Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14062-14165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5042]

[[Page 14061]]

Vol. 77

Thursday,

No. 46

March 8, 2012

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat
for the Northern Spotted Owl; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 14062]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R1-ES-2011-0112; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX69

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical
Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to
revise the designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl
(Strix occidentalis caurina) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). Consistent with the best scientific data available,
the standards of the Act, our regulations, and agency practice, we have
initially identified, for public comment, approximately 13,962,449
acres (ac) (5,649,660 hectares (ha)) in 11 units and 63 subunits in
California, Oregon, and Washington that meet the definition of critical
habitat. In addition, however, the Act provides the Secretary with the
discretion to exclude certain areas from the final designation after
taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. We have identified and are considering a
number of specific alternatives in this proposed rulemaking based on
potential exclusions from the final rule. First, of the total area
identified, we propose to exclude from the final designation
approximately 2,631,736 ac (1,065,026 ha) of National Park lands,
Federal Wilderness Areas, and other Congressionally reserved natural
areas, as well as 164,776 ac (66,682 ha) of State Park lands. Second,
we propose to exclude from a final designation approximately 936,816 ac
(379,116 ha) of State and private lands that have a Habitat
Conservation Plan, Safe Harbor Agreement, conservation easement, or
similar conservation protection. And third, we are considering
exclusion of an additional 838,344 ac (339,266 ha) of other non-Federal
lands from the final designation.
These specific alternatives will be considered on an individual
basis or in any combination thereof. In addition, the final designation
may not be limited to these alternatives, but may also consider other
exclusions as a result of continuing analysis of relevant
considerations (both scientific and economic, as required by the Act)
and the public comment process. In particular, we solicit comments from
the public on the physical and biological features currently identified
in this proposal as being essential for the conservation of the
species, whether all of the areas identified meet the definition of
critical habitat, whether other areas would meet that definition,
whether to make the specific exclusions we have proposed, and whether
there are other areas that are appropriate for exclusion.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June
6, 2012. Please note that if you are submitting comments
electronically, the deadline is midnight Eastern Standard Time on this
date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by April
23, 2012. At this time we are anticipating holding a total of at least
three public information meetings, one each in the States of
California, Oregon, and Washington, on this proposed rule. The dates
and times of these meetings will be announced concurrent with the
notice of availability of the draft economic analysis on this proposed
revised designation of critical habitat and reopening of the public
comment period. Public information meetings allow the public the
opportunity to learn and ask questions about the proposed critical
habitat designation, as well as the draft economic analysis. An
information meeting is not the same as a public hearing, which allows
the public to submit comments for the official record, but generally
does not provide for the exchange of information between the public and
representatives of the agency. Comments may always be submitted,
however, either electronically or by mail (see ADDRESSES) during any
open public comment period.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2011-0112, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2011-0112; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; 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: Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE
98th Ave, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266; telephone 503-231-6179;
facsimile 503-231-6195. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

The purpose of this proposed revised critical habitat designation
is: (1) To identify those geographic areas occupied at the time of
listing that contain the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the spotted owl; (2) to determine whether these
features may require special management considerations or protection
and provide general information on the types of management that may be
appropriate consistent with the conservation of the owl; and (3) to
identify any areas that may have been unoccupied at the time of
listing, but that are nonetheless essential to the conservation and
recovery of the owl. This proposed revised designation of critical
habitat identifies all of the areas that we have initially determined
meet the definition of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.
Federal lands comprise the strong majority of the area, but some State
and private lands are also identified.
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, Federal agencies must, in
consultation with and with the assistance of the Service, ensure that
any action authorized, funded or carried out by that Federal agency is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species
(this is referred to as the ``jeopardy standard''). Once finalized, the
effect of designation of critical habitat for a listed species is to
require that Federal agencies additionally ensure that their actions
are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
that critical habitat. In areas where northern spotted owls occur,
including areas identified as meeting the definition of critical
habitat in this proposed rule, Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management are already

[[Page 14063]]

consulting with the Service on the potential effects of their proposed
actions under the ``jeopardy standard,'' regardless of whether these
lands are currently designated as critical habitat. Aside from this
requirement specific to Federal agencies, critical habitat designations
do not provide additional regulatory protection for a species on non-
Federal lands, unless the proposed activities involve Federal funding
or permitting. In other words, designation of private or other non-
Federal lands as critical habitat has no direct regulatory impact
unless there is such a Federal connection. Although we anticipate that
the effects on private landowners would not be significant, we
acknowledge that there may be significant benefits to excluding private
lands; we particularly request comments on whether and to what extent
excluding such lands would be consistent with the Act.
While we have initially identified 13,962,449 ac (5,649,660 ha) of
lands in the States of Washington, Oregon, and California that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, it is
important to emphasize that for several reasons, the number of acres
actually included in the final designation may vary significantly from
what is in this proposed revised designation. First, our conclusions as
to what areas meet the Act's definition of ``critical habitat'' may
change based on public comment and further analysis. Second, we may
determine that military lands proposed for designation may qualify for
an exemption from designation pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the
Act. Third, the Secretary may exclude certain areas from the final
designation based on a thorough balancing analysis, including
consideration of economic impacts, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. In all cases, and without prejudging the consideration of further
analysis and public comments, we anticipate a final designation that
may be significantly smaller than the area currently identified.
The Act provides that critical habitat shall be designated after
taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act provides that the
Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of excluding that area outweigh the benefits of
including it in the designation, unless such an exclusion would result
in the extinction of the species. This ``weighing'' of considerations
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act is the next step in the designation
process, in which the Secretary may consider particular areas for
exclusion from the final designation. In this proposed rule, we have
already identified 4,571,672 ac (1,850,090 ha) of lands that we will
specifically consider for exclusion from the final designation of
critical habitat.
The final designation may reflect a variety of possible
combinations of exclusions. The public is invited to comment on the
possible exclusion of any areas proposed, but in particular those areas
we have identified as those we propose to exclude and those we may
additionally consider for exclusion from the final designation of
critical habitat. After evaluating public comment and carefully
analyzing and weighing all appropriate factors, a variety of potential
outcomes are possible in the final designation.
This proposed revised critical habitat designation includes a
diverse forest landscape that contains several different forest
ecosystems and thousands of plant and animal species. Consistent with
the best available science and the adaptive management principles
outlined in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, we
strongly encourage the application of ecosystem management principles
and active forest management to ensure the long-term conservation of
the northern spotted owl and its habitat, as well as other species
dependent on these shared ecosystems. While proposed Federal actions
must comply with requirements of the Act, actions with some short-term
adverse impacts to spotted owls and critical habitat, but whose effect
is to conserve or restore natural ecological processes and enhance
forest resilience in the long term, should generally be consistent with
the goals of critical habitat management. These management approaches
are intended to be consistent with the principles of Executive Order
13563, which, as noted, directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public. E.O. 13563 also further emphasizes that the
rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. To the extent feasible and consistent with law, the
Service will seek to ensure that the process of designating critical
habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl will be based on the open exchange
of information and perspectives among State, local, and tribal
officials, experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in
the private sector, and the public as a whole.

Overview of Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

The northern spotted owl (also variously referred to as simply
``spotted owl'' or ``owl'' in this document) was originally listed as
threatened under the Act because of loss of its older growth forest
habitat and a declining population (55 FR 26114, June 26, 1990). More
recently, competition with barred owls (Strix varia) has emerged as a
significant additional threat to spotted owl conservation. Experimental
management of the barred owl threat is being addressed through a
separate decision making process, as discussed further below.
One requirement of the Act, under section 7(a)(2), is that Federal
agencies must, in consultation with and with the assistance of the
Service, ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by
that Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species (this is referred to as the ``jeopardy standard'').
Once finalized, the effect of designation of critical habitat for a
listed species is to add an independent requirement that Federal
agencies ensure that their actions are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat. Thus, in
areas where northern spotted owls occur, including most areas included
in this proposed rule, Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are already consulting with
the Service on the potential effects of their proposed actions under
the ``jeopardy standard,'' regardless of whether these lands are
currently designated as critical habitat. Aside from this requirement
specific to Federal agencies, critical habitat designations do not
provide additional regulatory protection for a species on non-Federal
lands, unless the activities proposed involve Federal funding or
permitting. In other words, designation of private or other non-Federal
lands as critical habitat has no direct regulatory impact on the use of
that land unless there is such a Federal connection. Identifying non-
Federal lands that are essential to the conservation of a species may
nonetheless be relevant, in that it alerts State and local government
agencies and private landowners to the value of the habitat, and may
help facilitate voluntary conservation partnerships such as Safe Harbor
Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans that may contribute to the
recovery and delisting of the species.
To comply with the statutory requirements of the Act, we begin by
identifying the areas that meet the

[[Page 14064]]

definition of ``critical habitat.'' Notably, however, section 4 of the
Act also requires us to consider the economic impacts, impacts on
national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular areas as critical habitat before we make our final
designation. This process is summarized below in the section An
Introductory Background of the Critical Habitat Process, and is
detailed in the Exclusions section of this document.
In general, we recommend that critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl should follow these basic management recommendations
(detailed further in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted
Owl, USFWS 2011; hereafter ``Revised Recovery Plan''):
1. Conserve the older growth, high quality and occupied forest
habitat as necessary to meet recovery goals.
2. Implement science-based, active vegetation management to restore
forest health, especially in drier forests in the eastern and southern
portions of the owl's range.
3. Encourage landscape-level planning and vegetation management
that allow historical ecological processes, such as characteristic fire
regimes and natural forest succession, to occur on these landscapes
throughout the range of the owl. This approach has the best chance of
resulting in forests that are resilient to future changes that may
arise due to climate change.
These general recommendations are consistent with the underlying
purpose of the Act. Section 2(b) of the Act states, in part: ``The
purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon
which endangered species and threatened species depend may be
conserved.'' A fundamental goal of critical habitat management is not
only to conserve the listed species, but also to conserve the ecosystem
upon which that species depends. This is the case with the northern
spotted owl.
An ``ecosystem'' is a biological community of interacting organisms
and their physical environment, or as the complex of a community of
organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit (Krebs
1972, pp. 10-11; Ricklefs 1979, pp. 31-32, 869). These ecosystem
interactions and functions are often referred to as ecological
``relationships'' or ``processes.'' Thus, to conserve the northern
spotted owl as directed by the Act, one must also conserve the
ecological processes that occur within the ecological landscape
inhabited by the species. These natural processes--such as vegetation
succession, forest fire regimes, and nutrient cycling--create and shape
the physical and biological features that form the foundation of
critical habitat. A complex interaction of physical and biological
factors contribute to the development and maintenance of these
ecosystems, which in turn provide the northern spotted owl with the
environmental conditions required for its conservation and survival. A
fundamental goal of critical habitat management should thus be to
understand, describe, and conserve these processes. This ``ecosystem
approach'' of management will ultimately have the highest likelihood of
conserving listed species such as the northern spotted owl in the long
term (Knight 1998, p. 43).
Service policy also endorses this approach: ``Species will be
conserved best not by a species-by-species approach but by an ecosystem
conservation strategy that transcends individual species'' (59 FR
34724, July 1, 1994). The Service considers this ecosystem approach in
critical habitat designations for other listed species (e.g., in Hawaii
(75 FR 18960, April 13, 2010; 76 FR 46362, August 2, 2011)). Likewise,
the U.S. Forest Service, which manages the great majority of the
proposed revised areas initially meeting the definition of northern
spotted owl critical habitat, has prioritized restoring and maintaining
natural ecological function and resiliency to its forest lands (Blate
et al. 2009, entire; USDA 2010, entire; Tidwell 2011, entire). Active
management of critical habitat is intended to be fully compatible and
consistent with these landscape-level ecosystem conservation efforts.
This proposed revised critical habitat designation includes a
diverse forest landscape that contains several different forest
ecosystems and thousands of plant and animal species. It ranges from
dry, fire-prone forests to moist old-growth conifer forest to a mix of
conifers and hardwood trees. Thousands of species occur in these forest
ecosystems, including other listed species with very specific
biological needs. Prescribed management for all of these needs at the
species level on large landscapes will raise a number of challenges
(Thompson et al. 2009, p. 29). Many scientists believe a single-species
approach to forest management is limited and that land managers need to
focus on broader landscape goals that address ecosystem process and
future habitat conditions (see, e.g., Thomas et al. 2006, p. 286; Boyd
et al. 2008, p. 42; Hobbs et al. 2010, p. 487; Mori 2011, pp. 289-290).
We strongly encourage the application of ecosystem management
principles and active forest management to ensure the long-term
conservation of the northern spotted owl and its habitat, as well as
other species dependent on these shared ecosystems.
Another important development that would inform spotted owl
critical habitat management involves changes in forestry science.
Emulating natural disturbance regimes is emerging as a dominant
paradigm in North American forest management (Seymour and Hunter 1999,
p. 56; Long 2009, p. 1868). This change is occurring in response to (1)
the simplification of forests in terms of structure, age-class
diversity, and species composition as a result of management for timber
production and (2) a recognition of fundamental changes in ecosystem
function and processes due to land management practices, especially
fire and successional patterns (Franklin et al. 2002, pp. 402-408;
Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 134-135; Drever et al. 2006, p. 2291).
Although active vegetation management is unlikely to precisely mimic
natural forest disturbance in all ways, it can be used to better
maintain the resilience of landscapes and wildlife populations to
respond to natural disturbance and climate change (Lindenmayer et al.
2008, p. 87). In general, silviculture prescriptions that apply
ecological forestry principles to address the conservation of broader
ecological processes are compatible with maintaining the proposed
critical habitat's essential features in the long term (USFWS 2011, p.
III-14).
Explicitly prescribing such management at a fine scale (e.g.,
forest stand level) is beyond the scope of this document and should be
developed at the appropriate land management unit (e.g., National
Forest or BLM District; USDA 2010, entire) and through consultation
with the Service, as appropriate. While proposed Federal actions must
comply with requirements of section 7 of the Act, which requires
consideration of short as well as long-term impacts to species and
their critical habitat, as described below and in the Revised Recovery
Plan, management actions with some short term adverse impacts to
spotted owls and critical habitat, but whose effect is to conserve or
restore natural ecological processes and enhance forest resilience in
the long term, should generally be consistent with the goals of
critical habitat management (USFWS 2011, p. III 11-39). The Service has
recently approved these types of management actions in occupied spotted
owl habitat on BLM and USFS lands.
Specific considerations for managing within spotted owl critical
habitat are discussed in more detail in the Special Management
Considerations and

[[Page 14065]]

Adverse Modification sections later in this document. In sum,
vegetation and fuels management in dry and mixed-dry forests is
strongly encouraged both within and outside designated critical habitat
where the effect of such treatment is to conserve natural ecological
processes or restore them (including fire) where they have been
modified or suppressed (Allen et al. 2002, pp. 1429-1430; Spies et al.
2006, pp. 358-361; Fielder et al. 2007, entire; Prather et al. 2008,
entire; Lindenmayer et al. 2009, p. 274; Tidwell 2011, entire).
Likewise, in moist and some mixed forests, management of spotted owl
critical habitat should be compatible with broader ecological goals,
such as the retention of high-quality older forest, the continued
treatment of young or homogenous forest plantations, and the
conservation or restoration of complex early seral forest habitat
(Spies et al. 2007b, pp. 57-63; Betts et al. 2010, pp. 2117, 2126-2127;
Swanson et al. 2010, entire). In general, actions that promote
ecological restoration and those that apply ecological forestry
principles as described in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, pp.
III-11 to III-41) and later in this document are likely to be
consistent with the conservation of the northern spotted owl and the
management of its critical habitat.
In conclusion, the designation and management of critical habitat
for the spotted owl must be compatible with these broader landscape
management goals if it is to conserve the spotted owl as required by
the Act. It is therefore important to emphasize that spotted owl
critical habitat should not be a ``hands off'' reserve in the
traditional sense. Rather, it should be a ``hands on'' ecosystem
management landscape that should include a mix of active and passive
actions to meet a variety of forest conservation goals that support
long-term spotted owl conservation. It would be inconsistent with the
stated purposes of the Act, the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011), and
the goals of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) if spotted owl critical
habitat was narrowly managed and, in so doing, discouraged land
managers from implementing scientifically justified measures for
conserving forest ecosystem functions and health.

An Introductory Background of the Critical Habitat Process

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act specifies that the Service shall
designate critical habitat for endangered or threatened species and
may, from time-time thereafter as appropriate, revise such designation.
Critical habitat is defined as (1) specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the listed species and which may
require special management considerations or protection, and (2)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed that are essential for the conservation of a
listed species. Our regulations direct us to focus on the ``primary
constituent elements,'' or PCEs, in identifying these physical or
biological features.
As part of our rulemaking process, we identify what types of
activities on Federal lands, or what activities involving a Federal
nexus, may be affected within the proposed critical habitat area and
would require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Although
we are in the process of developing an economic analysis specific to
this proposed revision of critical habitat, the economic analysis for
the 2008 designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl
may be informative in terms of providing the categories of activities
identified as those that may be affected within critical habitat. For
the 2008 critical habitat, those initially included: (1) Timber
management, (2) barred owl management and control, (3) northern spotted
owl surveys and monitoring, (4) fire management, (5) linear projects
(i.e., transportation, pipelines, and powerlines), (6) restoration, and
(7) recreation. However, the effects on fire management, linear
projects, restoration, and recreation were found to range from minimal
to none. As a consequence, the 2008 economic analysis concluded that
there were four categories of potential impacts from critical habitat
for the northern spotted owl: (1) Impacts to timber management; (2)
impacts to survey and monitoring activities; (3) impacts to barred owl
management; and (4) costs related to consultations under section 7 of
the Act.
Some specific examples of timber management and commercial timber
harvesting activities that may be affected by the designation of
critical habitat include, but are not limited to: Traditional
clearcutting; targeted variable retention harvest; pre-commercial or
commercial thinning; variable thinning in single-story, uniform forest
stands; reduction of fuels in order to reduce the effect of wildfires;
hazard tree removal; removal of younger, shade-intolerant conifers to
reduce competition with larger, legacy conifers; and silvicultural
treatments. Some of these activities may have short-term negative
impacts to the owl, but long-term benefits by creating higher quality
habitat. These activities and possible effects are discussed below in
more detail (see Effects of Critical Habitat Designation, Section 7
Consultation). As described in this proposed rule, we anticipate that,
in general, actions that promote ecological restoration and those that
apply ecological forestry principles as described in the Revised
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, pp. III-11 to III-41) and later in this
document are likely to be consistent with the conservation of the
northern spotted owl and the management of its critical habitat.
Any proposed designation of critical habitat begins with the
identification of all specific areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection (this
applies to areas occupied at the time of listing), and all areas that
the Secretary has otherwise determined to be essential to the
conservation of the species (this applies to areas unoccupied by the
species at the time of listing). The initial identification of these
lands is based on the best available scientific information. After we
have identified the lands that meet the definition of ``critical
habitat,'' we consider the potential economic, national security, or
other relevant impacts of the designation. Under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we may identify any lands for which we believe the benefits of
exclusion may outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and solicit public
comment on our consideration of those particular lands for exclusion or
exemption from the final designation, as we have done in this proposed
rule.
In addition, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act species that the
Secretary shall not designate any lands as critical habitat owned or
controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use,
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan
(INRMP) if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides
a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation. Such lands may be exempted from the designation of
critical habitat, which is a separate process from the exclusion of
lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

The Critical Habitat Process for the Proposed Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl

For this proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, we used the integrated habitat conservation
planning framework developed in the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted

[[Page 14066]]

Owl (USFWS 2011, Appendix C) as one key source of information. This
framework integrates a spotted owl habitat model, a habitat
conservation planning model, and a population simulation model that
collectively allowed us to compare estimated spotted owl population
performance among alternative habitat conservation network scenarios
under a variety of potential conditions. This process specifically
incorporated consideration of the physical or biological features and
allowed us to determine the quantity and distribution or spatial
arrangement of these features that are essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl. It also assisted us in identifying habitat
that may have been unoccupied at the time of listing but is essential
to the species' conservation. Additionally, it allowed us to consider
the effect of variables such as habitat change over time and density of
barred owls, as well as to evaluate the effect of including different
configurations of landownership in the scenarios considered.
Consistent with our statutory obligation to consider the best
available science in making decisions, our evaluation of spotted owl
population performance, based on various habitat configurations tested,
required that we make assumptions regarding some of the model inputs,
for example the interaction rate between northern spotted owls and
barred owls (all assumptions are explicitly identified in Dunk et al.
2012). Given that critical habitat cannot be expected to ameliorate
non-habitat based stressors to spotted owl populations, it was
necessary to establish reasonable assumptions regarding barred owl
encounter rates (the probability that a given spotted owl territory
also has barred owls present) that we believed could, along with
critical habitat designation, lead to recovery of the northern spotted
owl. Absent such an assumption, it would not be possible to identify
those areas essential to the conservation of the owl, as the negative
effect of barred owls would essentially mask the positive effect of
habitat on spotted owl populations. Therefore, as part of the critical
habitat modeling process, we established region-specific barred owl
encounter rates based on preliminary analyses conducted as part of the
modeling process (Dunk et al. 2012) and barred owl encounter
probabilities estimated from long-term demographic study areas (Forsman
et al. 2011) within each modeling region. In some areas, we maintained
barred owl encounter rates at current levels or allowed them to
increase slightly. In others, we used encounter rates that were less
than current levels, but at levels we believed could potentially be
maintained through management activities.
It is important to recognize that the barred owl encounter
probabilities we established for modeling purposes do not represent
predictions about conditions that will be achieved through management
actions, or that they are an estimate of what is likely to occur in the
future. Instead, the assumed barred owl encounter probabilities were
used to identify the critical habitat that is essential to recovery of
the northern spotted owl, assuming that other, non-habitat based
threats to the species have been addressed. We invite public comment on
the process we used to evaluate barred owl effects on critical habitat.
The Service is currently in the process of preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will serve as the basis for a
decision on whether to move forward with a study on the experimental
removal of barred owls. We will release the EIS for public review and
comment in the near future. If we decide to proceed with this study, we
will likely implement it over a period of approximately 4 to 10 years.
Furthermore, if we decide to proceed with this experimental removal
study, that decision will not include a determination on whether or how
barred owls would be managed in the long term; we will make that
decision only after further evaluation of the results from our initial
study. Barred owls are already present across most, if not all, of the
landscape being proposed as revised critical habitat, and in many cases
both spotted owls and barred owls are occupying the same forest lands.
By designating additional habitat distributed across the range of the
subspecies, our goal is to increase the likelihood that spotted owls
will be able to persist in areas where barred owls are also present.
With regard to how possible future management of the barred owl could
affect the need for critical habitat for the spotted owl, if, through
experimental removal studies or otherwise, we learn how to manage
barred owls for the benefit of spotted owls, and if such management
efforts are undertaken and result in a reduction in the amount of
habitat essential to the conservation of the northern spotted owl, the
Service may at that point consider revising critical habitat.
Each of the three models used in our integrated conservation
planning framework helped identify an important element of the
statutory definition of critical habitat: The identification of
physical or biological features needed by the northern spotted owl, and
the distribution of those features across the geographical range of the
species; and the identification of a landscape configuration where
these features, as well as any necessary unoccupied areas, are
essential to the conservation of the species. In all cases, we
attempted to maximize reliance on public lands, looking first to
Federal lands and secondarily to State lands, and incorporated private
lands only when Federal and State lands were insufficient to meet the
recovery needs of the species. We then evaluated the population
performance of each habitat configuration considered against the
recovery criteria as set forth in the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, p. ix).
Following the application of the modeling framework, we further
refined the model-based map units after considering land-ownership
patterns, interagency coordination, and best professional judgment,
with the objective of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of
the critical habitat proposal. We again used the population simulation
model to evaluate whether the habitat network, as refined, continued to
provide what is essential to the conservation of the northern spotted
owl. The details of this process are presented in this proposed rule in
the section ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat,'' and are
provided in greater detail in our supporting document ``Modeling and
Analysis Procedures Used to Identify and Evaluate Potential Critical
Habitat Networks for the Northern Spotted Owl,'' (Dunk et al. 2012),
available online at http://www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES), or by
contacting our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). The latter document in particular describes the
specific assumptions and uncertainties associated with the modeling
process, and we invite public comment on these assumptions and
uncertainties. We further invite public comment on those areas we have
identified here as providing the physical or biological features
essential the conservation of the owl, or that have been otherwise
determined to be essential to the conservation of the species.
As a result of this process, this proposed revised designation of
critical habitat includes all of the areas that we have determined meet
the definition of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.
Federal lands comprise the majority of the proposed revised
designation, but some State and private

[[Page 14067]]

lands are also identified. As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
we have used the best scientific data available to identify those areas
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was
listed, on which are found those physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection. In addition, the
Secretary has determined that some areas in a small subset of the
proposed revised designation may not have been occupied at the time of
listing, but these areas are nevertheless essential to the conservation
of the species. While we conclude that the vast majority of lands
included in the proposed designation were occupied at the time of
listing for the reasons discussed below, we also evaluated them as if
they were not occupied and have tentatively determined that all of
these lands are essential to the conservation of the species. Based on
the standards of the Act and our implementing regulations, we have
initially identified 13,962,449 acres (5,649,660 ha) of lands in the
States of Washington, Oregon, and California that meet the definition
of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.
The specific areas actually included in the final designation may
vary significantly from what is in this proposed revised designation
for several reasons. First, our conclusions as to what areas meet the
Act's definition of ``critical habitat'' may change based on public
comment and further analysis. Second, we may determine that military
lands proposed for designation may qualify for an exemption from
designation pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. As described
below under ``Exemptions,'' Joint Base Lewis-McChord in the State of
Washington is currently in the process of revising its INRMP, and is
under consideration for exemption from the final designation of
critical habitat. Third, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude certain areas from the final designation based on a thorough
balancing analysis pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In all
cases, we anticipate a final designation that may be smaller than the
current proposed revised designation. The proposed revised designation
may be taken as a maximum in the sense that, in no case, with the
exception of minor boundary adjustments, would the final designation
include lands not included in the proposed rule without first providing
the opportunity for public notice and comments with respect to such
additional lands.
As described above, the Act provides that critical habitat shall be
designated after taking into consideration the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act provides that the Secretary may exclude any area from critical
habitat if he determines that the benefits of excluding that area
outweigh the benefits of including it in the designation, unless such
an exclusion would result in the extinction of the species. This
``weighing'' of considerations under section 4(b)(2) of the Act is the
next step in the designation process, in which the Secretary may
consider particular areas for exclusion from the final designation. In
this proposed revised designation of critical habitat, we have already
identified 4,571,672 ac (1,850,090 ha) of lands that we will consider
for exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat. We note
that Executive Order 13563 states that to the extent permitted by law,
each agency must ``tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,'' and that
each agency ``shall identify and consider regulatory burdens that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the
public.''
The final designation may reflect a variety of possible
combinations of exclusions (We note that in 1991, the initial proposal
was for 11.6 million acres of critical habitat (May 6, 1991, 56 FR
20816), but the final rule identified 6.9 million acres (January 15,
1992, 57 FR 1796), a decrease of 40 percent). The public is invited to
comment on the possible exclusion of any areas proposed, but in
particular those areas we have identified as those we propose to
exclude and those we may additionally consider to exclude from the
final designation of critical habitat. After evaluating public comment
and carefully analyzing and weighing all appropriate factors, a variety
of potential outcomes is possible in the final designation. The
following represents a range of some possible outcomes that may result
from the critical habitat designation process. In all cases, and
without prejudging the consideration of further analysis and public
comments, we anticipate a final designation that may be significantly
smaller than the currently identified area. We emphasize that these are
possible outcomes and that we seek comments on alternatives, including
those that may involve additional exclusions beyond those specifically
identified in this proposal.
Possible Outcome 1. Finalize critical habitat on all lands
described as meeting the definition of critical habitat in this
proposed revised designation. This outcome would result if the
Secretary determines, following public comment and consideration of all
possible exclusions and exemptions, that all of the areas proposed as
revised critical habitat still meet the definition of critical habitat,
and no areas are excluded or exempted from the final designation. In
this outcome, the final designation would be 13,962,449 ac (5,649,660
ha).
Possible Outcome 2. Finalize critical habitat by excluding all
private and State lands with active conservation agreements (HCPS,
SHAs, and other formal agreements) in place, identified here as
proposed for exclusion based on a through balancing analysis under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Table 1). This outcome would result if,
following public comment and consideration of all possible exclusions,
the Secretary determined that, of all of the areas identified here for
consideration for possible exclusion, the benefits of excluding those
areas with formal conservation agreements that support conservation of
the northern spotted owl would be greater than the benefits of
including those areas in critical habitat, and if exclusion of those
areas did not result in the extinction of the species. In this outcome,
the final designation would be 13,025,633 ac (5,271,287 ha).
Possible Outcome 3. Finalize critical habitat by excluding all
private and State lands with active conservation agreements (HCPs,
SHAs, and other formal agreements) in place, all State parks, and all
Congressionally reserved natural areas (e.g., wilderness areas,
national scenic areas, national parks) based on a through balancing
analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Table 1). This outcome
would result if, following public comment and consideration of all
possible exclusions, the Secretary determined that of all of the areas
identified here as proposed for exclusion, the benefits of excluding
those areas with formal conservation agreements that support
conservation of the northern spotted owl, as well as the benefits of
excluding those State parks and Federal natural areas managed as parks
or wilderness, would be greater than the benefits of including those
areas in critical habitat, and if exclusion of those areas did not
result in the extinction of the species. In this outcome, the final
designation would be 10,229,121 ac (4,139,578 ha). Figures 1

[[Page 14068]]

through 3 demonstrate what the final critical habitat designation would
be if all exclusions proposed in this proposed revised rule were
finalized.
Possible Outcome 4. Finalize critical habitat by excluding all
private lands, all State lands, and all Congressionally reserved
natural areas based on a through balancing analysis under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Table 1). This outcome would result if,
following public comment and consideration of all possible exclusions,
the Secretary determined that of all of the areas identified here for
consideration for possible exclusion, the benefits of excluding all
private lands, State lands, and Federal natural areas managed as parks
or wilderness would be greater than the benefits of including those
areas in critical habitat. In this outcome, the final designation would
be 9,390,777 ac (3,800,313 ha).
We emphasize that there may be significant benefits to excluding
private lands; we particularly request comments on whether and to what
extent excluding such lands would be consistent with the Act.
There is, of course, a Possible Outcome 5, which would involve
greater exclusions than those identified in Possible Outcome 4. As
noted, we request public comments on any such potential exclusions, and
the underlying law and science that would support such exclusions. In
considering the various possible outcomes, we will focus on the
requirements of the Act and to the extent consistent with law, the
requirements of Executive Order 13563 and in particular its emphasis on
public participation, on imposing the least burden on society, and on
maintaining flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.

Table 1--Lands Proposed or Considered for Exclusion From the Final
Critical Habitat Designation Under Various Possible Outcomes of This
Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres (hectares)
proposed or Acres (hectares) in
considered for potential final
exclusion designation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible Outcome 1:
No exclusions........... .................... 13,962,449 ac
(5,649,660 ha)
Possible Outcome 2:
Excludes private lands 711,803 ac..........
with conservation (288,059 ha)........
agreements (HCPs, SHAs,
and other formal
agreements) proposed
for exclusion.
Excludes State lands 225,013.............
with conservation (91,059 ha).........
agreements (HCPs, SHAs,
or other formal
agreements) proposed
for exclusion.
----------------------
Subtotal............ 936,816 ac.......... 13,025,633 ac
----------------------
(379,116 ha)........ (5,271,287 ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible Outcome 3:
Excludes private lands 711,803 ac..........
with conservation (288,059 ha)........
agreements (HCPs, SHAs,
and other formal
agreements) proposed
for exclusion.
Excludes State lands 225,013.............
with conservation (91,059 ha).........
agreements (HCPs, SHAs,
or other formal
agreements) proposed
for exclusion.
Excludes State park 164,776 ac..........
lands proposed for (66,682 ha).........
exclusion.
Excludes Congressionally 2,631,736 ac........
reserved natural areas (1,065,026 ha)......
proposed for exclusion.
----------------------
Subtotal............ 3,733,328 ac........ 10,229,121 ac
----------------------
(1,510,824 ha)...... (4,139,578 ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible Outcome 4:
Excludes private lands 711,803 ac..........
with conservation (288,059 ha)........
agreements (HCPs, SHAs,
and other formal
agreements) proposed
for exclusion.
Excludes State lands 225,013.............
with conservation (91,059 ha).........
agreements (HCPs, SHAs,
or other formal
agreements) proposed
for exclusion.
Excludes State park 164,776 ac..........
lands proposed for (66,682 ha).........
exclusion.
Excludes Congressionally 2,631,736 ac........
reserved natural areas (1,065,026 ha)......
proposed for exclusion.
Excludes all additional 555,901 ac..........
private lands without (224,996 ha)........
formal conservation
agreements under
consideration for
exclusion.
Excludes all additional 281, 247 ac.........
State lands without (113,817 ha)........
formal conservation
agreements under
consideration for
exclusion.
Subtotal............ 4,570,476 ac........ 9,391,973 ac
----------------------
(1,849,613 ha)...... (3,800,812 ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14069]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.000

[[Page 14070]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.001

[[Page 14071]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Public Comment

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed
revised rule 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 information from other concerned government
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) Specific information regarding:
(a) The amount and distribution of northern spotted owl habitat;
(b) What areas were occupied at the time of listing and contain
features essential to the conservation of the species such that they
should be included in the designation and why;

[[Page 14072]]

(c) Whether these essential features may require special management
considerations or protection and what special management considerations
or protection may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing;
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why;
(e) Whether we have identified here any areas occupied at the time
of listing, but that do not contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, and that therefore should not be included
in the designation; and
(f) Whether we have identified here any areas that may not have
been occupied at the time of listing and that are not essential to the
conservation of the species, such that they should not be included in
the designation.
(2) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(3) Our proposed approach to effects determinations for the
purposes of conducting consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
in particular the application of a 500-ac (200-ha) scale as a screen
for a determination of not likely to adversely affect, as described in
the section Determinations of Adverse Effects and Application of the
``Adverse Modification'' Standard.
(4) Assistance in the identification of any private lands that are
not expressly identified as intended for inclusion within critical
habitat and that may have inadvertently been included within the
designation, due to mapping and modeling limitations, as described in
the section ``Proposed Revised Critical Habitat Designation.''
(5) Information on the potential impacts of climate change on the
northern spotted owl and proposed critical habitat, and whether special
management needs or protections may be needed to address this issue in
the critical habitat areas we are proposing.
(6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area as critical habitat, and in particular,
any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or
excluding areas that exhibit these impacts. We particularly request
information and comments on what activities may occur and the effects
to those activities in the proposed revised critical habitat areas.
Such information could include:
(a) The extent of possible activities, including temporal and
spatial scale, relative to the critical habitat area within which they
occur.
(b) The impact of possible activities on the habitat's likelihood
of serving its intended conservation function or purpose.
(c) The consistency of possible activities with the intent of the
recovery plan or other landscape-level conservation plans.
(7) Whether the benefits of excluding the private and State lands
with active conservation agreements (HCPs, SHAs, and other formal
agreements) and Congressionally reserved natural areas (e.g.,
wilderness areas, national scenic areas, national parks) that are
proposed for exclusion outweigh the benefits of including them in
critical habitat.
(8) Whether the benefits of excluding any other particular area
from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area in
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering
both the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed revised
critical habitat designation. We are considering the possible exclusion
of non-Federal lands, especially areas in private ownership, in
particular, and whether the benefits of exclusion may outweigh the
benefits of inclusion of those areas. We, therefore, request specific
information on:
(a) The benefits of including any specific areas in the final
designation and supporting rationale.
(b) The benefits of excluding any specific areas from the final
designation and supporting rationale.
(c) Whether any specific exclusions may result in the extinction of
the species and why (see Exclusions section, below).
(d) For private lands in particular, we are interested in
information regarding the potential benefits of including private lands
in critical habitat versus the benefits of excluding such lands from
critical habitat. This information does not need to include a detailed
technical analysis of the potential effects of designated critical
habitat on private property. In weighing the potential benefits of
exclusion versus inclusion of private lands, the Service may consider
whether existing partnership agreements provide for the management of
spotted owl habitat. We may consider, for example, the status of
conservation efforts, the effectiveness of any conservation agreements
to conserve the species, and the likelihood of the conservation
agreement's future implementation. There may be broad public benefits
of encouraging collaborative efforts and encouraging local and private
conservation efforts, and these broad benefits are important
considerations in our evaluation.
(9) Our process used for identifying those areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, including
the assumptions incorporated into the habitat modeling process, as
described more fully in the section ``Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat'' and also in our supporting documentation (Dunk et
al. 2012).
(10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(11) Specific information on ways to improve the clarity of this
rule as it pertains to completion of consultations under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act.
Our final determination concerning the revision of northern spotted
owl critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments
and any additional information we receive during all comment periods.
The comments will be included in the public record for this rulemaking,
and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final
determination. On the basis of information received, we may, during the
development of our final determination, find that areas within the
proposed designation do not meet the definition of critical habitat,
that some modifications to the described boundaries are appropriate, or
that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion based on a
through balancing analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will
post your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request at the top
of your document that we withhold personal information such as your
street address, phone number, or email address from public review;
however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
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, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the revised designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For
further details regarding northern spotted owl biology

[[Page 14073]]

and habitat, population abundance and trend, distribution, demographic
features, habitat use and conditions, threats, and conservation
measures, please see the Northern Spotted Owl 5 year Review Summary and
Evaluation, completed October 26, 2011, and the Revised Recovery Plan
for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011), completed July 1, 2011. Both
of these documents are available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Endangered Species web site at http://ecos.fws.gov/; under
``Species Search,'' enter ``northern spotted owl''). As detailed below,
Appendix C of the Revised Recovery Plan is particularly informative, as
the habitat modeling process described therein was used to help
identify those areas considered essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl in this proposed revised designation of critical
habitat. Furthermore, the recovery criteria for the northern spotted
owl, as described in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, pp. I-1 to
I-2), helped to discriminate between the various scenarios considered
in the modeling process in terms of assessing which of the habitat
networks evaluated would contribute most efficiently to the
conservation of the northern spotted owl.
The Service recognizes that this proposed revision of critical
habitat represents an increase in the total land area identified from
previous designations in 1992 (January 15, 1992; 57 FR 1796) and 2008
(August 13, 2008; 73 FR 47325). For a detailed explanation of the
changes proposed between this proposed revised designation and the
present designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl,
please see Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical
Habitat, below.

Introduction

The northern spotted owl inhabits structurally complex forests from
southwestern British Columbia through Washington and Oregon to northern
California. The northern spotted owl was listed under the Act as a
threatened species in 1990 because of widespread loss of habitat across
its range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to
conserve it (55 FR 26114; June 26, 1990). Although the rate of loss of
habitat due to timber harvest has been greatly reduced on Federal lands
over the past two decades, both past and current habitat loss remain a
threat to the northern spotted owl. Despite implementation of habitat
conservation measures in the early 1990s, Thomas et al. (1990, p. 5)
and USDI (1992, Appendix C) foresaw that owl populations would continue
to decline for several decades, even with habitat conservation, as the
consequence of lag effects at both individual and population levels.
However, many populations of northern spotted owls have declined at a
faster rate than anticipated, especially in the northern parts of the
subspecies' range (Anthony et al. 2006, pp. 31-32; Forsman et al. 2011,
pp. 65, 76). We now know that the suite of threats facing the northern
spotted owl differs from those at the time it was listed; in addition
to the effects of historical and ongoing habitat loss, the northern
spotted owl faces a new significant and complex threat in the form of
competition from the congeneric (referring to a member of the same
genus) barred owl (USFWS 2011, pp. I-7 to I-8).
During the second half of the 20th century, barred owls expanded
their range from eastern to western North America, and the range of the
barred owl now completely overlaps that of the northern spotted owl
(Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1995, p. 3; Crozier et al. 2006, p. 761).
Barred owls compete with northern spotted owls for habitat and
resources for breeding, feeding, and sheltering, and the presence of
barred owls has significant negative effects on northern spotted owl
reproduction, survivorship, and successful occupation of territories
(see ``Population Status and Trends,'' below). The loss of habitat has
the potential to intensify competition with barred owls by reducing the
total amount of resources available to the northern spotted owl and by
increasing the likelihood and frequency of competitive interactions.
Barred owls select very similar habitat to spotted owls for breeding,
feeding, and sheltering, and loss of habitat has the potential to
intensify competition between species. While conserving habitat will
not alleviate the barred owl threat, Dugger et al. (2011, pp. 2464-
2465) found that spotted owl occupancy and colonization rates decreased
as both barred owl presence increased and available habitat decreased.
These authors concluded that, similar to another case in which
increased suitable habitat was required to support two potentially
competing raptors, increased habitat protection for spotted owls may be
necessary to provide for sustainable populations in the presence of
barred owls (Dugger et al. 2011, p. 2467). Maintaining high-quality
habitat has been important since the northern spotted owl was initially
listed as threatened in 1990, and this competitive pressure from barred
owls has intensified the need to conserve and restore large areas of
contiguous, high-quality habitat across the range of the northern
spotted owl (Dugger et al. 2011, p. 2464; Forsman et al. 2011, p. 76;
USFWS 2011, Recovery Action 32 [RA32], p. III-67).
It is becoming increasingly evident that solely securing habitat
will not be effective in achieving the recovery of the northern spotted
owl when barred owls are present (USFWS 2011, p. vi). While
conservation of high-quality habitat is essential for the recovery and
conservation of the owl, habitat conservation alone is not sufficient
to achieve recovery objectives. As stated in the Revised Recovery Plan,
``addressing the threats associated with past and current habitat loss
must be conducted simultaneously with addressing the threats from
barred owls. Addressing the threat from habitat loss is relatively
straightforward with predictable results. However, addressing a large-
scale threat of one raptor on another, closely related raptor has many
uncertainties'' (USFWS 2011, p. I-8). A designation of critical habitat
is intended to ameliorate habitat-based threats to an endangered or
threatened species; critical habitat cannot reasonably be expected to
address other, non-habitat-related threats to the species. In the case
of the northern spotted owl, the recovery goal of supporting population
viability and demographically stable populations of northern spotted
owls will likely require habitat conservation in concert with the
implementation of recovery actions that address other, non-habitat-
based threats to the species, including the barred owl. In addition,
recovery actions include scientific evaluation of potential management
options to reduce the impact of barred owls on northern spotted owls
(USFWS 2011, Recovery Action 29 [RA29], p. III-65), and implementation
of management actions determined to be effective (USFWS 2011, Recovery
Action 30 [RA30], p. III-65).
When developing a critical habitat rule, the Service must use the
best scientific information available to identify those specific areas
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was
listed that provide the physical and biological features essential for
the conservation of the species, and that may require special
management considerations or protection, or to identify those areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it
was listed that are otherwise determined to be essential to the
conservation of the species. However, like most critical habitat
proposals, this rule addresses

[[Page 14074]]

elements of risk management, because we must make recommendations and
decisions in the face of incomplete information and uncertainty about
factors influencing northern spotted owl populations. This uncertainty
exists even though the northern spotted owl is among the most
thoroughly studied of listed species. We understand a great deal about
the habitats the subspecies prefers and the factors that influence its
demographic trends. Nonetheless, considerable uncertainty remains,
particularly about interactions among different factors that threaten
the owl.
In the face of such uncertainty, the Revised Recovery Plan proposes
strategies to address the primary threats to the northern spotted owl
from habitat loss and barred owls (USFWS 2011, p. I-7). The effects of
climate change and of past management practices are changing forest
ecosystem processes and dynamics, including patterns of wildfires,
insect outbreaks and disease, to a degree greater than anticipated in
the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 134-135;
Carroll et al. 2010, p. 899; Spies et al. 2010, entire; USFWS 2011, p.
I-8). At the same time, the expansion of barred owl populations is
altering the capacity of intact habitat to support northern spotted
owls. Projecting the effects of these factors and their interactions
into the future leads to even higher levels of uncertainty, especially
considering how the influences of different threats may vary across the
owl's large geographical range. It is clear that ecosystem-level
changes are occurring within the northern spotted owl's forest habitat.
The development of a critical habitat network for the northern
spotted owl must take into account the current uncertainty associated
with both barred owl impacts and climate change predictions (USFWS
2011, p. III-10) as well as the uncertainty associated with how land
will be managed in the future, how climate change effects will impact
northern spotted owls, and whether and how barred owls will be managed
(and thus, what the future effect of barred owls will be on northern
spotted owl populations). These uncertainties require that we make some
assumptions about likely future conditions in developing, modeling, and
evaluating potential critical habitat for the northern spotted owl;
those assumptions are identified clearly in this proposed rule (see
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat, below) and in our
supporting documentation (Dunk et al. 2012, entire).
Given the continued decline of northern spotted owl populations,
the apparent increase in severity of the threat from barred owls, and
information indicating a recent loss of genetic diversity for the
subspecies, retaining both occupied northern spotted owl sites and
unoccupied, high-value northern spotted owl habitat across the
subspecies' range are key components for recovery (USFWS 2011, p. I-9).
Accordingly, in this proposed rule, we have identified areas of
occupied habitat that provide the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the northern spotted owl, and which
may require special management considerations or protection. When
occupied areas were not adequate to achieve recovery goals, we also
identified some unoccupied areas as critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl when it was clear that such areas are essential to the
conservation of the species. However, it is important to note that this
proposed revised designation of critical habitat does not include all
sites where northern spotted owls are known to occur. The habitat
modeling that we used, in part, to assist us in developing this
proposed revised designation was based primarily on present habitat
suitability. While we did also consider the present known locations of
northern spotted owls in refining the identified habitat network, not
all such sites were included in the proposed revised designation if
those areas did not make a significant contribution to population
viability (for example, if known sites were too small or isolated to
play a meaningful role in the conservation of the species; see Criteria
Used to Identify Critical Habitat). This is in accordance with Section
3(5)(C) of the Act, which specifies that ``critical habitat shall not
include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the
threatened or endangered species.''
Because of the uncertainties associated with the effects of barred
owl interactions with the northern spotted owl and habitat changes that
may occur as a result of climate change, active adaptive management
strategies will be needed to achieve results in certain landscapes.
Adaptive management is a systematic approach for improving resource
management by learning from the results of explicit management policies
and practices and applying that learning to future management decisions
(USFWS 2011, p. G-1). This critical habitat rule identifies key sources
of uncertainty, and the need to learn from our management of forests
that provide habitat for northern spotted owls. We propose a critical
habitat network that was developed based on what we believe to be
essential for the conservation of the northern spotted owl, including
information on essential habitats, the current distribution of those
habitats, and the best available scientific knowledge about northern
spotted owl population dynamics, while acknowledging uncertainty about
future conditions in Pacific Northwest forests.

An Ecosystem-Based Approach to the Conservation of the Northern Spotted
Owl and Managing Its Critical Habitat

Section 2 of the Act states, ``The purposes of this Act are to
provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species
and threatened species depend may be conserved.'' Although the
conservation of the listed species is the specific objective of a
critical habitat designation, the essential physical or biological
features that serve as the basis of critical habitat are often
essential components of the ecosystem upon which the species depends.
In such cases, a fundamental goal of critical habitat management is not
only to conserve the listed species, but also to conserve the ecosystem
upon which that species depends. This is the case with the northern
spotted owl.
An ``ecosystem'' is defined as a biological community of
interacting organisms and their physical environment, or as the complex
of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an
ecological unit (Krebs 1972, pp. 10-11; Ricklefs 1979, pp. 31-32, 869).
These ecosystem interactions and functions are often referred to as
ecological ``relationships'' or ``processes.'' Thus, to conserve the
northern spotted owl as directed by the Act, one must also conserve the
ecological processes that occur within the ecological landscape
inhabited by the species. These processes--such as vegetation
succession, forest fire regimes, and nutrient cycling--create and shape
the physical and biological features that form the foundation of
critical habitat. The northern spotted owl was initially listed as a
threatened species largely due to the loss or degradation of the late-
successional forest ecosystems upon which it depends. A complex
interaction of physical and biological factors contribute to the
development and maintenance of these ecosystems, which in turn provide
the northern spotted owl with the environmental conditions required for
its conservation and survival, such as large areas of suitable habitat,
nest structures, and sufficient prey to sustain interconnected
populations of owls across the landscape. A fundamental goal of
critical habitat management should thus

[[Page 14075]]

be to understand, describe, and conserve these processes, which in turn
will maintain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This ``ecosystem approach'' will
ultimately have the highest likelihood of conserving listed species
such as the northern spotted owl in the long term (Knight 1998, p. 43).
Service policy also endorses this approach: ``Species will be
conserved best not by a species-by-species approach but by an ecosystem
conservation strategy that transcends individual species'' (59 FR
34724, July 1, 1994). The Service applies this ecosystem approach to
critical habitat designations for other listed species (e.g., in Hawaii
(75 FR 18960, April 13, 2010; 76 FR 46362, August 2, 2011)). Likewise,
the U.S. Forest Service, which manages the great majority of the
proposed northern spotted owl critical habitat, has prioritized
restoring and maintaining natural ecological function and resiliency to
its forest lands (Blate et al. 2009, entire; USDA 2010, entire; Tidwell
2011, entire). Active management of critical habitat is intended to be
fully compatible and consistent with these landscape-level ecosystem
conservation efforts.
Proposed revised critical habitat for the northern spotted owl
includes a diverse forest landscape that covers millions of acres and
contains several different forest ecosystems and thousands of plant and
animal species. It ranges from dry, fire-prone forests to moist old-
growth conifer forest to a mix of conifers and hardwood trees.
Thousands of species occur in these forest ecosystems, including other
listed species with very specific biological needs. Prescribed
management for all of these needs at the species level on large
landscapes is likely to be expensive, logistically difficult, and often
in conflict (Thompson et al. 2009, p. 29). Many scientists believe a
single-species approach to forest management is limited and that land
managers need to focus on broader landscape goals that address
ecosystem process and future habitat conditions (see, e.g., Thomas et
al. 2006, p. 286; Boyd et al. 2008, p. 42; Hobbs et al. 2010, p. 487;
Mori 2011, pp. 289-290). In this proposed revised designation of
critical habitat, we encourage the application of ecosystem management
principles to ensure the long-term conservation of the northern spotted
owl and its habitat, as well as other species dependent on these shared
ecosystems.

Forest Management Activities in Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Another important development informing spotted owl critical
habitat management involves changes in forestry science. Emulating
natural disturbance regimes is emerging as a dominant paradigm in North
American forest management (Seymour and Hunter 1999, p. 56; Long 2009,
p. 1868). This change is occurring in response to: (1) The
simplification of forests in terms of structure, age-class diversity,
and species composition as a result of management for timber
production, and (2) a recognition of fundamental changes in ecosystem
function and processes due to land management practices, especially
fire and successional patterns (Franklin et al. 2002, pp. 402-408;
Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 134-135; Drever et al. 2006, p. 2291).
Although human disturbance is unlikely to precisely mimic natural
forest disturbance, it can be used to better maintain the resilience of
landscapes and wildlife populations to respond to natural disturbance
and climate change (Lindenmayer et al. 2008, p. 87). In general,
silviculture prescriptions that apply ecological forestry principles to
address the conservation of broader ecological processes are compatible
with maintaining the proposed critical habitat's essential features in
the long term (USFWS 2011, p. III-14).
Explicitly prescribing such management at a fine scale (e.g.,
forest stand level) is beyond the scope of this document and should be
developed at the appropriate land management unit (e.g., National
Forest or BLM District; USDA 2010, entire) and through consultation
with the Service, as appropriate. As described below and in the Revised
Recovery Plan, management actions whose intent is to conserve or
restore natural ecological processes and enhance forest resilience in
the long term should generally be consistent with the goals of critical
habitat management (USFWS 2011, p. III 11-39). The Service has recently
approved these types of management actions in occupied spotted owl
habitat on BLM and USFS lands.
Some general considerations for managing within spotted owl
critical habitat are discussed in more detail in the Special Management
Considerations and Adverse Modification sections of this document. In
sum, vegetation and fuels management in dry and mixed-dry forests is
encouraged both within and outside designated critical habitat where
the goal of such treatment is to conserve natural ecological processes
or restore them (including fire) where they have been modified or
suppressed (Allen et al. 2002, pp. 1429-1430; Spies et al. 2006, pp.
358-361; Fielder et al. 2007, entire; Prather et al. 2008, entire;
Lindenmayer et al. 2009, p. 274; Tidwell 2011, entire). Likewise, in
moist and some mixed forests, management of spotted owl critical
habitat should be compatible with broader ecological goals, such as the
retention of high-quality older forest, the continued treatment of
young or homogenous forest plantations, and the conservation or
restoration of complex early seral forest habitat (Spies et al. 2007b,
pp. 57-63; Betts et al. 2010, pp. 2117, 2126-2127; Swanson at al. 2010,
entire). In general, actions that promote ecological restoration and
those that apply ecological forestry principles as described in the
Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, pp. III-11 to III-41) are likely to
be consistent with the conservation of the northern spotted owl and the
management of its critical habitat.

Critical Habitat and the Northwest Forest Plan

It is important for readers of this document to understand the
relationship between spotted owl critical habitat and the Northwest
Forest Plan (NWFP). Critical habitat for the spotted owl was first
designated in 1992 (January 15, 1992; 57 FR 1796). Since 1994, the NWFP
has also served as an important landscape-level plan that has
contributed to the conservation of the northern spotted owl and its
late-successional forest habitat (Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 278-284). The
NWFP introduced a strategy of reserves where conservation would be the
priority, and matrix areas where timber harvest would be the goal. Here
we briefly provide a summary of how our proposed designation of
critical habitat has been informed by the knowledge and experience
gained from management under the NWFP.
The NWFP reserve strategy has been successful in the conservation
and recruitment of late-successional forest and associated species on
Federal lands (Thomas et al. 2006, p. 283). Implementation of the plan
has been less successful in providing the anticipated level of
commercial timber harvest from matrix lands (less than 50 percent of
anticipated levels; Thomas et al. 2006, p. 284), at promoting active
restoration in areas that may contain uncharacteristically high risk of
severe fire (Spies et al. 2006, pg. 359; Thomas et al. 2006, p. 277),
or in moist forests where early seral habitats are lacking

[[Page 14076]]

such as those described above (Betts et al. 2010, p. 2117).
Some scientists have suggested that it may be time to reconsider
various recommendations or requirements of the NWFP in light of
improved scientific insight, increasing concerns over future ecological
conditions that appear increasingly dynamic, and changing social values
(Spies et al. 2006, p. 360; Thomas et al. 2006, p. 286; Thompson et al.
2009, p. 29). Some specifically question the strategy of managing
Federal lands in the range of the northern spotted owl separately as
reserves in some areas and for commodity production in others,
suggesting a more holistic management perspective (Spies et al. 2006,
p. 360; Thomas et al. 2006, p. 286; Franklin and Lindenmayer 2009,
entire). Other scientists conclude that a system of large reserves in
the NWFP is still necessary for course-scale planning, but that fine-
scale management should proceed that restores ecological processes
while minimizing adverse impacts to wildlife (Carroll et al. 2009, p.
29).
The Service, in developing this proposed critical habitat
designation, has taken these concerns into consideration. Thomas et al.
(2006, pp. 284-287) recommend three primary improvements in the NWFP to
address these concerns. These recommendations are highly relevant to
spotted owl critical habitat management:
1. Conserve old growth trees and forests on Federal lands wherever
they are found (emphasis added), and undertake appropriate restoration
treatment in the threatened forest types.
2. Manage NWFP forests as dynamic ecosystems that conserve all
stages of forest development (e.g., old growth and early seral), and
where tradeoffs between short-term and long-term risks are better
balanced.
3. Recognize the NWFP as an integrated conservation strategy that
contributes to all components of sustainability across Federal lands.
The management of critical habitat for the spotted owl should be
compatible with these broader landscape management goals articulated by
Thomas et al. (2006, pp. 284-287). Critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl is not intended to be a ``hands off'' reserve in the
traditional sense. Rather, it should be a ``hands-on'' ecosystem
management landscape that should include a mix of active and passive
actions to meet a variety of conservation goals that support long-term
spotted owl conservation. Some general considerations for managing for
the conservation of the northern spotted owl are discussed in the
Special Management Considerations and Adverse Modification sections of
this document, as well as in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, pp. III-11 to III-39).

The Biology and Ecology of the Northern Spotted Owl

Physical Description and Taxonomy
The northern spotted owl is a medium-sized owl and the largest of
the three subspecies of spotted owls currently recognized by the
American Ornithologists' Union (Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1995, p. 2). It
is dark brown with a barred tail and white spots on the head and
breast, and has dark brown eyes that are surrounded by prominent facial
disks. The taxonomic separation of these three subspecies is supported
by numerous factors (reviewed in Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 3-3 to 3-
31), including genetic (Barrowclough and Guti[eacute]rrez 1990, p. 739;
Barrowclough et al. 1999, p. 922; Haig et al. 2004, p. 1353;
Barrowclough et al. 2005, p. 1113), morphological (Guti[eacute]rrez et
al. 1995, pp. 2 to 3), behavioral (Van Gelder 2003, p. 30), and
biogeographical characteristics (Barrowclough et al. 1999, p. 928).
Distribution and Habitat
The current range of the northern spotted owl extends from
southwest British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains, coastal
ranges, and intervening forested lands in Washington, Oregon, and
California, as far south as Marin County, California. The subspecies is
listed as threatened under the Act throughout its range (55 FR 26114;
June 26, 1990). Within the United States, the northern spotted owl
ranges across 12 physiographic provinces, based on recognized landscape
subdivisions exhibiting different physical and environmental features,
often referred to as ``physiographic provinces'' (Franklin and Dyrness
1988, pp. 5-26; Thomas et al. 1990, p. 61; USDA and USDI 1994, p. A-3).
These include the Olympic Peninsula, Western Washington Lowlands,
Western Washington Cascades, Eastern Washington Cascades, Oregon Coast
Ranges, Western Oregon Cascades, Willamette Valley, Eastern Oregon
Cascades, Oregon Klamath, California Klamath, California Coast Ranges,
and California Cascades Provinces (based on USDA and USDI 1994, p. A-
3). Very few northern spotted owls are found in British Columbia, the
Western Washington Lowlands or Willamette Valley; therefore, the
subspecies is restricted primarily to 10 of the 12 provinces within its
range.
For the purposes of developing this proposed rule, and based on
Appendix C of the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, pp. C-7 to C-13),
we have divided the range of the northern spotted owl into 11 different
regions. We used these 11 regions in the habitat modeling that informed
this proposed revised designation of critical habitat. The regions used
here are more ``owl specific'' than the physiographic provinces used in
the past. In addition to regional patterns of climate, topography, and
forest communities, which the physiographic provinces also considered,
the 11 regions are additionally based on specific patterns of spotted
owl habitat relationships and prey base relationships across the range
of the species. A map of the 11 regions used for the purposes of
habitat modeling is provided in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011,
p. C-13), and are also shown in Figure 1 of this document. We
additionally used these 11 regions identified in the Revised Recovery
Plan as the organizing units for our designation of critical habitat.
Spotted owls generally rely on older forested habitats because such
forests contain the structures and characteristics required for
nesting, roosting, and foraging, and dispersal. Forest characteristics
associated with spotted owls usually develop with increasing forest
age, but their occurrence may vary by location, past forest practices,
and stand type, history, and condition. Although spotted owl habitat is
variable over its range, some general attributes are common to the
owl's life-history requirements throughout its range. To support
northern spotted owl reproduction, a home range requires appropriate
amounts of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat arrayed so that
nesting pairs can survive, obtain resources, and breed successfully. In
northern parts of the range where nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat have similar attributes, nesting is generally associated with
increasing old forest in the core area (Swindle et al. 1999, p. 1216).
In some southern portions of the range, northern spotted owl survival
is positively associated with the area of old forest habitat in the
core, but reproductive output is positively associated with amount of
edge between older forest and other habitat types in the home range
(Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 573, 579). This pattern suggests that where
dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) are the primary prey species,
core areas that have nesting habitat stands interspersed with varied
types of foraging habitat

[[Page 14077]]

may be optimal for northern spotted owl survival and reproduction. Both
the amount and spatial distribution of nesting, roosting, foraging, and
dispersal habitat influence reproductive success and long-term
population viability of northern spotted owls.
Population growth can occur only if there is adequate habitat in an
appropriate configuration to allow for the dispersal of owls across the
landscape. This includes support of dispersing juveniles, as well as
nonresident subadults and adults that have not yet recruited into the
breeding population. The survivorship of northern spotted owls is
likely greatest when dispersal habitat most closely resembles nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat, but owls may use other types of habitat
for dispersal on a short-term basis. Dispersal habitat, at a minimum,
consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to
provide protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging
opportunities (57 FR 1805, January 15, 1992).
The three essential functions served by habitat within the home
range of a northern spotted owl are:
(1) Nesting. Nesting habitat is essential to provide structural
features for nesting, protection from adverse weather conditions, and
cover to reduce predation risks. Habitat requirements for nesting and
roosting are nearly identical. However, nesting habitat is specifically
associated with a high incidence of large trees with various
deformities (large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.)
infections, and other evidence of decadence) or large snags suitable
for nest placement. Additional features that support nesting and
roosting typically include a moderate to high canopy closure; a
multilayered, multi-species canopy with large overstory trees; large
accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and
sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owls to fly (Thomas
et al. 1990, p. 164). Forested stands with high canopy closure also
provide thermal cover (Weathers et al. 2001, p. 686) and protection
from predators. Patches of nesting habitat, in combination with
roosting habitat, must be sufficiently large and contiguous to maintain
northern spotted owl core areas and home ranges, and must be proximate
to foraging habitat. Ideally, nesting habitat also functions as
roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat.
(2) Roosting. Roosting habitat is essential to provide for
thermoregulation, shelter, and cover to reduce predation risk while
resting or foraging. As noted above, the same habitat generally serves
for both nesting and roosting functions; technically ``roosting
habitat'' differs from nesting habitat only in that it need not contain
those specific structural features used for nesting (cavities, broken
tops, and mistletoe platforms), but does contain moderate to high
canopy closure; a multi-layered, multi-species canopy; large
accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and
open space below the canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. In
practice, however, roosting habitat is not segregated from nesting
habitat. Nesting and roosting habitat will also function as foraging
and dispersal habitat.
(3) Foraging. Foraging habitat is essential to provide a food
supply for survival and reproduction. Foraging habitat is the most
variable of all habitats used by territorial spotted owls, and is
closely tied to the prey base, as described below. Nesting and roosting
habitat always provides for foraging, but in some cases owls also use
more open and fragmented forests, especially in the southern portion of
the range where some younger stands may have high prey abundance and
structural attributes similar to those of older forests, such as
moderate tree density, subcanopy perches at multiple levels, multi-
layered vegetation, or residual older trees. Foraging habitat generally
has attributes similar to those of nesting and roosting habitat, but
foraging habitat may not always support successfully nesting pairs
(USDI 1992, pp. 22-25). Foraging habitat can also function as dispersal
habitat. The primary function of foraging habitat is to provide a food
supply for survival and reproduction.
Because northern spotted owls show a clear geographical pattern in
diet, and different prey species prefer different habitat types, prey
distribution contributes to differences in northern spotted owl
foraging habitat selection across the range. In the northern portion of
their range, northern spotted owls forage heavily in older forests or
forests with similar complex structure that support northern flying
squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) Carey et al. 1992, p. 233; Rosenberg and
Anthony 1992, p. 165). In the southern portion of their range, where
woodrats are a major component of their diet, northern spotted owls are
more likely to use a variety of stands, including younger stands,
brushy openings in older stands, and edges between forest types in
response to higher prey density in some of these areas (Solis 1983, pp.
89-90; Sakai and Noon 1993, pp. 376-378; Sakai and Noon 1997, p. 347;
Carey et al. 1999, p. 73; Franklin et al. 2000, p. 579). Both the
amount and distribution of foraging habitat within the home range
influence the survival and reproduction of northern spotted owls.
Dispersal Habitat and Habitat for Nonresident Owls
Successful dispersal of northern spotted owls is essential to
maintaining genetic and demographic connections among populations
across the range of the species. Habitats that support movements
between larger habitat patches that provide nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitats for northern spotted owls act to limit the adverse
genetic effects of inbreeding and genetic drift and provide demographic
support to declining populations (Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 271-272).
Dispersing juvenile northern spotted owls experience high mortality
rates (more than 70 percent in some studies (Miller 1989, pp. 32-41;
Franklin et al. 1999, pp. 25, 28; 55 FR 26115; June 26, 1990)) from
starvation, predation, and accidents (Miller 1989, pp. 41-44; Forsman
et al. 2002, pp. 18-19). Juvenile dispersal is thus a highly vulnerable
life stage for northern spotted owls, and enhancing the survivorship of
juveniles during this period could play an important role in
maintaining stable populations of northern spotted owls.
Successful juvenile dispersal may depend on locating unoccupied
suitable habitat in close proximity to other occupied sites (LaHaye et
al. 2001, pp. 697-698). Dispersing juveniles are likely attracted to
conspecific calls, and may look for suitable sites preferentially in
the vicinity of occupied territories. When all suitable territories are
occupied, dispersers may temporarily pursue a nonresident (nonbreeding)
strategy; such individuals are sometimes referred to as ``floaters''
(Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 15, 26). Floaters prospect for territorial
vacancies created when residents die or leave their territories.
Floaters contribute to stable or increasing populations of northern
spotted owls by quickly filling territorial vacancies. Where large
blocks of habitat with multiple breeding pairs occur, the opportunities
for successful recruitment of dispersers and floaters are enhanced due
to the within-block production of potential replacement birds (Thomas
et al. 1990, pp. 295, 307).
Juvenile dispersal occurs in steps (Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 13-
14), between which dispersing juveniles settle into temporary home
ranges for up to several months (Forsman et al. 2002, p. 13). Natal
dispersal distances, measured from natal areas to eventual home range,
tend to be larger for females (about 15 mi (24 km)) than males (about

[[Page 14078]]

8.5 mi (13.7 km)) (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 8-5). Forsman et al. (2002,
pp. 15-16) reported dispersal distances of 1,475 spotted owls in Oregon
and Washington for the period from 1985 to 1996. Median maximum
dispersal distance (the straight-line distance between the natal site
and the farthest location) for radio-marked juvenile male spotted owls
was 12.7 mi (20.3 km), and that of female spotted owls was 17.2 mi
(27.5 km) (Forsman et al. 2002, Table 2).
Spotted owls can utilize forests with the characteristics of
nesting, roosting, or foraging for dispersal, and likely experience
greater survivorship under such conditions. However, dispersing or
nonresident individuals may also make use of other forested areas that
do not meet the requirements of nesting or roosting habitat on a short-
term basis. Such short-term dispersal habitats must, at minimum,
consist of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide
protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging
opportunities.
Population Status and Trends
Demographic data from studies initiated as early as 1985 have been
analyzed every 5 years to estimate northern spotted owl demographic
rates and population trends (Anderson and Burnham 1992, entire; Burnham
et al. 1994, entire; Franklin et al. 1999, entire; Anthony et al. 2006,
entire; Forsman et al. 2011, entire). The most current evaluation of
population status and trends is based on data through 2008 (Forsman et
al. 2011, p. 1). Based on this analysis, populations on 7 of 11 study
areas (Cle Elum, Rainier, Olympic Peninsula, Oregon Coast Ranges, H.J.
Andrews, Northwest California, and Green Diamond) were declining
(Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64, Table 22).
Estimates of realized population change (cumulative population
change across all study years) indicated that, in the more rapidly
declining populations (Cle Elum, Rainier, and Olympic Peninsula), the
2006 populations were 40 to 60 percent of the population sizes observed
in 1994 or 1995 (Forsman et al. 2011, pp. 47-49). Populations at the
remaining areas (Tyee, Klamath, Southern Oregon Cascades, and Hoopa)
showed declining population growth rates as well, although the
estimated rates were not significantly different from stable
populations (Forsman et al. 2011, p 64). A meta-analysis combining data
from all 11 study areas indicates that rangewide the population
declined at a rate of about 2.9 percent per year for the period from
1985 to 2006. Northern spotted owl populations on Federal lands had
better demographic rates than elsewhere, but still declined at a mean
annual rate of about 2.8 percent per year for 1985-2006 (Forsman et al.
2011, p. 67).
In addition to declines in population growth rates, declines in
annual survival were reported for 10 of the 11 study areas (Forsman et
al. 2011, p. 64, Table 22). Number of young produced each year showed
declines at 5 areas (Cle Elum, Klamath, Southern Oregon Cascades,
Northwest California, and Green Diamond), was relatively stable at 3
areas (Olympic Peninsula, Tyee, Hoopa), and was increasing at 2 areas
(Oregon Coast Ranges, H. J. Andrews) (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64 Table
22).
As noted above, the barred owl has emerged as a greater threat to
the northern spotted owl than was previously recognized. The range of
the barred owl has expanded in recent years and now completely overlaps
that of the northern spotted owl (Crozier et al. 2006, p. 761). The
presence of barred owls has significant negative effects on northern
spotted owl reproduction (Olson et al. 2004, p. 1048), survival
(Anthony et al 2006, p. 32), and number of territories occupied (Kelly
et al. 2003, p. 51; Olson et al. 2005, p. 928). The determination of
population trends for the northern spotted owl has become complicated
by the finding that northern spotted owls are less likely to call when
barred owls are also present; therefore, they are more likely to be
undetected by standard survey methods (Olson et al. 2005, pp. 919-929;
Crozier et al. 2006, pp. 766-767). As a result, it is difficult to
determine whether northern spotted owls no longer occupy a site, or
whether they may still be present but are not detected. The 2011
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl concludes that
``barred owls are contributing to the population decline of spotted
owls, especially in Washington, portions of Oregon, and the northern
coast of California.'' (USFWS 2011, p. B-12).
British Columbia has a small population of northern spotted owls.
This population has declined at least 49 percent since 1992 (Courtney
et al. 2004, p. 8-14), and by as much as 90 percent since European
settlement (Chutter et al. 2004, p. 6) to a 2004 breeding population
estimated at about 23 birds (Sierra Legal Defence [sic] Fund and
Western Canada Wilderness Committee 2005, p. 16) on 15 sites (Chutter
et al. 2004, p. 26). Chutter et al. (2004, p. 30) suggested immediate
action was required to improve the likelihood of recovering the spotted
owl population in British Columbia. In 2007, the Spotted Owl Population
Enhancement Team recommended to remove spotted owls from the wild in
British Columbia. Personnel in British Columbia captured and brought
into captivity the remaining 16 known wild spotted owls. Prior to
initiating the captive-breeding program, the population of spotted owls
in Canada was declining by as much as 35 percent per year (Chutter et
al. 2004, p. 6). The amount of previous interaction between northern
spotted owls in Canada and the United States is unknown (Chutter et al.
2004, p. 24). Although the status of the spotted owl in Canada is
informative in terms of the overall declining trend of the northern
spotted owl throughout its range, and consequently the increased need
for conservation in those areas where it persists, the Service does not
designate critical habitat in foreign countries (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
Life History
Northern spotted owls are a long-lived species with relatively
stable and high rates of adult survival, lower rates of juvenile
survival, and highly variable reproduction. Franklin et al. (2000, p.
576) suggested that northern spotted owls follow a ``bet-hedging''
life-history strategy, where natural selection favors individuals that
reproduce only during favorable conditions. For such species,
population growth rate is more susceptible to changes in adult survival
than to recruitment of new individuals into the population. For
northern spotted owls, recent demographic analyses have indicated
declining trends in both adult survival and recruitment across much of
the species range (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 64, Table 22).
Northern spotted owls are highly territorial (Courtney et al. 2004,
p. 2-7), though overlap between the outer portions of the home ranges
of adjacent pairs is common (Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 5, 17, 22-24;
Solis and Guti[eacute]rrez 1990, p. 742; Forsman et al. 2005, p. 374).
Pairs are nonmigratory and remain on their home range throughout the
year, although they often increase the area used for foraging during
fall and winter (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 21; Sisco 1990, p. 9), likely
in response to potential depletion of prey in the core of their home
range (Carey et al. 1992, p. 245; Carey 1995, p. 649; but see Rosenberg
et al. 1994, entire). The northern spotted owl shows strong year-round
fidelity to its territory, even when not nesting (Solis 1983, pp. 23-
28; Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 52-53) or after natural disturbance alters
habitat characteristics within the home range (Bond et al. 2002, pp.
1024-1026). A discussion of northern spotted owl

[[Page 14079]]

home range size and use is included in the Primary Constituent Elements
section of this proposed rule.
Reproductive success of northern spotted owls has been
characterized as a multi-stage process in which natal dispersal and
survival to reproductive age are the most vulnerable stages (Carey and
Peeler 1995, p. 236). Nomadic adults and juveniles dispersing from
their natal area serve as sources of replacements for resident northern
spotted owls that die or leave their home range (Thomas et al. 1990, p.
295). Habitat supporting movements of northern spotted owls between
large habitat blocks is essential for successful dispersal of both
juvenile and adult owls (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 271). The ability of
individuals to move among more isolated populations reduces potentially
adverse genetic effects of inbreeding and provides demographic support
to declining populations (Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 271-272). A
discussion of northern spotted owl dispersal is included in the
Physical and Biological Features and Primary Constituent Elements
sections of this proposed rule.
Prey
Northern spotted owl diets vary across owl territories, years,
seasons, and geographical regions (Forsman et al. 2001, pp.146-148;
2004, pp. 217-220). However, four to six species of nocturnal mammals
typically dominate their diets (Forsman et al. 2004, p. 218), with
northern flying squirrels being a primary prey species in all areas. In
Washington, diets are dominated by northern flying squirrels, snowshoe
hare (Lepus americanus), bushy-tailed woodrats (Neotoma cinerea), and
boreal red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi) (Forsman et al. 2001,
p. 144). In Oregon and northern California, northern flying squirrels
in combination with dusky-footed woodrats, bushy-tailed woodrats, red
tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus), and deer mice (Peromyscus
maniculatus) comprise the majority of diets (Courtney et al. 2004, pp.
41-31 to 4-32; Forsman et al. 2004, p. 221). Northern spotted owls are
also known to prey on insects, other terrestrial mammals, birds, and
juveniles of larger mammals (e.g., mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
(Forsman et al. 2001, p. 146; 2004, p. 223).
Northern flying squirrels are positively associated with late-
successional forests with high densities of large trees and snags
(Holloway and Smith 2011, p. 671). Northern flying squirrels typically
use cavities in large snags as den and natal sites, but may also use
cavities in live trees, hollow branches of fallen trees, crevices in
large stumps, stick nests of other species, and lichen and twig nests
they construct (Carey 1995, p. 658). Fungi (mychorrhizal and epigeous
types) are prominent in their diet; however, seeds, fruits, nuts,
vegetation matter, insects, and lichens may also represent a
significant proportion of their diet (summarized in Courtney et al.
2004, App. 4 p. 3-12). Northern flying squirrel densities tend to be
higher in older forest stands with ericaceous shrubs (e.g., Pacific
rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum)) and an abundance of large
snags (Carey 1995, p. 654), likely because these older forests produce
a higher forage biomass. Flying squirrel density tends to increase with
stand age (Carey 1995, pp. 653-654; Carey 2000, p. 252), although
managed and second-growth stands sometimes also show high densities of
squirrels, especially when canopy cover is high (e.g., Rosenberg and
Anthony 1992, p. 163; Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, pp. 589-591). The main
factors that may limit northern flying squirrel densities are the
availability of den structures and food, especially hypogeous (below
ground) fungi or truffles (Gomez et al. 2005, pp. 1677-1678).
For northern spotted owls in Oregon, both dusky-footed and bushy-
tailed woodrats are important prey items (Forsman et al. 2004, pp. 226-
227), whereas in Washington owls rely primarily on the bushy-tailed
woodrat (Forsman et al. 2001, p. 144). Habitats that support bushy-
tailed woodrats usually include early seral mixed-conifer/mixed-
evergreen forests close to water (Carey et al. 1999, p. 77). Bushy-
tailed woodrats reach high densities in both old forests with openings
and closed-canopy young forests (Sakai and Noon 1993, pp. 376-378;
Carey et al. 1999, p. 73), and use hardwood stands in mixed-evergreen
forests (Carey et al. 1999, p. 73). Bushy-tailed woodrats are important
prey species south of the Columbia River and may be more limited by
abiotic features, such as the availability of suitable rocky areas for
den sites (Smith 1997, p. 4) or the presence of streams (Carey et al.
1992, p. 234; 1999, p. 72). Dense woodrat populations in shrubby areas
are likely a source of colonists to surrounding forested areas (Sakai
and Noon 1997, p. 347), therefore forested areas with nearby open,
shrubby vegetation generally support high numbers of woodrats. The main
factors that may limit woodrats are access to stable, brushy
environments that provide food, cover from predation, materials for
nest construction, dispersal ability, and appropriate climatic
conditions (Carey et al. 1999, p. 78).
Home Range and Habitat Use
Territorial northern spotted owls remain resident on their home
range throughout the year; therefore, these homes ranges must provide
all the habitat components needed for the survival and successful
reproduction of a pair of owls. Northern spotted owls exhibit central-
place foraging behavior (Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, p. 1036), with
much activity centered within a core area surrounding the nest tree
during the breeding season. During fall and winter as well as in
nonbreeding years, owls often roost and forage in areas of their home
range more distant from the core. In nearly all studies of northern
spotted owl habitat use, the amount of mature and old-growth forest was
greater in core areas and home ranges than at random sites on the
landscape (Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 5-6, 5-13; also see USFWS 2011,
Appendix G for definitions of mature and old-growth forest), and
forests were less fragmented within spotted owl home ranges (Hunter et
al. 1995, p. 688). The amount of habitat at the core area scale shows
the strongest relationships with home range occupancy (Meyer et al.
1998, p. 34; Zabel et al. 2003, p. 1036), survival (Franklin et al.
2000, p. 567; Dugger et al. 2005, p. 873), and reproductive success
(Ripple et al. 1997, pp. 155-156; Dugger et al. 2005, p. 871). A more
complete description of the home range is presented in the Physical or
Biological Features section of this document, under ``Population
Spatial Requirements.''
The size, configuration, and characteristics of vegetation patches
within home ranges affect northern spotted owl survival and
reproduction, a concept referred to as habitat fitness potential
(Franklin et al. 2000, p. 542). Among studies that have estimated
habitat fitness potential, the effects of forest fragmentation and
heterogeneity vary geographically. In the California Klamath Province,
locations for nesting and roosting tend to be centered in larger
patches of old forest, but edges between forest types may provide
increased prey abundance and availability (Franklin et al. 2000, p.
579). In the central Oregon Coast Range, northern spotted owls appear
to benefit from a mixture of older forests with younger forest and
nonforested areas in their home range (Olson et al. 2004, pp. 1049-
1050), a pattern similar to that found in the California Klamath
Province. Courtney et al. (2004, p. 5-23) suggest that although in
general large

[[Page 14080]]

patches of older forest appear to be necessary to maintain stable
populations of northern spotted owls, home ranges composed
predominantly of old forest may not be optimal for northern spotted
owls in the California Klamath Province and Oregon Coast Ranges
Province.
The northern spotted owl inhabits most of the major types of
coniferous forests across its geographical range, including Sitka
spruce (Picea sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), mixed
conifer and mixed evergreen, grand fir (Abies grandis), Pacific silver
fir (A. amabilis), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)/Douglas-fir (in coastal California and
southwestern Oregon), white fir (A. concolor), Shasta red fir
(A.magnifica var. shastensis), and the moist end of the ponderosa pine
(Pinus ponderosa) zone (Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 15-16; Thomas et al.
1990, p. 145). Habitat for northern spotted owls has traditionally been
described as consisting of four functional types: Nesting, roosting,
foraging, and dispersal habitats. Recent studies continue to support
the practical value of discussing northern spotted owl habitat usage by
classifying it into these functional habitat types (Irwin et al. 2000,
p. 183; Zabel et al. 2003, p. 1028; Buchanan 2004, p. 1334; Davis and
Lint 2005, p. 21; Forsman et al. 2005, p. 372), and data from studies
are available to describe areas used for these types of activities, so
we retain it here to structure our discussion of the physical or
biological features of habitat essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl.
Recent habitat modeling efforts have also accounted for differences
in habitat associations across regions, which have often been
attributed to regional differences in forest environments and factors
including available prey species (USFWS 2011, p. C-7). These recent
advances allowed for modeling of northern spotted owl habitat by
regions to account for: (1) The degree of similarity between nesting/
roosting and foraging habitats based on prey availability; (2)
latitudinal patterns of topology and climate; (3) regional patterns of
topography, climate, and forest communities; and (4) geographical
distribution of habitat elements that influence the range of conditions
occupied by northern spotted owls (USFWS 2011, p. C-8). Detailed
characterizations of each of these functional habitat types and their
relative distribution are described in the Physical or Biological
Features and Primary Constituent Elements section of this document.
Climate Change
There is growing evidence that recent climate change has impacted a
wide range of ecological systems (Stenseth et al. 2002, entire; Walther
et al. 2002, entire; Adahl et al. 2006, entire; Karl et al. 2009,
entire). Climate change, combined with effects from past management
practices, is exacerbating changes in forest ecosystem processes and
dynamics to a greater degree than originally anticipated under the
NWFP. Environmental variation affects all wildlife populations;
however, climate change presents new challenges as systems may change
beyond historical ranges of variability. In some areas, changes in
weather and climate may result in major shifts in vegetation
communities that can persist in particular regions.
Climate change will present unique challenges to the future of
northern spotted owl populations and their habitats. Northern spotted
owl distributions (Carroll 2010, entire) and population dynamics
(Franklin et al. 2000, entire; Glenn et al. 2010, entire; 2011a,
entire; 2011b, entire) may be directly influenced by changes in
temperature and precipitation. In addition, changes in forest
composition and structure as well as prey species distributions and
abundance resulting from climate change may impact availability of
habitat across the historical range of the subspecies. The Revised
Recovery Plan provides a detailed discussion of the possible
environmental impacts to the habitat of the northern spotted owl from
the projected effects of climate change (USFWS 2011, pp. III-5 to III-
11).
Because both spotted owl population dynamics and forest conditions
are likely to be influenced by large-scale changes in climate in the
future, we have attempted to account for these influences in our
designation of critical habitat by recognizing that forest composition
may change beyond the range of historical variation and that climate
changes may have unpredictable consequences for both Pacific Northwest
forests and northern spotted owls. This proposed critical habitat
designation recognizes that forest management practices that promote
ecosystem health under changing climate conditions will be essential
for spotted owl conservation.

Previous Federal Actions

The northern spotted owl was listed as a threatened species on June
26, 1990 (55 FR 26114); a description of the relevant previous Federal
actions up to the time of listing can be found in that final rule. On
January 15, 1992, we published a final rule designating 6,887,000 acres
(ac) (2,787,000 hectares (ha)) of Federal lands in Washington, Oregon,
and California as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (57 FR
1796). On January 13, 2003, we entered into a settlement agreement with
the American Forest Resources Council, Western Council of Industrial
Workers, Swanson Group Inc., and Rough & Ready Lumber Company, to
conduct a 5-year status review of the northern spotted owl and consider
potential revisions to its critical habitat (Western Council of
Industrial Workers (WCIW) v. Secretary of the Interior, Civ. No. 02-
6100-AA (D. Or.)). On April 21, 2003, we published a notice initiating
the 5-year review of the northern spotted owl (68 FR 19569), and
published a second information request for the 5-year review on July
25, 2003 (68 FR 44093). We completed the 5-year review on November 15,
2004, concluding that the northern spotted owl should remain listed as
a threatened species under the Act (USFWS 2004, entire). On November
24, 2010, we published a notice initiating a new 5-year review for the
northern spotted owl (75 FR 71726); the information solicitation period
for this review was reopened from April 20, 2011 through May 20, 2011
(76 FR 22139), and the completed review was signed on September 29,
2011, concluding that the northern spotted owl was appropriately listed
as a threatened species.
In compliance with the settlement agreement, as amended in the WCIW
case, we published a proposed revised critical habitat rule in the
Federal Register on June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32450). On May 21, 2008, we
published a notice announcing the availability of a draft economic
analysis and the reopening of the public comment period on the proposed
revised critical habitat designation (73 FR 29471). This notice also
alerted the public of the opportunity to comment on the proposed
revision of critical habitat in the context of the recently released
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, which was released on May
16, 2008, and announced in the Federal Register on May 21, 2008 (73 FR
29471). The 2008 recovery plan formed the basis for the current
designation of northern spotted owl critical habitat, which we
published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47325).
Both the 2008 critical habitat designation and the 2008 recovery
plan were challenged in court (Carpenters' Industrial Council v.
Salazar, Case No. 1:08-cv-01409-EGS (D.DC)). In addition, on December
15, 2008, the

[[Page 14081]]

Inspector General of the Department of the Interior issued a report
entitled ``Investigative Report of The Endangered Species Act and the
Conflict between Science and Policy,'' which concluded that the
integrity of the agency decision-making process for the spotted owl
recovery plan was potentially jeopardized by improper political
influence. As a result, the Federal Government filed a motion in the
lawsuit for remand of the 2008 recovery plan and the critical habitat
designation that was based on it. On September 1, 2010, the Court
issued an opinion remanding the 2008 recovery plan to us for issuance
of a revised plan within 9 months. On September 15, 2010, we published
a Federal Register notice (75 FR 56131) announcing the availability of
the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, and
opened a 60-day comment period through November 15, 2010. On November
12, 2010, we announced by way of press release an extension of the
comment period until December 15, 2010.
On November 30, 2010, we announced in the Federal Register the
reopening of the public comment period until December 15, 2010 (75 FR
74073). At that time we also announced the availability of a synopsis
of the population response modeling results for public review and
comment. The supporting information regarding the modeling process was
posted on our Web site. Of the approximately 11,700 comments received
on the Draft Revised Recovery Plan, many requested the opportunity to
review and comment on more detailed information on the habitat modeling
process in Appendix C. On April 22, 2011, we reopened the comment
period on Appendix C of the draft revised recovery plan (76 FR 22720);
this comment period closed on May 23, 2011. On May 6, 2011, the Court
granted our request for an extension of the due date for issuance of
the final revised recovery plan until July 1, 2011. We published the
notice of availability of the final Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl in the Federal Register on July 1, 2011 (76 FR
38575).
On October 12, 2010, the Court remanded the 2008 critical habitat
designation, which had been based on the 2008 Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl, and adopted the Service's proposed schedule to
issue a new proposed revised critical habitat rule for public comment
by November 15, 2011, and a final rule by November 15, 2012. The Court
has subsequently extended the date for delivery of the proposed rule to
the Federal Register to February 28, 2012; the due date of November 15,
2012, for issuance of the final revised rule remains unchanged. This
proposed revision of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl is
in response to the Court's order.

Critical Habitat

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features;
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species; and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features: (1) Which are essential to the
conservation of the species, and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, rainfall,
canopy cover, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area that was not occupied at the time of
listing but is essential to the conservation of the species may be
included in the critical habitat designation. We designate critical
habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species
only when a designation limited to its range would be inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12(e)).
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data

[[Page 14082]]

available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with
the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use
primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and northern spotted owls may move from one
area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas
that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and
outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject
to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the
Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section
7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protection. These include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
For the northern spotted owl, the physical or biological features
essential to the owl are forested areas that are used or likely to be
used by northern spotted owl for nesting, roosting, foraging, or
dispersing. The specific characteristics or components that comprise
these features include, for example, specific ranges of forest stand
density and tree size distribution; coarse woody debris; and specific
resources, such as food (prey and suitable prey habitat), nest sites,
cover, and other physiological requirements required by northern
spotted owls and considered essential for the conservation of the
species. We consider these specific primary constituent elements (PCEs)
later; here we describe the life-history needs of the owl and the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl, which informed our identification of the PCEs.
The following information is based on studies of the habitat, ecology,
and life history of the species as described in the final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114), the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl released on June 30,
2011, the Background section of this proposal, and the following
information.
Although the northern spotted owl is typically considered a habitat
and prey specialist, it uses a relatively broad array of forest types
for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. The diversity of forest
types used is a reflection of the large geographical range of this
subspecies and strong gradation in annual precipitation and temperature
associated with both coastal mountain ranges and the Cascade Range.
While the northern spotted owl is unquestionably associated with old-
growth forests, habitat selection and population performance involves
many additional features (Loehle et al. 2011, p. 20). This description
of physical and biological features summarizes both variation in
habitat use and particular features or portions of the overall gradient
of variation that spotted owls preferentially select, and that we,
therefore, consider essential to their conservation. We begin by
considering the broad-scale patterns of climate, elevation, topography,
and forest community type that act to influence spotted owl
distributions and space for population growth and dispersal, and then
discuss the abundance and pattern of habitats used for nesting,
roosting, and foraging at the landscape scale that influence the
availability and occupancy of breeding sites and the survival and
fecundity of spotted owls. Thus, we begin by considering factors that
operate at broader spatial scales and proceed to factors that influence
habitat quality at the stand scale. When we discuss the physical or
biological features, we focus on features that are common rangewide,
but also summarize specific features or patterns of habitat selection
that characterize particular regions.

Physical Influences Related to Features Essential to the Northern
Spotted Owl

Climate, elevation, and topography are features of the physical
environment that influence the capacity of a landscape to support
habitat with high value for spotted owls and the type of habitat needed
by the species. The distribution and amount of habitat on the landscape
reflects interactions among these physical elements. Several studies
have found that physical aspects of the environment such as topographic
position, aspect, and elevation influence spotted owl habitat selection
(e.g., Clark 2007, pp. 97-111; Stalberg et al. 2009, p. 80). They also
are a factor in determining the type of habitats essential to spotted
owl conservation.
Climate
Population processes for spotted owls are affected by both large-
scale fluctuations in climate conditions and by local weather variation
(Glenn 2009, pp. 246-248). The influence of weather and climate on
spotted owl populations has been documented in northern California
(Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 559-583), Oregon (Olson et al. 2004, pp.
1047-1052; Dugger et al. 2005, pp. 871-877; Glenn et al. 2010, pp.
2546-2551), and Washington (Glenn et al. 2010, pp. 2546-2551). Climate
and weather effects on spotted owls are mediated by vegetation
conditions, and the combination of climate and vegetation

[[Page 14083]]

variables improves models designed to predict the distribution of
spotted owls (e.g., Carroll 2010, pp. 1434-1437).
Climate niche models for the spotted owl identified winter
precipitation as the most important climate variable influencing
ability to predict the distribution of spotted owl habitat (Carroll
2010, p. 1434), a finding consistent with previous demographic studies
that suggest negative effects of winter and spring precipitation on
survival, recruitment, and dispersal (Franklin et al. 2000; pp. 559-
583). Niche modeling suggested that precipitation variables, both in
winter and in summer, were more influential than winter and summer
temperatures (Carroll 2010, p. 1434-1436).
Wet, cold weather during the winter or nesting season, particularly
the early nesting season, has been shown to negatively affect spotted
owl reproduction (Olson et al. 2004, p.1039; Dugger et al. 2005, p.863;
Glenn et al. 2011b, p. 1279), survival (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 539;,
Olson et al. 2004, p. 1039; Glenn et al. 2011a, p. 159), and
recruitment (Franklin et al. 2000 p. 559; Glenn et al. 2010, p. 2546).
Cold, wet weather may reduce reproduction and/or survival during the
breeding season due to declines or decreased activity in small mammal
populations so that less food is available during reproduction when
metabolic demands are high (Glenn et al. 2011b, pp. 1290-1294). Wet,
cold springs or intense storms during this time may increase the risk
of starvation in adult birds (Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 559-590). Cold,
wet weather may also reduce the male spotted owl's ability to bring
food to incubating females or nestlings (Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 559-
590). Cold, wet nesting seasons have been shown to increase the
mortality of nestlings due to chilling (Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 559-
590) and reduce the number of young fledged per pair per year (Franklin
et al. 2000, p. 559, Olson et al. 2004, p. 1047; Glenn et al. 2011b,
1279). Wet, cold weather may decrease survival of dispersing juveniles
during their first winter, thereby reducing recruitment (Franklin et
al. 2000, pp.559-590).
Franklin et al. (2000, pp. 582-583) argued that spotted owl
populations are regulated or limited by both habitat quality and
environmental factors such as weather. Abundance and availability of
prey may ultimately limit spotted owl populations, and prey are
strongly associated with habitat conditions. As habitat quality
decreases, other factors such as weather have a stronger influence on
demographic performance. In essence, the presence of high-quality
habitat appears to buffer the negative effects of cold, wet springs and
winters on survival of spotted owls as well as ameliorate the effects
of heat. High-quality spotted owl habitat was defined in a northern
California study area as a mature or old growth core within a mosaic of
old and younger forest (Franklin et al. 2000, p.559). The high-quality
habitat can help maintain a stable prey base, thereby reducing the cost
of foraging during the early breeding season when energetic needs are
high (Carey et al. 1992, pp. 223-250; Franklin et al. 2000, p. 559). In
addition, mature and old forest with high canopy closure typically
remains cooler during summer months than younger stands.
Drought or hot temperatures during the previous summer have also
been associated with reduced spotted owl recruitment and survival
(Glenn et al. 2010, p. 2546). Drier, warmer summers and drought
conditions during the growing season strongly influence primary
production in forests, food availability, and the population sizes of
small mammals (Glenn et al. 2010, p. 2546). Northern flying squirrels,
for example, forage primarily on ectomycorrhizal fungi (truffles), many
of which grow better under moist conditions (Lehmkuhl et al. 2004, pp.
58-60). Drier, warmer summers, or the high-intensity fires, which such
conditions support, may change the range or availability of these
fungi, affecting northern flying squirrels and the spotted owls that
prey on them. Periods of drought are associated with declines in annual
survival rates for other raptors due to a presumed decrease in prey
availability (Glenn et al. 2010, pp. 2546-2551).
Mexican spotted owls (S. o. lucida) and California spotted owls (S.
o. occidentalis) have a narrow temperature range where body temperature
can be maintained without additional metabolic energy expenditure
(Ganey et al. 1993, pp. 653-654; Weathers et al. 2001, pp. 682-686).
Others (e.g., Franklin et al. 2000, entire) have assumed the northern
spotted owl to be similar in this regard. While winter temperatures are
relatively mild across much of the northern spotted owl's range, heat
stress has been identified as a potential stressor at temperatures
exceeding 30 [deg]C (86[emsp14][deg]F; Weathers et al. 2001, p. 678).
The spotted owl's selection for areas with older-forest characteristics
has been hypothesized to be related, in part, to its needing cooler
areas in summer to avoid heat stress (Barrows and Barrows 1978,
entire).
Elevation and Topography
Elevation and corresponding changes in temperature/moisture regimes
constrain the development of vegetation communities selected by spotted
owls, and may exceed the bounds of physiological tolerance of spotted
owls or their prey. Several studies have noted the avoidance or absence
of spotted owls above location-specific elevational limits (Blakesley
et al. 1992, pp. 390-391; Hershey et al. 1998, p. 1406; LaHaye and
Guti[eacute]rrez 1999, pp. 326, 328). In some locations, elevational
limits occur despite the presence of forests that appear to have the
structural characteristics typically associated with spotted owl
habitat. Where forest structure is not the apparent cause of
elevational limits, the mechanistic bases of these limits are unknown,
but they could be related to prey availability, competitors, or
extremes of temperature or precipitation. Habitat for spotted owls can
occur from sea level to the lower elevation limit of subalpine
vegetation types. This elevation varies with latitude from about 3,000
feet (ft) (900 meters (m)) above sea level in coastal Washington and
Oregon (Davis and Lint 2005, p. 32) to about 6,000 ft (1,800 m) above
sea level near the southern edge of the range (derived from Davis and
Lint 2005, p. 32).
Topography also influences the distribution of spotted owl habitat
and patterns of habitat selection. The effects of topography are
strongest in drier forests where aspect and insolation (amount of solar
radiation received in an area) contribute to moisture stress that can
limit forest density and tree growth. In drier forests east of the
Cascades and in the Klamath region, suitable habitat can be
concentrated at intermediate topographic positions, on north-facing
aspects, and in concave landforms that retain moisture. This leads to a
distribution of suitable habitat characterized by ribbon-like bands and
discrete patches. Ribbons occur along drainages and valley bottoms,
along the north faces of ridges that trend from east to west, and at
intermediate topographic positions between drier pine-dominated forests
at lower elevations and subalpine forest types at higher elevations.
Discrete patches occur on top of higher plateaus and in concave
landforms. Spotted owl populations inhabiting drier forests have higher
fecundity and lower survival rates than owls in other regions (Hicks et
al. 2003, pp. 61-62; Anthony et al. 2006, pp. 28, 30;). The naturally
fragmented distribution of suitable habitat in drier forests and
increased predation risk associated with traversing this

[[Page 14084]]

landscape may be one of many features that contributed to the evolution
of these life-history characteristics.
Slope may also influence the distribution of suitable habitat.
Intermediate slopes have been associated with spotted owl sites in some
studies (e.g., Gremel 2005, p. 37; Gaines et al. 2010, pp. 2048-2050;
USFWS 2011, Appendix C), but the mechanisms underlying this association
are unclear, potentially including a variety of features from soil
depth to competition with barred owls.

Biological Influences Related to Features Essential to the Northern
Spotted Owl

Forest Community Type (Composition)
Across their geographical range, spotted owl use of habitat spans
several scales, with increasing levels of habitat selection specificity
at each scale. We refer to these scales as the ``landscape,'' ``home
range,'' and ``core area'' scales. Nest stands within core areas are
even more narrowly selected (see Functional Categories of Spotted Owl
Habitat, in the Background section, above).
Landscapes supporting populations of spotted owls are the broadest
scale we will consider, encompassing areas sufficient to support
numerous reproductive pairs (roughly 20,000 to 200,000 ac (8,100 to
81,000 ha). Within landscapes, the northern spotted owl inhabits most
of the major types of coniferous forests across its geographical range,
including Sitka spruce, western hemlock, mixed conifer and mixed
evergreen, grand fir, Pacific silver fir, Douglas-fir, redwood/Douglas-
fir (in coastal California and southwestern Oregon), white fir, Shasta
red fir, and the moist end of the ponderosa pine zone (Forsman et al.
1984, pp. 8-9; Franklin and Dyrness 1988, numerous pages; Thomas et al.
1990, p. 145). These forest types may be in early-, mid-, or late-seral
stages, and must occur in concert with at least one of the physical or
biological features characteristic of breeding and nonbreeding
(dispersal) habitat, described below.
Landscape-level patterns in tree species composition and topography
can influence the distribution and density of spotted owls. These
differences in spotted owl distribution occur even when different
forest types have similar structural attributes, suggesting that
spotted owls may prefer specific plant associations or tree species.
Some forest types, such as pine-dominated and subalpine forests, are
infrequently used, regardless of their structural attributes. In areas
east of the Cascade Crest, spotted owls select forests with high
proportions of Douglas-fir trees. The effects of tree species
composition on habitat selection also extend to hardwoods within
conifer-dominated forests (e.g., Meyer et al. 1998, p. 35). For
example, our habitat association modeling indicated that habitat value
in the central Western Cascades was negatively related to proportion of
hardwoods present. At the home range and core area scales, locations
occupied by spotted owls consistently have greater amounts of mature
and old-growth forest compared to random locations or unused areas. The
proportion of older forest within the home range varies greatly by
geographical region, but typically falls between 30 and 78 percent
(Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5-6). The only exception to this pattern
occurred in drier forests of Washington, where development of a dense
understory of shade-tolerant trees may have reduced suitability of
older forests subjected to prolonged fire exclusion (Irwin et al. 2004,
p. 20). In studies where circles of different sizes were compared,
differences between spotted owl sites and random locations diminished
as circles of increasing size were evaluated (Courtney et al. 2004, p.
5-7), suggesting habitat selection is stricter at the core area scale
than at the home range and landscape scales.
Disturbance Regimes
Natural disturbances and anthropogenic (human-caused) activities
continuously shape the amount and distribution of spotted owl habitat
on the landscape. In moist forests west of the Cascades in Washington
and Oregon, and in the Redwood region, anthropogenic activities have a
dominant influence on distribution patterns of remaining habitat, with
natural disturbances typically playing a secondary role. In contrast,
drier forests east of the Cascades and in the Klamath region have
dynamic disturbance regimes that continue to exert a strong influence
on spotted owl habitat. Climate change may modify disturbance regimes
across the range of the spotted owl, resulting in substantial changes
to the frequency and extent of habitat disruption by natural events.
In drier forests, low- and mixed-severity fires historically
contributed to a high level of spatial and temporal variability in
landscape patterns of disturbed and recovering vegetation. However,
anthropogenic activities have so altered these historic patterns of
vegetation and fuels and associated disturbance regimes that
contemporary landscapes no longer function as they did historically
(Hessburg et al. 2000a, pp. 77-78; Hessburg and Agee 2003, pp. 44-51;
Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 122-127, 134-136; Skinner et al. 2006, pp.
176-179; Skinner and Taylor 2006, pp. 201-203).
Fire exclusion, combined with the removal of fire-tolerant
structures (e.g., large, fire-tolerant tree species such as ponderosa
pine, western larch (Larix occidentalis), and Douglas-fir), have
reduced the resiliency of the landscape to fire and other disturbances,
especially in those forest types outside of the wetter, higher severity
fire regime types (Agee 1993, pp. 280-319; Hessburg et al. 2000a, pp.
71-80; Hessburg and Agee 2003, pp. 44-46). Understory vegetation in
these forests has shifted in response to fire exclusion from grasses
and shrubs to shade-tolerant conifers, reducing fire tolerance of these
forests and increasing drought stress on dominant tree species.
Anthropogenic activities have also fundamentally changed the
spatial distribution of fire intolerant-stands among the fire-tolerant
stands, changing the pattern of fire activity across the landscape.
Past management has homogenized the formerly patchy vegetative network
and reduced the complexity that was more prevalent during the pre-
settlement era (Skinner 1995, pp. 224-226; Hessburg and Agee 2003, pp.
44-45; Hessburg et al. 2007, p. 21; Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, pp. 564-
565). Patches of fire-intolerant vegetation that had been spatially
separated have become more contiguous and are more prone to conducting
fire, insects, and diseases across larger swaths of the landscape
(Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 71-74, 77-78). This homogenized landscape
may be altering the size and intensity of current disturbances and
further altering landscape functionality (e.g., Everett et al. 2000,
pp. 221-222). This alteration in the disturbance regime further affects
forest structure and composition.
The intensity and spatial extent of natural disturbances that
affect the amount, distribution, and quality of spotted owl habitat in
dry forests are also influenced by local topographic features,
elevation, and climate (Swanson et al. 1988, entire). At local scales
these factors can be used to identify refugia that are insulated from
existing disturbance and consequently tend to persist for longer
periods (Camp et al. 1997, entire). These disturbance refugia are
locations where spotted owl habitat has a higher likelihood of
developing and persisting in drier forests. As a result of these
disturbance regimes, especially in the drier forests within its range,
habitat for the northern

[[Page 14085]]

spotted owl naturally occurs in a patchy mosaic in various stages of
suitability in these regions. Sufficient area to provide for these
habitat dynamics and to allow for the maintenance of adequate
quantities of suitable habitat on the landscape at any one point in
time is, therefore, essential to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl in the dry forest regions.
Pattern and Distribution of Habitat
Historically, forest types occupied by the northern spotted owl
were fairly continuous, particularly in the wetter parts of its range
in coastal northern California and most of western Oregon and
Washington. Suitable forest types in the drier parts of the range
(interior northern California, interior southern Oregon, and east of
the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington) occur in a mosaic pattern
interspersed with infrequently used vegetation types such as open
forests, shrubby areas, and grasslands. As described above, natural
disturbance processes in these drier regions likely contributed to a
pattern in which patches of habitat in various stages of suitability
shift positions on the landscape through time. In the Klamath Mountains
Provinces of Oregon and California, and to a lesser extent in the Coast
and Cascade Provinces of California, large areas of serpentine soils
exist that are typically not capable of supporting northern spotted owl
habitat (Davis and Lint 2005, pp. 31-33).
Population Spatial Requirements
We have described a range of climatic, elevational, topographic,
and compositional factors, and associated disturbance dynamics typical
of different regions, that constrain the amount and distribution of
spotted owl habitat across landscapes. Within this context, areas that
contain the physical and biological features described below must
provide habitat in an amount and distribution sufficient to support
persistent populations, including metapopulations of reproductive
pairs, and opportunities for nonbreeding and dispersing owls to move
among populations to be considered essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl.
Spotted owls are territorial, defending areas that vary across
nearly an order of magnitude, from about 1,400 to 14,000 ac (570 to
5,700 ha), depending on latitude and prey resources (see Home Range
Requirements, below). Overlap occurs among adjoining territories, but
the large size of territories nonetheless means that populations of
spotted owls require landscapes with large areas of habitat suitable
for nesting, roosting, and foraging. For example, in the northern parts
of the subspecies' range where territories are largest, a population of
20 resident pairs would require at least 100,000 ac (about 40,500 ha)
when habitat is relatively densely distributed and of high-quality.
As described in the Background section above, several studies have
examined patterns of spotted owl habitat selection at the territory
scale and the consequences of habitat configuration within a territory
on fitness. We do not know if the features that contribute to enhancing
spotted owl occupancy and reproductive success at the territory scale
can be scaled up to predict what landscape-scale patterns of habitat
are most conducive to stable or increasing spotted owl populations.
Studies that use populations as units of analysis in order to
investigate the effects of the landscape-scale configuration of habitat
on the performance of spotted owl populations have only begun. Past
models of spotted owl population dynamics have included predictions
about the effects of habitat configuration on population performance,
but these predictions have not been tested or validated by empirical
studies (Franklin and Guti[eacute]rrez 2002; p. 215). Recent
demographic analyses suggested that recruitment was positively related
to the proportion of study areas covered by suitable habitat (see
Forsman et al. 2011, pp. 59-62), but this covariate was not associated
with other aspects of demographic performance, and few other covariates
were investigated.
When the spotted owl was listed as threatened in 1990 (55 FR
26114), habitat loss and fragmentation of old-growth forest were
identified as major factors contributing to declines in spotted owl
populations. As older forests were reduced to smaller and more isolated
patches, the ability of spotted owls to successfully disperse and
establish territories was likely reduced (Lamberson et al. 1992, pp.
506, 508, 510-511). Lamberson et al. (1992, pp. 509-511) identified
that there appeared to be a sharp threshold in the amount of habitat
below which spotted owl population viability plummeted. Lamberson et
al. (1994, pp. 185-186, 192-194) concluded that size, spacing and shape
of reserved areas all had strong influence on population persistence,
and reserves that could support a minimum of 20 spotted owl territories
were more likely to maintain spotted owl populations than smaller
reserves. They also found that juvenile dispersal was facilitated in
areas large enough to support at least 20 spotted owl territories. In
addition to size, spacing between reserves had a strong influence on
successful dispersal (Lamberson et al. 1992, pp. 508, 510-511). Forsman
et al. (2002, pp. 15-16) reported dispersal distances of 1,475 spotted
owls in Oregon and Washington for 1985 to 1996. Median maximum
dispersal distance (the straight-line distance between the natal site
and the farthest location) for radio-marked juvenile male spotted owls
was 12.7 miles (mi) (20.3 kilometers (km)), and that of female spotted
owls was 17.2 mi. (27.5 km) (Forsman et al. 2002: Table 2). Dispersal
data and other studies on the amount and configuration of habitat
necessary to sustain spotted owls provided the foundation for
developing previous spotted owl habitat reserve systems. Given the
range-wide declining trends in northern spotted owl populations as well
as declining trends in the recruitment of new individuals into
territorial populations (Forsman et al. 2011, pp. 59-66, Table 22), we
have determined that, to be essential, physical and biological features
must be positioned on the landscape to enable populations to persist
and individual owls to disperse among populations.
In contrast to earlier designations of critical habitat, we did not
develop an a priori rule set to identify those areas that provide the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
owl, using factors such as minimum size of habitat blocks, targeted
numbers of owl pairs, or maximum distance between blocks of habitat.
Instead, we determined the spatial extent and placement of the areas
providing the physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the owl based on the relative demographic performance
of various habitat models tested. This process is summarized in
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat, below, and is presented in
detail in our supporting documentation (Dunk et al. 2012, entire).
Home Range Requirements
Northern spotted owls remain on their home range throughout the
year; therefore, their home range must provide all the habitat
components and prey needed for the survival and successful reproduction
of a territorial pair. The home range of a northern spotted owl is
relatively large, but varies in size across the range of the subspecies
(Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5-24; 55 FR 26117, June 26, 1991). Home range
sizes are largest in Washington (Olympic Peninsula: 14,271 ac (5775 ha)
(USDI 1992, p. 23; USFWS 1994 in litt., p. 1) and generally decrease
along a north-south gradient to approximately 1,430 ac (580 ha) in the
Klamath region

[[Page 14086]]

of northwestern California and southern Oregon (Zabel et al. 1995, p.
436). Northern spotted owl home ranges are generally larger where
northern flying squirrels are the predominant prey and smaller where
woodrats are the predominant prey (Zabel et al. 1995, p. 436). Home
range size also increases with increasing forest fragmentation (Carey
et al. 1992, p. 235; Franklin and Guti[eacute]rrez 2002, p. 212; Glenn
et al. 2004, p. 45) and decreasing proportions of nesting habitat on
the landscape (Carey et al. 1992, p. 235; Forsman et al. 2005, p. 374),
suggesting that northern spotted owls increase the size of their home
ranges to encompass adequate amounts of suitable forest types (Forsman
et al. 2005, p. 374).
Meta-analysis of features associated with occupancy at the
territory-scale indicated that spotted owls consistently occupy areas
having larger patches of older forests (which contained more interior
forest) that were more numerous and closer together than random sites
(Franklin and Guti[eacute]rrez 2002; p. 212). In the Klamath and
Redwood regions owls also consistently occupy sites with higher forest
heterogeneity than random sites. Occupied sites in the Klamath region,
in particular, show a high degree of vegetative heterogeneity, with
more variable patch sizes and more perimeter edge than in other regions
(Franklin and Guti[eacute]rrez 2002; p. 212). In the Klamath region,
ecotones, or edges between older forests and other seral stages, may
contribute to improved access to prey (Franklin and Guti[eacute]rrez
2002, p. 215). Several studies in the Klamath region and the Redwood
region have found that variables describing the relationship between
habitat core area and edge length improve the ability of models to
predict spotted owl occupancy (e.g., Folliard et al. 2000, pp. 79-81;
Zabel et al 2003, pp. 1936-1038). In contrast, spotted owl sites in the
Oregon Coast Range had a more even distribution of cover types than
random locations, and nest stands had a higher ratio of core to edge
and more complex stand shapes than non-nest stands (Courtney et al.
2004, p. 5-9).
A home range provides the habitat components essential for the
survival and successful reproduction of a resident breeding pair of
northern spotted owls. The exact amount, quality, and configuration of
these habitat types required for survival and successful reproduction
varies according to local conditions and factors such as the degree of
habitat fragmentation, proportion of available nesting habitat, and
primary prey species (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5-2).
Core Area Requirements
Northern spotted owls often use habitat within their home ranges
disproportionally, and exhibit central-place foraging behavior
(Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, p. 1028), with much activity centered
within a core area surrounding the nest tree during the breeding
season. During fall and winter, as well as in nonbreeding years, owls
often roost and forage in areas of their home range more distant from
the core. The size of core areas varies considerably across the
subspecies' geographical range following a pattern similar to that of
home range size (Bingham and Noon 1997, p. 133), varying from over
4,057 ac (1,642 ha) in the northernmost (flying squirrel prey)
provinces (Forsman et al. 2005, pp. 370, 375) to less than 500 ac (202
ha) in the southernmost (dusky-footed woodrat prey) provinces (Pious
1995, pp. 9-10, Table 2; Zabel et al. 2003, pp. 1036-1038). Owls often
switch nest trees and use multiple core areas over time, possibly in
response to local prey depletion or loss of a particular nest tree.
Core areas contain greater proportions of mature/old forest than
random or nonuse areas (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5-13), and the amount
of high-quality habitat at the core area scale shows the strongest
relationships with occupancy (Meyer et al. 1998, p. 34; Zabel et al.
2003, pp. 1027, 1036), survival (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 567; Dugger
et al. 2005, p. 873), and reproductive success (Ripple et al. 1997, pp.
155 to 156; Dugger et al. 2005, p. 871). In some areas, edges between
forest types within northern spotted owl home ranges may provide
increased prey abundance and availability (Franklin et al. 2000, p.
579). For successful reproduction, core areas need to contain one or
more forest stands that have both the structural attributes and the
location relative to other features in the home range that allow them
to fulfill essential nesting, roosting, and foraging functions (Carey
and Peeler 1995, pp. 233-236; Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, pp. 1035-
1037).
Areas To Support Dispersal and Nonbreeding Owls
Northern spotted owls regularly disperse through highly fragmented
forested landscapes that are typical of the mountain ranges in western
Washington and Oregon, and have dispersed from the Coastal Mountains to
the Cascades Mountains in the broad forested regions between the
Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue Valleys of Oregon (Forsman et al. 2002,
p. 22). Corridors of forest through fragmented landscapes serve
primarily to support relatively rapid movement through such areas,
rather than colonization or residency of nonbreeding owls.
During the transience (movement) phase, dispersers used mature and
old-growth forest slightly more than its availability; during the
colonization phase, mature and old-growth forest was used at nearly
twice its availability (Miller et al. 1997, p. 144). Closed pole-
sapling-sawtimber habitat was used roughly in proportion to
availability in both phases and may represent the minimum condition for
movement. Open sapling and clearcuts were used less than expected based
on availability during colonization (Miller et al. 1997, p. 145). This
indicates that transient dispersers can use a greater variety of
forested habitats relative to those subadults or nonbreeding adults
that are residents; the latter individuals will require habitats that
are more similar to the nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats
utilized by breeding pairs.
We currently do not have sufficient information to permit formal
modeling of dispersal habitat and the influence of dispersal habitat
condition on dispersal success (USFWS 2011, p. C-15). We expect that
dispersal success is highest when dispersers move through forests that
have the characteristics of nesting-roosting and foraging habitats.
Spotted owls can also disperse successfully through forests with less
complex structure, but risk of starvation and predation likely increase
with increasing divergence from the characteristics of suitable
(nesting, roosting, foraging) habitat.
Relatively little information is currently available about the
features of habitats used by dispersing spotted owls, or the
effectiveness of different approaches to managing dispersal habitat.
The suitability of habitat to contribute to successful dispersal of
spotted owls is likely related to the degree to which it ameliorates
heat stress, provides abundant and accessible prey, limits predation
risk, and resembles habitat in natal territories (Carey 1985, pp. 105-
107; Buchanan 2004, pp. 1335-1341).
Dispersal habitat is habitat that owls use when dispersing.
Although no formal studies have been completed to characterize
dispersal habitat, a widely-accepted rule of thumb is that while
dispersal habitat would optimally be the same as suitable nesting,
roosting, or foraging habitat (mature and old-growth stands), if
necessary owls can also make use of young stands of trees approximately
11 inches (in) (28 centimeters (cm)) diameter at breast

[[Page 14087]]

height (dbh) or greater with roughly a minimum 40 percent canopy
closure. Dispersal habitat consists of forest types described above
that provide one or both of the habitat components described below that
are essential to the dispersal of juvenile and nonterritorial northern
spotted owls. Dispersal habitat can occur between larger blocks of
nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat or within blocks of nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat. Dispersal habitat is essential to
maintaining stable populations by promoting rapid filling of
territorial vacancies when resident northern spotted owls die or leave
their territories, and to providing adequate gene flow across the range
of the species.
Regional Variation in Habitat Use
Differences in patterns of habitat associations across the range of
the spotted owl suggest four different broad zones of habitat use,
which we characterize as the West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and
Washington, East Cascades, Klamath and Northern California Interior
Coast Ranges, and Redwood Coast (Figure 4). We configured these zones
based on a qualitative assessment of similarity among ecological
conditions and habitat associations within the 11 different regions
analyzed, as these four zones efficiently capture the range in
variation of some of the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the northern spotted owl. We summarize the physical
or biological features for each of these four zones, emphasizing zone-
specific features that are distinctive within the context of general
patterns that apply across the entire range of the northern spotted
owl.

[[Page 14088]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.003

West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington

This zone includes five regions west of the Cascade crest in
Washington and Oregon (Western Cascades North, Central and South; North
Coast Ranges and Olympic Peninsula; and Oregon Coast Ranges; USFWS
2011, p. C-13). Climate in this zone is characterized by high rainfall
and cool to moderate temperatures. Variation in elevation between
valley bottoms and ridges is

[[Page 14089]]

relatively low in the Coast Ranges, creating conditions favorable for
development of contiguous forests. In contrast, the Olympic and Cascade
ranges have greater topographic variation, with many high-elevation
areas supporting permanent snowfields and glaciers. Douglas-fir and
western hemlock dominate forests used by spotted owls. Root diseases
and wind-throw are important natural disturbance mechanisms that form
gaps in forested areas. Flying squirrels are the dominant prey, with
voles and mice also representing important items in the spotted owl's
diet.
Our habitat association modeling indicated that vegetation
structure had a dominant influence on owl population performance, with
habitat pattern and topography also contributing. High canopy cover,
high density of large trees, high numbers of sub-canopy vegetation
layers, and low to moderate slope positions were all important
features.
Nesting habitat in this zone is mostly limited to areas with large
trees with defects such as mistletoe brooms, cavities, or broken tops.
The subset of foraging habitat that is not nesting/roosting habitat
generally had slightly lower values than nesting habitat for canopy
cover, tree size and density, and canopy layering. Prey species in this
zone are associated with mature to late-successional forests, resulting
in small differences between nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat.

East Cascades

This zone includes the Eastern Cascades North and Eastern Cascades
South regions (USFWS 2011, p. C-13). This zone is characterized by a
continental climate (cold, snowy winters and dry summers) and a high
frequency of natural disturbances due to fires and outbreaks of forest
insects and pathogens. Flying squirrels are the dominant prey species,
but the diet of spotted owls also includes relatively large proportions
of bushy-tailed woodrats, snowshoe hare, pika, and mice (Forsman et al.
2001, pp. 144-145).
Our modeling indicates that habitat associations in this zone do
not show a pattern of dominant influence by one or a few variables
(USFWS 2011, Appendix C). Instead, habitat association models for this
zone included a large number of variables, each making a relatively
modest contribution (20 percent or less) to the predictive ability of
the model. The features that were most useful in predicting habitat
quality were vegetation structure and composition, and topography,
especially slope position in the north. Other efforts to model habitat
associations in this zone have yielded similar results (e.g., Gaines et
al. 2010, pp. 2048-2050; Loehle et al. 2011, pp. 25-28).
Relative to other portions of the subspecies' range, nesting and
roosting habitat in this zone includes relatively younger and smaller
trees, likely reflecting the common usage of dwarf mistletoe brooms
(dense growths) as nesting platforms (especially in the north). Forest
composition that includes high proportions of Douglas-fir is also
associated with this nesting structure. Additional foraging habitat in
this zone generally resembles nesting and roosting habitat, with
reduced canopy cover and tree size, and reduced canopy layering. High
prey diversity suggests relatively diverse foraging habitats are used.
Topographic position was an important variable, particularly in the
north, possibly reflecting competition from barred owls (Singleton et
al. 2010, pp. 289, 292). Barred owls, which have been present for over
30 years in northern portions of this zone, preferentially occupy
valley-bottom habitats, possibly compelling spotted owls to establish
territories on less productive, mid-slope locations (Singleton et al.
2010, pp. 289, 292).

Klamath and Northern California Interior Coast Ranges

This zone includes the Klamath-Siskiyou West, Klamath-Siskiyou
East, and Interior California Coast regions (USFWS 2011, p. C-13). This
region in southwestern Oregon and northwestern California is
characterized by very high climatic and vegetative diversity resulting
from steep gradients of elevation, dissected topography, and large
differences in moisture from west to east. Summer temperatures are
high, and spotted owls occur at elevations up to 1,768 m (5,800 ft).
Western portions of this zone support a diverse mix of mesic forest
communities interspersed with drier forest types. Forests of mixed
conifers and evergreen hardwoods are typical of the zone. Eastern
portions of this zone have a Mediterranean climate with increased
occurrence of ponderosa pine. Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium
douglasii) is rarely used for nesting platforms in the west, but
commonly used in the east. The prey base for spotted owls in this zone
is correspondingly diverse, but dominated by dusky-footed woodrats,
bushy-tailed woodrats, and flying squirrels. Spotted owls have been
well studied in the Klamath portion of this zone, but relatively little
is known about spotted owl habitat use in the California Interior Coast
Range portion of the zone. Our habitat association models for this zone
suggest that vegetation structure and topographic features are nearly
equally important in influencing owl population performance,
particularly in the Klamath. High canopy cover, high levels of canopy
layering, and the presence of very large dominant trees were all
important features of nesting and roosting habitat. Compared to other
zones, additional foraging habitat for this zone showed greater
divergence from nesting habitat, with much lower canopy cover and tree
size. Low to intermediate slope positions were strongly favored. In the
eastern Klamath, presence of Douglas-fir was an important compositional
variable in our habitat model (USFWS 2011, Appendix C).

Redwood Coast

This zone is confined to the northern California coast, and is
represented by the Redwood Coast region (USFWS 2011, p. C-13). It is
characterized by a maritime climate with moderate temperatures and
generally mesic conditions. Near the coast, frequent fog delivers
consistent moisture during the summer. Terrain is typically low-lying
(0 to 900 m (0 to 3,000 ft)). Forest communities are dominated by
redwood, Douglas-fir--tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) forest, coast
live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and tanoak series. Dusky footed woodrats
are dominant prey items in this zone.
Habitat association models for this zone diverged strongly from
models for other zones. Topographic variables (slope position and
curvature) had a dominant influence with vegetation structure having a
secondary role. Low position on slopes was strongly favored, along with
concave landforms.
Several studies of spotted owl habitat relationships suggest that
stump-sprouting and rapid growth of redwood trees, combined with high
availability of woodrats in patchy, intensively managed forests,
enables spotted owls to occupy a wide range of vegetation conditions
within the redwood zone. Rapid growth rates enable young stands to
develop structural characteristics typical of older stands in other
regions. Relatively small patches of large remnant trees can also
provide nesting habitat structure in this zone.

Physical or Biological Features and Primary Constituent Elements

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the spotted owl in areas occupied at the

[[Page 14090]]

time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements
(PCEs). The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted owl are forested lands that are
used or likely to be used for nesting, roosting, foraging, or
dispersing. We have further determined that these physical or
biological features may require special management considerations or
protection, as described in the section Special Management
Considerations or Protection, below. We consider the PCEs to be the
specific elements that comprise the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of the species. For the northern
spotted owl, the primary constituent elements are the specific
characteristics that make areas suitable for nesting, roosting,
foraging and dispersal habitat. To be essential to the conservation of
the northern spotted owl, these features need to be distributed in a
spatial configuration that is conducive to persistence of spotted owl
populations, survival and reproductive success of resident pairs, and
survival of dispersing individuals until they can recruit into a
breeding population.

Physical or Biological Features by Life-History Function

Each of the essential features--in this case, forested lands that
provide the functional categories of northern spotted owl habitat--
comprises a complex interplay of structural elements, such as tree size
and species, stand density, canopy diversity, and decadence. Spotted
owls have been shown to exhibit strong associations with specific PCEs;
however, the range of combinations of PCEs that may constitute habitat
(particularly foraging habitat) is broad. In addition, the relative
importance of specific habitat elements (and subsequently their
relevance as PCEs) is strongly influenced by physical factors such as
elevation and slope position, and the degree to which physical factors
influence the role of individual PCEs varies geographically. In
addition to forest type, the key elements of habitats with the physical
or biological features essential for the conservation of the northern
spotted owl may be organized as follows:
Nesting and Roosting Habitat
Nesting and roosting habitat provides structural features for
nesting, protection from adverse weather conditions, and cover to
reduce predation risks for adults and young. Because nesting habitat
provides resources critical for nest site selection and breeding, its
characteristics tend to be conservative; stand structures at nest sites
tend to vary little across the spotted owl's range. Nesting stands
typically include a moderate to high canopy closure (60 to over 80
percent); a multilayered, multispecies canopy with large (greater than
30 in (76 cm) dbh) overstory trees; a high incidence of large trees
with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe
infections, and other evidence of decadence); large snags; large
accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and
sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted owls to fly
(Thomas et al. 1990, p. 164; 57 FR 1798, January 15, 1992). These
findings were recently reinforced in rangewide models developed by
Davis and Dugger (2011, Table 3-1, p. 39), who found that stands used
for nesting (moderate to high suitability) exhibited high canopy cover
of conifers (65 to 89 percent), large trees (mean diameter from 20 to
36 in (51 to 91 cm)), with a forest density of 6 to 19 large trees
(greater than 30 in dbh) per acre (15 to 47 large trees (greater than
76 cm dbh) per hectare), and high diameter diversity.
Recent studies have found that northern spotted owl nest stands
tend to have greater tree basal area, number of canopy layers, density
of broken-top trees, number or basal area of snags, and volume of logs
(Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 5-16 to 5-19, 5-23) than non-nest stands. In
some forest types, northern spotted owls nest in younger forest stands
that contain structural characteristics of older forests (legacy
features from previous stands before disturbance). In the portions of
the spotted owl's range where Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe occurs,
infected trees provide an important source of nesting platforms
(Buchanan et al. 1993, pp. 4-5). Nesting northern spotted owls
consistently occupy stands having a high degree of canopy cover that
may provide thermoregulatory benefits (Weathers et al. 2001, p. 686),
allowing northern spotted owls a wider range of choices for locating
thermally neutral roosts near the nest site. A high degree of canopy
closure may also conceal northern spotted owls, reducing potential
predation. Studies of roosting locations found that northern spotted
owls tended to use stands with greater vertical canopy layering (Mills
et al.1993, pp. 318-319), canopy closure (King 1993, p. 45), snag
diameter (Mills et al. 1993, pp. 318-319), diameter of large trees
(Herter et al. 2002, pp. 437, 441), and amounts of large woody debris
(Chow 2001, p. 24; reviewed in Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 5-14 to 5-16,
5-23). Northern spotted owls use the same habitat for both nesting and
roosting; the characteristics of roosting habitat differ from those of
nesting habitat only in that roosting habitat need not contain the
specific structural features used for nesting (Thomas et al.1990, p.
62). Aside from the presence of the nest structure, nesting and
roosting habitat are generally inseparable.
Habitat modeling developed for the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS
2011, Appendix C) and used as one means of helping us identify
potential critical habitat for the northern spotted owl supports
previous descriptions of nesting habitat (57 FR 1796, January 15, 1992;
73 FR 47326, August 13, 2008), and suggests a high degree of similarity
among the 11 ecological regions across the range of the species. Across
regions, moderate to high suitability nesting habitat was characterized
as having high canopy cover (65 to over 80 percent) and high basal area
(240 ft\2\/ac; (55 m\2\/ha), mean dbh of conifers at least 16.5 to 24
in (42 to 60 cm), and a significant component of larger trees (greater
than 30 in (75 cm)).
Foraging Habitat
Habitats used for foraging by northern spotted owls vary widely
across the spotted owl's range, in accordance with ecological
conditions and disturbance regimes that influence vegetation structure
and prey species distributions. In general, spotted owls select old
forests for foraging in greater proportion than its availability at the
landscape scale (Carey et al. 1992, pp. 236 to 237; Carey and Peeler
1995, p. 235; Forsman et al. 2005, pp. 372-373), but will forage in
younger stands and brushy openings with high prey densities and access
to prey (Carey et al. 1992, p. 247; Rosenberg and Anthony 1992, p. 165;
Thome et al. 1999, pp. 56-57). Throughout much of the owl's range, the
same habitat that provides for nesting and roosting also provides for
foraging, although northern spotted owls have greater flexibility in
utilizing a variety of habitats for foraging than they do for nesting
and roosting. That is, habitats that meet the species' needs for
nesting and roosting generally also provide for foraging (and
dispersal) requirements of the owl. However, in some areas owls may use
other types of habitats for foraging in addition to those used for
nesting and roosting, thus habitat that supports foraging (or
dispersal) does not always support the other PCEs and does not
necessarily provide for nesting or roosting.

[[Page 14091]]

Variation in the potential use of various foraging habitats throughout
the range of the northern spotted owl is described here.

West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington

In the West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington, high-
quality foraging habitat is also nesting/roosting habitat. Foraging
activity is positively associated with tree height diversity (North et
al. 1999, p. 524), canopy closure (Irwin et al. 2000, p. 180; Courtney
et al. 2004, p. 5-15), snag volume, density of snags greater than 20 in
(50 cm) dbh (North et al. 1999, p. 524; Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 179-180;
Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5-15), density of trees greater than or equal
to 31 in (80 cm) dbh (North et al. 1999, p. 524) density of trees 20 to
31 in (51 to 80 cm) dbh (Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 179-180), and volume of
woody debris (Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 179-180).
While the majority of studies reported strong associations with
old-forest characteristics, younger forests with some structural
characteristics (legacy features) of old forests (Carey et al. 1992,
pp. 245 to 247; Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 178 to 179), hardwood forest
patches and edges between old forest and hardwoods (Glenn et al. 2004,
pp. 47-48) are also used by foraging spotted owls.

East Cascades

Foraging habitats used by spotted owls in the East Cascades of
Oregon, Washington and California were similar to those used in the
Western Cascades, but can also encompass forest stands that exhibit
somewhat lower mean tree sizes (quadratic mean diameter 16-22 in (40-55
cm) (Irwin et al. 2012, p. 207). However, foraging activity was still
positively associated with densities of large trees (greater than 26 in
(66 cm)) and increasing basal area (Irwin et al. 2012, p. 206). Stands
composed of Douglas-fir and white fir/Douglas-fir mix were preferred in
some regions, whereas stands dominated by ponderosa pine were avoided
(Irwin et al. 2012, p. 207).

Klamath and Northern California Interior Coast Ranges

Because diets of northern spotted owls in the Klamath and Northern
California Interior Coast Ranges consist predominantly of both northern
flying squirrels and dusky-footed woodrats, habitats used for foraging
spotted owls are much more variable than in northern portions of the
species' range. As in other regions, foraging spotted owls select
stands with mature and old-forest characteristics such as increasing
mean stand diameter and densities of trees greater than 26 in (66 cm)
(Irwin et al. 2012, p. 206) and mean stand diameter greater than 21 in
(52.5 cm) (Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p. 747), high canopy cover (87
percent at frequently used sites; Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p. 74,
Table 3), and multiple canopy layers (Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p. 74;
Anthony and Wagner 1999, pp. 14, 17). However, other habitat elements
are disproportionately used, particularly forest patches within
riparian zones of low-order streams (Solis and Gutierrez 1990, p. 747;
Irwin et al. 2012, p. 208) and edges between conifer and hardwood
forest stands (Zabel et al 1995, pp. 436-437; Ward et al. 1998, pp. 86,
88-89). Foraging use is positively influenced by conifer species,
including incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), sugar pine (P.
lambertiana), Douglas-fir, and hardwoods such as bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), live oaks, and
Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) as well as shrubs (Sisco 1990, p.
20; Irwin et al. 2012, pp. 206-207, 209-210), presumably because they
produce mast important for prey species. Within a mosaic of mature and
older forest habitat, brushy openings and dense young stands or low-
density forest patches also receive some use (Sisco 1990, pp. 9, 12,
14, 16; Zabel et al. 1993, p. 19; Irwin et al. 2012, pp. 209-210).

Redwood Coast

The preponderance of information regarding habitats used for
foraging by spotted owls in the Redwood Coast zone comes from
intensively managed industrial forests. In these environments, which
comprise the majority of the redwood region, interspersion of foraging
habitat and prey-producing habitat appears to be an important element
of habitat suitability. Foraging habitat is used by owls to access prey
and is characterized by a wide range of tree sizes and ages. Foraging
activity by owls is positively associated with density of small to
medium sized trees (10 to 22 in (25 to 56 cm)) and trees greater than
26 in (66 cm) in diameter (Irwin et al. 2007b, p. 19) or greater than
41 years of age (MacDonald et al. 2006, p. 381). Foraging was also
positively associated with hardwood species, particularly tanoak
(MacDonald et al. 2006, pp. 380-382; Irwin et al. 2007a, pp. 1188-
1189). Prey-producing habitats occur within early-seral habitats 6 to
20 years old (Hamm and Diller 2009, p. 100, Table 2), typically
resulting from clearcuts or other intensive harvest methods. Habitat
elements within these openings include dense shrub and hardwood cover,
and woody debris.
Models developed for the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011,
Appendix C) to assess habitat suitability for the northern spotted owl
across the range of the species and applied here to help identify
potential critical habitat were based on habitat conditions within 500-
acre (200-ha) core areas. Because core areas support a mix of nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitats, their characteristics provide a basis
for identification and quantification of PCEs.
Nonbreeding and Dispersal Habitat
Although the term ``dispersal'' frequently refers to post fledgling
movements of juveniles, for the purposes of this rule we are using the
term to include all movement during both the transience and
colonization phase, and to encompass important concepts of linkage and
connectivity among owl subpopulations. Population growth can only occur
if there is adequate habitat in an appropriate configuration to allow
for the dispersal of owls across the landscape. Although habitat that
allows for dispersal may currently be marginal or unsuitable for
nesting, roosting, or foraging, it provides an important linkage
function among blocks of nesting habitat both locally and over the
owl's range that is essential to its conservation. However, as noted
above, we expect dispersal success is highest when dispersers move
through forests that have the characteristics of nesting-roosting and
foraging habitats. Although spotted owls may be able to move through
forests with less complex structure, survivorship is likely decreased.
Dispersal habitat, at a minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree
size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian predators and
at least minimal foraging opportunities; there may be variations over
the owl's range (e.g., drier site in the east Cascades or northern
California). This may include younger and less diverse forest stands
than foraging habitat, such as even-aged, pole-sized stands, but such
stands should contain some roosting structures and foraging habitat to
allow for temporary resting and feeding during the transience phase.
Habitat supporting nonbreeding spotted owls or the colonization
phase of dispersal is generally equivalent to nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat and is described above, although it may be in smaller
amounts than that needed to support nesting pairs.

[[Page 14092]]

Primary Constituent Elements for the Northern Spotted Owl

Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the northern spotted owl and the requirements of the habitat
to sustain its essential life-history functions, as described above, we
have determined that the PCEs for the northern spotted owl are:
(1) Forest types that may be in early-, mid-, or late-seral stages
and that support the northern spotted owl across its geographical
range; these forest types are primarily:
(a) Sitka spruce,
(b) Western hemlock,
(c) Mixed conifer and mixed evergreen,
(d) Grand fir,
(e) Pacific silver fir,
(f) Douglas-fir,
(g) White fir,
(h) Shasta red fir,
(i) Redwood/Douglas-fir (in coastal California and southwestern
Oregon), and
(j) The moist end of the ponderosa pine coniferous forests zones at
elevations up to approximately 3,000 ft (900 m) near the northern edge
of the range and up to approximately 6,000 ft (1,800 m) at the southern
edge.
(2) Habitat that provides for nesting and roosting. In many cases
the same habitat also provides for foraging (PCE (3)). Nesting and
roosting habitat provides structural features for nesting, protection
from adverse weather conditions, and cover to reduce predation risks
for adults and young. This PCE is found throughout the geographical
range of the northern spotted owl, because stand structures at nest
sites tend to vary little across the spotted owl's range. These
habitats must provide:
(a) Sufficient foraging habitat to meet the home range needs of
territorial pairs of northern spotted owls throughout the year.
(b) Stands for nesting and roosting that are generally
characterized by:
(i) Moderate to high canopy closure (60 to over 80 percent),
(ii) Multilayered, multispecies canopies with large (20-30 in (51-
76 cm) or greater dbh) overstory trees,
(iii) High basal area (greater than 240 ft\2\/acre (55 m\2\/ha)),
(iv) High diversity of different diameters of trees,
(v) High incidence of large live trees with various deformities
(e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other
evidence of decadence),
(vi) Large snags and large accumulations of fallen trees and other
woody debris on the ground, and
(vii) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(3) Habitat that provides for foraging, which varies widely across
the northern spotted owl's range, in accordance with ecological
conditions and disturbance regimes that influence vegetation structure
and prey species distributions. Across most of the owl's range, nesting
and roosting habitat is also foraging habitat, but in some regions
northern spotted owls may additionally use other habitat types for
foraging as well. The specific foraging habitat PCEs for the four
ecological zones within the geographical range of the northern spotted
owl are the following:
(a) West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington
(i) Stands of nesting and roosting habitat; additionally, owls may
use younger forests with some structural characteristics (legacy
features) of old forests, hardwood forest patches, and edges between
old forest and hardwoods;
(ii) Moderate to high canopy closure (60 to over 80 percent);
(iii) A diversity of tree diameters and heights;
(iv) Increasing density of trees greater than or equal to 31 in (80
cm) dbh increases foraging habitat quality (especially above 12 trees
per ac (30 trees per ha));
(v) Increasing density of trees 20 to 31 in (51 to 80 cm) dbh
increases foraging habitat quality (especially above 24 trees per ac
(60 trees per ha));
(vi) Increasing snag basal area, snag volume (the product of snag
diameter, height, estimated top diameter, and including a taper
function (North et al. 1999, p. 523)), and density of snags greater
than 20 in (50 cm) dbh all contribute to increasing foraging habitat
quality, especially above 4 snags per ac (10 snags per ha);
(vii) Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on
the ground; and
(viii) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(b) East Cascades
(i) Stands of nesting and roosting habitat;
(ii) Stands composed of Douglas-fir and white fir/Douglas-fir mix;
(iii) Mean tree size greater than 16.5 in (42 cm) quadratic mean
diameter;
(iv) Increasing density of large trees (greater than 26 in (66 cm))
and increasing basal area (the total area covered by trees measured at
breast height) increases foraging habitat quality;
(v) Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on
the ground; and
(vi) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(c) Klamath and Northern California Interior Coast Ranges
(i) Stands of nesting and roosting habitat; in addition, other
forest types with mature and old-forest characteristics;
(ii) Presence of the conifer species, incense-cedar, sugar pine,
Douglas-fir, and hardwood species such as bigleaf maple, black oak,
live oaks, and madrone, as well as shrubs;
(iii) Forest patches within riparian zones of low-order streams and
edges between conifer and hardwood forest stands;
(iv) Brushy openings and dense young stands or low-density forest
patches within a mosaic of mature and older forest habitat;
(v) High canopy cover (87 percent at frequently used sites);
(vi) Multiple canopy layers;
(vii) Mean stand diameter greater than 21 in (52.5 cm);
(viii) Increasing mean stand diameter and densities of trees
greater than 26 in (66 cm) increases foraging habitat quality;
(ix) Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on
the ground; and
(x) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(d) Redwood Coast
(i) Nesting and roosting habitat; in addition, stands composed of
hardwood tree species, particularly tanoak;
(ii) Early-seral habitats 6 to 20 years old with dense shrub and
hardwood cover and abundant woody debris; these habitats produce prey,
and must occur in conjunction with nesting, roosting, or foraging
habitat;
(iii) Increasing density of small-to-medium sized trees (10 to 22
in (25 to 56 cm)) increases foraging habitat quality;
(iv) Trees greater than 26 in (66 cm) in diameter or greater than
41 years of age; and
(v) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(4) Habitat to support the transience and colonization phases of
dispersal, which in all cases would optimally be composed of nesting,
roosting, or foraging habitat (PCEs (2) or (3)), but which may also be
composed of other forest types that occur between larger blocks of
nesting, roosting, and foraging

[[Page 14093]]

habitat. In cases where nesting, roosting, or foraging habitats are
insufficient to provide for dispersing or nonbreeding owls, the
specific dispersal habitat PCEs for the northern spotted owl may be
provided by the following:
(a) Habitat supporting the transience phase of dispersal, which
includes:
(i) Stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide
protection from avian predators and minimal foraging opportunities; in
general this may include, but is not limited to, trees with at least 11
in (28 cm) dbh and a minimum 40 percent canopy closure; and
(ii) Younger and less diverse forest stands than foraging habitat,
such as even-aged, pole-sized stands, if such stands contain some
roosting structures and foraging habitat to allow for temporary resting
and feeding during the transience phase.
(b) Habitat supporting the colonization phase of dispersal, which
is generally equivalent to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat as
described in PCEs (2) and (3), but may be smaller in area than that
needed to support nesting pairs.
This proposed revised designation describes the physical or
biological features and their primary constituent elements essential to
support the life-history functions of the northern spotted owl. We have
determined that all of the units and subunits proposed for designation
were most likely occupied by the northern spotted owl at the time of
listing, with the exception of one subunit, and that, depending on the
scale at which occupancy is considered, some smaller areas within the
subunits may have been unoccupied at the time of listing. In such
cases, we have evaluated those areas and determined that they are
essential to the conservation of the species, as described in Criteria
Used to Identify Critical Habitat. The Criteria section also describes
our evaluation of the amount and configuration of the physical or
biological features on the landscape to determine where those features
are essential to the conservation of the spotted owl. We have further
determined that the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted owl require special management
considerations or protection, as described below.
In areas occupied at the time of listing, not all of the proposed
revised critical habitat will contain all of the PCEs, because not all
life-history functions require all of the PCEs. Some subunits contain
all PCEs and support multiple life processes, while some subunits may
contain only those PCEs necessary to support the species' particular
use of that habitat. However, all of the areas proposed for designation
support at least the first PCE described (forest-type), in conjunction
with at least one other PCE. Thus PCE (1) must always occur in concert
with at least one additional PCE (PCE 2, 3, or 4).

Special Management Considerations or Protection

The term critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act,
in part, as geographical areas on which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
``which may require special management considerations or protection.''
Accordingly, in identifying critical habitat in areas occupied at the
time of listing, we determine whether the features essential to the
conservation of the species on those areas may require any special
management actions or protection. Here we present a discussion of the
special management considerations or protections that may be required
throughout the proposed critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.
An effective critical habitat strategy needs to conserve extant,
high-quality northern spotted owl habitat in order to reverse declining
population trends and address the threat from barred owls. The northern
spotted owl was initially listed as a threatened species due largely to
both historical and ongoing habitat loss and degradation. The recovery
of the northern spotted owl therefore requires both protection of
habitat and management where necessary to provide sufficient high-
quality habitat to allow for population growth and to provide a buffer
against threats such as competition with the barred owl. Recovery
Criterion 3 in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl
is the ``Continued Maintenance and Recruitment of Spotted Owl
Habitat,'' which is further described as the achievement of a stable or
increasing trend in spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat
throughout the range of the species. Meeting this recovery criterion
will require special management considerations or protection of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl in all of the proposed critical habitat units and
subunits, as described here.
The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl
describes the three main threats to the spotted owl as competition from
barred owls, past habitat loss, and current habitat loss (USFWS 2011,
p. III-42). As the barred owl is present throughout the range of the
northern spotted owl, special management considerations or protections
may be required in all of the proposed critical habitat units and
subunits to ensure the northern spotted owl has sufficient habitat
available to withstand competitive pressure from the barred owl (Dugger
et al. 2011, pp. 2459, 2467). In addition, scientific peer reviewers
and Forsman et al. (2011, p. 77) recommended that we address currently
observed downward demographic trends in spotted owl populations by
protecting currently occupied sites as well as historically occupied
sites, and by maintaining and restoring older and more structurally
complex multi-layered conifer forests on all lands (USFWS 2011, pp.
III-42 to III-43). The types of management or protections that may be
required to achieve these goals and maintain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the owl in occupied areas
vary across the range of the species. Some areas of northern spotted
owl habitat, particularly in wetter forest types, are unlikely to be
enhanced by active management activities but instead need protection of
the essential features, whereas other forest areas would likely benefit
from more proactive forestry management. For example, in drier, more
fire-prone regions of the owl's range, habitat conditions will likely
be more dynamic, and more active management may be required to reduce
the risk of the essential physical or biological features from fire,
insects, disease, and climate change as well as to promote regeneration
following disturbance.
As discussed in detail in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011,
pp. III-11 to III-39), long-term spotted owl recovery could benefit
from forest management where the basic goals are to restore or maintain
ecological processes and resilience. Special management considerations
or protections may be required throughout the proposed critical habitat
to achieve these goals and benefit the conservation of the owl. The
natural ecological processes and landscape that once provided large
areas of relatively contiguous spotted owl habitat have been altered by
a history of anthropogenic activities such as timber harvest, road
construction, development, agricultural conversion, and fire
suppression. The resilience of these systems is now additionally
challenged by the effects of climate change. As recommended in the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, active forest
management may be

[[Page 14094]]

required throughout the range of the owl with the goal of maintaining
or restoring forest ecosystem structure, composition, and processes so
they are sustainable and resilient under current and future climate
conditions to provide for the long-term conservation of the species
(USFWS 2011, p. III-13). For example, in some areas past management
practices have decreased age-class diversity and altered the structure
of forest patches; in these areas, management such as targeted
vegetation treatments could simultaneously reduce fuel loads and
increase canopy and age-class diversity (USFWS 2011, p. III-18).
Special management considerations or protections may be required in
areas with regeneration harvest in moist forests to enhance within-
stand structural diversity, by emphasizing the retention of larger and
older trees, or any trees with characteristics that create stand
diversity, and may even require specific actions to maintain or develop
suitable nest structures (USFWS 2011, p. III-20). In dry forest
regions, where natural disturbance regimes and vegetation structure,
composition, and distribution have been substantially altered since
Euro-American settlement, vegetation management may be required to
retain spotted owl habitat on the landscape by altering fire behavior
and severity, and potentially to restore a more natural balance between
forest vegetation and disturbance regimes. Special management
considerations may be required to maintain adequate spotted owl habitat
in the near term to allow spotted owls to persist in the face of
threats from barred owl expansion and habitat alterations from fire and
other disturbances, and to restore landscapes that are more resilient
to alterations projected to occur with ongoing climate change (USFWS
2011, p. III-32).
Because the specific management approaches and types of forest
where they should be applied in order to maintain sufficient suitable
habitat across the range of the owl will vary geographically, here we
provide more detailed recommendations of the types of management
considerations or protections that may be required to preserve or
enhance the essential physical or biological features for the northern
spotted owl in the West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington,
East Cascades, Klamath and Northern California Interior Coast Ranges,
and the Redwood Coast.

West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington

Special management considerations or protection may be required in
areas of moist forests to conserve or protect older stands that contain
northern spotted owl sites (RA10: USFWS 2011, p. 43) or contain high-
value northern spotted owl habitat (RA32: USFWS 2011, p. 67).
Silvicultural treatments are generally not needed to maintain existing
old-growth forests on moist sites (Wimberly et al. 2004, p. 155;
Johnson and Franklin 2009, pp. 3, 39). In contrast to dry and mesic
forests, short-term fire risk is generally lower in the moist forests
that dominate on the west side of the Cascade Range, and occur east of
the Cascades as a higher-elevation band or as peninsulas or inclusions
in mesic forests. Disturbance-based management for forests and northern
spotted owls in moist forest areas should be different from that
applied in dry or mesic forests. Efforts to alter either fuel loading
or potential fire behavior in these sites could have undesirable
ecological consequences as well (Johnson and Franklin 2009, p. 39;
Mitchell et al. 2009, pp. 653-654; USFWS 2011, p. III-17).
In general, to advance long-term northern spotted owl recovery and
ecosystem restoration in moist forests in the face of climate change
and past management practices, special management considerations or
protections may be required that follow these principles as recommended
in the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, p. III-18):
(1) Conserve older stands that have occupied or high-value northern
spotted owl habitat as described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32 (USFWS
2011, pp. III-43, III-67). On Federal lands this recommendation applies
to all land-use allocations outside of Congressionally reserved Areas
(see also Thomas et al. 2006, pp. 284-285).
(2) Management emphasis needs to be placed on meeting northern
spotted owl recovery goals and long-term ecosystem restoration and
conservation. When there is a conflict between these goals, actions
that would disturb or remove the essential physical or biological
features of northern spotted owl critical habitat need to be minimized
and reconciled with long-term ecosystem restoration goals to avoid
adverse modification (see Adverse Modification section for specific
details).
(3) Continue to manage for large, continuous blocks of late-
successional forest.
(4) Regeneration harvest, if carried out, should consider
ecological forestry principles. One example that could be utilized is
Franklin et al. (2002, pp. 417-421; 2007, entire), Drever et al. (2006,
entire), Johnson and Franklin (2009, pp. 39-41), Swanson et al. (2010,
entire), and others cited in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, pp. III-14, III-17 to III-19).
These special management considerations or protections apply to
Units 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the proposed revised critical habitat.

East Cascades

Special management considerations or protection may be required in
the East Cascades to address the effects of past activities associated
with Euro-American settlement, such as timber harvest, livestock
grazing, fire suppression, and fire exclusion, that have substantially
altered the inland northwest, modifying the patterns of vegetation and
fuels, and subsequent disturbance regimes to the degree that
contemporary landscapes no longer function as they did historically
(Hessburg et al. 2000a, pp. 74-81; Hessburg and Agee 2003, pp. 44-46;
Hessburg et al. 2005, pp. 134-135; Skinner et al. 2006, pp. 178-179;
Skinner and Taylor 2006, pp. 201-203). This has affected not only the
existing forest and disturbance regimes, but the quality, amount, and
distribution of northern spotted owl habitat on the landscape. In order
to preserve the essential physical or biological features, these
dynamic, disturbance-prone forests must be managed in a way that
promotes northern spotted owl conservation, responds to climate change,
and restores dry forest ecological structure, composition and
processes, including wildfire and other disturbances (USFWS 2011, p.
III-20). The following restoration principles apply to the management
that may be required in this dry forest region (USFWS 2011, pp. III-34
to III-35):
(1) Emphasize vegetation management treatments outside of northern
spotted owl core areas or high-value habitat where consistent with
overall landscape project goals;
(2) Design and implement restoration treatments at the landscape
level;
(3) Retain and restore key structural components, including large
and old trees, large snags, and downed logs;
(4) Retain and restore heterogeneity within stands;
(5) Retain and restore heterogeneity among stands;
(6) Manage roads to address fire risk; and
(7) Use wildfires to meet vegetation management objectives where
appropriate.
The above principles will result in treatments that have a variety
of effects on northern spotted owl habitat in the short and long term.
For example, some

[[Page 14095]]

restoration treatments may have an immediate neutral or beneficial
effect on existing northern spotted owl habitat (e.g., roads
management, some prescribed fire prescriptions). Other treatments,
however, may involve reductions in stand densities, canopy closure, or
ladder fuels (understory vegetation that has the potential to carry up
into a crown fire)--and thus affect the physical or biological features
needed by the species. At the stand scale, this can result in a level
of conflict between conserving existing northern spotted owl habitat
and restoring dry-forest ecosystems. We typically cannot expect to meet
both objectives on the same acre if that acre currently functions as
suitable northern spotted owl habitat. We can reconcile this conflict,
however, by managing at the landscape scale.
Land managers need to move away from implementing many small,
uncoordinated and independent fuel-reduction and restoration
treatments. Instead, coordinated and strategic efforts that link
individual projects to the larger objectives of restoring landscapes
while conserving and recovering northern spotted owl habitat are needed
(sensu Sisk et al. 2005, entire; Prather et al. 2008, entire; Gaines et
al. 2010, entire).
The special management considerations or protections identified
here apply to Units 7 and 8 of the proposed revised critical habitat.

Klamath and Northern California Interior Coast Ranges

The special management considerations or protections that may be
required in the Klamath and Northern California Interior Coast Ranges
represent a mix of the requirements needed to maintain or enhance the
essential physical or biological features in mesic and dry forest
types. This region in southwestern Oregon and northwestern California
is characterized by very high climatic and vegetative diversity
resulting from steep gradients of elevation, dissected topography, and
large differences in moisture from west to east. Summer temperatures
are high, and northern spotted owls occur at elevations up to 1,768 m
(5,800 ft). Western portions of this zone support a diverse mix of
mesic forest communities interspersed with drier forest types. Forests
of mixed conifers and evergreen hardwoods are typical of the zone.
Eastern portions of this zone have a Mediterranean climate with
increased occurrence of ponderosa pine. Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is
rarely used for nesting platforms in the west, but commonly used in the
east. The prey base for northern spotted owls in this zone is
correspondingly diverse, but is dominated by dusky-footed woodrats,
bushy-tailed woodrats, and flying squirrels. Northern spotted owls have
been well studied in the Klamath portion of this zone, but relatively
little is known about northern spotted owl habitat use in the
California Interior Coast Range portion of the zone.
High canopy cover (65 to 75 percent), high levels of canopy
layering, and the presence of very large dominant trees were all
important features of nesting and roosting habitat. Compared to other
zones, models of foraging habitat for this zone showed greater
divergence from nesting habitat, with much lower canopy cover and tree
size. Low to intermediate slope positions were strongly favored. In the
eastern Klamath, presence of Douglas-fir was an important compositional
variable. Habitat associations in the Klamath zone are diverse and
unique, reflecting the climate, topography, and vegetation of this
area. Nesting and roosting habitat somewhat resembles that of other
zones, with a greater emphasis on topography that provides some relief
from high temperatures. Foraging habitat in this zone includes more
open forests. Consequently, management actions consistent with
maintaining and developing northern spotted owl habitat need to
consider local conditions. In some areas, appropriate management will
be more consistent with dry forest management strategies, while in
other areas wet forest management strategies will be more appropriate.
This region contains habitat characteristics of both moist and dry
forests interspersed across a highly diverse landscape (Halofsky et al.
2011, p. 1). The special management recommendations from the moist and
dry forest sections, above, apply to the management actions or
protections that may be required in the Klamath and Northern California
Interior Coast Ranges. Similar to the discussion in moist forests
concerning conservation of small patches of early seral habitat, Perry
et al. (2011, p. 715) noted that replacement of early successional
shrub-hardwood communities by closed forests in the absence of fire
significantly impacts landscape diversity. Restoration of appropriate
fire regimes and use of targeted silvicultural intervention may be
effective where the goal is to restore or maintain this diversity
(Halofsky et al. 2011, p. 15).
The special management considerations or protections identified
here apply to Units 9, 10, and 11 of the proposed revised critical
habitat.

Redwood Coast

Special management considerations or protection may be needed in
the Redwood Coast Zone to maintain or enhance the essential physical or
biological features for the owl. Although the Redwood Coast zone of
coastal northern California is considered part of the wet/moist forest
region within the range of the northern spotted owl, there are distinct
differences in northern spotted owl habitat use and diet within this
zone. The long growing season in this region, combined with redwood's
ability to resprout from stumps, allows redwood stands to attain
suitable stand structure for nesting in a relatively short period of
time (40-60 years) if legacy structures are present. Late-successional
forest is an important component of nesting and roosting habitat in the
Redwood Zone, and demographic productivity on northern spotted owl
breeding sites has been positively correlated with the density of
legacy trees in proximity to owl nest sites (Thome et al. 1999, p. 57).
In contrast to the large, contiguous, older stands desired in other wet
provinces, some degree of fine-scale fragmentation in redwood forests
appears to benefit northern spotted owls. Forest openings aged 5-20
years (e.g., harvest units or burns), with dense shrub and hardwood
cover, and abundant food sources, provide high-quality habitat for the
northern spotted owl's primary prey, the dusky-footed woodrat.
Relatively secure from owl predation, woodrats tend to overpopulate
these openings and the demographic pressure drives surplus individuals
into nearby older stands with sparse understories where they are highly
vulnerable to owl predation. Woodrat populations within recent openings
probably peak by about stand age 10. Food sources and understory cover
decline steadily through about stand age 20, when the woodrat
population-source diminishes. In northern spotted owl territories
within the Redwood Zone, active management that creates small openings
in proximity to nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat may be required
to enhance northern spotted owl foraging opportunities.
The special management considerations or protections identified
here apply to Unit 3 of the proposed revised critical habitat.
Summary of Special Management Considerations or Protection
We find that each of the areas occupied at the time of listing that
we are proposing as critical habitat contains features essential to the
conservation of the species that may require special

[[Page 14096]]

management considerations or protection to ensure the conservation of
the northern spotted owl. These special management considerations or
protection are required to preserve and enhance the essential features
needed to achieve the conservation of the northern spotted owl.
Additional information on management activities compatible with spotted
owl conservation can be found within the Section 7 Consultation section
in the proposed rule.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We have reviewed the available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species. In accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e), based on this review, we
have identified the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it was listed on which are found
those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species, and which may require special management considerations or
protection. In addition, we considered whether any additional areas
outside those occupied at the time of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species.

Occupied Areas

For the purpose of developing and evaluating this proposed revised
critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, we used a definition of
``geographical area occupied by the species'' at the time it was listed
consistent with the species' distribution, population ecology, and use
of space. We based our identification of ``occupied'' geographical area
on: (1) The distribution of verified spotted owl locations and (2)
scientific information regarding spotted owl population structure and
habitat associations.
Our proposed critical habitat is based in part on the distribution
of approximately 4,000 spotted owl territories verified as occupied at
the time of listing, across the geographical range of the species
(USFWS 2011, p. C-62). We use the term ``verified'' here to represent
locations for which we have records indicating the presence of spotted
owls at the time of listing. These data are the result of surveys
conducted by Federal and State agencies, private timber companies, and
researchers between 1987 and 1996. We consider this time period to
reasonably represent the time of listing because spotted owls are
relatively long-lived and exhibit a high degree of fidelity to
territory core areas; their territory locations are therefore
relatively stable through time unless substantial changes occur to
territory habitat. For this reason, we consider it highly likely that
locations occupied between 1987-1990 and 1990-1996 were also occupied
at the time of listing in 1990.
However, because large areas within the species' geographical range
had not been surveyed, the distribution of northern spotted owl
populations was incompletely known at the time the species was listed,
and remains so today. For this reason, designating critical habitat
based solely on the locations of territories identified through surveys
would exclude a substantial proportion of the area that was likely
occupied by the species at the time of listing and that provides the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. To address this we developed and tested a habitat suitability
model based on habitat selected by the approximately 4,000 known owl
pairs. This enables us to reliably identify other areas that were
likely supporting spotted owl territories at the time of listing, based
on habitat value (USFWS 2011, Appendix C).
Furthermore, restricting a definition of occupancy to areas known
to be used by resident territorial owls overlooks a large segment of
the owl population that is not generally reflected in standard survey
methodologies, as described below. Spotted owl populations consist of
the territorial, resident owls for which we have documentation of
occupancy throughout much of the owl's range, described above, but also
includes nonterritorial adult `floaters' and dispersing subadult owls.
Both dispersing subadults and nonterritorial floaters are consistently
present on the landscape and require suitable habitat to support
dispersal and survival until they recruit into the breeding population;
this habitat requirement is in addition to that already utilized by
resident territorial owls. Non-territorial owls are difficult to detect
in surveys because most surveys rely on territorial defense behavior of
resident owls (responding to owl calls) to determine their presence.
Because they are difficult to detect, the number and distribution of
nonterritorial and dispersing owls is poorly known for any given
spotted owl population. However, they constitute essential elements of
spotted owl populations, and can reliably be assumed to occur in
suitable habitat within the same landscapes occupied by territorial
owls. Therefore, if suitable habitat to support northern spotted owls
was present at the time the species was listed, and if the presence of
northern spotted owls was documented in the same landscape, it is
highly likely that non-territorial adults or dispersing subadults were
also present at the time of listing.
Based on the best available scientific information regarding
population structure of northern spotted owls, we define ``occupied''
as encompassing (1) home ranges of resident, territorial spotted owls
known from surveys to be present at the time of listing, (2) home
ranges of territorial owls determined likely to have been present at
the time of listing based on a model developed specifically to predict
owl presence based on relative habitat suitability, and (3)
nonterritorial and dispersing owls that were likely to be present
within the matrix of territories in a given landscape known to be
occupied by resident owl pairs.
Having determined our working definition of the term ``occupied,''
we then defined ``specific areas'' as used in the definition of
critical habitat, 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i), to conform with known
patterns of space-use and distribution exhibited by spotted owls.
Spotted owls are wide-ranging organisms that maintain large home ranges
and disperse relatively long distances. As described earlier,
territorial northern spotted owls cover home ranges from roughly 1,400
ac (570 ha) at the southern end of their range (Zabel et al. 1995, p.
436) up to over 14,000 ac (5,700 ha) (USDI 1992, p. 23; USFWS 1994 in
litt., p. 1) in the northern portion of the species' range. These large
home ranges often overlap with those of neighboring spotted owls, such
that large landscapes may be fully occupied by population clusters in
areas where suitable habitat is well distributed. While this was more
the case when the northern spotted owl was first listed, prior to
extensive colonization of the species' range by the barred owl, many
demographic study areas still exhibit a pattern of overlapping home
ranges over large landscapes.
To evaluate the proportion of each subunit proposed for designation
that was comprised of areas known to be occupied by northern spotted
owls at the time of listing, we calculated the area within estimated
home ranges (USFWS 2011, p. C-63 Table C-24) for all verified spotted
owl locations known at the time of listing, as described above.
Overall, 84.5 percent of the area proposed for designation is within
home ranges of verified territorial spotted owl located through surveys
at the time of listing; this area is entirely representative of
verified owl locations,

[[Page 14097]]

and does not include habitat likely to be occupied based on habitat
suitability or non-resident owls. Twenty-two (35 percent) of the 63
subunits proposed for designation have at least 90 percent of their
area within verified known home ranges; 51 (66 percent) have at least
70 percent. As explained above, given that these areas represent
occupancy by verified resident owls only, and considering the suitable
habitat available at the time of listing in these same landscapes, the
remainder of these areas were likely occupied by other resident owls,
non-territorial adult owls (floaters) or dispersing subadults.
To help us identify and map potential critical habitat for the owl,
we used a three-step modeling framework developed as part of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl that integrates a
spotted owl habitat model, a habitat conservation planning model, and a
population simulation model. The details of this modeling framework are
presented in Appendix C of the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011), and
a detailed technical description of the modeling and habitat network
selection process we used in this proposed revised designation of
critical habitat is provided in Dunk et al. (2011, entire). Both of
these supporting documents are available at http://www.regulations.gov
(see ADDRESSES), or by contacting the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Each of the three models helped
identify an important element of the statutory definition of critical
habitat: The identification of physical or biological features needed
by the species; the distribution of those features across the
geographical range of the species occupied at the time of listing; and
the identification of a landscape configuration where these features,
as well as any necessary unoccupied areas, are essential to the
conservation of the species.
The overall approach for critical habitat modeling consisted of
three main steps (USFWS 2011, Appendix C, p. C-3) to help refine,
select, and evaluate a series of alternative critical habitat networks
for the northern spotted owl. These steps are summarized here, and then
each is described in further detail.
Step 1: At the outset, the attributes of forest composition and
structure and characteristics of the physical environment associated
with nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat--physical and biological
features used by the species--were identified based on the habitat
selection exhibited by nearly 4,000 known owl pairs (USFWS 2011, pp. C-
20 to C-28). We then used these physical and biological features of
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats to create a range-wide map of
(relative) habitat suitability (MaxEnt) (Phillips et al. 2006, entire;
Phillips and Dudik 2008, entire). In addition to providing a map of
relative habitat suitability, this process allowed us to evaluate an
area's suitability and determine whether the presence of the species
was likely based on an assessment of known species-habitat
relationships.
Step 2: We developed northern spotted owl habitat networks based on
the relative habitat suitability map using the Zonation conservation
planning model (Moilanen and Kujala 2008, entire). The Zonation model
used a hierarchical prioritization of the landscape based on relative
habitat suitability and other user-specified criteria (e.g., land
ownership) to develop the most efficient solutions for incorporating
high value habitat. Zonation analyses were conducted separately for
each region to ensure that reserves would be well-distributed across
the range of the owl. Zonation also allowed for consideration of land
ownership in development of reserve designs.
Step 3: In the last step, we determined where the physical and
biological features, as well as unoccupied areas, are essential to the
conservation of the species. To do this we used a spatially-explicit
northern spotted owl population model (HexSim) (Schumaker 2008, entire)
to predict relative responses of northern spotted owl populations to
different habitat network designs, and evaluated these responses
against the recovery objectives and criteria for the northern spotted
owl using a rule set based on those criteria. Simulations from these
models are not meant to be estimates of what will occur in the future,
but rather provide information on trends predicted to occur under
different network designs; this allowed us to compare the relative
performance of various habitat scenarios.
In Step 1 of the modeling framework, we created a series of spotted
owl habitat models that provide the basis for mapping spotted owl
habitat. Based on published research, input from individual experts,
and analysis of spotted owl location and habitat data, we developed
relative habitat suitability models. These relative habitat suitability
models identify areas with habitat that provides the combination of
variables (forest composition and structure, and abiotic factors such
as elevation, precipitation, and temperature) with a high predictive
probability of supporting spotted owls, based on data gathered from
known owl sites. Applying these models enables the Service to identify
and describe the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the owl by correlating these features with the nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitats known to be utilized by resident owls,
and to map their distribution across the range of the owl (USFWS 2011,
pp. C-27 to C-42, C-62). Because the models are based on data from
nearly 4,000 owl sites occupied at the time of listing (USFWS 2011, p.
C-62), model outputs highlight surveyed and known to be occupied
habitat. However, they also identify areas with habitat likely to have
supported owls at the time of listing, based on habitat suitability,
and areas that may have been unoccupied at the time of listing, but
that may be essential to the conservation of the species based on their
relative habitat suitability and potential to provide areas with the
habitat characteristics needed for population growth or dispersal (see
below). To ensure that the variety of physical or biological features
used by spotted owls across their range is represented in the models,
we applied separate habitat models for each of 11 ecological regions
based on differences in forest environments, spotted owl habitat use
and prey distribution, and variation in ecological conditions. (USFWS
2011, C-7 to C-13).
In Step 2 of the modeling framework, we used a habitat conservation
planning model (Zonation) (Moilanen et al. 2005, entire; Moilanen and
Kujala 2008, entire) to develop a spotted owl conservation planning
model. We used this in the critical habitat process to aggregate areas
of greatest relative habitat suitability (areas that provide the
physical or biological features, or essential unoccupied habitat) from
Step 1 into discrete units. This process provided a series of maps
representing a range of alternative critical habitat networks, each
containing a different amount and distribution of spotted owl habitat
quality. The Zonation model seeks to provide the most efficient design
(most habitat value on smallest land area) and allowed us to maximize
reliance on public lands to achieve recovery goals.
In Step 3 of the modeling framework, we developed a spotted owl
population simulation model that allowed us to simulate the relative
population responses of spotted owls to various habitat conservation
network scenarios (HexSim) (Schumaker 2011, entire). In developing this
proposed rulemaking, we used this spotted owl population simulation
model to compare alternative critical habitat networks and evaluate

[[Page 14098]]

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

[[Page 14099]]

The mean population size from time step 150 to time step
350 in each region.
The mean population size at the last time step in each
region.
The mean population size at the last time step rangewide.
These metrics were used to comparatively evaluate the ability of
each scenario under consideration to meet the recovery goals for the
species and as specified in our rule set for the identification of
critical habitat (measures of extinction risk are used as an indirect
measure of sufficient population abundance, as well as viability). We
selected habitat scenarios for further evaluation if they outperformed
the other scenarios under consideration in terms of being better able
to meet the population abundance, viability, and trend criteria both
across regions and rangewide. In all cases, we attempted to identify
the most efficient (smallest total area) that would meet the population
goals essential to recovery. Our proposed critical habitat is based on
the habitat network that best met all of these criteria, and then was
further refined, as described below.
We also focused on public lands to the maximum extent possible (see
Dunk et al. 2012, entire, for specific details). In this step, we
compared scenarios that did not discriminate between various land
ownerships, and those that prioritized publicly-owned lands. As Federal
agencies have a mandate under Section 7(a)(1) of the Act to utilize
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying
out programs for the conservation of listed species, we looked first to
Federal lands for critical habitat. However, in some areas of limited
Federal ownership, State and private lands may provide areas determined
to be essential to the northern spotted owl by contributing to
demographic support and connectivity to facilitate dispersal and
colonization. In all cases, if the scenarios under consideration
provided equal contribution to recovery, as measured by the population
metrics described above, we chose the scenario that prioritized
publicly-owned lands. State and private lands were included only if
they were necessary to achieve conservation of the species, and were
determined to provide either occupied areas that support the PCEs or
unoccupied areas essential to the conservation of the owl. For example,
in Washington some State and private lands were identified in Spotted
Owl Special Emphasis Areas (SOSEAs), which the Washington Forest
Practices Board adopted in 1996 to complement the Federal recovery and
conservation strategy for the spotted owl. We also considered Indian or
Tribal lands in our evaluations; if habitat scenarios performed equally
well with or without Indian lands, we did not include them (see Indian
Lands, below).
Following the application of this modeling framework, we further
refined the model-based map units after considering land ownership
patterns, interagency coordination, and best professional judgment with
the objective of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness, of the
critical habitat proposal. The process generally consisted of modifying
boundaries to better conform to existing administrative and landscape
features, removing small areas of relatively lower-suitability habitat,
and incorporating additional areas that may have been unoccupied at the
time of listing but that were determined to be essential for population
connectivity, population growth, or to accommodate maintenance of
suitable habitat on the landscape for owls in the face of natural
disturbance regimes (e.g., fire) or competition with the barred owl,
while retaining the overall configuration of the model-based maps. We
used the population simulation model to evaluate whether this revised
critical habitat network continued to provide what is essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted owl.

Unoccupied Areas

Based on the northern spotted owl's wide-ranging use of the
landscape, and the distribution of known owl sites at the time of
listing across the units and subunits proposed as critical habitat
here, we believe all units and all subunits except one meet the Act's
definition of being within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing.
Although we designed the units and subunits proposed for
designation to consist predominantly of habitat occupied at the time of
listing (or highly likely to be occupied), we know that one subunit was
not occupied at that time. In addition, parts of most units contain a
forested mosaic which includes younger forests that may not have been
occupied at the time of listing. We also recognize that there may be
some uncertainty regarding areas we believe were occupied based on the
presence of suitable habitat or dispersing owls but for which we do not
have survey information. Therefore, we have evaluated all of these
areas as if they were unoccupied and deem them to be essential to the
conservation of the species because they fulfill at least one of two
functions essential to the conservation of the species: population
connectivity, or space for population growth.
First, there is one subunit and portions of two others that
function primarily for connectivity. Although portions of these
subunits may not have been occupied at the time of listing, these areas
contain the dispersal and foraging habitat to support movement between
adjacent subunits and are therefore essential to provide population
connectivity. Many of these areas are also anticipated to develop into
habitat capable of supporting nesting pairs in the future. In 1990, the
Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) (Thomas et al. 1990, entire)
identified ``Areas of Special Concern'' in the Draft Strategy for the
Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. The ISC defined Areas of
Special Concern as lands where past natural occurrences and human
actions had adversely affected habitat more than in the remainder of
the physiographic province under consideration (Thomas et al. 1990, p.
66). Within the Areas of Special Concern described by the ISC (Thomas
et al. 1990, pp. 66-69), we identified areas that were strategically
located between subunits that would otherwise be demographically
isolated. Of 63 subunits proposed for designation, three (NCO-3, ORC-4,
and ECS-3) are identified as functioning primarily for population
connectivity with less than 70 percent of the subunit covered by
survey-located owl sites. Only one subunit (NCO-3) is considered
unoccupied and was identified primarily for connectivity and additional
demographic support.
Second, because the primary threat to the northern spotted owl at
the time of listing was habitat loss and degradation, conservation and
recovery of the species in some portions of its range is dependent on
development of additional habitat to allow for population expansion and
recovery. Therefore, portions of the habitat mosaic in some subunits
proposed for designation within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing consist of younger and/or partially-
harvested forest but are essential to conservation of the species
because they are capable of developing the PCEs that support nesting,
roosting, or foraging by spotted owls that will be necessary for
population expansion. Typically the result of past timber harvest or
wildfire, these areas of younger forest contain the elements conducive
to fully developing the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the owl (they are of suitable elevation, climate,
and forest

[[Page 14100]]

community type) but may be lacking some element of the PCEs such as
large trees or dense canopies that are associated with nesting habitat.
In particular, of 63 subunits proposed for designation, four (NCO-4,
NCO-5, ORC-1, and RDC-4) contain proportionally greater areas of
younger forests that are essential to the conservation of the species
because they can develop additional habitat necessary to support viable
spotted owl populations in the future. These subunits are located
within Southwestern Washington and Oregon Coast Ranges Areas of Special
Concern (Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 66-69), areas described as exhibiting
a scarcity of suitable habitat due to extensive timber harvest. The
recovery goal of achieving viable populations distributed across the
range of the owl cannot be achieved without these areas, therefore we
have determined them to be essential to the conservation of the
species.
Third, each unit and subunit in this proposed revised designation
of critical habitat consists of a forested mosaic comprised
predominantly of habitat known from surveys and other documented
sources to be occupied at the time of listing, as well as habitat that
was highly likely to have been occupied at that time based on the
presence of physical or biological features associated with occupancy
by spotted owls or based on the likely presence of non-territorial
owls. However, we recognize there is some uncertainty associated with
occupancy in regard to areas that our habitat model or the population
dynamics of non-territorial owls indicate were highly likely to have
been occupied at the time of listing, but for which we do not
specifically have documented owl sites based on surveys. In addition,
within this mosaic, each subunit also contains areas of potentially
suitable habitat anticipated to develop into suitable habitat in the
future. These specific areas may or may not have been occupied at the
time of listing. We therefore also evaluated all areas proposed for
designation as if they were unoccupied at the time of listing, to
determine whether such areas are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Thus, even if not occupied at the time of listing, all units and
subunits proposed for designation are essential to the conservation of
the species because, in addition to nesting, roosting, foraging, and
dispersal habitat, they provide connectivity between occupied areas,
room for population expansion or growth, and the ability to provide
sufficient suitable habitat on the landscape for owls in the face of
natural disturbance regimes (e.g., fire). In addition, recent work has
confirmed that northern spotted owls require additional areas of
habitat to persist in the face of competition with barred owls (Dugger
et al. 2011, p. 2467). Finally, since the northern spotted owl was
initially listed in large part due to the threat of habitat loss or
degradation, there may be some areas of potentially suitable habitat
that are currently in degraded condition and in need of restoration to
provide the large, contiguous areas of nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat required to sustain viable spotted owl populations. Spotted
owls require these large areas of habitat due to their expansive home
range requirements and the need for connectivity between subpopulations
to maintain genetic diversity and support stable, viable populations
over the long term. Given the effects of past habitat loss and the
increased habitat area needed to offset competition from the barred
owl, our assessment indicates that large areas of habitat are required
across the range of the northern spotted owl to meet recovery goals.
In summary, our evaluation of the various habitat scenarios
considered in the modeling process described above enabled us to
determine the amount and configuration of habitat essential to the
conservation of the owl, based on the relative ability of that habitat
network to meet the recovery criteria of stable or increasing
populations and adequate distribution of viable populations. Although
this evaluation was primarily based on areas we know to have been
occupied at the time of listing, our evaluation of what is essential to
the conservation of the owl additionally identified areas that may not
have been occupied at the time of listing if those areas were essential
to meeting the recovery goals for the species. We have determined these
areas to be essential to the conservation of the species, to provide
for dispersal and connectivity between currently occupied areas, allow
space for population growth, and to provide habitat replacement in the
event of disturbances such as wildfires and competition with barred
owls. We have also determined that a critical habitat designation that
does not include these areas, even if they may not have been occupied
at the time of listing, would be inadequate to ensure the conservation
of the species. The resulting proposed revised critical habitat network
represents the amount and spatial distribution of habitats that we have
determined to be essential for the conservation of the northern spotted
owl.
This proposal is innovative in that it anticipates that in
geographical regions with drier forests and more dynamic natural
disturbance regimes, a landscape approach to managing critical habitat
will occur. This landscape approach recognizes that large areas are
essential in these regions to accommodate disturbance-driven shifts in
the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of
the northern spotted owl, and that restorative management actions may
be needed across these landscapes to help manage for resilience in such
a dynamic ecosystem. These large landscapes, although essential to
provide for the conservation of the northern spotted owl, do include
within their boundaries several particular types of areas which are not
proposed as critical habitat because they cannot support northern
spotted owl habitat. The following types of areas are not critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl, and are not included in the
proposed revised designation:
Meadows and grasslands.
Oak and aspen (Populus spp.) woodlands.
Surface mine sites.
Developed recreation sites, including a safety buffer for
hazard tree management.
Administrative sites, including a safety buffer for hazard
tree management.
Roadways, including a safety buffer for hazard tree
management.
Other manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts,
runways, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including these areas because they lack physical
or biological features for the northern spotted owl. Due to the
limitations of mapping at such fine scales, however, we were often not
able to segregate these areas from areas being proposed as critical
habitat on critical habitat maps suitable for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, we have included regulatory text
clarifying that these areas are not included in the proposed
designation even if within the mapped boundaries of critical habitat;
if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat unless the specific action would affect the
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
We are proposing for designation 11 units and 63 subunits based on
sufficient elements of physical or

[[Page 14101]]

biological features being present to support the northern spotted owl's
life-history processes. Some subunits contain all of the identified
elements of physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. Some subunits may contain only some elements of the
physical or biological features necessary to support the northern
spotted owl's particular use of that habitat.

Summary of Changes From Previously Designated Critical Habitat

In 2008, we designated 5,312,300 ac (2,149,800 ha) of Federal lands
in California, Oregon, and Washington as critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl (73 FR 47326; August 13, 2008). In this revision,
we are proposing that a total of 13,962,449 ac (5,649,660 ha) be
designated as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. We have
proposed the revised designation of critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl to be consistent with the most current assessment of the
conservation needs of the species, as described in the 2011 Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, Appendix B). Of
the proposed designation, 4,159,678 ac (1,683,362 ha) are the same as
in the 2008 designation. Of the current proposed designation, 9,802,771
ac (3,966,298 ha) are lands not formerly designated in 2008, and
1,152,662 ac (466,438 ha) of lands that were included in the former
designation are not proposed here, for reasons detailed below.
The Service recognizes that this proposed revision of critical
habitat represents an increase in the total land area identified from
previous designations in 1992 and 2008. This increase in area is due,
in part, to (a) the unanticipated steep decline of the spotted owl and
the impact of the barred owl, requiring larger areas of habitat to
maintain sustainable spotted owl populations in the face of competition
with the barred owl (Dugger et al. 2011, p. 2467); (b) the
recommendation from the scientific community that the conservation of
more occupied and high-quality habitat is essential to the conservation
of the species (Forsman et al. 2011, p. 77); (c) the need to maintain
sufficient suitable habitat for northern spotted owls on a landscape
level in areas prone to frequent natural disturbances, such as the
drier, fire-prone regions of its range (Noss et al. 2006, p. 484;
Thomas et al. 2006, p. 285; Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, p. 565); and (d)
in contrast to the previous critical habitat designation, the inclusion
of significant areas of Federal reserve lands (e.g., national parks and
wilderness areas) and some State and private lands in areas where
Federal lands were not sufficient to meet the conservation needs of the
spotted owl.
We expect to refine this proposed designation based on public
comments, additional information from coordination with the land
management agencies, scientific peer review, and consideration of
exclusions and exemptions (per sections 4(b)(2) and 4(a)(3)(B) of the
Act, respectively). Fine-scale adjustments to proposed critical habitat
maps are also anticipated based on Service collaboration with Federal,
State, and private land managers and receipt of site-specific
information on habitat and landscape conditions.
The new delineation of areas determined to provide the physical or
biological features essential for the conservation of the northern
spotted owl, or otherwise determined to be essential for the
conservation of the species, was based, in part, on an improved
understanding of the forest characteristics and spatial patterns that
influence habitat usage by northern spotted owls which were
incorporated into the latest population evaluation and mapping
technology. The modeling process we used to evaluate alternative
critical habitat scenarios differed fundamentally from the conservation
planning approach used to inform the 1992 and 2008 designations of
critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. These past designations
relied on a priori rule sets derived from best expert judgment
regarding the size of reserves or habitat conservation blocks, target
number of spotted owl pairs per reserve or block, and targeted spacing
between reserves or blocks (USFWS 2011, p. C-4), which we then assessed
and refined using expert opinion. The current proposed revised
designation reflects our use of a series of spatially explicit modeling
processes to determine where biological features are essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted owl, and in the case of unoccupied
habitat, to determine the areas that are essential to the conservation
of the owl, as described in Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat,
below. These models enabled us to compare potential critical habitat
scenarios in a repeatable and scientifically accepted manner (USFWS
2011, p. C-4), using current tools that capitalize on new spatial
information and algorithms for identifying efficient habitat networks
essential for conservation.
The areas proposed for designation are lands that were occupied at
the time of listing and that currently provide suitable nesting,
roosting, foraging, or dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls, or
that are otherwise essential to the conservation of the species.
However, as noted above, not every site of known owl occupancy is
included in the proposed revised designation. We did not include owl
sites if they were isolated from other known occurrences or in areas of
marginal habitat quality such that they were unlikely to make a
significant contribution to the conservation of the species, and
therefore were not considered to provide the essential features.
The habitat network development and evaluation strategy we used
attempts to maximize the efficiency of the network by prioritizing
lands for inclusion in the critical habitat network where management
direction is more predictable and where resources are more available to
conduct many of the ecosystem restoration projects the Service
recommends within critical habitat. Utilization of new scientific
information and advanced modeling techniques accounts for many of the
changes in the proposed revised critical habitat, since the location of
areas essential to northern spotted owls may have shifted based on the
best information available regarding the spatial distribution of high-
value habitat. Late-successional reserves (LSRs) and Congressionally
withdrawn lands (e.g., national parks) were not prioritized in this
approach based solely on their status as a reserved land allocation,
but were included only where the habitat quality was high enough to
meet the selection criteria. LSRs were not originally designated solely
to meet the needs of the northern spotted owl, but may include areas
designated for other late-successional forest species. Therefore, not
all LSRs contain habitat of sufficient quality to be included in the
critical habitat network for the northern spotted owl.
Table 2 shows a comparison of areas included in the 2008
designation and those proposed in this proposed revision to critical
habitat. The process we used to determine occupied areas containing
essential features and unoccupied areas essential to the conservation
of the species is described in Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat.

[[Page 14102]]

Table 2--Comparison of Area Included in 2008 Critical Habitat and 2012 Proposed Critical Habitat by Region--The
11 Regions Are Described in Details in the Proposed Revised Critical Habitat Designation Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 Proposed critical habitat 2008 Final critical habitat
Modeling region ---------------------------------------------------------------
Acres Hectares Acres Hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Coast Olympics............................ 1,595,821 645,806 485,039 196,289
Oregon Coast.................................... 891,154 360,637 507,082 205,209
Redwood Coast................................... 1,550,747 626,847 70,153 28,390
West Cascades North............................. 820,832 332,179 390,232 157,921
West Cascades Central........................... 1,353,045 547,558 546,333 221,093
West Cascades South............................. 1,624,836 657,548 700,421 283,450
East Cascades North............................. 1,919,469 776,781 687,702 278,303
East Cascades South............................. 526,810 213,192 207,291 83,888
Klamath West.................................... 1,291,606 522,693 667,795 270,247
Klamath West.................................... 1,111,679 449,881 667,795 270,247
Inner California Coast Ranges................... 1,276,450 516,537 535,863 216,856
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total................................. 13,962,449 5,649,660 5,312,327 2,149,823
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reduction in number of critical habitat units from 33 in 2008
to 11 in 2011 is a reflection, in part, of our decision to aggregate
habitat by regions. The current designation includes 33 critical
habitat units; the proposed revision includes 11 critical habitat units
with 63 subunits.
Our proposed determination of PCEs in this proposed revised
designation incorporates new information resulting from research
conducted since the last revision in 2008. This new information, along
with relevant older studies, allowed us to include a higher level of
specificity in the PCEs in this revision. This proposal also includes
two changes in overall organization. The 2008 revised designation
considered nesting and roosting habitat as separate PCEs. In this
version, we have combined these habitat types. Spotted owls generally
use the same habitat for both nesting and roosting; they are not
separate habitat types, and function differs only based on whether a
nest structure is present. These structures can be difficult to detect
during field surveys in some portions of the subspecies range, and are
virtually impossible to detect via remote sensing. Our models of
spotted owl habitat relied on remotely sensed data. At the scale of a
rangewide proposal of critical habitat, nesting and roosting habitats
cannot be systematically distinguished, and, therefore, we combined
them in our analysis and resulting proposal. For project planning and
management of spotted owls at the local scale, the distinction between
nesting and roosting habitat remains useful, especially in portions of
the subspecies range where nesting structures are conspicuous (e.g.,
mistletoe brooms). The second organizational change was to subdivide
the range of the subspecies into four separate regions, and to describe
PCEs for foraging habitat separately for each of these regions.
Finally, in this proposed rule we provide a more detailed and
specific characterization of the PCEs for the northern spotted owl.
Although described in more detail in the preamble, the actual
rulemaking section of the 1992 designation described the PCEs only as
``forested areas that are used or potentially used by northern spotted
owl for nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersing'' (57 FR 1838;
January 15, 1992). Research since the 1992 designation of critical
habitat has largely confirmed our understanding of the PCEs as
presented in the discussion section of that final rule (Blakesley 2004,
entire), but this revision seeks to incorporate the specific
description of those PCEs, as described earlier in the Primary
Constituent Elements section of this document, into the Proposed
Regulation Promulgation Section. For example, the proposed rule
describing the PCEs now includes a list of the specific forest types
used by northern spotted owls, as well as a description of the
particular habitat components (tree size, canopy closure, nest
platforms, etc.) used by northern spotted owls for nesting, roosting,
foraging, and dispersal. Furthermore, recognizing that not all PCEs
apply universally throughout the broad range occupied by the northern
spotted owl, we have provided descriptions of PCEs specific to each of
the four major ecoregional divisions within the range of the species.

Proposed Revised Critical Habitat Designation

Consistent with the standards of the Act, our regulations, and
agency practice, we have identified 13,962,449 ac (5,649,660 ha) in 11
units and 63 subunits as meeting the definition of critical habitat for
the northern spotted owl. The 11 units we have identified as critical
habitat are: (1) North Coast Olympics, (2) Oregon Coast Ranges, (3)
Redwood Coast, (4) West Cascades North, (5) West Cascades Central, (6)
West Cascades South, (7) East Cascades North, (8) East Cascades South,
(9) Klamath West, (10) Klamath East, and (11) Interior California Coast
Ranges. All of the critical habitat units were largely occupied at the
time of listing, may include some smaller areas that were not known to
be occupied at the time of listing but have been determined to be
essential to the conservation of the species, and are presently
occupied by the northern spotted owl. Land ownership of the proposed
critical habitat includes Federal, State, and private lands (private
lands are intended for inclusion in a critical habitat subunit only in
those cases where private land is identified as a component of critical
habitat in the subunit description). In Washington, some private lands
have been identified in the Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Areas (SOSEAs)
that the Washington Forest Practices Board adopted in 1996. We
acknowledge that some additional private lands (e.g. subdivisions,
small (typically less than 10 ac (4 ha)) properties owned by individual
landowners) may have been inadvertently included on the map as an
artifact of both the modeling process and limitations on map resolution
and accuracy, but any such private lands are not intended to be
included in the proposed designation. We are seeking public comments to
help us make any needed corrections in the final rule. No Indian lands
are included in the critical habitat designation. The approximate area
of each proposed critical habitat

[[Page 14103]]

unit is shown in Table 3. Table 4 gives a total of critical habitat
being proposed by land ownership.

Table 3--Proposed Revised Critical Habitat Units for the Northern
Spotted Owl
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit Acres Hectares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1--North Coast Olympics:
Federal......................... 1,457,564 589,855
State........................... 137,318 55,571
Private......................... 939 380
-----------------------------------
Total....................... 1,595,821 645,806
-----------------------------------
Unit 2--Oregon Coast Ranges:
Federal......................... 813,215 329,096
State........................... 77,939 31,541
-----------------------------------
Total....................... 891,154 360,637
-----------------------------------
Unit 3--Redwood Coast:
Federal......................... 299,548 121,223
State........................... 203,102 82,192
Private......................... 1,048,097 423,431
-----------------------------------
Total....................... 1,550,747 626,847
-----------------------------------
Unit 4--West Cascades North:
Federal......................... 709,022 286,931
State........................... 111,222 45,010
Private:........................ 588 238
-----------------------------------
Total....................... 820,832 332,179
-----------------------------------
Unit 5--West Cascades Central:
Federal......................... 1,248,708 505,334
State........................... 57,400 23,229
Private......................... 46,937 18,995
-----------------------------------
Total....................... 1,353,045 547,558
-----------------------------------
Unit 6--West Cascades South:
Federal......................... 1,624,836 657,548
Unit 7--East Cascades North:
Federal......................... 1,725,491 698,281
State........................... 58,911 23,840
Private......................... 135,067 54,660
-----------------------------------
Total....................... 1,919,469 776,781
-----------------------------------
Unit 8--East Cascades South:
Federal......................... 526,810 213,192
Unit 9--Klamath West:
Federal......................... 1,281,145 518,460
State........................... 10,461 4,233
-----------------------------------
Total....................... 1,291,606 522,693
-----------------------------------
Unit 10--Klamath East:
Federal......................... 1,108,839 448,732
State........................... 2,840 1,149
-----------------------------------
Total....................... 1,111,679 449,881
-----------------------------------
Unit 11--Inner California Coast
Ranges:
Federal......................... 1,229,174 497,429
State........................... 12,123 4,906
Private......................... 35,153 14,202
-----------------------------------
Total....................... 1,276,450 516,537
-----------------------------------
Grand total............. 13,962,449 5,649,660
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

[[Page 14104]]

Table 4--Proposed Revised Critical Habitat Units for the Northern
Spotted Owl, Describing Area Included Under Different Landownerships
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres Hectares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USFS................................ 9,527,128 3,855,492
BLM................................. 1,483,666 600,419
NPS................................. 998,585 404,113
State............................... 671,036 271,558
Private............................. 1,267,704 512,279
Other Federal (DOD)................. 14,330 5,799
Indian.............................. 0 0
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 13,962,449 5,649,660
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We present brief descriptions of all units and their subunits
below.

Unit 1: North Coast Ranges and Olympic Peninsula (NCO)

Unit 1 consists of 1,595,821 ac (645, 806 ha), and contains five
subunits. This unit consists of the Oregon and Washington Coast Ranges
Section M242A, based on section descriptions of forest types from
Ecological Subregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994a,
Section M242A). This region is characterized by high rainfall, cool to
moderate temperatures, and generally low topography (1,470 to 2,460 ft
(448 to 750 m)). High elevations and cold temperatures occur in the
interior portions of the Olympic Peninsula, but spotted owls in this
area are limited to the lower elevations (less than 2,950 ft (900 m)).
Forests in the NCO are dominated by western hemlock, Sitka spruce,
Douglas-fir, and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Hardwoods are
limited in species diversity (consist mostly of bigleaf maple and red
alder (Alnus rubra)) and distribution within this region, and typically
occur in riparian zones. Root pathogens like laminated root rot
(Phellinus weirii) are important gap formers, and vine maple (A.
circinatum), among others, fills these gaps. Because Douglas-fir dwarf
mistletoe is unusual in this region, spotted owl nesting habitat
consists of stands providing very large trees with cavities or
deformities. A few nests are associated with western hemlock dwarf
mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense subsp. tsugense). Spotted owl diets
are dominated by species associated with mature to late-successional
forests (flying squirrels, red tree voles), resulting in similar
definitions of habitats used for nesting/roosting and foraging by
spotted owls.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 1
NCO-1. The NCO-1 subunit consists of approximately 747,000 ac
(302,300 ha) in Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, and Mason Counties,
Washington, and comprises lands managed by the National Park Service,
Forest Service, State of Washington, and private landowners. Of this
subunit, 421,078 ac (170,404 ha) are managed as part of the Olympic
National Park as a Congressionally reserved or wilderness area under
the NWFP and are proposed for exclusion in the final designation. The
FS manages 233,116 ac (94,339 ha) as Late-successional Reserves to
maintain functional, interactive, late-successional and old-growth
forest ecosystems; 11,119 ac (4,500 ha) as Congressionally reserved or
wilderness areas (proposed for exclusion); and 80,728 ac (32,669 ha)
under the Matrix land use allocation where multiple uses occur,
including most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities.
Private landowners manage 939 ac (380 ha) for various uses within the
Hoh-Clearwater Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Area (SOSEA), including
maintenance of spotted owl habitat for demographic and dispersal
support of habitat on Federal lands and will be considered for
exclusion in the final designation. Threats in this subunit include
current and past timber harvest, competition with barred owls, and
isolation on a peninsula (along with subunit NCO-2). This subunit is
expected to function primarily for demographic support of the overall
population. NCO-1 is located primarily in the watersheds of Lyre, Hoko,
Soleduck, Hoh, Quinault, Queets, and Clearwater rivers, and includes
the northern part of the Lower Chehalis River watershed.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 94 percent of the area of NCO-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
NCO-2. The NCO-2 subunit consists of approximately 494,477 ac
(200,108 ha) in Kitsap, Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, and Mason
Counties, Washington, and comprises lands managed by the National Park
Service, and Forest Service. Of this subunit, 226,223 ac (91,549 ha)
are managed as part of the Olympic National Park as a Congressionally
reserved or wilderness area under the NWFP and are proposed for
exclusion in the final designation. The FS manages 171,649 ac (69,464
ha) as Late-successional Reserves to maintain functional, interactive,
late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems; 50,713 ac (20,523
ha) as Congressionally reserved or wilderness areas (also proposed for
exclusion); and 45,909 ac (18,579 ha) under the Matrix land use
allocation where multiple uses occur, including most timber harvest and
other silvicultural activities. Threats in this subunit include current
and past timber harvest, competition with barred owls, and isolation on
a peninsula (along with subunit NCO-1). This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic support of the overall population.
NCO-2 is located primarily in the watersheds of the Elwha, Dungeness,
Quilcene, Snow, Skokomish, and Dosewallips rivers.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 95 percent of the area of this subunit was
covered by

[[Page 14105]]

verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When combined
with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by non-
territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit to
have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat mosaic
of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We have
determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this
subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet the
recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
NCO-3. The NCO-3 subunit consists of approximately 14,313 ac (5,792
ha) in Thurston and Grays Harbor Counties, Washington, and comprises
lands managed by the Department of Defense as part of Joint Base Lewis-
McChord under their base management plan, which includes timber
management. Threats in this subunit include current and past timber
harvest, competition with barred owls, limited total habitat area,
stand conversion, and isolation from surrounding subunits. This
subunit, along with the Mineral Block SOSEA in the WCC-1 subunit and
Federal lands adjacent to this SOSEA are meant to provide opportunities
for demographic support between the West Cascades Central Unit and the
North Coast Olympic Unit. In this subunit, we are considering exemption
of lands on Joint Base Lewis-McChord under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the
Act.
Available information indicates that subunit NCO-3 was unoccupied
by spotted owls at the time of listing. However, this subunit is
essential to the conservation of the species because it provides
essential habitat connectivity for owls dispersing between occupied
habitats in the Olympic Peninsula and the Western Cascades. Populations
in the Olympic Peninsula are currently-isolated, and require stepping-
stones containing both nesting and dispersal habitat to provide for
genetic exchange with other owl populations. Proposed critical habitat
in this subunit has the potential to develop sufficient nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat to support a limited number of nesting
spotted owls. Opportunities to nest successfully in NCO-3 will increase
the likelihood of successful movement of spotted owls between widely
separated populations by providing an opportunity for dispersal to
occur across generations. The designation of this subunit as critical
habitat is necessary because limiting the designation to areas
presently occupied by the species would be inadequate to achieve the
conservation of the northern spotted owl. Without this subunit,
connectivity and demographic support between the Olympic Peninsula and
Western Cascades will be lacking, and the Olympic Peninsula population
of spotted owls will remain isolated and potentially subject to
inbreeding depression and other negative effects associated with
isolated populations. The Western Cascades also has been identified as
at risk due to low populations numbers and isolation from the Olympic
Peninsula (Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 66-67). The achievement of a stable
population and adequate population distribution, as required by
Recovery Criteria 1 and 2 of the Revised Recovery Plan, cannot be met
without this essential subunit.
NCO-4. The NCO-4 subunit consists of approximately 132,086 ac
(553,453ha) in Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook, and Washington Counties,
Oregon, and comprises Federal lands and lands managed by the State of
Oregon. Of this subunit, 122,675 ac (49,645 ha) are managed as part of
the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests for multiple uses including
timber revenue production, recreation, and wildlife habitat according
to the Northwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan (ODF 2010a,
entire) and may be considered for exclusion in the final designation.
Federal lands encompass 9,410 ac (3,808 ha) of this subunit and are
managed as directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special
management considerations or protection are required in this subunit to
address threats from current and past timber harvest and competition
with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for
demographic support to the overall population. This subunit is isolated
from the nearest subunit to the north but is adjacent to subunit NCO-5
to the south.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 63 percent of the area of NCO-4 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider a large part
of this subunit to have been occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this subunit that may have been
unoccupied at the time of listing. We have determined that all of the
unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for
the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that
calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of spotted
owl habitat in this subunit is especially important for providing for
population expansion and additional demographic support in this region.
The development of additional suitable habitat in this subunit is
needed to support viable spotted owl populations over the long term.
The recruitment of additional suitable habitat will also contribute to
the successful dispersal of spotted owls, and serve to buffer spotted
owls from competition with the barred owl.
NCO-5. The NCO-5 subunit consists of approximately 213,024 ac
(86,207 ha) in Yamhill, Lincoln, Tillamook, and Polk Counties, Oregon,
and comprises lands managed by the State of Oregon, the BLM and the
Forest Service. Of this subunit 14,643 ac (5,925 ha) are managed by the
State of Oregon for multiple uses including timber revenue production,
recreation, and wildlife habitat according to the Northwest Oregon
State Forest Management Plan (ODF 2010a, entire), and may be considered
for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation. Federal
lands comprise 198,368 ac (80,277 ha) and are managed as directed by
the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for
demographic support to the overall population and north-south
connectivity between subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 63 percent of the area of NCO-5 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider a large part
of this subunit to have been occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this subunit that may have been
unoccupied at the time of listing. We have determined that all of the
unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for
the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that
calls for the

[[Page 14106]]

continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS
2011, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of spotted owl habitat in
this subunit is especially important for providing for population
expansion and additional demographic support in this region. The
development of additional suitable habitat in this subunit is needed to
support viable spotted owl populations over the long term. The
recruitment of additional suitable habitat will also contribute to the
successful dispersal of spotted owls, and serve to buffer spotted owls
from competition with the barred owl.

Unit 2: Oregon Coast Ranges (OCR)

Unit 2 consists of 891,166 ac (360,642 ha) and contains six
subunits. This unit consists of the southern third of the Oregon and
Washington Coast Ranges Section M242A, based on section descriptions of
forest types from Ecological Subregions of the United States (McNab and
Avers 1994a, Section M242A). We split the section in the vicinity of
Otter Rock, OR, based on gradients of increased temperature and
decreased moisture that result in different patterns of vegetation to
the south. Generally this region is characterized by high rainfall,
cool to moderate temperatures, and generally low topography (980 to
2,460 ft (300 to 750 m)). Forests in this region are dominated by
western hemlock, Sitka spruce, and Douglas-fir; hardwoods are limited
in species diversity (largely bigleaf maple and red alder) and
distribution, and are typically limited to riparian zones. Douglas-fir
and hardwood species associated with the California Floristic Province
(tanoak, Pacific madrone, black oak, giant chinquapin (Castanopsis
chrysophylla)) increase toward the southern end of the OCR. On the
eastern side of the Coast Ranges crest, habitats tend to be drier and
dominated by Douglas-fir. Root pathogens like laminated root rot are
important gap formers, and vine maple among others fills these gaps.
Because Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is unusual in this region, spotted
owl nesting habitat tends to be limited to stands providing very large
trees with cavities or deformities. A few nests are associated with
western hemlock dwarf mistletoe. Spotted owl diets are dominated by
species associated with mature to late-successional forests (flying
squirrels, red tree voles), resulting in similar definitions of
habitats used for nesting/roosting and foraging by spotted owls. One
significant difference between OCR and NCO is that woodrats comprise an
increasing proportion of the diet in the southern portion of the
modeling region.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 2
OCR-1. The OCR-1 subunit consists of approximately 116,576 ac
(47,177 ha) in Polk, Benton and Lincoln Counties, Oregon, and comprises
lands managed by the State of Oregon, the BLM, and the Forest Service.
Of this subunit 7,296 ac (2,953 ha) are managed by the State of Oregon
for multiple uses including timber revenue production, recreation, and
wildlife habitat according to the Northwest Oregon State Forest
Management Plan (ODF 2010a, entire) and may be considered for exclusion
in the final critical habitat designation. Federal lands comprise
109,279 ac (44,224 ha) and are managed as directed by the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved Federal lands in this
unit are proposed for exclusion. Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current
and past timber harvest and competition with barred owls. This subunit
is expected to function primarily for demographic support to the
overall population and north-south connectivity between subunits and
CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 55 percent of the area of OCR-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider a large part
of this subunit to have been occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this subunit that may have been
unoccupied at the time of listing. We have determined that all of the
unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for
the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that
calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of spotted
owl habitat in this subunit is especially important for providing for
population expansion and additional demographic support in this region.
The development of additional suitable habitat in this subunit is
needed to support viable spotted owl populations over the long term.
The recruitment of additional suitable habitat will also contribute to
the successful dispersal of spotted owls, and serve to buffer spotted
owls from competition with the barred owl.
OCR-2. The OCR-2 subunit consists of approximately 278,526 ac
(112,715 ha) in Lane, Benton, and Lincoln Counties, Oregon, and
comprises lands managed by the State of Oregon, the BLM and the Forest
Service. Of this subunit 18,648 ac (7,547 ha) are managed by the State
of Oregon for multiple uses including timber revenue production,
recreation, and wildlife habitat according to the Northwest Oregon
State Forest Management Plan (ODF 2010a, entire) and may be considered
for exclusion in the final critical habitat designation. Federal lands
comprise 259,878 ac (105,169 ha) and are managed as directed by the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved Federal
lands in this unit are proposed for exclusion. Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for
demographic support to the overall population and north-south
connectivity between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 77 percent of the area of OCR-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
OCR-3. The OCR-3 subunit consists of approximately 198,497 ac
(80,329 ha) in Lane and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands
managed by the State of Oregon, the BLM, and the Forest Service. Of
this subunit 4,970 ac (2,011 ha) are managed by the State of Oregon for
multiple uses including timber revenue production, recreation, and
wildlife habitat according to the Northwest Oregon State Forest

[[Page 14107]]

Management Plan (ODF 2010a, entire) and may be considered for exclusion
in the final critical habitat designation. Federal lands comprise
193,526 ac (78,317 ha) and are managed as directed by the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994, entire). Special management considerations or protection
are required in this subunit to address threats from current and past
timber harvest and competition with barred owls. This subunit is
expected to function primarily for demographic support to the overall
population and for both north-south and east-west connectivity between
subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 97 percent of the area of OCR-3 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
OCR-4. The OCR-4 subunit consists of approximately 9,305 ac (3,766
ha) in Lane and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands managed
by the BLM as directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire).
Special management considerations or protection are required in this
subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest and
competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function
primarily for east-west connectivity between subunits and CHUs, and
between the Oregon coast and the western Cascades.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 43 percent of the area of OCR-4 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider a large part
of this subunit to have been occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this subunit that may have been
unoccupied at the time of listing. We have determined that all of the
unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for
the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that
calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of spotted
owl habitat in this subunit is especially important for providing
essential connectivity between currently occupied areas to support the
successful dispersal of spotted owls, and may also help to buffer
spotted owls from competition with the barred owl.
OCR-5. The OCR-5 subunit consists of approximately 184,248 ac
(74,563 ha) in Coos and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands
managed by the State of Oregon, the BLM, and the Forest Service. Of
this subunit 46,994 ac (19,018 ha) are managed by the State of Oregon
for multiple uses including sustained economic benefit through timber
harvest and management, recreation, and wildlife habitat according to
the Elliot State Forest Management Plan (ODF 2011, entire) and may be
considered for exclusion in the final critical habitat designation.
Federal lands comprise 137,254 ac (55,545 ha) and are managed as
directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for
demographic support to the overall population and for north-south, and
potentially east-west, connectivity between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 94 percent of the area of OCR-5 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
OCR-6. The OCR-6 subunit consists of approximately 84,365 ac
(34,141 ha) in Coos and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and comprises lands
managed by the BLM as directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management considerations or protection are required
in this subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest
and competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support to the overall population and for
north-south connectivity between subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 97 percent of the area of OCR-6 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.

Unit 3: Redwood Coast (RWC)

Unit 3 contains 1,550,747 ac (626,847 ha) and five subunits. This
unit consists of the Northern California Coast Ecological Section 263,
based on section descriptions of forest types from Ecological
Subregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994b, entire). This
region is characterized by low-lying terrain (0 to 2,950 ft (0 to 900
m)) with a maritime climate, generally mesic conditions, and moderate
temperatures. Climatic conditions are rarely limiting to spotted owls
at all elevations. Forest communities are dominated by redwood,
Douglas-fir-

[[Page 14108]]

tanoak forest, coast live oak, and tanoak series. The vast majority of
the region is in private ownership, dominated by a few large industrial
timberland holdings. The results of numerous studies of spotted owl
habitat relationships suggest stump-sprouting and rapid growth rates of
redwoods, combined with high availability of woodrats in patchy,
intensively-managed forests, enables spotted owls to maintain high
densities in a wide range of habitat conditions within the Redwood
zone.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 3
RDC-1. This subunit contains 877,193 ac (354,987 ha) in Curry
County, Oregon and in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity Counties,
California. There are 188,056 ac (76,104 ha) of Federal lands in the
subunit, managed by the Forest Service, National Park Service, and
Bureau of Land Management. California State Park System lands make up
110,163 ac (44,581 ha) and are proposed for exclusion in the final
critical habitat designation. This subunit contains 578,974 ac (234,302
ha) of private land. A large portion of these lands are included in two
large private forests that have Habitat Conservation Plans with
conservation strategies for northern spotted owls; these are Green
Diamond Resource Company with 136,008 ac (55,041 ha) and Humboldt
Redwood Company with 211,700 ac (85,672 ha) and both are proposed for
exclusion in the final critical habitat designation. Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from the barred owl. Suitable habitat within the subunit is
relatively contiguous north-to-south, and is capable of supporting a
sustainable subpopulation of owls. We expect that this subunit will
provide strong connectivity among the adjacent CHUs to the north (OCR)
and east (KLW, ICC). The subunit is weakly connected to the adjacent
subunit to the south (RDC-2).
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 78 percent of the area of RDC-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
RDC-2. This subunit contains 484,880 ac (196,224 ha) in Mendocino
and southwestern Humboldt Counties, California. There are 32,021 ac
(12,958 ha) of Federal lands in the subunit, managed by the Bureau of
Land Management. California State Park System lands make up 19,115 ac
(7,736 ha) and are proposed for exclusion in the final critical habitat
designation. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
operates the Jackson Demonstration State Forest (48,652 ac (19,689 ha))
for multiple uses including timber production, water quality, wildlife
habitat, and research and also may be considered for exclusion.
Approximately 385,100 ac (155,845 ha) of private land is included in
this subunit. Two large private forest land ownerships may be
considered for exclusion. The first is Mendocino Redwood Company, which
is in the process of developing a conservation strategy for northern
spotted owls under a proposed Habitat Conservation Plan. The second
holding is known as the Campbell-Hawthorne lands, owned by the Redwood
Forest Foundation, Inc. (RWFI, non-profit) and managed by the Campbell
Group, LLC (90,000 acres (36,423 ha)). The Campbell Group has
approached us previously to explore the possibility of developing an
HCP and more recently to explore a SHA. Three medium-sized private
landholdings within this holding, Usal Forest, Big River Forest and
Salmon Creek Forest, are under conservation easements and we propose to
exclude these lands in the final critical habitat designation.
Together, these easement holdings make up 66,513 ac (26,917 ha).
Special management considerations or protection are required in this
subunit to address threats from the barred owl. Suitable habitat within
the subunit is relatively contiguous north-to-south, and is capable of
supporting a sustainable subpopulation of owls. The subunit is weakly
connected to the adjacent CHU to the east (ICC) and to the coastal
subunit to the north (RDC-1); it is relatively well connected to the
coastal subunit to the south (RDC-3).
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 85 percent of the area of RDC-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
RDC-3. This subunit contains 46,785 ac (18,933 ha) in southwestern
Mendocino and northwestern Sonoma Counties, California. These lands are
concentrated in the Garcia and Gualala River drainages. There are no
Federal lands in the subunit. There are 243 ac (98 ha) of land in the
California State Park System and are proposed for exclusion, and the
remaining 46,541 ac (18,835 ha) is private land. Two management tracts
of the Mendocino Redwood Company (discussed in RDC-2) are located in
this subunit: Annapolis (7,044 ac (2,851 ha)) and Garcia River (15,634
ac (6,327 ha)) and may be considered for exclusion in the final
critical habitat designation. One medium-sized private landholding,
Garcia River Forest (23,864 ac (9,658 ha)), is operated by a nonprofit
organization under a conservation easement and we propose to exclude
this forest in the final critical habitat designation. Special
management considerations or protection are required in this subunit to
address threats from the barred owl. Suitable habitat within the
subunit is discontinuous from north-to-south, and may not be capable of
supporting a self-sustaining subpopulation of owls without support from
the subunit to the north (RDC-2). The subunit is poorly connected to
the adjacent CHU to the east (ICC) and to the coastal subunit to the
south (RDC-4).
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 80 percent of the area of RDC-3 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of

[[Page 14109]]

listing. When combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and
occupancy by non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider
this subunit to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In
addition, there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the
habitat mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of
listing. We have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are essential for the conservation of
the species to meet the recovery criterion that calls for the continued
maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix).
The increase and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by
providing for population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering
from competition with the barred owl.
RDC-4. This subunit contains 31.497 ac (12,746 ha) in southwestern
Sonoma County, California. These lands are concentrated north of the
Russian River. There are no Federal lands in the subunit, and there are
13,421 ac (5,431 ha) of land in the California State Park system and
are proposed for exclusion in the final critical habitat designation.
Private lands total 18,074 ac (7,315 ha) of mixed forest and grazing
land and may be considered for exclusion in the final designation of
critical habitat. Developed and undeveloped residential subdivisions,
commercially-zoned lands, and individual parcels less than 40 acres
that may have been included in the mapped area are not being proposed
as critical habitat. There are no industrial forest landholdings in
this subunit. Special management considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address threats from the barred owl.
Suitable habitat within the subunit is discontinuous throughout,
interspersed with grassland, oak woodland, and chaparral, and may not
be capable of supporting a self-sustaining subpopulation of owls
without support from the subunit to the north (RDC-3). The subunit is
poorly connected to the adjacent CHU to the east (ICC) and to the
coastal subunit to the south (RDC-5).
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 65 percent of the area of RDC-4 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider a large part
of this subunit to have been occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this subunit that may have been
unoccupied at the time of listing. We have determined that all of the
unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for
the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that
calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of spotted
owl habitat in this subunit is especially important for providing for
population expansion and additional demographic support in this region.
The development of additional suitable habitat in this subunit is
needed to support viable spotted owl populations over the long term.
The recruitment of additional suitable habitat will also contribute to
the successful dispersal of spotted owls, and serve to buffer spotted
owls from competition with the barred owl.
RDC-5. This subunit contains 77,798 acres (31,484 hectares) in
southern Marin County, California and represents the southern range
limit of the subspecies. No private lands are proposed for designation
in this subunit. There are 44,866 ac (18,157 ha) of National Park land
within the subunit, and an additional 11,524 ac (4,464 ha) of
California State park lands both of which are proposed for exclusion.
The Mount Tamalpais Watershed (18,900 ac (7,649 ha)) of the Marin
Municipal Water District has been proposed for designation; as have six
Open Space Preserves totaling 2,492 ac (1,008 ha) in the Marin County
Parks system and may be considered for exclusion in the final
designation. Special management considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address incipient threats from the barred
owl. Suitable habitat within the subunit is continuous from east to
west. It is unknown whether this subunit is capable of supporting a
self-sustaining subpopulation of owls without support from the subunit
to the north (RDC-4). The lands between this subunit and the nearest
subunit to the east (ICC-6) are dominated by agricultural and urban
land use, and are very weakly connected.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 82 percent of the area of RDC-5 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.

Unit 4: West Cascades North (WCN)

This unit contains 802, 832 ac (332,179 ha) and two subunits. This
unit coincides with the northern Western Cascades Section M242B, based
on section descriptions of forest types from Ecological Subregions of
the United States (McNab and Avers 1994a, Section M242B), combined with
the western portion of M242D (Northern Cascades Section), extending
from the U.S.-Canadian border south to Snoqualmie Pass in central
Washington. It is similar to the Northern Cascades Province of Franklin
and Dyrness (1988, pp. 17-20). This region is characterized by high
mountainous terrain with extensive areas of glaciers and snowfields at
higher elevation. The marine climate brings high precipitation (both
annual and summer) but is modified by high elevations and low
temperatures over much of this modeling region. The resulting
distribution of forest vegetation is dominated by subalpine species,
mountain hemlock and silver fir; the western hemlock and Douglas-fir
forests typically used by spotted owls are more limited to lower
elevations and river valleys (spotted owls are rarely found at
elevations greater than 4,200 ft (1,280 m) in this region) grading into
the mesic Puget lowland to the west.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 4
WCN-1. The WCN-1 subunit consists of approximately 613,375 ac
(248,224 ha) in Whatcom, Skagit, and Snohomish Counties, Washington,
and comprises lands managed by the National Park Service, Forest
Service, State of Washington, and private landowners. Of this subunit,
12,649 ac (5,119 ha) are managed as part of the North Cascades National
Park and Recreation Area as a Congressionally reserved or wilderness
area under the NWFP and we propose to exclude these lands in the final
critical habitat designation. The Forest Service manages 433,592 ac
(175,469

[[Page 14110]]

ha) as Late-successional Reserves to maintain functional, interactive,
late-successional, and old-growth forest ecosystems; 66,653 ac (26,974
ha) as Congressionally reserved or wilderness areas (propose to
exclude); and 4,873 ac (1,972 ha) under the Matrix land use allocation
where multiple uses occur, including most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. The State of Washington, primarily the
Department of Natural Resources manages 95,837 ac (38,784 ha) for
multiple uses, including timber revenue production, water quality,
recreation and wildlife habitat. Threats in this subunit include
current and past timber harvest, competition with barred owls, steep
topography with high-elevation ridges that separate relatively small,
linear strips of suitable habitat in valley bottoms, and location at
the northern limit of the subspecies range. This subunit is expected to
function primarily for demographic support of the overall population
and to maintain the subspecies distribution in the northernmost portion
of its range. WCN-1 is located in the watersheds of the Stillaguamish,
Skagit, and Nooksack rivers, and is bounded on the north by the
international boundary with British Columbia, Canada. In this subunit,
we propose to exclude lands covered under the Washington Department of
Natural Resources State Lands HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 92 percent of the area of WCN-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
WCN-2. The WCN-2 subunit consists of approximately 206,885 ac
(83,723 ha) in King and Snohomish Counties, Washington, and comprises
lands managed by the Forest Service, State of Washington, and private
landowners. The Forest Service manages 104,821 ac (42,420 ha) as Late-
successional Reserves to maintain functional, interactive, late-
successional, and old-growth forest ecosystems; 86,274 ac (35,914 ha)
as Congressionally reserved or wilderness areas (propose to exclude);
and 296 ac (120 ha) under the Matrix land use allocation where multiple
uses occur, including most timber harvest and other silvicultural
activities. The State of Washington, primarily the Department of
Natural Resources manages 15,569 ac (6,300 ha) for multiple uses,
including timber revenue production, water quality, recreation, and
wildlife habitat. Threats in this subunit include current and past
timber harvest, competition with barred owls, and steep topography with
high-elevation ridges that separate relatively small, linear strips of
suitable habitat in valley bottoms. This subunit has a key role in
maintaining connectivity between spotted owl populations, both north to
south in the West Cascades and west to east between the West and East
Cascades units. This role is shared with the WCC-1 subunit to the south
and the ECN-4 subunit to the east. This subunit is also expected to
provide demographic support of the overall population. WCN-2 is located
in the watersheds of the Snohomish and Cedar/Sammamish rivers. In this
subunit, we propose to exclude lands covered under the Washington
Department of Natural Resources State Lands HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 79 percent of the area of WCN-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.

Unit 5: West Cascades Central (WCC)

This unit contains 1,353,045 ac (547,558 ha) and three subunits.
This region consists of the midsection of the Western Cascades Section
M242B, based on section descriptions of forest types from Ecological
Subregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994a, Section M242B),
extending from Snoqualmie Pass in central Washington south to the
Columbia River. It is similar to the Southern Washington Cascades
Province of Franklin and Dyrness (1988, pp. 21-23). We separated this
region from the northern section based on differences in spotted owl
habitat due to relatively milder temperatures, lower elevations, and
greater proportion of western hemlock/Douglas-fir forest and occurrence
of noble fir (A. procera) to the south of Snoqualmie Pass. Because
Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe occurs rarely in this region, spotted owl
nest sites are largely limited to defects in large trees, and
occasionally nests of other raptors.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 5
WCC-1. The WCC-1 subunit consists of approximately 384,797 ac
(155,722 ha) in King, Pierce, Thurston, Lewis, Kittitas, and Yakima
Counties, Washington, and comprises lands managed by the National Park
Service, Forest Service, State of Washington, and private landowners.
Of this subunit, 79,551 ac (32,193 ha) are managed as part of the Mount
Rainier National Park as a Congressionally reserved or wilderness area
under the NWFP and we propose to exclude these lands in the final
critical habitat designation. The Forest Service manages 189,984 ac
(76,884 ha) as Late-successional Reserves to maintain functional,
interactive, late-successional, and old-growth forest ecosystems;
35,175 ac (14,235 ha) as Congressionally reserved or wilderness areas
(propose to exclude); and 31,329 ac (12,678 ha) under the Matrix land
use allocation where multiple uses occur, including most timber harvest
and other silvicultural activities. The State of Washington, primarily
the Department of Natural Resources manages 3,322 ac (1,345 ha) for
multiple uses, including timber revenue production, water quality,
recreation, and wildlife habitat. Private landowners manage 45,463 ac
(18,398 ha) for various uses within the I-90 West, I-90 East, and
Mineral Block SOSEAs, including maintenance of spotted owl habitat for
demographic and dispersal support of habitat on Federal lands and will
be considered for exclusion in the final designation. Threats in this
subunit include current

[[Page 14111]]

and past timber harvest, competition with barred owls, and stand
conversion. This subunit is expected to provide demographic support of
the overall population and to maintain demographic connectivity between
the Cascade Range and the Olympic Peninsula in conjunction with subunit
NCO-3. WCC-1 is located primarily in the watersheds of the Nisqually,
Puyallup, White, Duwamish, and Green rivers, and also includes portions
of the Cowlitz River watershed in the Mineral Block SOSEA. In this
subunit, we propose to exclude lands covered under the Washington
Department of Natural Resources State Lands HCP, the Cedar River
Watershed HCP, the Plum Creek Timber Central Cascades HCP, the West
Fork Timber HCP, and the Tacoma Water Green River Water Supply
Operations and Watershed Protection HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 96 percent of the area of WCC-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
WCC-2. The WCC-2 subunit consists of approximately 403,978 ac
(163,484 ha) in Pierce, Lewis, Cowlitz, Skamania, and Yakima Counties,
Washington, and comprises lands managed by the National Park Service,
Forest Service, State of Washington, and private landowners.
Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal ownership are
proposed for exclusion. Of this subunit, 44,453 ac (17,989 ha) are
managed as part of the Mount Rainier National Park as a Congressionally
reserved or wilderness area under the NWFP. The Forest Service manages
116,982 ac (47,341 ha) as Late-successional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, late-successional, and old-growth forest
ecosystems; 78,191 ac (31,643 ha) as Congressionally reserved or
wilderness areas; and 164,206 ac (66,452 ha) under the Matrix land use
allocation where multiple uses occur, including most timber harvest and
other silvicultural activities. Private landowners manage 195 ac (79
ha) for various uses within the Mineral Block SOSEA, including
maintenance of spotted owl habitat for demographic and dispersal
support of habitat on Federal lands and will be considered for
exclusion in the final designation. Threats in this subunit include
current and past timber harvest and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to provide demographic support of the overall
population. WCC-2 is located primarily in the Cowlitz River watersheds
west of the Cascade Crest and the headwaters of the Naches River
watershed east of the Crest. In this subunit, we propose to exclude
lands covered under the Washington Department of Natural Resources
State Lands HCP, the West Fork Timber HCP, and the Port Blakely Tree
Farms L.P. (Morton Block) SHA, Landowner Option Plan, and Cooperative
Habitat Enhancement Agreement in the final critical habitat
designation.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 96 percent of the area of WCC-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
WCC-3. The WCC-3 subunit consists of approximately 499,449 ac
(202,120 ha) in Clark, Skamania, and Yakima Counties, Washington, and
comprises lands managed by the Forest Service, the State of Washington,
and private landowners. The Forest Service manages 286,220 ac (115,829
ha) as Late-successional Reserves to maintain functional, interactive,
late-successional, and old-growth forest ecosystems; 32,862 ac (13,299
ha) as Congressionally reserved or wilderness areas (propose to
exclude); and 125,488 ac (50,783 ha) under the Matrix land use
allocation where multiple uses occur, including most timber harvest and
other silvicultural activities. The State of Washington, primarily the
Department of Natural Resources, manages 63,504 ac (21,652 ha) in the
Siouxon and Columbia Gorge SOSEAs for multiple uses, including timber
revenue production, water quality, recreation and wildlife habitat.
Private landowners manage 1,746 ac (706 ha) for various uses within the
Siouxon and Columbia Gorge SOSEAs, including maintenance of spotted owl
habitat for demographic and dispersal support of habitat on Federal
lands and will be considered for exclusion in the final designation.
Threats in this subunit include current and past timber harvest,
competition with barred owls, and the Columbia River as an impediment
to spotted owl dispersal. This subunit is expected to provide
demographic support of the overall population and an opportunity for
demographic exchange between the WCC Unit and the WCS Unit. WCC-3 is
located primarily in the watersheds of the Lewis, Wind, and White
Salmon rivers, and is bounded on the south by the Columbia River. In
this subunit, we propose to exclude lands covered under the Washington
Department of Natural Resources State Lands HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 96 percent of the area of WCC-3 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and

[[Page 14112]]

buffering from competition with the barred owl.

Unit 6: West Cascades South (WCS)

Unit 6 contains 1,624,900 ac (657,574 ha) and contains six
subunits. This unit consists of the southern portion of the Western
Cascades Section M242B, based on section descriptions of forest types
from Ecological Subregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994a,
Section M242B), and extends from the Columbia River south to the North
Umpqua River. We separated this region from the northern section due to
its relatively milder temperatures, reduced summer precipitation due to
the influence of the Willamette Valley to the west, lower elevations,
and greater proportion of western hemlock/Douglas-fir forest. The
southern portion of this region exhibits a gradient between Douglas-
fir/western hemlock and increasing Klamath-like vegetation (mixed
conifer/evergreen hardwoods) which continues across the Umpqua divide
area. The southern boundary of this region is novel and reflects a
transition to mixed-conifer forest (Franklin and Dyrness 1988, pp. 23-
24, 137-143). The importance of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe increases
to the south in this region, but most spotted owl nest sites in
defective large trees, and occasionally nests of other raptors.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 6
WCS-1. The WCS-1 subunit consists of approximately 177,738 ac
(71,928 ha) in Multnomah, Hood River, and Clackamas Counties, Oregon,
and comprises only Federal lands managed by the BLM and the Forest
Service under the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally
reserved natural areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion.
Special management considerations or protection are required in this
subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest and
competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support to the overall population, as well as
north-south and east-west connectivity between subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 88 percent of the area of WCS-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
WCS-2. The WCS-2 subunit consists of approximately 195,833 ac
(79,251 ha) in Clackamas, Marion, and Wasco Counties, Oregon, and
comprises only Federal lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service
under the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved
natural areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion. Special
management considerations or protection are required in this subunit to
address threats from current and past timber harvest and competition
with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for
demographic support to the overall population, as well as north-south
connectivity between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 82 percent of the area of WCS-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011 p. ix). The increase and
enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for viable
populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
WCS-3. The WCS-3 subunit consists of approximately 374,061 ac
(151,377 ha) in Clackamas, Marion, Linn, and Lane Counties, Oregon, and
comprises lands managed by the State of Oregon, the BLM, and the Forest
Service. Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal ownership
are proposed for exclusion. Of this subunit, 183 ac (74 ha) are managed
by the State of Oregon primarily for recreation (Oregon Administrative
Rules, ch. 736, entire). The remaining 373,878 ac (151,303 ha) are
Federal lands managed as directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management considerations or protection are required
in this subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest
and competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support to the overall population, as well as
north-south connectivity between subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 85 percent of the area of WCS-3 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
WCS-4. The WCS-4 subunit consists of approximately 453,146 ac
(183,382 ha) in Lane and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and comprises only
Federal lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service under the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural areas in
Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion. Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for
demographic support to the overall population, as well as north-south
connectivity between subunits.

[[Page 14113]]

Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 86 percent of the area of WCS-4 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
WCS-5. The WCS-5 subunit consists of approximately 370,253 ac
(149,836 ha) in Lane and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and comprises only
Federal lands managed by the Forest Service under the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal
ownership are proposed for exclusion. Special management considerations
or protection are required in this subunit to address threats from
current and past timber harvest and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function primarily for demographic support to
the overall population, as well as north-south and east-west
connectivity between subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 83 percent of the area of WCS-5 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
WCS-6. The WCS-6 subunit consists of approximately 104,650 ac
(42,351 ha) in Lane, Klamath and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and is
managed by the BLM and the Forest Service as directed by the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994, entire). Special management considerations or protection
are required in this subunit to address threats from current and past
timber harvest and competition with barred owls. This subunit is
expected to function primarily for east-west connectivity between
subunits and CHUs, and between the Oregon coast and the western
Cascades.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 97 percent of the area of WCS-6 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.

Unit 7: East Cascades North (ECN)

Unit 7 contains 1,919,469 ac (776,781 ha) and nine subunits. This
unit consists of the eastern slopes of the Cascade range, extending
from the Canadian border south to the Deschutes National Forest near
Bend, OR. Terrain in portions of this region is glaciated and steeply
dissected. This region is characterized by a continental climate (cold,
snowy winters and dry summers) and a high-frequency/low-mixed severity
fire regime. Increased precipitation from marine air passing east
through Snoqualmie Pass and the Columbia River has resulted in an
increase of moist forest conditions in this region (Hessburg et al.
2000b, p. 165). Forest composition, particularly the presence of grand
fir and western larch, distinguishes this modeling region from the
southern section of the eastern Cascades. While ponderosa pine forest
dominates lower and middle elevations in both this and the southern
section, the northern section supports grand fir and Douglas-fir
habitat at middle elevations. Dwarf mistletoe provides an important
component of nesting habitat, enabling spotted owls to nest within
stands of relatively younger, small trees.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 7
ECN-1. The ECN-1 subunit consists of approximately 135,108 ac
(54,676 ha) in Whatcom, Skagit, and Okanogan Counties, Washington, and
comprises lands managed by the National Park Service and Forest
Service. Of this subunit, 2,634 ac (1,066 ha) are managed as part of
the North Cascades National Park and Recreation Area as a
Congressionally reserved or wilderness area under the NWFP and we
propose to exclude these lands from the final critical habitat
designation. The Forest Service manages 78,681 ac (31,841 ha) as Late-
successional Reserves to maintain functional, interactive, late-
successional and old-growth forest ecosystems; 31,323 ac (12,676 ha) as
Congressionally reserved or wilderness areas (propose to exclude); and
22,480 ac (9,097 ha) under the Matrix land use allocation where
multiple uses occur, including most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. Threats in this subunit include current and
past timber harvest; competition with barred owls; removal or
modification of habitat by forest fires, insects, and diseases; steep
topography with high-elevation ridges that separate relatively small,
linear, strips of suitable habitat in valley bottoms; and location at
the northeastern limit of the range of the subspecies. This subunit is
expected to provide demographic support of the overall population and
maintain the subspecies distribution in the northeastern portion of its
range. ECN-1 is located primarily in the watershed of the Methow River
and includes a small portion of the upper Skagit River watershed. It is
bounded on the north by the international boundary with British
Columbia, Canada.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 41 percent of the area of ECN-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and

[[Page 14114]]

occupancy by non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider
this subunit to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In
addition, there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the
habitat mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of
listing. We have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are essential for the conservation of
the species to meet the recovery criterion that calls for the continued
maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix).
The increase and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by
providing for population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering
from competition with the barred owl.
ECN-2. The ECN-2 subunit consists of approximately 164,310 ac
(66,494 ha) in Chelan County, Washington, and comprises lands managed
by the National Park Service, and Forest Service. Of this subunit,
48,922 ac (19,798 ha) are managed as part of the North Cascades
National Park and Recreation Area as a Congressionally reserved or
wilderness area under the NWFP and we propose to exclude these lands in
the final critical habitat designation. The Forest Service manages
41,999 ac (16,997 ha) as Late-successional Reserves to maintain
functional, interactive, late-successional and old-growth forest
ecosystems; 55,618 ac (22,508 ha) as Congressionally reserved or
wilderness areas (propose to exclude); and 17,771 ac (7,192 ha) under
the Matrix land use allocation where multiple uses occur, including
most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber harvest; competition with
barred owls; steep topography with high-elevation ridges that separate
relatively small, linear, strips of suitable habitat in valley bottoms;
the combination of Lake Chelan and the Sawtooth Mountains acting as a
barrier to dispersal; and removal or modification of habitat by forest
fires, insects, and diseases. This subunit is expected to provide
demographic support of the overall population. ECN-2 is located
primarily in the watersheds of the Chelan and Entiat rivers.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 34 percent of the area of ECN-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ECN-3. The ECN-3 subunit consists of approximately 423,801 ac
(171,506 ha) in Chelan County, Washington, and comprises lands managed
by the Forest Service, the State of Washington, and private landowners.
The Forest Service manages 186,478 ac (75,465 ha) as Late-successional
Reserves to maintain functional, interactive, late-successional and
old-growth forest ecosystems; 97,131 ac (39,307 ha) as Congressionally
reserved or wilderness areas (propose to exclude); and 112,267 ac
(45,433 ha) under the Matrix land use allocation where multiple uses
occur, including most timber harvest and other silvicultural
activities. The State of Washington, primarily the Department of
Natural Resources, manages 5,819 ac (2,355 ha) in the Entiat and North
Blewett SOSEAs for multiple uses, including timber revenue production,
water quality, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Private landowners
manage 22,575 ac (9,136 ha) for various uses within the Entiat and
North Blewett SOSEAs, including maintenance of spotted owl habitat for
demographic and dispersal support of habitat on Federal lands and will
be considered for exclusion in the final designation. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber harvest, competition with
barred owls, and removal or modification of habitat by forest fires,
insects, and diseases. This subunit is expected to provide demographic
support of the overall population. ECN-3 is located primarily in the
watershed of the Wenatchee River. In this subunit, we propose to
exclude lands covered under the Washington Department of Natural
Resources State Lands HCP and the Scofield Corporation HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 71 percent of the area of ECN-3 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ECN-4. The ECN-4 subunit consists of approximately 303,494 ac
(123,224 ha) in Kittitas County, Washington, and comprises lands
managed by the Forest Service, the State of Washington, and private
landowners. The Forest Service manages 99,040 ac (40,080 ha) as Late-
successional Reserves to maintain functional, interactive, late-
successional, and old-growth forest ecosystems; 35,507 ac (14,369 ha)
as Congressionally reserved or wilderness areas (propose to exclude)
and 93,283 ac (37,750 ha) under the Matrix land use allocation where
multiple uses occur, including most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities. The State of Washington, primarily the
Department of Natural Resources, manages 9,781 ac (3,958 ha) mostly in
the I-90 East SOSEA for multiple uses, including timber revenue
production, water quality, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Private
landowners manage 66,814 ac (27,039 ha) for various uses within the I-
90 East SOSEA, including maintenance of spotted owl habitat for
demographic and dispersal support of habitat on Federal lands and will
be considered for exclusion in the final designation. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber harvest, competition with
barred owls, and removal or modification of habitat by forest fires,
insects, and diseases. This subunit is expected to provide demographic
support of the overall population. This subunit also has a key role in
maintaining connectivity between spotted owl populations, both north to
south in the East Cascades North Unit and west to east between the West
and East Cascades units. This role

[[Page 14115]]

is shared with the WCN-2 subunit and the WCC-1 subunit to the west.
ECN-4 is located primarily in the Upper Yakima River watershed. In this
subunit, we propose to exclude lands covered under the Washington
Department of Natural Resources State Lands HCP and the Plum Creek
Timber Central Cascades HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 78 percent of the area of ECN-4 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ECN-5. The ECN-5 subunit consists of approximately 300,384 ac
(121,561 ha) in Kittitas and Yakima Counties, Washington, and comprises
lands managed by the Forest Service, the State of Washington, and
private landowners. The Forest Service manages 115,583 ac (46,775 ha)
as Late-successional Reserves to maintain functional, interactive,
late-successional, and old-growth forest ecosystems; 95,351 ac (38,587
ha) as Congressionally reserved or wilderness areas (propose to
exclude); and 83,692 ac (33,869 ha) under the Matrix land use
allocation where multiple uses occur, including most timber harvest and
other silvicultural activities. The State of Washington, primarily the
Department of Natural Resources, manages 3,400 ac (1,376 ha) mostly in
the I-90 East SOSEA for multiple uses, including timber revenue
production, water quality, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Private
landowners manage 2,322 ac (940 ha) for various uses within the I-90
East SOSEA, including maintenance of spotted owl habitat for
demographic and dispersal support of habitat on Federal lands and will
be considered for exclusion in the final designation. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber harvest, competition with
barred owls, and removal or modification of habitat by forest fires,
insects, and diseases. This subunit is expected to provide demographic
support of the overall population. ECN-5 is located primarily in the
watershed of the Naches River. In this subunit, we propose to exclude
lands covered under the Washington Department of Natural Resources
State Lands HCP and the Plum Creek Timber Central Cascades HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 85 percent of the area of ECN-5 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ECN-6. The ECN-6 subunit consists of approximately 169,139 ac
(68,448 ha) in Skamania, Yakima, and Klickitat Counties, Washington,
and comprises lands managed by the Forest Service, the State of
Washington, and private landowners. Of this subunit, 4,466 ac (1,807
ha) are managed as part of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic
Area as a Congressionally reserved area under the NWFP which we propose
to exclude in the final critical habitat designation. The Forest
Service manages 32,430 ac (13,124 ha) as Late-successional Reserves to
maintain functional, interactive, late-successional, and old-growth
forest ecosystems; and 49,338 ac (19,967 ha) under the Matrix land use
allocation where multiple uses occur, including most timber harvest and
other silvicultural activities. The State of Washington, primarily the
Department of Natural Resources, manages 39,555 ac (16,007 ha), mostly
in the White Salmon SOSEA for multiple uses, including timber revenue
production, water quality, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Private
landowners manage 43,392 ac (17,560 ha) for various uses within the
White Salmon SOSEA, including maintenance of spotted owl habitat for
demographic and dispersal support of habitat on Federal lands and will
be considered for exclusion in the final designation. Threats in this
subunit include current and past timber harvest, competition with
barred owls, and the Columbia River as an impediment to spotted owl
dispersal. This subunit is expected to provide demographic support of
the overall population. ECN-6 is located primarily in the watersheds of
the Klickitat and White Salmon rivers, and is bounded on the south by
the Columbia River. In this subunit, we propose to exclude lands
covered under the Washington Department of Natural Resources State
Lands HCP.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 88 percent of the area of ECN-6 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ECN-7. The ECN-7 subunit consists of approximately 174,949 ac
(70,799 ha) in Hood River and Wasco Counties, Oregon, and comprises
only Federal lands managed by the Forest Service under the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural areas in
Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion. Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for
demographic

[[Page 14116]]

support to the overall population, as well as north-south and east-west
connectivity between subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that nearly 100 percent of the area of ECN-7 was covered by
verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When combined
with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by non-
territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit to
have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition, there
may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat mosaic
of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We have
determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this
subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet the
recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ECN-8. The ECN-8 subunit consists of approximately 157,877 ac
(63,891 ha) in Jefferson and Deschutes Counties, Oregon, of Federal
lands managed by the Forest Service under the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal ownership
are proposed for exclusion. Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current
and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function primarily for demographic support to
the overall population, as well as north-south connectivity between
subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 61 percent of the area of ECN-8 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ECN-9. The ECN-9 subunit consists of approximately 158,126 ac
(63,991 ha) in Deschutes and Klamath Counties, Oregon, and comprises
only Federal lands managed by the Forest Service under the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994). Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal
ownership are proposed for exclusion. Special management considerations
or protection are required in this subunit to address threats from
current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects
on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls.
This subunit is expected to function primarily for demographic support
to the overall population, as well as north-south connectivity between
subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 45 percent of the area of ECN-9 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.

Unit 8: East Cascades South (ECS)

Unit 8 contains 526,815 ac (213,195 ha) and three subunits. This
unit incorporates the Southern Cascades Ecological Section M261D, based
on section descriptions of forest types from Ecological Subregions of
the United States (McNab and Avers 1994c, Section M261D) and the
eastern slopes of the Cascades from the Crescent Ranger District of the
Deschutes National Forest south to the Shasta area. Topography is
gentler and less dissected than the glaciated northern section of the
eastern Cascades. A large expanse of recent volcanic soils (pumice
region) (Franklin and Dyrness 1988, pp. 25-26), large areas of
lodgepole pine, and increasing presence of red fir (A. magnifica) and
white fir (and decreasing grand fir) along a south-trending gradient
further supported separation of this region from the northern portion
of the eastern Cascades. This region is characterized by a continental
climate (cold, snowy winters and dry summers) and a high-frequency/low-
mixed severity fire regime. Ponderosa pine is a dominant forest type at
mid-to-lower elevations, with a narrow band of Douglas-fir and white
fir at middle elevations providing the majority of spotted owl habitat.
Dwarf mistletoe provides an important component of nesting habitat,
enabling spotted owls to nest within stands of relatively younger,
smaller trees.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 8
ECS-1. The ECS-1 subunit consists of approximately 192,523 ac
(77,911 ha) in Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and
comprises lands managed by the BLM, the National Park Service, and the
Forest Service. Of these acres 21,129 ac (8,550 ha) are under
management of the National Park Service and are proposed for exclusion
in the final critical habitat designation, while the remaining 170,394
ac (69,361 ha) are BLM and Forest Service lands managed as directed by
the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for
demographic support to the overall population, as well as north-south
and east-west connectivity between subunits and CHUs. This subunit is
adjacent to ECS-2 to the south.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 78 percent of the area of ECS-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger

[[Page 14117]]

forest within the habitat mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied
at the time of listing. We have determined that all of the unoccupied
and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for the
conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that calls
for the continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl habitat
(USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of spotted owl
habitat is necessary to provide for viable populations of spotted owls
over the long term by providing for population expansion, successful
dispersal, and buffering from competition with the barred owl.
ECS-2. The ECS-2 subunit consists of approximately 90,012 ac
(36,427 ha) in Klamath and Jackson Counties, Oregon, and Siskiyou
County, California, all of which are Federal lands managed by the BLM
and Forest Service per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire).
Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal ownership are
proposed for exclusion in the final critical habitat designation.
Special management considerations or protection are required in this
subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function
primarily for north-south connectivity between subunits, but also for
demographic support in this area of sparse Federal land and sparse
high-quality nesting habitat.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 77 percent of the area of ECS-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ECS-3. The ECS-3 subunit consists of approximately 112,960 ac
(45,713 ha) in Siskiyou County, California, all of which are Federal
lands managed by the Forest Service per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire). Special management considerations or protection are required
in this subunit to address threats from current and past timber
harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation from fire
exclusion, and competition with barred owls. The function of this
subunit is to provide demographic support in this area of sparsely
distributed high-quality habitat and Federal land, and to provide for
population connectivity between subunits to the north and south.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 69 percent of the area of ECS-3 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider a large part
of this subunit to have been occupied at the time of listing. There are
some areas of younger forest in this subunit that may have been
unoccupied at the time of listing. We have determined that all of the
unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for
the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that
calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of spotted
owl habitat in this subunit is especially important for providing
essential connectivity between currently occupied areas to support the
successful dispersal of spotted owls, and may also help to buffer
spotted owls from competition with the barred owl.

Unit 9: Klamath West (KLW)

Unit 9 contains 1,290,687 ac (522,322 ha) and nine subunits. This
unit consists of the western portion of the Klamath Mountains
Ecological Section M261A, based on section descriptions of forest types
from Ecological Subregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994c,
Section M261A). A long north-south trending system of mountains
(particularly South Fork Mountain) creates a rainshadow effect that
separates this region from more mesic conditions to the west. This
region is characterized by very high climatic and vegetative diversity
resulting from steep gradients of elevation, dissected topography, and
the influence of marine air (relatively high potential precipitation).
These conditions support a highly diverse mix of mesic forest
communities such as Pacific Douglas-fir, Douglas-fir tanoak, and mixed
evergreen forest interspersed with more xeric forest types. Overall,
the distribution of tanoak is a dominant factor distinguishing the
Western Klamath Region. Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is uncommon and
seldom used for nesting platforms by spotted owls. The prey base of
spotted owls within the Western Klamath is diverse, but dominated by
woodrats and flying squirrels.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 9
KLW-1. The KLW-1 subunit consists of approximately 156,075 ac
(63,161 ha) in Douglas, Josephine, Curry, and Coos Counties, Oregon,
and comprises lands managed by the State of Oregon and the BLM. Of this
subunit 7,236 ac (2,928 ha) are managed by the State of Oregon for
multiple uses including timber revenue production, recreation, and
wildlife habitat according to the Southwest Oregon State Forests
Management Plan (ODF 2010b, entire) and may be considered for exclusion
in the final critical habitat designation. Federal lands comprise
148,837 ac (60,233 ha) and are managed as directed by the NWFP (USDA
and USDI 1994, entire). Special management considerations or protection
are required in this subunit to address threats from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation
from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This subunit is
expected to function for demographic support to the overall population
and for north-south and east-west connectivity between subunits and
CHUs. This subunit sits at the western edge of an important
connectivity corridor between coastal Oregon and the western Cascades.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 96 percent of the area of KLW-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable

[[Page 14118]]

populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLW-2. The KLW-2 subunit consists of approximately 150,777 ac
(61,017 ha) in Josephine, Curry, and Coos Counties, Oregon, and
comprises lands managed by the Forest Service and the BLM as directed
by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved
natural areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the
final critical habitat designation. Special management considerations
or protection are required in this subunit to address threats from
current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects
on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls.
This subunit is expected to function for demographic support to the
overall population and for north-south and east-west connectivity
between subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 71 percent of the area of KLW-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLW-3. The KLW-3 subunit consists of approximately 111,595 ac
(45,161 ha) in Josephine, Curry, and Coos Counties, Oregon, and
comprises lands managed by the Forest Service, the BLM and the State of
Oregon. There are 110,356 ac (44,660 ha) of Federal lands managed as
directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). The 837 ac (339 ha)
of State of Oregon lands are managed according to the Southwest Oregon
State Forests Management Plan (ODF 2010b, entire) and may be considered
for exclusion for the final critical habitat designation. Special
management considerations or protection are required in this subunit to
address threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to
wildfire and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function for
demographic support to the overall population and for north-south
connectivity between subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 88 percent of the area of KLW-3 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLW-4. The KLW-4 subunit consists of approximately 155,811 ac
(63,055 ha) in Josephine and Jackson Counties, Oregon, and Del Norte
and Siskiyou Counties, California, and comprises lands managed by the
Forest Service, the BLM, and the NPS that are managed as directed by
the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural
areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the final
critical habitat designation. Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current
and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function for demographic support to the overall
population and for north-south and east-west connectivity between
subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 95 percent of the area of KLW-4 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLW-5. The KLW-5 subunit consists of approximately 28,622 ac
(11,583 ha) in Josephine County, Oregon, and Del Norte and Siskiyou
Counties, California, all of which are Federal lands managed by the BLM
and Forest Service per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire).
Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal ownership are
proposed for exclusion in the final critical habitat designation.
Special management considerations or protection are required in this
subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function for
demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 98 percent of the area of KLW-5 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population

[[Page 14119]]

expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from competition with
the barred owl.
KLW-6. The KLW-6 subunit consists of approximately 159,566 ac
(64,574 ha) in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Siskiyou Counties, California,
all of which are Federal lands managed by the Forest Service as
directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally
reserved natural areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion
in the final critical habitat designation. Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function for demographic
support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 91 percent of the area of KLW-6 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLW-7. The KLW-7 subunit consists of approximately 302,139 ac
(122,271 ha) in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Siskiyou Counties, California,
all of which are Federal lands managed by the BLM and Forest Service as
directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally
reserved natural areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion
in the final critical habitat designation. Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function for demographic
support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 91 percent of the area of KLW-7 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLW-8. The KLW-8 subunit consists of approximately 118,671 ac
(48,024 ha) in Siskiyou and Trinity Counties, California, all of which
are Federal lands managed by the BLM and Forest Service as directed by
the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural
areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the final
critical habitat designation. Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current
and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 85 percent of the area of KLW-8 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLW-9. The KLW-9 subunit consists of approximately 190,140 ac
(76,949 ha) in Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California, all of which
are Federal lands managed by the Forest Service as directed by the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural areas in
Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the final critical
habitat designation. Special management considerations or protection
are required in this subunit to address threats from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation
from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This subunit is
expected to function for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 89 percent of the area of KLW-9 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.

Unit 10: Klamath East (KLE)

Unit 10 contains 1,111,790 ac (449,926 ha) and seven subunits. This
unit consists of the eastern portion of the Klamath Mountains
Ecological Section M261A, based on section descriptions of forest types
from Ecological Subregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994c,
Section M261A), and portions of the Southern Cascades Ecological
Section M261D in Oregon. This region is characterized by a
Mediterranean climate, greatly reduced influence of marine air, and

[[Page 14120]]

steep, dissected terrain. Franklin and Dyrness (1988, pp. 137-149)
differentiate the mixed-conifer forest occurring on the ``Cascade side
of the Klamath from the more mesic mixed evergreen forests on the
western portion (Siskiyou Mountains),'' and Kuchler (1977) separates
out the eastern Klamath based on increased occurrence of ponderosa
pine. The mixed-conifer/evergreen hardwood forest types typical of the
Klamath region extend into the southern Cascades in the vicinity of
Roseburg and the North Umpqua River, where they grade into the western
hemlock forest typical of the Cascades. High summer temperatures and a
mosaic of open forest conditions and Oregon white oak (Q. garryana)
woodlands act to influence spotted owl distribution in this region.
Spotted owls occur at elevations up to 1,768 m. Dwarf mistletoe
provides an important component of nesting habitat, enabling spotted
owls to nest within stands of relatively younger, small trees.
Subunit Descriptions--Unit 10
KLE-1. The KLE-1 subunit consists of approximately 262,810 ac
(106,355 ha) in Jackson and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and comprises
Federal lands managed by the Forest Service and the BLM under the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural areas in
Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the final critical
habitat designation. Special management considerations or protection
are required in this subunit to address threats from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation
from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This subunit is
expected to function primarily for demographic support to the overall
population, as well as north-south and east-west connectivity between
subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 84 percent of the area of KLE-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLE-2. The KLE-2 subunit consists of approximately 110,477 ac
(44,709ha) in Josephine and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and comprises
Federal lands managed by the Forest Service and the BLM under the NWFP
(USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current
and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function primarily for east-west connectivity
between subunits and CHUs, but also for demographic support. This
subunit facilitates spotted owl movements between the western Cascades
and coastal Oregon and the Klamath Mountains.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 92 percent of the area of KLE-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLE-3. The KLE-3 subunit consists of approximately 110,484 ac
(44,711 ha) in Jackson, Josephine, and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and
comprises Federal lands managed by the Forest Service and the BLM under
the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for east-
west connectivity between subunits and CHUs, but also for demographic
support. This subunit facilitates spotted owl movements between the
western Cascades and coastal Oregon and the Klamath Mountains.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 97 percent of the area of KLE-3 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLE-4. The KLE-4 subunit consists of approximately 307,339 ac
(124,376 ha) in Jackson, Klamath, and Douglas Counties, Oregon, and
comprises Federal lands managed by the NPS, Forest Service, and the BLM
under the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved
natural areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the
final critical habitat designation. Special management considerations
or protection are required in this subunit to address threats from
current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects
on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls.
This subunit is expected to function primarily for east-west
connectivity between subunits and CHUs, but also for demographic
support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 81 percent of the area of KLE-4 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and

[[Page 14121]]

occupancy by non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider
this subunit to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In
addition, there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the
habitat mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of
listing. We have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely
occupied areas in this subunit are essential for the conservation of
the species to meet the recovery criterion that calls for the continued
maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix).
The increase and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to
provide for viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by
providing for population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering
from competition with the barred owl.
KLE-5. The KLE-5 subunit consists of approximately 37,646 ac
(15,325,ha) in Jackson County, Oregon, and comprises lands managed by
the BLM and the State of Oregon. The 37,606 ac (15,219 ha) of BLM land
are managed per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire) while the State
of Oregon lands are managed under the Southwest Oregon State Forests
Management Plan (ODF 2010b, entire) and may be considered for exclusion
in the final critical habitat designation. Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for north-
south connectivity between subunits, but also for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 86 percent of the area of KLE-5 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLE-6. The KLE-6 subunit consists of approximately 167,089 ac
(67,619 ha) in Jackson County, Oregon, and Siskiyou County, California,
all of which are Federal lands managed by the BLM and Forest Service
per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved
natural areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the
final critical habitat designation. Special management considerations
or protection are required in this subunit to address threats from
current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects
on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls.
This subunit is expected to function primarily for north-south
connectivity between subunits, but also for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 97 percent of the area of KLE-6 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
KLE-7. The KLE-7 subunit consists of approximately 73,749 ac
(29,845 ha) in Siskiyou County, California, all of which are Federal
lands managed by the BLM and Forest Service per the NWFP (USDA and USDI
1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal
ownership are proposed for exclusion in the final critical habitat
designation. Special management considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address threats from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation
from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This subunit is
expected to function for demographic support and also for connectivity
across the landscape.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 96 percent of the area of KLE-7 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.

Unit 11: Interior California Coast (ICC)

Unit 11 contains 1,276,450 ac (516,537 ha) and eight subunits. This
unit consists of the Northern California Coast Ranges ecological
Section M261B, based on section descriptions of forest types from
Ecological Subregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994c,
Section M261B), and differs markedly from the adjacent redwood coast
region. Marine air moderates winter climate, but precipitation is
limited by rainshadow effects from steep elevational gradients (100 to
2,400 m.) along a series of north-south trending mountain ridges. Due
to the influence of the adjacent Central Valley, summer temperatures in
the interior portions of this region are among the highest within the
spotted owl's range. Forest communities tend to be relatively dry
mixed-conifer, blue and Oregon white oak, and the Douglas-fir tanoak
series. Spotted owl habitat within this region is poorly known; there
are no DSAs, and few studies have been conducted here. Spotted owl
habitat data obtained during this project suggests that some spotted
owls occupy steep canyons dominated by live oak and Douglas-fir; the
distribution of dense conifer habitats is limited to higher elevations
on the Mendocino National Forest.

[[Page 14122]]

Subunit Descriptions--Unit 11
ICC-1. The ICC-1 subunit consists of approximately 352,275 ac
(142,561 ha) in Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, and Tehama Counties,
California, all of which are Federal lands managed by the BLM and the
Forest Service per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire).
Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal ownership are
proposed for exclusion in the final critical habitat designation.
Special management considerations or protection are required in this
subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest, losses
due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function
primarily for demographic support, but also for connectivity between
subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 97 percent of the area of ICC-1 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ICC-2. The ICC-2 subunit consists of approximately 224,779 ac
(90,956 ha) in Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California, all of which
are Federal lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service per the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural
areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the final
critical habitat designation. Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current
and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function primarily for demographic support, but
also for connectivity between subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 98 percent of the area of ICC-2 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ICC-3. The ICC-3 subunit consists of approximately 257,668 ac
(104,274 ha) in Trinity, Tehama, and Mendocino Counties, California,
all of which are Federal lands managed by the BLM and the Forest
Service per the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally
reserved natural areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion
in the final critical habitat designation. Special management
considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address
threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire
and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with
barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for
demographic support, but also for north-south connectivity between
subunits.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 89 percent of the area of ICC-3 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ICC-4. The ICC-4 subunit consists of approximately 173,199 ac
(70,091 ha) in Mendocino, Glenn, and Colusa Counties, California, all
of which are Federal lands managed by the BLM and Forest Service per
the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural
areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the final
critical habitat designation. Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current
and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function primarily for demographic support.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 93 percent of the area of ICC-4 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ICC-5. The ICC-5 subunit consists of approximately 47,243 ac
(19,119 ha) in Lake and Mendocino Counties, California, all of which
are Federal lands managed by the Forest Service per the NWFP (USDA and
USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural areas in Federal
ownership are proposed for exclusion in the final critical habitat

[[Page 14123]]

designation. Special management considerations or protection are
required in this subunit to address threats from current and past
timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation
from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This subunit is
expected to function primarily for demographic support, but also for
connectivity between subunits and CHUs.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 78 percent of the area of ICC-5 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ICC-6. The ICC-6 subunit consists of approximately 51,519 ac
(20,849 ha) in Napa and Sonoma Counties, California. It is comprised
largely of privately owned lands, which may be considered for exclusion
from the final designation, along with some State and Federal lands.
Residential subdivisions, commercially-zoned lands, and individually-
owned parcels less than 40 acres that may have been included in the
mapped area are not being proposed as critical habitat. Special
management considerations or protection are required in this subunit to
address threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to
wildfire and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and
competition with barred owls. The expected function of this subunit is
to provide demographic support to an isolated population.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 90 percent of the area of ICC-6 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ICC-7. The ICC-7 subunit consists of approximately 132,386 ac
(53,575 ha) in Trinity and Shasta Counties, California, all of which
are Federal lands managed by the BLM, NPS, and the Forest Service per
the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Congressionally reserved natural
areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion in the final
critical habitat designation. Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current
and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function both for demographic support and for
east-west connectivity between subunits in an area of sparse Federal
ownership.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 73 percent of the area of ICC-7 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.
ICC-8. The ICC-8 subunit consists of approximately 73,492 ac
(29,741 ha) in Siskiyou and Shasta Counties, California, all of which
are Federal lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service per the
NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special management considerations or
protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current
and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on
vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This
subunit is expected to function both for demographic support and for
connectivity between subunits in an area of sparse Federal ownership.
Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing
indicate that approximately 84 percent of the area of ICC-8 was covered
by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When
combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by
non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit
to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat
mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We
have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in
this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet
the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and
recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. ix). The increase
and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for
viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for
population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from
competition with the barred owl.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.

[[Page 14124]]

Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with the Service. Examples of actions that are subject to
the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Indian, local,
or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section
10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as
funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, Indian, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Determinations of Adverse Effects and Application of the ``Adverse
Modification'' Standard

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure
their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The key factor
involved in the destruction/adverse modification determination for a
proposed Federal agency action is whether the affected critical habitat
would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species
with implementation of the proposed action after taking into account
any anticipated cumulative effects (USFWS 2004, in litt. entire).
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical or biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat
is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
In general, there are five possible outcomes in terms of how
proposed Federal actions may affect the PCEs or physical and biological
features of northern spotted owl critical habitat: (1) No effect; (2)
wholly beneficial effects (e.g., improve habitat condition); (3) both
short-term adverse effects and long-term beneficial effects; (4)
insignificant or discountable adverse effects; or (5) wholly adverse
effects. Actions with no effect on the PCEs and physical and biological
features of northern spotted owl critical habitat do not require
section 7 consultation, although such actions may still have adverse or
beneficial effects on the species itself that require consultation.
Actions with effects to the PCEs or physical and biological features of
northern spotted owl critical habitat that are discountable,
insignificant, or wholly beneficial are considered as not likely to
adversely affect critical habitat and do not require formal
consultation if the Service concurs in writing with that Federal action
agency determination. Actions that are likely to adversely affect the
physical or biological features of northern spotted owl critical
habitat require formal consultation and the preparation of a Biological
Opinion by the Service. The Biological Opinion sets forth the basis for
our section 7(a)(2) determination as to whether the proposed Federal
action is likely to destroy or adversely modify northern spotted owl
critical habitat.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
are those that alter the essential physical or biological features of
the critical habitat to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of the critical habitat for the listed species. As
discussed above, the conservation role or value of northern spotted owl
critical habitat is to adequately support the life-history needs of the
species to the extent that well-distributed and inter-connected
northern spotted owl nesting populations at habitat carrying capacity
levels are likely to persist within properly functioning ecosystems at
the critical habitat unit and range-wide scales.
In areas occupied at the time of listing, proposed Federal actions
that may affect the essential physical or biological features of
northern spotted

[[Page 14125]]

owl critical habitat will trigger the consultation requirements under
section 7 of the Act and compliance with the section 7(a)(2) standard
described above. Similarly, in areas that may have been unoccupied at
the time of listing, proposed Federal actions that may affect the
habitat qualities that served as the basis for the determination that
the area is essential to the conservation of the species will trigger
these requirements as well. The consultation process evaluates how a
proposed action is likely to affect the capability of the critical
habitat to support northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging, or
dispersal by considering the scales at which the life-history
requirements of the northern spotted owl are based regardless of the
species' presence or absence. For an action that may affect critical
habitat, the next step is to determine whether it is likely to
adversely affect critical habitat. For example, where a project is
designed to reduce fuels such that the effect of wildfires will be
reduced but will also reduce foraging opportunities within treatment
areas, established interagency consultation teams should determine
whether the proposed project has more than an insignificant impact on
the foraging PCEs for northern spotted owls. A localized reduction in
foraging habitat within a stand may have such a small impact on
foraging PCEs within the stand that a not likely to adversely affect
determination is appropriate. Similarly, a hazard tree removal project
in a stand with many suitable nest trees may have such a minimal
reduction in nesting PCEs of that stand that the effect to nesting
habitat is negligible.
Scale and context are especially important in evaluating the
potential effects of forest management on northern spotted owl habitat.
The degree to which various forest management activities are likely to
affect the capability of the critical habitat to support northern
spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersal will vary
depending on factors such as the scope and location of the action and
the quantity of the critical habitat affected. In addition, the
evaluation of actions that may affect critical habitat for the northern
spotted owl for purposes of completing the section 7(a)(2) analysis for
the destruction or adverse modification determination should consider
the effects of the action on the factors that were the basis for
determining the area to meet the definition of critical habitat. Thus
when conducting section 7 consultations, the factors to be considered
may include, but are not limited to:
The extent of the proposed action, including its temporal
and spatial scale, relative to the critical habitat subunit within
which it occurs.
The specific purpose for which that subunit was identified
and designated as critical habitat.
The impact of the proposed action on the subunit's
likelihood of serving its intended conservation function or purpose.
The overall consistency of the proposed action with the
intent of the recovery plan or other landscape-level conservation
plans.
In general, we would anticipate that management actions that are
consistent with the overall purpose for which a critical habitat unit
was designated would be determined as not likely to adversely affect or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Such actions include
activities whose intent is to restore ecological processes or long-term
forest health to forested landscapes that contain spotted owl habitat,
such as those actions described in the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) and elsewhere in this document.
Section 7 consultations need to consider the temporal and spatial
scale of impacts a proposed action may have on the PCEs or essential
habitat qualities associated with the affected critical habitat
subunit(s). Actions that have a relatively short-lived temporal impact
will likely not adversely affect the critical habitat subunit's role
and function in conserving spotted owls and on that basis generally
warrant a not likely to adversely affect or a no-destruction or adverse
modification conclusion under formal consultation. Likewise, proposed
actions that are small in spatial scale relative to the subunit's size
and overall habitat condition are also potentially not likely to
adversely affect the critical habitat's role and function. As a general
rule of thumb, when conducting section 7 consultation, we recommend
consideration of a scale that is relevant to the needs and biology of
the spotted owl. As outlined in Appendix C of the Revised Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2011, p. C-15), spotted owls select nest sites (their most
specific habitat requirement) based on conditions that exist at a
variety of spatial scales beyond the nest site, most notably the ``core
area'' surrounding the nest site. While these scales vary by study and
location, we believe an area roughly 500 ac (200 ha) in size is a
reasonable core area metric for land managers to consider when
assessing effects on critical habitat. This 500-ac (200-ha) metric is
consistent with the methodology used to construct the habitat model
described in Appendix C of the Revised Recovery Plan and for which
areas were evaluated for possible designation. We would anticipate that
in most cases, restoration and thinning actions (see Special Management
Actions and Considerations) at or below this size will likely not
adversely affect a given critical habitat subunit; however, such a
determination would have to be made on a case-by-case basis, after
careful consideration of the specific conditions of the proposed
action.
The Service believes that this 500-ac (200-ha) scale is a
reasonable extent for evaluating potential effects; the Service would
then evaluate whether there is a reasonable certainty that the proposed
action would result in a measurable change in the subunit's ability to
provide the functions for which it was designated. Caveats to this
generalization include the need to consider the subunit's baseline
condition and the potential for cumulative effects within the subunit,
which can accrue both spatially and temporally. The Service invites
public comment on this approach to effects determinations for the
northern spotted owl.
Actions resulting in wholly beneficial effects include those that
actively promote the development or improve the functionality of
critical habitat for the northern spotted owl without causing adverse
effects to the essential physical or biological features. Such actions
might involve variable-density thinning in forest stands that do not
currently support nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for the
northern spotted owl to speed the development of these types of
habitats while maintaining dispersal habitat function. Thinning or
other treatments in young plantations that do not provide even
dispersal habitat (but are capable of providing habitat) would also
fall into this effect category, where these actions are specifically
designed to accelerate the development of northern spotted owl habitat.
Some of these actions may affect critical habitat and would, therefore,
require consultation under section 7 of the Act. But because they may
be not likely to adversely affect critical habitat, the consultation
may be completed informally through the Service's issuance of a
concurrence letter as discussed above.
Likewise, if the adverse effects of a proposed Federal action on
the physical or biological features of northern spotted owl critical
habitat at the 500-ac (200-ha) scale are expected to be discountable
(extremely unlikely to occur) or insignificant, that action is

[[Page 14126]]

considered not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl critical
habitat. In such cases, the Act's section 7 consultation requirements
can be satisfied through the informal concurrence process described
above. Examples of such actions may include: Pre-commercial or
commercial thinning that does not delay the development of essential
physical or biological features; fuel-reduction treatments that have a
negligible effect on northern spotted owl foraging habitat within the
stand; and the removal of hazard trees where the removal has an
insignificant effect on the capability of the stand to provide northern
spotted owl nesting opportunities.
Some proposed Federal forest management activities may have short-
term adverse effects and long-term beneficial effects on the physical
or biological features of northern spotted owl critical habitat. The
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl anticipates that
land managers will actively manage portions of both moist and dry
forests to improve stand conditions and forest resiliency, which should
benefit the long-term recovery of the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011,
p. III-11). For example, variable thinning in single-story, uniform
forest stands to promote the development of multistory structure and
nest trees may result in short-term adverse impacts to the habitat's
current capability to support owl dispersal and some foraging, but have
long-term benefits by creating higher quality habitat that will better
support territorial pairs of northern spotted owls. Such activities
would have less impact in areas where foraging and dispersal habitat is
not limiting. Even though they may have long term beneficial effects,
if they have short-term adverse effects, such actions may adversely
affect critical habitat and would require formal consultation under
section 7 of the Act. For efficiency, such actions could be evaluated
under section 7 programmatically at the landscape scale (e.g., National
Forest or BLM District).
Habitat conditions in moist/wet and dry/fire-prone forests within
the range of the northern spotted owl vary widely as do the types of
management activities designed to accelerate or enhance the development
of northern spotted owl habitat. ``Wet'' and ``dry'' are ends of a
spectrum, not distinct categories that adequately describe the full
range of forest types within the range of the northern spotted owl.
Because these categories are broad, and conditions on the ground are
more variable, land managers and cooperators should have the
expectation that multiple forest types may be involved and similar
projects in different forest types may not always lead to the same
effect determination for purposes of compliance with section 7 of the
Act.
Within dry forests, the Revised Recovery Plan emphasizes active
forest management that could meet overlapping goals of northern spotted
owl conservation, climate change response, and restoration of dry
forest ecological structure, composition and process, including
wildfire and other disturbances (USFWS 2011, pp. III-20). For the rest
of the northern spotted owl's range that is not fire-prone, the Revised
Recovery Plan emphasizes habitat management that accelerates the
development of future habitat, restores larger habitat blocks, and
reduces habitat fragmentation. The following discussion describes the
type of management approaches that would be consistent with the revised
recovery plan in the West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and
Washington, East Cascades, and the Redwood Coast zones, and a
discussion of possible corresponding effect determinations for
activities implementing these approaches for purposes of analyzing
effects to critical habitat under section 7 of the Act. The Klamath and
Northern California Interior Coast Ranges regions contain conditions
similar to the three regions discussed below, and similar management
approaches would be consistent with the recovery needs of the owl.
West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington
The primary goal of the Revised Recovery Plan for this portion of
the northern spotted owl's range is to conserve stands that support
northern spotted owl occupancy or contain high-value northern spotted
owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. III-17). Silvicultural treatments are
generally not needed to accomplish this goal. However, there is a
significant amount of younger forest that occurs between and around the
older stands where silvicultural treatments may accelerate the
development of these stands into future northern spotted owl nesting
habitat, even if doing so temporarily degrades existing dispersal
habitat, as recommended in Recovery Action 6 (USFWS 2011, p. III-19).
The Revised Recovery Plan encourages silviculture designed to develop
late-successional structural complexity and to promote resilience
(USFWS 2011, pp. III-17 to III-19). Restoration or ecological
prescriptions can help uniform stands of poor quality develop more
quickly into northern spotted owl habitat and provide resiliency in the
face of potential climate change impacts in the future. Targeted
vegetation treatments could simultaneously increase canopy and age-
class diversity, putting those stands on a more efficient trajectory
towards nesting and roosting habitat while reducing fuel loads.
Introducing varying levels of spatial heterogeneity, both vertically
and horizontally, into forest ecosystems can contribute to both of the
goals stated above.
While these treatments would be intended to benefit the development
of northern spotted owl habitat over time, they may have short-term
adverse effects but are not expected to adversely modify the role and
function of critical habitat. Additional information about ecological
forestry activities in moist forests can be found in the Revised
Recovery Plan under Spotted Owls and Ecological Forestry (USFWS 2011,
p. III-11) and Habitat Management in Moist Forests (USFWS 2011, p. III-
17).
Similarly, land managers should consider what areas of forest land
might be appropriate to create or restore complex early seral forest
habitat (USFWS 2011, p. III-14). Ideally, such actions should consist
of relatively small patches targeted to younger, mid-seral forest
stands that do not cause reductions in higher quality spotted owl
habitat, and they should be planned in such a way that their net
occurrence on the regional landscape is consistent with ecosystem-based
planning targets (e.g., Spies et al. 2007a, entire) to provide the
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the northern spotted owl. As an example, targeted variable retention
harvest in moist forests should be considered where the conservation of
complex early seral forest habitat is a localized goal within spotted
owl critical habitat. Some researchers have concluded that a focus on
older forest conservation on Federal lands in the Pacific Northwest
during the last 20 years is leading to a significant reduction in early
seral habitat that is important to many species (Hagar 2007, p. 109;
Spies et al. 2007b, p. 63; Betts et al. 2010, p. 2117). Traditional
clearcutting on nearby private timber lands does not usually mimic
natural disturbance or create viable early seral communities that grow
into high-quality habitat (Franklin et al. 2002, p. 419; Swanson et al.
2010, p. 8). In recent years, variable retention harvest has been
increasingly utilized as a way to reconcile the often competing goals
of commercial timber production and biodiversity conservation (Carey
2003, p. 128; Rosenvald and Lohmus 2008, p. 2; Aubry et al. 2009, p.
399; Baker

[[Page 14127]]

2011, entire; Ellis and Betts 2011, p. 1372). It is appropriate to
consider vegetation management actions within critical habitat to
restore or encourage early seral restoration where such habitat is
underrepresented at the landscape ecosystem level and the goal is to
conserve landscape and biological diversity (Betts et al. 2010, pp.
2126-2127; Messier et al. 2012, p. 69). Such actions may adversely
affect critical habitat, but they are not expected to adversely modify
the role and function of critical habitat at the watershed or larger
landscape scale (i.e., subunit or unit).
East Cascades
The Revised Recovery Plan recommends that the dynamic, fire-prone
portion of the northern spotted owl's range be actively managed to
conserve northern spotted owls, but also address climate change and
restore dry forest ecological structure, composition, and processes
(e.g., wildfire) to provide for the long-term conservation of the
species and its habitat in a dynamic ecosystem (USFWS 2011, pp, III-13,
III-20). To do this, management actions will need to be implemented
that balance short-term adverse effects with long-term beneficial
effects. In some cases, formal consultation on the effects of dry
forest management activities on northern spotted owl critical habitat
is likely to occur; in other cases, there may be no adverse effects and
consultation can be concluded informally.
Management in dry forests should increase the likelihood that
northern spotted owl habitat will remain on the landscape longer and
develop as part of the dynamic fire- and disturbance-adapted community.
Several management approaches can be described for these systems. The
first is to maintain adequate northern spotted owl habitat in the near
term to allow owls to persist on the landscape in the face of threats
from barred owl expansion and habitat alterations from fire and other
disturbances. The next is to restore landscapes that are resilient to
fire and other disturbances, including those projected to occur with
climate change. This will require more than reducing fuels and thinning
trees to promote low-severity fires; management will need to develop
``more natural patterns and patch size distributions of forest
structure, composition, fuels, and fire regime area'' (Hessburg et al.
2007, p. 21).
Our prime objective for vegetation management activities within
northern spotted owl critical habitat is to maintain adequate amounts
of nesting, roosting, foraging or dispersal habitat where it currently
exists and to restore degraded habitat where it is essential to the owl
and can be best sustained on the landscape as recommended in the
Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, Section III). Successfully
accomplishing these objectives can be facilitated by spatially and
temporally explicit landscape assessments that identify areas valuable
for northern spotted owl conservation and recovery, as well as areas
important for process restoration (e.g., Prather et al. 2008, p. 149).
Such assessments could answer questions which are frequently asked
about proposed forest management activities, namely ``why here?'' and
``why now?'' Providing well-reasoned responses to these questions
becomes especially important when restoration activities degrade or
remove existing northern spotted owl habitat. By scaling up
conservation and restoration planning from the stand to the landscape
level, many apparent conflicts may disappear because management actions
can be prioritized and spatially partitioned (Prather et al. 2008, p.
149; Rieman et al. 2010, p. 464). For example, portions of the
landscape can be identified where there may be no conflict between
objectives, and where relatively aggressive approaches to ecosystem
restoration can occur without placing listed species at substantial
risk (Prather et al. 2008, pp. 147-149; Gaines et al. 2010, pp. 2049-
2050). Conflicts between objectives will remain in some locations, for
example in places where removing younger, shade-intolerant conifers to
reduce competition with larger, legacy conifers may result in a
substantial decrease in canopy cover that translates into a reduction
in northern spotted owl habitat quality. However, when this sort of
treatment is well designed, strategically located, and justified within
a landscape approach to treatments, it is easier to assess its
effectiveness in meeting both owl conservation and forest restoration
needs.
Landscape assessments developed at the scale of entire National
Forests, Ranger Districts, or BLM Districts have the broad perspective
that can improve our ability to estimate effects of our management
activities on the function of critical habitat and better identify and
prioritize treatment areas and the actions that will restore landscapes
while conserving northern spotted owl habitat. The Okanogan-Wenatchee
National Forest has developed a landscape evaluation process as part of
their forest restoration strategy (USDA 2010, pp. 36-52) that can serve
as an example other administrative units can refer to when developing
their own assessment approaches. We suggest that the value of such
assessments in guiding vegetation management within critical habitat
can be enhanced by spatially identifying locations where restoration
objectives and northern spotted owl habitat objectives converge, are in
conflict, or simply are not an issue. We suggest the following approach
for the East Cascades:
(1) Spatially identify and map:
a. Existing northern spotted owl habitat and northern spotted owl
nesting sites.
b. Places on the landscape where northern spotted owl habitat is
expected to be retained longer on the landscape in the face of
disturbance activities such as fire and insect outbreaks.
c. Places on the landscape where key ecosystem structures and
processes are at risk and would benefit from restoration (e.g., legacy
trees, unique habitats).
(2) Overlay what is known about landscape patterns of vegetation
and disturbance processes with items from step 1 above to determine:
a. Stands of high restoration value but low value as existing
northern spotted owl habitat.
b. Stands of low restoration value but high value as existing
northern spotted owl habitat.
c. Stands of low restoration value and low value as existing
northern spotted owl habitat.
d. Stands of high restoration value and high value as existing
northern spotted owl habitat.
In locations where there is high restoration value and high value
as existing northern spotted owl habitat, a landscape assessment can
help to build a strong rationale for impacting owl habitat
functionality to achieve broader landscape goals. Conditions that may
support management activities in these stands may include, but are not
limited to:
(1) The patch of habitat is located in an area where it is likely
unsustainable and has the potential for conveying natural disturbances
across the landscape in ways that jeopardize large patches of suitable
northern spotted owl habitat.
(2) There are nearby areas that are more likely to sustain suitable
northern spotted owl habitat and are either currently habitat or will
likely develop suitable conditions within the next 30 years.
(3) The patch of habitat does not appear to be associated with a
northern spotted owl home range or to promote successful dispersal
between existing home ranges.

[[Page 14128]]

(4) The area will still retain some habitat function after
treatment, while still meeting the intended restoration objective. For
example, stands that are suitable as foraging habitat may be degraded
post treatment but remain foraging habitat after treatment. Or, stands
may be downgraded to dispersal habitat as a result of treatment.
We do not expect the desired landscape conditions will be achieved
within the next decade or two, but it will require a longer time to be
restored as younger forests develop into northern spotted owl nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat. In the interim, management actions are
needed that protect current habitat, especially where it occurs in
larger blocks on areas of the landscape where it is more likely to be
resistant or resilient to fires and other disturbance agents. Actions
are also needed to accelerate the restoration of habitat, especially
where it is consistent with overall forest restoration and occurs in
those portions of the landscape that are less fire prone or are
resilient in the face of these disturbances. The careful application of
these types of activities will be necessary to achieve the desired
future landscape that is resilient to future disturbances; a landscape
in which the natural disturbance process no longer threaten the
conservation of the northern spotted owl, but acts to maintain and
restore necessary habitat components. As such, we anticipate that
projects designed to achieve this goal will need to be of a larger
spatial scale as to have a meaningful effect on wildfire behavior,
severity, and extent. The effects of these projects will vary depending
on existing condition, prescriptions, proximity of habitat, etc. It is
likely that such projects may affect northern spotted owl critical
habitat and require section 7 consultation.
Some situations also exist in the proposed critical habitat where
northern spotted owl habitat has been created through fire suppression
activities (e.g., meadow conversion, white fir intrusion), but
retention of those forested habitat elements is contrary to the overall
goals of ecosystem restoration and long-term security for the owl.
Restoration projects that remove these elements, while recommended, may
adversely affect northern spotted owls or their critical habitat and
may need to be evaluated through the section 7 consultation process.
Additional information about restoration activities in dry forests can
be found in the Revised Recovery Plan under Restoring Dry Forest
Ecosystems (USFWS 2011, p. III-32).
Redwood Coast
While the Redwood Coast region of coastal northern California is
similar to the West Cascades/Coast region in many respects, there are
some distinct differences in northern spotted owl habitat use and diet
within this zone. The long growing season, combined with the redwood's
ability to resprout from stumps, allows redwood stands to attain
suitable stand structure for nesting in a relatively short period of
time (40 to 60 years) if legacy structures are present. In contrast to
the large, contiguous, older stands desired in other wet provinces,
some degree of fine-scale fragmentation in redwood forests appears to
benefit northern spotted owls. These openings provide habitat for the
northern spotted owl's primary prey, the dusky-footed woodrat. High
woodrat abundance is associated with dense shrub and hardwood cover
that persists for up to 20 years in recent forest openings created by
harvesting or burns. Under dense shrub and hardwood cover, woodrats can
forage, build nests, and reproduce, relatively secure from owl
predation. These sites quickly become overpopulated and surplus
individuals are displaced into adjacent older stands where they become
available as owl prey. When developing stands reach an age of around 20
years, understory vegetation is increasingly shaded-out, cover and food
sources become scarce, and woodrat abundance declines rapidly. By this
time, the stand that once supported a dense woodrat population makes a
structural transition into a stand where woodrats are subject to
intense owl predation. In northern spotted owl territories within the
Redwood Forest zone, active management that creates small openings
within foraging habitat can enhance northern spotted owl foraging
opportunities and produce or retain habitat suitability in the short
term. Actions consistent with this type of land management are not
expected to adversely modify critical habitat.

Summary of Adverse Modification

This discussion has covered projects that may or may not require
formal section 7 consultation. It is also important to distinguish
between a finding that a project is likely to adversely affect critical
habitat and a finding at the conclusion of formal consultation that a
project is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat;
these are two very different outcomes. It is not uncommon for a
proposed project to be considered as likely to adversely affect
critical habitat and thus require formal consultation, but still
warrant a conclusion that it will not destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. An action may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat if it adversely affects the essential physical or biological
features to an extent that the intended conservation role of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl is appreciably reduced.
The adverse modification determination is made at the scale of the
entire designated critical habitat unless the final critical habitat
rule identifies another basis for that determination, such as at the
scale of discrete units and/or groups of units necessary for different
life cycle phases, units representing distinctive habitat
characteristics or gene pools, or units fulfilling essential
geographical distribution requirements of the species (USFWS and NMFS
1998, p. 4-39). In the case of spotted owl critical habitat, the
adverse modification determination will be made at the scale of the
entire designated critical habitat. However, by describing the
relationship between the conservation role of affected subunits, units,
and the entire designated critical habitat in the biological opinion, a
sensitive analytical framework is established for informing the
determination of whether a proposed action is likely to appreciably
reduce the conservation role of the critical habitat overall. In this
way, a proposed action that compromises the capability of a subunit or
unit to fulfill its essential conservation role (e.g., demographic,
genetic, or distributional support for spotted owl recovery) would
represent an appreciable reduction in the conservation value of the
entire designated critical habitat. This approach should avoid ``death-
by-a-thousand-cuts'' outcomes of formal consultations (i.e., false, no-
adverse-modification determinations). This approach will also take into
account any redundancy in conservation function that may be associated
with affected subunits or units for purposes of informing the
significance of project effects relative to the conservation function
of the entire designated critical habitat. Such redundancy is likely to
decrease the significance of adverse project effects at the scale of
the entire designated critical habitat.
As described above, we do not anticipate that activities consistent
with the stated management goals or recommended recovery actions of the
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011,
Chapters II and III) would constitute adverse modification of critical
habitat, even if those activities may have adverse effects in the short
term, if the result over the

[[Page 14129]]

long term is an improvement in the function of the habitat to provide
for the essential life-history needs of the northern spotted owl.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
proposed critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl to
determine if they are exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The
following areas are Department of Defense lands with completed,
Service-approved INRMPs within the proposed revised critical habitat
designation.
Approved INRMPs
Joint Base Lewis-McChord
Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), formerly known as Fort Lewis, is
an 86,500-ac (35,000-ha) U.S. Army military reservation in western
Washington, south of Tacoma and the Puget Sound. JBLM contains one of
the largest remaining intact forest areas in the Puget Sound basin,
with approximately 54,400 ac (22,000 ha) of forests and woodlands,
predominantly of the dry Douglas-fir forest type and including some
moist forest types (Douglas-fir, red cedar, hemlock). The forested area
of JBLM is managed by the Base's Forestry Program, and the primary
mission for the JBLM Forest is to provide a variety of forested
environments for military training. JBLM has a history of applying an
ecosystem management strategy to their forests to provide for multiple
conservation goals, which have included promoting native biological
diversity, maintaining and restoring unique plant communities, and
developing late successional (older) forest structure. There are 14,997
ac (6,069 ha) of lands within the boundary of JBLM currently identified
in the proposed critical habitat designation.
JBLM's INRMP, dated July 2006, covers the years 2006 through 2010.
This INRMP is in the process of being updated; the Department of the
Army informed us that a revised INRMP will be submitted to the Service
in 2012 (Steucke 2008, in litt., p. 1). To date, JBLM has managed their
forest lands according to their Forest Management Strategy, first
prepared for then-Fort Lewis in 1995 by the Public Forestry Foundation
based in Eugene, Oregon, in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy.
The Forest Management Strategy was last revised in May 2005, and is
also in the process of being updated (Forest Management Strategy 2005,
entire).
The last INRMP identified management objectives for the
conservation of the northern spotted owl. Specifically, the INRMP
specified the objective of managing JBLM forests to develop spotted owl
habitat characteristics, and indicated desired conditions of the forest
to provide for nesting, roosting, foraging. and dispersal habitat
(INRMP 2007, p. 3-18). Although northern spotted owls are not currently
known to occupy JBLM, it is the only significant Federal ownership in
this region of Washington, and it provides the largest contiguous block
of forest in this area as well. The potential development of suitable
owl habitat at JBLM provides one of the only feasible opportunities for
establishing connectivity between owl populations in the Olympic
Peninsula and the western Cascades Range. Connectivity allows gene flow
between populations, and further maintains northern spotted owl
distribution and metapopulation dynamics, which are important
components of the recovery strategy for the northern spotted owl (USFWS
2011, p. III-1, III-44). The Forest Management Strategy (2005, p. 82)
notes that the mosaic of dry forest, woodland, and prairie at JBLM is
very different from typical forest landscapes that support northern
spotted owls, and that while suitable habitat for dispersal of northern
spotted owls can be achieved in the short term, at least 40 to 50 years
may be needed to meet the desired condition for foraging, nesting, and
roosting habitat.
JBLM's forest management program has the potential to provide a
conservation benefit to the northern spotted owl. However, since their
INRMP is currently undergoing revision and is subject to change, we are
reserving judgment on whether management under the new INRMP may meet
our criteria for exemption from critical habitat at this time. In
accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, if we determine prior
to our final rulemaking that conservation efforts identified in the
INRMP will provide a conservation benefit to the northern spotted owl,
we may at that time exempt the identified lands from the final
designation of critical habitat.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
or make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated

[[Page 14130]]

critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts to national
security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering whether to
exclude a particular area from the designation, we must identify the
benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and determine
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If based on this analysis we make this determination, we can then
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in the overall conservation of the northern spotted owl through the
continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships and the
implementation of management plans or programs that provide equal or
more conservation for the northern spotted owl than could be achieved
through a designation of critical habitat. The Secretary can consider
the existence of conservation agreements and other land management
plans with Federal, private, State, and Indian entities when making
decisions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Secretary may also
consider relationships with landowners, voluntary partnerships, and
conservation plans, and weigh the implementation and effectiveness of
these against that of designation to determine which provides the
greatest conservation value to the listed species. Consideration of
relevant impacts of designation or exclusion under section 4(b)(2) may
include, but is not limited to, any of the following factors: (1)
Whether the plan provides specific information on how it protects the
species and the physical and biological features, and whether the plan
is at a geographical scope commensurate with the species; (2) whether
the plan is complete and will be effective at conserving and protecting
the physical and biological features; (3) whether a reasonable
expectation exists that conservation management strategies and actions
will be implemented, that those responsible for implementing the plan
are capable of achieving the objectives, that an implementation
schedule exists, and that adequate funding exists; (4) whether the plan
provides assurances that the conservation strategies and measures will
be effective (i.e., identifies biological goals, has provisions for
reporting progress, and is of a duration sufficient to implement the
plan); (5) whether the plan has a monitoring program or adaptive
management to ensure that the conservation measures are effective; (6)
the degree to which the record supports a conclusion that a critical
habitat designation would impair the benefits of the plan; (7) the
extent of public participation; (8) demonstrated track record of
implementation success; (9) level of public benefits derived from
encouraging collaborative efforts and encouraging private and local
conservation efforts; and (10) the effect designation would have on
partnerships.
After evaluating the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to determine whether the
benefits of excluding a particular area outweigh the benefits of its
inclusion in critical habitat. If we determine that the benefits of
excluding a particular area outweigh the benefits of its inclusion,
then the Secretary can exercise his discretion to exclude the area,
provided that the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the
species.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments received, we will evaluate
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat may be appropriate
for exclusion from the final designation. If our analysis results in a
determination that the benefits of excluding particular areas from the
final designation outweigh the benefits of designating those areas as
critical habitat, then the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the particular areas from the final designation.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider all relevant
impacts of the designation of critical habitat, including economic
impacts. In addition to economic impacts (discussed in the Economics
Analysis section, below), we consider a number of factors in a section
4(b)(2) analysis. For example, we consider whether there are lands
owned by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a national security
impact might exist. We also consider whether Federal or private
landowners or other public agencies have developed management plans or
habitat conservation plants (HCPs) for the area or whether there are
conservation partnerships or other conservation benefits that would be
encouraged or discouraged by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat in an area. In addition, we look at the presence of
Indian lands or Indian trust resources that might be affected, and
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States
with Indian entities. We also consider any other relevant impacts that
might occur because of the designation. To ensure that our final
determination is based on the best available information, we are
inviting comments on any foreseeable economic, national security, or
other potential impacts resulting from this proposed designation of
critical habitat from governmental, business, or private interests and,
in particular, any potential impacts on small businesses.
For the reasons discussed above, if the Secretary decides to
exercise his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have
identified certain areas that we are proposing or considering for
exclusion from the final revised critical habitat designation for the
northern spotted owl. However, we solicit comments on the inclusion or
exclusion of such particular areas, as well as any other areas
identified in the proposed revised rule (see Public Comments section).
During the development of the final revised designation, we will
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information.
In this proposed rule we have tentatively identified some additional
areas that may be considered for exclusion from the final rule;
however, the Secretary's decision as to which, if any, areas may be
excluded from the final designation is not limited to these lands.
Additional particular areas, in addition to those identified below for
potential exclusion in this proposed rule, may be excluded from the
final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In
other words, potential exclusions are not limited to those areas
specifically identified in this proposed rule.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors. We will announce the availability of the draft economic
analysis as soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public
review and comment. At that time, copies of

[[Page 14131]]

the draft economic analysis will be available for downloading from the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section). During the development of a final designation, we will
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information,
and areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.19.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a
national security impact might exist. The U.S. Army's Fort Lewis
Military Reservation is the only DOD land included within the proposed
revised designation of critical habitat. As described above, in
preparing this proposal, we are considering Fort Lewis for exemption
from the designation of critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act, pending our evaluation of their revised INRMP, scheduled for
completion in 2012, to determine whether it provides a conservation
benefit to the northern spotted owl. We have determined that the
remaining lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for
the species are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently,
we do not anticipate excluding any areas from the final designation
based on impacts on national security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships or relationships
that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical
habitat. In addition, we look at any Indian issues, and consider the
government-to-government relationship of the United States with Indian
entities. We also consider any other relevant impacts that might occur
because of the designation. Our weighing of the benefits of inclusion
versus exclusion considers all relevant factors in making a final
determination as to what will result in the greatest conservation
benefit to the listed species. Depending on the specifics of each
situation, there may be cases where the designation of critical habitat
will not necessarily provide enhanced protection, and may actually lead
to a net loss of conservation benefit. Here we provide our analysis of
areas proposed for the revised designation of critical habitat that may
provide a greater conservation benefit to the northern spotted owl by
exclusion from the designation. We invite public comment on these areas
under consideration for exclusion.
Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat
The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act
requires that the Service identify those lands within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing on which are found
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species that may require special management considerations or
protection, and those areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing that are essential for the
conservation of the species.
The identification of areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species, or are otherwise essential for the
conservation of the species if outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, is a benefit resulting from the
designation. The critical habitat designation process includes peer
review and public comment on the identified physical and biological
features and areas, and provides a mechanism to educate landowners,
State and local governments, and the public regarding the potential
conservation value of an area. This helps focus and promote
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of
high conservation value for the species, and is valuable to land owners
and managers in developing conservation management plans by describing
the essential physical and biological features and special management
actions or protections that are needed for identified areas. Including
lands in critical habitat also informs State agencies and local
governments about areas that could be conserved under State laws or
local ordinances.
The prohibition on destruction or adverse modification under
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act constitutes the primary regulatory benefit
of critical habitat designation. As discussed above, Federal agencies
must consult with the Service on actions that may affect critical
habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat. Federal agencies must also consult with us on actions that may
affect a listed species and refrain from undertaking actions that are
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such species. The
analysis of effects to critical habitat is a separate and different
analysis from that of the effects to the species. Therefore, the
difference in outcomes of these two analyses also represents the
regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some species, and in some
locations, the outcome of these analyses will be similar because
effects on habitat will often result in effects on the species.
However, these two regulatory standards are different. The jeopardy
analysis evaluates how a proposed action is likely to influence the
likelihood of a species' survival and recovery. The adverse
modification analysis evaluates how an action affects the capability of
the critical habitat to serve its intended conservation role (USFWS, in
litt. 2004). Although these standards are different, it has been the
Service's experience that in many instances proposed actions that
affect both a listed species and its critical habitat and that
constitute jeopardy also constitute adverse modification. In some
cases, however, application of these different standards results in
different section 7(a)(2) determinations, especially in situations
where the affected area is mostly or exclusively unoccupied critical
habitat. Thus, critical habitat designations may provide greater
benefits to the recovery of a species than would listing alone.
There are two limitations to the regulatory effect of critical
habitat. First, a section 7(a)(2) consultation is required only where
there is a Federal nexus (an action authorized, funded, or carried out
by any Federal agency)--if there is no Federal nexus, the critical
habitat designation of non-Federal lands itself does not restrict any
actions that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Aside from
the requirement that Federal agencies ensure that their actions are not
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat under section 7, the Act does not provide any additional
regulatory protection to lands designated as critical habitat.
Second, designating critical habitat does not create a management
plan for the areas; does not establish numerical population goals or
prescribe specific management actions (inside or outside of critical
habitat); and does not have a direct effect on areas not designated as
critical habitat. Specific management recommendations for critical
habitat are addressed in recovery plans,

[[Page 14132]]

management plans, and in section 7 consultation. The designation only
limits destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, not all
adverse effects. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse modification
ensures that the conservation role and function of those areas
designated as critical habitat are not appreciably reduced as a result
of a Federal action.
Once an agency determines that consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act is necessary, the process may conclude informally when the
Service concurs in writing that the proposed Federal action is not
likely to adversely affect the species or critical habitat. However, if
we determine through informal consultation that adverse impacts are
likely to occur, then formal consultation is initiated. Formal
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may recommend
additional conservation measures to minimize adverse effects to primary
constituent elements, but such measures would be discretionary on the
part of the Federal agency.
The designation of critical habitat does not require that any
management or recovery actions take place on the lands included in the
designation. Even in cases where consultation has been initiated under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act because of effects to critical habitat, the
end result of consultation is to avoid adverse modification, but not
necessarily to manage critical habitat or institute recovery actions on
critical habitat. On the other hand, voluntary conservation efforts by
landowners can remove or reduce known threats to a species or its
habitat by implementing recovery actions. We believe that in many
instances the regulatory benefit of critical habitat is minimal when
compared to the conservation benefit that can be achieved through
implementing HCPs under section 10 of the Act, or other voluntary
conservation efforts or management plans. The conservation achieved
through implementing HCPs or other habitat management plans can be
greater than what we achieve through multiple site-by-site, project-by-
project, section 7(a)(2) consultations involving project effects to
critical habitat. Management plans can commit resources to implement
long-term management and protection to particular habitat for at least
one and possibly other listed or sensitive species. Section 7(a)(2)
consultations commit Federal agencies to preventing adverse
modification of critical habitat caused by the particular project;
consultation does not require Federal agencies to provide for
conservation or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the
proposed project. Thus, implementation of any HCP or management plan
that incorporates enhancement or recovery as the management standard
may often provide as much or more benefit than a consultation for
critical habitat designation. Therefore, we propose to exclude all
private lands with current HCPs, SHAs, other active management plans or
conservation agreements in the final critical habitat designation. We
seek public comment on all of these potential exclusions.
Benefits of Excluding Private Lands
As noted above, the Secretary may exclude areas from critical
habitat if he determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of including those areas as part of the critical habitat
(unless exclusion of those areas will result in the extinction of the
species). We believe that in some cases designation can negatively
impact the working relationships and conservation partnerships we have
formed with private landowners, and may serve as a disincentive for the
formation of future partnerships or relationships that would have the
potential to provide conservation benefits. We will consider whether
the benefits of excluding private lands may outweigh the benefits of
including those areas in the designation of critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl.
The Service recognizes that most federally listed species in the
United States will not recover without the cooperation of non-Federal
landowners. More than 60 percent of the United States is privately
owned (Lubowski et al. 2006, p. 35), and at least 80 percent of
endangered or threatened species occur either partially or solely on
private lands (Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720). Groves et al. (2000, pp.
280-281) reported that about one-third of populations of federally
listed species are found on Federal lands; private lands were found to
provide for at least one population of more than two-thirds of
federally listed species (Groves et al. 2000, p. 283).
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to
landownership, the successful conservation of listed species in many
parts of the United States will clearly depend upon working
partnerships with a wide variety of entities and the voluntary
cooperation of many non-Federal landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, p.
1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James 2002, p. 271). Building
partnerships and promoting the willing cooperation of landowners is
essential to understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands
and necessary to implement recovery actions, such as the reintroduction
of listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from voluntarily
participating in the recovery of endangered or threatened species.
Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners, Safe Harbor
Agreements, other conservation agreements, easements, and State and
local regulations enhance species conservation by extending species
protections beyond those available through section 7 consultations. We
encourage non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation agreements
based on a view that we can achieve greater species conservation on
non-Federal land through such partnerships than we can through
regulatory methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
We acknowledge that private landowners are often wary of the
possible consequences of encouraging endangered species conservation on
their property, and of regulatory action by the Federal Government
under the Act. Social science research has demonstrated that, for many
private landowners, government regulation under the Act is perceived as
a loss of individual freedoms, regardless of whether that regulation
may in fact result in any actual impact to the landowner (Brook et al.
2003, pp. 1644-1648; Conley et al. 2007, p. 141). Furthermore, in a
recent study of private landowners who have experience with regulation
under the Act, only 2 percent of respondents believed the Federal
Government rewards private landowners for good management of their
lands and resources (Conley et al. 2007, pp. 141, 144). According to
some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on private lands
significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will support and
carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, p. 1263; Bean 2002,
p. 412; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude of this
negative outcome is greatly amplified in situations where active
management measures (such as reintroduction, fire management, or
control of invasive species) are necessary for species conservation
(Bean 2002, pp. 412-413).

[[Page 14133]]

Since Federal actions such as the designation of critical habitat
on private lands may reduce the likelihood that landowners will support
and carry out conservation actions for the benefit of listed species,
based on the research described above, we believe that in some cases
the judicious exclusion of non-federally owned lands from critical
habitat designations can contribute to species recovery and provide a
greater level of species conservation than critical habitat designation
alone. Although we believe that the potentially positive contribution
of private landowners with a demonstrated record of conservation
management should be an important consideration when designating
critical habitat, we wish to emphasize that we will continue to be
discriminating in our evaluation of potential exclusions, and private
lands will be excluded only should we determine that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion following a rigorous
examination of the record on a case-by-case basis.
We are considering excluding private lands held under one or more
ownerships in two localities in Sonoma and Napa Counties, California.
The first area is located in southwestern Sonoma County near the mouth
of the Russian River, in Subunit 4 of the Redwood Coast CHU. The
combined area of private lands in this area is 28,932 ac (11,708 ha).
The second area spans the Sonoma-Napa County line and lies west of St.
Helena and Yountville, in Subunit 6 of the Interior Coastal California
CHU. The combined area of private lands in this second area is 59,786
ac (24,194 ha). Each area contains one or more landholdings that are
under conservation easements for agriculture and open space
preservation. We are considering excluding these privately-owned lands
because we believe that the greatest conservation benefit to the
northern spotted owl in this region of little Federal land ownership
may be derived from preserving good relationships with private
landowners who have demonstrated themselves to be good stewards of the
habitat essential to the conservation of the northern spotted owl. Our
consideration of these lands for exclusion will be based on case-by-
case reviews of how they are managed by each landowner, and what
conservation mechanisms may be in place, such as easement provisions,
that would act to conserve or enhance the suitability of northern
spotted owl habitats. We request public comments on the relative
benefits of inclusion or exclusion from the designation of critical
habitat.
We believe that acknowledging the positive contribution these
private landowners are currently making to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl, and maintaining good working relationships with
these landowners by excluding these areas may provide a significant
benefit to the conservation of the northern spotted owl in this area
where private lands will play an essential role in the recovery of the
species. The exclusion of these areas may encourage these landowners to
continue their positive management practices without fear of further
government regulation. In addition, the exclusion of such lands may lay
the foundation for building additional conservation partnerships and
relationships with other private landowners, with conservation benefit
not only for the northern spotted owl, but other endangered or
threatened species as well.
In contrast, we believe there may be relatively little benefit to
be gained by the designation of these privately owned lands. A
potential benefit of designation would be the regulatory protections
afforded to critical habitat under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However,
as described earlier, on private lands the regulatory protections of
critical habitat only apply when there is a Federal nexus (actions
funded, permitted, or otherwise carried out by the Federal Government),
and we have no evidence to suggest that these regulatory protections
are likely to be triggered on the private lands in the Redwood Coast
CHU or Interior Coastal California CHU. Furthermore, most of these
lands are currently occupied by the northern spotted owl. Thus, even if
these lands are excluded from the final revised critical habitat
designation, if the northern spotted owl is present and may be
affected, actions with Federal involvement require consultation to
review the effects of management activities that might adversely affect
listed species under a jeopardy standard; this assessment includes
effects to the species from habitat modification. Overall, given the
low likelihood of a Federal nexus occurring on these lands, we believe
the regulatory benefit of a critical habitat designation on these
lands, if any, may be limited.
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation is to trigger
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7(a) (2) of the Act. Where there is
little likelihood of a Federal action, the benefits of this protection
can be low. On the other hand, the benefits of excluding areas that are
covered by voluntary conservation efforts can, in specific
circumstances, be high. In this case, in weighing the potential
benefits of inclusion versus benefits of exclusion, as detailed above,
we believe the greatest conservation benefit to the northern spotted
owl in the Redwood Coast CHU may result from the exclusion of privately
owned lands from the final designation. Specific potential exclusions
in the Redwood Coast CHU and Interior Coastal California CHU in
northern California will be discussed in our Notice of Availability to
be published in the Federal Register when the draft economic analysis
is released for public comment. At that time the public will have an
opportunity to review and comment on specific proposed exclusions. At
present, we seek public comment on the general benefits of including or
excluding private lands in this area [see Public Comments, above].
Table 5 identifies all private lands proposed or considered for
exclusion, Table 6 identifies State lands proposed or considered for
exclusion, and Table 7 identifies Congressionally reserved natural
areas proposed for exclusion in the final rule. We ask for public
comment on all of these possible exclusions, or information to identify
any additional potential areas we should consider for exclusion and
why.

Table 5--Private Lands Proposed or That May Be Considered for Exclusion From the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of agreement Critical habitat unit State Land owner/agency Acres Hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe Harbor Agreements-- WCC.................. WA Port Blakely Tree 421 170
proposed for exclusion. Farms, L.P, Safe
Harbor Agreement,
Landowner Option
Plan, Cooperative
Habitat Enhancement.
RWC.................. CA Forster-Gill, Inc.... 236 95

[[Page 14134]]

RWC.................. CA Van Eck Forest 2,163 875
Foundation, Safe
Harbor Agreement.
Habitat Conservation Plans-- WCC.................. WA Cedar River Watershed 3,367 1,363
proposed for exclusion. Habitat Conservation
Plan.
WCC.................. WA Green River Water 3,175 1,285
Supply Operations
and Watershed
Protection Habitat
Conservation Plan.
WCC/ECN.............. WA Plum Creek Timber 33,764 13,664
Central Cascades I-
90 Habitat
Conservation Plan.
WCC.................. WA West Fork Timber 5,233 2,118
Habitat Conservation
Plan.
RWC.................. CA Green Diamond 360,870 146,042
Resource Company
Habitat Conservation
Plan.
RWC.................. CA Humboldt Redwood 211,700 85,672
Company, Habitat
Conservation Plan.
RWC.................. CA Regli Estates Habitat 500 202
Conservation Plan.
ICC.................. CA Terra Springs Habitat 41 16
Conservation Plan.
Conservation Easements, Other ECN.................. WA Scofield Corporation 40 16
Agreements or Partnerships-- Habitat Conservation
proposed for exclusion. Plan.
RWC.................. CA Usal Forest.......... 50,000 20,235
RWC.................. CA Big River, Salmon 40,293 16,306
Creek, and Garcia
River Forests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total private lands ..................... ......... ..................... 711,803 288,059
proposed for exclusion.
Proposed Agreements that may RWC.................. CA Mendocino Redwood 232,584 94,123
be considered for exclusion. Company Proposed HCP.
WCC/ECN.............. WA SDS Co. & Broughton 16,031 6,487
Lumber Co. Proposed
Conservation Plan.
Other Private lands that may various.............. WA\1\ various.............. 133,895 54,186
be considered for exclusion.
various.............. OR various.............. 0 0
various.............. CA various.............. 174,587 70,450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total additional private ..................... ......... ..................... 557,097 225,246
lands that may be
considered for exclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total private lands ..................... ......... ..................... 1,268,900 513,305
proposed for
exclusion or that
may be considered
for exclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These lands are within SOSEAs--Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Areas.

Table 6--State Lands Proposed or That May Be Considered for Exclusion From the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Land owner/agency Acres Hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA............................................ Washington Dept. of Natural Resources 225,013 91,059
State Lands HCP--proposed for
exclusion.
Washington State Parks--proposed for 104 42
exclusion.
Washington Department of Fish and 1,752 709
Wildlife Lands--may be considered for
exclusion.
OR............................................ Oregon Department of Forestry--may be 228,733 92,565
considered for exclusion.
CA............................................ California State Parks--proposed for 164,672 66,640
exclusion.
California State Forests--may be 50,762 20,543
considered for exclusion.
Total State lands proposed for exclusion.. ...................................... 389,789 157,809
Total State lands that may be considered ...................................... 281,247 113,749
for exclusion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total State Lands..................... ...................................... 671,036 271,558
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14135]]

Table 7--Congressionally Reserved Natural Areas Proposed for Exclusion
From the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Acres Hectares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA............................................ 1,530,205 619,252
OR............................................ 499,836 202,277
CA............................................ 616,692 249,567
-------------------------
Total..................................... 2,646,733 1,071,095
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits of Excluding Lands With Safe Harbor Agreements
A Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) is a voluntary agreement involving
private or other non-Federal property owners whose actions contribute
to the recovery of listed species. The agreement is between cooperating
non-Federal property owners and the Service. In exchange for actions
that contribute to the recovery of listed species on non-Federal lands,
participating property owners receive formal assurances from the
Service that if they fulfill the conditions of the SHA, the Service
will not require any additional or different management activities by
the participants without their consent. In addition, at the end of the
agreement period, participants may return the enrolled property to the
baseline conditions that existed at the beginning of the SHA.
As detailed above in the section ``Benefits of Excluding Private
Lands,'' because many endangered and threatened species occur
exclusively, or to a large extent, on privately owned property, the
involvement of the private sector in the conservation and recovery of
species is crucial. Property owners are often willing partners in
efforts to recover listed species. However, some property owners may be
reluctant to undertake activities that support or attract listed
species on their properties, due to fear of future property-use
restrictions related to the Act. To address this concern, a SHA
provides that future property-use limitations will not occur without
the landowner's consent if the landowner is in compliance with the
permit and Agreement and the activity is not likely to result in
jeopardy to the listed species.
Central to this approach is that the actions taken under the SHA
must provide a net conservation benefit that contributes to the
recovery of the covered species. Examples of conservation benefits
include:
Reduced habitat fragmentation;
Maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of existing
habitats;
Increases in habitat connectivity;
Stabilized or increased numbers or distribution;
The creation of buffers for protected areas; and
Opportunities to test and develop new habitat management
techniques.
By entering into an SHA, property owners receive assurances that
land use restrictions will not be required even if the voluntary
actions taken under the agreement attract particular listed species
onto enrolled properties or increase the numbers of distribution of
those listed species already present on those properties. The
assurances are provided through an enhancement of survival permit
issued to the property owner, under the authority of section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. To implement this provision of the Act, the
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued a joint policy for
developing SHAs for listed species on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32726). The
Service simultaneously issued regulations for implementing SHAs on June
17, 1999 (64 FR 32706). A correction to the final rule was announced on
September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52676). The enhancement of survival permit
issued in association with an SHA authorizes incidental take of species
that may result from actions undertaken by the landowner under the SHA,
which could include returning the property to the baseline conditions
at the end of the agreement. The permit also specifies that the Service
will not require any additional or different management activities by
participants without their consent if the permittee is in compliance
with the requirements of the permit and the SHA and the permittee's
actions are not likely to result in jeopardy.
The benefits of excluding lands with approved SHAs from critical
habitat designation may include relieving landowners, communities, and
counties of any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed as a
result of the critical habitat designation. Even if any additional
regulatory burden would be unlikely due to a lack of a Federal nexus,
as described above in the section ``Benefits of Excluding Private
Lands,'' the designation of critical habitat could nonetheless have an
unintended negative effect on our relationship with non-Federal
landowners due to the perceived imposition of government regulation. We
believe that an exclusion of lands under an approved SHA would be in
keeping with the spirit of the agreement. An additional benefit of
excluding lands covered by approved SHAs from critical habitat
designation is that it may make it easier for us to seek new
partnerships with future SHA participants, including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, in cases where potential partners may be reluctant to
encourage the development of habitat that supports threatened or
endangered species. In such cases, we may be able to implement
conservation actions that we would be unable to accomplish otherwise.
By excluding these lands, we may preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional future conservation actions.
In weighing the benefits of inclusion versus the benefits of
exclusion for lands subject to approved SHAs, it is important to note
that a fundamental requirement of an SHA is an advance determination by
the Service that the provisions of the SHA will result in a net
conservation benefit to the listed species. Approved SHAs have,
therefore, already been determined to provide a net conservation
benefit to the listed species; in addition, the management activities
provided in a SHA often provide conservation benefits to unlisted
sensitive species as well. As described earlier, the designation of
critical habitat is unlikely to provide any realized conservation
benefit to the species on non-Federal lands absent a Federal nexus for
an activity. Especially where further Federal action is unlikely, the
net conservation benefit provided by the terms of the SHA itself,
considered in conjunction with the benefit of excluding lands subject
to an SHA by preserving our working relationships with landowners who
have entered into SHAs with the Service, and the benefit of laying the
positive groundwork for possible future agreements with other
landowners, may collectively outweigh the potentially limited benefit
that would be realized on these lands from the designation of critical
habitat. However, as with all potential exclusions under consideration,
lands subject to an SHA will only be excluded should we determine that
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion following
a rigorous examination of the record on a case-by-case basis.
We note that permit issuance in association with SHA applications
requires consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, which would
include the review of the effects of all-SHA-covered activities that
might adversely impact the species under a jeopardy standard, including
possibly significant habitat modification (see definition of ``harm''
at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical habitat designation. In
addition, all other Federal actions that may affect the listed species
would still require consultation under section

[[Page 14136]]

7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review these actions for possible
significant habitat modification in accordance with the definition of
harm, described in the following section ``Benefits of Excluding Lands
with Habitat Conservation Plans.''
We further note that SHAs may include a provision that the
landowner may return the area to baseline conditions upon expiration of
the permit. The term of the permit is thus an important consideration
in weighing the relative benefits of inclusion versus exclusion from
the designation of critical habitat. However, we note that the Service
has the right to revise a critical habitat designation at any time.
Furthermore, we note that the potential benefit of acknowledging the
positive conservation contributions of landowners willing to enter into
voluntary conservation agreements with the Service for the recovery of
endangered or threatened species may nonetheless outweigh the loss of
benefit that may be incurred through a possible return to baseline
following permit expiration. As noted above, such circumstances require
careful consideration on a case-by-case basis in order to make a final
determination of the benefits of exclusion or inclusion in a critical
habitat designation.
Below is a brief description of each SHA and the lands proposed as
critical habitat covered by each agreement that we are considering for
exclusion from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.

State of California

Forster-Gill, Inc., Safe Harbor Agreement
We propose to exclude lands covered by the SHA between Forster-
Gill, Inc., and the Service in the Redwood Coast CHU in California from
the final critical habitat designation. The enhancement of survival
permit associated with this SHA was noticed in the Federal Register on
March 22, 2002 (67 FR 13357), and issued June 18, 2002. The term of the
agreement is 80 years, and the term of the permit is 90 years. The SHA
provides for the creation and enhancement of habitat for the northern
spotted owl on 236 ac (95 ha) of lands in Humboldt County, California,
and provides for continued timber harvest on those lands.
There are two baseline conditions that will be maintained under the
SHA: (1) Protection of an 11.2-ac (5-ha) no-harvest area that will
buffer the most recent active northern spotted owl nest site, but will
also be maintained in the absence of a nest site; and (2) maintenance
of 216 ac (87 ha) on the property such that the trees will always
average 12 to 24 in (30 to 60 cm) dbh with a canopy closure of 60 to
100 percent. At the time of the agreement, forest conditions were on
the lower end of the diameter and canopy closure ranges. By the end of
the agreement, the property will be at the upper end of the diameter
and canopy closure ranges.
Under the SHA, Forster-Gill, Inc., agrees to: (1) Annually survey
and monitor for the location and reproductive status of northern
spotted owls on the property; (2) protect all active nest sites
(locations where nesting behavior is observed during any of the
previous 3 years) with a no-harvest area that buffers the nest site by
no less than 300 ft (90 m) and limits timber harvest operations within
1,000 ft (300 m) of an active nest site during the breeding season, and
only allows use of existing haul roads; and (3) manage the second-
growth redwood timber on the property in a manner that maintains
suitable northern spotted owl habitat while creating over time the
multilayered canopy structure with an older, larger tree component
associated with high-quality spotted owl habitat. The SHA is expected
to provide, maintain, and enhance for the 80-year life of the agreement
over 200 ac (80 ha) of northern spotted owl habitat within a matrix of
private timberland. The cumulative impact of the agreement and the
timber management activities it covers, which are facilitated by the
allowable incidental take, is expected to provide a net benefit to the
northern spotted owl. The complete text of the Forster-Gill Safe Harbor
Agreement can be viewed at http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/NSO/documents/Forster-Gill_SHA.pdf.
Van Eck Forest Foundation Safe Harbor Agreement
We propose to exclude lands covered by a SHA between the Fred M.
van Eck Forest Foundation and the Service in the Redwood Coast CHU in
California from the final critical habitat designation. The enhancement
of survival permit associated with this SHA was noticed in the Federal
Register on July 8, 2008 (73 FR 39026), and issued August 18, 2008. The
term of the permit and the agreement is 90 years. The SHA provides for
the creation and enhancement of habitat for the northern spotted owl on
2,163 ac (875 ha) of lands in Humboldt County, California, and provides
for continued timber harvest on those lands.
At the time of the agreement, the lands under consideration
supported 1,730 ac (700 ha) of northern spotted owl nesting and
roosting habitat and one northern spotted owl activity center. We
anticipate that under the northern spotted owl habitat creation and
enhancement timber management regime proposed in the SHA that
approximately 1,947 ac (788 ha) of nesting and roosting habitat and
potentially up to five northern spotted owl activity centers could
exist on the property at the end of 90 years. The SHA does not provide
for a return to baseline conditions at the end of the agreement term.
Instead, the agreement provides that if more than five northern spotted
owl activity centers should become established on the property during
the 90-year term, the landowner would be allowed to remove such
additional activity centers during the agreement period. Under the SHA,
the Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation agrees to: (1) Conduct surveys
annually to determine the locations and reproductive status of any
northern spotted owls; (2) protect up to five activity centers
(locations where owls are observed nesting or roosting) with a no-
harvest area that buffers the activity center by no less than 100 ft
(30 m); (3) utilize selective timber harvest methods such that suitable
nesting habitat is maintained within 300 ft (91 m) of each activity
center; (4) limit noise disturbance from timber harvest operations
within 1,000 ft (305 m) of an active nest during the breeding season;
and (5) manage all second-growth redwood timber on the property in a
manner that maintains or creates suitable nesting and roosting habitat
over time. The cumulative impact of the agreement and the timber
management activities it covers, which are facilitated by the allowable
incidental take, is expected to provide a net benefit to the northern
spotted owl. The complete text of the Van Eck Forest Foundation Safe
Harbor Agreement can be viewed at http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/NSO/documents/Van-Eck_SHA.pdf.

State of Oregon

No lands covered under a Safe Harbor Agreement in Oregon are
currently proposed as northern spotted owl critical habitat. However,
we want to use this opportunity to inform the public of the
programmatic SHA between the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), U.S.
Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), and the Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon. This program has
excellent potential to contribute to spotted owl recovery by increasing
the quality and quantity of spotted owl habitat in areas where such
habitat is lacking. The enhancement of

[[Page 14137]]

survival permit associated with this SHA was noticed in the Federal
Register on July 21, 2009 (74 FR 35883) and issued July 26, 2010. The
term of the permit and SHA is 50 years. The permit authorizes ODF to
extend incidental take coverage with assurances through issuance of
certificates of inclusion to eligible landowners who are willing to
carry out habitat management measures that would benefit the northern
spotted owl. The covered area or geographical scope of SHA includes
non-Federal forest lands within the range of the northern spotted owl
in Oregon. The full text of the Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement
between the Oregon Department of Forestry, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service is available for review at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_documents/tsha/tsha_826.pdf.

State of Washington

Port Blakely Tree Farms L.P. (Morton Block) Safe Harbor Agreement,
Landowner Option Plan, and Cooperative Habitat Enhancement Agreement
We propose to exclude lands covered by the Port Blakely Tree Farms
(also known as Morton Block) SHA in the West Cascades Central CHU in
Washington from the final critical habitat designation. The enhancement
of survival permit associated with this SHA was noticed in the Federal
Register on December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76680) and issued May 22, 2009.
The SHA and permit include both the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus) and the northern spotted owl, and covers an area of 45,306
ac (18,335 ha) of managed forest lands known as the ``Morton Block,''
in Lewis and Skamania Counties. The term of the permit and SHA is 60
years.
The covered lands have been intensively managed and at the time the
permit was issued were not known to be occupied by either the spotted
owl or the marbled murrelet. The environmental baseline was measured in
terms of dispersal habitat for the northern spotted owl and potential
nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. There are no known northern
spotted owls nesting on Port Blakely lands. However, spotted owls have
historically nested on adjacent Federal lands and the 1.8-mi (2.9-km)
radius circles around those sites that are used for evaluating
potential habitat availability for spotted owls extend onto Port
Blakely lands. Because of this, Port Blakely Tree Farms conducted
habitat evaluations of their properties to determine the amount of
suitable spotted owl habitat present. The baseline estimate for the SHA
is 8,360 ac (3,383 ha) of spotted owl dispersal habitat.
Under the SHA, Port Blakely will implement voluntary conservation
measures that are expected to provide net conservation benefits to the
northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. The SHA also provides that
Port Blakely will manage their tree farm in a manner that contributes
to the goals of the Mineral Block Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Area
(SOSEA) according to Washington Forest Practices Rules and Regulations
(Washington Forest Practices Board 2002, WAC 222-16-080, WAC 222-16-
086). In the SHA, Port Blakely agrees to implement enhanced forest
management measures that would create potential habitat for the
northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, such as longer harvest
rotations, additional thinning to accelerate forest growth, a snag
creation program, retaining more down wood than is required by
Washington Forest Practices Rules, establishing special management
areas and special set-aside areas, and monitoring. The terms of the
agreement are intended to produce conditions that will facilitate the
dispersal of the northern spotted owl across the Port Blakely
ownership, and allow marbled murrelets to nest. The full text of the
Port Blakely Tree Farms L.P. (Morton Block) Safe Harbor Agreement,
Landowner Option Plan, and Cooperative Habitat Enhancement Agreement is
available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_documents/tsha/tsha_696.pdf.
Benefits of Excluding Lands With Habitat Conservation Plans
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are planning documents required
as part of an application for an ``incidental take'' permit. They
describe the anticipated effects of the proposed taking; how those
impacts will be minimized, or mitigated; and how the HCP is to be
funded. HCPs can apply to both listed and nonlisted species, including
those that are candidates or have been proposed for listing. Anyone
whose otherwise-lawful activities will result in the ``incidental
take'' of a listed wildlife species needs a permit. The Act defines
``take'' as ``* * * to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.'' ``Harm'' includes significant habitat modification that
actually kills or injures a listed species through impairing essential
behavior such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Section 9 of the Act
prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species. The purpose of
the incidental take permit is to exempt non-Federal permit-holders--
such as States and private landowners--from the prohibitions of section
9, not to authorize the activities that result in take.
In developing HCPs, people applying for incidental take permits
describe measures designed to minimize and mitigate the effects of
their actions-- to ensure that species will be conserved and to
contribute to their recovery. Habitat Conservation Plans are required
to meet the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act:
Taking will be incidental;
The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking;
The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the
plan will be provided;
Taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
Other measures, as required by the Secretary, will be met.
The benefits of excluding lands with approved HCPs from critical
habitat designation may include relieving landowners, communities, and
counties of any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed as a
result of the critical habitat designation. Many HCPs take years to
develop and, upon completion, are consistent with the recovery
objectives for listed species covered within the plan area. Many
conservation plans also provide conservation benefits to unlisted
sensitive species.
A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs from
critical habitat designation is that it can make it easier for us to
seek new partnerships with future plan participants, including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. HCPs often cover a wide range
of species, including species that are not State and federally-listed
and would otherwise receive little protection from development. By
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional future conservation actions.
We also note that permit issuance in association with HCP
applications requires consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
which would include the review of the effects of all HCP-covered
activities that might adversely impact the species under a jeopardy

[[Page 14138]]

standard, including possibly significant habitat modification (see
definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical
habitat designation. In addition, all other Federal actions that may
affect the listed species would still require consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review these actions for
possible significant habitat modification in accordance with the
definition of harm referenced above.
We consider a current HCP to be appropriate for consideration for
exclusion from a final critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act if:
(1) It provides for the conservation of the essential physical and
biological features or areas otherwise determined to be essential;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will
be implemented into the future;
(3) The conservation strategies in the HCP are likely to be
effective; and
(4) The HCP contains a monitoring program or adaptive management to
ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be adapted
in the future in response to new information.
Below is a brief description of each HCP and the lands proposed as
critical habitat covered by each plan that we are considering for
exclusion from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.

State of California

Green Diamond Resource Company Habitat Conservation Plan
We propose to exclude lands managed under the Green Diamond
Resource Company (formerly Simpson Timber Company) HCP in the Redwood
Coast CHU in California from the final critical habitat designation.
The permit issued in association with this HCP was initially noticed in
the Federal Register on May 27, 1992 (57 FR 22254) and issued September
17, 1992. Both the HCP and the permit had a term of 30 years, with a
comprehensive review scheduled after 10 years to review the efficacy of
the plan. The permit allowed incidental take of up to 50 pairs of
northern spotted owls and their habitat during the course of timber
harvest operations on 383,106 ac (155,041 ha) of forest lands in Del
Norte and Humboldt Counties. At the time the permit was issued, more
than 100 northern spotted owl nest sites or activity centers were known
or suspected on the property. The Service determined that the projected
growth and harvest rates indicated more habitat of the age class
primarily used by northern spotted owls would exist on the property at
the end of the 30-year permit period. In addition, the HCP provided
that nest sites would be protected during the breeding season, and no
direct killing or injuring of owls was anticipated. Simpson also agreed
to continue their monitoring programs, in which more than 250 adult
owls and more than 100 juveniles were already banded, as well as
analyses of timber stands used by owls.
As required by the terms of the HCP, Green Diamond and the Service
conducted a comprehensive review of the first 10 years of
implementation, including a comparison of actual and estimated levels
of owl displacement, a comparison of estimated and actual distribution
of habitat, a reevaluation of the biological basis for the HCP's
conservation strategy, an examination of the efficacy of and continued
need for habitat set-asides, and an estimate of future owl
displacements. During the comprehensive review, Green Diamond requested
an amendment to the 1992 ITP to allow incidental take of up to eight
additional spotted owl pairs. This request was noticed in the Federal
Register on February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8393) and the modified permit was
issued in October 2007. In addition, in April, 2011, Green Diamond sold
22,236 ac (8,999 ha) of its lands covered by the HCP to the Yurok
Tribe; as those lands are no longer covered by the HCP, the current
total of the covered lands is 360,870 ac (146,042 ha).
On April 16, 2010, we announced our intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) in response to an expected new HCP from Green
Diamond, which would include provisions for the northern spotted owl
and possibly the Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti), a species which may
be considered for listing during the term of the HCP. This new HCP, if
completed and approved, would replace the 1992 HCP, and would require
the issuance of a new incidental take permit. The proposed new HCP is
intended to address the retention of suitable spotted owl nesting
habitat, the development of older forest habitat elements and habitat
structures, and future establishment of spotted owl nest sites in
streamside retention zones, cluster owl sites in favorable habitat
areas, and initiate future research on other wildlife species such as
fishers and barred owls. As this HCP has not yet been completed,
however, we cannot consider it for exclusion at this point in time. The
existing HCP originally completed in 1992 is still in effect as of this
date, and is intended to be excluded The full text of the Green Diamond
HCP is available at http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/NSO/documents/Simpson_(Green--Diamond)--1992--NSO--HCP--Part--A.pdf and http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/NSO/documents/Simpson_(Green--Diamond)--
1992--NSO--HCP--Part--B--Large maps.pdf.
Humboldt Redwood Company Habitat Conservation Plan
We propose to exclude lands managed under the Humboldt Redwood
Company (formerly Pacific Lumber) HCP in the Redwood Coast CHU in
California from the final critical habitat designation. The permit
under this HCP with a term of 50 years was noticed on July 14, 1998 (63
FR 37900) and issued on March 1, 1999. The HCP includes 211,700 ac
(85,672 ha) of commercial timber lands in Humboldt County, essentially
all of the formerly Pacific Lumber timberlands outside of the
Headwaters Preserve. The Humboldt Redwood Company HCP includes nine
nonlisted species (including one candidate species) and three listed
species, including the northern spotted owl. Activities covered by the
HCP include forest management activities and mining or other extractive
activities. With regard to the northern spotted owl in particular, the
HCP addresses the harvest, retention, and recruitment of requisite
habitat types and elements within watershed assessment areas and
individual northern spotted owl activity sites.
The management objectives of the HCP are to minimize disturbance to
northern spotted owl activity sites, monitor to determine whether these
efforts maintain a high-density and productive population of northern
spotted owls, and apply adaptive management techniques as necessary.
The other conservation elements of the HCP are expected to aid in the
retention and recruitment of potential foraging, roosting, and nesting
habitat in watersheds across the ownership. Specifically, the HCP
states that the silvicultural requirements associated with riparian
management zones, the mass wasting avoidance strategy, the cumulative
effects/disturbance index restrictions, the marbled murrelet
conservation areas, and the retention standard of 10 percent late seral
habitat for each watershed assessment area are likely to provide
suitable habitat for northern spotted owl. In addition, there are
specific habitat retention requirements to conserve habitat for
foraging, roosting, and nesting at

[[Page 14139]]

northern spotted owl activity sites. Details of the Humboldt Redwood
Company HCP are available at http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/NSO/documents/Pacific_Lumber_Co_(Humboldt--Redwood--Co.)--1999--Final--
HCP.pdf.
Regli Estates Habitat Conservation Plan
We propose to exclude lands managed under the Regli Estates HCP in
the Redwood Coast CHU from the final critical habitat designation. The
permit issued under this HCP in 1995 (noticed July 17, 1995 (60 FR
36432) and issued August 30, 1995) covers 500 ac (202 ha) in Humboldt
County, California, to be used for forest management activities. Two
listed species, the marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl, as well
as two nonlisted species are covered under the incidental take permit
for a period of 20 years. Provisions in the HCP for the northern
spotted owl include the mitigation of any impacts from forest
management activities by implementing selective harvest techniques that
would maintain owl foraging habitat in all harvested areas, protecting
an 80-ac (32-ha) core nesting area for one of the two owl pairs known
to exist in the HCP area, and planting conifer tree species on
approximately 80 ac (32 ha) of currently unforested habitat within the
HCP area, which would result in a net increase in forested habitat over
time. In addition, take of owls would be minimized using seasonal
protection measures specified in the HCP. Details of the Regli Estates
HCP are available at http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/NSO/documents/Regli_Estates_1995_Final_HCP.pdf.
Terra Springs Habitat Conservation Plan
We propose to exclude lands managed under the Terra Springs LLC Low
Effect HCP in the Interior California Coast CHU from the final critical
habitat designation. The permit issued in association with this HCP
(noticed October 29, 2002 (67 FR 65998), and issued in 2004) has a term
of 30 years and includes 76 ac (31 ha) of second-growth forest lands in
Napa County, California. This HCP addresses the effects of timber
harvest and conversion of 22 ac (9 ha) of forest lands to vineyard and
any subsequent removal of commercial conifer trees from the remainder
of the covered lands. The HCP provides a conservation program to
minimize and mitigate for the covered activities, including a deed
restriction that requires management in perpetuity of 41 ac (16 ha) of
the property as nesting and roosting quality habitat for the northern
spotted owl. In addition to mitigation, the Plan also includes measures
to minimize take of the northern spotted owl. Details of the Terra
Springs HCP are available at http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/NSO/documents/Terra_Springs_2003_Final_HCP.pdf.

State of Oregon

No lands covered under an HCP in the State of Oregon are currently
proposed as critical habitat.

State of Washington

Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan
We propose to exclude lands managed under the Cedar River Watershed
HCP in in King County, Washington from the final critical habitat
designation. The City of Seattle completed an HCP that covers the
City's 90,535-ac (36,368-ha) watershed and the City's water supply and
hydroelectric operations on the Cedar River, which discharges into Lake
Washington. Based on this HCP, we issued a permit April 21, 2000
(noticed December 11, 1998 (63 FR 68469)), that covers forestry
restoration activities including riparian thinning, road abandonment,
and timber-stand improvement in the upper Cedar River Watershed. It
also provides for activities associated with the development of
utilities and infrastructure, recreational activities, and water
activities. The plan was prepared to address the declining populations
of salmon, steelhead, and other species of fish and wildlife in the
Cedar River basin, and includes habitat-based conservation and
mitigation strategies for all species addressed in the HCP, as well as
species-specific conservation and mitigation strategies for all listed
species. Details regarding the City of Seattle Cedar River Watershed
HCP are available at http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Water_System/Habitat_Conservation_Plan/index.asp.
Green River Water Supply Operations and Watershed Protection Habitat
Conservation Plan
The Service proposes to exclude lands managed under the Green River
Water Supply Operations and Watershed Protection HCP in the State of
Washington from the final critical habitat designation. The permit
associated with this HCP was noticed in the Federal Register on August
21, 1998 (63 FR 44918), and issued on July 6, 2001. The Green River
Water Supply Operations and Watershed Protection HCP addresses upstream
and downstream fish passage issues, flows in the Middle and lower Green
River, and timber and watershed-management activities on Tacoma-owned
land in the upper Green River Watershed of 15,843 ac (6,411 ha). The
HCP covers 32 species of fish and wildlife, including the northern
spotted owl and 10 other listed species under an agreement designed to
allow the continuation of water-supply operations on the Green River,
and covers forest management and water activities. The plan provides
for fish passage into and out of the upper Green River Watershed, and
serves as an umbrella for a number of agreements for river operations,
water-supply operations, and forest and land management, including
several major habitat-restoration projects. Details of the Green River
Water Supply Operations and Watershed Protection HCP are available at
http://www.mytpu.org/tacomawater/water-conservation/environment/fish-wildlife/habitat-conservation-plan.htm.
Plum Creek Timber Central Cascades Habitat Conservation Plan
We propose to exclude lands managed under the Plum Creek Timber
Central Cascades HCP in the State of Washington in the final critical
habitat designation. The permit associated with the Plum Creek Timber
HCP was first noticed in the Federal Register on November 17, 1995 (60
FR 57722), issued on June 27, 1996, and later modified in December of
1999 as noticed on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6590). The permit has a
term of 50 years (with an option to extend to 100 years if certain
conditions are met) and covers 84,600 ac (34,236 ha) of lands in the
Interstate-90 corridor in King and Kittitas Counties, Washington. The
HCP includes over 315 species of fish and wildlife, including the
northern spotted owl and 7 other listed species. The plan addresses
forest-management activities across an area of industrial timberlands
in Washington's central Cascade Mountains, and provides for management
of the northern spotted owl based on landscape conditions tailored to
the guidelines provided by the NWFP by providing additional protection
to northern spotted owl sites near Late Successional Reserves. Wildlife
trees are retained in buffers of natural features (e.g., caves,
wetlands, springs, cliffs, talus slopes) and streams, as well as
scattered and clumped within harvest units. The HCP also requires Plum
Creek to maintain and grow forests of various structural stages across
all of their HCP ownerships. This commitment of forest stages, in
combination with wildlife trees retained within harvest units and
stream and landscape-feature buffers will provide a

[[Page 14140]]

matrix of habitat conditions that complements the owl habitat provided
in the HCP. Stands containing scattered leave trees following harvest
will be expected to become more valuable for spotted owls at earlier
ages than those harvested using previous methods. Details of the Plum
Creek Timber Central Cascades HCP are available at http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/CHP_new.html.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources State Lands Habitat
Conservation Plan
We propose to exclude lands managed under the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) State Lands HCP in multiple CHUs
in Washington from the final critical habitat designation. The WDNR
State Lands HCP covers approximately 1.7 million ac (730,000 ha) of
State forest lands within the range of the northern spotted owl in the
State of Washington. The majority of the area covered by the HCP is
west of the Cascade Crest and includes the Olympic Peninsula and
southwest Washington. The WDNR HCP lands on the west side of the
Olympic Peninsula are managed as the Olympic Experimental State Forest.
The remainder of the area is on the east side of the Cascade Range
within the range of the northern spotted owl. The permit associated
with this HCP, issued January 30, 1997, was noticed in the Federal
Register on April 5, 1996 (61 FR 15297), has a term of 70 to 100 years,
and covers activities primarily associated with commercial forest
management, but also includes limited non-timber activities such as
some recreational activities. The HCP covers all species, including the
northern spotted owl and other listed species.
The HCP addressed multiple species through a combination of
strategies. The marbled murrelet is addressed through a combination of
research, modeling, surveys, and development of a long-term plan to
retain and protect important old-forest habitat. The HCP also includes
a series of Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation
Areas. Riparian conservation includes buffers on fishbearing streams as
well as substantial buffers on streams and wetlands without fish.
Wildlife trees are retained in buffers of natural features (e.g.,
caves, wetlands, springs, cliffs, talus slopes) and streams, as well as
scattered and clumped within harvest units. The HCP also requires WDNR
to maintain and grow forests of various structural stages across all of
their HCP ownerships. Specifically for spotted owls, they have
identified portions of the landscape upon which they will manage for
nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat for spotted owls. These
areas are known as NRF Management Areas (NRFMAs) and were located to
provide demographic support that would strategically complement the
NWFP's Late-Successional Reserves as well as those Adaptive Management
Areas that have late-successional objectives. The NRFMAs also were
situated to help maintain species distribution. Generally, these NRFMAs
will be managed so that approximately 50 percent of those lands will
develop into NRF habitat for the northern spotted owl over time. Within
this 50 percent, certain nest patches containing high-quality nesting
habitat are to be retained and grown. Since the HCP was implemented,
within the NRFMAs, WDNR has carried out 5,100 ac (2,064 ha) of pre-
commercial thinning and 7,800 ac (3,156 ha) of timber harvest
specifically configured to enhance spotted owl habitat. WDNR's habitat
enhancement activities will continue under the HCP.
Some areas outside of the NRFMAs are managed to provide for
dispersal and foraging conditions in 50 percent of the forests in those
areas; these were strategically located in landscapes important for
connectivity. The Olympic Experimental State Forest is managed to
provide for spotted owl conservation across all of its lands. Even in
areas not specifically managed for spotted owls, WDNR has committed to
providing a range of forest stages across the landscape to address
multiple species. This commitment of forest stages, in combination with
wildlife trees retained within harvest units and stream and landscape-
feature buffers, will provide a matrix of habitat conditions that will
also provide some assistance in conserving spotted owls. Stands
containing scattered leave trees following harvest will be expected to
become more valuable for spotted owls at earlier ages than those
harvested using previous methods. Owls across the WDNR HCP are expected
to benefit from the combination of these strategies. Details of the
WDNR HCP are available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/trustlandshcp/Pages/Home.aspx.
West Fork Timber Habitat Conservation Plan
We propose to exclude lands managed under the West Fork Timber HCP
(formerly known as Murray Pacific) in the West Cascades Central CHU
from the final critical habitat designation. The West Fork Timber HCP
was the first multi-species HCP on forested lands in the Nation. The
permit associated with the West Fork Timber HCP has a term of 100 years
and was first issued on September 24, 1993; amended on June 26, 1995;
and amended again on October 16, 2001 (66 FR 52638). The HCP includes
53,558 ac (21,674 ha) of commercial timber lands managed as a tree farm
in Lewis County, Washington. The HCP was first developed to allow for
forest-management activities and provide for the conservation of the
northern spotted owl; the amended HCP provides for all species,
including 6 listed species. The HCP is designed to develop and maintain
owl dispersal habitat across 43 percent of the tree farm. In addition,
the HCP provides for leaving at least 10 percent of the tree farm in
reserves for the next 100 years. These reserves will primarily take the
form of riparian buffers averaging at least 100 ft (30 m) on each side
of all fish-bearing streams, as well as other buffers and set-a-side
areas. Other provisions of the HCP are designed to ensure that all
forest habitat types and age classes currently on the tree farm, as
well as special habitat types such as talus slopes, caves, nest trees,
and den sites, are protected or enhanced. Details of the West Fork
Timber HCP are available at http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/CHP_new.html.
SDS Company LLC and Broughton Lumber Company Proposed Conservation Plan
We may consider excluding forest lands owned and managed by the SDS
Company LLC and Broughton Lumber Company in Washington and Oregon. The
companies are in the process of negotiating a conservation plan (either
an HCP or an SHA) with the Service. If the spotted owl provisions of
the conservation plan are finalized, and the permit is issued in time
for us to consider the provisions of the conservation plan prior to our
final rulemaking, we propose to exclude these lands. If the northern
spotted owl provisions of the conservation plan are finalized, and the
permit is issued prior to our final rulemaking, we propose to exclude
these lands. The SDS Company LLC and Broughton Lumber Company
collectively manage approximately 83,000 acres (33,589 ha) of
forestland in Skamania and Klickitat counties in Washington, and Hood
River and Wasco counties in Oregon. These lands provide some habitat
for some northern spotted owl activity sites. The Service anticipates
conservation benefits for northern spotted owls could be provided by
completing a conservation plan with the companies on these lands.

[[Page 14141]]

Lands With Conservation Easements, Other Management Agreements, or
Other Partnerships

California

California State Park Lands
We propose to exclude 164,672 ac (66,640 ha) of California State
Park lands, as these lands are managed consistent with the conservation
and recovery needs of the northern spotted owl.
Big River, Salmon Creek and Garcia River Forests
We propose to exclude the three forest tracts known as the Big
River Forest (11,837 ac (4,790 ha)), Salmon Creek Forest (4,676 ac
(1,892 ha)), and Garcia River Forest (23,780 ac (9,624 ha)) in western
Mendocino County from the final critical habitat designation. The Big
River and Salmon Creek Forests are in Subunit 2 and the Garcia Forest
is in Subunit 3 of the Redwood Coast CHU. The Garcia River Forest is in
a key location for local and regional habitat connectivity. The three
tracts were recently acquired by The Conservation Fund (TCF);
conservation easements on these tracts are held by The Nature
Conservancy (TNC). TCF maintains forest certifications under the Forest
Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative programs;
and is initiating carbon sequestration certification through the
California Climate Action Registry. TCF has completed Integrated
Resource Management Plans (IRMPs) for all three tracts in conjunction
with the forest certification programs. Under the IRMPs, the northern
spotted owl is identified as an indicator species for assessing
ecosystem change and for guiding adaptive management strategies. Due to
the history of intensive forest harvesting under previous owners,
younger forest age classes are over-represented in current timber
inventories; though there is enough suitable breeding habitat to
support at least 17 owl activity sites on the three tracts combined.
Forest management and carbon storage goals over the next several
decades are to expand the standing forest inventory through reliance on
uneven-aged silviculture and constrained harvest levels. Combined with
the current inventory picture, this management direction indicates, at
minimum, that there will be substantial recruitment of suitable
foraging habitat on these lands over the next 2 to 3 decades.
Mendocino Redwood Company Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan
We may consider excluding forest lands owned and managed by the
Mendocino Redwood Company in the Redwood Coast CHU in California. The
company is in the process of negotiating a multispecies terrestrial and
aquatic HCP and Natural Communities Conservation Plan with the Service
and with National Marine Fisheries Service. In our best estimate, this
process will not be completed before the final critical habitat rule is
issued. However, if the spotted owl provisions of the HCP are
finalized, and the permit is issued prior to our final rulemaking, we
may consider these lands for exclusion in the final critical habitat
designation. The Mendocino Redwood Company manages 232,584 ac (94,123
ha) of forestland in Mendocino and Sonoma counties and continuously
monitors more than 160 northern spotted owl activity sites. Based on
our regional analysis of habitat suitability and connectivity, company
lands contain an abundance of high-quality owl habitat. Three
management units on this ownership, Rockport, Garcia and Annapolis, are
in key locations for regional habitat connectivity.
Usal Forest
We propose to exclude the forest tract known as Usal Forest in
northwestern Mendocino County, in Subunit 2 of the Redwood Coast CHU
from the final critical habitat designation. The tract is owned by the
Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc. (RFFI, non-profit), and is under a
conservation easement is held by The Conservation Fund. On-the-ground
management is carried out by the Campbell Group, LLC. RFFI and Campbell
Group have issued a draft northern spotted owl management plan, which
is under review by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection. The foundation has only recently acquired the land, but
they have begun two initiatives, one for forest certification with the
Forest Stewardship Council program, and another for certification of
carbon sequestration through the California Climate Action Registry.
The Usal Forest is approximately 50,000 ac (20,235 ha) and includes
approximately 20 northern spotted owl activity sites under continuous
monitoring. There are substantial amounts of high-quality owl habitat
and the tract is in a key location for local and regional habitat
connectivity. Among the conservation measures in the draft management
plan are provisions for continued monitoring of owl activity sites,
reporting of the monitoring results to State agencies and the Service,
establishment of mapped polygons of suitable habitat around each
activity site wherein no timber harvest or limited timber harvest may
occur, and introduction of silvicultural practices designed to maintain
or improve habitat suitability within northern spotted owl nesting,
roosting, and foraging areas.
Van Eck Forest Foundation
The Van Eck Forest is discussed in detail under Safe Harbor
Agreements. This land is also under a conservation easement held by the
Pacific Forest Trust.

State of Oregon

The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) collectively manages about
700,000 ac (283,290 ha) in the Tillamook, Clatsop, and Elliott State
Forests (co-managed with Oregon Department of State Lands) in addition
to other parcels in western Oregon, and we are proposing approximately
228,733 ac (92,565 ha) of these lands as critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl. The Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests are
managed under the criteria contained within the Northwestern Oregon
Forest Management Plan (revised April 2010). ODF is in the process of
withdrawing from the 1995 Elliott State Forest Habitat Conservation
Plan due to an inability to develop a revised HCP because of
disagreements related to salmonid management. The Elliott State Forest
Management Plan, which was approved by the Board of Forestry and State
Land Board in the fall of 2011, covers the Elliott State Forest and
scattered tracts in Coos, Curry, and Douglas Counties. These plans are
available online at http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/Forest_Management_Plans.shtml).
State forest management plans are long-range plans that provide
policy goals and strategies under which more specific district
implementation plans and annual operation plans are developed. We are
currently working with ODF to understand how portions of these State
forest lands are currently managed to contribute to the long-term
maintenance and enhancement of spotted owls, in alignment with the
recommendations in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, pp. III-57 to
III-58). In this context, ODF has recently provided the Service with
maps and information about ODF's plans to develop structurally complex
habitat on portions of the State Forest's landscape. Work is currently
underway between the Service and ODF to evaluate this

[[Page 14142]]

information, which may form the basis for adjustments in the final
designation of critical habitat. The continued implementation of ODF's
forest management plans, and commitments to adaptive management
improvements over time articulated in these plans, are the State of
Oregon's voluntary contributions to spotted owl recovery on forestlands
managed by the ODF. If future management is sufficient to meet the
standards of exclusion from designated critical habitat as described in
this proposed revised rule, we will consider excluding some or all of
these lands from the final designation of critical habitat.

State of Washington

Washington State Park Lands
We propose to exclude 104 ac (42 ha) of Washington State Park
lands, as these lands are managed consistent with the conservation and
recovery needs of the northern spotted owl.
Scofield Corporation Deed Restriction (Formerly Habitat Conservation
Plan)
We propose to exclude lands that were formerly covered under the
Scofield Corporation HCP in the East Cascades North CHU from the final
critical habitat designation. This HCP for 40 ac (16 ha) of forest
lands in Chelan County, Washington, covered forest-management
activities and the associated incidental take permit included only the
northern spotted owl. The HCP provided for mitigation and minimization
measures by retaining a buffer of intact habitat, implementing
selective timber-harvest practices, and placing a perpetual deed
restriction on the property permanently prohibiting further timber
harvest or tree removal except with the express written consent of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These measures were designed to ensure
the retention of some owl habitat and approximately 72 percent of the
total number of trees after harvest. Although the permit issued under
this HCP in 1996 had a duration of only 1 year (noticed February 20,
1996 (61 FR 6381), and issued April 3, 1996), as provided in the permit
terms, the lands under this HCP are now covered by a deed restriction
for those lands in perpetuity.

Federal Lands

As noted above, Federal agencies have an independent responsibility
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their programs in furtherance
of the Act and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for
the conservation of endangered and threatened species. We consider the
development and implementation of land management plans by Federal
agencies to be consistent with this statutory obligation under section
7(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, Federal land management plans, in and of
themselves, are generally not an appropriate basis for excluding
essential habitat. Some broad-scale Federal resource management plans
(e.g., the Northwest Forest Plan) provide conservation benefits to the
northern spotted owl as well as all other species within the plan
boundaries. In addition, in some places, Federal land management
agencies may actively manage for the northern spotted owl and conduct
specific conservation actions for the species. Congressionally reserved
natural areas (e.g., wilderness areas, national parks, national scenic
areas) were not included in the 1992 and 2008 northern spotted owl
critical habitat designations. In this rulemaking, we propose to
exclude 2,631,736 ac (1,065,026 ha) of Congressionally reserved natural
areas from the final critical habitat designation. We request public
comment regarding existing specific conservation actions that Federal
land management agencies have or are currently implementing on their
lands, and will take this information into account when conducting our
exclusion analysis in the final critical habitat designation.

Consideration of Indian Lands

In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''
(November 6, 2000, and as reaffirmed November 5, 2009); and the
relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of the
Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other natural
resources on Indian lands may be better managed under Indian
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation
where Indian management addresses the conservation needs of listed
species. In addition, such designation may be viewed by tribes as
unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion into Indian self-governance, thus
compromising the government-to-government relationship essential to
achieving our mutual goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon
which the viability of threatened and endangered species populations
depend.
In developing proposed revised critical habitat designation for the
northern spotted owl, we considered inclusion of some Indian lands. As
described in the above section Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat, and detailed in our supporting documentation (Dunk et al.
2012, entire), we evaluated numerous potential habitat scenarios to
determine those areas that are essential to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl. In all cases, we assessed the effectiveness of
the habitat scenario under consideration in terms of its ability to
meet the recovery goals for the species. Furthermore, the habitat
scenarios under consideration included a comparison of different
prioritization schemes for landownership; we prioritized areas under
consideration for critical habitat such that we looked first to Federal
lands, followed by State, private, and Tribal or Indian lands. Indian
lands are those defined in Secretarial Order 3206 ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997), as: (1) Lands held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual;
and (2) lands held by any Indian Tribe or individual subject to
restrictions by the United States against alienation. In evaluating
Indian lands under consideration as potential critical habitat for the
northern spotted owl, we further considered the directive of
Secretarial Order 3206 that stipulates ``Critical habitat shall not be
designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve
a listed species. In designating critical habitat, the Services shall
evaluate and document the extent to which the conservation needs of the
listed species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other
lands.''
Although some Indian lands identified in our habitat modeling
demonstrated the potential to contribute to the conservation of the
northern spotted owl, our analysis did not suggest that these areas
were essential to conserve the northern spotted owl. This determination
was based on our relative evaluation of the various habitat scenarios
under consideration; if the population performance results from our
habitat modeling indicated that we could meet the recovery goals for
the species without relying on Indian lands, we did not consider the
physical and biological features on those lands, or the lands
themselves, to be essential to the conservation of the species,
therefore they did not meet our criteria for inclusion in critical
habitat. Our

[[Page 14143]]

evaluation of the areas under consideration for designation as critical
habitat indicated that we could achieve the conservation of the
northern spotted owl by limiting the designation of revised critical
habitat to other lands. Therefore, no Indian lands are included in the
proposed revised designation of critical habitat.

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule and appropriate supporting materials that
were used in its development that may have not otherwise undergone peer
review. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our critical
habitat designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment during
this public comment period on our specific assumptions and conclusions
in this proposed revised designation of critical habitat. All sources
we have relied upon in the development of this proposed rule, including
all published peer-reviewed literature and the Revised Recovery Plan,
are cited and full references are provided for download at http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy upon request (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
In addition, we note that the Revised Recovery Plan for the
Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011), which provides the recovery criteria
and habitat modeling framework upon which this proposed revised
designation of critical habitat is based, in part, was subject to a
rigorous peer review process. The Wildlife Society and the American
Ornithologists' Union/Society for Conservation Biology (jointly)
provided peer review of the draft Revised Recovery Plan. We also
received reviews from experts on our Scientific Review Committee, as
well as numerous unsolicited reviews from other specialists and
organizations, that contributed to the scientific integrity of the
habitat modeling framework presented in Appendix C of the Revised
Recovery Plan.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.

Public Hearings

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866/13563

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is significant and has reviewed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866 and 13563 (E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563). OMB based its
determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government;
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions;
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients; or
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirmed the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider where relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent
permitted by law, regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and
maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. E.O. 13563
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of ideas. This proposed rule has
been developed in a manner consistent with these requirements and the
Service is committed to respecting them in the development of the final
critical habitat designation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine whether a designation of critical habitat could
significantly affect a substantial number of small entities, we
consider the number of small entities affected within particular types
of economic activities (e.g., housing development, grazing, oil and gas
production, timber harvesting). We apply the ``substantial number''
test individually to each industry to determine if certification is
appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not

[[Page 14144]]

explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area.
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects
activities carried out, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
would not result in any additional effects under the critical habitat
provisions of the Act. However, there are some State laws that limit
activities in designated critical habitat even where there is no
Federal nexus. If there is a Federal nexus, Federal agencies will be
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities
they fund, permit, or carry out that may affect critical habitat. If we
conclude, in a biological opinion, that a proposed action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable
and prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent alternatives are
alternative actions that can be implemented in a manner consistent with
the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
that are economically and technologically feasible, and that would
avoid destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
A Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a
reasonable and prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion
that has found adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained,
the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the
reasonable and prudent alternatives. We may also identify discretionary
conservation recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse
effects of a proposed action on critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
Any existing and planned projects, land uses, and activities that
could affect the proposed critical habitat but have no Federal
involvement would not require section 7 consultation with the Service,
so they are not restricted by the requirements of the Act. Federal
agencies may need to reinitiate a previous consultation if
discretionary involvement or control over the Federal action has been
retained or is authorized by law and the activities may affect critical
habitat.
At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding
specific to this proposed revised designation of critical habitat.
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination.
We do have a recent economic analysis that was completed for the
2008 designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.
Because this proposed revised designation of critical habitat on
Federal, State, and private lands differs from the current designation
in that the current designation is limited entirely to Federal lands,
the previous economic analysis is of somewhat limited utility in
informing our analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed
designation on any small entities. In our previous economic analysis,
we concluded that in areas where the species is present, Federal
agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the
Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the
northern spotted owl. Federal agencies also must consult with us if
their activities may affect critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic
impact due to the requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing
Federal activities that could be transferred to a small business
entity.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements that the Federal
action agency may be required to consult with us on regarding their
project's impact on the northern spotted owl and its habitat. First, if
we conclude, in a biological opinion, that a proposed action is likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely modify
its critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative
actions that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the scope
of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that would avoid
jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or result in
adverse modification of critical habitat. A Federal agency and an
applicant (potentially a small business) may elect to implement a
reasonable and prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion
that has found jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. An
agency or applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption
from the requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the
reasonable and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were
obtained, the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating
section 7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing
the reasonable and prudent alternatives.
Second, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal or plant species,
we may identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize
the amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or
applicant to implement such measures through non-discretionary terms
and conditions. We may also identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
Based on our experience with consultations under section 7 of the
Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or
adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations--can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives.

[[Page 14145]]

These measures, by definition, must be economically feasible and within
the scope of authority of the Federal agency involved in the
consultation. We can only describe the general kinds of actions that
may be identified in future reasonable and prudent alternatives. These
are based on our understanding of the needs of the species and the
threats it faces, as described in the final listing rule and this
critical habitat designation. Within the final critical habitat units
of the 2008 critical habitat, the types of Federal actions or
authorized activities that were identified as potential concerns were:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act;
(2) Regulation of activities by the Fish and Wildlife Service under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act; and
(3) Activities involving other Federal actions (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency).
We determined that it was likely that a developer or other project
proponent could modify a project or take measures to protect the
northern spotted owl. The kinds of actions that may be included if
future reasonable and prudent alternatives become necessary include
conservation set-asides, management of competing nonnative species,
restoration of degraded habitat, and regular monitoring. We concluded
that these measures were not likely to result in a significant economic
impact to project proponents.
As noted above, this proposed revised designation of critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl differs significantly from the
current designation in terms of both scope and landownerships affected.
Therefore, the Service has concluded that deferring the RFA until
completion of the draft economic analysis specific to this proposed
rulemaking is necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of the
RFA. Deferring the RFA in this manner will ensure that the Service
makes a sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic
information and provides the necessary opportunity for public comment.
In the meantime, for the public's consideration, we have tentatively
identified several categories of activities that we anticipate may
potentially be affected by the proposed revised critical habitat; these
activities include: (1) Timber management, (2) barred owl management
and control, (3) northern spotted owl surveys and monitoring, (4) fire
management, (5) linear projects (i.e., roads, pipelines, and
powerlines), (6) restoration, (7) recreation, and (8) administrative
costs associated with consultations under section 7 of the Act.
Determining the economic impacts of a critical habitat designation
involves evaluating the ``without critical habitat'' baseline versus
the ``with critical habitat'' scenario, to identify those effects
expected to occur solely due to the designation of critical habitat and
not from the protections that are in place due to the species being
listed under the Act. Effects of a designation equal the difference, or
the increment, between these two scenarios. Measured differences
between the baseline (without critical habitat) and the designated
critical habitat (with critical habitat) may include (but are not
limited to) the economic effects stemming from changes in land or
resource use or extraction, environmental quality, or time and effort
expended on administrative and other activities by Federal landowners,
Federal action agencies, and in some instances, State and local
governments or private third parties. These are the ``incremental
effects'' that serve as the basis for the economic analysis.
As a result of our preliminary evaluation, we expect that any
potential incremental effects of the critical habitat designation would
be due to: (1) An increased workload for action agencies and the
Service to conduct re-initiated consultations for ongoing actions in
newly designated critical habitat (areas proposed for designation that
are not already included within the extant designation); (2) the cost
to action agencies of including an analysis of the effects to critical
habitat for new projects occurring in occupied areas of designated
critical habitat; and (3) potential project alterations in unoccupied
critical habitat. As in the prior designation, we therefore expect any
incremental costs of critical habitat to be borne primarily by Federal
agencies, since the majority of incremental effects are associated with
consultation costs under section of the Act. On private lands, we
expect that for a proposed action to result in a finding of adverse
modification (i.e., that it would likely substantially reduce the
conservation value of spotted owl critical habitat to such an extent
that it would affect the ability of critical habitat to serve its
intended recovery role), it would likely have to significantly alter
large areas or restrict spotted owl connectivity through such areas. In
light of our history of consultations, we believe that an adverse-
modification finding is unlikely. This is based on our experience that
in over 20 years of conducting consultations on the spotted owl, we
have never had such a case. Nonetheless, should this occur, to avoid
adverse modification we would most likely recommend reducing the scale
of impacts to spotted owl habitat in the vicinity of areas important
for connectivity or near population strongholds. In this rare event,
there would potentially be some cost to the landowner in terms of
reduced potential harvest. However, in general, we anticipate that
actions that promote ecological restoration and those that apply
ecological forestry principles as described in the Revised Recovery
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011, pp. III-11 to III-41)
and elsewhere in this document are likely to be consistent with the
conservation of the northern spotted owl and the management of its
critical habitat, therefore we expect any potential economic impacts of
the designation to be minimized. These are only tentative conclusions,
however; the comprehensive evaluation of the potential economic impacts
of the proposed revised designation will be presented in our draft
economic analysis, which will be made available for public comment
subsequent to the publication of this proposed rule.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. While this proposed rule to designate revised critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as
warranted.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose

[[Page 14146]]

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Indian governments, or the
private sector, and includes both ``Federal intergovernmental
mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' These terms are
defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal intergovernmental mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or Indian governments'' with two exceptions. It excludes
``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also excludes ``a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the
regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal program under which
$500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Indian
governments under entitlement authority,'' if the provision would
``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to
provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Indian governments ``lack
authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these
entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent
Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance
or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because most of the lands in the proposed
revised designation are under Federal or State ownership, and do not
occur within the jurisdiction of small governments. Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment if appropriate.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), this rule is not anticipated to have significant takings
implications. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or authorization from
a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency. Due to current public knowledge of the species
protections and the prohibition against take of the species both within
and outside of the proposed areas, we do not anticipate that property
values will be affected by the critical habitat designation. However,
we have not yet completed the economic analysis for this proposed rule.
Once the economic analysis is available, we will review and revise this
preliminary assessment as warranted, and prepare a Takings Implication
Assessment.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), we have
determined that this proposed rule does not have direct federalism
implications that would require a federalism summary impact statement;
however, we are aware of the State level interest in this rule, and we
both summarize below and explain in more detail in other parts of this
package activities and responsibilities on Federal, State, and private
lands.
From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat
directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. As
explained in detail earlier, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies--and only Federal agencies--to ensure that the actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. The Act imposes no other duties with
respect to critical habitat, either for States and local governments,
or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
However, in keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy and the federalism principals set forth in Executive
Order 13132, we are requesting information from, and consulting with
appropriate State resource agencies in Washington, Oregon, and
California on the effect of the proposed revised designation of
critical habitat. We will use this information to more thoroughly
evaluate the probable economic effects of this proposed designation in
our draft economic analysis, to inform the development of our final
rule, and to consider the appropriateness of excluding specific areas
from the final rule.
The proposed revision of critical habitat also is not expected to
have substantial indirect impacts. As explained in more detail above,
activities within the areas proposed to be designated as critical
habitat are already subject to a broad range of requirements,
including: (1) The various requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan,
including those applicable to its Late Successional Reserves, Riparian
Reserves, and ``survey and manage'' restrictions; (2) the prohibition
against ``taking'' northern spotted owls under sections 4(d) and 9 of
the Act; (3) the prohibition against Federal agency actions that
jeopardize the continued existence of the northern spotted owl under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act; (4) the prohibition against taking other
Endangered Species Act listed species that occur in the area of the
proposed critical habitat (e.g., salmon, bull trout, and marbled
murrelets); and (5) the prohibition against Federal agency actions that
jeopardize the continued existence of such other listed species. All of
these requirements are currently in effect and will remain in effect
after the final revision of critical habitat.
Some indirect impacts of the proposed rule on States are, of
course, possible. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies
(action agencies) to consult with the Service whenever activities that
they undertake, authorize, permit, or fund may affect a listed species
or designated critical habitat. States or local governments may

[[Page 14147]]

be indirectly affected if they require Federal funds or formal approval
or authorization from a Federal agency as a prerequisite to conducting
an action. In such instances, while the primary consulting parties are
the Service and the Federal action agency, State and local governments
may also participate in section 7 consultation as an applicant. It is
therefore possible that States may be required to change project
designs, operation, or management of activities taking place within the
boundaries of the designation in order to receive Federal funding,
assistance, permits, approval, or authorization from a Federal agency.
Also, to the extent that the designation of critical habitat affects
timber harvest amounts on Federal land, county governments that receive
a share of the receipts from such harvests may be affected.
On the other side of the ledger, the designation of critical
habitat may have some benefit to State and local governments because
the areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
elements of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation
of the species are specifically identified. It may also assist local
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for
case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
We will be examining these potential indirect impacts in connection
with the forthcoming economic analysis that is being prepared pursuant
to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, which will be made available for public
comment prior to the finalization of this rule. We are committed to
interactive management and will continue to consult with affected
parties to minimize indirect impacts of this rulemakings on non-Federal
entities.
We note, finally, that we intend to consult closely with State and
local governments to ensure both that they understand the effects of
such designation, and that we fully understand any concerns they may
have. In particular, we will give careful consideration to any
recommendations they may offer with respect to the exclusion of
particular areas pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed revised
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard mapping conventions and identifies the
elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the northern spotted owl within the designated areas to
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act for the reasons outlined in a notice
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (in a challenge to the first rulemaking designating critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl. Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Nevertheless, given the scope of this particular proposed designation,
the Service plans, as a matter of discretion and not as a legal
requirement, to prepare an environmental assessment prior to making a
final decision. We are in the process of drafting the environmental
assessment, and plan to make it available at the same time that we
release our draft economic analysis on this proposed rule; the comment
period for the draft environmental assessment and the draft economic
analysis will therefore run concurrently. One of the purposes in
developing an environmental assessment is to determine whether an
environmental impact statement may be warranted. However, based on our
experience in the Tenth Circuit, where the Service routinely conducts
NEPA analyses of critical habitat designations, to date we have found
that environmental assessments have proven adequate.

Clarity of the Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 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:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) 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.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (November 6, 2000, and as
reaffirmed November 5, 2009), and the Department of the Interior's
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. The United States recognizes the right
of Indian tribes to self-government and supports tribal sovereignty and
self-determination, and recognizes the need to consult with tribal
officials when developing regulations that have tribal implications. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to
work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy
ecosystems, to acknowledge that Indian lands are not subject to the
same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian
culture, and to make information available to tribes. Even though we
have determined that there are no Indian lands that meet the definition
of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, and

[[Page 14148]]

therefore no Indian lands are included in this proposal, we will
continue to coordinate and consult with tribes regarding resources
within the proposed revised designation that are of cultural
significance to them.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office.

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 set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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. 17.95(b) by revising critical habitat for ``Northern
Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(b) Birds.
* * * * *

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for the States of
Washington, Oregon, and California on the maps below.
(2) Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl includes the
following four primary constituent elements (PCEs) set forth in
paragraph (2)(i) (PCE 1) through paragraph (2)(iv) (PCE 4) of this
entry. Each critical habitat unit must include PCE 1 and PCE 2, 3, or
4:
(i) PCE 1: Forest types that may be in early-, mid-, or late-seral
stages and that support the northern spotted owl across its
geographical range. These forest types are primarily:
(A) Sitka spruce;
(B) Western hemlock;
(C) Mixed conifer and mixed evergreen;
(D) Grand fir;
(E) Pacific silver fir;
(F) Douglas-fir;
(G) White fir;
(H) Shasta red fir;
(I) Redwood/Douglas-fir (in coastal California and southwestern
Oregon); and
(J) The moist end of the ponderosa pine coniferous forest zones at
elevations up to approximately 3,000 ft (900 m) near the northern edge
of the range and up to approximately 6,000 ft (1,800 m) at the southern
edge.
(ii) PCE 2: Habitat that provides for nesting and roosting. In many
cases the same habitat also provide for foraging (PCE (3)). Nesting and
roosting habitat provides structural features for nesting, protection
from adverse weather conditions, and cover to reduce predation risks
for adults and young. This PCE is found throughout the geographical
range of the northern spotted owl, because stand structures at nest
sites tend to vary little across the spotted owl's range. These
habitats must provide:
(A) Sufficient foraging habitat to meet the home range needs of
territorial pairs of northern spotted owls throughout the year (or must
occur in conjunction with this habitat); and
(B) Stands for nesting and roosting that are generally
characterized by:
(1) Moderate to high canopy closure (60 to over 80 percent).
(2) Multilayered, multispecies canopies with large (20-30 inches
(in) (51-6 centimeters (cm) or greater diameter at breast height (dbh))
overstory trees.
(3) High basal area (greater than 240 ft\2\/acre; 55 m\2\/ha).
(4) High diversity of different diameters of trees.
(5) High incidence of large live trees with various deformities
(e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other
evidence of decadence).
(6) Large snags and large accumulations of fallen trees and other
woody debris on the ground.
(7) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(iii) PCE 3: Habitat that provides for foraging, which varies
widely across the northern spotted owl's range, in accordance with
ecological conditions and disturbance regimes that influence vegetation
structure and prey species distributions. Across most of the owl's
range, nesting and roosting habitat is also foraging habitat, but in
some regions northern spotted owls may additionally use other habitat
types for foraging as well. The specific foraging habitat PCEs for the
four ecological zones within the geographical range of the northern
spotted owl are the following:
(A) West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington.
(1) Stands of nesting and roosting habitat; additionally, owls may
use younger forests with some structural characteristics (legacy
features) of old forests, hardwood forest patches, and edges between
old forest and hardwoods.
(2) Moderate to high canopy closure (60 to over 80 percent).
(3) A diversity of tree diameters and heights.
(4) Increasing density of trees greater than or equal to 31 in (80
cm) dbh increases foraging habitat quality (especially above 12 trees
per ac (30 trees per ha)).
(5) Increasing density of trees 20 to 31 in (51 to 80 cm) dbh
increases foraging habitat quality (especially above 24 trees per ac
(60 trees per ha)).
(6) Increasing snag basal area, snag volume (the product of snag
diameter, height, estimated top diameter, and including a taper
function), and density of snags greater than 20 in (50 cm) dbh all
contribute to increasing foraging habitat quality, especially above 10
snags/ha.
(7) Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on
the ground.
(8) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(B) East Cascades.
(1) Stands of nesting and roosting habitat; in addition, stands
composed of Douglas-fir and white fir/Douglas-fir mix.
(2) Mean tree size (quadratic mean diameter greater than 16.5 in
(42 cm).
(3) Increasing density of large trees (greater than 26 in (66 cm))
and increasing basal area (the cross-sectional area of tree boles
measured at breast height) increases foraging habitat quality.
(4) Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on
the ground.
(5) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(C) Klamath and Northern California Interior Coast Ranges.
(1) Stands of nesting and roosting habitat; in addition, other
forest types with mature and old-forest characteristics.
(2) Presence of conifer species such as incense-cedar, sugar pine,
and Douglas-fir and hardwood species such as bigleaf maple, black oak,
live oaks, and madrone, as well as shrubs.
(3) Forest patches within riparian zones of low-order streams and
edges between conifer and hardwood forest stands.

[[Page 14149]]

(4) Brushy openings and dense young stands or low-density forest
patches within a mosaic of mature and older forest habitat.
(5) High canopy cover (87 percent at frequently used sites).
(6) Multiple canopy layers.
(7) Mean stand diameter greater than 21 in (52.5 cm).
(8) Increasing mean stand diameter and densities of trees greater
than 26 in (66 cm) increases foraging habitat quality.
(9) Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on
the ground.
(10) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(D) Redwood Coast.
(1) Nesting and roosting habitat; in addition, stands composed of
hardwood tree species, particularly tanoak.
(2) Early-seral habitats 6 to 20 years old with dense shrub and
hardwood cover and abundant woody debris; these habitats produce prey,
and must occur in conjunction with nesting, roosting, or foraging
habitat.
(3) Increasing density of small-to-medium sized trees (10 to 22 in;
25 to 56 cm), which increases foraging habitat quality.
(4) Trees greater than 26 in (66 cm) in diameter or greater than 41
years of age.
(5) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted
owls to fly.
(iv) PCE 4: Habitat to support the transience and colonization
phases of dispersal, which in all cases would optimally be composed of
nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat (PCEs 2 or 3), but which may
also be composed of other forest types that occur between larger blocks
of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. In cases where nesting,
roosting, or foraging habitats are insufficient to provide for
dispersing or nonbreeding owls, the specific dispersal habitat PCEs for
the northern spotted owl may be provided by the following:
(A) Habitat supporting the transience phase of dispersal, which
includes:
(1) Stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide
protection from avian predators and minimal foraging opportunities; and
(2) Younger and less diverse forest stands than foraging habitat,
such as even-aged, pole-sized stands, if such stands contain some
roosting structures and foraging habitat to allow for temporary resting
and feeding during the transience phase.
(B) Habitat supporting the colonization phase of dispersal, which
is generally equivalent to nesting, roosting and foraging habitat as
described in PCEs 2 and 3, but may be smaller in area than that needed
to support nesting pairs.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, other paved areas, or surface
mine sites) and the land on which they are located; developed
recreation sites, administrative sites, or roadways, and the land on
which they are located, including a safety buffer for hazard tree
management; or any meadows, grasslands, oak woodlands, or aspen
woodlands existing on the effective date of this rule and not
containing the primary constituent elements.
(4) Critical habitat map units. The designated critical habitat
units for the northern spotted owl are depicted on the maps below.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the northern
spotted owl in the State of Washington follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 14150]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.004

[[Page 14151]]

(6) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the northern
spotted owl in the State of Oregon follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.005

[[Page 14152]]

(7) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the northern
spotted owl in the State of California follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.006

[[Page 14153]]

(8) Unit 1: North Coast Ranges and Olympic Peninsula, Oregon and
Washington.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 1: North Coast Ranges
and Olympic Peninsula, Oregon and Washington].
(ii) Note: Maps of Unit 1: North Coast Ranges and Olympic
Peninsula, Oregon and Washington, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.007

[[Page 14154]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.008

[[Page 14155]]

(9) Unit 2: Oregon Coast Ranges, Oregon.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 2: Oregon Coast
Ranges, Oregon].
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2, Oregon Coast Ranges, Oregon, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.009

[[Page 14156]]

(10) Unit 3: Redwood Coast, Oregon and California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 3: Redwood Coast,
Oregon and California]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3, Redwood Coast, Oregon and California,
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.010

[[Page 14157]]

(11) Unit 4: West Cascades North, Washington.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 4: West Cascades
North, Washington].
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4, West Cascades North, Washington, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.011

[[Page 14158]]

(12) Unit 5: West Cascades Central, Washington.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 5: West Cascades
Central, Washington].
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, West Cascades Central, Washington,
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.012

[[Page 14159]]

(13) Unit 6: West Cascades South, Washington.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 6: West Cascades
South, Washington].
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6, West Cascades South, Washington,
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.013

[[Page 14160]]

(14) Unit 7: East Cascades North, Washington and Oregon
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 7: East Cascades
North, Washington and Oregon].
(ii) Note: Maps of Unit 7, East Cascades North, Washington and
Oregon, follow:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.014

[[Page 14161]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.015

[[Page 14162]]

(15) Unit 8: East Cascades South, California and Oregon
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 8: East Cascades
South, California and Oregon].
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 8, East Cascades South, California and
Oregon, follows:
(16) Unit 9: Klamath West, Oregon and California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 9: Klamath West,
Oregon and California].
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 9: Klamath West, Oregon and California,
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.016

[[Page 14163]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.017

[[Page 14164]]

(17) Unit 10: Klamath East, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 10: Klamath East,
California].
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 10: Klamath East, California, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.018

[[Page 14165]]

(18) Unit 11: Interior California Coast, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 11: Interior
California Coast, California].
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 11: Interior California Coast, California,
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR12.019

* * * * *

Dated: February 27, 2012.
Rachel Jacobsen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-5042 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C