
goshawks on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Declines in grouse
populations, likely caused by introduced deer and raccoons, have
resulted in heavy reliance on introduced red squirrels, which are known
to fluctuate with cone crops.
The NGRT considers threats from low prey diversity and
availability, and from genetic isolation, to be high, threats from
introduced species to be moderate, and threats from competition and
climate change to be low on the Queen Charlotte Islands (NGRT 2008, pp.
16-20).
[[Page 56768]]
We conclude that goshawks on the Queen Charlotte Islands are
currently in danger of extinction due primarily to demographic factors
(small population size and genetic isolation), which makes them
particularly vulnerable to fluctuations of the few available prey
species, environmental catastrophes, or disease. The small number of
nesting pairs magnifies the impacts of current and potential threats.
We propose, therefore, to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as
endangered on the Queen Charlotte Islands, a significant portion of the
British Columbia DPS's range.
Mainland British Columbia: The NGRT estimates that the British
Columbia coastal mainland covers 64 percent of the subspecies'
geographic range in the DPS, and supports approximately half of the
breeding population in the DPS (NGRT 2008, pp. 6-8). Goshawks from this
portion of the range likely provide immigrants to Vancouver Island, as
goshawks have been documented moving between Vancouver Island and the
mainland (McClaren 2004, p. 3). The mainland could represent a
potential source population, should populations on Vancouver Island
decline. Loss of Queen Charlotte goshawks on the mainland would result
in a significant gap in the subspecies' distribution, and a significant
reduction in the resiliency and redundancy of the British Columbia DPS.
We therefore consider the coastal mainland of British Columbia a
significant portion of the DPS's range.
Threats on mainland British Columbia: Only 43 percent of the
coastal mainland of British Columbia supports productive forest,
compared to 68 percent on the Queen Charlotte Islands and 78 percent on
Vancouver Island. Approximately 19 percent of that productive forest
has been converted to young second growth, resulting in a landscape
with only 30 percent cover by mature and old-growth forest (USFWS 2008,
Table A-21), which we consider to be habitat of poor to moderate
quality. Within that landscape, however, we expect that there are areas
of varying sizes with greater forest cover that provide higher quality
habitat.
We believe that goshawks on the mainland can successfully use
landscapes with lower coverage of mature and old-growth forest than
goshawks on the islands, because snowshoe hares and hoary marmots
(Marmota caligata), which are adapted to open habitats, inhabit the
mainland coast, but not the islands (Nagorsen 2002, pp. 92-93 and 100).
The Vancouver Island marmot (Marmota vancouverensis) inhabits a
relatively small area on the south central portion of Vancouver Island
(Nagorsen 2002, p. 103). We do not believe that this species is a
significant prey source for most goshawks on Vancouver Island because
of its restricted distribution. Because prey that use open habitats are
widely distributed on the mainland, we consider landscapes with 30 to
50 percent cover by mature and old-growth forest moderate-quality
habitat for goshawks there.
As on the Queen Charlotte Islands, future timber harvest in two of
the six forest districts on the mainland (North Coast and Central
Coast) will be by ``Ecosystem Based Management,'' details of which have
not yet been finalized (BCMAL 2006, pp. 2-3).
If productive forest outside designated parks and other reserves is
retained in the otherwise logged matrix at a rate similar to on the
Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island (because of inoperable
ground and retention to protect non-timber resources), we estimate that
4 million ac (1.7 million ha) of old-growth forest will remain
available for harvest on the mainland (USFWS 2008, Table A-22). Harvest
of this old-growth forest would result in a landscape of approximately
22 percent mature and old-growth forest (USFWS 2008, Table A-24). We
believe that this would, on average, be poor-quality habitat. As in
other portions of the Queen Charlotte goshawk's range, some areas would
likely provide tracts of higher quality habitat, and some areas would
be unsuitable for goshawks. The NGRT considers threats from habitat
loss and fragmentation to be moderate in the southern portion of the
mainland and low to moderate in the northern portion (NGRT 2008, p.
16). We conclude that habitat loss (Factor A) does not appear to place
goshawks on the coastal mainland of British Columbia in imminent danger
of extinction, but continued loss of old-growth habitat is likely to
reduce habitat quality and contribute to population declines in the
foreseeable future.
We do not expect overutilization (Factor B), predation or disease
(Factor C), inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), or other
threats, such as prey fluctuations, climate change, natural disasters,
or inbreeding depression (Factor E) to have disproportionately greater
impacts on the mainland than elsewhere in the DPS's range. The NGRT
considers each of these threats to be low on the mainland, except that
they consider threats from low prey availability moderate in the
southern portion of the mainland (NGRT 2008, p. 16).
It is likely that Queen Charlotte goshawks on the mainland
encounter the mainland (atricapillus) subspecies of the northern
goshawk, and that some hybridization occurs, although we are aware of
no documentation to confirm this hypothesis. The NGRT considers the
drier coastal western hemlock zones on the mainland to be transitional
areas between subspecies. As on Vancouver Island, we believe these
areas to be stable hybrid zones where the laingi form will persist
unless changes in habitat favoring the atricapillus form occur. Such
changes could conceivably be caused by factors such as climate change
or timber harvest. Our current understanding of climate change effects
is inadequate to allow predictions concerning competitive advantages
that may result. Likewise, we are unable to conclude that timber
harvest will favor one subspecies over another.
We do not believe that habitat loss (Factor A) or hybridization
rates (Factor E) place Queen Charlotte goshawks on the mainland in
imminent danger of extinction because these threats are of a chronic,
long-term nature. Continued habitat loss, however, is likely to result
in poor-quality habitat across a large portion of the range, leading to
a progressively smaller, more vulnerable population in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future. Therefore, listing as threatened
is appropriate.
In summary, we find that the Queen Charlotte goshawk on the coastal
mainland and on Vancouver Island and the surrounding, smaller islands
of southern British Columbia is not at imminent risk of extinction, but
is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
We therefore propose to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk population in
those areas as threatened. We find that because of its small population
size and genetic isolation, the Queen Charlotte goshawk population on
the Queen Charlotte Islands (an area also known as Haida Gwaii) is at
imminent risk of extinction. We therefore propose to list the Queen
Charlotte goshawk in this significant portion of the range as
endangered. However, it is possible that, with further analysis, we may
limit our determination on the status of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk to
the DPS level only. That is, we may list the entire DPS as either
threatened or endangered in the final rule.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition (through listing),
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in
[[Page 56769]]
public awareness, and encourages conservation actions by Federal and
State governments, private agencies and groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas, and consult
with the Service with respect to any species that is proposed or listed
as endangered or threatened, and with respect to its critical habitat,
if any is designated. Because the British Columbia DPS of the Queen
Charlotte goshawk is entirely outside the United States, and is not
``on the high seas,'' section 7 of the Act does not apply to this DPS.
Therefore, there will be no requirement to evaluate management actions
or consult with the Service. Further, we cannot designate critical
habitat in foreign countries (50 CFR 424.12(h)), so we are not
proposing critical habitat for the DPS.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited
financial assistance for the development and management of programs
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to
encourage conservation programs for foreign threatened and endangered
species, and to provide assistance for such programs in the form of
personnel and training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31,
in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to ``take'' (take includes harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt any
of these) within the United States or upon the high seas; import or
export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered or threatened
wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation
of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies. These prohibitions would not apply to the Queen
Charlotte goshawk within the British Columbia DPS, except as they apply
to import into the United States or foreign commerce.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and 17.32 for threatened species. Permits
may be issued for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' that was
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding
this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The regulation will not
impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may not
conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice
outlining our reasons for this determination was published in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Order 12866 and 12988, and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must: (a) Be logically
organized; (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly; (c)
Use clear language rather than jargon; (d) Be divided into short
sections and sentences; and, (e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
References Cited
A list of the references used to develop this proposed rule is
available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is Steve Brockmann, Juneau
Fish and Wildlife Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding two new entries for ``Goshawk,
Queen Charlotte'' in alphabetical order under BIRDS to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 56770]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where
Historic range endangered or Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goshawk, Queen Charlotte Accipiter gentilis Canada (That portion of Entire, except Queen T NA NA
laingi British Columbia that Charlotte Islands
includes Vancouver Island
and its surrounding islands,
the mainland coast west of
the crest of the Coast
Range, and the Queen
Charlotte Islands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goshawk, Queen Charlotte Accipiter gentilis Canada (That portion of Queen Charlotte E NA NA
laingi British Columbia that Islands
includes Vancouver Island
and its surrounding islands,
the mainland coast west of
the crest of the Coast
Range, and the Queen
Charlotte Islands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: October 20, 2009.
Sam D. Hamilton,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9-26154 Filed 11-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S