[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 140 (Friday, July 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43886-43889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15739]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0074; FXES11140100000-223-FF01E0000]
Barred Owl Management Strategy; Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement; Washington, Oregon, and California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), are developing
a proposed barred owl management strategy (management strategy) to
address the threat of the nonnative, invasive barred owl (Strix varia)
to the native northern and California spotted owls (Strix
occidentalis). Implementation of the management strategy would require
the take of barred owls, which is prohibited under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) unless authorized by a permit or regulation. We
provide this notice to announce our intent to prepare an environmental
impact statement to evaluate the impacts on the human environment
related to the proposed management strategy and associated MBTA take
authorization. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act, we are opening a public scoping comment period to help determine
the scope of issues for analysis and announcing a virtual public
scoping meeting.
DATES: We will accept online or hardcopy comments. Comments submitted
online at https://www.regulations.gov/ must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on August 22, 2022. Hardcopy comments must be received or
postmarked on or before August 22, 2022 (see ADDRESSES).
Virtual Public Scoping Meeting
We will hold a virtual public meeting during the scoping period. To
provide for the attendance of interested parties across the three-State
area without requiring travel to an in-person meeting, and to protect
the public from potential spread of the COVID-19 virus, the public
meeting will be held virtually on July 28, 2022, from 6 to 8 p.m.
Pacific time.
ADDRESSES:
Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
Internet: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0074.
U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing; Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R1-ES-2022-0074; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS:
PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
For additional information about submitting comments, see Public
Scoping Process under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Virtual Public Scoping Meeting: A link and access instructions for
the
[[Page 43887]]
virtual scoping meeting will be posted to https://www.fws.gov/office/oregon-fish-and-wildlife at least 1 week prior to the public meeting
date. Advance registration is not required.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Bown, by telephone at 503-231-
6923, or by email at Robin_Bown@fws.gov. Individuals in the United
States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), are developing a proposed barred owl management strategy
(management strategy) to address the threat the nonnative invasive
barred owl poses to two native owl subspecies in the West, the northern
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and California spotted owl
(Strix occidentalis occidentalis). The management strategy would
involve the reduction of barred owl populations in targeted management
areas in Washington, Oregon, and California. We will prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the effects on the
human environment related to the proposed action, due to the large
scale of the action area across three States and the high level of
public interest in this action.
Background
Barred owls are native to eastern North America. They began to
expand their range around 1900, concurrent with European settlement and
facilitated by the subsequent human-caused changes to the Great Plains
and northern boreal forest. Barred owls arrived in the Pacific
Northwest in the early 1970s, establishing populations in northern
Washington in the early 1980s. They continue to spread southward in the
Cascades and coastal mountains, building dense populations behind the
invasion front.
The barred owl is slightly larger in size than the native spotted
owl of the western forests. While barred owls prefer the same older,
structurally diverse forest type selected by spotted owls, barred owls
will utilize a wider range of forested habitat types than spotted owls,
including wooded urban areas and large tracts of second-growth forests.
In addition, barred owls are generalist predators, eating a much wider
variety of prey items than the specialist spotted owls. Barred owls
consume the same nocturnal arboreal rodents that are the focus of the
spotted owls' diet, and also consume numerous other species, including
other mammals, amphibians, insects, crayfish, and mollusks. Because of
their larger size, adaptability to a wide variety of forested habitats,
and ability to eat a wide variety of prey, barred owls occur in denser
populations, outcompeting and excluding spotted owls from the latter's
preferred habitats.
By 2004, we identified competition from the invasive barred owl as
a primary threat to northern spotted owl populations (USFWS 2004). The
2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011)
recommended that we manage to reduce the negative effects of barred
owls on northern spotted owls (Recovery Action 30) (USFWS 2011). Based
on the recent demographic analysis, northern spotted owl populations in
the northern half of the species' range have dropped by over 75 percent
in two decades and continue to decline at greater than 5 percent per
year (Franklin et al. 2021). Without management of barred owls,
extirpation of northern spotted owls from major portions of their
historic range is likely in the near future.
In recent years, barred owls have penetrated into the range of the
California spotted owl in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, although their
population remains low and scattered at this time (Wood et al. 2020).
While barred owls have not substantially impacted California spotted
owls to date, the history of the invasion and impacts on northern
spotted owls supports the assumption that, unless the barred owl
populations can be managed, barred owls will continue to invade
southward until barred owls threaten the California spotted owl.
In 2013, we initiated the Barred Owl Removal Experiment (Removal
Experiment), implementing Recovery Action 29 for the northern spotted
owl (USFWS 2011) to investigate the effect of barred owl removal on
spotted owl population dynamics. The Removal Experiment, conducted in
four study areas in Washington, Oregon, and California, used paired
treatment areas (barred owl removal) and control areas (no barred owl
removal), in order to test whether barred owl removal could reverse
declining spotted owl population trends in study areas with differing
environmental conditions. The removal of barred owls had a strong,
positive effect on survival of spotted owls and a weaker, though still
positive, effect on spotted owl dispersal and recruitment (Wiens et al.
2021). In the treatment areas where barred owls were removed, spotted
owl populations stabilized. In paired control areas without barred owl
removal, spotted owl populations continued to decline at 12 percent per
year after 3 to 6 years of removal. The Removal Experiment demonstrated
that barred owl removal can be an effective method for the conservation
of spotted owls.
Using information from the recently completed Removal Experiment
and other applicable studies and research findings, the USFWS is
developing a proposed management strategy designed to reduce barred owl
populations to improve the survival and recovery of northern spotted
owls and to prevent declines in California spotted owls resulting from
barred owl competition.
Implementation of a management strategy would involve take of
barred owls. The barred owl is protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 793 et seq.), which prohibits take (as
defined at 50 CFR 10.12) of protected migratory bird species unless
authorized by the USFWS in accordance with the MBTA and implementing
regulations. We propose to obtain authorization under the MBTA to allow
the USFWS and other interested governmental agencies (Federal, State,
or Tribal) to take barred owls as part of implementing the management
strategy. Nongovernmental take may be authorized under an agency's
authorization. Our EIS will evaluate the environmental impacts of the
management strategy and the associated MBTA take authorization, as well
as alternatives to the management strategy, including a no-action
alternative.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of this action is to reduce barred owl populations to
improve the survival and recovery of northern spotted owls and to
prevent declines in California spotted owls from barred owl
competition. Relative to northern spotted owls, the purpose is to stop
or slow spotted owl population declines from barred owls within
selected treatment areas in the short term and increase spotted owl
populations in the intermediate term. Relative to the California
spotted owl, the purpose is to limit the invasion of barred owls into
the range of the subspecies and respond quickly to reduce barred owl
populations that may become established.
The need for this action is to reduce the population of invasive
barred owls within the range of northern and California spotted owls.
Competition from the invasive barred owl is a
[[Page 43888]]
primary cause of the rapid and ongoing decline of northern spotted owl
populations. Due to the rapidity of the decline, it is critical that we
manage invasive barred owl populations to reduce their negative effect
on spotted owls before northern spotted owls are extirpated from large
portions of their native range. In the recent northern spotted owl
demographic analyses, the authors stated, ``Our analyses indicated that
northern spotted owl populations potentially face extirpation if the
negative effects of barred owls are not ameliorated while maintaining
northern spotted owl habitat across their range'' (Franklin et al.
2021). The Recovery Plan also emphasized the need for action in
Recovery Action 30: ``Manage to reduce the negative effects of barred
owls on northern spotted owls so that Recovery Criterion 1 can be
met.'' Recovery Criterion 1 is to provide for a stable or increasing
population trend of spotted owls throughout the range over 10 years.
Therefore, the management strategy needs to provide for rapid
implementation and result in swift reduction in barred owl competition.
California spotted owls face a similar risk from barred owl
competition as barred owl populations continue to expand southward.
While California spotted owls have not yet experienced substantial
declines as a result of barred owl competition, the southward invasion
of the barred owl has reached their range, and future impacts to
California spotted owl populations are expected to be inevitable
without barred owl management. Invasive species are very difficult to
remove once established. Therefore, the management strategy needs to
focus on limiting the invasion of barred owls into the California
spotted owl range. If barred owl populations do become established, the
management strategy needs to provide for early intervention to prevent
adverse effects of barred owls on California spotted owl populations.
Preliminary Proposed Action and Alternatives
The proposed action is to finalize and implement a management
strategy, including any necessary MBTA take authorization, to reduce
barred owl populations to improve the survival and recovery of northern
spotted owls and prevent declines in California spotted owls from
barred owl competition. The management strategy will identify high-
priority areas for barred owl management at both regional and local
scales and for both the short and intermediate term. The scope and
scale of barred owl management in each region or physiographic province
would vary based on the current condition of the barred and spotted owl
populations, availability of access, ownership patterns, and risk
factors such as wildfire. The USFWS will evaluate all methods for
removing barred owls from management areas, including lethal removal,
which has been shown to be effective in situations where a rapid
response is crucial.
The USFWS will prepare a draft EIS (DEIS) that will include a
reasonable range of alternatives, which may include, but are not
limited to, variations in the identification of high priority
management sites, areas of concern, and specific mapped areas;
protocols for the selection of management areas; and methods for
managing barred owls in selected areas. All action alternatives will
include monitoring of spotted and barred owls on management areas, and
an adaptive management component to provide for minor modifications as
new information becomes available.
Additionally, a No Action Alternative will be evaluated. Under the
No Action Alternative, a management strategy would not be selected, and
no MBTA take authorization would be provided to implement the
management strategy. The No Action Alternative, if selected, would not
preclude the USFWS or other entities from seeking to undertake barred
owl management, including lethal removal. Any such management, if it
required take of barred owls, would also require MBTA take
authorization. The USFWS would evaluate such proposals on a case-by-
case basis, including evaluation under NEPA as appropriate to the
circumstances.
Summary of Expected Impacts
The DEIS will identify and describe the effects of the proposed
Federal action on the human environment that are reasonably
foreseeable, including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. This
includes effects that occur at the same time and place as the proposed
action or alternatives and effects that are later in time or farther
removed in distance from the proposed action or alternatives. Based on
previous analyses related to the Barred Owl Removal Experiment (USFWS
2013), the anticipated impacts may include, but are not limited to,
beneficial and adverse impacts to spotted owls, barred owls, other
biological resources, land use, recreation and visitor use, historical
and cultural resources, and socioeconomics. Beneficial impacts to
spotted owls and localized adverse impacts to barred owls are expected,
as these are the focus of the management strategy. Beneficial impacts
to other biological resources, specifically to species that are prey
for, or competitors with, barred owls may occur in localized areas
where barred owl populations are reduced. Minimal localized,
beneficial, and/or adverse impacts to recreation and visitor use, and
to historical and cultural resources, may occur in areas where barred
owl populations are reduced. Impacts to land use and socioeconomics may
occur through application of applicable law, including local and State
regulations. These and other impacts of the proposed action and
alternatives will be analyzed in the DEIS (see 40 U.S.C. 4332; 40 CFR
1508.1(g) and 1502.16). The analysis will consider the adequacy of each
alternative to meet the purpose and need, in light of the expected
effects and other best available information.
Anticipated Permits and Authorizations
Anticipated permits, consultations, or other authorizations related
to implementation of the management strategy and issuance of MBTA take
authorization may include, but may not be limited to:
ESA Section 7 consultation;
State take permits;
Government-to-government consultations with Tribes; and
Consultation regarding effects of the action pursuant to
the National Historic Preservation Act.
Schedule for the Decision-Making Process
Following scoping, the USFWS will prepare the DEIS and publish a
notice of availability and request for public comments on the DEIS in
the Federal Register. The USFWS expects to make the DEIS available to
the public for comment by the fall of 2022. After public review and
comment, the USFWS will evaluate comments received and complete a final
EIS (FEIS). After preparation of the FEIS, the USFWS will prepare a
record of decision pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.2 within the applicable
timeframes described at 40 CFR 1506.11.
Public Scoping Process
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides
the development of the EIS.
Virtual Public Meeting
A public scoping meeting will be conducted online. See DATES and
ADDRESSES for the date, time, and connection information for the
virtual public scoping meeting. During the meeting, the USFWS will
present information about the management strategy and MBTA take
authorization
[[Page 43889]]
and provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions about the
proposed action to inform written scoping comments. No opportunity for
oral scoping comments will be provided. Written comments may be
submitted by either one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES.
Reasonable Accommodations
Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to participate
in the virtual public scoping meeting should contact the USFWS's Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later
than 1 week before the meeting. Information regarding this proposed
action is available in alternative formats upon request.
Request for Identification of Potential Alternatives, Information, and
Analyses Relevant to the Proposed Action
We request written comments on the proposed action, including
comments concerning the appropriate scope of the analysis and
identification of relevant information, studies, and analyses, from the
public; affected Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments,
agencies, and offices; the scientific community; industry; or any other
interested party. We will consider these comments in developing the
DEIS. Specifically, we seek comments on:
1. Biological information, analysis and relevant data concerning
the spotted owl, barred owl, and their interactions;
2. Components of the barred owl strategy, including but not limited
to:
a. Criteria and approaches for selecting management areas;
b. Locations where barred owl management should be focused or where
management should be avoided; and
c. Specific techniques for removal of barred owls or reduction in
barred owl populations;
3. Potential effects that the proposed action could have on
endangered or threatened species, and their associated ecological
communities or habitats;
4. Potential effects that the proposed action could have on other
species and their habitats;
5. Potential effects that the proposed action could have on other
aspects of the human environment, including ecological, aesthetic,
historic, cultural, economic, social, environmental justice, or health
effects;
6. The presence of historic and cultural properties--including
archaeological sites, buildings, and structures; historic events;
sacred and traditional areas; and other historic preservation
concerns--in the proposed permit area, which are required to be
considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation
Act;
7. Possible reasonable alternatives to meet the purpose and need
that USFWS should consider,
8. Information on other current or planned activities in the range
of the northern and California spotted owls that may interact with, or
impact, spotted and barred owls, including any connected actions that
are closely related to the proposed action; and
9. Other information relevant to the proposed management strategy
and MBTA take authorization, and its impacts on the human environment.
Public Availability of Comments
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods
listed in ADDRESSES. Comments received in response to this solicitation
will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Before
including your address, phone number, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made
publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, will be made publicly available in their entirety. Comments
submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The USFWS is the lead agency for the NEPA process. The following
agencies are cooperating agencies in the NEPA process: U.S. Forest
Service (Regions 5 and 6), Bureau of Land Management (Oregon), National
Park Service (Interior Regions 8, 9, 10, 12), the Hoh Tribe, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The USFWS
welcomes inquiries from other Federal, State, or Tribal agencies
potentially interested in being a cooperating agency for the NEPA
process.
Decision Maker and Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision maker is the USFWS Regional Director of the Pacific
Region. The decision to be made is whether to implement a management
strategy and authorize the take of barred owls under the MBTA to
implement the selected management strategy as needed, or to select the
No Action Alternative and not implement a management strategy and
associated MBTA take authorization.
Literature Cited
Franklin, A.B., et al. 2021. Range-wide declines of northern spotted
owl populations in the Pacific Northwest: A meta-analysis.
Biological Conservation, Vol. 259 (2021) 109168. 21 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Northern spotted owl:
Five Year Review Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Revised Recovery Plan
for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Wiens, J.D., et al. 2021. Invader removal triggers competitive
release in a threatened avian predator. PNAS, Vol. 118, No. 31,
e2102859118 (2021); https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2102859118.
Wood, C.M., R.J. Guti[eacute]rrez, J.J. Keane, and M.Z. Peery. 2020.
Early detection of rapid Barred Owl population growth within the
range of the California Spotted Owl advises the Precautionary
Principle. The Condor, Volume 122, pp. 1-10.
Authority
We provide this notice in accordance with the NEPA regulations
found at 40 CFR 1501.9(d).
Nanette Seto,
Acting Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-15739 Filed 7-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P