![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29886-29908]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my06-31]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding
for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis
occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the California spotted owl
(Strix occidentalis occidentalis) under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. After reviewing the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that the petitioned action is not
warranted. However, we will continue to seek new information
[[Page 29887]]
on the biology of the species as well as potential threats. We ask the
public to submit to us any new information that becomes available
concerning the status of, or threats to, the species. This information
will help us monitor the status of this species.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on May 15, 2006.
You may submit new information concerning this species for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: You may send data, information, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor (Attn: CALIFORNIA
SPOTTED OWL), Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825
or via fax at 916/414-6710. You may inspect the petition,
administrative finding, supporting information, and comments received
during normal business hours by appointment at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Roessler or Jan Knight at the
above address (telephone: 916/414-6600; fax: 916/414-6712).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition
to revise the List of Threatened and Endangered Species that contains
substantial scientific and commercial information that the petitioned
action may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date
of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is: (a)
Not warranted, or (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but that the
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action
is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether any
species is threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being
made to add or remove qualified species from the List of Threatened and
Endangered Species. Such 12-month findings are to be published promptly
in the Federal Register. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a
petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but
precluded shall be treated as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, i.e., requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months.
On April 3, 2000, we received a petition to list the California
spotted owl (spotted owl) as a threatened or endangered species
submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Nevada
Forest Protection Campaign (Center for Biological Diversity 2000), on
behalf of themselves and 14 other organizations. Along with listing,
the petition also requested the concurrent designation of critical
habitat, emergency listing, and emergency designation of critical
habitat. On October 12, 2000, we published a 90-day finding on that
petition in the Federal Register (65 FR 60605). In that notice, we
found that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that listing the California spotted owl may be
warranted, and we initiated a status review of the taxon. On February
14, 2003, we published a 12-month finding on the petition in the
Federal Register (68 FR 7580). In that notice, we found that the
petitioned action was not warranted because the overall magnitude of
threats to the species did not rise to the level requiring protection
under the Act.
On May 11, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity and five other
groups filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the Northern
District of California (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v.
Norton et al., No. C-04-1861) alleging that our 12-month finding
violated the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 706).
On September 1, 2004, we received an updated petition, dated September
2004, to list the California spotted owl as a threatened or endangered
species and to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing
based, in part, on information that was not available to us at the time
we made our original 12-month finding (Center for Biological Diversity
2004). The updated petition was submitted by the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, acting on
behalf of themselves and six other organizations. The submission
clearly identified itself as a petition, and included the requisite
identification information of the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR
424.14(a).
In view of the new petition, on March 8, 2005, the District Court
in Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton issued an Order to Show
Cause why it should not stay the litigation pending the Service's
action on the new petition. In response to that Order, on March 14,
2005, we submitted a declaration to the Court stating that: (1) We
could submit for publication in the Federal Register a 90-day finding
on the new petition by June 13, 2005, and (2) if we found that the
information presented in the petition was substantial, we could submit
for publication in the Federal Register a 12-month finding by March 14,
2006. At a hearing on March 17, 2005, the Court stayed the case for 90
days, directed us to report to the Court and the parties concerning the
status of our review of the petition by June 13, 2005, and continued
the hearing on pending cross-motions for summary judgment to June 23,
2005. On April 4, 2005, the Court concurred with the parties' requests
to continue the hearing date until June 30, 2005, and to allow the
Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Defendants (American Forest and Paper
Association, California Forestry Association, and Sierra Pacific
Industries) until June 23, 2005, to file any responses to our June 13,
2005, filing. On June 13, 2005, we submitted our 90-day finding to the
Federal Register, which published the finding on June 21, 2005 (70 FR
35607). In that finding, we found that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that
listing the California spotted owl may be warranted, we initiated a
status review of the taxon, and we solicited comments and information
to be provided in connection with the status review by August 22, 2005.
In light of the June 21, 2005, finding and pursuant to a joint
stipulation of dismissal by the parties to the litigation, the Court
dismissed the above case on July 25, 2005.
On October 14, 2005, we published in the Federal Register a notice
reopening the public comment period through October 28, 2005 (70 FR
60051). On February 14, 2006, we filed with the Court our intention to
deliver the 12-month finding to the Federal Register by May 15, 2006,
to enable us to incorporate results from the most recent meta-analysis
of California spotted owls that was delivered to us on February 21, 2006.
The Petition
The 2004 petition (Center for Biological Diversity 2004) states
that historical and recent wildfires, historical logging, drought,
diseases, insect pests, and other factors resulted in habitat loss and
fragmentation, which negatively affected spotted owl numbers,
distribution, and dispersal. The petition describes how fuels build-up
and changes in forest structure have put some stands at increased risk
of stand-replacing fire, and that increased risk is considered a threat
to existing owl pairs across the range of the California spotted owl.
The petition cites results from the meta-analysis of population
dynamics of California spotted owls up through 2000 (Franklin et al.
2004) as evidence that spotted owl populations are declining and that
management of forests may be a cause of these declines. The petition
[[Page 29888]]
claims that we did not adequately address reported declines in our 2003
12-month finding (68 FR 7580) due to our heavy reliance on lambda (the
finite rate of population change), 95-percent confidence intervals, and
uncertainty.
The petition contends that the SNFPA (USFS 2004a) does not
adequately protect large trees, high canopy closure, multiple-canopy
layers, snags, and downed wood, that it does not provide limits on the
proportion of areas that can be degraded through logging, and that it
allows for treatment in more spotted owl Protected Activity Centers
than does the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (USFS 2001). The petition
further states that logging under the SNFPA both within and outside of
the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot
Project area threatens to further degrade and destroy California
spotted owl habitat. The petition states that timber harvest on private
lands threatens to further degrade and destroy spotted owl habitat,
resulting in continued declines in numbers of spotted owls. The
petition also states that the California State Forest Practices Code
provides almost no specific protections for the spotted owl or its habitat.
The petition states that development on private lands in the Sierra
Nevada and southern California presents a significant threat to the
California spotted owl, particularly in low elevation riparian hardwood
habitats. The petitioners further expressed concern that development in
southern California could prevent dispersal between spotted owl
populations in southern California, as mountain ranges occupied by
spotted owls probably act as habitat islands with limited dispersal
between them.
The petition states that recreation potentially affects spotted
owls in several ways, including noise disturbance, construction of
roads and trails, and expansion of ski resorts. The petition also
states that grazing is likely to indirectly affect the owl by reducing
or eliminating riparian vegetation, altering forest structure and fire
regimes, and reducing prey density. The petition expresses concern that
West Nile Virus presents a serious potential threat to California
spotted owls, and recommends that its effects on spotted owls be
monitored closely. The petition mentions concern that weather poses a
threat to California spotted owls, and that threats from hybridization
and site competition with the barred owl (Strix varia) have increased
in recent years.
In this finding, we re-analyzed issues raised in the 2000 petition
(Center for Biological Diversity 2000) and included a new analysis of
concerns presented for the first time in the 2004 petition (Center for
Biological Diversity 2004). In our 90-day finding of June 21, 2005 (70
FR 35607), we briefly analyzed the concerns as described in the
petition. We stated that five changes that had taken place since our
2003 finding constituted substantial information that may affect the
status and distribution of the California spotted owl or change our
understanding of possible declines in California spotted owl
populations and thus justified further detailed analysis in a status
review and 12-month finding. These changes were: (1) Revisions to the
2001 SNFPA (USFS 2001) in the 2004 SNFPA (USFS 2004a); (2) revisions to
the California State Forest Practices Code; (3) possible changes to the
draft meta-analysis of the population dynamics of the California
spotted owl in the final, published meta-analysis (Franklin et al.
2004); (4) impacts of recent fires and anticipated future fires in
spotted owl habitat; and (5) further range expansion of the barred owl.
In this finding, we analyze these five changes, other concerns
expressed in the petition, and other pertinent information relative to
whether the California spotted owl should be listed. Specific concerns
included in the petition are noted and addressed under each of the
factors presented below.
Taxonomy and Description
A summary of taxonomy and description of the California spotted owl
can be found in the 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580) and is hereby
incorporated by reference (68 FR 7580).
Genetics
A discussion of population genetics of the California spotted owl
can be found in the 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580) and is hereby
incorporated by reference (68 FR 7580). Subsequent studies analyzing
mtDNA sequences (Haig et al. 2004; Chi et al. 2005; Barrowclough et al.
2005) and microsatellites (Henke 2005) confirmed the validity of the
current subspecies designations for northern (Sq. o. caurina) and
California spotted owls.
Life History
Spotted owls in conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada, especially
above mid-elevation mixed-conifer forests located at about 4,000 to
5,000 feet (ft)) (1,200 to 1,525 meters (m)), feed primarily on
northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) (Verner et al. 1992b).
Spotted owls in the mid-to lower elevations of the mixed-conifer zone
and the upper elevations of the ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)/
hardwood belt of the Sierras prey primarily on both flying squirrels
and dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) (Verner et al. 1992b),
while spotted owls in southern California feed mostly on woodrats
(Thrailkill and Bias 1989). Flying squirrels typically use older mature
forests because they provide suitable nest sites, including snags, and
abundant sources of food including arboreal lichens and truffles, which
are associated with an abundance of soil organic matter and decaying
logs (Verner et al. 1992b). In second-growth forests in Oregon,
northern flying squirrels were found in younger forests if large snags
and downed logs remained from earlier stands (Carey and Peeler 1995).
Woodrats and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) accounted for 29 and 16
percent, respectively, of the total prey items in one study in an
industrially managed forest in the Sierra Nevada (Clark 2002).
According to Verner et al. (1992b:69), ``spotted owls in the Sierran
foothills and throughout southern California, even at high elevations,
obtain 79 to 97 percent of their energy from woodrats.'' Woodrats are
most abundant in younger forest and in shrubby habitats and are
uncommon in pure conifer forests or forests with little shrub
understory (Williams et al. 1992; Ward et al. 1998).
A more-complete discussion of California spotted owl life history
characteristics including dispersal, reproduction, interactions with
other species, and food habits can be found in the 2003 12-month
finding (68 FR 7580) and is hereby incorporated by reference.
Distribution and Range
A discussion of range and distribution can be found in the 2003 12-
month finding for the California spotted owl (68 FR 7580) and is hereby
incorporated by reference. Since publication of the 2003 finding,
Gutierrez and Barrowclough (2005:185) noted that the range descriptions
of the northern and California spotted owl subspecies in American
Ornithologists' Union (1957) did not include the area between Mt.
Shasta and Mt. Lassen because spotted owls were not known to occur in
that area at that time, and that ``the geographic scope of the listing
was correct'' to use the Pit River as the boundary between the two
subspecies. Also since the publication of the 2003 finding, we gathered
information concerning records of spotted owls in Baja California,
Mexico. In 1887, A.W. Anthony reported seeing a spotted owl in the
Sierra San Pedro Martir of northern Baja California, Mexico (Bryant
1889), and, a few years later, may have had a second sighting in the
same area (Anthony 1893). Wilbur (1987) stated
[[Page 29889]]
that the only other records of spotted owls in Baja California were from
the La Grulla area, also in northern Baja California, in 1925 and 1972.
Numbers and Connectivity
There are no reliable total population estimates for the California
spotted owl. The number of California spotted owl territories has been
used as an index to illustrate the range of the species and
jurisdictions in which it occurs. This number is actually a cumulative
total of all territories known to be historically or currently occupied
by at least one spotted owl. This total increases over time as spotted
owls move to new territories and as researchers survey new areas, even
though many territories with sufficient suitable habitat may not be
occupied in years following their initial discovery and some
territories may no longer have sufficient suitable habitat to support
spotted owls due to logging or fires. Thus, the number of territories
should not be viewed as a population estimate for the taxon.
A total of 2,306 California spotted owl territories has been
documented, 1,865 (81 percent) of which are in the Sierras (Service
2002). National forests in the Sierras contain a total of 1,399
territories: Modoc (3), Lassen (138), Plumas (254), Tahoe (173), Lake
Tahoe Basin Management Unit (14), El Dorado (202), Stanislaus (234),
Humboldt-Toiyabe (2), Inyo (5), Sierra (226), and Sequoia (148).
National parks in the Sierras have 129 territories: Lassen Volcanic
(6), Sequoia/Kings Canyon (69), and Yosemite (54). Fourteen territories
in the Sierras are on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in the
Sierra Nevada, four are on California State Lands Commission Land,
three are in State Parks, one is on California Department of Forestry
(CDF) land, one is on Native American land, and 314 are on private
lands (Service 2002).
Estimates for total number of spotted owl territories in southern
California include 440 (Service 2002), 547 (Verner et al. 1994a), and
578 (Beck and Gould 1992). In southern California, spotted owls occupy
``islands'' of high-elevation forests separated by lowlands of
chaparral, desert scrub, and, increasingly, human development (Noon and
McKelvey 1992, LaHaye et al. 1994). The islands comprise 15-20
populations with 3-270 individuals per population. Islands are
separated from each other by 10-72 kilometers (km) (6 to 45 miles (mi))
(Verner et al. 1992a, Guti[eacute]rrez 1994, LaHaye et al. 1994). These
populations appear to be isolated from one another; no inter-mountain
movements were documented for any of the 478 juvenile California
spotted owls banded in the San Bernardino Mountains (LaHaye et al.
2001). Using our most-recent estimate of 440 total territories for
southern California, the known territories on national forests are as
follows: 109 on the Los Padres, 64 on the Angeles, 138 on the San
Bernardino, and 18 on the Cleveland (Service 2002). There are two
territories known on BLM land, eight on State park lands, six on Native
American lands, and 95 on private lands. In addition, there is one
known territory in Mexico (Service 2002). These 441 territories in
southern California and Mexico comprise 19 percent of the total 2,306
California spotted owl territories.
Since publication of the 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580), we
obtained additional information regarding spotted owl numbers on
private lands in the Sierras. Six timber companies (W.M. Beaty and
Associates, Inc.; Collins Pine Company; Fruit Growers Supply Co.;
Roseburg Resources Co.; Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI); Soper-Wheeler
Co.) own or manage the vast majority of California spotted owl habitat
in private lands in the Sierra Nevada. SPI lands include more than 200
California spotted owl territories (Steve Self, SPI, in litt. 2005).
There are 36 records of nest sites within 4.8 km (3 mi) of W.M. Beaty-
managed lands, and three nest sites either on or immediately adjacent
to W.M. Beaty-managed lands (Bob Carey, W.M. Beaty, in litt. 2005).
There are no known spotted owl territory-centers or nests on lands
owned by Fruit Growers (John Eaker, Fruit Growers, in litt. 2006).
(spotted owl territory-centers are typically the locations of nest
trees, but if that information is unavailable, they can be the
locations where fledgling owls were found, locations where a pair was
detected, or locations where a single owl was detected) There are 40
spotted owl territory-centers situated either on or within 1.6 km (1
mi) of the land owned by Soper-Wheeler (Paul Violett, Soper-Wheeler, in
litt. 2006). There are no known California spotted owl territory-
centers or nests on lands owned by Collins Pine, and there are fewer
than 10 territory-centers or nests immediately adjacent to their lands
on national forest land (Jay Francis, Collins Pine, in litt. 2006).
There are no known California spotted owl territory-centers or nests on
Roseburg Resources lands, but there are four territory-centers or nests
within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of their boundaries (Rich Klug, Roseburg, in
litt. 2006).
Habitat Use
Suitable habitat for spotted owls includes nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitats. Nesting and roosting habitat of spotted owls
typically includes many large trees (e.g., Call 1990; Zabel et al.
1992a, b; Moen and Guti[eacute]rrez 1997; North et al. 2000; USFS
2001a). For example, mean (± standard deviation) diameter at
breast height (dbh) of the nest trees in Guti[eacute]rrez et al. (1992)
were: 115.6 ± 37.3 cm (45.5 ± 14.7 in) (sample
size = 81) in northern Sierran conifer forests; 118.6 ± 49.8
cm (46.7 ± 19.6 in.) (sample size = 41) in southern Sierran
conifer forests; 94.0 ± 35.3 cm (37.0 ± 13.9 in.)
(sample size = 139) in southern California conifer forests; and 74.9
± 42.2 cm (29.5 ± 16.6 in.) (sample size = 13) in
riparian/hardwood forests. They found that the ``dbh of nest trees in
our current sample was significantly greater than that of conifers in
the Sierra Nevada even in 1900'' (Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1992:92;
emphasis in text). Mean diameters of nest trees in Blakesley (2003)
were 117 ± 0.29 cm (46.1 ± 0.1 in.) (sample size
= 132). Basal areas of nesting and roosting sites have been shown to be
greater than those in random sites in the Sierras and in southern
California (Bias 1989 in Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1992; Laymon 1988 in
Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1992; LaHaye et al. 1997). Spotted owls nest in
a variety of species of live trees and snags in pre-existing structures
including cavities, broken top trees, and platforms such as mistletoe
brooms, debris platforms and old raptor or squirrel nests; therefore
nesting habitat includes more large live, decadent, and dead trees than
do forests not used for nesting (Laymon 1988; Call 1990; Bias and
Guti[eacute]rrez 1992; Guti[eacute]rrez et al. 1992, 1995; LaHaye et
al. 1997).
High amounts of canopy closure and structural diversity (multi-
layered canopy) are typical of nesting and roosting stands used by
spotted owls in the Sierras and in southern California (e.g., Laymon
1988; Call et al. 1992; LaHaye et al. 1992, 1997; Zabel et al. 1992a;
Moen and Guti[eacute]rrez 1997; North et al. 2000; Seamans 2005).
Nesting and roosting stands often have mean canopy closures of greater
than 75 percent (Bias and Guti[eacute]rrez 1992; Guti[eacute]rrez et
al. 1992). Verner et al. (1992b:60; emphasis in text) summarized:
``Habitats used for nesting typically have greater than 70 percent
total canopy cover (all canopy above 7 feet [2.1 m]), except at very
high elevations where canopy cover as low as 30-40 percent may occur
(as in some red fir stands of the Sierra Nevada). Nest stands typically
exhibit a mixture of tree sizes and usually at least two canopy layers,
with some very large, old trees usually present. * * * Stands used for
roosting are similar to those used for nesting, with relatively high canopy
[[Page 29890]]
cover, dominated by older trees with large diameters, and with at least
two canopy layers * * *''
Spotted owls forage in forests with ample open flying space within
and beneath the canopy, so extremely dense stands typically are not
used for foraging (Verner et al. 1992b; Gutierrez et al. 1995). Verner
et al. (1992b:60) summarized: ``Foraging habitats include suitable
nesting and roosting sites as well as more open stands, regularly down
to 40-50 percent canopy cover, that are generally similar in structure
and composition to nesting and roosting habitat.'' Foraging habitat in
conifer forests is enhanced by the presence of hardwoods, and foraging
habitat at lower elevations in the Sierras and in southern California
tend to have less downed woody debris and be less multi-layered (Verner
et al. 1992b).
In the study area with largest sample sizes in Zabel et al.
(1992a), 24 spotted owls during the breeding season spent 69 percent of
their time in forests with 40-69 percent canopy closure and 22 percent
of their time in forests with greater than 70 percent canopy closure.
During the non-breeding season, 18 spotted owls spent 64 percent of
their time in suitable-habitat forests with 40-69 percent canopy
closure and 22 percent of their time in forests with greater than 70
percent canopy closure (Zabel et al. 1992a). California spotted owls
avoid open areas (0-30 percent canopy cover; Gutierrez et al. 1992) and
recently logged forests (Call 1990; Zabel et al. 1992b; Gutierrez and
Pritchard 1990). As previously mentioned, suitable habitat includes
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. In light of the typical canopy
cover in these habitats (>70 percent for nesting/roosting and >40
percent for foraging), 40 percent canopy cover is a minimum threshold
for suitable habitat. Other studies also support this 40-percent
canopy-cover threshold for suitable habitat (e.g., Call et al. 1992;
Verner et al. 1992b; Zabel et al. 1992; Moen and Gutierrez 1997).
The Forest Service defines spotted owl habitat by using California
Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) classes. In the CWHR system, tree-
dominated habitats are classified relative to six tree size classes and
four canopy-closure classes. Size class 1 (seedling tree) areas are
comprised of trees less than 2.5 cm (1 in.) dbh, size class 2 (sapling
tree) areas are of trees 2.5-15 cm (1-6 in.) dbh, size class 3 (pole
tree) stands are of trees 15-28 cm (6-11 in.) dbh, size class 4 (small
tree) stands are of trees 28-61 cm (11-24 in.) dbh, sizes class 5
(medium/large tree) stands are of trees greater than 61 cm (24 in.)
dbh, and size class 6 (multi-layered tree) stands have class 5 trees
over a distinct layer of class 4 or 3 trees and have more than 60
percent canopy closure (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Canopy-closure
classes are: S (sparse; 10-24 percent closure), P (open; 25-39 percent
closure), M (moderate; 40-59 percent closure), and D (dense; 60-100
percent closure) (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). The Forest Service
considers suitable California spotted owl habitat as forest stands
represented by CWHR classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 (Mayer and
Laudenslayer 1988) in mixed conifer, red fir, ponderosa pine/hardwood,
foothill riparian/hardwood, and east-side pine forests, and considers
nesting habitat as forest stands represented by CWHR classes 5M (with
at least 50 percent canopy closure), 5D, and 6 (USFS 2004a). The
Service agrees with this classification depending on the structural
condition of 4M and 4D stands. For a complete description of habitat
use and home range of California spotted owls, see our 2003 12-month
finding (70 FR 35607) and Service (2006), both of which are hereby
incorporated by reference. We supplement information in that finding
with the following discussion of habitat use by spotted owls.
Habitat modeling of northern spotted owls in California (Franklin
et al. 2000) and Oregon (Olson et al. 2004) showed that survival was
maximized when northern spotted owl territories included large blocks
of mid- and late-seral forests with some edge, but that fecundity was
maximized with small blocks of northern spotted owl habitat and large
amounts of edge between spotted owl habitat and other habitats. This
difference was due, presumably, to the presence of woodrat prey in
brushy clearcuts and forest edges (Franklin et al. 2000; Olson et al.
2004). Conversely, population analysis of California spotted owls in
the central Sierra Nevada with habitat covariates at the territory
scale indicated there was no relationship between fecundity and habitat
heterogeneity (Seamans 2005). However, survival rate and territory
occupancy in that study were positively related to the amount of mid-
and late-seral forests (Seamans 2005). Further, it was estimated that
reproductive output was strongly influenced by weather, and it was
hypothesized that reproductive output by California spotted owls at an
individual territory was conditional on the territory being occupied
during years when weather conditions were conducive to successful
reproduction (Seamans 2005). Reproduction of spotted owls in the
southern Sierra Nevada increased with canopy closure because more pairs
successfully nested, not due to the production of more young per pair
(Lee and Irwin 2005; Lee in litt. 2005). This increase in canopy
closure appeared to be more of a minimum threshold requirement than a
trend, with only marginal increases in spotted owl reproduction as
canopy closure increased past the minimum. The minimum appeared to
require that at least 44 percent of the 430-ha (1,063-ac) immediately
surrounding the territory-center was forest with greater than 40
percent canopy cover. Once this minimum was met, the relative amount of
forests with intermediate (40-70 percent) and dense (greater than 70
percent) canopy cover had little measurable effect on reproduction of
spotted owls. These findings were conditional on having a suitable nest
tree in the stand and are, therefore, not applicable to fire-suppressed
stands with heavy ladder fuels in which such trees would be lost in a
fire (Lee and Irwin 2005; Lee in litt. 2005).
Additional information concerning habitat use and home range of
California spotted owls can be found in our 2005 90-day finding (70 FR
35607) which is incorporated by reference.
Habitat Condition
Changes to Habitat
Our 2003 12-month finding (70 FR 35607) included a lengthy
discussion of historic changes to California spotted owl habitat which
is hereby incorporated by reference. Below, we supplement that discussion
with additional information related to wildfires and timber harvest.
The petition states that historic and recent wildfires, as well as
more than 100 years of logging in the Sierras, resulted in habitat loss
and fragmentation, which negatively affected spotted owl numbers,
distribution, and dispersal (Center for Biological Diversity 2004).
Suppression of wildland fires, established in California as State and
Federal policy by the early 20th century, virtually eliminated forest
fires. Up to the 1990s, it was estimated that only 269 ha (664 ac)
burned annually in the 237,146-ha (586,000-ac) Eldorado National
Forest, whereas approximately 11,736 ha (29,000 ac) burned annually
before European arrival (Weatherspoon et al. 1992). Due to the lack of
frequent fires, many forested areas have grown dense layers of
understory trees and have accumulated large amounts of woody debris on
the forest floor, thereby increasing the chances of high-intensity,
stand-replacing crown fires in the
[[Page 29891]]
Sierras and in the mountains of southern California (Kilgore and Taylor
1979; McKelvey and Weatherspoon 1992; Weatherspoon et al. 1992;
Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). The species composition of these
forests has shifted from fire-hardy species to more shade-tolerant,
fire-sensitive species such as white fir and incense-cedar (Verner et
al. 1992; Weatherspoon et al. 1992). Additionally, in areas throughout
the range of the California spotted owl, trees that are dead or dying
due to disease add to the already dense accumulations of woody debris.
One of the challenges in assessing the effects of fire management in
the habitat of California spotted owls is the need to weigh the long-
term benefits of reducing the risk of catastrophic fires against any
potential short-term effects on the quality or quantity of spotted owl
habitat. In southern California, fire history records since 1910
indicate that the average patch-size of large fires has varied little
over the years, but the occurrence of small fires has increased every
year (Keeley et al. 1999 in USFS 2005a). The total acres burned in the
four national forests of southern California have increased during each
of the last three decades (USFS 2005a).
Selective harvest of merchantable trees in the Sierras--often old-
growth trees--was the norm during the late 1800s through the 1970s,
resulting in the loss of much suitable habitat and the production of
forests with younger average tree ages. From the 1970s onward, clearcut
harvests became increasingly more common, which resulted in patchworks
of spatially heterogeneous forests (McKelvey and Johnston 1992). ``The
mixed-conifer zone of the Sierra Nevada, therefore, has few or no
stands remaining that can be described as natural or pristine''
(McKelvey and Johnston 1992:241). These activities ``undoubtedly
impacted spotted owl habitat, though we cannot determine the extent of
that impact. In general, the proportion of the area supporting conifer
forests appears to have been reasonably static over the last 90 years''
(McKelvey and Johnston 1992:246). From the late 1980s onward, cutting
was increasingly based on salvaging timber damaged or killed by fires
or disease (salvage harvests) (McKelvey and Johnston 1992). Annual
total volume of timber cut in the Sierras decreased from approximately
1.6 to 1.9 billion board feet during the late 1940s to early 1950s to
approximately 1.3 to 1.5 billion board feet from the mid 1950s to the
late 1970s (McKelvey and Johnston 1992:Fig. 11U). Levels of timber
harvest on national forest lands declined sharply after implementation
of the California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines in
1993 (USFS 2001). From 1993 through 2004, annual harvest in national
forests dropped over 80 percent from 450 to 86 million board feet
(mmbf); similarly, annual timber harvest from 1993 to 2004 on private
lands in the Sierras declined 37 percent from about 1 billion board
feet to 632 mmbf (California Board of Equalization 2006). The average
annual harvest from 1993 to 2004 was 188.5 mmbf (California Board of
Equalization 2006). Currently, all cutting of timber in the national
forests in the Sierra Nevada is conducted as part of the implementation
of the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot
Project (Pilot Project) and fire-fuel reductions via the SNFPA (USFS
2004a); the amounts and placements of these harvests, and how they are
anticipated to affect spotted owls, are presented in other sections below.
The petition states that historical logging, drought, diseases,
insects, and other factors have contributed to the loss of habitat for
the isolated populations of spotted owls in southern California (Center
for Biological Diversity 2004). Timber harvest in southern California
was never as extensive as that in the Sierra Nevada. Harvest volume in
Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties was about 10 to 20 times higher
in the 1960s than in the early 1980s, and the decline has continued
since the 1980s (McKelvey and Johnston 1992). Timber harvest in the
four national forests of southern California only occurred during 2
years from 1993 to 2004. In 2001, harvest volume was 1 mmbf, and in
2003, harvest volume was 390,000 board feet (California Board of
Equalization 2006). Harvests in national forests of southern California
in recent years have primarily been salvage and hazard trees along
roads and near administrative sites (Mike Gertsch, USFS, in litt.
2002). In 2005, sales of saw timber in the national forests of southern
California increased to approximately 10 mmbf due to salvage-harvesting
of trees that had died from drought, insects, and fires (Loe in litt.
2006). Similarly, private-land harvests in southern California from
1993 to 2002 averaged only 130,000 bf annually, but increased to 7 mmbf
in 2003 and 1.4 mmbf in 2004 (California Board of Equalization 2006)
due to an increase in salvage-harvesting. Tree mortality and salvage
harvesting likely had some adverse effects on spotted owls in southern
California. The extent of this effect is unknown, but the quantity
harvested is a small fraction of that removed decades earlier (27.4
mmbf was cut in 1963 in southern California alone; McKelvey and
Johnston 1992).
Forest types important to spotted owls in southern California
include lower montane forests and bigcone-Douglas fir stands, which are
patchy in nature and often located within expanses of chaparral. The
Forest Service indicates that stand-replacing fires in southern
California forests are still relatively uncommon; the few fires that
have occurred have either been wind-driven fires in steep terrain or
have spread into forests from lower elevations, most often from
chaparral. However, in the San Bernardino Mountains, stand-replacing
fires resulted in a net loss of 18 percent of the bigcone-Douglas fir
stands between 1938 and 1978. Furthermore, recent history in other
areas suggests that such fires will become more common (USFS 2005a).
Large-scale fires have occurred in spotted owl habitat in recent
years in southern California. For example, in the Los Padres National
Forest, wildfires burned to some extent 42,986 ha (106,220 ac) or 18
percent of California spotted owl habitat since 1989. In the Monterey
Ranger District, where most of the California spotted owl habitat in
Los Padres National Forest is located, 34 percent of 61,625 ha (152,280
ac) of California spotted owl habitat burned to some extent since 1989.
The intensities and effects of these fires on spotted owl habitat are
unknown, but many of these areas probably burned only lightly (Kevin
Cooper, USFS, in litt. 2005). In San Bernardino National Forest, five
spotted owl territories in the San Diego Ranges were completely burned
in 2003, and nine territories in the San Gabriel Mountains were burned
so heavily in 2002 and 2003 that it is doubtful that they can support
spotted owls at this time (USFS 2004b, Steve Loe, USFS, in litt. 2005).
In Cuyamaca State Park, which is located in the Laguna Mountains
adjacent to the Descanso Ranger District of Cleveland National Forest,
the 2003 Cedar Fire completely burned approximately six spotted owl
territories (Kirsten Winter, USFS, in litt. 2005). These 20 territories
that were completely burned during recent years comprise 4.5 percent of
the 440 total territories known for southern California. These fires
had a negative impact on spotted owls, but we anticipate that fuels-
reduction activities in southern California will decrease the frequency
of fires in the future.
Present Habitat in the Sierra Nevada
Approximately 2,024,000 ha (5 million ac) of suitable habitat for
[[Page 29892]]
California spotted owls (defined as CWHR classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6) are
located within national forests in the Sierra Nevada, which is about 43
percent of the area managed under the SNFPA (Tom Efird, USFS, in litt.
2006). Additionally, Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks, Yosemite
National Park, and Lassen Volcanic National Park collectively include
approximately 186,676 ha (461,286 ac) of suitable habitat for spotted
owls (Beck and Gould 1992).
National forests in the Sierra Nevada include approximately 560,000
ha (1.4 million ac) of private land within their administrative
boundaries. Private land inholdings are much greater in extent in the
northern national forests (especially the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe)
than in the southern Sierra Nevada forests. Much of the private land
within the boundary of the Lassen and Plumas national forests is in
contiguous blocks, leaving national forest lands also fairly
contiguous. Most private land on the Tahoe National Forest is in
checkerboard ownership, and the Eldorado National Forest has a combination
of checkerboard ownership and large contiguous blocks of inholdings.
SPI is the largest private landowner in the range of the California
spotted owl. SPI characterizes its timberland based upon an intensive
set of measured inventory plots (1 plot every 1.6 ha (4 ac)) and does
not categorize its inventory directly in terms of CWHR types. SPI owns
433,000 ha (1,070,000 ac) of land within the range of the California
spotted owl, of which 370,000 ha (913,000 ac) are classified by SPI to
be nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat (CWHR 3D, 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and
6), and the remainder is classified as prey-producing, non-forest, or
plantation (Ed Murphy, SPI, in litt. 2006). (The SPI suitable-habitat
class includes the smaller tree-size class CWHR class 3D, unlike the
USFS and the Service.) Data provided by SPI indicate that many areas
considered suitable habitat are of high quality. Of the nesting,
roosting, or foraging habitat, 108,000 ha (267,000 ac) contain ``nest-
site characteristics'' (with approximately 50 trees at least 56 cm dbh
per ha (20 trees at least 22 in. dbh per ac) and a canopy closure at
least 60 percent), and 260,000 ha (642,000 ac) are considered nesting/
roosting habitat (CWHR 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6) (Murphy in litt. 2006). SPI's
``nest-site characteristics'' type is derived from measurements at 38
reproductive northern spotted owl (sample size = 22) and California
spotted owl (sample size = 16) nest sites. During the next 100 years,
SPI estimates that, as their forests mature, habitat with nest-site
characteristics will more than double from 25 to 53 percent of all
California spotted owl habitat on SPI land. Other habitat types will
also change proportionally through time: From 29 to 15 percent for
nesting/roosting habitat (excluding nest-site habitat); from 29 to 13
percent for foraging habitat; and from 12 to 16 percent for prey-
producing habitat (SPI 1999a, b; Murphy in litt. 2006).
W.M. Beaty manages approximately 69,565 ha (171,900 ac) within the
range of the California spotted owl. Of this total, 6,235 ha (15,408
ac) are considered suitable habitat for California spotted owls using
the criteria used in CDF (2005) (quadratic mean diameter (QMD) at least
27.9 cm (11 in) and overstory canopy closure at least 40 percent) and
1,384 ha (3,420 ac) are considered suitable habitat using more-
conservative criteria for northern spotted owls developed by W.M. Beaty
and the Service (QMD at least 30.5 cm (12 in) and overstory canopy
closure at least 50 percent) (Carey in litt. 2005). Fruit Growers owns
approximately 44,515 ha (110,000 ac) acres of forest in the range of
the California spotted owl (Eaker in litt. 2006). Soper-Wheeler owns
approximately 25,900 ha (64,000 ac) of land within the range of the
California spotted owl, of which approximately 15 percent is in what
they define as nesting/roosting habitat (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6), 65
percent is what they define as foraging habitat (CWHR 3S, 3P, 3M, 3D,
4S, 4P, 5S, 5P) and 20 percent is non-habitat (CWHR 2S, 2P, 2M, 2D)
(Ryan McKillop, Soper-Wheeler, in litt. 2006). Within the western
Sierras, approximately 93 percent of the 16,997 ha (42,000 ac) owned by
Soper-Wheeler is timbered (Violett in litt. 2006). Collins Pine owns
approximately 38,040 ha (94,000 ac) in the range of the California
spotted owl, approximately 95 percent of which is timbered (Francis in
litt. 2006). Roseburg Resources has 50,000 to 70,000 timbered acres in
the range of the California spotted owl, but they have not classified
their lands relative to spotted owl habitat (Klug in litt. 2006).
Present Habitat in Southern California
There are approximately 473,473 ha (1,170,000 ac) of general
habitat types where spotted owls were known to reproduce within the
range of spotted owl in southern California and the central Coast
Ranges (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). However, the total amount of
suitable habitat in southern California is likely lower than that
amount because habitat types are a broad generalization of what
California spotted owls actually require for habitat to be suitable
(for example, a minimum canopy cover is a requisite for suitable
habitat, but is not captured in characterization of habitat types). A
discussion of spotted owl habitat in southern California can be found
in the 2003 12-month finding for the California spotted owl (68 FR
7580) and is hereby incorporated by reference.
Population Trends
The petition cites results from the meta-analysis of population
dynamics of California spotted owls up through 2000 (Franklin et al.
2004) as evidence that spotted owl populations are declining and that
management of forests may be a cause of these declines (Center for
Biological Diversity 2004). This meta-analysis analyzed demographic
data of spotted owls on the Lassen (1990 to 2000), Eldorado (1986 to
2000), Sierra (1990 to 2000), and San Bernardino (1987 to 1998)
national forests and in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks (1990
to 2000). The petition claims that we did not adequately address
reported declines in our 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580) due to our
heavy reliance on the finite rate of population change (lambda), 95-
percent confidence intervals, and scientific uncertainty (Center for
Biological Diversity 2004). Our analysis of more-recent data up through
2005 (Blakesley et al. 2006) indicates more-positive trends for spotted
owls in the Sierras and is discussed at length below.
Spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada may have undergone at least three
periods of decline due to: Elimination of prey species by intensive
livestock grazing and burning in the 1800s; logging beginning in the
late 1800s, which removed basic structural elements of spotted owl
habitat; and logging of stands in recent decades that regenerated
following initial entry (Gutierrez 1994). However, causal mechanisms of
negative effects to spotted owls ascribed to the high levels of timber
harvest circa 1990 have been substantially reduced as timber harvest
levels dropped and increased protection measures were instituted in the
mid- and late-1990s.
A discussion of studies concerning population trends of California
spotted owls can be found in the 2003 12-month finding for the
California spotted owl, and that information is incorporated by
reference (68 FR 7580). Early population studies used an analysis
called a ``projection matrix'' to estimate population trend, and many
of these early studies showed declining California spotted owl populations.
[[Page 29893]]
However, projection matrices were determined to bias results of spotted
owl population trends because they do not account for movement of
spotted owls in and out of the population (Franklin et al. 2004). With
the exception of the San Bernardino study area, California spotted owl
study areas were considered ``open,'' (owls moved in and out of the
study areas) and, as stated by Franklin et al. (2004:53), ``we do not
expect [traditional projection matrices]
to yield useful inferences for
geographically open systems.'' Thus, we place greater weight on results
of more recent meta-analyses (Franklin et al. 2004; Blakesley et al.
2006), which estimated growth rates for each study area using the
``Pradel'' method, than on methods that employed the projection matrix.
The Pradel method avoids potential biases that cause uncertainty in
estimating population trend using the projection matrix because it
incorporates emigration and immigration rates (Franklin et al. 2004).
In our 2003 finding, we included a discussion of the results of a meta-
analysis using the Pradel method for five California spotted owls
demographic study areas--Lassen (LAS), Eldorado (ELD), Sierra (SIE),
Sequoia/Kings Canyon (SKC), and San Bernardino (SAB)--using a draft
manuscript of data that was collected from 1990 to 2000 for the ELD,
SIE, and SKC study areas, and from 1990-1998 for the SAB study area
(later published in Franklin et al. 2004).
A more-recent draft meta-analysis report was submitted to the
Service on February 21, 2006 (Blakesley et al. 2006) for data collected
from 1990 to 2005 in four study areas in the Sierras. The San
Bernardino study area was not included in this report because there
were no survey data after 1998. This new meta-analysis used methods
that were very similar to those used in Franklin et al. (2004), but
incorporated many improvements; methods used in this new meta-analysis
are described in Blakesley et al. (2006). At the request of the
Service, this new analysis also included population viability analyses
(PVAs). Overall, results of the new meta-analysis (Blakesley et al. 2006)
reported more positive indications of population trends for the spotted
owls of the Sierra than did the older analysis, as summarized below.
In the meta-analysis of all four study areas, survival rates of
adult spotted owls (territorial owls at least 3 years old) were
estimated to have increased through time (Blakesley et al. 2006). This
result is important because ``spotted owl population growth is most
sensitive to changes in adult survival'' (Blakesley et al. 2006:27).
Analysis of reproductive output on individual study areas showed
varying degrees of an even-odd year effect (with good reproduction in
even years, poor reproduction in odd years) for the four study areas.
As with the earlier meta-analysis, lambda, or the finite rate of
population change, was calculated as an annual estimate to determine if
the population increased, decreased, or remained stationary. In the
earlier meta-analysis (Franklin et al. 2004), lambda for LAS showed no
trend (was stationary), lambda for SKC decreased and then increased
over time, and lambdas for ELD and SIE decreased through time, with
that of the ELD being especially steep. With the additional years' data
included in the new meta-analysis, no strong evidence was found for
decreasing linear trends in lambda on any of the study areas. Lambda
for SKC decreased then increased over time, lambdas for LAS and SIE
were relatively stationary, and lambda for the ELD showed decreases
through the 1999 time period, and then subsequent increases (Blakesley
et al. 2006).
Mean lambdas estimated for the ELD (1.007) and SKC (1.006) were
greater than 1.0, indicating possible increasing populations, the mean
lambda estimated for the SIE (0.992) was nearly 1.0, indicating a
possible stationary population, and the mean lambda estimated for LAS
(0.973) was less than 1.0, indicating a possible declining population.
Because these values for lambdas were estimates (it is not possible to
calculate the exact value), confidence intervals were calculated to
provide an understanding of how close the estimated mean was to the
true mean. For example, if a 95-percent confidence interval for an
estimated mean lambda of 0.98 was between 0.96 and 1.02, this would
tell us that even though our estimated mean lambda was 0.98, we are 95
percent confident that the true lambda is between 0.96 and 1.02. In
this example, the confidence interval included 1.0, which means we are
95 percent confident that the true lambda is not statistically
different from a stationary population. In the meta-analysis results,
the 95-percent confidence intervals for estimates of mean lambda for
all four study areas in the Sierras included 1.0, indicating that
statistically the populations were not different from stationary
populations. The confidence interval for LAS barely included 1.0,
however, suggesting that the spotted owls in that study area may have
been declining (Blakesley et al. 2006).
Using annual lambda estimates calculated in the meta-analysis,
Blakesley et al. (2006) evaluated the trajectory of each study
population through time. This exercise used a hypothetical starting
population of 100 owls on each study area, and calculated the number of
owls that would remain over the study period (start and end years
differed for some study areas depending on survey effort (Blakesley et
al. 2006)). As presented in the report, if there were 100 spotted owls
in SKC in 1993, hypothetical trajectory estimated that there would be
113 spotted owls in 2003. Similarly, for a 1992-2004 study period for
the other study areas, if there were 100 spotted owls in each of these
areas in 1992, there would be 69 in LAS, 127 in ELD, and 95 in SIE in
2004. To better understand this exercise as it related to the entire
population of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, we noted that there
were 400 spotted owls to start (100 owls per study area), and a projected
end population of 404 spotted owls (by summing 113, 69, 127, and 95).
Finally, for each population, a PVA was produced on predictions of
declines in the population greater than 10, 20, and 30 percent for 2-20
years into the future (Blakesley et al. 2006). In a PVA, the
probability of a certain decline happening in a certain timeframe can
range from 0.0 to 1.0 (i.e., 0 percent to 100 percent). Ninety-five-
percent confidence intervals on probabilities of declines greater than
10 percent were 0.0 to 1.0 within 5-10 years for all four study areas.
Because these probabilities were so imprecise (i.e., the confidence
interval covered from 0-100 percent probabilities of decline),
inferences were restricted to 7 years into the future. Even after this
restriction, predictions had very imprecise confidence intervals. PVAs
indicated that the probabilities of observing declines of greater than
10 percent in 7 years were 0.64 (95 percent confidence interval = 0.27
to 0.94) for LAS, 0.23 (95 percent confidence interval = 0.00 to 0.92)
for ELD, 0.41 (95 percent confidence interval = 0.09 to 0.78) for SIE,
and 0.25 (95 percent confidence interval = 0.00 to 0.89) for SKC. The
large confidence intervals indicate that these probabilities still were
inexact, making inference from these estimates difficult. In addition,
the study modeled the probability of observing declines and increases
of greater than 10, 20, and 30 percent at 7 years in the future for a
hypothetical population with lambda = 1.0 and temporal process standard
deviation (estimated from these spotted owl studies) = 0.082. This
hypothetical population exhibited 0.31, 0.15, and 0.05 probability of
declining by greater
[[Page 29894]]
than 10, 20, and 30 percent, respectively, and 0.33, 0.20, and 0.11
probability of increasing by greater than 10, 20, and 30 percent,
respectively (Blakesley et al. 2006).
To summarize the recent meta-analysis results for spotted owl
populations in the Sierras: Adult survival increased through time; most
populations demonstrated an increasing or stationary trend; there was
no strong evidence for decreasing linear trends in lambda on any of the
study areas; modeling of four study areas demonstrated that total
hypothetical spotted owl numbers did not decrease over time; and the
PVA results appeared to be somewhat equivocal because of the
imprecision of the estimates in the real populations and because the
modeled probabilities of increase and decrease in the hypothetical
populations were very similar. We find that with the exception of the
LAS study area, California spotted owl populations in the Sierras show
little evidence of a decline, and attempts to model future population
trends are too imprecise to provide an accurate projection.
In southern California, approximately 71 percent of past or current
territories of spotted owls are located on public lands, virtually all
of which are within four national forests (Los Padres, Angeles, San
Bernardino, and Cleveland). Other than a few project-specific surveys,
there have been no surveys for spotted owls in the Los Padres National
Forest since 1991 (Cooper in litt. 2005) or in the Cleveland National
Forest since 1995 (Winter in litt. 2005), and results from surveys in
the Angeles National Forest since 1994 have not been compiled (Ann
Berkley and Leslie Welch, USFS, in litt. 2005). We have the most
information for spotted owls in the San Bernardino National Forest,
which contains the largest population of spotted owls in southern
California. Early modeling conducted for spotted owls in the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains area indicated possible
substantial declines (LaHaye et al. 1994). Using different methods and
analyzing more years of data than those in LaHaye et al. (1994), the
2004 meta-analysis reported that the mean lambda for the San Bernardino
study area up through 1998 was less than 1.0 (0.978), but was not
statistically different from that of a stationary population (Franklin
et al. 2004). Surveys in the San Bernardino were not conducted from
1999 to 2002. Surveys of many of the territories in the San Bernardino
Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains were resumed in 2003 and 2004
(LaHaye et al. 2003, 2004), but these surveys were not included in the
recent meta-analysis (Blakesley et al. 2006) due to the lack of surveys
from 1999 to 2002. Identifying trends from southern California data is
confounded by factors including: Surveying of additional territories
through time (from 42 territories in 1987 to 148 territories in 1998);
surveying only approximately one-half of the San Bernardino territories
in 2003 (63 territories) and 2004 (77 territories) that were surveyed
in 1998; lack of separate analysis of occupancy of the same individual
territories from 1987 to 1998; and high number of occupied territories
near the end of the survey period (i.e., 100-109 occupied territories
in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1995) (LaHaye et al. 2001).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424, set forth procedures for adding species to
the Federal endangered and threatened species list. In making this
finding, information regarding the status and threats to this species
in relation to the five factors in section 4 of the Act is summarized
below. In this evaluation, we confine the scope of our judgment of the
future actions and programs to reasonably foreseeable outcomes of
established management direction, rather than a more speculative
assessment of possible future management scenarios.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
Stand-replacing Fires
Existing habitat used by California spotted owls appears to be
vulnerable to stand-replacing catastrophic fire. As described in the
2003 12-month finding (70 FR 35607) (which we hereby incorporate by
reference) and above in ``Changes to Habitat,'' removal of large
overstory trees by logging in conjunction with decades of fire
suppression has produced forests that are denser, composed of more
small and medium-sized trees that are more fire-prone than those
historically in the Sierras and in southern California. The petition
discusses how changes in forest structure and fuels build-up have put
some stands at increased risk of stand-replacing fire, and that
increased risk is considered a threat to existing owl pairs across the
range of the California spotted owl (Center for Biological Diversity
2004). Dense stand conditions in California forests have increased tree
mortality due to drought, and insect and disease outbreaks (University
of California 1996). Cumulatively, these conditions have increased the
magnitude of the threat of catastrophic stand-replacing fires to
nesting and roosting habitats used by spotted owls.
According to the Forest Service, the greatest continuing threat to
spotted owls is loss of habitat and subsequent population losses of
spotted owls due to stand-replacing fire in unnaturally dense forest
stands (USFS 2004a; 2005a). During the past 30 years, an average of
17,400 ha (43,000 ac) of wildfire burned annually in the Sierras; in
the past 10 years, this average has increased to about 25,500 ha
(63,000 ac) annually (USFS 2004a). The Forest Service believes that it
will take at least 20 years of fuels treatments before significant
changes in fire behavior are achieved (USFS 2004a). They estimate that
about 24,281 ha (60,000 ac) of forests in the Sierras will be burned
annually in wildfires over the next 20 years (USFS 2004a), which totals
485,622 ha (1,200,000 ac) or 10.9 percent of the 4.5 million ha (11
million ac) within these national forests. They estimate that about 25
percent of these fires will be high-intensity fires, which would affect
2.7 percent of all of their lands. They also estimate that
approximately 90 spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) (6.8
percent of 1,321 total PACs) would be ``lost to wildfire'' during that
time (USFS 2004a:278) (This 6.8 percent of total PACs lost is less than
the 10.9 percent of total forest lost above because many acres
anticipated to be burned would be outside of PACs in non-suitable
habitat.) They further estimate that 50 years from now, after
implementation of the SNFPA, the area burned in the Sierras would drop
to about 19,830 ha (49,000 ac) annually (USFS 2004a). Recent fires in
southern California, as presented above in ``Changes to Habitat,'' are
indicative of anticipated fire-frequencies and fire-intensities
anticipated for the near future.
Fuels-Reduction Activities
The petition (Center for Biological Diversity 2004) contends that
the SNFPA (USFS 2004a) does not adequately protect large trees, high
canopy closure, multiple-canopy layers, snags, and downed wood, that it
does not provide limits on the proportion of areas that can be degraded
through logging, and that it allows for treatment in more PACs than
does the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (USFS 2001). The petition
further states that logging under the SNFPA both within and outside of
the Pilot Project area threatens to further degrade and destroy
California spotted
[[Page 29895]]
owl habitat. Below, we discuss how guidelines in the SNFPA strive to
maintain spotted owl habitat while reducing the threat of wildfire, and
we provide details regarding the many restrictions and guidelines that
limit the proportion of areas that can be logged in spotted owl habitat.
Concern over potential disastrous wildfire effects on human
communities has strongly influenced management direction toward
reducing fuels in proximity to human communities in the forested
interface between wildlands and urban areas. Response to this concern
is manifested in nationwide activities under the National Fire Plan of
2000 which established general guidance and funding for land-management
agencies and communities involved in fire suppression and fuels
reduction. To reduce the risk of wildfire to communities while
modifying fire behavior over the broader landscape, the Forest Service
is conducting a fuels-reduction treatment program (the SNFPA)
throughout National Forest System lands in the Sierras (USFS 2004a;
guidelines and regulations most pertinent to this finding are presented
in Factor D).
The SNFPA addresses fuels treatments in two areas: The Pilot
Project area within the Lassen and Plumas national forests and the
Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest; and all other
national forest lands in the Sierras. In Factor D, we discuss the
regulations, standards, and guidelines that govern fuels reductions and
timber harvests in the Pilot Project area. In brief, within the Pilot
Project area, all fuels-reduction and timber-harvest activities are
prohibited within the 411 PACs and spotted owl habitat areas (404.7 ha,
1,000ac) surrounding all known territory-centers; suitable nesting
habitat (CWHR 5M, 5D, 6) is managed in Defensible Fuel Profile Zones to
provide for at least 40 percent canopy cover, retain all trees greater
than 76.2 cm (30 in) dbh, and to retain at least 40 percent of the
basal area (generally in the largest trees); and there are specific
retention requirements in Defensible Fuel Profile Zones and areas
thinned using individual-tree selection.
In areas outside of the Pilot Project, priority treatments are
focused on lands within designated land allocations named wildland
urban interface (WUI) lands, but treatments will occur both in WUIs and
in non-WUIs. WUIs are comprised of Defense Zones, which are generally a
0.4-km (0.25-mi) buffer around developed sites, and Threat Zones, which
extend approximately 2 km (1.25 mi) out from the Defense Zone boundary.
In the national forests in the Sierras, there are 129,177 ha (319,204
ac) in Defense Zones, and 850,433 ha (2,101,470 ac) in Threat Zones;
approximately 13 percent of WUI acres are in Defense Zones and 87
percent are in Threat Zones (USFS 2004a). During the 20 years of the
SNFPA, the Forest Service plans to treat 340,097 ha (840,400 ac) using
prescribed fire as the initial treatment and 584,365 ha (1,444,000 ac)
using mechanical treatments, for a total of 970,686 ha (2,398,620 ac)
(USFS 2004a:FSEIS 98) or 22 percent of the 4.5 million total ha (11
million ac) in these national forests. Approximately 36 percent of
these treatments are expected to be in WUIs and 64 percent are
anticipated in non-WUI lands (USFS 2004a; Don Yasuda, USFS, in litt. 2006).
Fuels treatments implemented in PACs, each of which contains 121 ha
(300 ac), may be important to the persistence of spotted owls if the
treatments negatively affect the suitability of these areas for
nesting, roosting, and foraging spotted owls. PACs are delineated
around all spotted owl territory-centers that have been detected on
national forest lands since 1986. Pre-project surveys are conducted in
areas of suitable habitat when occupancy of spotted owls is unknown and
when projects are expected by the Forest Service to reduce habitat
quality. New PACs are delineated when appropriate (USFS 2004a). The
Forest Service employs a 0.4-km (0.25-mi) buffer centered on all PACs
in which they do not conduct any treatments during the spotted owl
nesting season (March 1-August 31) unless the spotted owls in question
are found to not be breeding that year. However, they can prescribe-
burn in PACs during the early nesting season if dry conditions and
heavy fuel loadings after the nesting season would create conditions in
which there would be an unacceptable risk of the fires escaping the
burn unit or fires would reach the canopy and adversely damage nesting
or roosting habitat (USFS 2004a).
Treatment of forest fuels has substantial implications for the
California spotted owl, and raises complex questions about the
potential benefits and risks to the species that may result from
reduction of forest fuels. The Forest Service plans to treat
approximately 265,194 ha (655,310 ac) of suitable habitat, which is 13
percent of the 2,024,000 ha (5 million ac) of suitable habitat in these
national forests. The primary technique of fuels reduction, which is
thinning understory trees with mechanical equipment and/or prescribed
fire, may have detrimental effects on spotted owl habitat in the short
term, but may favor development of habitat in the longer term, and may
reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire that could substantially
degrade or eliminate habitat.
The potential reduction in amount of downed wood is another aspect
of fuels treatments that can affect spotted owls. SNFPA direction
states that specific retention-levels for downed woody materials within
treatments are to be made on an individual-project basis, based on
desired conditions for specific land allocations and the effects of
future management actions that may create or remove downed logs. In
general, the Forest Service will emphasize retention of downed woody
material in the largest size classes. General guidelines for large-snag
retention provide for retention of 3 to 6 of the largest snags per
acre, depending on the forest habitat-type of the treatment (USFS 2004a).
Changes in forest structure due to treatments within PACs outside
of the Pilot Project area may degrade the capability of PACs to supply
suitable nesting and roosting habitat for spotted owls. Such changes
include cutting of larger trees, decrease in canopy closure, increased
fragmentation, removal of snags, and reduction in amount of downed
wood. SNFPA projects throughout these national forests are to retain
all trees 76 cm (30 in) dbh or greater, with exceptions for operability
(e.g., road construction, road reconstruction, temporary landing
construction). Due to the need to more-aggressively reduce fire threat
in Defense Zones, the only limitation to the level of treatment in
Defense Zones is this 76-cm (30-in) retention rule. In Threat Zones,
the focus of treatments is to remove surface and ladder fuels; there,
projects are to retain at least 5 percent of the total treatment area
in trees of 15 to 61 cm (6 to 24 in) dbh. We anticipate that few if any
nest trees of spotted owls will be lost during these treatments because
few spotted owls use nest trees smaller than 76 cm (30 in) dbh (see 70
FR 35607 and Service 2006) and all known nest trees will be protected.
The Forest Service avoids conducting fuels treatments within PACs
unless doing so would compromise the overall effectiveness of the
landscape fire and fuels strategy. If the Forest Service determines
that fuels treatments within PACs are necessary, activities are
constrained to remove only surface and ladder fuels unless it is
necessary to remove larger trees (except nest trees) to meet fuels-
reduction requirements (such as in Defense Zones). Outside of PACs,
[[Page 29896]]
the Forest Service allows more flexibility to remove larger trees that
contribute to canopy closure in order to meet fuels-reduction needs.
Reduction in canopy cover may have adverse effects on site
occupancy, survival, and reproduction of spotted owls due to exposure
to weather and modification of preferred forest structure. The Forest
Service anticipates that three types of fuels-reduction treatments
would change suitable habitat (nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat)
into non-suitable habitat, using the threshold of 40 percent canopy
closure as the criterion for suitable/non-suitable habitat as described
above. The three types of treatments are described as follows. (1)
Outside of the Pilot Project area, the Forest Service plans to treat
3,490 ha (8,624 ac) within PACs in WUI Defense Zones (USFS 2004a), and
they anticipate that canopy-cover reductions to less than 40 percent
would occur in no more than 5 percent of these acres (Yasuda, in litt.
2006), or 175 ha (431 ac). This is only 0.1 percent of the total area
of the 1,321 PACs, and these treatments are expected to decrease the
chances that these PACs will be lost due to fires. This is the only
case in which the Forest Service anticipates changing suitable habitat
to non-suitable habitat in PACs in the Sierras. (2) Within the area
managed under the Pilot Project, all of the 8,650 ha (21,375 ac) of
suitable habitat to be group-selection harvested probably will be
reduced to less than 40 percent canopy closure. Group-selection
harvests are 0.2-0.8 ha (0.5-2 ac) in size, so these small patches may
not be large-enough gaps in the canopy to adversely affect spotted
owls. To the contrary, such small breaks in the forest could provide
good habitat for woodrats (Williams et al. 1992), the preferred prey
for spotted owls in much of the Sierras (Thrailkill and Bias 1989). (3)
Also within the area managed under the Pilot Project, approximately
8,827 ha (21,812 ac) to be treated as Defensible Fuel Profile Zones in
CWHR-classed 4M and 4D stands are expected to go below 40 percent
canopy closure (Yasuda in litt. 2006). We anticipate that the majority
of the 8,827 ha (21,812 ac) of suitable habitat to be cut to below 40
percent canopy cover for Defensible Fuel Profile Zones would then be
unsuitable for use by spotted owls, but that the edges of some of these
areas would serve as foraging habitat. The most-important areas for
spotted owls will not be affected by these two types of treatments in
the Pilot Project area, because no PACs will be treated in the Pilot
Project area. Overall, a total of 17,652 ha (43,618 ac) is anticipated
to be downgraded from suitable to non-suitable habitat due to
treatments via the SNFPA, which is 0.9 percent of the 2,024,000 ha (5
million ac) of present suitable habitat. Only 1 percent of these areas
that would be reduced to less than 40 percent canopy cover would be in
PACs; 99 percent would be outside of PACs within the Pilot Project area.
In the Sierras, there are 1,321 PACs totaling 170,688 ha (421,780
ac). In the 2001 Framework, no more than 10 percent of the individual
PACs were to be treated per decade, whereas in the 2004 Framework no
more than 10 percent of the PAC acres are to be treated per decade.
This difference results in increasing the percentage of treated PACs
during the 20-year life of the SNFPA from 20 percent (263 PACs) to 26
percent (343 PACs) of the 1,321 total PACs, and increasing the areal
extent of treatments from 6,145 ha (15,184 ac) to 6,931 ha (17,126 ac),
which is an increase of 786 ha (1,942 ac) (USFS 2004a). But only
portions of selected PACs would be treated, and the total treated area
(6,931 ha or 17,126 ac) comprises 16.6 percent of the area within the
343 PACs to be treated, or 4.3 percent of the area within all of the
1,321 PACs. The Forest Service anticipates that fuels treatments will
lessen the total number of PACs that may be lost to wildfire (estimated
to be 90; see above) due to lessening the severity and extent of
wildfires and, conversely, that some of the 343 PACs scheduled for
treatment may burn in wildfires before treatment. Consequently, the
total number of PACs affected by wildfires or treatments is expected to
be fewer than 433 (Yasuda in litt. 2006). During 2004 and 2005, the
Forest Service used prescribed-fire or mechanical means to treat all or
portions of 97 PACs (7 percent of 1,321 PACs), which was an area of
15,055 ha (37, 201 ac) (Efird in litt. 2006).
As presented above in ``Habitat Use,'' canopy cover in nesting and
roosting habitat typically is at least 70 percent, so fuels reductions
within PACs that lower canopy cover to less than 70 percent are
anticipated to adversely affect the suitability of those stands as
nesting and roosting habitat. Reductions of canopy cover to 40-50
percent would alter nesting or roosting habitat so that it would
function chiefly as foraging habitat.
As mentioned above, these reductions in canopy cover within PACs
will occur in no more than 4.3 percent of the area within all PACs. In
many cases, the renewed growth of tree-crowns after thinning is
expected to fill-in the canopy cover to some degree within one to two
decades, so effects of reduction in canopy closure due to thinning of
understory trees would be temporary; however, we do anticipate adverse,
short-term effects from this reduction of canopy cover within PACs. We
consider the risk of extinction for the spotted owl from catastrophic
fire to be a far greater concern than any other evaluated threat, and
we anticipate that implementation of the SNFPA will reduce the threat
of wildfire, thus benefitting the spotted owl in the long-term.
As presented in Factor D, mechanical treatments in ``strategically
placed landscape area treatments'' (SPLATs) in late-seral forest stands
outside of PACs include safeguards for spotted owl habitat including
retention of at least 50 percent canopy cover averaged within the
treatment unit (with exceptions that allow retention of as low as 40
percent canopy cover), and retention of live trees 76 cm (30 in) dbh or
greater. It appears that areas modified in such a manner would remain
as suitable foraging habitat, or be converted from nesting/roosting
habitat to foraging habitat. Reproduction in California spotted owls in
an area where woodrats were a main food source was maximized with small
blocks of spotted owl habitat and large amounts of edge between spotted
owl habitat and other habitats (Franklin et al. 2000). Other studies
also support this 40-percent canopy-cover threshold for suitable
habitat (e.g., Call et al. 1992; Verner et al. 1992b; Zabel et al.
1992; Moen and Gutierrez 1997). With information currently available to
us, it is difficult to estimate the effects of converting nesting/
roosting habitat to foraging habitat. If nesting/roosting habitat is
limited, then treatments that reduce nesting/roosting to foraging could
have an adverse effect on spotted owls. If nesting/roosting habitat is
not limited, then the effect could simply be an increase in foraging
habitat. Locations scheduled for treatments will be identified on a
project-specific basis in future years, at which time site-specific
data on whether nesting/roosting habitat is limited in those areas may
become available.
The petition (Center for Biological Diversity 2004) states that the
above-mentioned threats have more substantial effects to spotted owls
within the areas in the Sierra Nevada described in Beck and Gould
(1992) as areas of concern, due to bottlenecks or gaps in spotted owl
distribution, locally isolated populations, highly fragmented habitat,
and areas of low spotted owl density. However, ``[r]ather than
reflecting current negative effects on spotted owls, areas of concern *
* * simply indicate potential areas where future problems
[[Page 29897]]
may be greatest if the owl's status in the Sierra Nevada were to
deteriorate'' (Beck and Gould 1992:45). Even though these areas of
concern do not necessarily indicate areas in which spotted owls are at
risk at this time, we agree with Beck and Gould (1992), Verner et al.
(1992a), USFS (2001), and USFS (2004a) that the risk associated with
management within the areas of concern in the Sierra Nevada is higher
than that in other areas due to bottlenecks or gaps in spotted owl
distribution, locally isolated populations, highly fragmented habitat,
and areas of low spotted owl density. Beck and Gould (1992:45) state
that areas of concern may experience a greater impact if spotted owl
populations were deteriorating in the Sierras. However, the California
spotted owl's status in the Sierra Nevada is not deteriorating as is
evidenced by the increasing adult survival and stationary trends of the
populations. Thus, we conclude that owls in the areas of concern in the
Sierra Nevada are not experiencing heightened effects from threats
discussed in this section.
To summarize the discussion of fuels-reduction treatments for the
Sierra Nevada, we anticipate short-term adverse effects from certain
logging activities, but expect long-term benefits from the reduced
wildfire risk. Catastrophic wildfire appears to be the greatest
potential threat to the California spotted owl, and fuels-reduction
treatments are a necessary measure to reduce that threat. We have
looked at the cumulative effects of wildfire and fuels treatments and
concluded that, although fuels treatments will have some short-term
effects to owls, those treatments will offset much of the impact of
wildfire in future years by reducing the extent of wildfire damage. Our
analysis shows that fuels-reduction treatments will not threaten the
continued existence of the spotted owl, as only 0.9 percent of the
2,024,000 ha (5 million ac) of present suitable habitat will be
downgraded from suitable to unsuitable habitat via the SNFPA, and
reductions in canopy cover in PACs to the 40 or 50 percent level will
occur in only 4.3 percent of the area within all PACs.
In southern California, the four national forests began operating
under new Land Management Plans (LMPs) in September, 2005. The new LMPs
continue thinning and salvage-related timber sales, with a focus on
removal of small-diameter, high-density understory trees and on dead
and diseased overstory trees (USFS 2005a). (The new management
direction is discussed further in Factor D.) There are 2,736 km (1,700
mi) of linear WUI land allocations on the four national forests. Fuels-
related vegetation treatments and thinning projects will be located
within these WUIs. The type and intensity of fuels treatments is
expected to vary by vegetation type and proximity to human
developments. The most-intensive treatments will occur within the WUI
Defense Zones, which are buffer zones around developed sites that may
be up to 457 m (1,500 ft) wide; there, trees will be mechanically
thinned to 40 percent canopy cover or less with no ladder fuels (USFS
2005b; Loe in litt. 2006). Within Threat Zones, treatments will
maintain at least 40 percent canopy cover (USFS 2005b; Loe in litt.
2006). The Forest Service projected the maximum area to be treated in
forest types used by spotted owls in southern California (mixed
conifer, bigcone Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa), and hardwood
forests and woodlands) to be 8,168 ha (20,183 ac) in Defense Zones and
98,777 ha (244,083 ac) in Threat Zones (USFS 2005a), which sums to 22.6
percent of the 473,473 ha (1,170,000 ac) of forest types used by
spotted owls in southern California. Consequently, using the 40-percent
canopy cover criterion, up to 1.7 percent of suitable habitat in
Defense Zones may be changed from suitable to unsuitable habitat, and
up to 20.9 percent of the nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat would
only be suitable for foraging habitat in Threat Zones. With information
currently available to us, it is difficult to estimate the effects of
converting nesting/roosting habitat to foraging habitat. If nesting/
roosting habitat is limited, then treatments that reduce nesting/
roosting to foraging could have an adverse effect on spotted owls. If
nesting/roosting habitat is not limited, then the effect could simply
be an increase in foraging habitat. Locations scheduled for treatments
will be identified on a project-specific basis in future years, at
which time site-specific data may become available on whether nesting/
roosting habitat is limited in those areas.
In Factor D, we discuss the regulations, standards, and guidelines
that govern fuels reductions and timber harvests in southern
California. In brief, the LMPs: Provide limited operating periods
within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of occupied territory-centers and nest sites
during the breeding period; prohibit treatments within 12-24 ha (30-60
ac) of forest immediately surrounding nest stands in the Threat Zone;
and include other protections for habitat in the Defense Zone, PACs,
and larger core areas (USFS 2004b).
Timber Harvest on Federal Lands
The petition contends that logging activities on federal lands in
the Sierras under the SNFPA and in southern California threaten to
further degrade and destroy spotted owl habitat, resulting in continued
declines in numbers of spotted owls (Center for Biological Diversity
2004). As presented below, the best-available data indicate that Forest
Service management documents include adequate safeguards to protect
spotted owls and their habitat, and fuels-reduction activities are
anticipated to decrease the threat of stand-replacing wildfires.
Therefore, we are not anticipating declines in spotted owl numbers due
to these activities.
Recent history of timber harvest on Federal lands in the Sierra
Nevada and in southern California was presented above in ``Changes to
Habitat.'' During the next 20 years, all timber harvests on Federal
lands in the Sierras will be carried out as fuels treatments via the
SNFPA as presented above in this discussion and below (Factor D). These
fuels treatments are anticipated to result in an average harvest of 330
mmbf of green saw timber per year for the first decade, and 132 mmbf
per year for the second decade. An additional annual 90 mmbf of salvage
timber sales is projected during the 20-year period (USFS 2004a). In
southern California, the four national forests expect to sell in 2006
approximately the same amount of saw timber that they sold in 2005 (10
mmbf) from salvage sales and fuels-reduction projects, and they
anticipate that this annual total will drop substantially in subsequent
years as salvage-sale material is harvested (Loe in litt. 2006). All
harvests on Federal lands are conducted under the regulations described
in Factor D.
Timber Harvest on State and Private Lands
The petition states that timber harvest on private lands threatens
to further degrade and destroy spotted owl habitat, resulting in
continued declines in numbers of spotted owls (Center for Biological
Diversity 2004). Below, we summarize information we collected regarding
timber harvest on private lands, including various safeguards that are
intended to protect the California spotted owl.
Recent history of timber harvests on private lands was presented
above in ``Changes to Habitat.'' In Factor D, we present the regulatory
mechanisms that direct forest management relative to spotted owl
habitat in State and private lands. Here in Factor A, we describe, to
the best of our knowledge, how private
[[Page 29898]]
timber companies manage their forests relative to spotted owls and
their habitat. As stated above in ``Numbers and Connectivity,'' SPI
lands include more than 200 spotted owl territories, there are 40
territory-centers either on or within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the land owned
by Soper-Wheeler, there are three nest sites either on or immediately
adjacent to W.M. Beaty-managed lands, and there are no known
territories on lands owned by Fruit Growers, Collins Pine, or Roseburg
Resources. Most of the following information, therefore, concerns SPI.
SPI maintains a geographic information system-based database with
all of the approximately 200 known California spotted owl territories
within its boundaries (Self in litt. 2005). SPI checks its database and
other databases (e.g., Natural Diversity Database, Forest Service,
CDFG, CDF) for locations of known spotted owl territory-centers within
1.6 km (1 mi) of proposed activities (Self in litt. 2005). To estimate
whether timber harvests were negatively affecting site occupancy of
California spotted owls, SPI began conducting an occupancy study in
2004 in an area that had recently been subjected to many intensive,
even-aged timber harvests. The area had been surveyed by spotted owl
biologists of the Kern River Research Center from 1991 to 1994. All
five of the territories surveyed in 1991-1994 were occupied by spotted
owls during 2004-2005 (Murphy in litt. 2006). Through site-occupancy
checks, one site was incidentally determined to be reproductive in 2005
(Murphy in litt. 2006). Reproductive monitoring will be conducted on
all territories in 2006 (Murphy in litt. 2006).
When SPI lays-out a Timber Harvest Plan (THP), it typically
delineates a 6.5-11 ha (16-28 ac) no-cut unit around each territory-
center (Murphy in litt. 2006). Prior to all harvests, SPI surveys all
known spotted owl territories within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of proposed
harvests to determine site-occupancy. Units with nesting spotted owls
are not harvested for the foreseeable future, and harvests in units
with nesting spotted owls within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) are postponed until
after the breeding season (Murphy in litt. 2006). SPI does not remove
any California spotted owl territories from the database even if
occupancy checks indicate apparent non-occupancy, and therefore SPI
will continue to provide protection for all known territories for the
foreseeable future (Murphy in litt. 2006). When marking trees in
selection harvests, indications of nesting by raptors are detected by
inspection on an individual-tree basis by trained foresters or marking
crews (Murphy in litt. 2006). In addition, prior to even-aged
regeneration harvests, SPI wildlife biologists, foresters, botanists or
contractors (who are trained to do so) conduct ``walk-through'' surveys
to locate and protect spotted owls and other raptors that might have
re-located into a planned harvest unit (SPI 2002). Both occupancy
surveys and walk-through surveys include attempts to detect spotted
owls by vocal imitations of their calls (Self in litt. 2006). SPI
produces annual reports concerning the implementation and results of
its occupancy surveys and walk-through surveys (e.g., SPI 2004, 2005).
For example, of the 801 harvest units throughout California that were
candidates for walk-through surveys in 2004, 92 percent were surveyed
(SPI 2005). Of the 61 units that did not receive surveys: 15 were not
harvested in 2004, 14 were harvested no later than February 1 (before
the breeding season), 28 were harvested no earlier than September 1
(after the breeding season), three were in brush fields being cleared
for restocking, and one was harvested on August 15 (late in the
breeding season) (SPI 2005). Thus, in approximately 5 percent (43 of
801) of the units, spotted owl habitat may have been negatively
affected to some unknown degree due to SPI harvest operations in 2004.
In 2004, no new California spotted owl territories were found during
occupancy surveys adjacent to units or during walk-through surveys of
740 units (SPI 2005). In 2003, reproductive status of three known pairs
of spotted owls adjacent to units was documented; for the two pairs
that were nesting, 8-ha (20-ac) no-harvest zones were designated around
these nests, and the harvests proceeded as planned, and for the pair
that was not nesting, the adjacent unit was harvested as planned in
October (after the nesting season) (SPI 2004). During walk-through
surveys of 713 units in 2003, one new pair of spotted owls was
discovered, and SPI set an 8-ha (20-ac) no-harvest zone and delayed
adjacent harvest units until after fledging in August. In addition, two
known pairs of spotted owls had moved into planned harvest units and
were nesting, so those two units were dropped from harvest (SPI 2004).
Under California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs) (CDF 2005) and the known
nest-site protection conducted by SPI, these units will not be
harvested for the foreseeable future. Virtually all surveys in 2003 (92
percent) and 2004 (97 percent) were done during the nesting season
(March to August), and approximately three-quarters (73 and 76 percent)
were done within 4 weeks of harvest (SPI 2004, 2005).
SPI manages retention of snags to support at least 40 percent of
the maximum habitat capability for cavity-nesting species based on
published guidelines and models (SPI 2001); similarly, the Northwest
Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994) requires minimum retention of snags
sufficient to support species of cavity-nesting birds at 40 percent of
potential population levels. SPI general guidelines recommend that they
avoid downed logs that are at least 61 cm (24 in.) dbh and 3 m (10 ft.)
long (Murphy in litt. 2006). Soper-Wheeler protects 2 to 4 ha (5 to 10
ac) surrounding known spotted owl nests (McKillop in litt. 2005).
To summarize, the best-available data indicate that timber harvest
as conducted on private lands includes adequate safeguards to protect
spotted owls and their habitat. Such safeguards include pre-harvest
surveys to detect owls that may be present in the area, a no-cut unit
around spotted owl territory-centers, retention of snags and downed
wood, and a policy that protects forest units with nesting owls in the
foreseeable future. Therefore, we do not anticipate that private lands
practices will threaten the continued existence of the California
spotted owl in the foreseeable future.
Tree Mortality
Tree mortality in the Sierras and southern California related to
insects or pathogens can have many consequences including: A continuing
need to enter stands to conduct salvage operations; increased fuel-
loading levels; fewer large, older trees and fewer mid-diameter trees;
reduction in crown closure; a short-term increase in nutrient cycling;
a possible increase in snags and hazard trees; fewer trees/area; and
changes in species composition (USFS 2004a). Insects and disease always
have been a source of tree mortality in the forests occupied by the
California spotted owl. Long-term stand densification and recent
extreme drought have greatly increased tree mortality related to forest
pests, particularly in the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and San Diego
ranges. This effect could cause a substantial reduction in the extent
of suitable spotted owl habitat and negatively affect the numbers of
spotted owls regionally (LaHaye 2004). In addition, droughts may
negatively affect spotted owl prey populations, which would be expected
to result in reduced productivity of spotted owls (USFS 2004b). The San
Bernardino National Forest is
[[Page 29899]]
experiencing the worst drought period in over 150 years; consequently,
for example, huge areas of live oak are dying, and in many areas
greater than 60 percent tree mortality has occurred in the conifer zone
(USFS 2004b).
Sudden oak death, caused by the fungus Phytophthora ramorum, has
the potential to sharply reduce tree canopy in oak woodlands that
provide productive habitat for California spotted owls. At present, the
disease occurs in the wild only in coastal counties in northern and
central California, south through Monterey County almost to the San
Luis Obispo County border (COMTF 2004 in USFS 2004b). Tanoak and
several oak species are most susceptible to the pathogen and may be
killed by it. However, a growing number of other species have been
found to harbor the disease without dying, including many native shrubs
and trees as well as non-native horticultural plants (COMTF 2004 in
USFS 2004b). Patches of dead oaks and tanoaks totaling 3,399 ha (8,400
ac) occur on the Los Padres National Forest in Monterey County. In
April, 2004, nursery stock infected with this fungus was found in
Monrovia, near Los Angeles, creating potential for the disease to
spread to wildland plants far south of its current range. The
seriousness and eventual extent of the threat posed by sudden oak death
to spotted owl habitat in southern California cannot be predicted at
this time. In general, tree mortality from drought, insects, and
disease could contribute to declines in spotted owl habitat, especially
in southern California.
Development and Other Factors
The petition states that development on private lands in the Sierra
and southern California presents a significant threat to the California
spotted owl, particularly in low elevation riparian hardwood habitats
(Center for Biological Diversity 2004). Suitable habitat scattered
among houses and housing developments was not found to be occupied by
spotted owls in southern California, although areas adjacent to these
developments contained dense and productive populations of the
subspecies (Gutierrez 1994). There is a potential for increased
disturbance to a segment of the San Bernardino Mountains spotted owl
population as a result of the burgeoning population in southern
California (LaHaye et al. 1997). Urbanization has similar negative
implications for Sierra Nevada spotted owls that migrate to lower
elevations in the winter (Laymon 1988; Verner et al. 1992a).
Where development occurs, there is a decrease in crown cover and
tree density and an increase in impervious surface (McBride et al.
1996). The amount of private vs. public lands in the Sierra Nevada and
southern California portions of the spotted owl range varies widely by
county. Estimates from the Sierra Business Council (1997) indicate
that, for the nine Sierra Nevada counties in the range of the spotted
owl they analyzed, an average of 46 percent is private land. These nine
counties are experiencing varying degrees of urban expansion, and have
projected population growth rates from 0.7 percent in Sierra County to
6.2 percent in Calaveras County (Sierra Business Council 1997). The
human population in the Sierra Nevada is projected to triple between
1990 and 2040, primarily in the lower elevation grasslands and oak
woodlands (SNCWG 2002). Because spotted owls have been observed in the
Sierra Nevada to migrate downslope into the lower-elevation pine/
oakwoods during the winter (Laymon 1988), we anticipate this could have
a negative impact on their seasonal migration patterns. However,
breeding spotted owls mostly occupy higher-elevation mixed conifer
forests--not lower-elevation pine/oak woodland habitats. In fact,
Verner et al. (1992a) stated that mixed-conifer forests were by far the
most significant habitat for the spotted owl, as most known spotted owl
territories (82 percent) on Federal lands in the Sierra Nevada are in
higher-elevation, mixed-conifer forests. Additionally, although the
petition presents concerns with anticipated development in low-
elevation riparian hardwood habitat, only 1.2 percent of all habitat
containing spotted owl territories were considered riparian hardwood
habitat in the Sierra Nevada (Verner et al. 1992a). Thus, we anticipate
that, although development may impact spotted owl habitat in localized
areas, the impact will not be throughout the Sierra Nevada populations
because development will occur primarily in the foothills.
Southern California's human population has grown substantially over
the last two decades to over 20 million people and is anticipated to
grow by another 35 percent over the next two decades (USFS 2005a). A
substantial amount of private forest land has been, and yet may be,
developed in the mountains of southern California (USFS 2005a). The
petitioners and Verner et al. (1992a) expressed concern that
development in southern California could prevent dispersal between
spotted owl populations in southern California, as mountain ranges
occupied by spotted owls probably act as habitat islands with limited
dispersal between them. We agree that the best-available data indicate
that the spotted owl populations in the mountains of southern
California are isolated from one another (Verner et al. 1992a,
Gutierrez 1994, LaHaye et al. 1994); further, it is probable that this
isolation could increase in the future.
The petition states that recreation potentially affects spotted
owls in several ways, including noise disturbance, construction of
roads and trails, and expansion of ski resorts (Center for Biological
Diversity 2004). Recreation is the fastest-growing use of the national
forests (USFS 2001a). Construction of facilities used for recreation,
including campgrounds, trails, roads, ski resorts, and cabins likely
has contributed to the destruction and fragmentation of spotted owl
habitat. The effect of recreation on spotted owls is poorly understood
and may be an increasing threat to California spotted owls, especially
in southern California (Noon and McKelvey 1992).
Visitor use of southern California forests is estimated to increase
by 15-20 percent over the next 15 years. It is expected that short-term
recreation activities such as pleasure driving, hiking, and picnicking
will increase more than traditional backcountry extended duration
activities (USFS 2005a). However, light recreation, such as hiking on
established trails or birdwatching, probably has little impact on
spotted owls (Swarthout and Steidl 2001, 2003). Most recreation-related
development such as roads, developed recreation sites, and
administrative structures that might be expected to occur on southern
California national forests has already taken place. The Forest Service
does not anticipate much expansion of its permanent road system beyond
what is currently in place (USFS 2005a). We thus expect that most major
impacts related to recreational development will not be a primary
threat to spotted owls in southern California. Adverse effects on
forest environments have occurred in the past, however. For example,
development of ski areas eliminated spotted owl habitat in the past,
and expansion of existing areas would further reduce it, because ski
areas in the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains are all located
on north-facing slopes preferred by spotted owls (USFS 2004b).
In southern California, the Forest Service will be actively
managing recreation to offset impacts to spotted owls. Effects to
wildlife will be reduced through the use of seasonal closures,
[[Page 29900]]
designation of OHV trails, location of developed recreation sites,
back-country and wilderness restrictions, area restrictions on fuelwood
collection, and other strategies (USFS 2005a). Limited operating
periods prohibit vegetation management activities within approximately
0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the nest site (or territory-center where nest site
is unknown) during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15)
unless surveys confirm that spotted owls are not nesting. Although the
limited operating period does not apply to all existing road use, trail
use, maintenance, or continuing recreation use, if the environmental
analysis of proposed projects or activities suggests that either
existing or proposed activities are likely to result in nest
disturbance, limited operating periods could be adopted as deemed
necessary at the project level (USFS 2004a, 2005a).
As in southern California, recreation is an important forest use in
the Sierra Nevada. Specific recreation projects are not identified in
the SNFPA. However, the Forest Service's preferred alternative favors a
trend toward more dispersed, non-motorized recreation, such as hiking
and backcountry camping, and would not result in increased levels of
recreational visitor days (USFS 2004a). Moreover, the SNFPA specifies
standards and guidelines for mitigation of impacts to the California
spotted owl where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the
nest site from existing recreation, off-highway vehicle route, trail,
and road uses (including road maintenance). The Forest Service operates
under a further guideline to evaluate proposals for new roads, trails,
off-highway vehicle routes, and developments for their potential to
disturb nest sites. The guidelines thus direct that California spotted
owls are to be given consideration during planning of recreational
activities.
The petition states that grazing is likely to indirectly affect the
owl by reducing or eliminating riparian vegetation, altering forest
structure and fire regimes, and reducing prey density (Center for
Biological Diversity 2004). During the late 1800s, heavy grazing of
surface fuels by livestock may have reduced the influence or extent of
wildfires (University of California 1996), and subsequent in-growth of
vegetation on denuded soils may have contributed to the heavy fuel-
loading and tendency towards catastrophic fire now found in much of the
California spotted owl's range. Over the past 15 to 20 years, livestock
grazing has declined by over 50 percent in the national forests of the
Sierras and by approximately 26 percent in the national forests of
southern California; in addition, grazing is expected to decline
further (USFS 2004a, 2005a). Grazing in the Sierras occurs on wet and
moist montane and subalpine meadows, annual grasslands, and in oak
woodlands. A small amount of literature exists on the effects of
grazing to the Mexican spotted owl (S. o. lucida), and because the
best-available information is limited to the Mexican subspecies, we
apply that information to the California spotted owl. Effects of
grazing have been placed in four categories: (1) Altered prey
availability; (2) altered susceptibility to fire; (3) degradation of
riparian plant communities; and (4) impaired ability of plant
communities to develop into owl habitat (USFWS 1995, 2004). Impacts can
vary according to the numbers of grazers, grazing intensity, grazing
frequency, and timing of grazing as well as habitat type and structure
and plant composition (Ward and Block 1995). Permitting requirements on
national forest grazing allotments limit these impacts (USFS 2004a).
Although the effects of grazing by domestic livestock and wild
ungulates on the habitats of prey used by spotted owls is a complex
issue, there exists some knowledge regarding the effects of grazing on
small mammals frequently consumed by Mexican spotted owls (Ward and
Block 1995; Ward 2001). Grazing may influence prey availability in
different ways. Grazing that reduces the density of grasses can create
favorable habitat conditions for deer mice while creating unfavorable
conditions for voles (Microtus spp.), meadow jumping mice (Zapus
hudsonius), and shrews (Sorex spp.) (Medlin and Clary 1990; Schultz and
Leininger 1991). This change may decrease prey diversity (Medlin and
Clary 1990; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992). Since populations of small
mammals fluctuate seasonally and/or year to year, a diverse prey base
can provide a more predictable food resource for spotted owls over
time. Conversely, short-term removal of grass and shrub cover may
improve conditions for spotted owls to detect and capture prey (USFWS
1995). Current predictions of grazing effects on plant communities as
they relate to spotted owls are inexact. For the Mexican spotted owl,
the Service concluded that grazing impacts to nesting, roosting, and
other mixed conifer habitat will likely be insignificant and
discountable because grazing usually does not occur within mixed
conifer habitat; instead, livestock generally remain within meadows or
riparian areas (USFWS 2004). The same conclusion logically applies to
the California spotted owl.
In summary, increased urbanization, which leads to increased
recreational use, and grazing activities, may result in some lost
spotted owl habitat, but urbanization in the Sierra Nevada is occurring
in the low to mid elevations rather than the higher elevation mixed
conifer spotted owl habitat. However, grazing in the Sierra Nevada is
declining, and generally occurs outside of the spotted owls primarily
mixed-conifer habitat. The majority of spotted owl territories in the
Sierra Nevada (82 percent) and in southern California (86 percent) are
located on federal land, and are thus protected from development; and
recreational use is being actively managed, particularly in the higher-
impacted forests of southern California. Therefore, these factors do
not pose a significant threat now or in the foreseeable future to the
continued existence of the California spotted owl such that it warrants
listing.
Summary of Factor A
Spotted owl habitat is being adversely affected by wildfire, fuels-
reduction activities, timber harvest, tree mortality, and development.
However, risks due to wildfire and fuels reductions are not additive;
that is, fuels-reduction activities can have short-term adverse
effects, but they can also reduce the greater risk of catastrophic
wildfire in the long term which effectively ameliorates the short-term
effects. In addition, the standards directing fuels treatments through
the SNFPA in the Sierras and LMPs in southern California are protective
of spotted owls themselves and their nest sites. In the Sierras, fuels
treatments will be conducted over a small percentage (4.3 percent) of
the area within all 1,321 PACs. In terms of timber harvest, during the
next 20 years, all timber harvests on Federal lands in the Sierras will
be carried out as fuels treatments via the SNFPA. Timber harvests on
private lands are protective of spotted owls and of their nest sites.
Assessing spotted owl population demographics in the Sierras is
meaningful to understanding the status of California spotted owls
throughout the State of California because the Sierra Nevada contains
approximately 81 percent of known California spotted owl territories.
Even with losses of habitat from the above causes, spotted owls in the
Sierra Nevada have shown increased survival during the past 16 years,
and with the exception of one study area which showed a decline that
was not statistically significant, spotted owl populations in the
Sierras are not
[[Page 29901]]
declining. This indicates that, in general, spotted owls in the Sierras
have not been greatly impacted by the above threats, and there is
sufficient quality and quantity of habitat to allow for essential life
history functions. Spotted owls in southern California are at a higher
risk from threats because of their isolation, but the best-available
data do not show statistically significant declines. Also, we do not
anticipate that development, grazing, or recreation will greatly impact
spotted owls in the Sierras or southern California. Finally, the
standards directing future fuels treatments through the SNFPA in the
Sierras and LMPs in southern California, as well as forest practices on
private lands, protect spotted owls and their nest sites.
The Service concludes that no available data indicate that the
removal of trees and the reduction in canopy cover as prescribed by the
SNFPA and described herein would affect California spotted owl
reproduction or occupancy such that the California spotted owl is in
danger of extinction now or within the foreseeable future. This
conclusion does not mean that other negative, short-term effects would
not occur. We recognize adverse effects in the areas described above in
which canopy cover will be reduced to less than 40 percent and in PACs
where canopy cover is reduced significantly. Researchers have suggested
that subtle effects could be important if they occur on a wide scale
(Noon et al. 1992).
Substantial scientific uncertainty remains regarding the effects of
fuel treatments in PACs and in all suitable habitat. In the absence of
demonstrated effects, and considering the small amount of area to be
treated in relation to the total area within all 1,321 PACs and that
the potential negative impacts are also accompanied by the positive
effects of reduction of fire risk and faster development of high-
quality habitat, we find that the fuel treatments proposed under the
SNFPA do not constitute a significant threat to the California spotted
owl at this time. There is uncertainty whether the efforts will be
sufficient to significantly lessen the threat to spotted owl habitat
due to the enormity of the task over such a large area, the unproven
nature of some of the area treatments outside of PACs, and questionable
funding for this 20-year project. While many aspects of the protection
afforded to the spotted owls on private lands are voluntary, protection
is nonetheless being afforded by private landowners, and the Service
has no indication that this will change in the foreseeable future.
There are concerns about the future of the spotted owls in southern
California, which exist in mountaintop-groups isolated from one another
and isolated from spotted owls in the Sierras. However the best-
available data show that trends in southern California owl populations
are not statistically different than stationary populations. Further,
despite fires, tree mortality, development and other factors, the best-
available data indicate that survival of spotted owl populations in the
balance of the State of California (the Sierras) has been improving at
the population level, and those spotted owls constitute 81 percent of
the known territories of California spotted owls. We expect this trend
to continue as the Forest Service in the Sierras implements its fuels-
reduction strategy that includes protections for the spotted owl and
its habitat. Tree mortality and development continue to degrade and
eliminate some spotted owl habitat in the Sierras and in southern
California. In summary, threats affecting California spotted owls and
their habitat, or in combination with other factors, are causes of
concern but do not pose now or in the foreseeable future a significant
threat to the continued existence of the California spotted owl such
that it warrants listing.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We found no evidence that overutilization for commercial,
recreation, scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to the
California spotted owl, and the petition does not present any threats
relative to this factor.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The petition expresses concern that West Nile Virus (WNV) presents
a serious potential threat to California spotted owls, and recommends
that its effects on spotted owls be monitored closely (Center for
Biological Diversity 2004).
A discussion of known diseases and parasites can be found in the
2003 12-month finding for the California spotted owl (68 FR 7580) and
that information is incorporated by reference. We supplement that
information with the following best-available data regarding WNV
research and describe the results of recent research regarding the
presence of WNV in spotted owls.
West Nile Virus was first detected in the United States in 1999 in
New York, and has quickly spread to the western United States. WNV has
not yet been detected in spotted owls in California; 187 northern and
California spotted owls were tested for the presence of WNV and WNV
antibodies (Franklin in litt. 2004, 2005; Rocky Gutierrez, Univ. of
Minnesota, in litt. 2005, Keane 2005). In addition, none of the 251
small mammals (e.g., mice, northern flying squirrels, dusky-footed
woodrats) sampled tested positive for WNV (Franklin in litt. 2005). A
more-complete description of these results can be found in our 2005 90-
day finding (70 FR 35607) which is incorporated by reference. In
summary, the best-available data show that WNV does not presently
threaten California spotted owls and we have no indication that it will
become a substantive threat in the foreseeable future.
The petition cites a personal communication (Zach Peery, Univ. of
California, in litt. 1999) in support of its claims that, because great
horned owls (Bubo virginianus) and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis)
tend to forage in open areas and because great horned owls are known
predators of spotted owls (Forsman et al. 1984), the reduction of
canopy cover and creation of breaks in the canopy due to logging may
increase predation of spotted owls (Center for Biological Diversity
2004). The petition does not present any scientific information that
supports the idea that logging increases predation of spotted owls by
great horned owls or red-tailed hawks, and we are unaware of any such
information. As noted in the 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580),
spotted owls are preyed upon by other raptors and mammals. Natural
predation probably has little effect on healthy populations. However,
as populations become smaller and more fragmented, the impacts of
natural predation may also become significant. Effects to California
spotted owls from their new competitor and possible predator, the
barred owl, are discussed in Factor E.
In summary, disease or predation factors by themselves, or in
combination with other factors, do not pose now or in the foreseeable
future a significant threat to the continued existence of the
California spotted owl such that it warrants listing.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Federal Regulations
Existing Federal regulatory mechanisms that provide some protection
for the California spotted owl and its habitat include the following:
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712), Wilderness Act of
1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq), Multiple-Use
[[Page 29902]]
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531), Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C 1601-1614,
Sec. Sec. 1641-1647), SNFPA (USFS 2004a), and various LMPs in national
forests. The California spotted owl, as a member of the Order
Strigiformes, is included in Appendix II of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES). CITES is an international treaty established to prevent
international trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plants
and animals. We have no indication that the international trade of
spotted owls is a concern, so protections from CITES are not relevant
to this finding.
NEPA. NEPA requires all Federal agencies to formally document,
consider, and publicly disclose the environmental impacts of major
federal actions and management decisions significantly affecting the
human environment. NEPA documentation is provided in an environmental
impact statement, an environmental assessment, or a categorical
exemption, and may be subject to administrative or judicial appeal.
These documents are primarily disclosure documents, and NEPA does not
require or guide mitigation for impacts.
Under NEPA, Forest Service analysis of each proposed project may
include a biological evaluation that discloses the potential impacts to
plant and animal species, including the California spotted owl.
Projects that are covered by certain ``categorical exclusions'' are
exempt from NEPA biological evaluation. In 2003, the Forest Service and
the Department of Interior revised their internal implementing
procedures describing categorical exclusions under NEPA (68 FR 33814)
to add two categories of actions to the agency lists of categorical
exclusions: Activities to reduce hazardous fuels, and rehabilitation
activities for lands and infrastructure impacted by fires or fire
suppression. These exclusions apply only to activities meeting certain
criteria including mechanical hazardous-fuels-reduction projects up to
400 ha (1,000 ac) in size and hazardous-fuels-reduction projects using
fire of less than 1,820 ha (4,500 ac) (See 68 FR 33814 for other
applicable criteria.). Exempt post-fire rehabilitation activities may
affect up to 1,700 ha (4,200 ac). As stated above in Factor A, fuels-
reduction activities can reduce key habitat elements for spotted owls
such as canopy cover, large downed logs, woody debris, and large snags,
but they have the important counter-balancing benefit of reducing the
probability of catastrophic, stand-replacing fires.
On July 29, 2003, the Forest Service published a notice of final
interim directive (68 FR 44597) that adds three categories of small
timber harvesting actions to the Forest Service's list of NEPA
categorical exclusions: (1) The harvest of up to 28 ha (70 ac) of live
trees with no more than 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of temporary road construction;
(2) the salvage of dead and/or dying trees not to exceed 101 ha (250
ac) with no more than 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of temporary road construction;
and (3) felling and removal of any trees necessary to control the
spread of insects and disease on not more than 101 ha (250 ac) with no
more than 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of temporary road construction.
A presentation of information regarding the MBTA, the Wilderness
Act of 1964, and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 can be
found in the 2003 12-month finding (68 FR 7580) which is incorporated
by reference. The Forest Service manages national forests under the
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 as
amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).
Implementing regulations for NFMA (36 CFR 219.20(b)(i)) require all
units of the National Forest System to have a land and resource
management plan (LRMP). The purpose of LRMPs is to guide and set
standards for all natural resource management activities over time.
NFMA has required the Forest Service to incorporate standards and
guidelines into LRMPs, including provisions to support and manage plant
and animal communities for diversity, and the long-term range-wide
viability of native and desired non-native species. On January 5, 2005,
the Forest Service issued a new planning rule under NFMA (70 FR 1023)
that changed the nature of Land Management Plans so that plans
generally are strategic in nature and may be categorically excluded
from NEPA analysis. Rather than providing management direction and
mandated standards, plans will provide guidance through five
components: Desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of
areas, and special areas.
Under the new rule, the primary means of sustaining ecological
systems, including species, will be through guidance for ecosystem
diversity, whereas the old rule specifically directed that viable
populations of existing native (and non-native) species be maintained
within each planning unit. The new rule directs the Responsible
Official to provide additional provisions, if needed, for threatened
and endangered species, species-of-concern, and species-of-interest
within overall multiple-use objectives. Because the California spotted
owl is currently identified as a sensitive species by the Regional
Forester, it will likely be categorized as a species-of-concern in the
future, but we cannot predict specific protections that will be
provided for the owl.
The new rule will take effect as forests, except the southern
California forests, complete previously-scheduled revisions to LRMPs.
The national forests in southern California (Los Padres, Angeles, San
Bernardino, and Cleveland) were in the plan-revision process when the
new rule was promulgated, so completed their plan revisions in
September of 2005 under the 1982 planning rule. The national forests of
the Sierra Nevada are scheduled to initiate plan revisions over the
next 3 years (Efird in litt. 2005). The extent to which the new
planning rule will change forest management is not known. However, the
discretion of the Responsible Official in making land-management
decisions continues to be constrained by a requirement that any
decision must demonstrate it contributes to meeting the desired
condition. Responsible Official discretion is also guided by a body of
law, regulation, policy, and public oversight that transcends LMP
direction (Efird in litt. 2005). See below for more information on
forest management planning.
Regulations specific to national forests in the Sierras. The
petition contends that the SNFPA (USFS 2004a): Replaced explicit
standards and guidelines in USFS (2001) with vague descriptions of
desired future conditions; does not adequately protect large trees,
high canopy closure, multiple-canopy layers, snags, and downed wood;
and does not provide limits on the proportion of the landscape that can
be degraded through logging. We agree that the SNFPA replaced some
standards and guidelines with more general desired future conditions.
However, as presented below, the best-available data indicate the SNFPA
does adequately protect spotted owl habitat while lessening the threat
of wildfire, and that it includes many restrictions and guidelines that
limit the proportion of areas that can be logged.
In 1991, the Forest Service initiated the first of several planning
efforts focused on maintaining the viability of California spotted owls
on 11 national forests and approximately 4.5 million ha (11 million ac)
in the Sierra Nevada and Modoc Plateau of California. These
[[Page 29903]]
efforts included a technical assessment of the status of the California
spotted owl and issuance of interim guidelines (Verner et al. 1992a).
The primary objectives of the interim guidelines were to protect known
nest stands, protect large old trees in timber strata that provide
suitable spotted owl habitat, and reduce the threat of stand-destroying
fires. They allowed treatment of suitable nesting and roosting habitat
that reduced canopy cover to 40 percent in timber types selected by
spotted owls and below 40 percent in other types used by spotted owls
according to their availability (except in PACs). Under the interim
guidelines, no mechanism existed to evaluate cumulative impacts of
timber harvest on California spotted owls in national forests. After
1993, when baseline surveys for the species were completed within lands
managed by the Forest Service, forest management continued without
further requirements to survey for the spotted owl (68 FR 7580).
In 1995, the Forest Service released a draft environmental impact
statement for a long-term management plan for California spotted owl
habitat (68 FR 7580). Final direction was not issued due to new
scientific information provided by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project
(SNEP) report released in 1996. In 1998, the Forest Service initiated a
collaborative effort to incorporate new information from the SNEP
report into management of Sierra Nevada national forests. This effort
became known as the Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and
Collaboration (Framework). As part of the Framework, the Forest Service
developed the SNFPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for which a
Record of Decision (ROD) was issued on January 12, 2001 (USFS 2001).
The SNFPA addresses five problem areas: Old forest ecosystems and
associated species; aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems and
associated species; fire and fuels; noxious weeds; and lower westside
hardwood ecosystems. Subsequent to the establishment of management
direction by the SNFPA ROD, the Regional Forester assembled a review
team to evaluate specific plan elements, including the fuels treatment
strategy, consistency with the National Fire Plan, and agreement with
the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Recovery Act. The review was
completed in March 2003 (USFS 2003a), and in June 2003, the Forest
Service issued a Draft Supplemental EIS for proposed changes to the
SNFPA (USFS 2003b). The Final Supplemental EIS was issued in January
2004, and the new ROD was issued on January 21, 2004 (USFS 2004a).
Forest Plans were amended to be consistent with the new ROD, and all
subsequent project decisions fall under the 2004 direction. Within the
range of the California spotted owl, the Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe,
Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo, and Sequoia national forests, a
small part of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and the Lake Tahoe
Basin Management Unit are within the area covered by the SNFPA.
USFS (2004a) provides a system of land allocations to protect
spotted owl habitat including PACs and Home Range Core Areas.
Currently, there are a total of 1,321 PACs and Home Range Core Areas
which result in the protection of 424,052 ha (1,047,858 ac). Each Home
Range Core Area contains 243, 405, or 971 ha (600, 1000, or 2400 ac,
respectively) depending on latitude, and Home Range Core Areas (like
PACs) were delineated around all spotted owl territory-centers that
have been detected on National Forest lands since 1986. The LMP sets
Management Intents, Management Objectives, and Desired Conditions for
each land allocation. Desired conditions provide goals that PACs
contain at least two tree-canopy layers, dominant and co-dominant trees
with average diameters of at least 61 cm (24 in) dbh, at least 60 to 70
percent canopy cover, and provisions for snag and downed woody
materials (USFS 2004a). Desired conditions for Home Range Core Areas
include large habitat blocks that have at least two tree-canopy layers,
have dominant and co-dominant trees with at least 61 cm (24 in) dbh, a
number of very large old trees greater than 114 cm (45 in) dbh, at
least 50 to 70 percent canopy cover, and higher-than-average levels of
snags and downed woody material (USFS 2004a). The Service agrees that
this management direction provides necessary protections for the
spotted owl during fuels-reduction activities.
The primary objective of the 2004 ROD is to reduce the likelihood
of catastrophic fire throughout national forests, especially near
developed areas. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for fuels
reduction and thinning stipulate that fuels treatments of 20 ha (50 ac)
to over 405 ha (1,000 ac) in size (averaging 40 to 121 ha (100 to 300
ac) be strategically placed (in SPLATs) to interrupt fire spread,
reduce fire severity, and provide for drought-resistant forests, while
avoiding PACs to the greatest extent possible. The Forest Service
anticipates implementing SPLATs on 25-30 percent of National Forest
lands in the Sierras over 20 years (USFS 2004a). Direction provides
that fuels treatments may include the use of mechanical thinning and
prescribed fire. Standards that guide thinning activities stipulate
that projects be designed to retain live trees 76 cm (30 in) dbh or
greater, retain at least 40 percent of the existing basal area (outside
of Defense Zones), and avoid reducing the pre-existing canopy cover by
more than 30 percent. Projects are to retain at least 50 percent canopy
cover averaged within the treatment unit, with exceptions that allow
retention of as low as 40 percent canopy cover. Exceptions within Home
Range Core Areas are allowed to reduce ladder fuels, provide for
equipment operability, and minimize re-entry; several additional
exceptions apply outside of PACs and Home Range Core Areas (USFS
2004a). In PACs located in Defense Zones, mechanical-thinning
treatments may be used to reduce fuels build-ups. In PACs located in
Threat Zones, mechanical treatments are allowed where prescribed fire
is not feasible and where avoiding PACs would significantly compromise
the fire-fuels strategy (see USDA 2004:60). Outside of the WUIs, only
prescribed fire may be used in PACs. The 2004 ROD mandates that PACs be
avoided to the maximum extent possible when designing fuels treatments,
and stipulates that, on a region-wide basis, forests will treat no more
than 5 percent of the total PAC area per year and 10 percent of the PAC
acres per decade. Pre-project surveys are conducted in areas of
suitable habitat when occupancy of spotted owls is unknown and projects
are expected by the Forest Service to reduce habitat quality, and new
PACs are delineated when appropriate (USFS 2004a). Standards concerning
retention of large woody debris and snags are presented above in Factor A.
The 2004 SNFPA ROD provides for full implementation of the Pilot
Project on the Lassen and Plumas national forests and the Sierraville
District of the Tahoe National Forest. The Pilot Project was initiated
under the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act of
1998, which required the Forest Service to conduct a pilot project to
test and demonstrate the effectiveness of resource management
activities on the Lassen, Plumas, and Sierraville Ranger District of
the Tahoe National Forest. It specifically required resource management
activities that include fuelbreak construction consisting of a
strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones, group-selection
harvests, and individual tree selection harvest, and a program of
riparian management and riparian restoration projects. One of
[[Page 29904]]
the key requirements of the HFQLG Act is to convene an independent
scientific panel to prepare a final report evaluating whether, and to
what extent, implementation of the pilot project achieved its goals, in
particular improving ecological health and community stability. The
Forest Service completed a ROD on the FSEIS of the Pilot Project in
August, 1999 (USFS 1999). In February, 2003, the Pilot Project was
extended until the end of fiscal year 2009 (USFS 2004c), and upon
conclusion of the Pilot Project, management activities will be guided
by the SNFPA. Within the Pilot Project area, all fuels-reduction and
timber-harvest activities are prohibited within the 411 spotted owl
habitat areas (that are 405 ha (1,000 ac) in size) and PACs (that are
121 ha (300 ac) in size) contained within those habitat areas (USFS
2004a). Individual-tree selection and group-selection harvests are not
permitted in late-successional old-growth forests (CWHR classes 5M, 5D,
and 6), and fuels-reduction activities are designed to avoid such
forests; however, construction of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones is
allowed when needed. The national forest lands outside of PACs and
spotted owl habitat areas are available to vegetation- and fuels-
management activities, including group-selection and individual-tree
selection harvests. Standards and guidelines for all treatment areas
direct that trees greater than 76.2 cm (30 in) dbh be retained, with
exceptions for operability. Suitable nesting habitat (CWHR 5M, 5D, 6)
is managed in Defensible Fuel Profile Zones to provide for at least 40
percent canopy cover, retain all trees greater than 76.2 cm (30 in) dbh
and at least 40 percent of the basal area (generally in the largest
trees). Within Defensible Fuel Profile Zones, direction also provides
for retention of at least 40 percent canopy cover and at least 40
percent of the pre-existing basal area (in CWHR 5M, 5D, and 6 stands),
or retention of at least 30 percent existing basal area (in CWHR 4M and
4D stands). Within areas thinned using individual-tree selection,
direction provides for retention of at least 50 percent canopy cover
with exceptions to a minimum of 40 percent canopy cover (averaged
within the treatment), and avoidance of greater than a 30 percent
reduction in canopy cover, along with retention of at least 40 percent
of the existing basal area (in CWHR 4D, 4M, 5D, 5M, and 6 stands). In
eastside-pine forest types, direction specifies that projects be
designed to retain at least 30 percent of the existing basal area. In
addition, there are retention requirements for downed woody material
within the project area.
Regulations specific to national forests in southern California.
The national forests in southern California (Los Padres, Angeles, San
Bernardino, and Cleveland) have LMPs that are united by a common
vision, common design criteria, and a common Final EIS (USFS 2005a;
2005b). The LMPs for the four forests are programmatic documents that
leave all specific design decisions and analyses to project-level plans
(USFS 2005a-f). Part Three (Design Criteria) of the LMP (USFS 2005b)
also refers to auxiliary documents and agreements, such as conservation
strategies, that provide additional guidance for management actions. In
this LMP (USFS 2005b), design criteria that could provide some
protection for spotted owls include the following standards that apply
to all four forests. Currently no land is identified as suitable for
timber sale production; therefore, timber harvest may only occur to
meet wildlife, fuels, fire, watershed, or other needs. In the mixed
conifer-yellow pine, closed-cone conifer, big-cone Douglas-fir and
canyon oak, and coast redwood habitat types that are used by spotted
owls, the maximum size-openings allowed for silvicultural systems and
fuels treatments are 0.1 to 1.2 ha (0.25 to 3 ac). Even-aged management
is not allowed, except in closed-cone forests when justified. Uneven-
aged group selection, uneven-aged single-tree selection, mechanical
thinning, and prescribed-fire thinning are all acceptable in mixed-
conifer-yellow-pine forests, while both mechanical and prescribed-fire
thinning are acceptable in closed-cone forests. All the vegetation-
management practices listed (except even-aged management) are
permissible, when justified, in the above habitat types.
The new LMPs provide for designation of WUIs, as described above
for the Sierra Nevada national forests, except that criteria specify
that WUI Threat Zone boundaries may extend well beyond 2 km (1.25 mi)
where fire history, local fuel conditions, etc., warrant extensions.
The LMPs provide specific direction to consider ``species guidance
documents'' when occupied or suitable habitat of threatened,
endangered, candidate, or sensitive species is present on project sites
(USFS 2005b). Direction specifies that short-term adverse impacts to
species, including threatened, endangered, and proposed species will be
accepted if such impacts will be compensated by accrual of long-term
habitat benefits to such species (USFS 2005b). This LMP provides
retention standards of a minimum of six downed logs and 10 to 15 hard
snags per 2 ha (5 ac) where available (USFS 2005b). Specific protection
for the spotted owl is provided to protect all spotted owl territories
identified in the Statewide CDFG database (numbered owl territories)
and new territories that meet state criteria by maintaining or
enhancing habitat conditions over the long term to the greatest extent
practicable, while protecting life and property (USFS 2005b). Other
protective standards for the spotted owl include limited operating
periods within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of occupied territory-centers and nest
sites during the breeding period (with exceptions for existing uses).
The LMP allows the loss of spotted owl habitat to development (e.g.,
new campgrounds, buildings) that is needed for compelling reasons, but
provides for mitigation measures of up to two-to-one for spotted owl
habitat that is lost. Preferred areas for mitigation are within the
forest where the impacts occurred (USFS 2005b). Where fuels and
vegetation management are taking place, spotted owl occupancy and
productivity are to be monitored during planning, implementation, and
for at least 2 years after treatment in order to assess effects to owls
(USFS 2004b).
In southern California, the Conservation Strategy for the
California Spotted Owl (USFS 2004b) and the LMP (USFS 2005b) outline
the management of spotted owl habitat in the Los Padres, Angeles, San
Bernardino, and Cleveland national forests. Guidelines recommend
identifying 121-ha (300-ac) PACs containing the best habitat within 2.4
km (1.5 mi) of nests or territory centers, and then identifying home
range cores by adding to the PAC 121 ha (300 ac) of the best habitat
within the same radius. Recommended restrictions include: Treatments
within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of a nest site or territory-center may not be
conducted during the nesting season; treatments in PACs and home range
cores are to be designed with the primary goal of improving spotted owl
habitat, and are to retain existing overstory and midstory canopy cover
when possible; fuels treatments are to leave all live trees greater
than 61 cm (24 in) dbh; and fuels treatments in PACs are to be limited
to no more than 5 percent of the PAC acreage in a given mountain range
per year and 25 percent of the mountain range PAC acreage per decade
(USFS 2004b). In addition, in the 12-24 ha (30-60 ac) of forest
immediately surrounding nest stands, no treatments are permitted in the
[[Page 29905]]
Threat Zone, and treatments are avoided when possible in the Defense
Zone (USFS 2004b). The 2005 San Bernardino National Forest LMP directs
the forest to harvest wood products including saw timber, house logs,
and utility poles as a by-product of ecosystem management, healthy
forest restoration, fuels management, and/or community protection
projects (USFS 2005c). The other southern California plans provide no
direction for saw timber products (USFS 2005d, e, f).
State Regulations
The petition states that the California State Forest Practices Code
provides almost no specific protections for the spotted owl or its
habitat. Below, we describe that, although there are no State
Regulations providing specific protections to the spotted owl, there
are some protections afforded to the spotted owl and its habitat
through State laws and regulations.
State regulatory mechanisms that provide some protection for the
California spotted owl and its habitat include the California Fish and
Game Code (14 C.C.R Sec. 1 et seq.), the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code Sec. 21000 et seq.), and the
California Forest Practice Rules (14 C.C.R. Sec. 895 et seq.). The
State of California, in Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game
Code (CDFG 2002), provides that it is unlawful to take, possess, or
destroy any birds in the order Strigiformes (owls) or to take, possess,
or destroy their nests or eggs. This restriction applies only to
individual owls, their nests and eggs, and does not place restrictions
on inactive nests or habitats used by spotted owls. While the
California spotted owl is not listed under the California Endangered
Species Act and thus does not receive protections available under that
statutory provision, the prohibitions against take of owls in the
California Fish and Game Code (see above) are similar to the section 9
protections provided by a listing under the ESA.
CDFG identified the California spotted owl as a ``species of
special concern'' (CDFG 1978). This status applies to animals that are
not listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act or the California
Endangered Species Act but are judged to be vulnerable to extinction.
The intent of the designation is to obtain special consideration for
the species in the project-planning process and to focus attention on the
species to avert the need for listing under either State or Federal laws.
Local land-use processes and ordinances are subject to CEQA, which
requires disclosure of potential environmental impacts of public or
private projects carried out or authorized by all non-Federal agencies
in California. CEQA regulations were described in the 2003 finding (68
FR 7580) and are incorporated by reference. According to a
representative from CDFG, the California spotted owl likely meets the
criteria for being a rare species under CEQA (Esther Burkett, CDFG in
litt. 2006). And CEQA gives additional protections to rare species,
CDFG could recommend to CDFG that certain mitigation actions be
incorporated into a THP that impacts the spotted owl. Because FPRs are
a substitute for CEQA, this process technically takes place through the
FPRs, which are discussed below.
As previously mentioned, logging activities on private and State
forestlands in California are regulated through a process that is a
substitute for CEQA. Under CEQA provisions, the State has established
an independent regulatory program to oversee timber management
activities on commercial forestlands under the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest
Practice Act of 1973 and the California FPRs (CDF 2005). CDF has
discretionary authority to interpret, implement, and enforce the FPRs.
Forest management is conducted through development of THPs and Non-
industrial Timber Management Plans that are approved by the State. The
FPRs require the registered professional forester preparing a THP to
select silvicultural systems that achieve a maximum sustained
production (MSP) of high-quality timber products while giving
consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife,
range, forage, fisheries, regional economic vitality, employment, and
aesthetic enjoyment (CDF 2005 Sec. 933.11). Foresters may achieve MSP
of high-quality timber products in a THP by several means, including
the development of a Sustained Yield Plan (SYP) (``Option B'') or by
using an alternative plan (``Option A'') (CDF 2005 Sec. Sec. 933.11,
953.11). SYPs must include projections of timber growth and harvesting
over a period of at least 100 years, assessment of watershed and
wildlife resources, and analysis of other resource values. To the
extent that sustained timber production, watershed impacts, and fish
and wildlife issues are addressed in the approved SYP, these issues are
considered to be addressed in the THP. Following approval, an SYP is in
force for a period of no more than 10 years (CDF 2005 Sec. Sec.
913.11, 933.11, 953.11, 1091.1, 1091.4.5, 1091.5). SPI (1999a, b),
Soper-Wheeler, Fruit Growers, and Collins Pine timber companies are
achieving MSP through CDF-approved ``Option A'' Maximum Sustainable
Production Plans, whereas W.M. Beaty and Roseburg Resources operate
under CDF-approved ``Option B'' SYPs. The Option A Demonstration of MSP
is a part of each THP submitted within a given assessment area. CDF
reviews THPs and SYPs to ensure those plans, submitted by the
Registered Professional Forester, demonstrate achievement of MSP. CDF
invites written comments of these plans from reviewing agencies and the
public, and considers those comments. CDF must approve each individual
THP (William Snyder, CDF, in litt. 2006).
The FPRs provide no specific, enforceable protections for the
California spotted owl, because it is not listed as threatened or
endangered under CESA or the ESA, nor is it identified by the
California Board of Forestry as a ``sensitive species'' (CDF 2005).
However, FPRs do protect some habitat or habitat elements used by the
owls (Chris Browder, CDF, in litt. 2005a). Implementation of the FPRs
focuses primarily on sustainable timber harvest with an emphasis on
conserving fish and wildlife and their habitats. The FPRs require
production of a THP for certain logging operations in California, as
described above. All THPs require an assessment of cumulative impacts
to evaluate on-site and off-site effects of proposed activities from
the past and the reasonably foreseeable future (CDF 2005 sections 898,
1034). This cumulative impact assessment pertains to all wildlife
resources, including the California spotted owl. If cumulative impacts
to the spotted owl or its habitat occur, and if CDF considers those
impacts to be significant, then the plan proponent will have to
mitigate such impacts to the level of insignificance or provide a
feasible alternative, or the benefits of the unmitigated project need
to outweigh the environmental risks of the project. THPs are to
indicate where timber operations would have any significant adverse
impact on the environment and, if they do have adverse impacts, they
are to explain why alternatives or additional mitigation measures that
would significantly reduce the impact are not feasible (CDF 2005 Sec.
898). THPs are not approved if CDF considers the impact too great.
FPRs include general language about reducing significant impacts to
non-listed species (CDF 2005 Sec. Sec. 919.4, 939.4, 959.4), retention
of snags (CDF 2005 Sec. Sec. 919.1, 939.1, 959.1), and management of
late-succession forest stands (CDF
[[Page 29906]]
2005 Sec. Sec. 919.16, 939.16, 959.16). FPRs provide that all snags
within the logging area be retained to provide wildlife habitat. Some
exceptions are allowed, such as felling of snags where there is
justification that there will not be a significant impact to wildlife,
but snags removed under such exceptions must still be part of an
approved THP.
California's FPRs provide for disclosure of impacts to late-
succession forest stands in some cases. The rules require that
information about late-succession stands be included in a THP when
late-succession stands over 8 ha (20 ac) are proposed for harvesting
and such harvest will ``significantly reduce the amount and
distribution of late succession forest stands'' (CDF 2005 Sec. Sec.
919.16, 939.16, 959.16). If the harvest is found to be ``significant,''
FPR Sec. 919.16 requires mitigation of impacts where it is feasible.
The California FPRs require retention of trees within riparian buffers
to maintain a minimum canopy cover, dependent on stream classification
and slope. Several restrictions of even-aged regeneration harvest
practices limit the extent and rate of even-aged regeneration harvest
and help provide protection against fragmentation (CDF 2005 Sec. Sec.
913.1, 933.1, 953.1) and include acreage limitations and buffers
between logging units.
Two changes to the California State Forest Practices Code took
place since our February, 2003 12-month finding that may influence
spotted owl habitat; these changes were not mentioned in the petition.
The Fuel Hazard Reduction Emergency Rule allows emergency fuels-
reduction treatments of dead or dying trees within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of
``communities at risk'' as listed by the California Fire Alliance, as
well as within 153 m (500 ft) from certain roads, permitted structures
outside of the community areas, infrastructure facilities, and approved
fire-suppression ridges. These treatments will target understory trees,
and trees only less than 76 cm (30 in) dbh can be removed. We
anticipate that few spotted owl territories will be negatively affected
by these treatments because only dead or dying trees will be cut, most
of the harvest will be of understory trees, and large-tree habitat
values will be maintained in most cases. We also anticipate that
frequencies of catastrophic wildfires in California spotted owl habitat
will be decreased due to these treatments. As of September 26, 2005,
the 35 notices submitted to implement the Fuel Hazard Reduction
Emergency Rule affected a total of only 494 ha (1,220 ac) (range: 0.4
ha (1 ac) to 75 ha (185 ac), mean 14 ha (35 ac)) (Browder in litt.
2005). The second change, the Variable Retention Rule, provides a
silvicultural prescription that promotes the retention of valuable
biological structural elements and helps achieve ecological, social,
and sustainable timber-production objectives. This Rule includes
retention of individual trees or groups of trees to maintain structural
diversity over the harvest unit, and of structural elements such as
snags, down logs, and other biological legacies. We anticipate that use
of this Rule will increase the quality and quantity of suitable spotted
owl habitat. As of September 26, 2005, the 35 notices submitted to
implement the Variable Retention Rule affected a total of 1,062 ha
(2,625 ac) (range: 8 ha (20 ac) to 115 ha (284 ac), mean 30 ha (75 ac))
(Browder in litt. 2005b).
Summary of Factor D
Some federal regulations afford some protection to California
spotted owls and their habitat. Although there are many uncertainties
concerning the effectiveness of fuels-reduction activities and their
effects on spotted owl habitat, we anticipate that the long-term
benefits of implementing the SNFPA and LMPs in southern California will
benefit the spotted owl by returning areas to pre-suppression tree-
density conditions, reducing loss of suitable habitat to catastrophic
fire and, in some areas, improving prey habitat and the ability for
spotted owls to capture their prey in more-open stands. We anticipate
that pre-project surveys will identify unknown spotted owl territories,
and that delineation of new PACs, when appropriate, will protect these
territories. Subsequent designation of new PACs based on survey
findings (USFS 2004a) will protect spotted owls. Although prescribed
fires and mechanical thinning will degrade or temporarily reduce the
amount of suitable habitat in some areas, it is expected that these
negative effects will be offset in protection of other areas from
stand-destroying wildfires, and that spotted owls will still have
sufficient quality and quantity of nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat, as well as forested areas through which they can disperse
throughout the Sierra Nevada, for the foreseeable future.
No State regulations specific to California spotted owls currently
exist. However, the California Fish and Game Code regulations
pertaining to owls provide protection similar to that provided by
section 9 of the ESA in regard to killing of spotted owls or
destruction of their nests or eggs. FPRs pertaining to cumulative
impacts, watercourse protection, late-succession forest stands, and
snag retention will provide protection to spotted owl habitats in the
form of canopy cover, forest continuity, and some structural elements.
As stated in Factor A, while many aspects of the protection afforded to
the spotted owls on private lands are voluntary, companies including
SPI are providing protections, and the Service has no indication that
this will change in the foreseeable future. The Fuel Hazard Reduction
Emergency Rule should benefit spotted owls by reducing fire frequency
and intensity, and implementation of the Variable Retention Rule should
increase the quality and quantity of suitable spotted owl habitat.
Therefore, we believe that the best-available scientific information
indicates that no significant or immediate threats to California
spotted owl viability are due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
The petition states concern that weather poses a threat to
California spotted owls. The best-available data are summarized below.
Variation in survival of California spotted owls has been shown to be
based on habitat variation, whereas variation in reproductive output
was based equally on variations in habitat and climate (Franklin et al.
2000). Weather conditions explain all or most of the temporal
variations in fecundity observed in California spotted owls (North et
al. 2000; Franklin et al. 2004; LaHaye et al. 2004) and northern
spotted owls in northwestern California (Franklin et al. 2000). Spotted
owls compensate for this highly variable annual reproduction with high
annual adult survival (Franklin et al. 2000). The long-term effects of
variations in reproductive success of spotted owls in California due to
climate are unknown, and will require decades of study (Franklin et al.
2000, 2004; North et al. 2000; LaHaye et al. 2004).
We are aware of three other possible threats to the California
spotted owl. These include climate change, water diversions, and air
pollution. Support for these possible threats was not provided in the
petition. We are aware of no scientific information that indicates that
these factors constitute a threat to the continued existence of this
species at this time.
The petition presents concern that threats from hybridization and
site competition with the barred owl have increased in recent years due
to the barred owl's recent expansion farther
[[Page 29907]]
into the range of the California spotted owl. The best-available data
are summarized below.
During the past century, barred owls expanded their distribution
from eastern to western North America (Mazur and James 2000), and are
now found throughout the forests of the northern Rocky Mountains,
southern Canada to British Columbia, and from Alaska to central
California. Barred owls occasionally hybridize with spotted owls (Hamer
et al. 1994; Kelly and Forsman 2004), but this behavior is considered
to be an ``inconsequential'' phenomenon that takes place mostly when
barred owls move into new areas, and declines as barred owls become
more numerous and have more access to other barred owls (Kelly and
Forsman 2004:808). Kelly and Forsman (2004) documented only 47 hybrids
out of more than 9,000 banded northern spotted owls and barred owls in
Oregon and Washington from 1970 to 1999. However, barred owls have
physically attacked (Pearson and Livezey 2003) and possibly killed
(Leskiw and Gutierrez 1998) northern spotted owls as well as negatively
affected northern spotted owl detectability (Olson et al. 2005), site
occupancy (Kelly et al. 2003; Pearson and Livezey 2003; Gremel 2005),
reproduction (Olson et al. 2004), and survival (Anthony et al. 2004).
Since our 2003 finding, the known range of barred owls has expanded
200 miles southward in the Sierra Nevada. Two hybrid spotted/barred
owls were documented in the Eldorado National Forest (Seamans et al.
2005; Seamans in litt. 2005) and a male barred owl was documented in
Kings Canyon National Park (Steger et al. in review). Barred owls have
not been detected in the mountains of southern California. Barred owls
moved into and increased their densities in the Sierras at much slower
rates than they did in other parts of western North America. For
example, in 1988, 23 years after Barred Owls were detected in
Washington in 1965 (Rogers 1966), they were at least twice as numerous
as northern spotted owls in the western Washington Cascades (Hamer et
al. 1989). Similarly, in 2005, 24 years after they were first detected
in California in 1981 (Evens and LeValley 1982), they were
approximately four times as numerous than northern spotted owls in the
Redwood National and State Parks (Schmidt 2005, Schmidt in litt. 2006).
However, in 2005, numbers of barred owls were only about 2 percent of
California spotted owl numbers in the Sierra Nevada (Service 2005). We
have no indication that barred owls are significantly affecting spotted
owls in the Sierras due to their low relative densities and to the
uncertainty that they will reach high densities. Barred owls are having
no effect on the spotted owls of southern California, and it is unknown
whether they will expand their range to include some or all of the
mountains of there.
In summary, we know of no substantial information that indicates
that climate is a threat to the continued existence of the California
spotted owl at this time. Although barred owls may pose a substantive
threat to California spotted owls at some point in time, they do not
appear to pose a significant threat now or in the foreseeable future,
to the continued existence of the California spotted owl such that it
warrants listing.
Finding
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by the California spotted owl. We reviewed the petition,
available published and unpublished scientific and commercial
information, and information submitted to us during the public comment
periods following our 90-day petition finding. This finding reflects
and incorporates information we received during the public comment
period and responds to significant issues. We also consulted with
recognized spotted owl experts and Federal and State resource agencies.
On the basis of this review, we find that the listing of the California
spotted owl is not warranted at this time because:
(1) The best-available data indicate that California spotted owl
populations are stationary throughout the Sierras, which contain 81% of
known California spotted owl territories. In fact, there was no strong
evidence for decreasing linear trends in the finite rate of population
growth (lambda) on any of the four Sierra Nevada study areas, adult
survival showed an increasing trend throughout the Sierras, and
modeling of realized population change for the four Sierra Nevada study
areas combined indicated that total spotted owl numbers did not
decrease over time. Additionally, the best available data for southern
California owls (the San Bernardino study area) showed that the
population was statistically stationary.
(2) We anticipate that planned and currently implemented fuels-
reduction activities in the Sierras and in southern California will
have a long-term benefit to California spotted owls by reducing the
risk of catastrophic wildfire. As stated above, a primary threat to
spotted owls is loss of habitat and subsequent population losses of
spotted owls due to stand-replacing fire in unnaturally dense forest
stands (USFS 2004a; 2005a).
(3) Although survey data for spotted owls in southern California
are incomplete, the best-available data do not show statistically
significant declines. Barred owls have not been detected in the
mountains of southern California, and they have moved into the Sierras
at much slower rates than they did in other parts of western North
America. Moreover, numbers of barred owls are only about 2 percent of
California spotted owl numbers in the Sierras.
(4) The largest private landholder, SPI, offers protection of
spotted owls on their lands (Murphy in litt. 2006). SPI conducts
surveys for spotted owls prior to harvest, establishes 6.5-11 ha (16-28
ac) no-cut unit buffers around each territory-center, and protects
forest units with nesting spotted owls from harvest altogether.
Moreover, during the next 100 years, SPI estimates that, as their
forests mature, habitat with nest-site characteristics will more than
double from 25 to 53 percent of all California spotted owl habitat on
SPI land.
In making this finding, we recognize that while statistical
analysis show that most California spotted owl populations are
stationary in the Sierras, there is a possibility of decline for some
populations (e.g., Lassen Study Area and San Bernardino Study Area),
and that the species faces threats from catastrophic fire and habitat
modification related to reduction of the risk of catastrophic fire. We
recognize the difficult trade-offs involving short-term risk of fuel
treatments versus long-term benefits of those treatments in reducing
risks and improving habitat. We recognize other current threats to the
species, including effects of isolation of spotted owls in southern
California and the potential spread of barred owls. We conclude that
impacts from fires, fuels treatments, timber harvest, and other
activities are not at a scale, magnitude, or intensity that warrants
listing, and that the overall magnitude of threats to the California
spotted owl does not rise to the level that requires the protections of
the Act. We will continue to monitor the status and management of the
species and to accept additional information and comments from all
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or
any other interested party concerning the status of this species.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available on request
from the
[[Page 29908]]
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section, above).
Author
The primary author of this notice is Kent Livezey, Western
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
510 Desmond Drive SE, Lacey, Washington 98503.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 15, 2006.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 06-4695 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P