Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Special Rule for the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl on Non-Federal Lands

SUMMARY: The implementing regulations for threatened wildlife generally

incorporate the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act

(Act) of 1973, as amended, for endangered wildlife, except when a

``special rule'' promulgated pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Act has

been issued with respect to a particular threatened species. At the

time the northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, (spotted

owl) was listed as a threatened species in 1990, the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) did not promulgate a special section 4(d) rule and,

therefore, all of the section 9 prohibitions, including the ``take''

prohibitions, became applicable to the species. Subsequent to the

listing of the spotted owl, a Federal Late-Successional and Old-growth

(LSOG) forest management strategy (Plan) was developed and then

formally adopted on April 13, 1994, in a Record of Decision (ROD) that

amended land management plans for Federal forests in northern

California, Oregon, and Washington. Although this proposed rule refers

to the Federal LSOG forest strategy as the ``Forest Plan'', it is noted

that the strategy is not a stand-alone management Plan but rather

effected a series of amendments to Forest Service and the Bureau of

Land Management planning documents. In recognition of the significant

contribution the Plan does make toward spotted owl conservation and

management, the Service now proposes a special rule, pursuant to

section 4(d) of the Act, to replace the blanket prohibition against

incidental take of spotted owls with a narrower, more tailor-made set

of standards that reduce prohibitions applicable to timber harvest and

related activities on specified non-Federal forest lands in Washington

and California.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by May 18,

1995.

The Service seeks comments from the interested public, agencies,

and interest groups on this proposed special rule and the potential

environmental effects of its implementation. A Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS) is being developed to accompany this proposed

rule and will be published soon after the proposed rule. The end of the

comment period on this proposed rule will be extended to coincide with

the end of the public comment period on the DEIS.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposed rule should

be sent to Mr. Michael J. Spear, Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-

4181. The complete file for this proposed rule will be available for

public inspection, by appointment during normal business hours, at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Curt Smitch, Assistant Regional

Director, North Pacific Coast Ecosystem, 3704 Griffin Lane SE, Suite

102, Olympia, Washington 98501 (206/534-9330); or Mr. Gerry Jackson,

Deputy Assistant Regional Director, North Pacific Coast Ecosystem, 911

N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland Oregon 97232-4181, (503/231-6159).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Abstract

The implementing regulations for threatened wildlife generally

incorporate the prohibitions of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act

(Act) of 1973, as amended, for endangered wildlife, except when a

``special rule'' promulgated pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Act has

been issued with respect to a particular threatened species. When the

northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, (spotted owl) was

listed as a threatened species in 1990, the Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) did not promulgate a special 4(d) rule. Therefore, all of the

Section 9 prohibitions for endangered species were made applicable to

the spotted owl throughout its range, including the prohibitions

against ``take'' that apply to endangered species under the Act.

Subsequent to the listing of the spotted owl, a new Federal forest

management strategy was developed and proposed by the Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), which was established by President

Clinton following the April 2, 1993, Forest Conference in Portland,

Oregon. FEMAT was established to develop options for the management of

Federal LSOG-forest ecosystems in northern California, Oregon, and

Washington within the range of the spotted owl. FEMAT outlined those

options in the report, Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological,

Economic, and Social Assessment, which drew heavily upon previous

scientific studies conducted on the northern spotted owl. On July 1,

1993, the President identified ``Option 9'' in the FEMAT Report as the

preferred alternative for managing Federal LSOG-forests in northern

California, Oregon, and Washington. The proposed management scenario

under Option 9 of FEMAT established a system of late-successional

forest and riparian reserves that would, in conjunction with

Administratively withdrawn and Congressionally reserved areas, provide

the foundation of protected ``old growth'' habitat that would benefit

spotted owls, marbled murrelets, salmon and many other old growth

associated species; adaptive management areas (AMAs) and surrounding

``matrix'' lands would constitute the remaining forest management

designations on Federal lands in the planning area. Future timber

harvesting activities on Federal lands within the range of the northern

spotted owl were expected to occur primarily in AMAs and Federal lands

determined to constitute the ``matrix.''

A draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was issued in

July 1993 to assess the environmental impacts of the alternatives which

were set forth in the FEMAT Report. A final SEIS was completed in

February 1994, and a Record of Decision was signed on April 13, 1994.

This process culminated in the formal administrative adoption of

Alternative 9 (a revised version of Option 9 as it had been presented

in the FEMAT Report), which has now become known, simply, as the Forest

Plan or Plan. This Plan provides a firm foundation for the conservation

needs of the spotted owl, especially in light of the net addition of

approximately 600,000 acres of Federal forest lands to protected

reserve status between its original formulation in the FEMAT Report and

the Record of Decision. On December 21, 1994, Federal District Court

Judge William L. Dwyer, issued his order upholding the adequacy of the

Plan. Judge Dwyer said ``The order now entered,* * *, will mark the

first time in several years that the owl-habitat forests will be

managed by the responsible agencies under a plan found lawful by the

courts. It will also mark the first time that the Forest Service and

BLM have worked together to preserve ecosystems common to their

jurisdictions.''

Despite enhanced owl protection under the final Forest Plan,

however, the Service believes that some supplemental support from non-

Federal forest lands remains necessary and [[Page 9485]] advisable for

owl conservation in certain parts of the range of the owl.

Based upon the possibility that the preferred alternative of FEMAT

(Option 9) would eventually be adopted, the Service published a Notice

of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (58 FR 69132) on December 29,

1993, and sent out a mailer advising the public of its intention to

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed special

rule that would ease restrictions for the spotted owl on certain non-

Federal forest lands. In response, the Service received and evaluated

more than 8,500 public comments. Taking these comments into

consideration, and based upon additional analyses, the Service now

proposes a special rule that would reduce the prohibition against

incidental take of spotted owls in the course of timber harvest and

related activities on specified non-Federal forest lands in Washington

and California.

For reasons discussed in more detail later, the Service is not

including Oregon, at this time, within the geographic scope of this

proposed special rule. The Service is aware of ongoing efforts within

Oregon between the Governor's office and large and small landowners to

fashion an ``Oregon Alternative'' to the Service's proposed action for

the State, as set out in the December 29, 1993, NOI. The Service is

supportive of this effort and will maintain the regulatory status quo

for spotted owls in Oregon in anticipation that an ``Oregon

Alternative'' approach to owl conservation will be developed. Thus, by

excluding Oregon altogether from this proposed special rule, the

Service retains for Oregon the original level of protection against

take for the owl established when the species was listed on June 26,

1990.

In assessing the conservation needs of the northern spotted owl on

non-Federal lands, the Service was particularly mindful of--(1) The

level of protection to be provided the owl under the Federal reserve

and riparian buffer systems established under the Forest Plan, as well

as the matrix and adaptive management area prescriptions under the

Plan; (2) the range, location, and number of spotted owls on non-

Federal and Federal lands; (3) recently developed State programs to

regulate forest practices to benefit the spotted owl; and (4) emerging

non-Federal landowner habitat management and owl conservation

strategies such as Habitat Conservation Plans and agreements to avoid

the incidental take of owls.

This special rule proposes to replace the currently applicable

blanket prohibition against incidental take on non-Federal lands

throughout the owls' range with a more particularized set of

prohibitions for Washington and California. For the State of

Washington, incidental take restrictions would be relaxed for

approximately 5.24 million acres of non-Federal land in conifer

forests. While only a considerably smaller acreage figure of non-

Federal forest land is presently affected by incidental take

prohibitions for the spotted owl, the fear of future owl restrictions

is a significant concern of forest landowners throughout the range of

the spotted owl. This proposed rule would ease incidental take

restrictions on designated non-Federal lands by limiting the incidental

take prohibition for timber harvest activities to actions that fail to

maintain the 70 acres of suitable owl habitat closest to a site center

for a spotted owl. By proposing this action, the Service is not

implying that incidental take cannot occur until harvest activities

approach and actually invade an owl's activity center. Rather, the

Service is proposing that, in certain portions of the owl's range, the

incidental take of an owl will no longer be a prohibited activity

unless it involves harvest activities within an activity center.

Current incidental take restrictions would be retained for those

spotted owls whose site centers are located within six designated zones

or ``Special Emphasis Areas'' (SEAs) in the State of Washington. The

six SEAs include the western portion of the Olympic Peninsula, the

Finney Block area, the I-90 Corridor, the Mineral Block area, the

Siouxon Creek area and the Columbia Gorge/White Salmon areas. These

areas were generally chosen to fill in gaps in protection under the

Forest Plan where the Federal land base alone appears currently to be

inadequate to provide for the conservation of the owl.

In addition, the Service proposes to implement a ``Local Option

Conservation Planning'' program in Washington to provide an opportunity

for additional relief from incidental take prohibitions for non-Federal

landowners who own between 80 and 5,000 acres of forest lands within an

SEA. The Local Option process is envisioned to be the equivalent of a

``short form'' Habitat Conservation Plan. The local option conservation

planning process would not apply to those areas where the Service

determines that suitable owl habitat (nesting, roosting or foraging

habitat) on non-Federal lands within SEAs can reasonably be expected to

provide important demographic support for Federal owl reserves. These

``Local Option'' conservation plans would provide non-Federal

landowners with the flexibility to develop alternative prescriptions or

restrictions for their lands which could achieve a level of protection

comparable to the conservation objectives set forth for the owl in this

rule.

For the State of California, this proposed rule would recognize the

significant conservation benefits accorded the northern spotted owl

under California law by easing the Federal prohibition against

incidental take from timber harvest activities in most of the Klamath

province of that State. The zone in which this would occur would be

called the Klamath Province Relief Area. The incidental take

prohibition for timber harvests in this Relief Area would be limited to

actions which fail to maintain the 70 acres of suitable owl habitat

closest to a site center for a spotted owl. Additional relief could be

provided to non-Federal landowners in four potential ``California

Conservation Planning Areas'' (CCPAs) referred to as the California

Coastal Area, Hardwood Region, Wells Mountain-Bully Choop area, and the

California Cascades pursuant to the planning process under the

California Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act or

through completion of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under Section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act (Figure 1 to Sec. 17.41(c)).

Except for acreage actually located within owl activity centers,

the Service also proposes that small landowners who own no more than 80

acres of forest lands within a given SEA in Washington or one of the

four potential CCPAs in California, as of the publication date of this

proposed rule in the Federal Register, would be relieved of the general

prohibition against incidental take. The only exception to this

proposal would be for any small landowner who owns any or all of the 70

acres of forested lands closest to an owl site center. The incidental

take restriction would continue to apply within such 70 acres.

The Service also proposes to provide landowners within SEAs in

Washington or potential CCPAs in California additional flexibility for

avoiding incidental take liability if their lands are intermingled with

Federal matrix or Adaptive Management Area (AMA) lands. In such

situations, non-Federal landowners would be provided the alternative

option at their choosing of adopting the final harvest prescriptions

delineated for the surrounding Federal matrix or AMA lands, in lieu of

management practices which comply with current incidental take

restrictions. The one exception to this policy would [[Page 9486]] be

where the adoption of final matrix or AMA harvest prescriptions could

result in the incidental take of an owl whose site center is located

within a Forest Plan reserve or Congressionally reserved or

Administratively withdrawn areas. In such a case, the incidental take

restrictions would continue to apply for at least two more years,

pending review of the status of owls in affected reserve or withdrawn

areas.

For Tribal forest lands in Washington and California, the Service

proposes to lift the Federal prohibition against the incidental take of

the spotted owl except for harvest activities within the immediate 70

acres around a site center. Timber harvests conducted in accordance

with Tribal resource regulations would not be subjected to any

additional Federal prohibitions against incidental take of the owl.

Additionally, the Service proposes to include a ``sunset''

provision that would lift the incidental take restrictions within an

SEA or CCPA once the owl conservation goals for that area are achieved.

The Service also proposes to provide a ``safe harbor'' of certainty for

harvest activities within SEAs or CCPAs where more than 40 percent

suitable owl habitat would be retained after harvest within an owl's

median annual home range. In those instances where the ``safe harbor''

provision would apply, landowners would not be subject to a take

prohibition violation under any circumstances should an incidental take

of an owl nevertheless occur despite the landowner's efforts to avoid

take. The ``safe harbor'' provision would not apply, however, to any

timber harvest activities within the closest 70 acres of suitable owl

habitat surrounding an owl site center regardless of the percentage of

suitable owl habitat left within an owl's median annual home range.

In addition, the proposal sets out a new approach to provide

incentives to non-Federal landowners to restore or enhance degraded

spotted owl habitat, or to maintain existing suitable owl habitat,

without being penalized if their conservation efforts subsequently

attract spotted owls.

Definitions

As used in this proposed rule:

``Activity center'' means the closest 70 acres of suitable habitat

around the nest tree of a pair of owls or around the primary roost of a

non-nesting pair or territorial single owl (see ``site center'').

``Adaptive management area'' means the ten landscape units that

were adopted in the April 13, 1994, Record of Decision for development

and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving specific

ecological, economic, and other social objectives.

``Administratively withdrawn area'' means lands that are excluded

from planned or programmed timber harvest under current agency planning

documents or the preferred alternative for draft agency planning

documents.

``California Conservation Planning Area (CCPA)'' means areas in

which the State of California Resources Agency could conduct planning

for spotted owls under the auspices of the California Natural

Communities Conservation Planning Act (CNCCPA) of 1991.

``Congressionally reserved area'' means those lands with

Congressional designations that preclude timber harvest, as well as

other Federal lands not administered by the Forest Service or Bureau of

Land Management, including National Parks and Monuments, Wild and

Scenic Rivers, National Wildlife Refuges, and military reservations.

``Conservation'' as defined in the Endangered Species Act generally

means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring

any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures

provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary.

``Demographic support'' refers to the effects on a population from

a combination of births and deaths such that the net result is a stable

or increasing population. For the spotted owl this would occur through

provision and maintenance of: (1) Both suitable and dispersal habitat

to support individual owls; (2) small clusters or larger groups of

successfully breeding owls; and (3) the successful interaction and

movement between individuals and pairs.

``Dispersal'' refers to movements through all habitat types by: (1)

juvenile spotted owls from the time they leave their natal area until

they establish their own territory; (2) non-territorial single spotted

owls; or (3) displaced adults searching for new territories.

``Dispersal habitat'' means forest stands with adequate tree size,

structure, and canopy closure to provide--(1) cover for dispersing owls

from avian predators; and (2) foraging opportunities during dispersal

events.

``Federal reserve'' or ``Forest Plan reserve'' means those Federal

lands delineated in the April 13, 1994, Record of Decision in which

programmed timber harvest is not allowed and is otherwise severely

limited. There are two types of reserves--late-successional reserves,

which are designed to produce contiguous blocks of older forest stands,

and riparian reserves, which consist of protected strips along the

banks of rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands which act as a buffer

between these water bodies and areas where timber harvesting is

allowed.

``Habitat Conservation Plan'' (HCP) means an agreement between the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and either a private entity, local or

county government or State under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act that

specifies conservation measures that would be implemented in exchange

for a permit that would allow the incidental take of a listed species.

``Home range'' means the area a spotted owl uses and traverses in

the course of normal activities in fulfilling its biological needs

during the course of its life span.

``Incidental Take'' means any taking otherwise prohibited, if such

taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an

otherwise lawful activity.

``Matrix'' means those Federal lands generally available for

programmed timber harvest which are outside of the Congressionally

reserved and Administratively withdrawn areas, Federal reserves and

adaptive management areas as delineated in the Standards and Guidelines

adopted in the April 13, 1994, Record of Decision.

``Province'' or ``Physiographic Province'' means one of twelve

geographic areas throughout the range of the northern spotted owl which

have similar sets of biological and physical characteristics and

processes due to effects of climate and geology which result in common

patterns of soils and broad-scale vegetative communities.

``Record of Decision'' means the April 13, 1994, Record of Decision

for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning

Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA/USDI

1994).

``Site Center'' means the actual nest tree of a pair of spotted

owls or the primary roost of a non-nesting pair or territorial single

owl.

``Special Emphasis Area (SEA)'' means one of six specific areas in

the State of Washington where the Service has determined that it would

be necessary and advisable to continue to apply broad protection from

incidental take to support conservation efforts for the spotted owl.

``Suitable Habitat'' means those areas with the vegetative

structure and composition that generally have been found to support

successful nesting, roosting, and foraging activities of a territorial

single or breeding pair of spotted owls. Suitable habitat is

[[Page 9487]] sometimes referred to as nesting, roosting, and foraging

(NRF) habitat.

``Take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct

with respect to a spotted owl.

``Threatened Species'' means a plant or wildlife species defined

through the Endangered Species Act that is likely to become within the

foreseeable future an endangered species throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

``Timber harvest and related activity'' means any activity that

would result in the removal or degradation of suitable habitat.

Background

Regulatory History of the Northern Spotted Owl

The Service listed the northern spotted owl as a threatened species

on June 26, 1990, because of the past and continued projected loss of

suitable habitat throughout its range (55 FR 26114). This habitat loss

has been caused primarily by timber harvesting, but has been

exacerbated by the effects of catastrophic events such as fire,

volcanic eruption, and wind storms.

The inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms existing in 1990 under

State and Federal law also contributed to the decision to list the

northern spotted owl as a threatened species. During the period

immediately prior to listing, when the status of the owl was under

review, the annual Federal timber harvest in Oregon and Washington

averaged approximately 5 billion board feet per year. Much of that

harvest comprised suitable spotted owl habitat. Thus, Federal timber

harvest policies at that time contributed significantly to the decline

of the owl.

State protection for the owl in 1990 was also inadequate. Since

that time, California, Oregon and Washington have all recognized the

plight of the owl and have adopted forest management rules designed to

protect this threatened species. The degree of protection accorded the

northern spotted owl currently varies under State law. The northern

spotted owl is listed under Washington law as an endangered species,

under Oregon law as threatened, and under California law as a sensitive

species.

On January 15, 1992, the Service designated critical habitat for

the northern spotted owl (57 FR 1796). The critical habitat designation

encompassed 6.9 million acres of Federal land in 190 critical habitat

units in the States of California, Oregon, and Washington; non-Federal

lands were not included in the critical habitat designation. Of the

total acreage that was designated, 20 percent is in California, 47

percent is in Oregon, and 32 percent is in Washington.

Following the April 2, 1993, Forest Conference in Portland, Oregon,

President Clinton established a Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment

Team (FEMAT) to develop options for the management of Federal LSOG-

forest ecosystems to provide habitat that would support stable

populations of species associated with late-successional forests,

including the northern spotted owl. FEMAT developed ten options for the

management of LSOG-forest ecosystems on Federal lands in California,

Oregon, and Washington, which are outlined in the Team's report,

``Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social

Assessment'' (USDA et al. 1993). On July 1, 1993, the President

identified Option 9 as the preferred alternative for amending the

Federal agencies' land management plans with respect to LSOG forest

habitat. A modified version of Option 9 was adopted in the April 13,

1994, Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of

Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern

Spotted Owl (ROD). It is based on a system of late-successional

reserves, riparian reserves, adaptive management areas, and a matrix of

Federal lands interspersed with non-Federal lands. These designations

complemented existing Administratively withdrawn and Congressionally

reserved lands.

The adoption of the Forest Plan was subsequently upheld in Federal

court. On December 21, 1994, Federal District Court Judge William L.

Dwyer rejected plaintiffs' challenges and issued an order upholding the

President's Forest Plan.

An underlying premise for the President's selection of the Forest

Plan was that Federal lands should carry a disproportionately heavier

burden for providing for the conservation of the northern spotted owl,

enabling an easing of restrictions on incidental take for the owl on

large areas of non-Federal lands. President Clinton thus directed the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue regulations pursuant to section

4(d) of the Act looking to ease, where appropriate, restrictions on the

incidental take of spotted owls on non-Federal lands.

On December 29, 1993, the Service published in the Federal Register

a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

in support of a 4(d) rule for the spotted owl (58 FR 69132). The NOI

spelled out various alternative approaches for a 4(d) rule, including a

preferred approach or proposed action. This provided a preliminary

opportunity for public input prior to the actual publication of this

proposed rule.

Summary of Public Comments on Scoping Notice on 4(d) Rule

The Service received more than 8,500 comments from the public on

its scoping notice for a section 4(d) rule EIS for the spotted owl.

Most comments received were in response to a January 3, 1994, special

mailer sent by the Service to approximately 80,000 recipients. The

Service specifically asked for suggestions on issues to be addressed in

the 4(d) rule. In general, the comments reinforced issues and concerns

identified in previous planning efforts for the spotted owl.

In the scoping notice, the Service sought comments on ten specific

issues. The comments received are summarized below, by issue:

(1) Biological, commercial, trade, or other relevant data on the

distribution and abundance of the northern spotted owl on non-Federal

lands in California, Washington and Oregon.

No new data or information was provided to the Service relative to

this issue.

(2) Biological, commercial, trade or other relevant data on the

distribution and abundance of the northern spotted owl that identifies

the effects of the alternatives for a section 4(d) rule on the northern

spotted owl.

No new data or information was provided to the Service relative to

this issue.

(3) The scope of the issues that have been identified for the

environmental impact statement on a proposed special rule.

In addition to the issues identified in the scoping notice,

commenters identified several additional issues for the Service to

consider. Several commenters objected to any provision requiring that

40 percent of suitable habitat be retained within the median annual

home range circle of an owl located within SEAs, and, because it means

that 60 percent of suitable habitat within a home range may be lost,

requested an explanation of the biological basis for such a provision.

They also requested that the Service consider how habitat modification

on non-Federal land will affect owls on adjacent Federal lands.

Comments from non-Federal landowners requested that the Service

consider the possible economic benefits of a variety of silvicultural

regulations [[Page 9488]] to protect owl habitat. They also asked that

the Service evaluate whether the SEA concept fully takes into account

the contributions already provided by State agencies and those already

in place on Federal lands, and whether the regulatory burden of the

SEAs is disproportionate to the benefits.

(4) The range of alternatives that have been identified for the

environmental impact statement on a proposed special rule.

A number of commenters provided suggestions for additional

alternatives for Service consideration. These included requests to

increase or relieve the prohibitions against incidental take, to

consider the development of a program based entirely on voluntary

participation by forest land managers, to not use SEAs and use only 70

acre owl circles rangewide, and to provide incidental take protection

only to landowners who sell to domestic markets. Some commenters

requested that the Service provide an alternative with incentives for

growing habitat, or to buy or exchange land instead of promulgating a

section 4(d) rule. Another suggestion was to transplant spotted owls

rather than use a special rule to provide for connectivity, and depend

on Federal lands to provide the land base for connectivity.

Other suggested alternatives included using existing exceptions to

prohibitions, such as the HCP process, in combination with a final

recovery plan for the owl; protecting previously proposed critical

habitat on private lands in addition to, or instead of, the SEAs; and

applying the 50-11-40 rule to SEAs in addition to, or instead of,

retaining 40 percent of suitable habitat within a home range.

Modifications of the alternatives were also suggested. Some

examples include replacing the SEAs in Washington with the areas

proposed to the Washington Forest Practices Board in a report by the

Spotted Owl Scientific Advisory Group (SAG report), to add an SEA for

southwestern Washington, and to reduce or exclude the Olympic Peninsula

SEA.

Comments specific to California alternatives included requests to

provide a separate 4(d) rule for California; to apply the Washington/

Oregon approach with SEAs to California; to repeal existing owl rules

and designate specific ``no take'' areas; and to maintain existing

prohibitions of take and adopt the California Board of Forestry's new

late-successional forest rules.

(5) Input on how suitable habitat for the marbled murrelet should

be identified and how it should be protected, and data on marbled

murrelet distribution and abundance on non-Federal lands.

Numerous comments were received on the marbled murrelet, with most

stating that it is inappropriate to include the murrelet in the

regulatory process for the spotted owl because not enough information

about murrelets is available at this time to attempt a regulatory

definition of incidental take, and that any rule for the murrelet

should be done separately. One commenter stated that the Service should

consider adopting an interim 4(d) rule for marbled murrelets that can

be refined at a later date because they are associated with the same

forest ecosystem as the spotted owl, and that all suitable murrelet

habitat should be addressed including marine habitat. Another suggested

that, in identifying marbled murrelet habitat, the emphasis should be

on a definition that recognizes large contiguous areas of habitat

capable of supporting large numbers of birds, and not on defining the

lowest possible quantity and stand size used.

(6) Input on the use of ``local options'' to allow individuals to

propose adjustment to prohibitions against take of northern spotted

owls without going through the normal habitat conservation planning

process.

The potential use of the local option plan was responded to

favorably by many commenters. Most said that a ``local option'' plan

should be included as an additional tool to protect owls and to provide

landowner flexibility, and that these should provide the same legal

protection as HCPs. Others stated that the rule should provide

flexibility for applying local options based on the expertise and

knowledge of State forestry associations, State governments, and forest

landowners.

(7) Consideration of a small landowner exemption for non-commercial

forest land of ten acres or less.

Many commenters addressed this issue with the majority recommending

that the Service carefully examine and explain the rationale and

biological basis for such an exemption, and suggesting that any

provision to have less restrictive measures for small landowners would

unfairly shift the burden of responsibility to the larger landowners.

Others suggested that such an exemption may tend to break large

ownerships into smaller ownerships. Some expressed the view that while

appealing, it may set up an arbitrary distinction between landowners

based on size, and that the 10 acre size specified in the scoping

notice was too small to be meaningful.

(8) Boundaries of the SEAs in the proposed action, including the

impacts and effects of alternative boundaries.

Few suggestions were received relative to specific boundary

changes. Many comments were received regarding the number of SEAs, the

designation or lack of designation of specific SEAs, and the general

use of the SEA concept. Among the comments specific to the boundaries

was the suggestion that the Mineral Block and I-90 Corridor SEAs should

extend no farther west than necessary to provide reasonable

connectivity between the Federal conservation areas to the north and

south.

Regarding the Olympic Peninsula SEA, comments included the

assertion that there should be no SEA on the Olympic Peninsula because

Federal lands should be relied on for owl conservation in this area.

Another suggestion was that the Service move the southern boundary of

the proposed Olympic Peninsula SEA northward to run east and west from

the southern boundary of the Olympia National Forest. It was further

suggested that only the State of Washington's Olympic Experimental

Forest be included in the SEA for the Olympic Peninsula, and that this

SEA be rescinded following the approval of an HCP for the State Forest.

Many commenters were specifically concerned about the failure to

designate the White Salmon landscape as an SEA to provide demographic

interchange between owls on the Yakima Indian Reservation and Federal

lands in the eastern Washington Cascades. Other commenters noted that

there is no demonstrated need for an SEA in the White Salmon or Hood

River areas.

Many commenters asked that the Service provide the scientific basis

for determining the configurations and boundaries of the SEAs. There

were further suggestions that for SEA boundaries, the rule must specify

the requirements of ``owl shadows'' (restrictions on adjacent lands

near an owl site center) both within and outside of SEA's. Some

commenters stated that the Service should eliminate all SEAs as they

would provide further harvest restrictions which would be unduly

burdensome, and that they go beyond the Act by mandating conservation

measures on privately owned land.

(9) Possible mitigation measures, such as multi-species Habitat

Conservation Plans or conservation agreements that provide long-term

enforceable and protective land management prescriptions for non-

Federal lands.

Several commenters referenced the use of the HCP process,

requesting that the Service clarify the relationship

[[Page 9489]] between HCPs and the 4(d) rule. Specifically, they asked,

in the absence of an SEA designation, what guarantees would there be

that habitat will be protected between the time the 4(d) rule goes into

effect (and relief is granted) and the time HCPs are completed. There

was also concern expressed that there may be a lack of incentives for

other landowners to develop HCPs if there is no SEA designated. Others

suggested the 4(d) rule state that it will not apply to lands covered

by an approved HCP. Specific to California were recommendations that

the Service encourage the State to continue to recognize Federally

approved HCPs as a valid means of complying with regulations the State

adopts as a result of the 4(d) process.

(10) Retention of Federal incidental take restrictions for Indian

forest lands included within the boundary of an SEA.

Many comments were received regarding this issue, and most

suggested that it may be inappropriate to impose Federal take

prohibitions on tribal lands. One commenter stated that in promulgating

the special rule, the Service should direct attention to the special

status of Indian tribal lands as distinct and separate in treatment

from other non-Federal State and private lands; the Service should

adopt a special rule that exempts Indian forest lands from the

prohibitions against incidental take, including any that may be in

SEAs.

Some proponents of owl protection stated that the Service should

not lift take prohibitions on tribal lands in the absence of criteria

to ensure that the owl is adequately protected by tribal management

practices. They noted that progress on the part of the tribes is

variable, and this should be evaluated before lifting restrictions

within SEAs. Others commented that the special rule should ensure that

measures governing incidental take of the owl on Indian forest lands

contribute to the conservation of the species.

In addition to the ten issues for which the Service requested

input, comments were received on numerous other issues relative to the

proposed action. Three general areas of interest were common in the

comments from non-industrial landowners--(1) the proposed section 4(d)

rule was a disincentive to grow habitat for spotted owls and to

practice good silviculture; (2) the proposed rule represented an

unconstitutional taking of private property and that private landowners

should be compensated; and (3) the proposed 4(d) rule places an unfair

burden on non-Federal lands and actually provides little relief to

private lands.

Comments from industrial landowners included a request for ``safe

harbor'' from prosecution if the requirements of the 4(d) rule were met

and more that 40 percent suitable habitat was left within an owl circle

after harvest; and the suggestion that the 4(d) rule assist in

addressing the issue of access across Federal lands to non-Federal

lands. Concern also was expressed about potential conflict with anti-

trust laws when implementing, among several landowners, the requirement

that 40 percent suitable habitat be left within a home range circle,

and some asked that an anti-trust exemption be provided for multiple

landowners who have to deal with landscape issues. One commenter also

asserted that the creation of SEAs is a de facto designation of

critical habitat that must comply with the requirements of

Sec. 4(B)(2). Several commenters stated that there is no legal basis

under the Act for burdening private lands with recovery of a threatened

species, and that the 4(d) rule was essentially a recovery mechanism

being forced on private lands.

Proponents of spotted owl protection alleged that the scientific

basis for the proposed action is unclear, and it is particularly

unclear in how it relates to the recovery standards and objectives for

the owl. They suggested that any special rule for the spotted owl must

be part of a coordinated recovery approach among all Federal agencies

with responsibility for the owl. There were numerous references to the

SAG report, and that the special rule should provide the level of

protection as proposed in the SAG report.

Several commenters asked that the rule provide clearer definitions

for ``take'' and ``suitable habitat.'' There were requests for

information on the land ownership within SEAs, the number of owls

present, and the anticipated level of incidental take. Others also

requested information regarding the specific acreage of State and

private lands off limits to harvest under the proposed action. There

also were questions about how the rule would describe and determine the

70 acres to be protected around active spotted owl nests outside of

SEAs.

After reviewing these public comments, as well as other owl

management strategies and analyses, the Service now proposes this

special rule in response to the President's directive to review the

blanket set of incidental take prohibitions for the northern spotted

owl that has been in effect since the listing. In particular, this

proposed rule would relax incidental take restrictions for the owl for

timber harvests for certain non-Federal lands in Washington and

northern California. This proposed special rule excludes Oregon,

however, and does not propose any changes in the regulatory

prohibitions to protect the owl which are currently applicable within

that State. In March and December 1994, the Service received letters

from the Oregon Congressional Delegation requesting that further work

on a 4(d) rule for Oregon be suspended to provide an opportunity for

consensus to emerge among State officials and private landowners on a

strategy for the conservation of the spotted owl. Recognizing the

benefits that such a consensus approach offers, the Service agreed in

May 1994, to suspend further work on a federally developed 4(d) special

rule proposal for Oregon in order to encourage the development of a

``stakeholder'' based ``Oregon Alternative''.

The Governor's office in Oregon has taken the lead in working

cooperatively with non-Federal landowners through the Oregon Forest

Industries Council, Oregon Small Woodlands Association, Northwest

Forestry Association, Douglas County, and others to develop an

alternative owl conservation strategy. The Service is supportive of

this approach and is willing to review and consider any State

conservation proposal which results from this process.

Under the existing regulatory structure implementing section 4(d)

of the Endangered Species Act, each section 4(d) ``special rule'' for a

threatened species must contain all of the applicable prohibitions and

exceptions for that species throughout its range (50 CFR 17.31(c)).

Thus, in the past, Oregon would have been included in this proposed

4(d) rule, even if only to preserve the current regulatory status quo

protecting the spotted owl in Oregon.

In reviewing the request for exclusion from Oregon, the Service has

assessed whether it would be advantageous to adopt a new approach for

dealing with special rule situations in the future by authorizing the

revision of a listing of a threatened species through the subsequent

publication of a special rule that covers only part of, but not all of,

the range of the species. Under this approach, the general prohibitions

and exceptions applicable to threatened species not covered by special

rules would continue to apply in that part of the range of the species

not included under the provisions of a subsequent special rule. After

consideration of the [[Page 9490]] relevant factors on this matter, the

Service has decided to adopt this new approach for special rules and is

simultaneously proposing additional technical amendments to 50 CFR

17.11 and 50 CFR 1731(c) to accomplish this change.

In the specific case of the northern spotted owl, the owl was

originally listed as threatened without a special rule, and is subject

to the same general prohibitions and exceptions which are applicable to

endangered species pursuant to the current provisions of 50 CFR

17.31(a). These general prohibitions include a rangewide prohibition

against the incidental take or harm of an owl. These prohibitions apply

throughout the owl's range, including the State of Oregon. The Service

now proposes a section 4(d) special rule for the owl that applies only

to the States of Washington and California. Because the proposal for a

special rule only encompasses Washington and California, under its

current formulation owls in Oregon would remain fully protected against

incidental take or harm under the prohibitions established for the owl

when it was originally listed. As previously noted, the Service is

presently proposing the requisite technical changes to 50 CFR 17.11 and

50 CFR 17.31(c), as discussed above, to allow for the issuance of a

special rule that applies to only part of the range of a threatened

species like the spotted owl, while retaining the original protective

prohibitions for the remainder of the species' range in Oregon.

If a new ``Oregon Alternative'' proposal for the owl is

subsequently developed which is found to be consistent with the

requirements of the Act, the Service will initiate an analysis of the

new proposal under the National Environmental Policy Act and initiate

appropriate regulatory proceedings at that time.

Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act

The scope and authority for this proposed rule stems from section

4(d) of the Act, which grants the Secretary of the Interior broad

administrative discretion to promulgate regulations that he deems to be

necessary and advisable to meet the conservation objectives for a

threatened species. The section also confers authority to the Secretary

to apply to a threatened species any or all of the prohibitions against

take that the Act makes expressly applicable to endangered species. The

pertinent parts of section 4(d) provide:

* * *Whenever any species is listed as a threatened species

pursuant to subsection (C) of this section, the Secretary shall issue

such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the

conservation of such species. The Secretary may by regulation prohibit

with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section

9(a)(1) . . . with respect to endangered species.* * *

As applied, this provision empowers the Service to promulgate a

special rule which adopts species-specific protective regulations upon

listing a species as threatened. Such a special rule may include

imposition of the section 9(a) prohibition against ``take,'' in some or

all of its particular manifestations, and in all or a portion of the

species' range, as well as other protective measures. While Congress

expressly mandated certain protections for endangered species by

statute (the section 9(a)(1) prohibitions), it intended to provide the

Service with flexibility in determining what protections are necessary

and advisable for threatened species. Section 4(d) is that grant of

rulemaking authority, and it provides the Secretary with broad

discretion to adopt regulations for the conservation of threatened

species.

In many circumstances the Service declines to issue a special rule

for a threatened species at the time it is listed, often because the

Service does not have sufficiently specific knowledge or the resources

necessary to develop a tailor-made rule. In this event, the general

threatened species regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 come into effect, which

provide for automatic application to threatened species of the

prohibitions the Act itself makes applicable to endangered species.

These ``blanket'' prohibitions act as a ``safety net'' for threatened

species until such time as the Service determines that it is

appropriate to issue a special rule for the species.

This latter course has been followed with respect to the northern

spotted owl. When the species was listed as threatened in June of 1990,

the Service did not promulgate a species-specific special take rule

under Rule 4(d), and thus the blanket prohibitions were triggered into

effect. The Service now has determined that it is appropriate to issue

a special rule tailor-made for this species, based on the Service's

more particularized knowledge about the respective conservation needs

of the owl across the various portions of its range, and the change in

LSOG-forest management occasioned by adoption of the Forest Plan.

Because this proposed rule does not involve regulated take, e.g.,

authorization of private predator control or sport seasons, the

provisions of section 3(3) regarding examination of population

pressures are not invoked.

The adoption of the Forest Plan--a comprehensive, interagency

strategy for management of Federal-LSOG forests in the owl's range

designating nearly 7.5 million acres as late-successional reserves--is

the major predicate for the Service's proposal of this special rule for

the owl. Upon issuing the Biological Opinion on the Forest Plan, the

Service stated that the plan ``will accomplish or exceed the standards

expected for the Federal contribution to recovery of the northern

spotted owl and assurance of adequate habitat for its reproduction and

dispersal.'' Thus, the Forest Plan is the primary foundation block for

owl recovery. This proposed rule would complement the Forest Plan and

provide for the conservation of the owl by retaining taking

prohibitions on non-Federal lands in a manner designed to build on the

protections the Forest Plan has provided. Further, the Service has

concluded that the owl take prohibitions that would no longer apply

under this proposed rule are no longer either necessary or advisable to

provide for the conservation of the owl, especially in light of the

Forest Plan's adoption.

In addition, as has been the case in other section 4(d)

regulations, the proposed rule ultimately would promote overall owl

recovery efforts in other ways. For example, with respect to a 4(d)

rule issued for the threatened population of gray wolves (Canis lupus)

in Minnesota, the Service determined that a government-implemented

depredation control program that includes the possibility of lethal

control measures would alleviate a source of public hostility to the

wolf and would, therefore, be protective of the species (see 50 CFR

17.40(d)). For the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus),

the Service promulgated a regulation under section 4(d) that authorized

the unintentional take of bear incidental to normal forest practices so

long as suitable habitat diversity for the bear was maintained (see 50

CFR 17.40(i); 56 FR 588, 593). As another instance, the Service has

proposed to authorize the take of the threatened coastal California

gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) incidental to land use

activities conducted in accordance with a State of California-sponsored

Natural Community Conservation Plan (58 FR 16758). In the case of the

northern spotted owl, the Service is coordinating applicability of the

take prohibition with the comprehensive management strategy in the

Forest Plan and the [[Page 9491]] initiation of a comprehensive

campaign to encourage Habitat Conservation Planning in key portions of

the owl's range.

Generally, incidental take could involve either the harm or

harassment of a spotted owl. The harassment of the northern spotted owl

would occur through disturbance of active nesting pairs or territorial

single owls within an activity center; harm would result from

significant owl habitat removal around and beyond spotted owl site

centers.

Incidental Take of Spotted Owls: ``Harassment''

Timber harvest and related activities that disturb the breeding and

nesting functions of spotted owls within activity centers during the

breeding season can be considered incidental harassment of individual

spotted owls. Incidental harassment may include activities that could

result in disturbance of nesting spotted owls or the abandonment of

eggs, nestlings, or fledgling spotted owls. More specifically,

incidental harassment of spotted owls generally can include harvest

activities that occur within the closest 70 acres of suitable habitat

surrounding a site center during the owl's reproductive period. (The

reproductive period generally is between March 1 and September 30 of

each year. These dates may be modified where credible scientific

information establishes a different time period for a given area.)

Actions with the potential to disturb nesting spotted owls include, but

are not limited to, harvest related activities such as felling,

bucking, and yarding; road construction; and blasting.

A study by Miller (1989) examined the area used by fledgling

spotted owl juveniles in Oregon. Radio-telemetry data showed that the

average amount of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat used by

fledgling spotted owls prior to dispersal was approximately 70 acres in

size. Under existing conditions in many areas, these activity centers

are seldom evenly distributed around a nest tree. Mortality rates for

juvenile spotted owls are significantly higher than for adults (Forsman

et al. 1984, Gutierrez et al. 1985, Miller 1989). Studies of juvenile

dispersal in Oregon and California indicated that few of the juvenile

spotted owls survived to reproduce (Miller 1989, Gutierrez et al.

1985). These research studies all reported very high mortality during

pre-dispersal.

Based on this and other information, the Service believes that the

maintenance of the closest 70 acres of existing suitable (nesting,

roosting, and foraging) habitat surrounding the nest tree will

contribute to a secure core area and is crucial to maximize fledgling

success and to provide a partial buffer against disturbance around the

site center. To avoid harassment, resident spotted owls are considered

to be nesting unless surveys conducted during the breeding season

indicate that not to be the case.

Incidental Take of Spotted Owls: ``Harm''

To successfully reproduce and maintain populations, studies have

suggested spotted owls require substantial quantities of suitable

(nesting, roosting, and foraging) habitat arrayed around their site

centers.

A number of radio-telemetry studies have described the quantity and

characteristics of habitat used by spotted owls. Studies by Hayes et

al. (1989) found a strong positive relationship between the abundance

of spotted owls and the percentage of older forests in the study area.

A similar analysis was performed on data collected by Bart and Forsman

(1992). The results showed that the number of spotted owls per square

mile, pairs of owls per square mile, young per square mile, and young

per pair increased with increasing amounts of older forest within the

study area. Productivity (number of young fledged per pair) increased

significantly with increasing amounts of older forest. Productivity in

areas with greater than 60 percent older forest was approximately three

times higher than productivity in areas with less than 20 percent older

forest.

Documentation in the 1990 Status Review of the Northern Spotted Owl

(USDI 1990a) indicates that productivity per pair is lowest in areas

with small amounts of older forest. This strongly suggests that, even

if some spotted owls persist in such areas, there is reason to believe

they are not reproducing and surviving at replacement levels.

The above research findings have supported the determination in the

past that reduced quantities of suitable habitat are likely to result

in lower spotted owl abundance and productivity rates. It has also been

suggested that a significant reduction of nesting, roosting, and

foraging habitat within the median annual home range of a spotted owl

pair or resident single creates a much higher risk of adverse effects

that actually kill or injure owls by significantly impairing essential

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and/or sheltering.

These are the primary elements of effects that ultimately can cause

harm to, and the incidental take of, spotted owls.

Recognizing the need to assist the public in avoiding the

incidental take of listed species, the Fish and Wildlife Service and

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a joint policy

statement on July 1, 1994, committing the agencies to provide as much

guidance and assistance to the general public as possible so as to

avoid liability under the ESA for incidental takings (59 FR 34272,

1994). The policy statement also committed the agencies to designate in

future listing packages a key contact person within either the Service

or NMFS, as appropriate, to answer incidental take questions from the

general public.

In the particular case of the spotted owl, the Service has

encouraged the public to conduct owl surveys of property proposed for

harvest or development, as a primary means of avoiding harassment or

harm to an owl. The Service has recommended that such surveys be

conducted according to a March 17, 1992, Service-endorsed survey

protocol (USFWS 1992), available upon request from the FWS Ecological

Services State Offices listed below:

Sacramento Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage

Way, Suite E-1803, Sacramento, California 95825, 916-978-4866, Attn:

Field Supervisor

Oregon State Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2600 S.E. 98th

Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266, 503-231-6179, Attn: Field

Supervisor

Washington State Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3704 Griffin

Lane S.E., Suite 102, Olympia, Washington 98501-2192, 206-753-9440,

Attn: Field Supervisor

Biology of the Northern Spotted Owl

The spotted owl is a long-lived bird that has a high degree of

nest-site fidelity within an established territory. This proposed rule

incorporates, by reference, recent documents addressing the biology and

ecology of the spotted owl, its habitat, and associated management

strategies in Washington, Oregon, and California, including: the final

rules listing the spotted owl as threatened and designating its

critical habitat; the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) report

(Thomas et al. 1990); the Scientific Analysis Team report (Thomas et

al. 1993); the final draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl

(USDI 1992); the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT)

report (USDA et al. 1993); the supporting documents for the Forest Plan

(USDA/USDI 1994 a and b); and the Contribution of Federal and Non-

Federal Habitat to Persistence of the Northern Spotted Owl on the

Olympic Peninsula, Washington [[Page 9492]] (Holthausen et al. 1994).

The proposed rule also considered the Washington Spotted Owl Scientific

Advisory Group reports (Hanson et al. 1993 and Buchanan et al. 1994).

The range of the spotted owl has been divided into 12 physiographic

provinces (USDA/USDI 1994a): the Eastern and Western Cascades, Western

Lowlands, and Olympic Peninsula Provinces in Washington; the Eastern

and Western Cascades, Coast Range, Willamette Valley, and Klamath

Provinces in Oregon; and the Klamath, Coast, and Cascades Provinces in

California. The Klamath province was divided into two subprovinces by

State--the Oregon Klamath Province and the California Klamath

Province--even though the two provinces are part of the same geographic

area (Figure 4 to Sec. 17.41(c)).

Habitat Characteristics

Northern spotted owls generally have large home ranges and use

large tracts of land containing significant acreage of older forest to

meet their biological needs. The median annual home range size of a

northern spotted owl, which varies in size from province to province,

is approximated by a circle centered on an owl site center. Estimated

median annual home range sizes represent the area used by half of the

spotted owl pairs or resident singles studied to date within each

province to meet their annual life history needs.

Home range sizes were estimated by analyzing radio-telemetry home

range data from studies conducted on the annual movements of spotted

owl pairs, referenced in the 1990 Status Review (1990a) and the

Interagency Scientific Committee report (Thomas et al. 1990).

Based on studies of owl habitat preferences, including habitat

structure and use and prey preference throughout the range of the owl,

spotted owl habitat consists of four components: (1) Nesting, (2)

roosting, (3) foraging, and (4) dispersal. Although this habitat is

variable over the range of the spotted owl, some general attributes are

common to the owl's life-history requirements throughout its range. The

age of a forest is not as important for determining habitat suitability

for the northern spotted owl as the structure and composition of the

forest. Northern interior forests typically may require 150 to 200

years to attain the attributes of nesting and roosting habitat;

however, characteristics of nesting and roosting habitat are sometimes

found in younger forests, usually those with significant remnant trees

from earlier late-successional stands.

The attributes of superior nesting and roosting habitat typically

include a moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 80 percent closure); a

multi-layered, multi-species canopy with large overstory trees; a high

incidence of large trees with various deformities (e.g., large

cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and debris accumulations);

large accumulations of fallen trees and other debris; and sufficient

open space below the canopy for owls to fly (Thomas, et al. 1990).

Spotted owls use a wider array of forest types for foraging,

including more open and fragmented habitat. Habitat that meets the

spotted owl's need for nesting and roosting also provides foraging

habitat. However, some habitat that supports foraging may be inadequate

for nesting and roosting. In much of the species' northern range,

large, dense forests are also chosen as foraging habitat, probably

because they provide relatively high densities of favored prey, the

northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), as well as cover from

predators. Because much of the flying squirrel's diet is fungal

material, old decadent forests provide superior foraging habitat for

owls. In southern, lower-elevation portions of the owl's range, the

species often forages along the edges of dense forests and in more open

forests, preying on the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes).

In general terms, suitable habitat means those areas with the

vegetative structure and composition necessary to provide for

successful nesting, roosting and foraging activities sufficient to

support a territorial single or breeding pair of spotted owls. Suitable

habitat is sometime referred to as nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF)

habitat.

Although habitat that allows spotted owls to disperse may be

unsuitable for nesting, roosting, or foraging, it provides an important

linkage among blocks of nesting habitat both locally and over the range

of the northern spotted owl. This linkage is essential to the

conservation of the spotted owl. Dispersal habitat, at a minimum,

consists of forest stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to

provide some degree of protection to spotted owls from avian predators

and to allow the owls to forage at least occasionally.

Suitable and dispersal habitat vary by province and are described

separately under the discussion of each province in the following

section.

Discussion of Spotted Owl Provinces by State

As previously noted, the range of the northern spotted owl has been

subdivided into 12 separate provinces (Figure 4 to Sec. 17.41(c)). For

purposes of this rule, the Klamath province has been divided into two

provinces by State--the California Klamath province and the Oregon

Klamath province--even though the two provinces are part of the same

geographic area. In California, the three provinces are the California

Cascades, California Klamath, and California Coast. The Oregon Coast

Ranges, Willamette Valley, Oregon Klamath, Western Oregon Cascades, and

Eastern Oregon Cascades constitute the five provinces of Oregon. The

four Washington provinces are the Eastern Washington Cascades, Western

Washington Cascades, Western Washington Lowlands, and the Olympic

Peninsula. Only the seven provinces in Washington and California are

the subject of incidental take prohibition modifications under this

proposed rule and will therefore be discussed in more detail below.

Washington

1. Washington Olympic Peninsula Province

The Washington Olympic Peninsula province is bordered by the

Pacific Ocean on the west, the Straits of Juan de Fuca on the north,

Hood Canal on the east, and State Highway 12 to the south (Figure 4 to

Sec. 17.41(c)). Of the three million acres in the province,

approximately 51 percent are in Federal ownership. The central portion

of the province is high, mountainous terrain, surrounded by lower

elevation forest that provides habitat for the spotted owl. Almost all

Federal lands on the Peninsula have either been designated as a late

successional or riparian reserves under the Forest Plan or have been

Congressionally withdrawn from timber harvest; only 8,400 acres of

Federal forest land on the Peninsula are available for programmed

timber harvest. In general, the province is demographically isolated

from other parts of the owl's range. Natural catastrophic events such

as windstorms and wildfires are threats that have the capability of

destroying thousands of acres of habitat.

The recent report by Holthausen et al. concluded that ``* * * it is

likely, but not assured, that a stable population of owls would be

maintained * * *'' on Federal lands in the Olympic Peninsula Province.

However, the report also notes it would be ``unlikely'' that owls would

persist on ``* * * the western coastal strip of the National Park, * *

*'' if non-Federal habitat on the western side of the Peninsula were

excluded from current Federal protection for owls. The report went on

to explain that ``the retention of non-Federal habitat in the

[[Page 9493]] western portion of the peninsula was particularly

significant and provided for a larger area of core habitat on Federal

land in model analyses. In addition, the retention of this habitat

would likely increase the chances of maintaining a population on the

coastal strip of the Olympic National Park.'' When comparing the

relative value of an SEA on the western side of the Peninsula with a

possible SEA on the northern side of the Peninsula, the report noted

that the western SEA ``made a much greater contribution to owl numbers

and occupancy rates than did the northern SEA * * *. Mean numbers of

pairs over the 100-year simulation was as large with the western SEA

alone as with both SEAs.'' Thus, non-Federal lands on the northern

portion of the Peninsula were not viewed as having any appreciable

capability of making a significant contribution to the long-term

conservation of the spotted owl on the Olympic Peninsula.

Finally, the report stated that attempts to maintain a ``habitat

connection across southwestern Washington * * * would have little

effect on the status of the owl population on the Peninsula if that

population was stable or nearly stable.'' In other words, recent

analysis suggests that the likelihood of addressing past concerns about

the need to connect the Olympic Peninsula owl population to

southwestern Washington owls in order to maintain a viable population

is very low, given current conditions, especially when relying on the

application of incidental take prohibitions. According to Holthausen,

et. al, ``* * * the populations of owls on the Peninsula is

sufficiently large to avoid any short to mid-term loss of genetic

variation, * * *'' Except for the western portion of the Peninsula

where non-Federal lands are still important, the major problem for owls

on the Peninsula is the past loss of suitable habitat on Federal lands.

a. NRF Habitat. NRF habitat on the Olympic Peninsula consists, as a

general matter, of coniferous or mixed coniferous/hardwood forest with

multiple canopy layers; multiple large overstory conifers greater than

20 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh); and total canopy closure

among dominant, co-dominant and understory trees of greater than 60

percent.

b. Dispersal Habitat. Dispersal habitat on the Olympic Peninsula

consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed coniferous/

hardwood forest with smaller dominant trees or lower canopy closure

than NRF habitat; multiple canopy layers of multiple large overstory

conifers greater than 10 inches dbh; and a total canopy closure among

dominant, co-dominant and understory trees of greater than 60 percent.

2. Western Washington Lowlands Province

This province consists of the lowlands outside of the Olympic

Province that extend east from the Pacific Ocean to the western

foothills of the Washington Cascades (Figure 4 to Sec. 17.41(c)). The

Canadian border forms the northern boundary and the Columbia River the

southern boundary of the province. Forest lands in the north and

central portions of the province along Puget Sound have been converted

to agricultural, industrial and urban areas. The southwestern portion

is dominated by commercial tree farming. Of the 6.5 million acres

within this province, only one percent is under Federal management.

a. NRF Habitat. NRF habitat in the Western Washington Lowlands

consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed coniferous/

hardwood forest with multiple canopy layers; multiple large overstory

conifers greater than 20 inches dbh; and total canopy closure among

dominant, co-dominant and understory trees of greater than 60 percent.

b. Dispersal Habitat. Dispersal habitat in the Western Washington

Lowlands consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed

coniferous/hardwood forest with smaller dominant trees or lower canopy

closure than NRF habitat; multiple canopy layers of multiple large

overstory conifers greater than 10 inches dbh; and a total canopy

closure among dominant, co-dominant and understory trees of greater

than 60 percent.

Spotted owls in this province have extremely low population levels

due to isolation of populations within the province and limited

nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. The limited amount of habitat

in this province also contributes to the demographic isolation of the

Olympic Peninsula Province. As noted previously in the discussion on

the Olympic Peninsula, however, the recent study by Holthausen et al.

suggested that even substantial conservation efforts in Southwest

Washington would be unlikely to make any meaningful contribution to

maintaining a stable, long-term population of owls on the Olympic

Peninsula. Thus, while Southwest Washington is important as part of the

historic range of the owl, the continued application of blanket

incidental take prohibitions to the exceptionally limited suitable

habitat that still exists there makes any contribution to owls on the

Olympic Peninsula minimal at best.

Currently, the Service is attempting to address these conservation

opportunity limitations through a creative new approach which targets

the development of comprehensive multi-species Habitat Conservation

Plans with several of the large landowners in this province. The

Service has premised this cooperative approach, as opposed to

designating this area as a Special Emphasis Area, on the positive

commitments it has received from major landowners in this region to

negotiate comprehensive HCPs. In addition, one of the landowners has

entered into a ``take avoidance'' agreement while working on their HCP.

The take avoidance agreement insures that no owls will be lost as the

result of timber harvest during the period in which the HCP is being

developed.

3. Western Washington Cascades Province

The Western Washington Cascades province occupies the land west of

the Cascades crest, from the Columbia River north to the Canadian

Border and west to the Western Washington Lowland province (Figure 4 to

Sec. 17.41(c)). This province contains about 6.1 million acres of land,

of which approximately 61 percent is in Federal ownership. Most of the

non-federal lands occur along the western edge of the province and

along the major mountain passes in checkerboard ownership with Federal

lands.

a. NRF Habitat. NRF habitat in the Western Washington Cascades

Province consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed

coniferous/hardwood forest with multiple canopy layers; multiple large

overstory conifers greater than 20 inches dbh; and total canopy closure

among dominant, co-dominant and understory trees of greater than 60

percent.

b. Dispersal Habitat. Dispersal habitat in the Western Washington

Cascades Province consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed

coniferous/hardwood forest with smaller dominant trees or lower canopy

closure than NRF habitat; multiple canopy layers of multiple large

overstory conifers greater than 10 inches dbh; and a total canopy

closure among dominant, co-dominant and understory trees of greater

than 60 percent.

A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was recently approved by the Fish

and Wildlife Service to cover Murray Pacific Corporation lands in Lewis

County in this Province. The permit for this 100-year Habitat

Conservation Plan for the northern spotted owl was signed on September

24, 1993, for the Murray Pacific Corporation, a Tacoma,

[[Page 9494]] Washington, based timber company. The plan provides for

the development and maintenance of dispersal habitat for the spotted

owl that is well distributed over the 54,610 acres of the company's

land, while allowing limited taking of spotted owls that is incidental

to the company's timber harvest activities.

The Murray Pacific planning area is situated between the Mineral

Block (an isolated block of Forest Service land) and the main portion

of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, that is located immediately

south of Mt. Rainier National Park. The Mineral Block has been

designated as a late-successional Federal reserve under the Forest

Plan. The management of Murray Pacific property will promote the

opportunity for the dispersal of spotted owls to and from this isolated

reserve, providing a link with the Cascade Mountains population. The

Mineral Block also hosts the most westerly extension of spotted owls in

the Cascade Mountains.

General threats to the spotted owl in this province include low

population levels, limited habitat in the northern portion of the

province, declining habitat, and dispersal problems in areas of limited

Federal ownership.

4. Eastern Washington Cascades Province

This province lies east of the crest of the Cascades Mountains from

the Columbia River north to the Canadian Border (Figure 4 to

Sec. 17.41(c)). The province extends east to where suitable spotted owl

habitat naturally diminishes and drier pine forests become prevalent.

Approximately 62 percent of the province's 5.7 million acres is in

Federal ownership.

a. NRF Habitat. NRF habitat in the Eastern Washington Cascades

Province consists, as a general matter, of coniferous forest with

stands that contain greater than 20 percent fir (Douglas fir, grand

fir) and/or hemlock trees; multiple canopy layers of multiple large

overstory conifers greater than 12 inches dbh; and a canopy closure

among dominant, co-dominant and understory trees of greater than 50

percent.

b. Dispersal Habitat. Dispersal habitat in the Eastern Washington

Cascades Province consists, as a general matter, of coniferous forest

with stands that contain greater than 20 percent fir trees with smaller

dominant trees or lower canopy closure than NRF habitat multiple canopy

layers of multiple large overstory conifers of greater than 11 inches

dbh; and total canopy closure among dominant, co-dominant and

understory trees of greater than 50 percent.

Threats to the spotted owl in this province include natural

fragmentation of spotted owl habitat by geological features; loss of

spotted owl habitat from wildfires; loss of habitat from timber harvest

activities; and low spotted owl populations in some areas of the

province.

California

1. California Coastal Province

Extending from the Oregon border south to San Francisco Bay, this

province lies west of the Six Rivers and Mendocino National Forests

(Figure 4 to Sec. 17.41(c)). It consists of approximately 5.6 million

acres, of which about 87 percent is in non-Federal ownership. Timber

management is the primary land use on about 2 million acres, and is

concentrated in the heavily-forested redwood zone located within 20

miles of the Pacific Ocean coastline. In the more inland and southerly

portions of the province, owl habitat is largely confined to the lower

portions of drainages and is naturally fragmented by grasslands,

hardwoods, and chaparral, as well as by agricultural and urban areas.

a. NRF Habitat. NRF habitat in the California Coastal Province

consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed coniferous/

hardwood forests with multiple canopy layers; multiple overstory

conifers greater than 16 inches dbh; and total canopy closure among

dominant, co-dominant, and understory trees of greater than 60 percent.

Some nest sites may occur in stands of smaller trees or with a lower

canopy closure; however, such sites are not typical.

b. Dispersal Habitat. Dispersal habitat in the California Coastal

Province consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed

coniferous/hardwood forests, with smaller dominant trees or lower

canopy closure than in NRF habitat; multiple canopy layers, with

multiple large overstory conifers greater than 10 inches dbh; a total

canopy closure among dominant, co-dominant; and understory trees of

greater than 40 percent.

This province is unique in that it supports several hundred pairs

of spotted owls (over \1/3\ of the State's population) within managed

second-growth timber stands. Factors that appear to contribute to the

suitability of these second-growth stands include the rapid growth of

trees in the coastal environment, the prevalence of hardwood

understories, and the widespread occurrence of a favored prey species,

the dusky-footed woodrat. The primary threat to the spotted owl in this

region is habitat alteration, but, due to the spotted owl's widespread

distribution, the predominance of selection harvest methods, the rapid

regrowth of habitat, and effective and comprehensive State wildlife

conservation and forest practice regulations, threats are considered

low to moderate in this portion of the spotted owl's range.

Because Federal lands in this province are limited, they play a

small role in spotted owl conservation in this province. Significant

non-Federal contributions to conservation are in place or under

development in this area. In addition to efforts by the state,

described in more detail later, several large timber companies in the

coastal province have made substantial investments in information-

gathering and planning for spotted owl conservation. The Simpson Timber

Company has completed a Habitat Conservation Plan and received a

section 10(a) permit for the incidental take of a limited number of

spotted owls on its 380,000-acre property. Pursuant to this plan,

Simpson Timber has set aside 40,000 acres of suitable owl habitat for

at least ten years, is conducting research on habitat characteristics,

and has banded over 600 spotted owls.

2. California Klamath Province

This province lies to the east of the California Coastal province,

and is contiguous with the Oregon Klamath province (Figure 4 to

Sec. 17.41(c)). The California Klamath province consists of

approximately 6.2 million acres, of which about 76 percent is in

Federal ownership. The U.S. Forest Service is the primary land manager.

About 25 percent of the Forest Service lands in the province are

believed to be currently suitable for nesting, roosting, and foraging

by the spotted owl.

a. NRF Habitat. NRF habitat in the California Klamath Province

consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed coniferous/

hardwood forests with multiple canopy layers; multiple overstory

conifers greater than 16 inches dbh; and total canopy closure among

dominant, co-dominant, and understory trees of greater than 60 percent.

Some nest sites may occur in stands of smaller trees or with a lower

canopy closure; however, such sites are not typical.

b. Dispersal Habitat. Dispersal habitat in the California Klamath

Province consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed

coniferous/hardwood forests, with smaller dominant trees or lower

canopy closure than in NRF habitat; multiple canopy layers, with

multiple large overstory conifers greater than 10 inches dbh; a

[[Page 9495]] total canopy closure among dominant, co-dominant; and

understory trees of greater than 40 percent.

In many areas of the province, spotted owl habitat is naturally

fragmented by chaparral, stands of deciduous hardwoods, and low-

elevation vegetation types. In portions of the area, suppression of

fire over the last century may have encouraged development of mixed-

conifer habitat suitable for spotted owls. However, during the same

period, timber harvest has removed substantial amounts of suitable

habitat. Owl populations throughout the province were believed to be

declining due to habitat loss at the time of listing, and data suggest

that populations may well be continuing to decline in the province's

only demographic study area (Franklin et al. 1992). In the southern

portion of the province, especially on the Mendocino National Forest,

spotted owls and nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat are more

scattered than in northern areas due to both natural conditions and

recent harvest. However, despite extensive habitat fragmentation in

some areas during the last two decades, spotted owl populations appear

to remain distributed throughout most parts of the province.

Until the listing of the spotted owl, continued habitat alteration

due to clear-cutting was a primary threat to the species in this

province. The most important threat to habitat at the present time is

wildfire. In the past six years, large fires have destroyed or degraded

substantial quantities of owl habitat on the Klamath, Shasta-Trinity,

and Mendocino National Forests.

The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation occupies about 88,000 acres

along the western margin of this province. The Hoopa Tribe has

conducted forestry operations under section 7 consultation conducted

between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Service, and is preparing

a comprehensive integrated resource management plan for forestry and

wildlife on their lands. The Tribe is also developing a Geographic

Information System (GIS) data base to integrate spotted owl

conservation into its timber management program. The maintenance of

adequate dispersal condition in this area would improve the intra-

provincial connectivity and dispersal between Federal reserves.

3. California Cascades Province

This province lies east of the California Klamath province. It

consists of approximately 2.5 million acres, of which about 46 percent

is in Federal ownership (Figure 3 to Sec. 17.41(c)). Checkerboard

Federal and non-Federal ownership patterns predominate. Due to the

relatively dry climate and the history of recurrent wildfires in this

province, spotted owl habitat is naturally fragmented by chaparral and

stands of deciduous hardwoods. As is the case in the California Klamath

Province, the suppression of wildfire over the last century may have

encouraged development of mixed-conifer habitat suitable for spotted

owls. However, timber harvest has removed substantial amounts of

suitable habitat. Existing spotted owl sites are widely scattered, and

the potential for dispersal across the province appears to be limited.

This province provides the demographic and genetic linkage between the

northern spotted owl and the California spotted owl of the Sierra

Nevada range.

a. NRF Habitat. NRF habitat in the California Cascades Province

consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed coniferous/

hardwood forests with multiple canopy layers; multiple overstory

conifers greater than 16 inches dbh; and total canopy closure among

dominant, co-dominant, and understory trees of greater than 60 percent.

Some nest sites may occur in stands of smaller trees or with a lower

canopy closure; however, such sites are not typical.

b. Dispersal Habitat. Dispersal habitat in the California Cascades

Province consists, as a general matter, of coniferous or mixed

coniferous/hardwood forests, with smaller dominant trees or lower

canopy closure than in NRF habitat; multiple canopy layers, with

multiple large overstory conifers greater than 10 inches dbh; a total

canopy closure among dominant, co-dominant; and understory trees of

greater than 40 percent.

Currently, threats in this province include low population numbers,

difficulty in providing for interacting population clusters, and

fragmented dispersal habitat. Catastrophic wildfire is also an

important threat to habitat. In 1992, a 70,000-acre fire in Shasta

County substantially reduced the likelihood of contact between the

northern spotted owl and the California spotted owl for the next

several decades.

Northern Spotted Owl Populations on Non-Federal Lands

Due primarily to historic timber harvest patterns, approximately 75

percent of the known rangewide population of spotted owls is centered

on Federal lands. Owl site centers on non-Federal lands are usually

found in remnant stands of older forest, or in younger forests that

have had time to regenerate following harvest. In addition, adjacent

forested non-Federal lands can provide foraging and dispersal habitat

for owls whose site centers are on Federal lands.

As of July 1, 1994, there were 5,431 known locations, or site

centers, of northern spotted owl pairs or resident single owls in

Washington, Oregon, and California (located between 1989 and 1993)--851

sites (16 percent) in Washington, 2,893 (53 percent) in Oregon, and

1,687 (31 percent) in California. In Washington and Oregon, owl site

centers on non-Federal lands are typically widely scattered. Currently,

1,319 or 24 percent of known owl site centers are located on non-

Federal lands--140 in Washington, 342 in Oregon, and 837 in California.

Of those in California, 631 or 75 percent of the site centers located

on non-Federal lands are located in the California Coast Province,

where owls are relatively common in second-growth timber stands. Site

centers in the interior provinces of California are typically

scattered. In addition to the site centers located on non-Federal lands

in Washington, Oregon, and California, preliminary analyses indicate

that there are 151 site centers in Washington, 810 centers in Oregon,

and 204 centers in California, located on Federal lands that are

dependent upon some percentage of suitable owl habitat on adjacent non-

Federal lands to support the owls.

Non-Federal lands in certain portions of the owl's range are still

necessary to support and supplement the Federal lands-based owl

conservation strategy. While the type of support needed varies

depending on local conditions, the three general types of conservation

support needed within specially designated areas are:

(1) Habitat on non-Federal lands near Federal reserves where

existing owl populations are low to provide demographic support for owl

populations. Areas that are needed to provide demographic support for

Federal reserves include, in Washington: the western portion of the

Olympic Peninsula Province and portions of the Eastern and Western

Cascade provinces; and in California: the Cascades Province and the

southern portion of the Klamath Province;

(2) Dispersal habitat between Federal reserves, where Federal lands

may not be distributed to prevent isolation of populations, or between

non-Federal ownerships where the distance between reserves is not

great. Where distances are large, scattered breeding sites may be

important to improve connection between populations. Areas that can

provide valuable dispersal habitat on non-Federal lands include, in

Washington--the western portion of the Olympic Peninsula Province and

[[Page 9496]] portions of the Eastern and Western Cascade Provinces;

and in California--the Coast and Cascades Provinces and small portions

of the Klamath Province; and

(3) Suitable habitat for breeding populations in areas where

Federal ownership is limited. In these areas, functioning spotted owl

populations are desired to maintain a widely distributed population of

owls. Areas where non-Federal owl populations are believed to play an

important role in this regard include, in Washington--the western

portion of the Olympic Peninsula Province; and, in California--the

Coast and Cascades Provinces.

Recent Conservation Programs and Strategies for the Northern

Spotted Owl

Non-Federal Management Efforts

To varying degrees, the laws, regulations, and policies of

California, Oregon, and Washington provide protection and contribute to

the conservation of the spotted owl. Each of the three states is a

cooperator with the Secretary of the Interior under section 6 of the

Act and each State has cooperative agreements with the Service to carry

out conservation activities for listed and candidate species of plants

and animals. Under these agreements, the States work cooperatively with

the Service on endangered and threatened species conservation projects

and are eligible for cost-share grant money from the Service to carry

out State-directed species research and conservation activities. Since

the spotted owl was Federally listed, Washington, Oregon, and

California have recognized the Federal status of the spotted owl and

have adopted forest management rules offering various levels of

protection for the species. In addition, numerous changes have been

made to State forest practices rules in the last few years in response

to the needs of declining species like the spotted owl, the marbled

murrelet, and various runs of salmon. Relevant authorities and programs

existing in the States of Washington and California are also briefly

described below.

California

California has adopted the most protective forest management

regulations for the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. The State has

also been in the forefront of efforts to approach forest management

from an ecosystem perspective.

Pursuant to the California Forest Practice Act, the California

Board of Forestry establishes regulations under Title 14 of the

California Code of Regulations governing timber harvest on private and

State lands (14 CFR Sec. 895, 898, 919, 939). Registered Professional

Foresters licensed by the Board must submit Timber Harvest Plans (THP)

to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for review

and approval. The California Department of Fish and Game is also

responsible for reviewing THPs. THPs may be denied on a number of

grounds, including potential take of Federally or State listed

threatened or endangered species.

Following the Federal listing of the northern spotted owl, the

Board of Forestry implemented no-take rules using standards based on

biological advice from the Service. These standards include maintenance

of over 1,300 acres of suitable owl habitat within 1.3 miles of every

spotted owl site center and 500 acres within 0.7 miles. The rules

instituted a special review process for all proposed private timber

harvest to ensure that incidental take would not occur. The process

encouraged surveys for spotted owls in THP areas according to a

Service-endorsed protocol (USFWS 1992). The Board's no-take rules have

maintained options for future management by providing protection for

habitat around every known spotted owl site center, and have resulted

in greatly increased knowledge of the species' numbers and

distribution. Other Forest Practice Rules, including riparian buffers

and limitations on clear-cut size, may provide additional contributions

to the maintenance of spotted owl habitat in northern California. These

include the 40-acre limitation on clear-cut size, limits on adjacency

of clear-cuts, and protection of riparian buffers.

The Board of Forestry (Board) also recently adopted rules

establishing regulatory incentives for large-acreage landowners who

develop sustained yield plans (SYPs). The SYP rules may provide

considerable benefit to spotted owls, because ownerships operating

under these rules must maintain specified portions of each watershed in

timber stands of large size classes for several decades, thus providing

spotted owl habitat components throughout the landscape.

The Department of Fish and Game and Department of Forestry and Fire

Protection jointly maintain an interagency data base of Federal and

non-Federal spotted owl locations. The Forest Practice Rules require

that all information on spotted owl sites that is generated during

timber harvest planning be submitted to this data base, and relevant

data are made available to all parties planning timber harvest or other

activities. Thus, the data base is a functional tool in protection of

the species.

Following the listing of the northern spotted owl, the California

Board of Forestry directed the Department of Forestry and Fire

Protection to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and section

10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit application to address all private

timber harvest regulated by the Board. Following a three-year planning

effort by that Department and a number of cooperators from agencies,

industry, and environmental groups, the Board tabled consideration of

the draft Habitat Conservation Plan because significant issues remained

unresolved, most notably the funding mechanism. The draft plan

nevertheless represented a significant cooperative commitment to

resolve conservation issues by the State and other concerned parties

and many of the biological elements of the draft HCP may have future

application.

Washington

The spotted owl is listed under Washington law as an endangered

species. The Washington Department of Natural Resources has the

responsibility for regulating timber harvest activities on non-Federal

lands under the authority of the Washington State Forest Practices Act

(76.09 RCW) and its implementing regulations (WAC 222.08-222.50). These

regulations are promulgated by the Forest Practices Board.

Recent regulations (WAC 222.16.080(1)(h) have required forest

practices on the 500 acres of suitable habitat surrounding the site

center of known spotted owls to be reviewed under the State

Environmental Policy Act, WAC 222.16.080(1)(h). In practice, this rule

has led landowners to avoid applying for permits for forest practices

within the 500-acre area. This regulation expired on February 9, 1994,

and has been extended pending approval of a final rule. The Forest

Practices Board has established a Scientific Advisory Group to

recommend the scientific basis for a new rule to replace the current

rule. No other forest practices regulation expressly addresses the

protection of spotted owl habitat from timber harvest activities.

However, the Department notifies individual landowners when a proposed

forest practice occurs within the median annual home range of a known

spotted owl pair or resident single, and advises the landowner to

contact the Service. In addition, several other regulations contribute

habitat benefitting spotted owls, including regulations requiring

riparian zone protection, wetlands protection, and retention of

wildlife reserve trees. [[Page 9497]]

Riparian management zone regulations require the minimum retention

of 25-foot wide buffers along the sides of fish-bearing streams with a

varying ratio of trees to be retained per 1,000 feet of stream within

the buffers, based on stream location, width and bottom composition.

Wetland management regulations require the establishment of a zone

surrounding non-forested wetlands which varies in width from a minimum

of 25 to 50 feet depending on the size and category of the wetland. The

regulations also require the retention of a minimum number of trees

(75) per acre and that a percentage of those trees meet minimum size

classifications (six inches dbh) depending on the type of wetland. Of

this total, 25 trees are to be more than 12 inches dbh, and five of

them are to be more than 20 inches dbh, where they exist.

Clear-cut size and green-up regulations limit the maximum size of

clear-cut harvest units to 120 acres, unless a State environmental

Policy Act review is undertaken that could boost the potential size of

the harvest to 240 acres. The perimeter of harvest units must meet

minimum stand qualifications to maintain age class diversity adjacent

to the harvest unit before harvest may proceed.

Wildlife reserve tree regulations require the retention of three

snags (minimum of 12 inches dbh), two green recruitment trees (minimum

10 inches dbh), and two down logs (minimum 12 inches diameter at the

small end).

Besides regulating forest practices in Washington, the Department

of Natural Resources (WDNR) administers approximately five million

acres of State lands, 2.1 million acres of which are forested and

managed in trust for various beneficiaries. The WDNR has avoided the

take of spotted owls on its lands and has begun preparation of an HCP

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act for all State lands in the range

of the owl. The WDNR is also developing a conservation strategy for the

spotted owl that would be applied to the Congressionally mandated

264,000-acre State Experimental Forest on the Olympic Peninsula.

Apart from these efforts by State government, various private

efforts are underway to conserve spotted owls, including the

development of, or commitment to, HCPs and ``no take'' agreements by

several major landowners in the State. In addition, the Yakima Indian

Nation is developing a conservation strategy for the spotted owl while

continuing to follow its previous interim spotted owl strategy and

selective timber harvest regime.

Past Federal Management Strategies

Prior to its listing as a threatened species, many different

approaches to northern spotted owl management and research were

undertaken by Federal and State resource agencies, for example,

designation of ``spotted owl habitat areas'' or ``SOHAs.'' Each of

these approaches fulfilled different conservation objectives for the

northern spotted owl. The conservation objective of the earliest

attempts at spotted owl management, which began in the mid-1970s, was

to temporarily protect sites that supported individual pairs of spotted

owls. In the 1980s, management strategies were based on conservation

objectives that tried to avoid land use conflicts while managing

spotted owls and late-successional forest habitat; these management

strategies were generally inadequate. A complete discussion of the

history and chronology of past spotted owl management attempts can be

found in Thomas et al. (1990).

Recent (post-listing) Federal northern spotted owl management

strategies have been based on the establishment of a system of large,

dispersed Federal land reserves, with conservation objectives somewhat

different from earlier strategies. These management strategies were

designed to meet the following conservation objectives--(1) provide

habitat to sustain approximately 20 or more breeding pairs of spotted

owls on each Federal reserve; (2) decrease the chance of catastrophic

loss of populations in reserves; (3) lower the risk of losing spotted

owls from a reserve due to a single catastrophic event; and (4) ensure

that adequate habitat existed between the reserves for dispersal of

owls throughout its range. To fulfill these objectives, these

management strategies proposed establishing a reserve network of

Federal lands based on blocks of late-successional habitat of

sufficient size and proximity to each other to maintain viable

populations of the spotted owl throughout its range. Assessments of

these strategies have generally recognized that, in certain areas of

the northern spotted owl's range, Federal lands are not, by themselves,

adequate to support the full recovery of the owl although they could

provide a major contribution toward the owl's conservation in other

parts of its range (USDI 1992).

To meet their conservation objectives, these management strategies

generally established Federal reserves designed to sustain at least 20

pairs of spotted owls where conditions allowed. These strategies

assumed that any smaller late-successional Federal reserves should be

placed closer together to increase the probability of successful

spotted owl dispersal between the reserves. In addition, plans provided

dispersal habitat sufficient to support movements between blocks. For

this reserve design, successful dispersal would accomplish two

objectives--it would help prevent genetic isolation in individual owl

populations and it would allow spotted owls to naturally recolonize

important areas that have few or no spotted owls present. By allowing

spotted owls to disperse between a series of discrete reserves, this

reserve design could maintain a spotted owl population over a large

area even if a single reserve was lost to catastrophe.

By way of example, the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC)

developed a conservation strategy based on managing large, well-

distributed Federal blocks of suitable spotted owl habitat that were

sufficiently connected to maintain a stable and well-distributed

population of spotted owls throughout their range (Thomas et al. 1990).

The ISC did not integrate non-Federal lands into its conservation

strategy. To provide dispersal habitat between these reserves, the ISC

recommended a ``50-11-40 rule'' where 50 percent of Federal forest

habitat (based on quarter-townships) would be managed to retain

dominant or co-dominant trees with an average of 11 inches dbh and

provide a minimum 40 percent canopy closure. Canopy closure refers to

the degree to which the crowns (tops) of trees obscure the sky when

viewed from below. The ``50-11-40'' rule was set forth as one method of

providing for dispersal habitat on Federal forest lands; other

prescriptions have been and can be developed which provide comparable

dispersal conditions, e.g., Murray Pacific HCP dispersal prescription.

The Federal Forest Plan

The range of the spotted owl includes approximately 24,518,000

acres of Federal lands of which 20,577,000 acres are forested. The

Forest Plan represents a management strategy for Federal LSOG-forests

in the coastal western states of California, Oregon, and Washington

that provides habitat to support the persistence of well distributed

populations of species that are associated with late-successional

forests, including the northern spotted owl.

The Forest Plan established a network of reserves totalling over

11.5 million acres of Federal land in northern California, Oregon, and

Washington. That total includes 7.43 million acres of late-successional

reserves, 2.63 million [[Page 9498]] acres of riparian reserves, and

1.48 million acres of administratively withdrawn areas. This acreage is

in addition to 7.32 million acres of Congressionally reserved lands.

The late-successional reserves currently provide 3.2 million acres

of suitable habitat for the spotted owl. The interim riparian reserve

provide an additional 0.74 million acres of suitable habitat and the

administratively withdrawn areas provide an additional 0.31 million

acres of this habitat.

Late-successional reserves are expected to provide the primary

contribution to the recovery of the spotted owl by maintaining large

clusters of spotted owls and spotted owl habitat throughout a

significant portion of the range of the species. The reserves are

expected to increase in value for spotted owl recovery as young

forested stands grow into suitable habitat and increase their capacity

to support additional numbers of stable spotted owl pairs.

Programmed timber harvest operations are not allowed in late-

successional reserves under the Forest Plan. However, carefully

controlled thinning activities are allowed in any stand of one of these

reserves less than 80 years of age. Salvage operations also would be

allowed on these reserves in areas where catastrophic loss exceeded ten

acres. In both cases, harvest proposals must be reviewed by an

interagency oversight group to ensure sound ecosystem management.

No programmed timber harvest is allowed in riparian reserves under

the Forest Plan and Federal agencies are required to minimize the

effects of roads, cattle grazing, and mining activities in these areas.

These riparian reserves are eventually expected to provide a

considerable amount of late-successional forest, because they currently

represent approximately 31 percent of the lands that would otherwise be

designated as Matrix. Based on current information (USDA et al. 1993),

approximately .74 million acres (28 percent) of the 2.63 million acres

in riparian reserves currently provide suitable nesting, roosting, and

foraging habitat for spotted owls and 1.42 million (54 percent) of the

riparian reserves provide suitable dispersal habitat for spotted owls.

The Forest Plan places 1.5 million acres of Federal land in 10

special ``Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs).'' Management activities in

these AMAs would emphasize innovative forestry techniques with the goal

of speeding attainment of late-successional characteristics and on

restoring watersheds. These activities are expected to benefit northern

spotted owl management in the long-term, but would not be expected to

contribute substantially to owl conservation needs in the short-term.

Suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl represents approximately

0.37 million acres of the lands that have been designated as AMAs.

Programmed timber harvests also are allowed on approximately four

million acres of Federal forests designated as the Matrix under the

Forest Plan. The Plan differs from previously proposed strategies in

that the 50-11-40 rule does not apply to Matrix areas between late-

successional and other Federal forest reserves. The Plan concluded that

the need for spotted owl dispersal habitat could be met with the

combination of reserves as proposed, plus additional Matrix

prescriptions.

In Washington and Oregon, the Plan requires leaving 15 percent of

the trees (``green tree retention'') in all harvest units on AMAs and

matrix areas outside of the Coast Ranges and Bureau of Land Management

lands in southern Oregon. The Plan encourages these trees to be left in

small clumps with the expectation that they, along with the riparian

reserves, would contribute to the creation of dispersal habitat. The

Forest Plan adopted this prescription to improve the future condition

of these forests. These prescriptions could ultimately be adjusted as a

result of watershed analysis and other planning activities related to

the implementation of the Forest Plan.

In California, the Forest Plan incorporates the Matrix

prescriptions contained in the draft National Forest land management

plans. These prescriptions are designed to maintain dispersal habitat

in a variety of timber types.

The FEMAT report (p. IV-43 and p. IV-153) stated that

implementation of Option 9 (which served as the basis for the Forest

Plan) would result in a projected future likelihood of 83 percent that

spotted owl ``habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and

abundance to allow the species population to stabilize in well

distributed areas of Federal lands,'' and a projected future likelihood

of only 18 percent that ``habitat is of sufficient quality,

distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to

stabilize, but with some significant gaps in the historic species

distribution on Federal land. These gaps cause some limitation in

interactions among local populations.'' Moreover, implementation of

Option 9 was rated by FEMAT as resulting in a zero likelihood that

``habitat only allows continued species existence in refugia, with

strong limitations on interactions among local populations'', and a

similar zero likelihood that implementation of the option would result

in ``species extirpation from Federal lands''.

These probability judgments reflect the contributions to

conservation expected to be provided by the implementation of the

Forest Plan on Federal lands. They indicate a high likelihood that,

over the long-term, the Forest Plan will provide conditions on Federal

lands that would contribute significantly to the conservation and

recovery needs of the spotted owl. This assessment is consistent with

the Federal policy to provide the predominant protection for spotted

owls on Federal lands and it is within this context that the Service

proposes to modify the incidental take prohibitions for certain non-

Federal lands.

General Approach Used to Develop This Special Rule

The goal of this proposed rule was to identify non-Federal lands

that are no longer either necessary or advisable to the conservation of

the spotted owl given the contributions of the Forest Plan the likely

possibility of numerous large scale, multi-species Habitat Conservation

Plans, and other measures and practices in effect. In reviewing the

alternatives identified in the NOI, the Service evaluated the

contributions to the conservation of the owl provided by the Forest

Plan, past Federal owl conservation strategies, existing State forest

practices regulations, tribal conservation and private timber

management plans, as well as public comments provided in response to

the NOI.

The Service considered various factors in identifying areas of non-

Federal land where relief could be provided and other areas where

incidental take restrictions should be maintained at this time. The

Service first considered the conservation benefits that the Federal

Forest Plan provided the owl for a given area. These benefits were then

compared and contrasted with the conservation goals for the area

originally established under the Final Draft Recovery Plan for the

northern spotted owl. The Service focused particularly on Forest Plan

impacts affecting the conservation of owl habitat and owl numbers, as

well as the size and location of Federal reserves. It then identified

certain areas of non-Federal land which were still important for owl

conservation and what the conservation goals should be for such areas.

The Service gave particular care and attention to the non-Federal lands

[[Page 9499]] which were noted as important in the Report of the Forest

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), IV 150-151. In

identifying boundaries for such areas, the Service considered, among

other things, current owl population status on non-Federal lands, the

need for owl population support within adjacent Federal reserves, and

the need for connectivity between such reserves. The Service also

attempted to exclude wherever possible large areas of non-Federal land

with little or no owl habitat.

The Forest Plan is a habitat based conservation strategy that would

anchor and secure millions of acres of Federal land across the range of

the spotted owl, an unprecedented commitment of Federal resources

towards the conservation of the owl. Given that commitment to a habitat

based strategy and the scope of the Forest Plan, the Service no longer

believes that it is essential to the conservation of the spotted owl to

continue to prohibit the incidental take of the owl on all non-Federal

land located within the range of the owl. The Service also believes

that the combination of Federal and non-Federal habitat based

strategies for the spotted owl contained in this proposed rule, the

Forest Plan and multi-species Habitat Conservation Plans will, over

time, further the conservation of the species and its recovery.

When developing objectives for regulatory relief for non-Federal

lands which were consistent with the Forest Plan, the Service evaluated

past biological information and has concluded that it is still

important to retain the closest 70 acres of suitable owl habitat

surrounding site center regardless of whether the center is in an area

of proposed relief or not. The Service also believes that the

substantial loss of suitable habitat within the estimated median annual

home range of an owl is likely to result in inadequate nesting,

juvenile development, and adult dispersal and survival, and will

significantly increase the likelihood of actual harm to, and incidental

take of, an owl.

As the riparian reserve, matrix, adaptive management areas, and

late-successional reserve management criteria of the Forest Plan are

implemented, along with the requirements of underlying State law and

other provisions proposed in this rule for owl protection, dispersal

and connectivity conditions for the species' survival should improve

over time throughout its range. For this reason, the Service has chosen

not to include in this proposed rule mandatory dispersal prescriptions

such as the 50-11-40 rule which was designed originally to generate

dispersal habitat conditions for Federal lands only.

For those areas where satisfactory dispersal conditions likely are

not present, the Service believes that such conditions can be achieved

over time through other means such as full protection against

incidental take, large scale Habitat Conservation Planning (HCPs),

Local Option Conservation Plans, or voluntary conservation

contributions by non-Federal landowners. Recognizing the limitations on

Federal authority to mandate the development of dispersal habitat in

these areas, this proposed rule would encourage non-Federal landowners

to manage their lands in ways that are more consistent with the

conservation of the spotted owl. In some areas it would remove the

disincentives associated with maintaining suitable spotted owl habitat,

and, would bring more certainty to future planning for timber

management as well as for owl conservation activities.

Upon consideration of all of the above factors, the following

summarizes the provisions of this 4(d) rule:

Regulatory Provisions Common to Both Washington and California

Some protective measures for the owl would be identical for both

the State of Washington and California. The prohibition on killing or

injuring of spotted owls would not be relieved in any part of the owl's

range by this proposed rule. Similarly, timber harvesting of the

closest 70 acres of suitable owl habitat surrounding a site center

would remain prohibited throughout Washington and California, unless

the site has been determined to be abandoned.

In addition, the Service would retain for an additional two years,

the prohibition against incidental take as applied to owls which are

dependent upon non-Federal lands and whose site centers are located

within Federal Forest Plan Reserves or Congressionally reserved or

Administratively withdrawn areas which are outside of Special Emphasis

Areas or are on the western portion of the Olympic Peninsula in

Washington, or are located on Federal Forest Plan reserves or

Congressionally reserved or Administratively withdrawn areas within the

Klamath Province in California. At the end of this period, the Service

will review any new information or data involving the status of such

owls and their habitats in the affected areas, including the results of

any completed watershed analysis and other planning efforts under the

Federal Forest Plan. In particular, the Service would assess on a local

area-by-area basis whether the continuation of the incidental take

prohibition on affected, adjacent non-Federal lands was still necessary

and advisable for achieving the conservation goals of the Forest Plan

for that area. The Service would then lift the incidental take

restrictions where warranted and require the protection of only the

closest 70 acres of suitable habitat surrounding an affected site

center.

Relief From Current Incidental Take Provisions in Washington

A total of approximately 10.6 million acres of non-Federal land in

the range of the spotted owl in Washington (the Washington Lowlands

Province, portions of the Western and Eastern Cascades Provinces and

portions of the Olympic Peninsula Province) would be excluded from the

boundaries of proposed Special Emphasis Areas (SEAs) and be exempted

from the future application of current incidental take restrictions for

the northern spotted owl. Of this land base outside SEAs, 8.3 million

acres have some sort of forest cover of which 5.24 million acres are in

conifer cover. Actually, only a small percentage of these lands are

currently affected by present incidental take prohibitions for owls.

Absent this proposed rule, however, much of this remaining land could

potentially be affected should a spotted owl relocate to any adjacent

suitable owl habitat at some point in the future. Approximately 1.7

million acres of non-Federal lands would be left inside of SEAs. Of

this acreage figure, 1.3 million acres of non-Federal land is in

conifer forest and would remain subject to the incidental take

prohibitions for any owl found present in this area. In fact, only a

portion of this acreage inside SEAs is currently affected by the

presence of owls. Of the approximately 510,000 acres of non-Federal

forestland which are today under incidental take restrictions for known

owl sites, no less than 325,000 acres or almost 60 percent would be

relieved from such restrictions as a result of this rule.

Of the 140 spotted owl site centers on non-Federal lands in

Washington, 84 are in the six proposed SEAs and would retain current

incidental take protection. Fifty-six spotted owl site centers are

outside SEAs on non-Federal lands and would be released from current

incidental take prohibitions. There are an additional 121 site centers

on Federal lands within the proposed SEA's, of which 68 may be

dependent on non-Federal lands. There are also 83 site centers on

Federal lands outside the SEAs that may be dependent on non-

[[Page 9500]] Federal lands. Of the 83 site centers outside of SEAs, 71

site centers are located within either a Federal Forest Plan Reserve or

a Congressionally reserved or Administratively withdrawn area. The

Olympic Peninsula contains 41 of these sites with the remaining 30

sites located outside of SEAs in the rest of the State.

Activities Outside of Designated SEAs

The Service proposes to reduce the current prohibition against the

incidental taking of owls for those non-Federal lands which are located

outside of SEAs proposed in Washington. In areas outside of SEAs, a

non-Federal landowner would only be required to retain the closest 70

acres of suitable owl habitat surrounding an owl site center. Legal and

administrative boundaries were used wherever possible to assist in

refining identified SEA boundaries. As noted above, the Service

estimates that approximately 10.6 million acres of non-Federal land in

Washington lie outside of SEAs, of which 5.24 million acres are

forested with conifers. These would be the primary areas receiving

relief under this rule for Washington. In these areas, the incidental

take of owls would not be prohibited as long as timber harvest

activities did not take place within the closest 70 acres of suitable

owl habitat immediately surrounding an owl site center.

As noted previously, the above reduction to 70-acres would not be

applicable for non-Federal lands affected by any owl site center which

is located within a Forest Plan reserve or Congressionally reserved or

Administratively withdrawn area which is outside of an SEA. The Service

intends to reassess the importance of these sites within the next two

years as additional data and planning information is developed under

the Forest Plan. The one region in Washington where this two-year

retention of prohibitions would not be applied outside of an SEA would

be on portions of the Olympic Peninsula. On the northern, eastern, and

southern parts of the Peninsula, non-Federal landowners would only be

required to preserve the closest 70 acres of suitable habitat

surrounding a site center regardless of whether the site center is

located within a Federal reserve or withdrawn area. The Service

believes that the recent Reanalysis Team Report for the Olympic

Peninsula (Holthausen, et al., 1994) addresses the issue of the

contribution that such non-Federal areas provide toward achieving the

goal of recovery of the owls on the Peninsula. Under these

circumstances, the Service does not believe that it is essential that

existing incidental take restrictions be retained for an additional two

years for these three areas on the Peninsula.

Designation of Special Emphasis Areas

The six areas discussed below (Figure 5 to Sec. 17.41(c)) would be

designated as SEAs within Washington:

(a) Columbia River Gorge/White Salmon (Figure 6 to Sec. 17.41(c)).

The Columbia River Gorge portion of this SEA is in the southern

portion of the Washington Cascades province, north of the Columbia

River and west of the Cascade crest. Non-Federal lands link owls and

owl habitat between Federal reserves in the Washington Cascades and

Oregon Cascades along the Columbia River Gorge, thereby contributing to

the objectives of the Forest Plan.

The White Salmon portion of this SEA is bordered by the Yakima

Indian Reservation to the northeast, Federal lands and the Cascade

crest to the west and the Columbia River to the south. The White Salmon

area was not included within the ``Proposed Action'' for the December

29, 1993, NOI (58 FR 69132), but was included within ``Alternative C''

of that NOI. As a result of public comments received in response to the

NOI, however, and recent analysis of spotted owl habitat in Washington

(Hanson, et al. 1993), the Service has concluded that the inclusion of

the White Salmon area as part of this SEA is warranted. These non-

Federal lands are an important link to the owl population found on the

Yakima Indian Reservation to owl populations in Federal reserves to the

southwest. This portion of the SEA would provide a route around high-

elevation terrain on Federal lands, through lower-elevation forests on

non-Federal lands to provide that needed link. It also widens the zone

of protection for the Cascades along the Columbia River.

This combined SEA contains 37,000 acres of Federal land and 262,000

acres of non-Federal lands. Sixteen owl site centers are on non-Federal

lands and 3 site centers are on Federal land within this SEA, with one

site activity center on Federal lands which relies to some degree upon

adjacent non-Federal lands. The conservation goals for this combined

SEA are to maintain connections between provinces and the owl

population on the Yakima Indian Reservation, and to provide demographic

support to the owl population in the Federal reserves.

(b) Siouxon Creek (Figure 7 to Sec. 17.41(c)).

This SEA is located along Swift Creek Reservoir and the Upper Lewis

River, south of the Mt. St. Helens National Monument. As with the White

Salmon SEA, this area was not included within the ``Proposed Action''

for the December 29, 1993, NOI (58 FR 69132), but was included within

``Alternative C'' of the NOI. Because of the public comments received

in response to the NOI and further analysis of spotted owl habitat in

Washington (Hanson, et al. 1993), the Service has determined that the

inclusion of the Siouxon Creek SEA in the 4(d) Rule is warranted. This

SEA contains seven owl site centers, five on non-Federal land and two

on Federal land, and includes approximately 44,000 acres of non-Federal

land and 1,000 acres of Federal land. Owls on these non-Federal lands

are needed to supply demographic support to owl populations on adjacent

Federal reserves and dispersal habitat is needed to provide

connectivity through the Lewis River Valley between the reserves.

(c) Mineral Block (Figure 8 to Sec. 17.41(c)).

This SEA surrounds a block of Federal land (Mineral Block) that has

been designated as a Federal reserve under the Forest Plan. The Mineral

Block is about 12 miles west of the main part of the Gifford Pinchot

National Forest. It is too small to support a population of 20 owl

pairs. Owl site centers on adjacent non-Federal lands would support

this population and to provide a link to the Gifford Pinchot National

Forest.

This SEA contains 39,000 acres of Federal land and 259,000 acres of

non-Federal lands. Twelve owl site centers are on non-Federal lands in

the SEA; 17 centers are located on Federal lands of which five rely to

some degree upon adjacent non-Federal lands. The conservation goals for

this SEA are to provide demographic support for the owl population in

the Federal reserve.

(d) I-90 Corridor (Figure 9 to Sec. 17.41(c)).

This SEA is north and south of Interstate-90 (I-90) between North

Bend and Ellensburg, Washington. This area is in checkerboard,

intermingled Federal and non-Federal ownership, a portion of which is

included in the Snoqualmie Pass AMA under the Forest Plan. This general

area has been repeatedly identified as being important to the

conservation of the owl to maintain a connectivity link between the

northern and southern portions of the Washington Cascades (Thomas et

al., 1990 and Hanson et al. 1993). Existing habitat for spotted owls is

locally sparse and highly fragmented. [[Page 9501]]

Non-Federal lands in this SEA would support the efforts of the

Forest Plan by providing dispersal habitat (and some nesting, roosting

and foraging habitat) for owl populations that are on the north and

south sides of I-90, and between Federal reserves and the AMA. Owls

that are on non-Federal land would provide valuable demographic support

of owl populations in adjacent Federal reserves that are low in

numbers. Federal reserves that are in checkerboard ownership are also

in need of demographic support for owls because of their fragmented

ownership pattern and degraded habitat conditions.

This SEA contains 383,000 acres of Federal land and 400,000 acres

of non-Federal lands. Twenty-nine owl site centers are on non-Federal

lands in this SEA; 78 site centers are located on Federal lands of

which 53 rely to some degree upon adjacent non-Federal lands.

Conservation goals for this SEA include demographic support for

adjacent late-successional reserves and connectivity between reserves.

Changes to the eastern boundaries of this SEA from the NOI in this

proposal were made to better promote dispersal success of owls located

within the eastern portion of this SEA.

(e) Finney Block (Figure 10 to Sec. 17.41(c)).

This SEA includes the non-Federal lands that surround the Finney

Block AMA on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. This SEA would

link owl populations in Federal reserves with the owl population in the

AMA. Owls located on non-Federal lands in this SEA also would bolster

the owl populations in the Federal reserves and the AMA. These actions

would supplement the Federal efforts under the Forest Plan by

contributing to the stabilization of owl populations within this

portion of the species range.

This SEA contains 196,000 acres of Federal land and 266,000 acres

of non-Federal lands. Two owl site centers are on non-Federal land in

this SEA; 21 centers are located on Federal lands of which seven rely

to some degree upon adjacent non-Federal lands. Conservation goals for

this SEA include demographic support for the AMA and Federal reserves

and connectivity between Federal reserves.

(f) Hoh/Clearwater (Olympic Peninsula) (Figure 11 to

Sec. 17.41(c)).

Upon consideration of a recent reanalysis of owl persistence on the

Olympic Peninsula (Holthausen et al. 1994) and other data and

information, the Service has decided to alter its approach to the

Olympic Peninsula from that set out in the NOI in December of 1993. The

Service now proposes to significantly scale back the size of the SEA

for the Peninsula and to relieve incidental take restrictions for

spotted owls for the remainder of the Peninsula. Of the Federal lands

on the Olympic Peninsula, only 8,400 acres of suitable owl habitat are

available for timber harvest under the Federal Forest Plan.

There has been long standing concern about the viability and

persistence of spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula. A recent

reanalysis of the contribution of Federal and non-Federal habitat to

persistence of the northern spotted owl on the Olympic Peninsula

(Holthausen et al. 1994) concluded that there were 155 known owl pairs

on the Olympic Peninsula and estimated a total population of between

282 and 321 pairs. These estimates are substantially higher than

earlier reported estimates.

The Hoh/Clearwater SEA encompassing the western portion of the

Peninsula contains about 1,000 acres of Federal lands and 471,000 acres

of non-Federal lands. Twenty owl site centers are located on non-

Federal lands in this SEA. Conservation goals for this SEA are to

maintain demographic support for Federal reserves, maintain a well-

distributed population, and provide connectivity within the province

and between late-successional reserves. Changes in this SEA from the

NOI were made to support the Federal effort in this province by drawing

upon the resources of the remaining non-Federal concentration of owls

and owl habitat on the western side of the Peninsula. The reanalysis

report assessed the relative value of the Hoh/Clearwater SEA boundaries

as proposed by the Service and did not compare or contrast alternative

SEA boundary configurations for the western side of the Peninsula.

Although recommendations were included in recent reports (USDI

1992, Hanson et al. 1993, Buchanan et al. 1994) to retain incidental

take restrictions on non-Federal lands in southwestern Washington, the

Service believes that current non-Federal conservation planning

activities (e.g., multi-species HCPs and no-take plans), new analyses

(Holthausen et al. 1994), and other relevant factors support the

decision not to propose southwestern Washington as an SEA. The Service

reached this conclusion on Southwest Washington for a variety of

reasons. First, while Southwest Washington constitutes an important

part of the historic range of the spotted owl, there presently are only

a small number of isolated owl pairs or resident singles across a vast

expanse of marginal owl habitat. The inclusion of this area in an SEA

would briefly protect home range areas for the few owls in the area,

but once those owls die or move away, the protection for their home

range areas would fade away as well, resulting in the eventual harvest

of the areas. Moreover, while Southwest Washington previously had been

assigned an important conservation function for providing connectivity

with the isolated population of owls on the Olympic Peninsula in the

Final Draft Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, recent reanalysis by Holthausen

et al. indicates that the feasibility of the area ever serving this

connectivity function, especially through application of incidental

take prohibitions, is very low.

Apart from considerations involving the Olympic Peninsula, the

limited number of owls in southwest Washington and lack of present

suitable habitat provide further support to the Service's decision to

take an innovative approach to owl conservation in this area. While the

Service might be able to prevent someone from destroying certain areas

of existing suitable owl habitat where an owl is present, the Act

cannot be used to force people to restore or enhance owl habitat that

has already been destroyed or degraded. Thus, most landowners in

Southwest Washington have little to no incentive at present to develop

habitat that is attractive to owls.

The acquisition of sufficient non-Federal land in Southwest

Washington to establish a network of owl conservation reserves is not a

feasible alternative either. The Final Draft Recovery Plan for the

Spotted Owl estimated that the cost of such a reserve network could

range from $200 million to $2 billion. Thus, neither land acquisition

nor traditional enforcement policies are feasible catalysts for owl

conservation in an area such as this which has limited suitable owl

habitat.

Recognizing the historic role that Southwest Washington played

within the range of the owl, the Service is attempting to address these

problems by aggressively moving forward with the development of multi-

species Habitat Conservation Plans with several of the large landowners

in this province. In addition, one of the landowners has entered into a

``take avoidance'' agreement covering 100,000 acres while working on

their HCP. The agreement ensures that no owls will be taken as the

result of timber harvest during the period in which the HCP is being

developed. Thus, innovative approaches towards conservation provide the

only realistic hope for facilitating long-term owl use and dispersal

within Southwestern Washington.

[[Page 9502]]

Retention of Incidental Take Restrictions for Activities Inside of SEAs

Subject to certain specified exceptions, the Service generally

would retain existing incidental take protection for owls located

within SEAs. The Service also would retain full incidental take

protection for any owl whose site center is located within and along

the boundary of an SEA and is dependent upon adjacent non-Federal lands

located outside of the SEA to avoid harm. Thus, there are two

categories of non-Federal lands which could remain subject to existing

incidental take restrictions for an owl whose site center is located

within the boundary of an SEA--those adjacent non-Federal lands located

inside an SEA and those adjacent lands located outside of an SEA

boundary but which are still necessary to provide sufficient suitable

owl habitat so as to avoid the incidental take of an owl.

One modification that the Service proposes to make to existing

incidental take restrictions within SEAs would involve non-Federal

lands surrounded by or located in matrix and AMA areas designated under

the Federal Forest Plan. The Service proposes to authorize such

affected non-Federal landowners involved in harvest activities to apply

either the final management prescriptions delineated for the

surrounding Federal Matrix/AMA land, as determined through the

watershed analysis or AMA planning processes, as appropriate, or such

management practices which comply with the current incidental take

restrictions.

Application of either management strategy would absolve the

affected non-Federal landowner from any liability for incidental take

of an owl under the Act. This would result in the application of more

uniform owl conservation standards within a matrix or AMA area

regardless of land ownership.

The one exception to this policy would be where the adoption of

matrix or AMA prescriptions could result in the incidental take of an

owl whose site center is located within a Forest Plan reserve or

Congressionally reserved or Administratively withdrawn area. As would

be the case for similar site centers outside of SEAs, the incidental

take restrictions would continue to apply for at least two more years

for site centers within reserve or withdrawn areas. At the end of this

period, the Service will review any new data or information involving

the status of such owls and their habitats in the affected areas,

including the results of any completed watershed analysis and other

planning efforts under the Forest Plan. As noted previously in a

discussion of this review process, the Service would assess on an area-

by-area basis whether the continuation of the incidental take

prohibition on affected non-Federal lands was still necessary and

advisable for achieving the conservation goals of the Forest Plan. The

Service would lift the incidental take restrictions where warranted and

authorize the adoption of the final matrix or AMA prescriptions, at the

discretion of the affected non-Federal landowner, as a means of

avoiding an unauthorized incidental take of an owl.

One limited exception that the Service proposes to make to current

incidental take restrictions within SEAs would involve small

landowners. Except for the closest 70 acres of suitable habitat around

owl site centers themselves, the Service proposes to relieve incidental

take restrictions for small landowners who own, as of the date of this

proposed rulemaking, no more than 80 acres of forestlands in a given

SEA in Washington. The Service would also extend this proposal to small

landowners who are outside of, but adjacent to, an SEA and whose lands

are affected by the incidental take restrictions for an owl whose site

center is located within the SEA. For these landowners, the maximum

ownership figure of 80 acres would be calculated based upon the amount

of land they owned inside an SEA and the amount of land outside the

boundary of an SEA which was affected by current incidental take

restrictions for an owl inside an SEA.

The 80-acre figure for small landowners was selected after an

analysis of land ownership patterns and an accounting for the size and

location of lands covered by the Forest Plan, State forestlands,

industrial forestlands, and known large ownerships of non-industrial

forestlands. The Service also considered the fact that past Forest

Service studies have shown that only a very small fraction of small

landowners own forested lands for the exclusive purpose of economic

return from commercial harvest. In addition, most small landowners

utilize selective harvest techniques or small clear cuts which would

generate only very minor and incremental effects on any particular owl.

Despite their normal practices, however, the small landowners of the

Northwest have resorted to ``panic cutting'' over their fear of Federal

restrictions to protect owls. It is this category of landowner, in

particular, who needs to be provided sufficient assurances of relief so

they revert back to their past practices of low impact forestry.

Based on this analysis, the Service concluded that relief from the

incidental take prohibition for owls for landowners with less than 80

acres of forestland within, or adjacent to, SEAs would have a deminimis

impact upon owl conservation across the State. Moreover, given various

technology limitations and the potential causation and burden of proof

problems associated with proving incidental take to an owl from small

scale land use activities of any one particular small landowner, the

Service believes that there is a better allocation of its limited law

enforcement resources than to attempt to enforce incidental take

restrictions on someone owning 80 acres or less of forest land.

The Service also proposes a ``Local Option Conservation Plan'' or

Local Option approach to provide small and mid-sized landowners with

additional flexibility in dealing with incidental take restrictions.

The prohibition against incidental take in SEAs indirectly assists

in maintaining pockets of suitable and dispersal habitat through the

continued protection of suitable owl habitat around site centers. This

prohibition also helps provide future stocks of juvenile spotted owls

who would be more likely to migrate between key reserves. Since a

primary need in many of these connectors is the development and

maintenance of spotted owl dispersal habitat, the Service acknowledges

that alternative means may be developed for achieving that objective.

The use of the general incidental take prohibition in SEAs in

Washington is valuable when dealing with a wide-ranging species like

the northern spotted owl. Nevertheless, the Service recognizes the

value in providing flexibility in a section 4(d) rule to allow for the

modification of such prohibitions to better reflect local ecological

conditions for a given area. Furthermore, in focusing on a single

species objective in Special Emphasis Areas, broader landscape,

watershed, or ecosystem conservation possibilities may be foreclosed.

One of the key lessons the Service has learned in dealing with northern

spotted owl issues over the years is that the variability of habitats

and silvicultural practices is such that there might be more than one

approach for providing conservation benefits to the owl. For that

reason, this rule proposes to establish a Local Conservation Planning

Option.

The ``Local Option'' process would be limited to non-Federal

landowners who own, as of the date of this proposed rulemaking, between

80 and 5,000 acres of forestlands in an SEA in Washington.

[[Page 9503]] This process could result in the authorization for the

incidental take of an owl in exchange for an agreement to grow or

maintain dispersal habitat. The local option conservation planning

process would not apply, however, to those particular areas within a

given SEA where the continued maintenance of suitable owl habitat on

non-Federal lands is determined to be necessary and advisable in order

to provide demographic support for adjacent Federal owl reserves.

There is no official acreage designation defining a large acreage

landowner that is common to the three States of Washington, Oregon and

California. Definitions of small, medium and large land ownerships vary

and more often differentiate between non-industrial or non-commercial

private landowners. For purposes of various State regulatory analyses,

taxation or economic policies, and Association memberships, e.g.

Washington Farm Forestry Association, acreages ranging from 2,000 to

10,000 acres have been used to differentiate between industrial and

non-industrial landowners. For example, 5,000 acres is generally the

for adjacent Federal owl reserves.

There is no official acreage designation defining a large acreage

landowner that is common to the three States of Washington, Oregon and

California. Definitions of small, medium and large land ownerships vary

and more often differentiate between non-industrial or non-commercial

private landowners. For purposes of various State regulatory analyses,

taxation or economic policies, and Association memberships, e.g.

Washington Farm Forestry Association, acreages ranging from 2,000 to

10,000 acres have been used to differentiate between industrial and

non-industrial landowners. For example, 5,000 acres is generally the

maximum acreage break-off point in Oregon to distinguish a non-

industrial forestland owner from an industrial one. Contracts with a

mill will also qualify landowners as industrial. Given the range of

acreage figures that has been utilized among the three States, the

Service believes that a 5,000 acre break point is reasonable for

purposes of this 4(d) rule. Accordingly, landowners with less than 80

acres of forestland within an SEA have been treated as small landowners

within this rule and have been provided specific relief up front.

Landowners with overall forestland holdings greater than 80 acres and

not more than 5,000 acres within an SEA are considered to be medium

sized landowners and may pursue the ``Local Option'' process to seek

greater flexibility in addressing prohibitions an incidental take.

Finally, non-Federal landowners who have 5,000 or more acres of

forestlands within an SEA in Washington would only receive relief from

incidental take prohibitions for the spotted owl by completing an HCP

and obtaining a permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

The landowner-initiated Local Option process must still provide for

the primary spotted owl conservation objective specified for the

Special Emphasis Area where the property is located. The Service

encourages individual and adjacent multiple landowners to take

advantage of this option cooperatively to achieve broader ecosystem

conservation objectives which could have these benefits:

--multiple landowners could collaborate to provide greater management

flexibility, more effective conservation benefits, and to minimize

administrative costs;

--multiple species and habitats could be considered, potentially

reducing the need to list declining species or anticipating

requirements of future listings;

--land management treatments could become more consistent from Federal

to non-Federal lands, particularly in checkerboard areas; and

--landowners could exercise additional flexibility to plan their

forestry operations so as to best reflect localized environmental

conditions within a Special Emphasis Area.

This proposed rule would provide non-Federal landowners in

Washington, in cooperation with the appropriate State agencies, the

option of developing cooperative local conservation plans for timber

harvests in areas of up to 5,000 acres within SEAs where the incidental

take prohibition for the northern spotted owl would not be relieved by

this proposed rule. These cooperative plans could provide non-Federal

landowners with the opportunity to develop alternative management

strategies or prescriptions for addressing the conservation needs of

the owl.

The Local Option Conservation Planning process is designed to

encourage creative approaches to the conservation of the spotted owl by

building flexibility into the regulatory process. Such efforts

encourage coordinated management of listed species, like the northern

spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. If a Local Option Plan is

approved by the Service in consultation with the appropriate State

wildlife agency, the prohibition against take of northern spotted owls

incidental to timber harvests may be modified, to some degree, as

specified in the Plan. The Service will review each proposed Local

Option Plan cooperatively with the affected State wildlife agency to

ensure that the conservation objectives for the owl in the affected

area will not be precluded and that the proposal is complementary to

the Federal Forest Plan.

Under the local option process of this proposed rule, the primary

focus would be on the spotted owl, although there might be

opportunities for conserving other associated plant and animal species.

Approval of a local option conservation plan would be an expedited

process (compared to the HCP permit mechanism) through incorporation of

specific conservation criteria and guidance provided by this proposed

rule.

A non-Federal landowner or local or State government may submit an

application to the Service for approval of a proposed local option

plan. If requested, the Service would provide further guidance for the

development of a local option plan for a particular area. However, the

applicant is responsible ultimately for the preparation of a local

option plan proposal. The Service will be responsible for ensuring the

plan's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Appropriate State of Washington agencies may elect to participate with

the Service in the review of local option plan proposals for areas

within the State. In addition, if the State's regulations are

consistent with this rule, a local option plan proposal could be

certified through a State review process.

In determining the criteria for approval of a local option plan,

the Service has considered the information and approval requirements

set forth at 50 CFR 17.32(b) for a section 10 HCP permit. Those

requirements have been further streamlined for local option planning

and have been tailored to meet the specific conservation needs of the

spotted owl.

Service approval of a local option conservation plan will be based

on consideration of the information required to be submitted with an

application for approval of a plan. Applications for approval of a

local option conservation plan must be submitted to the Field

Supervisor of the Fish and Wildlife Service office in Olympia,

Washington.

One additional proposed provision affecting timber harvest

activities within an SEA involves the recognition and establishment of

a ``safe harbor'' from owl incidental take liability where more than 40

percent suitable habitat remains, post-harvest, within an owl's median

annual home range. Although [[Page 9504]] some studies have suggested

that rates of owl reproduction and survival may be affected to some

degree at a percent of suitable habitat above 40 percent, the benefits

of timber management certainty and the problem of enforcement

difficulties tied to issues of causation nevertheless warrant a ``safe

harbor'' approach. Thus, in those instances where more than 40 percent

suitable owl habitat remains within an owl's median annual home range

after harvest, a landowner would not be liable for prosecution should

the incidental take of an owl nevertheless occur despite their best

efforts to avoid take.

Relief From Current Incidental Take Provisions in California

This proposed rule contains a shift in approach for California

which has evolved since the publication of the NOI in December of 1993.

The December 29, 1993, NOI did not specify any particular area in

California where incidental take prohibitions would be relaxed, but

instead stated the Service's intent to defer to California law to

provide for the conservation of the spotted owl. In anticipation of

that possibility, the California Board of Forestry considered a May

1994 proposal from the California Resources Agency that would have

required maintenance of suitable owl habitat as a portion of every

watershed. The timber industry regarded the proposal as too

restrictive, and regulatory agencies believed it would be too expensive

to administer, so, the Board of Forestry tabled the proposal.

To provide a possible resolution of this impasse, the Service

proposes a new structure in this proposed rule as it applies to

California which is consistent with the Service's original underlying

biological assumptions for the owl in that State, as set forth in the

December 29, 1993, NOI. The Service proposes to provide some immediate

relief from incidental take in most of the California Klamath Province

and for small landowners in the remainder of northern California within

the range of the northern spotted owl. To encourage additional

comprehensive conservation planning for the spotted owl and other

species which is available under the California Natural Communities

Conservation Planning program (NCCP), additional relief for four other

areas of northern California (the California Cascades, Coastal,

Hardwood, and Wells Mountain-Bully Choop Regions) (Figure 1 to

Sec. 17.41(c)) would be available contingent upon the successful

completion of a NCCP initiative for spotted owls which is complementary

to, or not consistent with the owl conservation goals of the Federal

Forest Plan as applied in that State. The actual scope and extent of

relief for these four areas would be one of the primary issues to be

addressed through the NCCP process. These four areas are called

potential ``California Conservation Planning Areas'' (CCPAs) for

purposes of this proposed rule.

Relief From Current Incidental Take Restrictions Inside The Klamath

Province Relief Area

The proposed rule would result in a reduction of the prohibition

against incidental taking of owls for non-Federal lands within most of

the Klamath Province in a zone called the Klamath Province Relief Area

(Figure 1 to Sec. 17.41(c)). There are 105 spotted owl site centers

located on non-Federal land within the Klamath Province Relief Center.

An additional 117 site centers are on Federal land within the Relief

Area which are dependent to some degree upon adjacent non-Federal

lands. Within the area of relief, a landowner would only be required to

retain the closest 70 acres of suitable owl habitat surrounding a site

center. Thus, the incidental take of the spotted owl would not be

prohibited for timber harvest activities outside those 70 acres. Such

relief would not be provided throughout the entire Klamath Province

however. In particular, it would not be provided in those areas that

overlap with the boundaries of potential CCPAs, including the Wells

Mountain-Bully Choop and the Hardwood Region Areas of the Klamath

Province (Figure 1 to Sec. 17.41(c)). Relief would also not be provided

for those owls in the Klamath Province Relief Area whose site centers

are located on Federal Forest Plan reserves or Congressionally reserved

or Administratively withdrawn areas and are dependent upon adjacent

non-Federal lands. As noted previously in a discussion of similar site

centers in the State of Washington, the Service will reassess the need

for such continued protection over the next two years and will provide

additional relief where warranted at the end of this assessment.

The California Cascades, Coastal, Hardwood Region and Wells Mountain-

Bully Choop CCPAs

California's NCCP program (California Fish and Game Code 2800 et

seq.) was initiated in 1991 to develop plans that would preserve

biological diversity and reconcile development and wildlife needs on a

local and regional level. It is designed to encourage public/private

sector cooperation, maintain local control over land use decisions, and

meet the objectives of State and Federal laws by preserving species and

ecosystems before they are on the verge of extinction. Planning

criteria and conservation strategies for certain species and

communities are developed by scientific review panels.

The California Resources Agency has indicated a willingness to

consider initiating an NCCP process for portions of the range of the

spotted owl. The Service would encourage the California Resources

Agency to convene key stakeholders and regulatory agencies in an NCCP

process for the California Cascades, Coastal, Hardwood and Wells

Mountain-Bully Choop areas of the State (Figures 2 and 3 to

Sec. 17.41(c)). The Service recognizes that the actual designation of

any CCPA is a discretionary administrative matter controlled by the

California Resources Agency. Accordingly, this proposed rule would

recognize these four regions as potential CCPA areas, serving as a

``place holder'' in the 4(d) rule until such time as an NCCP planning

process is undertaken and completed. One goal of such a planning effort

would be to facilitate and encourage the development of ownership-wide

or Region-wide management plans and criteria which adequately provide

for the conservation needs of the owl and which complement the owl

conservation goals of the Federal Forest Plan. The actual content and

scope of such plans would be developed through the NCCP process itself.

Ultimately, the planning process must address, to the satisfaction of

the State regulatory agencies and the Service, an appropriate balance

between providing some measure of regulatory relief while achieving or

maintaining the conservation goals for the spotted owl for a particular

region.

Under the NCCP approach, the incidental take of the spotted owl

would not be prohibited under the Act if take were the result of

activities conducted according to an approved CCPA plan. This would

require the Service to first determine, in consultation with the

California Departments of Fish and Game and Forestry and Fire

Protection, that the plan meets the overall requirements of the Act and

the conservation goals for the owl in that area and is complementary to

the Federal Forest Plan. The process should also consider the extent to

which new Board of Forestry Sustained Yield Plans (SYPs) could be used

as a basis for incidental take authorization, provided that such SYPs

had been reviewed and approved by the Service after consultation with

appropriate State agencies. A joint State and Federal National

Environmental Policy Act/ [[Page 9505]] California Environmental

Quality Act (NEPA)/(CEQA) document could be prepared to review the

environmental effects of each CCPA plan, including any incidental take

of owls.

Potential CCPA boundaries described below were derived from earlier

planning efforts by the State (CDF 1992) and knowledge of current

Federal conservation efforts. To the extent that the boundaries of

these potential CCPAs are somewhat different from traditional past

descriptions of spotted owl provinces in California, they merely

represent sub-units of owl provinces.

The areas discussed below could be designated as CCPAs under the

California NCCP Act for purposes of northern spotted owl or possible

multi-species conservation planning. Of the 837 spotted owl site

centers on non-Federal lands in California, 732 are in the combined,

proposed CCPAs. There are an additional 228 site centers on Federal

lands within the proposed CCPAs, of which 87 rely to some degree upon

adjacent non-Federal lands.

(a) Coastal Area (Figure 2 to Sec. 17.41(c)).

Extending from the Oregon border south to San Francisco Bay, this

area is west of the Six Rivers and Mendocino National Forests. It

consists of approximately 293,000 acres of Federal land, and 3.6

million acres of non-Federal land. Timber management is the primary

land use on about 2 million acres and is concentrated in the heavily

forested redwood zone within 20 miles of the Pacific Ocean coastline.

In the more inland and southerly portions of the area, spotted owl

habitat is largely confined to the lower portions of drainages and is

naturally fragmented by grasslands, hardwoods, and chaparral.

The coastal area of northern California plays an important role in

the conservation of the species. It represents more than 10 percent of

the range of the spotted owl and has substantial owl populations in

managed forests. Approximately 642 owl site centers located on non-

Federal lands are known in this area, virtually all of them are in

managed second-growth timber stands; 66 site centers are located on

Federal lands of which 30 rely to some degree upon adjacent non-Federal

lands.

Due to the owl's widespread distribution, the predominance of

selective harvest methods, and the rapid regrowth of habitat, the

degree of threat to the species in much of this area appears to be

relatively low. According to analyses conducted by the California

Resources Agency (Berbach et al. 1993), more than 75 percent of the

quarter-townships in the three northern coastal counties (Del Norte,

Humboldt, and Mendocino) meet or exceed the standard for spotted owl

dispersal habitat described by the ISC (Thomas et al. 1990). Some

degree of incidental take could be accommodated while maintaining a

well-distributed spotted owl population. The magnitude of such

incidental take, however, would be one of the items to be addressed

through the NCCP process.

Because Federal lands are limited, they play a small role in the

conservation of the species in the California Coastal area. The Forest

Plan has placed most of the existing late-successional forests in the

BLM's scattered parcels (a few thousand acres) into reserves, and

Redwood National Park also provides late-successional habitat in the

northern portion of this area. However, these limited Federal reserves

cannot support enough spotted owls to provide for the conservation of

the species in the coastal province. Therefore, non-Federal lands are

generally very important to the conservation of the spotted ow

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.