32450 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU37 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Revised 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

revise the critical habitat designation for 

the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). In 1992, we designated 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl on 6,887,000 acres (ac) (2,787,070 

hectares (ha)) of Federal lands in 

California, Oregon, and Washington. In 

this document we propose revised 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl on a total of approximately 

5,337,839 acres (ac) (2,160,194 hectares 

(ha)) of Federal lands in California, 

Oregon, and Washington. If adopted, 

this action would result in a net 

decrease of approximately 1,549,161 ac 

(626,915 ha) of designated critical 

habitat for the northern spotted owl. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until August 13, 

2007. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the ADDRESSES section 

by July 27, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods: 

1. You may mail or hand-deliver 

written comments and information to 

Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th 

Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266. 

2. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

northernspottedowlCH@fws.gov. Please 

see the Public Comments Solicited 

section below for file format and other 

information about electronic filing. 

3. You may fax your comments to our 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office at 503– 

231–6195. 

4. You may go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions provided for submitting 

comments. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in the preparation of this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office, at the address above; the Western 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 

510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite 101, 

Lacey, WA 98503; and the Yreka Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 1829 S. Oregon St., 

Yreka, CA 96097. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES) (telephone 503–231–6179); 

Ken Berg, Field Supervisor, Western 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES) (telephone 360–753– 

9440); or Phillip Detrich, Field 

Supervisor, Yreka Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 530– 

842–5763). People who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TTD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339, 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule are hereby solicited. 

Comments particularly are sought 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why habitat should or 

should not be designated as critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Act (16. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including 

whether the benefit of designation 

would outweigh threats to the species 

caused by designation such that the 

designation of critical habitat is 

prudent; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of northern 

spotted owl habitat, what areas should 

be included in the revised designation 

that were occupied at the time of listing 

that contain the features that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and why, and what areas that 

were not occupied at the time of listing 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species and why; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

revised critical habitat; 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

revised designation and, in particular, 

any impacts on small entities; and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts; and 

(5) Whether any areas should or 

should not be excluded from the revised 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and why; and 

(6) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). Please submit e-mail comments 

to northernspottedowlCH@fws.gov in 

ASCII file format and avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn: 

northern spotted owl critical habitat’’ in 

your e-mail subject header. If you do not 

receive a confirmation from the system 

that we have received your message, 

contact us directly by calling our 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office at 503– 

231–6179. Please note that the e-mail 

address 

nor0thernspottedowlCH@fws.gov will be 

closed out at the termination of the 

public comment period. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Background 

Ecological Considerations 

Physical Description and Taxonomy 

The northern spotted owl is a 

medium-sized owl and the largest of the 

three subspecies of spotted owls 

currently recognized by the American 

Ornithologists’ Union (Gutie ́rrez et al. 

1995, p. 2). It is dark brown with a 

barred tail and white spots on the head 

and breast, and has dark brown eyes 

that are surrounded by prominent facial 

disks. The taxonomic separation of 

these three subspecies is supported by 

varied characteristics (reviewed in 

Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 3–3 to 3–31), 

including genetic (Barrowclough and 

Gutie ́rrez 1990, p. 739; Barrowclough et 

al. 1999, p. 922; Haig et al. 2004b, p. 

1353; Barrowclough et al. 2005, p. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32451 

1113), morphological (Gutie ́rrez et al. 

1995, pp. 2 to 3), behavioral (Van Gelder 

2003, p. 30) and biogeographical 

information (Barrowclough et al. 1999, 

p. 928). 

Distribution 

The current range of the northern 

spotted owl extends from southwest 

British Columbia through the Cascade 

Mountains, coastal ranges, and 

intervening forested lands in 

Washington, Oregon, and California, as 

far south as Marin County, California 

(USFWS 1990, pp. 13, 60; June 26, 

1990). The subspecies is listed as 

threatened under the Act throughout its 

range (55 FR 26114). Within the United 

States, the northern spotted owl ranges 

across 12 physiographic provinces, 

based on recognized landscape 

subdivisions exhibiting different 

physical and environmental features 

(Franklin and Dyrness 1988, pp. 5 to 26; 

Thomas et al. 1990, p. 61; USDA and 

USDI 1994b, p. A–3). These include the 

Olympic Peninsula, Western 

Washington Lowlands, Western 

Washington Cascades, Eastern 

Washington Cascades, Oregon Coast 

Ranges, Western Oregon Cascades, 

Willamette Valley, Eastern Oregon 

Cascades, Oregon Klamath, California 

Klamath, California Coast Ranges, and 

California Cascades Provinces (based on 

USDA and USDI 1994b, p. A–3). Very 

few northern spotted owls are found in 

the Western Washington Lowlands or 

Willamette Valley, however, therefore 

the subspecies is restricted primarily to 

10 of the 12 provinces within its range. 

Population Status and Trends 

Demographic data, from studies 

initiated as early as 1985, have been 

analyzed every few years to estimate 

northern spotted owl population trends 

(Anderson and Burnham 1992; 

Burnham et al. 1994; Franklin et al. 

1999; Anthony et al. 2006). The most 

current evaluation of population status 

and trends is based on data through 

2003 (Anthony et al. 2006). Based on 

this analysis, populations on 8 of 12 

study areas (Wenatchee, Cle Elum, 

Rainier, Olympic Peninsula, Oregon 

Coast Ranges, Warm Springs, H.J. 

Andrews, and Simpson) were declining 

(Anthony et al. 2006, p. 23). Estimates 

of realized population change 

(cumulative population change across 

all study years) indicated that, in the 

more rapidly declining populations 

(Wenatchee, Cle Elum, Rainier, and 

Warm Springs), the 2003 populations 

were 50 to 70 percent of the population 

sizes observed in 1994 or 1995 

(Anthony et al. 2006, pp. 25 to 26). 

Populations in the remaining four study 

areas (Tyee, Klamath, South Oregon 

Cascades, and Hoopa) appear to have 

remained stable through 2003 (Anthony 

et al. 2006, p. 25). A meta-analysis 

combining data from all 12 study areas 

indicates that rangewide the population 

declined at a rate of about 3.7 percent 

per year from 1985 to 2003. Northern 

spotted owl populations on Federal 

lands had better demographic rates than 

elsewhere, but still declined at a mean 

annual rate of about 2.4 percent 

(Anthony et al. 2006, pp. 33 to 34). 

The barred owl (Strix varia) has 

recently emerged as a greater threat to 

the northern spotted owl than was 

previously recognized. The range of the 

barred owl has expanded in recent years 

and now completely overlaps that of the 

northern spotted owl (Crozier et al. 

2006, p. 761). The presence of barred 

owls has significant negative effects on 

northern spotted owl reproduction 

(Olson et al. 2004), survival (Anthony et 

al. 2006), and number of territories 

occupied (Kelly et al. 2003, p. 51; Olson 

et al. 2005). The determination of 

population trends for the northern 

spotted owl has become complicated by 

the finding that northern spotted owls 

are less likely to call when barred owls 

are also present, therefore they are likely 

to be undetected by standard survey 

methods (Olson et al. 2005; Crozier et 

al. 2006). It is therefore difficult to 

determine whether northern spotted 

owls no longer occupy a site, or whether 

they may still be present but are not 

detected. The 2007 Draft Recovery Plan 

for the Northern Spotted owl concludes 

that ‘‘barred owls are exacerbating the 

spotted owl population decline, 

particularly in Washington, portions of 

Oregon, and the northern coast of 

California’’ (USFWS 2007, p. 126). 

British Columbia has a small 

population of northern spotted owls. 

This population has declined at least 49 

percent since 1992 (Courtney et al. 

2004, p. 8–14), and by as much as 90 

percent since European settlement 

(Chutter et al. 2004, p. 6) to a current 

breeding population estimated at about 

23 birds (Sierra Legal Defence [sic] Fund 

and Western Canada Wilderness 

Committee 2005, p. 16) on 15 sites 

(Chutter et al. 2004, p. 26). 

Life History and Ecology 

Northern spotted owls are highly 

territorial (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 2–7), 

though overlap between the outer 

portions of the home ranges of adjacent 

pairs is common (Forsman et al. 1984, 

pp. 5, 17, 22 to 24; Solis and Gutie ́rrez 

1990, p. 742; Forsman et al. 2005, p. 

374). Pairs are non-migratory and 

remain on their home range throughout 

the year, though they often increase the 

area used for foraging during fall and 

winter (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 21; Sisco 

1990, p. 9), likely in response to 

potential depletion of prey in the core 

of their home range (Carey et al. 1992, 

p. 245; Carey 1995a, p. 649; but see 

Rosenberg et al. 1994, pp. 1512 to 1515). 

The northern spotted owl shows strong 

year-round fidelity to its breeding site, 

even when not nesting (Solis 1983, pp. 

23 to 28; Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 52 to 

53) or after natural disturbance alters 

habitat characteristics within the home 

range (Bond et al. 2002, pp. 1024 to 

1026). A discussion of northern spotted 

owl home range size and use is included 

in the Primary Constituent Elements 

section of this proposed rule. 

Reproductive success of northern 

spotted owls has been characterized as 

a multi-stage process (Carey and Peeler 

1995, p. 236) in which natal dispersal 

and survival to reproductive age are the 

most vulnerable stages. Nomadic adults 

and juveniles dispersing from their natal 

area serve as sources of replacements for 

resident northern spotted owls that die 

or leave their home range (Thomas et al. 

1990, p. 295). Habitat supporting 

movements of northern spotted owls 

between large blocks limits the 

potentially adverse genetic effects of 

inbreeding and provides demographic 

support to declining populations 

(Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 271 to 272). A 

discussion of northern spotted owl 

dispersal is included in the Primary 

Constituent Elements section of this 

proposed rule. 

Prey 

Northern spotted owls forage 

primarily on arboreal and semi-arboreal 

mammals (summarized in Courtney et 

al. 2004, pp. 4–31 to 4–32). The primary 

prey species utilized depends on 

geographic area, but may include 

northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys 

sabrinus), two species of woodrats 

(Neotoma spp.), two species of redbacked voles (Clethrionomys spp.), red 

tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus), two 

species of deer mice (Peromyscus spp.), 

and two species of lagomorphs (rabbits 

and hares) (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 4–

5). Northern spotted owls are also 

known to prey on insects, other 

terrestrial mammals, birds, and 

juveniles of larger mammals (e.g., 

mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa), 

although the use of these prey species 

is more seasonal (mainly spring, 

summer, and early fall) (Forsman et al. 

2001, p. 146; Forsman et al. 2004, p. 

223). 

There is a clear geographic pattern to 

the northern spotted owl diet that varies 

with distribution and abundance of prey 

and habitat type (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32452 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

201; Forsman et al. 2001, p. 146; 

Courtney et al. 2004, p. 4–7). Northern 

flying squirrels are the dominant prey 

species in the northern Western 

Hemlock/Douglas-fir forests. Duskyfooted woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) are 

more important in the southern drier, 

mixed-conifer/mixed-evergreen forests. 

Both prey species are co-dominant 

through the southwest interior of 

Oregon (Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 4–7 to 

4–8). 

Northern flying squirrels are 

nocturnal arboreal rodents and the 

primary prey of northern spotted owls 

in the northern provinces. Forests that 

support northern flying squirrels 

provide den sites, usually cavities in 

large snags, but northern flying squirrels 

may also use cavities in live trees, 

hollow branches of fallen trees, crevices 

in large stumps, stick nests of other 

species, and lichen and twig nests they 

construct (Carey 1995b, p. 658). Fungi 

(mychorrhizal and epigeous types) are 

prominent in their diet, however seeds, 

fruits, nuts, vegetation matter, insects, 

and lichens may also represent a 

significant proportion of their diet 

(summarized in Courtney et al. 2004, 

App. 3–12). Northern flying squirrel 

densities tend to be higher in older 

forest stands with ericaceous shrubs 

(e.g., rhododendron) and an abundance 

of large snags (Carey 1995b, p. 654), 

likely because these older forests 

produce a higher forage biomass. Flying 

squirrel density tends to increase with 

stand age (Carey 1995b, pp. 653 to 654; 

Carey 2000, p. 252), although managed 

and second-growth stands sometimes 

also show high densities of squirrels, 

especially when canopy cover is high 

(e.g., Rosenberg and Anthony 1992, p. 

163; Lehmkuhl et al. 2006, pp. 589 to 

591). The main factors that may limit 

northern flying squirrel densities are the 

availability of den structures and food, 

especially hypogeous fungi (Gomez et 

al. 2005, pp. 1677 to 1678). 

For northern spotted owls in northern 

California, southwestern Oregon, and 

the Willamette Valley, dusky-footed 

woodrats constitute the primary prey 

(Carey et al. 1999, p. 65). Habitats that 

support dusky-footed woodrats usually 

include early seral mixed-conifer/mixed 

evergreen forests close to water (Carey et 

al. 1999, p. 77). Dusky-footed woodrats 

reach high densities in both old forests 

with openings and closed-canopy young 

forests (Sakai and Noon 1993, pp. 376 

to 378; Carey et al. 1999, p. 73), and use 

hardwood stands in mixed evergreen 

forests (Carey et al. 1999, p. 73). Dense 

woodrat populations in shrubby areas 

are likely a source of colonists to 

surrounding forested areas (Sakai and 

Noon 1997, p. 347), therefore forested 

areas with nearby open, shrubby 

vegetation generally support high 

numbers of dusky-footed woodrats. The 

main factors that may limit duskyfooted woodrats are access to stable, 

brushy environments that provide food, 

cover from predation, materials for nest 

construction, dispersal ability, and 

appropriate climatic conditions (Carey 

et al. 1999, p. 78). 

Home Range, Forest Condition, 

Survival, and Reproduction 

Territorial northern spotted owls 

remain resident on their home range 

throughout the year, therefore, these 

home ranges must provide all of the 

habitat components needed for the 

survival and successful reproduction of 

a pair of owls. The home range is 

composed of a core area, the area of 

most intensive use and nesting, and the 

remainder of the home range which is 

utilized for additional foraging and 

roosting. In nearly all studies of 

northern spotted owl nesting habitat, 

the amount of mature and old-growth 

forest was greater within northern 

spotted owl sites than at random sites at 

the home range and core area scale 

(Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 5–6, 5–13), 

and forests were less fragmented 

(Hunter et al. 1995, p. 688). The amount 

of quality habitat at the core area scale 

shows the strongest relationships with 

home range occupancy (Meyer et al. 

1998, p. 34; Zabel et al. 2003, p. 1036), 

survival (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 567; 

Dugger et al. 2005, p. 873), and 

reproductive success (Ripple et al. 1997, 

pp. 155 to 156; Dugger et al. 2005, p. 

871). A more complete description of 

the home range is presented in the 

Primary Constituent Elements section of 

this proposed rule. 

The size, configuration, and 

characteristics of vegetation patches 

within core areas affect northern spotted 

owl survival and reproduction, a 

concept referred to as habitat fitness 

potential (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 542). 

Among studies that have estimated 

habitat fitness potential, the effects of 

forest fragmentation and heterogeneity 

vary geographically. In the California 

Klamath Province, locations for nesting 

and roosting tend to be centered in 

larger patches of old forest, but edges 

between forest types may provide 

increased prey abundance and 

availability (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 

579). In the central Oregon Coast Range, 

northern spotted owls appear to benefit 

from a mixture of older forests with 

younger forest and non-forested areas in 

their home range (Olson et al. 2004, pp. 

1049 to 1050), a pattern similar to that 

found in the California Klamath 

Province. In contrast, studies conducted 

in the Oregon Cascades found that 

habitat characteristics were not good 

predictors of northern spotted owl 

survival or reproduction (Anthony et al. 

2002, p. 49). Courtney et al. (2004, p. 5–

23) suggest that although in general 

large patches of older forest appear to be 

necessary to maintain stable 

populations of northern spotted owls, 

core areas composed predominantly of 

old forest may not be optimal for 

northern spotted owls in the California 

Klamath Province and Oregon Coast 

Ranges Province. 

Habitat Use 

Habitat for northern spotted owls has 

traditionally been described as 

consisting of four functional types: 

nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal 

habitats. Recent studies continue to 

support the practical value of discussing 

northern spotted owl habitat usage by 

classifying it into these functional 

habitat types (Lint 2005; Buchanan 

2004; Forsman et al. 2005; Zabel et al. 

2003; Irwin et al. 2000) and data from 

studies are available to describe areas 

used for these types of activities, so we 

retain it here to structure our discussion 

of the essential features of suitable 

habitat for the northern spotted owl. 

Detailed characterizations of each of 

these functional habitat types and their 

relative distribution are described in the 

Primary Constituent Elements section of 

this proposed rule. 

Summary of Conservation Strategies for 

the Northern Spotted Owl 

Prior and subsequent to the listing of 

the northern spotted owl (FR 55 26175), 

many committees, task forces, and work 

groups were formed to find biologically 

and socially acceptable solutions to the 

dilemma of halting its decline (Meslow 

1993, entire document), commencing in 

1982 with the development of a regional 

guide for management of the northern 

spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 9–

3). Today, northern spotted owl 

conservation on Federal lands within 

the range of the northern spotted owl in 

Washington, Oregon, and California is 

largely accomplished through the Forest 

Service’s Land and Resource 

Management Plans (LRMP) and Bureau 

of Land Management’s (BLM) Resource 

Management Plans (RMP), as amended 

by the Record of Decision for 

Amendments to Forest Service and BLM 

Planning Documents within the Range 

of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and 

USDI 1994a, p. 31; USDA and USDI 

1994b). The LRMPs/RMPs were 

considered to be, in part, the Federal 

contribution to recovery for the northern 

spotted owl (USDA and USDI 1994a, 

Appendix G). The work of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32453 

Interagency Scientific Committee to 

Address Conservation of the Northern 

Spotted Owl (ISC) in 1990 and its 

resulting core strategies has served as 

the foundation for subsequent 

conservation planning, including the 

1992 Final Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (Courtney et al. 

2004, p. 9–3), the original designation of 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl (57 FR 1796; January 15, 1992), and 

the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2007). 

Interagency Scientific Committee 

(ISC)—1990 

The Interagency Scientific Committee 

(ISC), was chartered in 1989 by four 

Federal agencies, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service (FS) and 

U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM), Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Park 

Service, to develop a scientific 

conservation strategy for the northern 

spotted owl (Thomas et al. 1990). In 

1992, the Forest Service formally 

adopted the ISC Conservation Strategy 

for the Northern Spotted Owl as a basis 

for its planned management. However, 

for a variety of reasons, the plan was 

never implemented (Courtney et al. 

2004, p. 9–4). 

The ISC’s Conservation Strategy was 

built on a foundation of five 

conservation biology principles. In 

general, the ISC favors the protection of 

large blocks of habitat capable of 

supporting multiple pairs of northern 

spotted owls spaced closely enough to 

facilitate dispersal between the blocks. 

The results of applying these principles 

were of key importance to the 

development of this revised critical 

habitat proposal, and are summarized 

below: 

(1) Large Block Size. The ISC strategy 

emphasizes the importance of managing 

large and well-distributed blocks of 

northern spotted owl habitat, called 

Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs), 

which are sufficiently connected to 

maintain a stable and well-distributed 

population throughout the northern 

spotted owl’s range. The target 

population for HCAs was derived from 

empirical data and modeling results 

supporting the conclusion that clusters 

of 20 pairs of northern spotted owls 

should be stable over the long term, 

given the rates of dispersal among them 

by juveniles (Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 24, 

App. O). At the time of selection, some 

HCAs contained sufficient habitat and 

resident northern spotted owls to meet 

or exceed the 20-pair target, while 

others were deficient in both habitat and 

pairs. The ISC anticipated that northern 

spotted owl habitat, and therefore the 

target number of pairs, would be 

recruited over time (Thomas et al. 1990, 

p. 23). Large block size was determined 

based on the target number of northern 

spotted owl pairs and the median 

provincial home range size of pairs. 

Based on habitat use studies, the 

median home range used was larger in 

the north (14,271 ac (5,775 ha)) and 

smaller in the south (2,955 ac (1,196 

ha)) (Thomas et al. 1990, App. I). 

Overall, the large habitat blocks are 

considered sufficiently large so that they 

can remain stable over the long run, 

with low to moderate dispersal from 

adjacent blocks (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 

24). 

In areas where the actual habitat 

conditions, future capability of lands to 

develop into northern spotted owl 

habitat, and northern spotted owl 

densities did not allow for the large 

block approach, smaller habitat blocks 

were identified in strategic locations 

(Thomas et al. 1990, p. 28). The ISC 

recognized that the northern spotted 

owl populations in these smaller blocks 

were relatively less stable, but would 

still contribute to the metapopulation 

structure across the subspecies’ range 

(Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 27 to 30, 308). 

The term metapopulation refers to a set 

of local populations linked by 

dispersing individuals. The ISC adopted 

a metapopulation approach to 

management as an attempt to provide 

the northern spotted owl with habitat 

distributed across the landscape in a 

fashion most similar to the historical 

configuration, given existing patterns of 

fragmentation. This approach was 

considered the best hedge against future 

extinction (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 23). 

(2) Distance Between Habitat Blocks. 

The success of a northern spotted owl 

conservation strategy based on 

metapopulation structure depends, in 

part, on dispersal between habitat 

blocks. Therefore, the ISC developed 

habitat blocks separated by distances 

well within the known dispersal range 

of juveniles (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 307). 

For the northern spotted owl, the ISC 

indicates that the distance between large 

habitat blocks should be within the 

known median dispersal distances of at 

least two-thirds of all juveniles. This 

translated into a maximum allowable 

distance of 12 mi (19.3 km) between the 

nearest points of contact of neighboring 

large habitat blocks (Thomas et al. 1990, 

p. 307, Table P1). 

Populations in small habitat blocks 

are inherently less stable and more 

prone to local extinctions than those in 

large blocks and are therefore more 

reliant on immigration from neighboring 

blocks to remain extant (Thomas et al. 

1990, pp. 262, 266, 308). To provide an 

additional measure of population 

security for the small habitat blocks, the 

ISC set a shorter distance of 7 mi (11.2 

km) to the adjacent blocks. This was less 

than the median dispersal distance 

estimate from banded northern spotted 

owls, and is within the dispersal range 

of more than 75 percent of all radiomarked juveniles (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 

308). This shorter distance was intended 

to improve the likelihood of successful 

dispersal from adjacent blocks, thereby 

reducing the potential for local 

extinctions within small habitat blocks 

(Thomas et al. 1990, p. 308). 

(3) Rangewide Distribution. A primary 

reason for designating habitat blocks 

throughout the northern spotted owl’s 

range was to ensure that stochastic 

events such as large fires or windstorms 

that may occur in a portion of the range 

would not negatively impact the entire 

population (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 294). 

The ISC’s rangewide distribution of 

large habitat blocks offered some 

resiliency to maintain the subspecies 

and habitat variation across provinces 

and offered some protection against 

stressors such as stochastic events (e.g., 

large fires). This conservation principle 

provides a hedge against extinction of 

the northern spotted owl due to either 

small or large catastrophic events. In 

addition, large, well-distributed blocks 

of unfragmented habitat may assist the 

northern spotted owl in responding to 

the barred owl, which has recently 

expanded its range and now overlaps 

with the range of the northern spotted 

owl (Herter and Hicks 2000, p. 284). 

(4) Contiguous Habitat. The ISC 

Strategy states that the less fragmented 

the habitat within blocks is, the better 

habitat will function for northern 

spotted owls. Habitat fragmentation may 

cause habitat deterioration from edge 

effects, increased risk of predation, and 

potential displacement by barred owls 

(Thomas et al. 1990, p. 22 to 23). At the 

time, information such as that provided 

by the more recent studies in the 

California Klamath and Oregon Coast 

Range provinces regarding the potential 

benefits of heterogeneity and forest edge 

in these areas (Franklin et al. 2000, 

Olson et al. 2004) was not known. 

(5) Dispersal Habitat. Stability of the 

northern spotted owl population under 

the ISC Conservation Strategy is 

dependent on the movement of 

individuals among habitat blocks for 

population support (Thomas et al. 1990, 

p. 26). To facilitate the movement of 

northern spotted owls between blocks, 

the ISC requires intervening forest lands 

to be managed in a manner that will 

support dispersing northern spotted 

owls (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 326 to 327). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32454 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Designation of Critical Habitat—1992 

The original designation of critical 

habitat for the northern spotted owl was 

finalized in 1992 (57 FR 1796; January 

15, 1992). Critical habitat was identified 

based on the conservation principles set 

forth in the ISC Conservation Strategy 

for the Northern Spotted Owl (Thomas 

et al. 1990), including the development 

and maintenance of large contiguous 

blocks of habitat to support multiple 

reproducing pairs of owls; minimizing 

fragmentation and edge effect to 

improve habitat quality; minimizing 

distance between blocks to facilitate 

dispersal; and maintaining rangewide 

distribution of habitat to facilitate 

recovery (57 FR 1803–1804; January 15, 

1992). The emphasis on large, 

continuous blocks of habitat relied on 

the ISC’s identification of HCAs as a 

starting point (Thomas et al. 1990; p. 

315). Category 1 HCAs were those with 

the potential to support 20 or more 

pairs, and category 2 HCAs were those 

with the potential to support fewer than 

20 pairs. Although the ISC had also 

identified category 3 HCAs, areas 

capable of supporting only a single pair 

of owls, the critical habitat concentrated 

on areas of sufficient size to support at 

least two pairs. The final critical habitat 

designation included 6,887,000 ac 

(2,787,070 ha) of Federal lands within 

the range of the northern spotted owl. 

Of those acres, approximately 5,700,000 

ac (2,317,073 ha) were within the HCA 

system proposed by the ISC, and an 

additional 1,887,000 ac (767,073 ha) 

were designated as a measure to further 

enhance the HCAs already identified (57 

FR 1804–1805; January 15, 1992). 

Northern Spotted Owl Final Draft 

Recovery Plan—1992 

The Department of the Interior began 

development of a recovery plan for the 

northern spotted owl in 1990. After 

reviewing a number of conservation 

strategies, the 1992 Recovery Team 

settled on the ISC reserve design (i.e., 

size and spacing of habitat blocks) as a 

basis for the 1992 Final Draft Northern 

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USDI 1992, 

p. 357). HCAs were renamed Designated 

Conservation Areas (DCAs), but the 

category designations remained the 

same (i.e., a category 1 DCA was 

designed to support at least 20 pairs of 

northern spotted owls, and a category 2 

DCA supports from 2 to 19 pairs). The 

1992 Recovery Team’s objective in 

remapping the HCAs was to provide a 

level of habitat protection in the DCAs 

that was at least equal to that provided 

by HCAs, while increasing the 

biological and economic efficiency of 

the network. The fundamental sizing 

and spacing criteria from Thomas et al. 

(1990) were applied during mapping of 

the DCAs. The overall structural 

elements developed by the ISC 

remained, although the draft recovery 

plan was never finalized. 

Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team—1993 

The Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team (FEMAT) (USDA et 

al. 1993) was created to provide a 

review of scientific issues and options 

for a regional plan to manage Federal 

forests. The primary concepts of the 

FEMAT Option 9 were adopted through 

the Record of Decision for Amendments 

to Forest Service and BLM Planning 

Documents within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl, signed in 1994, 

and amended the Forest Service LRMPs 

and BLM RMPs within the range of the 

northern spotted owl relative to the 

management of habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth forest 

species (USDA and USDI 1994b). The 

principal components that contribute to 

conserving the northern spotted owl 

include the concepts of large reserve 

blocks of habitat (managed for forests 

resembling northern spotted owl 

habitat), connectivity, and silviculture 

treatments to accelerate habitat 

development, all of which were founded 

on the ISC concepts (Courtney et al. 

2004, 9–7). 

The LRMPs/RMPs include a network 

of reserve allocations called LateSuccessional Reserves (LSRs) designed, 

in part, to support clusters of 

reproducing northern spotted owl pairs 

across the range of the subspecies. It 

should be noted that LSRs are managed 

to meet the need of multiple species that 

depend on late-successional forests, and 

are not exclusive to management for 

northern spotted owls. Therefore 

although many LSRs benefit northern 

spotted owls, not all LSRs necessarily 

represent optimal habitat for northern 

spotted owls since they are intended to 

provide for other species as well. 

Silvicultural treatment of young forest 

(less than 80 years of age) is allowed 

within LSRs for the purpose of 

accelerating the development of latesuccessional habitat. This provision was 

included because the LSRs initially 

included a significant amount of area 

that had been logged and were in young, 

plantation-style forests. Because the 

development of large contiguous, 

unfragmented, blocks of latesuccessional forest was a key element of 

the ISC’s strategy, activities designed to 

accelerate restoration of simplified 

young stands were viewed as 

appropriate. 

The LRMPs/RMPs allow for 

silvicultural treatments of older forests 

in LSRs on sites characterized by 

frequent, light to moderate intensity fire, 

such as pine and mixed-conifer 

dominated forests on the eastern slopes 

of the Cascade Range and in the 

Siskiyou-Klamath region. This provision 

was included because of the potential 

for uncharacteristically intense wildfire 

on sites where higher than normal 

amounts of fuel have accumulated. Such 

fires pose a high risk of temporary or 

even long-term loss of old-growth 

conditions, including northern spotted 

owl habitat, and treatments may help 

reduce this risk. 

2006/2007 Recovery Planning Process 

for the Northern Spotted Owl 

In April 2006, the Service convened 

an interdisciplinary Northern Spotted 

Owl Recovery Team to incorporate the 

most recent scientific information into a 

current recovery plan for the species. 

The Recovery Team sought input from 

northern spotted owl experts on the 

main threats to the rangewide northern 

spotted owl population: competition 

from barred owls, loss of habitat amount 

and distribution from past activities and 

disturbances, and ongoing habitat loss 

to timber harvest. The Draft Recovery 

Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl 

(USFWS 2007) provides two options to 

address the threats posed by habitat loss 

and modification. Both options are 

based on the same underlying science, 

much of which is from the ISC (Thomas 

et al. 1990). Option 1 maps the specific 

conservation area boundaries where 

most of the recovery actions and criteria 

will be targeted. These conservation 

areas are called Managed Owl 

Conservation Areas, or MOCAs, and are 

mapped in the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2007). Option 2 of the 2007 

Draft Recovery Plan provides a rule set 

that defines the size and distance of the 

conservation areas needed for recovery, 

while recognizing that the habitat 

demands of the northern spotted owl 

vary across its range. The rule set is 

designed to help guide the Federal land 

management agencies when undertaking 

conservation actions for the northern 

spotted owl. 

The network of habitat blocks 

stemming from both options is based on 

the conservation biology strategies of 

the ISC (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 23) and 

provides the basis for this proposed 

revised critical habitat designation. The 

2007 Draft Recovery Plan suggests that 

the recovery of the northern spotted owl 

can be achieved by managing for 

appropriate habitat on Federal lands 

within the range of the northern spotted 

owl in the United States, drawing on 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32455 

voluntary recovery measures on 

intervening non-Federal lands. 

Conservation contributions by private, 

State, and other landowners in areas 

between or adjacent to habitat blocks are 

expected to increase the likelihood of 

northern spotted owl recovery. 

Consistent with the 1992 designation, 

we have identified only Federal lands as 

proposed revised critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl. 

Previous Federal Actions 

A description of previous Federal 

actions up to the time of listing on June 

26, 1990, can be found in the final rule 

listing the northern spotted owl (55 FR 

26114). On January 15, 1992, we 

published the final rule designating 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl (57 FR 1796). In December 1992, we 

completed the Final Draft Recovery Plan 

for the Northern Spotted Owl in 

Washington, Oregon, and California 

(USDI 1992). 

On April 21, 2003, we published a 

notice of review initiating a 5-year 

review of the northern spotted owl (68 

FR 19569). We then published a second 

information request for the 5-year 

review on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 44093). 

We contracted a comprehensive status 

review of the northern spotted owl to 

provide the best available scientific 

information for the 5-year review. The 

status review report was completed in 

September 2004 and continues to serve 

as the most current comprehensive 

summary of scientific information on 

the northern spotted owl (Courtney et 

al. 2004). We completed the 5-year 

review on November 15, 2004, 

concluding that the northern spotted 

owl should remain listed as a threatened 

species under the Act. 

On January 13, 2003, we entered into 

a settlement agreement with the 

American Forest Resource Council, 

Western Council of Industrial Workers, 

Swanson Group Inc., and Rough & 

Ready Lumber Company to conduct a 

rulemaking to consider potential 

revisions to critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl that includes a 

revised consideration of economic 

impacts and any other relevant aspects 

of designation. The dates for completion 

of this review have been extended and 

currently call for the Service to submit 

a proposed revised critical habitat 

designation to the Federal Register by 

June 1, 2007, and to submit a final 

revised critical habitat designation to 

the Federal Register by June 1, 2008. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: (i) The specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use all 

methods and procedures necessary to 

bring any endangered species or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to the 

Act are no longer necessary. Such 

methods and procedures include, but 

are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, and, in 

the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 requires consultation 

on Federal actions that are likely to 

result in effects to critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. 

Section 7 is a purely protective measure 

and does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the area 

occupied by the species must first have 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(i.e., areas on which are found the 

primary constituent elements, as 

defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Habitat occupied at the time of listing 

may be included in critical habitat only 

if its essential features may require 

special management or protection. An 

area currently occupied by the species 

but not known to be occupied at the 

time of listing will likely, but not 

always, be essential to the conservation 

of the species and, therefore, typically 

included in the critical habitat 

designation. When the best available 

scientific data do not demonstrate that 

the conservation needs of the species 

require additional areas, we will not 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing. 

The Service’s Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 

and section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–

554; H.R. 5658) and the associated 

Information Quality Guidelines issued 

by the Service, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that decisions made 

by the Service represent the best 

scientific data available. They require 

Service biologists, to the extent 

consistent with the Act and with the use 

of the best scientific data available, to 

use primary and original sources of 

information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. When determining which areas 

are eligible for consideration as critical 

habitat, a primary source of information 

is generally the listing package for the 

species. Additional information sources 

include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. All information is 

used in accordance with the provisions 

of section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–

554; H.R. 5658) and the associated 

Information Quality Guidelines issued 

by the Service. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. Habitat 

is often dynamic, and species may move 

from one area to another over time. 

Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside the designation is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32456 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

action. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available in determining areas that 

contain the features that are essential to 

the conservation of the northern spotted 

owl. For this critical habitat revision, we 

relied upon a variety of information 

sources to identify those areas, as well 

as to assess the habitat requirements of 

the species, including the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted 

Owl (USFWS 2007), the 2004 Status 

Review for the Northern Spotted Owl 

(Courtney et al. 2004), the Northern 

Spotted Owl 5-year Review (USFWS 

2004), the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision for Amendments to 

Forest Service and BLM Planning 

Documents within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 

1994 a, b), the 1992 final critical habitat 

designation (57 FR 1796; January 15, 

1992), Interagency Scientific Committee 

Conservation Strategy for the Northern 

Spotted Owl (Thomas et al. 1990), and 

GIS data layers, including those for 

northern spotted owl habitat, Federal 

land use allocations, land ownership, 

and northern spotted owl occupancy 

data. This proposed rule only addresses 

revisions to the current designation. For 

discussion of the methods used for the 

existing designation, please refer to that 

final designation (57 FR 1796; January 

15, 1992). 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

physical and biological features 

(primary constituent elements, or PCEs) 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species, and within the area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, that may require special 

management considerations and 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to, space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

The specific primary constituent 

elements required for the northern 

spotted owl are derived from the 

biological needs of the species as 

described in the Background section of 

this proposal and the following 

information. 

Space for Population Growth and for 

Normal Behavior 

Northern spotted owls remain on their 

home range throughout the year 

therefore this area must provide all the 

habitat components and prey needed to 

provide for the survival and successful 

reproduction of a territorial pair. The 

home range of a northern spotted owl is 

relatively large and varies in size among 

and within provinces, generally 

increasing to the north (Courtney et al. 

2004, p. 5–24; 55 FR 25117) where 

home range size ranges from 2,955 ac 

(1,196 ha) in the Oregon Cascades 

(Thomas et al. 1990, p. 194) to 14,271 

ac (5,775 ha) on the Olympic Peninsula 

(USDI 1992, p. 23; USFWS 1994 in litt., 

p. 1). Northern spotted owl home ranges 

are generally larger where northern 

flying squirrels are the predominant 

prey and smaller where woodrats are 

the predominant prey (Zabel et al. 1995, 

p. 436). Home range size also increases 

with increasing forest fragmentation 

(Carey et al. 1992, p. 235; Franklin and 

Guti?rrez 2002, p. 212; Glenn et al. 

2004, p. 45) and decreasing proportions 

of nesting habitat on the landscape 

(Carey et al. 1992, p. 235; Forsman et al. 

2005, p. 374), suggesting that northern 

spotted owls increase the size of their 

home ranges to encompass adequate 

amounts of suitable forest types 

(Forsman et al. 2005, p. 374). 

Northern spotted owl home ranges 

contain two distinct use areas: the core 

area, which is the area that is used most 

intensively and usually includes the 

nesting area (Bingham and Noon 1997, 

pp. 134 to 135), and the remainder of 

the home range which is used for 

foraging and roosting. The size of core 

areas varies considerably across the 

subspecies? geographic range following 

a pattern similar to that of home range 

size (Bingham and Noon 1997, p. 133), 

varying from over 4,057 ac (1,642 ha) in 

the northernmost (flying squirrel prey) 

provinces (Forsman et al. 2005, pp. 370, 

375) to less than 500 ac (202 ha) in the 

southernmost (dusky-footed woodrat 

prey) provinces (Pious 1995, pp. 9 to 10, 

Table 2; Zabel et al. 2003, pp. 1036 to 

1038). 

Core areas contain greater proportions 

of mature/old forest than random or 

non-use areas (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 

5–13), and the quality of habitat at the 

core area scale shows the strongest 

relationships with occupancy (Meyer et 

al. 1998, p. 34; Zabel et al. 2003, pp. 

1027, 1036), survival (Franklin et al. 

2000, p. 567; Dugger et al. 2005, p. 873), 

and reproductive success (Ripple et al. 

1997, pp. 155 to 156; Dugger et al. 2005, 

p. 871). In some areas, edges between 

forest types within northern spotted owl 

home ranges may provide increased 

prey abundance and availability 

(Franklin et al. 2000, p. 579). For 

successful reproduction, core areas need 

to contain one or more forest stands that 

have both the structural attributes and 

the location relative to other features in 

the home range that allow them to fulfill 

nesting, roosting, and foraging functions 

(Carey and Peeler 1995, pp. 233 to 236; 

Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, pp. 1035 

to 1037). 

The primary function of the 

remainder of the home range outside the 

core area is to provide subsidiary 

roosting and foraging opportunities for 

the resident pair that are essential to the 

year-round survival of the resident pair 

if they partially deplete the prey 

populations in the core area. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and 

Rearing of Offspring (Nesting) 

Nesting habitat provides structural 

features for nesting, protection from 

adverse weather conditions, and cover 

to reduce predation risks for adults and 

young. Nesting stands typically include 

a moderate to high canopy closure (60 

to 80 percent); a multi-layered, multispecies canopy with large (greater than 

30 inches (in) (76 centimeters (cm)) 

diameter at breast height (dbh)) 

overstory trees; a high incidence of large 

trees with various deformities (e.g., large 

cavities, broken tops, mistletoe 

infections, and other evidence of 

decadence); large snags; large 

accumulations of fallen trees and other 

woody debris on the ground; and 

sufficient open space below the canopy 

for northern spotted owls to fly (Thomas 

et al. 1990, p. 164; 57 FR 1798). 

Recent studies found that northern 

spotted owl nest stands tend to have 

greater tree basal area, number of 

canopy layers, density of broken-top 

trees, number or basal area of decadent 

snags, and volume of decadent logs 

(Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 5–16 to 5–19, 

5–23). In some forest types, northern 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32457 

spotted owls nest in younger forest 

stands that contain structural 

characteristics of older forests. Nesting 

northern spotted owls consistently 

occupy stands having high canopy cover 

that may provide thermoregulatory 

benefits (Weathers et al. 2001, p. 686), 

allowing northern spotted owls a wider 

range of choices for locating thermallyneutral roosts near the nest site. High 

canopy closure may also conceal 

northern spotted owls, reducing 

potential predation. 

To support northern spotted owl 

reproduction, a home range requires 

appropriate amounts of nesting, 

roosting, and foraging habitat arrayed so 

that nesting pairs can use it efficiently 

and safely. In the northern parts of the 

range where nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat have similar attributes, 

nesting is generally associated with 

increasing old forest in the core area 

(Swindle et al. 1999, p. 1216). In some 

portions of the range in the south, 

northern spotted owl survival is 

positively associated with the area of 

old forest habitat in the core, but 

reproductive output is positively 

associated with amount of edge between 

older forest and other habitat types in 

the home range (Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 

573, 579). This pattern suggests that 

where dusky-footed woodrats are the 

primary prey species, core areas that 

have nesting habitat stands interspersed 

with varied types of foraging habitat 

may be optimal for northern spotted owl 

survival and reproduction. The 

appropriate amount and spatial 

distribution of nesting habitat is 

essential for successful reproduction of 

northern spotted owls. 

Cover or Shelter (Roosting) 

The primary functions of roosting 

habitat are to facilitate thermoregulation 

in summer or winter, shelter northern 

spotted owls from precipitation, and 

provide cover to reduce predation risk 

while resting or foraging. Studies of 

roosting locations found that northern 

spotted owls tended to use stands with 

greater vertical canopy layering (Mills et 

al. 1993, pp. 318 to 319), canopy closure 

(King 1993, p. 45), snag diameter (Mills 

et al. 1993, pp. 318 to 319), diameter of 

large trees (Herter et al. 2002, pp. 437, 

441), and amounts of large woody debris 

(Chow 2001, p. 24; reviewed in 

Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 5–14 to 4–16, 

5–23). The characteristics of roosting 

habitat differ from those of nesting 

habitat only in that roosting habitat 

need not contain the specific structural 

features used for nesting (Thomas et al. 

1990, p. 62). 

Food or Other Nutritional or 

Physiological Requirements (Foraging) 

The primary function of foraging 

habitat is to provide a food supply for 

survival and reproduction. Foraging 

activity is positively associated with 

tree height diversity (North et al. 1999, 

p. 524), canopy closure (Irwin et al. 

2000, p. 180; Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–

15), snag volume, density of snags 

greater than 20 in (50 cm) dbh (North et 

al. 1999, p. 524; Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 

179 to 180; Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–

15), density of trees greater than or 

equal to 31 in (80 cm) dbh (North et al. 

1999, p. 524), volume of woody debris 

(Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 179 to 80), and 

young forests with some structural 

characteristics of old forests (Carey et al. 

1992, pp. 245 to 247; Irwin et al. 2000, 

pp. 178 to 179). Northern spotted owls 

select old forests for foraging in greater 

proportion than its availability at the 

landscape scale (Carey et al. 1992, pp. 

236 to 237; Carey and Peeler 1995, p. 

235; Forsman et al. 2005, pp. 372 to 

373), but will forage in younger stands 

with high prey densities and access to 

prey (Carey et al. 1992, p. 247; 

Rosenberg and Anthony 1992, p. 165; 

Thome et al. 1999, pp. 56 to 57). 

Because northern spotted owls show 

a clear geographic pattern in diet, and 

different prey species prefer different 

habitat types, prey distribution 

contributes to differences in northern 

spotted owl foraging habitat selection 

across the range. In the northern portion 

of their range, northern spotted owls 

forage heavily in older forests or forests 

with similar structure that support 

northern flying squirrels (Rosenberg and 

Anthony 1992, p. 165; Carey et al. 1992, 

p. 233). In the southern portion of their 

range, where woodrats are a major 

component of their diet, northern 

spotted owls are more likely to use a 

variety of stands, including younger 

stands, brushy openings in older stands, 

and edges between forest types in 

response to higher prey density in some 

of these areas (Solis 1983, pp. 89 to 90; 

Sakai and Noon 1993, pp. 376 to 378; 

Carey et al. 1999, p. 73; Sakai and Noon 

1997, p. 347; Franklin et al. 2000, p. 

579). An adequate amount and 

distribution of foraging habitat within 

the home range is essential to the 

survival and reproduction of northern 

spotted owls. 

Habitats That Are Representative of the 

Historical Geographical and Ecological 

Distributions of the Northern Spotted 

Owl 

The northern spotted owl inhabits 

most of the major types of coniferous 

forests across its geographic range, 

including Sitka spruce, western 

hemlock, mixed conifer and mixed 

evergreen, grand fir, Pacific silver fir, 

Douglas-fir, redwood/Douglas-fir (in 

coastal California and southwestern 

Oregon), white fir, Shasta red fir, and 

the moist end of the ponderosa pine 

zone (Forsman et al. 1984; Franklin and 

Dyrness 1988; Thomas et al. 1990). 

Vegetative composition of northern 

spotted owl habitat changes from north 

to south and from west to east within 

the subspecies’ range. The lower 

elevation limit of subalpine vegetation 

types defines the uppermost elevation 

used by northern spotted owls. This 

elevation varies with latitude from 

about 3,000 feet (ft) (914 meters (m)) 

above sea level near the northern edge 

of the range to about 6,000 ft (1,828 m) 

above sea level at the southern edge 

(Lint 2005, p. 32). 

Historically, forest types occupied by 

the northern spotted owl were fairly 

continuous, particularly in the wetter 

parts of its range in coastal northern 

California and most of western Oregon 

and Washington. Suitable forest types in 

the drier parts of the range (interior 

northern California, interior southern 

Oregon, and east of the Cascade crest in 

Oregon and Washington) occur in a 

mosaic pattern interspersed with 

infrequently used vegetation types such 

as open forests, shrubby areas, and 

grasslands. In the Klamath Mountains 

Provinces in Oregon and California, and 

to a lesser extent in the Coast and 

Cascade Provinces of California, large 

areas of serpentine soils exist that are 

typically not capable of supporting 

northern spotted owl habitat (Lint 2005, 

pp. 31 to 33). 

Conditions Supporting Non-Resident 

Owls 

Landscapes with northern spotted owl 

habitat likely contain non-resident (nonbreeding) northern spotted owls, 

sometimes referred to as ‘‘floaters’’

(Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 15, 26). These 

habitats contribute to stable or 

increasing populations of northern 

spotted owls by maintaining sufficient 

individuals to quickly fill territorial 

vacancies when residents die or leave 

their territories. Where large blocks of 

habitat with multiple breeding pairs 

occur, the opportunities for this 

integration are enhanced due to the 

within-block production of potential 

replacement birds (Thomas et al. 1990, 

p. 295, 307). 

Intervening habitats are important in 

supporting the successful dispersal of 

northern spotted owls that is essential to 

maintaining the genetic and 

demographic connection among 

populations both within and across 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32458 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

provinces. Habitats that support 

movements between larger blocks 

providing nesting, roosting, and foraging 

habitats for northern spotted owls act to 

limit the adverse genetic effects of 

inbreeding and provide demographic 

support to declining populations 

(Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 271 to 272). 

Dispersing juvenile northern spotted 

owls experience high mortality rates 

(more than 70 percent in some studies 

(Miller 1989, pp. 32 to 41; Franklin et 

al. 1999, pp. 25, 28; 55 FR 26115)) from 

starvation, predation, and accidents 

(Miller 1989, pp. 41 to 44; Forsman et 

al. 2002, pp. 18 to 19). Juvenile 

dispersal is thus a highly vulnerable life 

stage for northern spotted owls, and 

enhancing the survivorship of juveniles 

during this period could play an 

important role in maintaining stable 

populations of northern spotted owls. 

Juvenile dispersal occurs in steps 

(Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 13 to 14) 

between which dispersing juveniles 

settle into temporary home ranges for up 

to several months (Forsman et al. 2002, 

p. 13). During the transience 

(movement) phase, dispersers used 

mature and old-growth forest slightly 

more than its availability; during the 

colonization phase, mature and oldgrowth forest was used at nearly twice 

its availability (Miller et al. 1997, p. 

144). Closed pole-sapling-sawtimber 

habitat was used roughly in proportion 

to availability in both phases and may 

represent the minimum condition for 

movement. Open sapling and clearcuts 

were used less than expected based on 

availability during colonization (Miller 

et al. 1997, p. 145). 

Successful juvenile dispersal may 

depend on locating unoccupied suitable 

habitat in close proximity to other 

occupied sites (LaHaye et al. 2001, pp. 

697 to 698). Natal dispersal distances, 

measured from natal areas to eventual 

home range, tend to be larger for females 

(about 15 mi (24 km)) than males (about 

8.5 mi (13.7 km)) (Courtney et al. 2004, 

p. 8–5). Approximately 68 percent of 

radio-marked juveniles of both sexes 

dispersed greater than 12 mi (19 km) 

from their natal areas, which was also 

the average dispersal distance. 

Approximately 80 percent dispersed 

greater than 7 mi (11 km) from their 

natal areas (Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 305 

to 306). Northern spotted owls regularly 

disperse through highly fragmented 

forested landscapes that are typical of 

the mountain ranges in western 

Washington and Oregon (Forsman et al. 

2002, p. 22), and have dispersed from 

the Coastal Mountains to the Cascades 

Mountains in the broad forested regions 

between the Willamette, Umpqua, and 

Rogue Valleys of Oregon (Forsman et al. 

2002, p. 22). Corridors of forest through 

fragmented landscapes serve primarily 

to support relatively rapid movement 

through such areas, rather than 

colonization. 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Northern Spotted Owl 

Under our regulations, we are 

required to identify the known physical 

and biological features (PCEs) essential 

to the conservation of the northern 

spotted owl. All areas proposed as 

revised critical habitat for the northern 

spotted owl are within the geographic 

area occupied by the species and 

contain sufficient PCEs to support at 

least one life history function. Much of 

the recent research on northern spotted 

owl biology supports the PCEs 

described in the previous critical habitat 

designation; based on our current 

knowledge, the PCEs described here are 

more detailed and specific, where 

possible. Based on our current 

knowledge of the life history, biology, 

and ecology of the species and the 

requirements of the habitat to sustain 

the essential life history functions of the 

species, we have determined that the 

northern spotted owl’s PCEs are: 

(1) Forest types known to support the 

northern spotted owl across its 

geographic range. These forest types 

include Sitka spruce, western hemlock, 

mixed conifer and mixed evergreen, 

grand fir, Pacific silver fir, Douglas-fir, 

white fir, Shasta red fir, redwood/ 

Douglas-fir (in coastal California and 

southwestern Oregon), and the moist 

end of the ponderosa pine coniferous 

forests zones at elevations up to 3,000 

ft (914 m) near the northern edge of the 

range and up to about 6,000 ft (1,828 m) 

at the southern edge. 

This PCE provides the biotic 

communities that are known to support 

the northern spotted owl across its 

geographic range. The northern spotted 

owl and some of its primary prey 

species do not reproduce successfully 

outside these biotic communities. 

(2) Forest types as described in PCE 

1 of sufficient area, quality, and 

configuration, or that have the ability to 

develop these characteristics, to meet 

the home range needs of territorial pairs 

of northern spotted owls throughout the 

year. A home range must provide all of 

the habitat components and prey 

needed to provide for the survival and 

successful reproduction of a resident 

breeding pair of northern spotted owls. 

As detailed earlier, home range and core 

area sizes vary widely both within and 

among physiographic provinces across 

the range of the northern spotted owl 

(Courtney et al. 2004, p. 5–24). Core 

areas, which usually include the nesting 

habitat, may range from over 4,057 ac 

(1,642 ha) in the north (Forsman et al. 

2005, pp. 369 to 370) to fewer than 500 

ac (202 ha) in the south (Pious 1995, pp. 

9 to 10, Table 2; Meyer et al. 1998, p. 

34; Zabel et al. 2003, pp. 1036 to 1038; 

Glenn et al. 2004, p. 41). Home range 

sizes range from 2,955 ac (1,196 ha) in 

the Oregon Cascades (Thomas et al. 

1990, p. 194) to 14,271 ac (5,775 ha) on 

the Olympic Peninsula (USDI 1992, p. 

23; USFWS 1994, in litt., p. 1). Many 

factors may influence the size of the 

home range utilized by northern spotted 

owls, including the degree of habitat 

fragmentation, proportion of available 

nesting habitat, and primary prey 

species. The three habitat components 

required within the home range of a 

northern spotted owl include: 

(a) Nesting Habitat. Habitat that 

includes a moderate to high canopy 

closure (60 to 80 percent); a multilayered, multi-species canopy with large 

(generally greater than 30 in (76 cm) 

dbh) overstory trees; a high incidence of 

large trees with various deformities (e.g., 

large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe 

infections, and other platforms); large 

snags; large accumulations of fallen 

trees and other woody debris on the 

ground; and sufficient open space below 

the canopy for northern spotted owls to 

fly. Patches of nesting habitat, in 

combination with roosting habitat (PCE 

2-(b)) need to be sufficiently large and 

contiguous to maintain northern spotted 

owl core areas and home ranges, and be 

in a spatial arrangement with foraging 

habitat (PCE 2-(c)) that allows efficient 

provisioning of young at the nest. 

(b) Roosting Habitat. Roosting habitat 

differs from nesting habitat in that it 

need not contain those specific 

structural features used for nesting 

(cavities, broken tops, and mistletoe 

platforms). As such, it generally 

includes moderate to high canopy 

closure; a multi-layered, multi-species 

canopy; large accumulations of fallen 

trees and other woody debris on the 

ground; and sufficient open space below 

the canopy for northern spotted owls to 

fly. 

(c) Foraging Habitat. Foraging habitat 

provides a food supply for survival and 

reproduction of northern spotted owls 

and includes a wider array of forest 

types than nesting and roosting habitat, 

particularly more open and fragmented 

forests. While some foraging habitat has 

attributes that closely resemble those of 

nesting and roosting habitat, especially 

in the northern portions of the 

subspecies’ range, some younger stands 

without all these attributes are used for 

foraging, especially in the southern 

portion of the range. Some younger 

stands may have high prey abundance 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32459 

and some structural attributes similar to 

those of older forests, such as moderate 

tree density, subcanopy perches at 

multiple levels, multi-layered 

vegetation, or residual older trees. To be 

fully functional for northern spotted 

owls, foraging habitat generally contains 

some roosting habitat attributes. 

This PCE includes all three habitat 

types (nesting, roosting, and foraging) 

and provides the forest structural 

characteristics needed for successful 

nesting, reproduction, and survival of 

northern spotted owls on their home 

ranges. These are primarily 

characteristics of old and mature forests, 

or younger forests with some structural 

and microclimatic characteristics of 

mature forests. These forests provide the 

specific structures required for nesting; 

shelter from adverse weather 

conditions; cover that reduces predation 

risk while nesting, after young fledge, 

and while roosting; and microclimatic 

conditions that enhance 

thermoregulation. This PCE also 

provides the forest structure necessary 

to provide accessible prey for the 

survival and reproduction of northern 

spotted owls on their home ranges. This 

habitat supports the abundance, 

diversity, and availability of prey 

necessary for feeding both adults and 

young. 

(3) Dispersal habitat. The successful 

dispersal of northern spotted owls 

between habitat blocks is required to 

maintain stable populations and provide 

for adequate gene flow across the range 

of the species. The dispersal of juveniles 

requires habitat supporting both the 

transience and colonization phases. 

Habitat supporting the transience phase 

of dispersal includes, at a minimum, 

stands with adequate tree size and 

canopy closure to provide protection 

from avian predators and at least 

minimal foraging opportunities. This 

may include younger and less diverse 

forest stands than foraging habitat, such 

as even-aged, pole-sized stands. These 

stands still require the interspersion of 

some roosting structures and foraging 

habitat to allow for temporary resting 

and feeding during the movement 

phase. Settling of juveniles may be 

temporary (a few months) or extended 

(colonization). Small openings in forest 

habitat do not appear to hinder the 

dispersal of northern spotted owls (they 

are known to disperse through highly 

fragmented forests), but large, nonforested valleys, such as the Willamette 

Valley apparently serve as barriers to 

both natal and breeding dispersal 

(Forsman et al. 2002, p. 22). Habitat 

supporting colonization is generally 

equivalent to roosting and foraging 

habitat and is described in PCEs 2-(b) 

and 2-(c), although it may be in smaller 

amounts than that needed to support 

nesting pairs (PCE 2-(a)). Dispersal 

habitats will typically occur in the 

intervening areas between larger blocks 

of forest that provide nesting, foraging, 

and roosting habitats for resident 

northern spotted owls, and are essential 

in providing for successful movement of 

both juveniles and adults between these 

blocks. 

This PCE describes the features of 

habitats that allow for the successful 

dispersal of northern spotted owls 

between habitat blocks to maintain 

genetic variability and promote stable or 

increasing populations across the 

subspecies’ range, including habitat 

supporting safe movement, foraging, 

and roosting. As dispersing northern 

spotted owls, particularly juveniles, 

experience high levels of mortality, the 

provision of adequate habitat to provide 

for successful dispersal is essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

This proposed revised designation is 

designed for the conservation of PCEs 

necessary to support the life history 

functions that are the basis for the 

proposal. Because not all life history 

functions require all the PCEs, not all 

proposed revised critical habitat will 

contain all the PCEs. 

Units are proposed for designation 

based on sufficient PCEs being present 

to support one or more of the species’

life history functions. Some units 

contain all PCEs and support multiple 

life processes, while some units contain 

only a portion of the PCEs necessary to 

support the species’ particular use of 

that habitat. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act, we used the best scientific data 

available in determining areas that 

contain the features that are essential to 

the conservation of the northern spotted 

owl. This proposed revision to critical 

habitat relies upon on the biology and 

information discussed in the final rule 

designating the current critical habitat 

for northern spotted owl (57 FR 1796; 

January 15, 1992), the Record of 

Decision for Amendments to Forest 

Service and BLM Planning Documents 

within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994b), 

and the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2007). 

These planning efforts were based on 

creating and managing large blocks of 

northern spotted owl habitat to support 

local populations spaced in a manner 

that allows for the successful movement 

of dispersing individuals between these 

blocks. We do not propose to designate 

areas outside the geographical area 

presently occupied by the species since 

the species currently occurs throughout 

its historical range, albeit in very low 

numbers in some areas. 

We used the following criteria to 

select specific areas as revised critical 

habitat: 

(1) Focus on Federal Lands. The 

foundation of the current recovery 

strategy, as set forth in the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted 

Owl (USFWS 2007), is a network of owl 

conservation areas (i.e., habitat blocks) 

located on Federal lands. Therefore, we 

considered only Federal lands to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

northern spotted owl for the purposes of 

designating critical habitat. Wilderness 

Areas, National Parks and many other 

lands under various Federal land use 

allocations contribute to the 

conservation of the northern spotted 

owl, but the majority of management for 

northern spotted owls on Federal lands 

in Washington, Oregon, and California 

is largely accomplished through the 

Forest Service’s LRMPs and the BLM’s 

RMPs, as amended by the Record of 

Decision for Amendments to Forest 

Service and BLM Planning Documents 

within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994a, 

b). 

We are not proposing to modify the 

decision made in our 1992 designation 

that Wilderness Areas and National 

Parks do not meet the statutory 

definition of critical habitat under 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act, therefore 

these areas are not proposed as critical 

habitat here. Due to data and time 

constraints, some of the mapped critical 

habitat units in California include 

newly designated Wilderness Areas (PL 

109–362, October 17, 2006). However, 

all critical habitat units in California 

will be adjusted to be consistent with 

our approach to Wilderness Areas in 

Oregon and Washington and will be 

removed from the final critical habitat 

designation. 

In some areas of limited Federal 

ownership, private and State lands may 

help to expedite the recovery of the 

northern spotted owl by providing 

demographic support and connectivity 

to facilitate dispersal among habitat 

blocks. These voluntary habitat 

contributions are expected to increase 

the likelihood that northern spotted owl 

recovery will be achieved, shorten the 

time needed to achieve recovery, and 

reduce management risks associated 

with the recovery strategy and recovery 

actions. Consistent with the 1992 

designation, we did not include nonFederal lands in the proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32460 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Lands Supporting the Primary 

Constituent Elements. We selected only 

lands that contain one or more of the 

PCEs described above, using Federal 

agency maps of nesting, roosting, or 

foraging habitat for northern spotted 

owls. Dispersal habitats were identified 

as necessary to meet the requisite 

spacing between habitat blocks to allow 

for the successful dispersal of northern 

spotted owls, as identified in the 2007 

Draft Recovery Plan. 

(3) Occupied Habitat. Consistent with 

the 1992 designation, we included only 

lands within the geographical area 

occupied by the species in the revised 

designation since the most recent 

assessments do not indicate that any 

presently unoccupied habitat is 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (Courtney et al. 2004, USFWS 

2007). 

(4) Large and Small Habitat Blocks. 

We relied on the 2007 Draft Recovery 

Plan recommendations regarding 

contiguity, habitat quality, spacing, and 

distribution within the range of the 

northern spotted owl to select large 

contiguous blocks of quality habitat, 

where possible, for critical habitat units 

(USFWS 2007). The 2007 Draft Recovery 

Plan recommends that habitat blocks 

need to be large enough to support 

clusters of at least 20 pairs of northern 

spotted owls, where possible. The size 

of such blocks was derived from 

empirical data and modeling results 

concluding that clusters of northern 

spotted owls approximating 20 pairs 

should be stable over the long term, 

given the rate of juvenile dispersal 

between clusters (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 

24 and Appendix O). The size of such 

large blocks will vary based on the 

provincial home range size (see PCE 2). 

In some areas, existing conditions 

precluded designation of relatively large 

habitat blocks, and some smaller blocks 

are proposed for designation to provide 

habitat for fewer than 20 northern 

spotted owl pairs. These blocks were 

delineated to accommodate juvenile 

dispersal distance and to provide 

options for resident northern spotted 

owls. In some cases they may provide 

‘‘stepping stones’’ where northern 

spotted owls dispersing from one large 

block may settle, produce young, and 

those young may then disperse to 

another large block, thereby facilitating 

genetic transfer between more distant 

large habitat blocks. The smaller blocks 

are intended to assist the populations in 

these areas by reducing the potential for 

local extinction and supporting the 

adjacent larger blocks thereby providing 

an interacting network of northern 

spotted owl populations (Thomas et al. 

1990, pp. 285, 320). 

(5) Dispersal Distance Between 

Blocks. As described in the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan, the success of the 

conservation strategy for the northern 

spotted owl depends on the relatively 

frequent dispersal of individuals 

between large habitat blocks; therefore 

the blocks must be separated by 

distances within the known dispersal 

distance of juveniles (Thomas et al. 

1990, p. 307). Based on the observed 

dispersal distances of juveniles, the 

maximum allowable distance between 

the nearest points of contact of 

neighboring large habitat blocks is 12 mi 

(19 km) (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 307, 

Table P1). To provide an additional 

measure of successful dispersal security 

for the smaller blocks, a shorter distance 

of 7 mi (11 km) (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 

308) was used. Current available 

scientific information continues to 

support the principles applied by the 

ISC (Courtney et al. 2004). 

(6) Habitats Representative of the 

Historical Geographical and Ecological 

Distribution of the Northern Spotted 

Owl. Habitats that are representative of 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of the northern spotted 

owl are more likely to sustain the 

species over time. The northern spotted 

owl has historically occupied a wide 

range of forested habitat types across the 

various physiographic provinces within 

its range. Therefore, this revision 

proposes to define critical habitat units 

distributed at appropriate dispersal 

distances throughout the range of the 

northern spotted owl in order to 

conserve and maintain the variation 

represented by these provincial 

populations rangewide. 

We worked closely with the BLM and 

Forest Service to identify blocks of 

habitat within their management 

jurisdiction that would meet all of the 

criteria specified above. As a result of 

this coordination, we are proposing that 

the Managed Owl Conservation Areas as 

defined in Option 1 of the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted 

Owl (USFWS 2007, p. 140) constitute 

the critical habitat units on Forest 

Service lands. On BLM lands in Oregon, 

we are proposing the location of critical 

habitat units consistent with Option 2 of 

the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl which employs a 

habitat selection rule-set to define areas 

needed for long-term conservation 

(USFWS 2007, p. 158). These mapping 

strategies are based on the Interagency 

Scientific Committee’s report ‘‘A 

Conservation Strategy for the Northern 

Spotted Owl’’ (Thomas et al. 1990). The 

2004 Scientific Evaluation of the Status 

of the Northern Spotted Owl (Courtney 

et al. 2004) confirmed the continuing 

scientific validity of this conservation 

strategy. BLM lands in the range of the 

northern spotted owl in California were 

mapped based on Managed Owl 

Conservation Areas identified in the 

2007 Draft Recovery Plan, similar to that 

applied on Forest Service lands 

throughout the range of the northern 

spotted owl. 

When determining proposed revised 

critical habitat boundaries, we made 

every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as buildings, 

paved areas, and other structures that 

lack PCEs for the northern spotted owl. 

The scale of the maps prepared under 

the parameters for publication within 

the Code of Federal Regulations may not 

reflect the exclusion of such developed 

areas. Any such structures and the land 

under them left inside revised critical 

habitat boundaries shown on the maps 

of this proposed rule have been 

excluded by text in the proposed rule 

and are not proposed for designation as 

critical habitat. Therefore, Federal 

actions limited to these areas would not 

trigger section 7 consultation, unless 

they affect the species or primary 

constituent elements in adjacent critical 

habitat. 

We are proposing to designate revised 

critical habitat within the geographical 

area occupied by the northern spotted 

owl, and in areas that contain sufficient 

primary constituent elements to support 

life history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Critical habitat units are proposed for 

revised designation based on sufficient 

PCEs being present to support northern 

spotted owl life processes. Some units 

contain all PCEs and support multiple 

life processes. Some units contain only 

a portion of the PCEs necessary to 

support the northern spotted owl’s 

particular use of that habitat. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing and 

contain the primary constituent 

elements may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. The primary threats to the 

northern spotted owl include 

competition with barred owls and the 

loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 

habitat. 

The 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (Plan) identifies 

competition from the barred owl as one 

of the most significant threats currently 

facing the northern spotted owl (USFWS 

2007). The Plan expresses the need for 

urgency in addressing the barred owl 

threat, and actions associated with 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32461 

addressing the barred owl threat were 

the only actions to be given recovery 

priority number 1, meaning the action 

‘‘must be taken to prevent extinction or 

prevent the species from declining 

irreversibly in the foreseeable future.’’

For at least the past 50 years the 

barred owl has been expanding its range 

from eastern North America across 

Canada, and into the northern Rockies 

and Pacific States where it has invaded 

the range of the northern spotted owl 

(Courtney et al. 2004, p. 7–3). Being 

larger and more aggressive, barred owls 

may compete for habitat, nest sites, and 

prey (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 7–3), may 

hybridize with northern spotted owls, 

and may occasionally prey on northern 

spotted owls (Leskiw and Gutie ́rrez 

1998, p. 226). Given the experimental 

nature of direct removal as a technique 

for barred owl control and the absence 

of any known habitat-based approach 

that has successfully favored northern 

spotted owls, special management 

considerations for barred owls will need 

to be developed. Since barred owls can 

apparently utilize all habitats known to 

be used by northern spotted owls, even 

if those areas are managed for the 

structural features preferred by northern 

spotted owls, if they are colonized by 

barred owls the value of those areas to 

northern spotted owls will be reduced 

or even eliminated. 

The loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation of habitat for the northern 

spotted owl occur primarily as a result 

of timber harvest or natural disturbances 

such as fire and wind storms (55 FR 

26177; June 26, 1990). Northern spotted 

owls disproportionately use older 

forests that are typically characterized 

by large-diameter trees, multiple canopy 

layers, high levels of standing and down 

woody material, and generally complex 

structure. All of these habitat 

components can be lost as a 

consequence of timber harvest, fire, or 

other stochastic events. 

Timber harvest has contributed 

significantly to habitat loss, degradation, 

and fragmentation for the northern 

spotted owl, and was the basis for the 

original listing of the species (55 FR 

26114; June 26, 1990). As a result of the 

listing, and the implementation of the 

LRMPs/RMPs as amended by the Record 

of Decision for Amendments to Forest 

Service and BLM Planning Documents 

within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994b), 

the threat posed by timber harvest on 

Federal lands has been greatly reduced 

since 1994. While reduced as a threat, 

timber harvest clearly has the potential 

to remove, degrade, or fragment 

northern spotted owl habitat. 

Timber management within critical 

habitat units should maintain or 

enhance the individual habitat 

components important to nesting, 

roosting, foraging, and dispersal, as well 

as provide adequate amounts and 

juxtapositions of nesting, roosting, 

foraging, and dispersal habitat. In 

general, timber management in critical 

habitat units should seek to maintain or 

enhance the characteristics of older 

forest, and provide large blocks of older 

forest and associated interior forest 

conditions. In southern portions of the 

range, harvest plans should carefully 

consider the mix of prey production 

habitat, interior old forest, and the edges 

between them (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 

5–23). Any timber management 

intended to maintain or enhance 

northern spotted owl habitat must take 

into account regional variation in 

habitat use and associations across the 

range. 

Habitat losses due to increased 

wildfire intensity and size may be due 

to excessive fuel buildup resulting from 

many decades of fire suppression. 

Northern spotted owl habitat is 

particularly vulnerable in some drier 

eastside forests such as those in the 

Eastern Washington Cascades and the 

Eastern and Southern Oregon Cascades, 

as well as other provinces such as the 

Klamath Mountains. In these provinces, 

recent fire losses have been higher than 

the range of historical variability 

(Courtney et al. 2004, p. 6–32). Fuels 

reduction treatments, such as clearing 

vegetation, thinning, or prescribed fire, 

can themselves result in the loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation of 

northern spotted owl habitat. Thus, 

special management is necessary 

relative to fire management. Fire 

suppression will likely occur within 

critical habitat units, and fuel 

treatments should balance the shortterm impacts of fire hazard reduction 

projects with the long-term risk of 

catastrophic loss of northern spotted 

owl habitat (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 6–

28). 

Other stochastic events can contribute 

to loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of northern spotted owl habitat. Some 

areas within the range of the northern 

spotted owl have already been 

negatively impacted by these factors, 

including the east Cascades provinces 

(wildfire), eastern Washington Cascades 

(insects), southern Oregon (wildfire), 

and eastern Oregon Cascades (insects, 

disease, wildfire) (Courtney et al. 2004, 

p. 6–25). Forest managers have no 

control over weather events, but some 

factors, such as blowdown or 

windthrows, can be minimized in some 

areas by management that maintains 

large, contiguous blocks of older forest. 

The loss of large areas of habitat may 

lead to reduced dispersal capability or, 

in the worst case, barriers to dispersal, 

which in turn can result in small, 

isolated subpopulations. Recent studies 

show no indication of reduced genetic 

variation in Washington, Oregon, or 

California (Barrowclough et al. 1999, 

pp. 927 to 928; Courtney et al. 2004, p. 

11–9; Haig et al. 2004a, p. 683), 

although Henke et al. (2005 pp. i, 14) 

found ‘‘especially low’’ genetic diversity 

in northern spotted owls. Any isolation 

problems that northern spotted owls are 

experiencing today may not be evident 

in the genetic record for some time. 

Areas of concern for isolation include 

the northern spotted owl’s range in 

Canada, the Olympic Peninsula in 

Washington, and Marin County in 

California (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 8–

24). Because dispersal is an essential 

function for northern spotted owls, 

fragmentation between local 

populations can have negative effects. 

We considered the distances between 

critical habitat units and northern 

spotted owl dispersal ecology during 

proposed revised critical habitat unit 

selection. Special management is 

required to assure that the 

recommended maximum dispersal 

distances between blocks of habitat for 

northern spotted owls are not exceeded. 

Summary of Changes From Previously 

Designated Critical Habitat 

In 1992, we designated 6,887,000 ac 

(2,787,070 ha) of Federal lands as 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl (57 FR 1796; January 15, 1992). In 

this revision, we are proposing that a 

total of 5,337,839 ac (2,160,194 ha) be 

designated as critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl. We have 

proposed the revised designation of 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl to be consistent with the most 

current assessment of the conservation 

needs of the species, as described in the 

2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2007). 

Although the recovery plan for the 

northern spotted owl has not yet been 

finalized, it nonetheless represents the 

most current conservation guidance for 

the species, therefore we looked to the 

recommendations of the 2007 draft 

recovery plan to inform this proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat. 

Of the proposed designation, 4,468,200 

ac (1,808,256 ha) are the same as in the 

1992 designation. Of the current 

proposed designation, 869,639 ac 

(351,938 ha) are lands that were not 

formerly designated, and 2,399,490 ac 

(971,060 ha) of lands that were included 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32462 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

in the former designation are not 

proposed here, for reasons detailed 

below. 

The new delineation of areas 

determined to be essential for the 

conservation of the northern spotted 

owl was based, in part, on an improved 

understanding of the limits of habitat 

usage by northern spotted owls 

combined with refinements in mapping 

technology. Using rangewide elevation 

isopleths (based on a linear regression 

representing the elevation of 99 percent 

of the known owl-pair activity centers 

and latitude) and geologic maps of 

serpentine soil distribution (forests on 

such soils do not attain the requisite tree 

size and canopy closure), Davis and Lint 

(2005, pp. 30–32) identified ‘‘habitatcapable’’ areas on Federal lands within 

the range of the northern spotted owls. 

These are lands that currently provide 

nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat 

for northern spotted owls, or that have 

the biological capacity to do so under 

appropriate management, and that 

therefore have the ability to provide the 

PCEs for the northern spotted owls. The 

modeling of habitat-capable lands also 

took into account spotted owl presence 

location data, based on surveys and 

demographic monitoring (Davis and 

Lint 2005, p. 26). The improved 

modeling and mapping of lands that are 

habitat-capable with regard to northern 

spotted owls allowed for the refined 

definition of owl conservation areas, as 

presented in the 2007 Draft Recovery 

Plan, which in turn served as the basis 

for this critical habitat proposal. 

Option 1 of the 2007 Draft Recovery 

Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl 

(USFWS 2007) identifies specific owl 

conservation areas based on a 

modification of the DCAs identified in 

the 1992 Final Draft Recovery Plan for 

the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 1992), 

which were based on the habitat 

conservation areas (HCAs) first defined 

by the ISC (Thomas et al. 1990). The 

DCAs were chosen as the starting point 

for the delineation of the managed 

conservation areas (MOCAs) in the 2007 

Draft Recovery Plan because they 

represent the best scientific delineation 

of areas needed specifically for the 

conservation of the northern spotted 

owl. Option 2 of the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan presents a habitat rule-set 

for defining alternative conservation 

areas designed to provide a network of 

habitat blocks to support clusters of 

reproducing northern spotted owls and 

allow for dispersal between blocks and 

provinces, and is also based on the 

conservation strategy set forth by the 

ISC (Thomas et al. 1990). 

The strategy of the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan attempts to maximize the 

efficiency of the network of habitat 

blocks by making use of existing land 

use allocations that benefit the 

conservation of the northern spotted 

owl (for example, LSRs that are 

managed for late-successional forest 

species or other Federal lands that are 

administratively withdrawn from 

regularly scheduled timber harvest). 

Because the land use management plans 

of the Forest Service and BLM are 

designed and implemented, in part, to 

provide for the conservation of the 

northern spotted owl on Federal lands 

(USDA and USDI 1994b), the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan looks specifically to 

lands within the Federal management 

plan reserves for the habitat-capable 

acres needed to support the recovery 

objectives. This strategy accounts for 

many of the changes in the proposed 

critical habitat, since the location of 

conservation areas for northern spotted 

owls may have shifted to take advantage 

of various land use allocations, and 

some land use allocations, such as LSRs, 

did not come about until after the 

development of the DCAs and the 

original critical habitat designation for 

the northern spotted owl, under the 

Record of Decision for Amendments to 

Forest Service and BLM Planning 

Documents within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 

1994b). (As noted earlier, LSRs were not 

designated solely to meet the needs of 

the northern spotted owl, but may 

include areas designated for other latesuccessional forest species. Therefore 

not all LSRs are necessarily identified as 

conservation areas for northern spotted 

owls). The placement of conservation 

areas in the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan 

are also designed to take advantage of 

contiguous areas of designated 

Wilderness or National Park lands, 

which provide large areas of additional 

habitat under management consistent 

with the objectives of the recovery plan. 

Maps showing the difference between 

the 1992 designation and the 2007 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat are provided by physiographic 

province (Maps 1 through 11), and a 

table is provided that details the acreage 

differences by province (Table 1). A 

map of the Willamette Valley province 

is not included, since no critical habitat 

is currently designated within that 

province and revised critical habitat is 

similarly not proposed within that 

province. On all Forest Service lands 

and on BLM lands in California, the 

proposed revised critical habitat is 

consistent with the MOCAs identified 

under Option 1 in the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007, pp. 140–

155). The almost 200 DCAs were 

examined and MOCAs were delineated 

using the following principles: 

(1) The original DCA was retained 

with no boundary change under one of 

the following conditions—(a) The 

original DCA boundary fell completely 

within a LRMP reserve and no revision 

of the DCA adjustment of the boundary 

was needed; or (b) The original DCA 

boundary did not fall completely within 

a LRMP reserve, but there was no need 

to change the boundary to move all or 

a portion of the DCA into the reserve. 

(2) The original DCA was retained 

with a boundary change under one of 

the following conditions—(a) The DCA 

boundary fell completely within a 

LRMP reserve and a boundary 

adjustment was made to match all or a 

portion of the original DCA boundary 

with the boundary of the reserve; (b) 

The DCA boundary fell completely 

within a LRMP reserve and a boundary 

adjustment was made to include better 

habitat conditions within the new 

MOCA boundary; (c) All or a portion of 

the DCA was outside a LRMP reserve 

and the DCA was moved to match the 

reserve as much as possible, resulting in 

fewer acres of non-reserve land in the 

DCA; (d) All or a portion of the DCA 

was outside a LRMP reserve and the 

DCA was moved to match the reserve as 

much as possible, resulting in no change 

to the acres of non-reserve land in the 

DCA; or (e) Non-Federal lands within 

the DCA boundary were removed or 

redesignated as a conservation support 

area (CSA). Conservation support areas 

are lands between or adjacent to MOCAs 

where habitat contributions by private, 

State, and Federal lands are expected to 

increase the likelihood of northern 

spotted owl recovery. 

(3) The original DCA was dropped 

under one of the following conditions—

(a) The original DCA was not needed to 

satisfy the maximum spacing of 12 

miles (closest edge to closest edge) 

between category 1 DCAs and 7 miles 

between category 2 DCAs (Thomas et al. 

1990); (b) The original DCA was not 

needed to provide for a cluster of 

reproducing owls; or (c) The DCA was 

redesignated as a CSA. In most cases, 

the redesignation of DCAs to CSAs was 

intended to acknowledge the 

demonstrated contributions to northern 

spotted owl recovery made by State or 

private management on intervening 

lands. 

In Oregon, the location of critical 

habitat units on BLM lands is based on 

the habitat rule-set presented under 

Option 2 of the Draft Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2007, pp. 65–66). The rule set 

is intended to create a network of 

habitat blocks to support clusters of 

reproducing northern spotted owls, and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32463 

are tied directly to the recovery criteria 

identified in the 2007 Draft Recovery 

Plan. For the physiographic provinces 

in Oregon, the rule set provided for the 

following: 

(1) Large habitat blocks, designed to 

support 20 pairs of spotted owls, no 

farther apart than 12 miles from their 

nearest large-block neighbor at their 

nearest points. 

(2) Small habitat blocks, designed to 

support 1–19 pairs, no farther than 7 

miles from their nearest neighbor at 

their nearest points. Smaller habitat 

blocks are closer to other habitat blocks 

to increase the likelihood that 

dispersing spotted owls find the smaller 

blocks. 

(3) A large habitat block was 

established whenever possible, when 

the geographic vicinity for adding a 

habitat block to the network was met 

using the spacing criteria above. If 

adding a large habitat block was not 

possible, a small habitat block was 

established with as large a carrying 

capacity as the available habitat-capable 

acres and spacing requirements allow. 

(4) Block-spacing as described above 

was the primary factor in determining 

the geographic vicinity for location of a 

given block in the network. Once in the 

vicinity of where a block was located, 

the specific locations of individual 

habitat blocks followed these prioritized 

rules: 

a. Include habitat-capable acres that 

occur within Congressionally Reserved 

Areas or Administratively Withdrawn 

Areas (e.g., designated Wilderness 

Areas, National Parks, Natural Areas), if 

present; and 

b. The habitat blocks are compact (i.e., 

have the smallest perimeter) and 

contiguous as the pattern of habitatcapable acres in the vicinity allows, 

given Rule 3(a); and 

c. Include as many as possible acres 

of currently suitable habitat in Federal 

lands and as many known locations of 

spotted owls as possible, given Rule 

3(a). 

(5) At least 60% of the large and small 

habitat blocks are within the distance 

limits of at least three other habitat 

blocks, and at least one of the other 

three blocks is a large habitat block. 

This is to assure distribution of the 

habitat block network across the range 

of the spotted owl. The ability to create 

large habitat blocks in these excepted 

areas is restricted given the limited 

amount of available Federal lands. 

(6) Where there are two adjoining 

provinces, establish two habitat blocks, 

which meet the prescribed distance 

limits from each other, and at least one 

of the two habitat blocks is a large block. 

Strive for multiple connections between 

adjacent provinces. This is to provide 

for spotted owl movement between 

provinces, facilitating demographic 

interaction and genetic interchange 

among provinces. 

One example of a change resulting 

from the recommendations of the 2007 

Draft Recovery Plan is that we are not 

proposing any critical habitat within the 

Western Washington Lowlands 

physiographic province. The 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted 

Owl no longer considers the 

management of forest habitat on Fort 

Lewis in Washington as a necessary 

component of northern spotted owl 

recovery, since no northern spotted 

owls are known to occur there. Thus the 

60,506 ac (24,486 ha) of critical habitat 

designated on Fort Lewis in 1992 are 

not included in this revision. Since Fort 

Lewis is the only critical habitat 

currently designated within the Western 

Washington Lowlands, this change 

results in no critical habitat within that 

province under this proposal. 

In sum, although the overarching 

biological objectives of achieving the 

recovery of the northern spotted owl 

remain the same, the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan proposes an alternative 

configuration of habitat blocks intended 

to be a more efficient strategy for 

attaining those objectives, which is 

reflected in the revised critical habitat 

designation proposed here. The number, 

size, and configuration of critical habitat 

units has thus changed, based on the 

recommendations of the 2007 Draft 

Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted 

Owl with regard to the placement of 

conservation areas (USFWS 2007), in 

combination with the application of the 

rule set defining habitat block size and 

distance (Thomas et al. 1990) and the 

refined modeling of habitat-capable 

lands (Davis and Lint 2005). The 

reduction in number of critical habitat 

units is a reflection, in part, of our 

decision to aggregate multiple blocks 

into single units (Table 3). The current 

designation includes 190 critical habitat 

units; the proposed revision includes 29 

critical habitat units. As an example of 

how blocks were consolidated, in the 

current proposal the Olympic Peninsula 

Unit (Unit 1) includes 10 of the units 

under the current designation (Units 43 

through 52). As provided in the unit 

descriptions, each of the critical habitat 

units may include several large and 

small habitat blocks. 

Finally, in this proposed rule we 

provide a more detailed and specific 

characterization of the PCEs for the 

northern spotted owl. Although 

described in more detail in the 

preamble, the actual rulemaking section 

of the 1992 designation described the 

PCEs only as ‘‘forested areas that are 

used or potentially used by northern 

spotted owl for nesting, roosting, 

foraging, or dispersing’’ (57 FR 1838; 

January 15, 1992). Research since the 

1992 designation of critical habitat has 

largely confirmed our understanding of 

the PCEs as presented in the discussion 

section of that final rule (Courtney et al. 

2004), but this revision seeks to 

incorporate the specific description of 

those PCEs, as described earlier in the 

Primary Constituent Elements section of 

this document, into the Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation Section of the 

rule. For example, the proposed rule 

describing the PCEs now includes a list 

of the specific forest types used by 

northern spotted owls, as well as a 

description of the particular habitat 

components (tree size, canopy closure, 

nest platforms, etc.) used by northern 

spotted owls for nesting, roosting, 

foraging, and dispersal. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32464 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32465 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.001</GPH>
32466 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32467 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.003</GPH>
32468 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32469 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.005</GPH>
32470 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32471 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.007</GPH>
32472 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32473 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.009</GPH>
32474 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

Areas of overlap (1992 and 2007) and 

differences between the current (1992) 

designation of critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl and the proposed 

revised designation (2007) by 

physiographic province and State. 

Those areas designated in 1992 that are 

not included in the proposed revision 

are labeled as ‘‘1992 only,’’ and those 

areas in the proposed revision that are 

not currently designated are labeled as 

‘‘2007 only.’’ All acreages are 

approximate. Note that the acreage 

totals for the 1992 designation do not 

precisely match those originally 

published (57 FR 1809; January 15, 

1992). This discrepancy is due to the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32475 

increased accuracy of data coverages 

and mapping capabilities since 1992, 

some changes in acreage of 

congressionally reserved lands since 

1992, and the fact that the acreages 

reported in 1992 were rounded to the 

nearest 1,000 acres. 

TABLE 1. 

State Physiographic province Critical habitat 

designation Acres Hectares 

Washington ...................................................... Eastern Washington Cascades ....................... 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

468,624 

210,992 

111,857 

679,616 

580,481 

189,650 

85,387 

45,268 

275,037 

234,917 

Olympic Peninsula .......................................... 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

319,810 

65,007 

11,933 

384,817 

331,742 

129,425 

26,308 

4,829 

155,733 

134,254 

Western Washington Cascades ...................... 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

796,984 

260,875 

120,972 

1,057,859 

917,956 

322,535 

105,575 

48,957 

428,110 

371,492 

Western Washington Lowlands ...................... 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

0 

60,503 

0 

60,503 

0 

0 

24,485 

0 

24,485 

0 

Washington Total ............................................ 1992 .....................

2007 .....................

2,182,796 

1,830,179 

883,365 

740,663 

Oregon ............................................................. Eastern Oregon Cascades .............................. 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

159,887 

117,346 

66,288 

277,233 

226,176 

64,706 

47,489 

26,826 

112,195 

91,532 

Western Oregon Cascades ............................. 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

733,006 

864,942 

217,590 

1,597,949 

950,596 

296,644 

350,037 

88,057 

646,681 

384,701 

Oregon Coast Ranges .................................... 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

538,477 

248,126 

50,478 

786,604 

588,956 

217,919 

100,415 

20,428 

318,334 

238,347 

Oregon Klamath .............................................. 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

350,098 

278,295 

94,253 

628,392 

444,350 

141,683 

112,624 

38,144 

254,307 

179,826 

Oregon Total ................................................... 1992 .....................

2007 .....................

3,290,178 

2,210,078 

1,331,517 

894,406 

California ......................................................... California Cascades ........................................ 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

190,986 

87,649 

44,484 

278,635 

235,470 

77,291 

35,471 

18,003 

112,762 

95,293 

California Coast Ranges ................................. 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

95,883 

4,026 

35,983 

99,909 

131,866 

38,803 

1,629 

14,562 

40,433 

53,365 

California Klamath ........................................... 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

814,444 

201,727 

115,802 

1,016,172 

930,246 

329,601 

81,638 

46,864 

411,239 

376,465 

California Total ................................................ 1992 .....................

2007 .....................

1,394,716 

1,297,582 

564,434 

525,124 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32476 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—Continued 

State Physiographic province Critical habitat 

designation Acres Hectares 

Total ......................................................... ..................................................................... 1992 and 2007 .....

1992 only .............

2007 only .............

1992 total .............

2007 total .............

4,468,200 

2,399,490 

869,639 

6,867,690 

5,337,839 

1,808,256 

971,060 

351,938 

2,779,316 

2,160,194 

Proposed Revised Critical Habitat 

Designation 

The proposed revised critical habitat 

areas described below constitute our 

best assessment currently of areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

the species that contain the primary 

constituent elements and may require 

special management. Table 2 below 

provides the approximate area (ac/ha) 

determined to meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl by State. 

TABLE 2.—AREAS DETERMINED TO

MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL

HABITAT FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

State 

Proposed revised critical 

habitat 

Acres Hectares 

Washington ....... 1,830,179 740,650 

Oregon .............. 2,210,078 894,390 

California ........... 1,297,582 525,115 

TABLE 2.—AREAS DETERMINED TO

MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL

HABITAT FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL—Continued 

State 

Proposed revised critical 

habitat 

Acres Hectares 

Total ........... 5,337,839 2,160,155 

The approximate area encompassed 

within each revised critical habitat unit 

is shown in Table 3. 

TABLE 3.—REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS PROPOSED FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

Critical habitat unit by state Forest service BLM 

Washington: 

Unit 1—Olympic Peninsula .............................................................. 331,742 ac (134,251 ha) ............... 0. 

Unit 2—Northwest Washington Cascades ....................................... 410,872 ac (166,274 ha) ............... 0. 

Unit 3—Okanogan ............................................................................ 115,638 ac (46,797 ha) ................. 0. 

Unit 4—Entiat ................................................................................... 304,817 ac (123,355 ha) ............... 0. 

Unit 5—Southwest Washington Cascades ...................................... 523,710 ac (211,938 ha) ............... 0. 

Unit 6—Southeast Washington Cascades ....................................... 143,400 ac (58,031 ha) ................. 0. 

Oregon: 

Unit 7—Northern Oregon Coast Ranges ......................................... 187,562 ac (75,904 ha) ................. 133,858 ac (54,170 ha). 

Unit 8—Southern Oregon Coast Ranges ........................................ 67,751 ac (27,418 ha) ................... 136,525 ac (55,250 ha). 

Unit 9—Western Oregon Cascades North ...................................... 334,738 ac (135,464 ha) ............... 0. 

Unit 10—Hood River ........................................................................ 42,683 ac (17,273 ha) ................... 0. 

Unit 11—Eastern Oregon Cascades ............................................... 106,665 ac (43,166 ha) ................. 0. 

Unit 12—Western Oregon Cascades South .................................... 448,324 ac (181,430 ha) ............... 79 ac (32 ha). 

Unit 13—Willamette/North Umpqua ................................................. 0 ..................................................... 119,638 ac (48,416 ha). 

Unit 14—Rogue-Umpqua ................................................................. 13,147 ac (5,320 ha) ..................... 152,357 ac (61,657 ha). 

Oregon and California: 

Unit 15—Oregon Klamath Mountains .............................................. 194,745 ac (78,810 ha) ................. 466 ac (188 ha). 

Unit 16—Klamath Intra-Province ..................................................... 57,977 ac (23,462 ha) ................... 38,595 ac (15,619 ha). 

Unit 17—Southern Cascades .......................................................... 191,612 ac (77,543 ha) ................. 34,818 ac (14,090 ha). 

Unit 25—Scott and Salmon Mountains ............................................ 242,450 ac (98,116 ha) ................. 0. 

California: 

Unit 18—Coastal Redwoods ............................................................ 6,937 ac (2,807 ha) ....................... 0. 

Unit 19—Coastal Humboldt ............................................................. 0 ..................................................... 49,308 ac (19,954 ha). 

Unit 20—King Range ....................................................................... 0 ..................................................... 40,308 ac (16,312 ha). 

Unit 21—South Fork Mountain Divide ............................................. 141,054 ac (57,082 ha) ................. 4,126 ac (1,670 ha). 

Unit 22—Eel-Russian River ............................................................. 0 ..................................................... 21,940 ac (8,879 ha). 

Unit 23—Mendocino Coast Ranges ................................................ 215,105 ac (87,050 ha) ................. 0. 

Unit 24—Western Klamath/Siskiyou Mountains .............................. 236,460 ac (95,692 ha) ................. 3,670 ac (1,485 ha). 

Unit 26—Trinity Divide ..................................................................... 13,870 ac (5,613 ha) ..................... 0. 

Unit 27—Shasta-Trinity Lakes ......................................................... 85,730 ac (34,694 ha) ................... 1,090 ac (441 ha). 

Unit 28—Eastern Klamath Mountains .............................................. 110,756 ac (44,821 ha) ................. 0. 

Unit 29—Shasta/McCloud ................................................................ 73,316 ac (29,670 ha) ................... 0. 

We present brief descriptions of the 

proposed revised critical habitat units 

below. All units are within the 

geographic area occupied (see Criteria 

Used to Identify Critical Habitat for 

methods) and all contain one or more of 

the features essential to the conservation 

of the northern spotted owl, as 

described in the PCEs. As provided 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, these 

units will be considered for exclusion 

from critical habitat when this rule is 

finalized. Exclusions are considered 

based on the relative costs and benefits 

of designating critical habitat, including 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32477 

information contained in the 

forthcoming economic analysis. 

Unit 1. Olympic Peninsula 

The Olympic Peninsula Unit consists 

of 331,742 ac (134,251 ha) in Clallam, 

Jefferson, Mason, and Grays Harbor 

Counties, Washington, and is comprised 

of lands managed by the Olympic 

National Forest. This unit includes one 

area that, with the associated 

Wilderness and Olympic National Park, 

meets the size requirement of a large 

habitat block, and two areas that, with 

the associated Wilderness and Olympic 

National Park, meet the size 

requirement of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 2. Northwest Washington Cascades 

The Northwest Washington Cascades 

Unit consists of 410,872 ac (166,274 ha) 

in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, 

and Kittitas Counties, Washington, and 

is comprised of lands managed by the 

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee 

National Forests. This unit includes 2 

areas that, with associated Wilderness 

and the North Cascades National Park, 

meet the size requirement of large 

habitat blocks, and 13 areas that, with 

associated Wilderness and the North 

Cascades National Park, meet the size 

requirement of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 3. Okanogan 

The Okanogan Unit consists of 

115,638 ac (46,797 ha) in Whatcom, 

Okanogan, and Chelan Counties, 

Washington, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Okanogan and 

Wenatchee National Forests. This unit 

includes seven areas that, with 

associated Wilderness and the North 

Cascades National Park, meet the size 

requirement of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 4. Entiat 

The Entiat Unit consists of 304,817 ac 

(123,355 ha) in Chelan and Kittitas 

Counties, Washington, and is comprised 

of lands managed by the Wenatchee and 

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests. 

This unit includes three areas that, with 

associated Wilderness, meet the size 

requirement of large habitat blocks and 

four areas that, with associated 

Wilderness, meet the size requirement 

of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 5. Southwest Washington Cascades 

The Southwest Washington Cascades 

Unit consists of 523,710 ac (211,938 ha) 

in King, Pierce, Thurston, Lewis, 

Skamania, Cowlitz, Kittitas, and Yakima 

Counties, Washington, and is comprised 

of lands managed by the Mt. BakerSnoqualmie, Gifford Pinchot, and 

Wenatchee National Forests. This unit 

includes four areas that, with associated 

Wilderness and Mount Rainier National 

Park, meet the size requirement of large 

habitat blocks and two areas that, with 

associated Wilderness and the Mount 

Rainier National Park, meet the size 

requirement of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 6. Southeast Washington Cascades 

The Southeast Washington Cascades 

Unit consists of 143,400 ac (58,031 ha) 

in Kittitas, Yakima, and Skamania 

Counties, Washington, and is comprised 

of lands managed by the Wenatchee and 

Gifford Pinchot National Forests. This 

unit includes six areas that, with 

associated Wilderness, meet the size 

requirement of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 7. Northern Oregon Coast Ranges 

The Northern Oregon Coast Ranges 

Unit consists of 321,420 ac (130,074 ha) 

in Tillamook, Yamhill, Polk, Lincoln, 

Benton, and Lane Counties, Oregon, and 

is comprised of lands managed by the 

Siuslaw National Forest (187,562 ac 

(75,904 ha)) and Salem and Eugene BLM 

Districts (133,858 ac (54,170 ha)). This 

unit includes one area that, with 

associated Wilderness, meets the size 

requirement of a large habitat block and 

seven areas that, with associated 

Wilderness, meet the size requirement 

of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 8. Southern Oregon Coast Ranges 

The Southern Oregon Coast Ranges 

Unit consists of 204,276 ac (82,668 ha) 

in Lane, Coos, and Douglas Counties, 

Oregon, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Siuslaw National Forest 

(67,751 ac (27,418 ha)) and Eugene, 

Roseburg and Coos Bay BLM Districts 

(136,525 ac (55,250 ha)). This unit 

includes one area that meets the size 

requirement of a large habitat block and 

three areas that, with associated 

Wilderness, meet the size requirement 

of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 9. Western Oregon Cascades North 

The Western Oregon Cascades North 

Unit consists of 334,738 ac (135,464 ha) 

in Linn, Marion, Clackamas, Hood 

River, and Multnomah Counties, 

Oregon, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Mt. Hood and 

Willamette National Forests. This unit 

includes five areas that, with associated 

Wilderness, meet the size requirement 

of large habitat blocks and one area that 

meets the size requirement of a small 

habitat block. 

Unit 10. Hood River 

The Hood River Unit is comprised of 

42,863 ac (17,273 ha) in Hood River and 

Wasco Counties, Oregon, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the Mt. 

Hood National Forest. This unit 

includes one area that, with its 

associated Wilderness, meets the size 

requirement of a large habitat block. 

Unit 11. Eastern Oregon Cascades 

The Eastern Oregon Cascades Unit is 

comprised of 106,665 ac (43,166 ha) in 

Jefferson, Deschutes, and Klamath 

Counties, Oregon, and is comprised of 

lands managed by the Deschutes 

National Forest. This unit includes 

seven areas that, with associated 

Wilderness and Crater Lake National 

Park, meet the size requirement of small 

habitat blocks. 

Unit 12. Western Oregon Cascades 

South 

The Western Oregon Cascades South 

Unit consists of 448,403 ac (181,463 ha) 

in Jackson, Douglas, Lane, and Linn 

Counties, Oregon, and is comprised of 

lands managed by the Willamette, 

Umpqua, and Rogue River National 

Forests (448,324 ac (181,406 ha)) and 

Eugene BLM Districts (79 ac (32 ha)). 

This unit includes eight areas that, with 

associated Wilderness, meet the size 

requirement of large habitat blocks. 

Unit 13. Willamette/North Umpqua 

The Willamette/North Umpqua Unit 

is comprised of 119,637 ac (48,415 ha) 

of lands in Lane and Douglas Counties, 

Oregon, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Eugene and Roseburg 

BLM Districts. This unit includes three 

areas that meet the size requirement of 

small habitat blocks. These areas 

provide for habitat connectivity and 

northern spotted owl movement via the 

inter-provincial connection from the 

western Cascades to the Oregon Coast 

Ranges. 

Unit 14. Rogue/Umpqua 

The Rogue/Umpqua Unit consists of 

165,504 ac (66,977 ha) in Douglas and 

Josephine Counties, Oregon, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

Umpqua National Forest (13,147 ac 

(5,320 ha)) and Roseburg and BLM 

Medford Districts (152,357 ac (61,657 

ha)). This unit includes one area that 

meets the size requirement of a large 

habitat block, and one area that meets 

the size requirement of a small habitat 

block. These areas provide for habitat 

connectivity and northern spotted owl 

movement via the inter-provincial 

connection from the western Cascades 

to the Oregon Coast Ranges across the 

Rogue-Umpqua divide. 

Unit 15. Oregon Klamath Mountains 

The Oregon Klamath Mountains Unit 

is a total of 195,211 ac (79,215 ha), 

including 189,424 ac (76,657 ha) in 

Coos, Curry, and Josephine Counties, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32478 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Oregon, and 5,787 ac (2,342 ha) in the 

northernmost portion of Del Norte 

County, California. It is comprised of 

lands managed by the Siskiyou and Six 

Rivers National Forests (194,745 ac 

(78,810 ha)) and Coos Bay BLM District 

(466 ac (188 ha)). This unit includes 

three areas that, with associated 

Wilderness, meet the size requirement 

of large habitat blocks, and one area 

that, with its associated Wilderness, 

meets the size requirement of a small 

habitat block. The northern spotted owl 

population in the Klamath Province is 

the major population link between the 

Oregon Coast Ranges and western 

Oregon Cascades Provinces. It also 

provides the primary connection 

between northern spotted owl 

populations in Oregon and California. 

Unit 16. Klamath Intra-Province 

The Klamath Intra-Province Unit is a 

total of 96,572 ac (39,081 ha), including 

90,437 ac (36,598 ha) in Josephine and 

Jackson Counties, Oregon, and 6,135 ac 

(2,483 ha) in the northern portion of 

Siskiyou County, California. It is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

Rogue-Siskiyou and Klamath National 

Forests (57,977 ac (23,462 ha)) and 

Medford BLM District (38,595 ac 

(15,619 ha)). This unit includes one area 

that meets the size requirement of a 

large habitat block and one area that 

meets the size requirement of a small 

habitat block. These areas provide 

essential habitat connections through an 

area of limited habitat in the Klamath 

Province. 

Unit 17. Southern Cascades 

The Southern Cascades Unit is a total 

of 226,430 ac (91,634 ha), including 

186,732 ac ( 75,568 ha) in Jackson and 

Klamath Counties, Oregon, and 39,698 

ac (16,065 ha) in the northern portion of 

Siskiyou County, California. It is 

comprised of lands managed by RogueSiskiyou, Winema, and Klamath 

National Forests (191,612 ac (77,543 

ha)) and Medford and Lakeview BLM 

Districts (34,818 ac (14,090 ha)). This 

unit includes two areas that, with 

associated Wilderness, meet the size 

requirement of large habitat blocks and 

three areas that, with associated 

Wilderness, meet the size requirement 

of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 18. Coastal Redwoods 

The Coastal Redwoods Unit consists 

of 6,937 ac (2,807 ha) in Del Norte 

County, California, and is comprised of 

lands managed by Six Rivers National 

Forest. This unit includes one area that, 

with associated portions of Redwood 

National Park, meets the size 

requirement of a small habitat block. 

Unit 19. Coastal Humboldt 

The Coastal Humboldt Unit consists 

of 49,308 ac (19,954 ha) in Humboldt 

and Mendocino Counties, California, 

and is comprised of lands managed by 

the BLM Arcata Field Office. This unit 

includes four areas that, with associated 

Congressionally-Reserved Areas, meet 

the size requirement of small habitat 

blocks. 

Unit 20. King Range 

The King Range Unit consists of 

40,308 ac (16,312 ha) in Humboldt and 

Mendocino Counties, California, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

BLM Arcata Field Office. This unit 

includes one area that meets the size 

requirement of a small habitat block. 

Unit 21. South Fork Mountain Divide 

The South Fork Mountain Divide Unit 

consists of 141,180 ac (58,752 ha) in 

Humboldt and Trinity Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Six Rivers and ShastaTrinity National Forests (141,054 ac 

(57,082 ha)) and BLM Arcata Field 

Office (4,126 ac (1,670 ha)). This unit 

includes three areas that meet the size 

requirement of large habitat blocks, and 

one area that meets the size requirement 

of a small habitat block. 

Unit 22. Eel-Russian River 

The Eel-Russian River Unit consists of 

21,940 ac (8,879 ha) in Mendocino and 

Trinity Counties, California, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

BLM Ukiah and Arcata Field Offices. 

This unit includes 16 areas that meet 

the size requirement of small habitat 

blocks for northern spotted owls. 

Unit 23. Mendocino Coast Ranges 

The Mendocino Coast Ranges Unit 

consists of 215,105 ac (87,050 ha) in 

Mendocino, Lake, Colusa, Glenn, 

Tehama, and Trinity Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Mendocino National 

Forest. This unit includes two areas 

that, with associated Wilderness, meet 

the size requirement of large habitat 

blocks and five areas that meet the size 

requirement of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 24. Western Klamath-Siskiyou 

Mountains 

The Western Klamath-Siskiyou 

Mountains Unit consists of 240,130 ac 

(87,178 ha) in Del Norte, Humboldt, 

Trinity, Shasta, and Siskiyou Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Six Rivers and ShastaTrinity National Forests (236,460 ac 

(95,692 ha)) and BLM Redding Field 

Office (3,670 ac (1,485 ha)). This unit 

includes five areas that, with associated 

Wilderness, meet the size requirement 

of large habitat blocks, and one area that 

meets the size requirement of a small 

habitat block. 

Unit 25. Scott and Salmon Mountains 

The Scott and Salmon Mountains 

Unit is a total of 242,450 ac (98,116 ha), 

including 242,292 ac (98,052 ha) in 

Siskiyou County, California, and 158 ac 

(64 ha) in Josephine County, Oregon, 

and is comprised of lands managed by 

the Klamath National Forest. This unit 

includes four areas that, with associated 

Wilderness, meet the size requirement 

of large habitat blocks and two areas 

that, with associated Wilderness, meet 

the size requirement of small habitat 

blocks. 

Unit 26. Trinity Divide 

The Trinity Divide Unit consists of 

13,870 ac (5,613 ha) in Siskiyou County, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Klamath National 

Forest. This unit includes four areas 

that, with associated Wilderness, meet 

the size requirement of small habitat 

blocks with one to two pairs of northern 

spotted owls each, forming a ‘‘steppingstone’’ string of small areas providing 

connectivity to the eastern Klamath 

Mountains. 

Unit 27. Shasta-Trinity Lakes 

The Shasta/Trinity Lakes Unit 

consists of 86,819 ac (35,134 ha) in 

Shasta and Trinity Counties, California, 

and is comprised of lands managed by 

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

(85,730 ac (34,694 ha)) and BLM 

Redding Field Office (1,090 ac (441 ha)). 

This unit includes six areas that, with 

associated Wilderness, meet the size 

requirement of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 28. Eastern Klamath Mountains 

The Eastern Klamath Mountains Unit 

consists of 110,756 ac (44,821 ha) in 

Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Shasta-Trinity and 

Klamath National Forests. This unit 

includes five areas that meet the size 

requirement of small habitat blocks. 

Unit 29. Shasta/McCloud 

The Shasta/McCloud Unit consists of 

73,316 ac (29,670 ha) in Siskiyou and 

Shasta Counties, California, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

Klamath and Shasta-Trinity National 

Forests. This unit includes 13 areas that 

meet the size requirement of small 

habitat blocks. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32479 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In our 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define 

destruction or adverse modification as 

‘‘a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat for both the survival and 

recovery of a listed species. Such 

alterations include, but are not limited 

to, alterations adversely modifying any 

of those physical or biological features 

that were the basis for determining the 

habitat to be critical.’’ However, recent 

decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Courts of Appeals have invalidated this 

definition (see Gifford Pinchot Task 

Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra 

Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et 

al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)). 

Pursuant to current national policy and 

the statutory provisions of the Act, 

destruction or adverse modification is 

determined on the basis of whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would remain functional (or 

retain the current ability for the primary 

constituent elements to be functionally 

re-established in situations where the 

critical habitat was temporarily 

destroyed or degraded) to serve the 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed to be listed or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. This is a 

procedural requirement only. However, 

once a species becomes listed, or 

proposed critical habitat is designated 

as final, the full prohibitions of section 

7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The 

primary utility of the conference 

procedures is to maximize the 

opportunity for a Federal agency to 

adequately consider species proposed 

for listing and proposed critical habitat 

and avoid potential delays in 

implementing their proposed action as a 

result of the section 7(a)(2) compliance 

process, if those species are listed or the 

critical habitat designated. 

Under conference procedures, the 

Service may provide advisory 

conservation recommendations to assist 

the agency in eliminating conflicts that 

may be caused by the proposed action. 

The Service may conduct either 

informal or formal conferences. Informal 

conferences are typically used if the 

proposed action is not likely to have any 

adverse effects to the species proposed 

to be listed or proposed critical habitat. 

Formal conferences are typically used 

when the Federal agency or the Service 

believes the proposed action is likely to 

cause adverse effects to species 

proposed to be listed or critical habitat, 

inclusive of those that may cause 

jeopardy or adverse modification. 

The results of an informal conference 

are typically transmitted in a conference 

report, while the results of a formal 

conference are typically transmitted in a 

conference opinion. Conference 

opinions on proposed critical habitat are 

typically prepared according to 50 CFR 

402.14 as if the proposed critical habitat 

were designated. We may adopt the 

conference opinion as the biological 

opinion when the critical habitat is 

designated if no substantial new 

information or changes in the action 

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 

CFR 402.10(d)). As noted above, any 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

(action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us. If, after informal 

consultation, the action agency 

determines that the action is not likely 

to adversely affect the species or critical 

habitat, it may request concurrence from 

the Service and complete the section 

7(a)(2) process without formal 

consultation. If the action is likely to 

adversely affect the species or critical 

habitat, the agency shall request formal 

consultation and the Service will issue 

a biological opinion. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in jeopardy to a listed species or 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable, to 

avoid that outcome. ‘‘Reasonable and 

prudent alternatives’’ are defined at 50 

CFR 402.02 as alternative actions 

identified during consultation that can 

be implemented in a manner consistent 

with the intended purpose of the action, 

that are consistent with the scope of the 

Federal agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that the 

Director believes would avoid jeopardy 

to the listed species or destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can 

vary from slight project modifications to 

extensive redesign or relocation of the 

project. Costs associated with 

implementing a reasonable and prudent 

alternative are similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances when a new species 

is listed or critical habitat is 

subsequently designated that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action or such 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law. Consequently, some 

Federal agencies may request 

reinitiation of consultation or initiation 

of conference with us on actions for 

which formal consultation has been 

completed, if those actions may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat or adversely 

modify or destroy proposed critical 

habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

northern spotted owl or its designated 

critical habitat require section 7 

consultation under the Act. Activities 

on State, Tribal, local or private lands 

requiring a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act or a permit under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the 

Service) or involving some other Federal 

action (such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

also be subject to the section 7 

consultation process. Federal actions 

not affecting listed species or critical 

habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, 

local, or private lands that are not 

federally funded, authorized, or 

permitted, do not require section 7 

consultation. In addition, currently 

designated northern spotted owl critical 

habitat (see 50 CFR 17.95(b)) remain in 

place, and therefore be subject to section 

7, until our final determination on this 

proposal is made. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32480 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Application of the Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standards for 

Actions Involving Effects to the 

Northern Spotted Owl and Its Critical 

Habitat 

Jeopardy Standard 

The Service has applied an analytical 

framework for northern spotted owl 

jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on 

a northern spotted owl conservation 

strategy developed in the Standards and 

Guidelines of the Record of Decision for 

Amendments to Forest Service and BLM 

Planning Documents within the Range 

of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and 

USDI 1994b) and adopted by the Forest 

Service and BLM in their land 

management plans (LRMPs/RMPs); this 

habitat-based strategy also applies to 

National Park Service lands. The section 

7(a)(2) analysis focuses on how the 

proposed Federal action comports with 

the habitat-based, rangewide 

conservation plan for the northern 

spotted owl. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

The analytical framework described 

in the Director’s December 9, 2004, 

memorandum is used to complete 

section 7(a)(2) analyses for Federal 

actions affecting northern spotted owl 

critical habitat. The key factor related to 

the adverse modification determination 

is whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally re-established in situations 

where the critical habitat was 

temporarily destroyed or degraded) to 

serve its intended conservation role for 

the species. Generally, the conservation 

role of northern spotted owl critical 

habitat units is to support viable 

populations at the physiographic 

province level. The parameters for the 

habitat that is understood to fulfill this 

role are set forth in the recovery criteria 

in the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2007). 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species. 

Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the PCEs to an extent 

that the intended conservation function 

of critical habitat for the northern 

spotted owl is appreciably reduced. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore should result in informal or 

formal consultation for the northern 

spotted owl include, but are not limited 

to: 

(1) Actions that would remove or 

modify potential nest structures, such as 

large (generally greater than 30 in (76 

cm) dbh) broken-topped trees, snags, 

platforms, or mistletoe infestations. 

Such activities could remove nesting 

opportunities, potentially preventing or 

suppressing reproduction. Activities 

that could remove or modify these 

features are listed below. 

(2) Actions that would remove or 

modify forest conditions supporting 

nesting, foraging, and roosting, such as 

large trees, canopy closure, multilayered and multi-species canopies, the 

presence of flight room under the 

canopy, and in some areas, the presence 

of hardwoods in stands. Such activities 

could increase the risk of predation of 

adults or young, increase thermal stress, 

decrease foraging success, or decrease 

survival resulting from extreme weather. 

Activities that could remove or modify 

these features are listed below. 

(3) Actions that would fragment 

northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, 

foraging, or dispersal habitat within 

critical habitat blocks, so that 

connectivity within or between blocks, 

units, or provinces is reduced or 

eliminated. Concentrated removal or 

modification of forested areas within 

individual blocks could increase the 

distance northern spotted owls must 

travel to reach suitable forest conditions 

in another critical habitat block, which 

can result in an increased risk of 

predation, increased stress, and 

reduction in foraging opportunities. 

Activities that could remove or modify 

these features are listed below. 

(4) Actions that would eliminate the 

potential for an area to support the 

forest types that develop into nesting, 

roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat. 

Ground disturbances that disrupt the 

ability for the landscape to grow 

forested communities to their full 

potential could decrease nesting and 

foraging opportunities, while increasing 

the distance between blocks of intact 

habitat, which could result in an 

increased risk of predation and 

increased stress. Activities that could 

remove the potential for these forest 

types to exist are listed below. 

The types of activities that may affect 

northern spotted owl critical habitat as 

described above include, but are not 

limited to: Timber harvest; salvage of 

dead trees from healthy forest stands 

and post-wildfire burn areas; snag 

creation or removal; hazard tree 

removal; fuels reduction treatments; 

wildland fire management and fire 

suppression activities, such as backburning and felling trees; personal use 

and commercial firewood collection; 

land disturbance activities associated 

with construction and maintenance of 

power transmission line corridors, 

highways, hydroelectric facilities, 

mines, or oil, gas, geothermal or 

telecommunications leases; sand, gravel, 

or rock extraction; and construction of 

ski areas and associated resort facilities 

or other large-scale recreational 

developments. 

Some silvicultural activities designed 

to improve the habitat for northern 

spotted owls over the long term may 

have short-term negative impacts. 

We consider all of the units proposed 

as revised critical habitat to contain 

features essential to the conservation of 

the northern spotted owl. All units are 

within the geographic range of the 

species and are likely to be used by the 

northern spotted owl. Federal agencies 

already consult with us on activities in 

areas currently occupied by the 

northern spotted owl to ensure that their 

actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the northern spotted owl. 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act 

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines 

critical habitat as the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

the species on which are found physical 

and biological features (i) essential to 

the conservation of the species, and (ii) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection. Therefore, 

areas within the geographic area 

occupied by the species that do not 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are not, by 

definition, critical habitat. Similarly, 

areas within the geographic area 

occupied by the species that require no 

special management or protection also 

are not, by definition, critical habitat. 

Many areas that did not meet the 

definition previously and were not 

included in critical habitat are also not 

included in this designation for the 

same reason. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32481 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

must identify the benefits of including 

the area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and determine whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If an exclusion is 

contemplated, we must determine 

whether excluding the area would result 

in the extinction of the species. In 

addition, the Service is conducting an 

economic analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation and related factors, which 

will be available for public review and 

comment. We are not proposing any 

specific exclusions under 4(b)(2) at this 

time; however, based on public 

comment on the document, the 

proposed revised designation itself, and 

the information in the final economic 

analysis, areas may be excluded in the 

final rule. This is provided for in section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, and in our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. 

General Principles of Section 7 

Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2) 

Balancing Process 

The most direct, and potentially 

largest, regulatory benefit of critical 

habitat is that federally authorized, 

funded, or carried out activities require 

consultation under section 7 of the Act 

to ensure that they are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. There are two limitations to this 

regulatory effect. First, it only applies 

where there is a Federal nexus—if there 

is no Federal nexus, designation itself 

does not restrict actions that destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Second, it only limits destruction or 

adverse modification. By its nature, the 

prohibition on adverse modification is 

designed to ensure that areas containing 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, or unoccupied areas essential to 

the conservation of the species, are not 

eroded. Critical habitat designation 

alone, however, does not require 

specific steps toward recovery. 

Once consultation under section 7 of 

the Act is triggered, the process may 

conclude informally if the action agency 

determines that the proposed Federal 

action is not likely to adversely affect 

the listed species or its critical habitat. 

However, if the action agency 

determines through informal 

consultation that adverse impacts are 

likely to occur, then formal consultation 

would be initiated. Formal consultation 

concludes with a biological opinion 

issued by the Service on whether the 

proposed Federal action is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat, 

with separate analyses being made 

under both the jeopardy and the adverse 

modification standards. For critical 

habitat, a biological opinion that 

concludes in a determination of no 

destruction or adverse modification may 

contain discretionary conservation 

recommendations to minimize adverse 

effects to primary constituent elements, 

but it would not contain any mandatory 

reasonable and prudent measures or 

terms and conditions. Mandatory 

measures, and terms and conditions to 

implement them, are only specified 

when the proposed action would result 

in the incidental take of a listed animal 

species. Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the proposed Federal 

action would only be suggested when 

the biological opinion results in a 

jeopardy or adverse modification 

conclusion. 

A benefit of including lands in critical 

habitat is that the designation of critical 

habitat serves to educate landowners, 

State and local governments, and the 

public regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area. This 

helps focus and promote conservation 

efforts by other parties by clearly 

delineating areas of high conservation 

value for the northern spotted owl. In 

general the educational benefit of a 

critical habitat designation always 

exists, although in some cases it may be 

redundant with other educational 

effects. 

The Service is conducting an 

economic analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation and related factors, which 

will be available for public review and 

comment. Based on public comment on 

that document, the proposed revised 

designation itself, and the information 

in the final economic analysis, 

additional areas beyond those identified 

in this assessment may be excluded 

from critical habitat by the Secretary 

under the provisions of section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. This is provided for in the 

Act, and in our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act 

We are not proposing to exclude any 

specific areas under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act in this proposed revision to 

northern spotted owl critical habitat at 

this time. However, we will consider 

excluding any, or all, areas in the final 

designation after taking into account 

public comments and the economic 

analysis. 

Economic Analysis 

An analysis of the economic impacts 

of proposing revised critical habitat for 

the northern spotted owl is being 

prepared. We will announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis as soon as it is completed, at 

which time we will seek public review 

and comment. At that time, copies of 

the draft economic analysis will be 

available for downloading from the 

Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

oregonfwo, or by contacting the Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and based 

on our implementation of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review, dated December 16, 2004, we 

will seek the expert opinions of at least 

five appropriate and independent peer 

reviewers regarding the science in this 

proposed rule. The purpose of such 

review is to ensure that our revised 

critical habitat designation is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send copies of 

this proposed rule to these peer 

reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment during the public comment 

period on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests for public hearings 

must be made in writing at least 15 days 

prior to the close of the public comment 

period (see DATES). We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32482 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the Federal Register and local 

newspapers at least 15 days prior to the 

first hearing. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) requires each 

agency to write regulations and notices 

that are easy to understand. We invite 

your comments on how to make this 

proposed rule easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: (1) Are the requirements 

in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) 

Does the proposed rule contain 

technical jargon that interferes with the 

clarity? (3) Does the format of the 

proposed rule (grouping and order of 

the sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, and so forth) aid or 

reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description 

of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

rule? (5) What else could we do to make 

this proposed rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments on how 

we could make this proposed rule easier 

to understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail 

your comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues, but it is not anticipated to 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more, or to affect the 

economy in a material way. Due to the 

tight timeline for publication in the 

Federal Register, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

formally reviewed this rule. We are 

preparing a draft economic analysis of 

this proposed action, which will be 

available for public comment, to 

determine the economic consequences 

of revising our critical habitat 

designation for the northern spotted 

owl. This economic analysis also will be 

used to determine compliance with 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 

and Executive Order 12630. 

Further, Executive Order 12866 

directs Federal agencies promulgating 

regulations to evaluate regulatory 

alternatives (Office of Management and 

Budget, Circular A–4, September 17, 

2003). Pursuant to Circular A–4, once it 

has been determined that the Federal 

regulatory action is appropriate, the 

agency will need to consider alternative 

regulatory approaches. Since the 

determination of critical habitat is a 

statutory requirement under the Act, we 

must then evaluate alternative 

regulatory approaches, where feasible, 

when promulgating a designation of 

critical habitat. 

In developing our designations of 

critical habitat, we consider economic 

impacts, impacts to national security, 

and other relevant impacts under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the 

discretion allowable under this 

provision, we may exclude any 

particular area from the designation of 

critical habitat providing that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying the area as critical 

habitat and that such exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. As such, we believe that the 

evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 

of particular areas, or combination 

thereof, in a designation constitutes our 

regulatory alternative analysis. 

Within these areas, the types of 

Federal actions or authorized activities 

that we have identified as potential 

concerns are listed above in the section 

on section 7 consultation. The 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis will be announced in the 

Federal Register and in local 

newspapers so that it is available for 

public review and comments. The draft 

economic analysis can be obtained from 

the internet Web site at: http:// 

www.fws.gov/oregonfwo or by 

contacting the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office directly (see ADDRESSES section). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

At this time, the Service lacks the 

available economic information 

necessary to provide an adequate factual 

basis for the required RFA finding. 

Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred 

until completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act and Executive Order 12866. 

The draft economic analysis will 

provide the required factual basis for the 

RFA finding. Upon completion of the 

draft economic analysis, the Service will 

publish a notice of availability of the 

draft economic analysis of the proposed 

revised designation and reopen the 

public comment period for the proposed 

revised designation. The Service will 

include with the notice of availability, 

as appropriate, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis or a certification that 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities accompanied 

by the factual basis for that 

determination. The Service has 

concluded that deferring the RFA 

finding until completion of the draft 

economic analysis is necessary to meet 

the purposes and requirements of the 

RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that the Service 

makes a sufficiently informed 

determination based on adequate 

economic information and provides the 

necessary opportunity for public 

comment. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. While this 

proposed rule to designate revised 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, it is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 

Tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32483 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above on to State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, because only 

Federal lands are involved in the 

proposed designation. As such, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. However, as we conduct our 

economic analysis, we will further 

evaluate this issue and revise this 

assessment if appropriate. 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implication of designating revised 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl in a takings implication assessment. 

The takings implications assessment 

concludes that this revised designation 

of critical habitat for the northern 

spotted owl does not pose significant 

takings implications. However, we will 

further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), the rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with DOI and Department of 

Commerce policy, we requested 

information from, and coordinated 

development of, this proposed revised 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

Washington, Oregon, and California. 

The revised designation of critical 

habitat in areas currently occupied by 

the northern spotted owl imposes no 

additional restrictions to those currently 

in place and, therefore, has little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments in that the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the primary 

constituent elements of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are clearly identified. While 

making this definition and 

identification does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

We have proposed revised critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.). This proposed rule uses 

standard property descriptions and 

identifies the primary constituent 

elements within the designated areas to 

assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of the northern spotted 

owl. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the National Environmental 

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

connection with designating critical 

habitat under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

assertion was upheld in the courts of the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 

1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 

(1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. No 

Tribal lands are proposed as revised 

critical habitat. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
32484 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this package 

are the staff of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. In § 17.95(b), revise the entry for 

‘‘Northern Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina)’’ to read as 

follows: 

17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(b) Birds. 

* * * * * 

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for the States of Washington, Oregon, 

and California on the maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the northern 

spotted owl are: 

(i) Forest types known to support the 

northern spotted owl across its 

geographic range. These forest types 

include Sitka spruce, western hemlock, 

mixed conifer and mixed evergreen, 

grand fir, Pacific silver fir, Douglas-fir, 

white fir, Shasta red fir, redwood/ 

Douglas-fir (in coastal California and 

southwestern Oregon), and the moist 

end of the ponderosa pine coniferous 

forests zones at elevations up to 3,000 

ft (914 m) near the northern edge of the 

range and up to about 6,000 ft (1,828 m) 

at the southern edge. 

(ii) Forest types described in 

paragraph (2)(i) of this entry that are of 

sufficient area, quality, and 

configuration, or that have the ability to 

develop these characteristics, to meet 

the home range needs of territorial pairs 

of northern spotted owls throughout the 

year. A home range must provide all of 

the habitat components and prey 

needed to provide for the survival and 

successful reproduction of a resident 

breeding pair of northern spotted owls. 

The three habitat components required 

within the home range of a northern 

spotted owl include: 

(A) Nesting habitat. Habitat that 

includes a moderate to high canopy 

closure (60 to 80 percent); a multilayered, multi-species canopy with large 

(generally greater than 30 inches (in) (76 

centimeters (cm) diameter at breast 

height (dbh)) overstory trees; a high 

incidence of large trees with various 

deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken 

tops, mistletoe infections, and other 

platforms); large snags; large 

accumulations of fallen trees and other 

woody debris on the ground; and 

sufficient open space below the canopy 

for northern spotted owls to fly. Patches 

of nesting habitat, in combination with 

roosting habitat (see paragraph (2)(ii)(B) 

of this entry) need to be sufficiently 

large and contiguous to maintain 

northern spotted owl core areas and 

home ranges, and be in a spatial 

arrangement with foraging habitat (see 

paragraph (2)(ii)(C) of this entry) that 

allows efficient provisioning of young at 

the nest. 

(B) Roosting habitat. Roosting habitat 

differs from nesting habitat in that it 

need not contain those specific 

structural features used for nesting 

(cavities, broken tops, and mistletoe 

platforms). As such, it generally 

includes moderate to high canopy 

closure; a multi-layered, multi-species 

canopy; large accumulations of fallen 

trees and other woody debris on the 

ground; and sufficient open space below 

the canopy for northern spotted owls to 

fly. 

(C) Foraging habitat. Foraging habitat 

provides a food supply for survival and 

reproduction of northern spotted owls 

and includes a wider array of forest 

types than nesting and roosting habitat, 

particularly more open and fragmented 

forests. While some foraging habitat has 

attributes that closely resemble those of 

nesting and roosting habitat, especially 

in the northern portions of the 

subspecies’ range, some younger stands 

without all these attributes are used for 

foraging, especially in the southern 

portion of the range. Some younger 

stands may have high prey abundance 

and some structural attributes similar to 

those of older forests, such as moderate 

tree density, subcanopy perches at 

multiple levels, multi-layered 

vegetation, or residual older trees. To be 

fully functional for northern spotted 

owls, foraging habitat generally contains 

some roosting habitat attributes. 

(iii) Dispersal habitat. The dispersal of 

juveniles requires habitat supporting 

both the transience and colonization 

phases. Habitat supporting the 

transience phase of dispersal includes, 

at a minimum, stands with adequate 

tree size and canopy closure to provide 

protection from avian predators and at 

least minimal foraging opportunities. 

This may include younger and less 

diverse forest stands than foraging 

habitat (see paragraph (2)(ii)(C) of this 

entry), such as even-aged, pole-sized 

stands. These stands still require the 

interspersion of some roosting 

structures and foraging habitat to allow 

for temporary resting and feeding during 

the movement phase. Habitat supporting 

colonization is generally equivalent to 

roosting and foraging habitat and is 

described in paragraphs (2)(ii)(B) and 

(2)(ii)(C) of this entry, although it may 

be in smaller amounts than that needed 

to support nesting pairs (see paragraph 

(2)(ii)(A) of this entry). Dispersal 

habitats will typically occur in the 

intervening areas between larger blocks 

of forest that provide nesting, foraging, 

and roosting habitats for resident 

northern spotted owls. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (e.g., buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, and roads, 

including the land on which they are 

located) existing on the effective date of 

this rule and not containing one or more 

of the primary constituent elements. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. The 

designated critical habitat units for the 

northern spotted owl are depicted on 

the maps below. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the northern spotted owl in the 

State of Washington (Map 1–A) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32485 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.011</GPH>
32486 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the northern spotted owl in the 

State of Oregon (Map 1–B) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.012</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32487 

(7) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the northern spotted owl in the 

State of California (Map 1–C) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.013</GPH><FNP>
32488 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(8) Olympic Peninsula Unit (Unit 1). 

Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, and 

Mason Counties, Washington. From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles 

Anderson Creek, Brinnon, Bunch Lake, 

Burnt Hill, Colonel Bob, Deadmans Hill, 

Eldon, Ellis Mountain, Elwha, Finley 

Creek, Hunger Mountain, Indian Pass, 

Kloochman Rock, Lake Pleasant, Lake 

Quinault East, Lake Quinault West, Lake 

Sutherland, Larsen Creek, Lightning 

Peak, Maiden Peak, Matheny Ridge, 

Mount Deception, Mount Hoquiam, 

Mount Jupiter, Mount Muller, Mount 

Olson, Mount Skokomish, Mount Tebo, 

Mount Townsend, Mount Walker, 

Mount Washington, Mount Zion, Pysht, 

Reade Hill, Salmon River East, Slide 

Peak, Snider Peak, Stequaleho Creek, 

Stevens Creek, The Brothers, Twin 

Rivers, Tyler Peak, Uncas, West of 

Pysht, Winfield Creek, and Wynoochee 

Lake. 

(i) The Olympic Peninsula Unit 

consists of 331,741 ac (134,251 ha) in 

Clallam, Jefferson, Mason, and Grays 

Harbor Counties, Washington, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

Olympic National Forest. 

(ii) Note: Map of Olympic Peninsula 

Unit (Map 2) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.014</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32489 

(9) Northwest Washington Cascades 

Unit (Unit 2). King, Kittitas, Skagit, 

Snohomish, and Whatcom Counties, 

Washington. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Bacon Peak, Baker Pass, 

Bandera, Baring, Bearpaw Mountain, 

Bedal, Benchmark Mountain, Big Devil 

Peak, Big Snow Mountain, Blanca Lake, 

Cascade Pass, Chikamin Peak, 

Darrington, Day Lake, Downey 

Mountain, Eldorado Peak, Evergreen 

Mountain, Findley Lake, Finney Peak, 

Fortson, Gee Point, Glacier, Glacier Peak 

West, Groat Mountain, Grotto, Helena 

Ridge, Huckleberry Mountain, Illabot 

Peaks, Lake Philippa, Lake Shannon, 

Lime Mountain, Lost Lake, Mallardy 

Ridge, Meadow Mountain, Monte Cristo, 

Mount Baker, Mount Higgins, Mount 

Larrabee, Mount Phelps, Mount Sefrit, 

Mount Shuksan, Prairie Mountain, Pugh 

Mountain, Rockport, Sauk Mountain, 

Scenic, Shuksan Arm, Silverton, 

Skykomish, Sloan Peak, Snoqualmie 

Lake, Snoqualmie Pass, Snowking 

Mountain, Sonny Boy Lakes, Stevens 

Pass, Twin Sisters Mountain, Verlot, 

Welker Peak, White Chuck Mountain, 

and Whitehorse Mountain. 

(i) The Northwest Washington 

Cascades Unit consists of 410,872 ac 

(166,274 ha) in Whatcom, Skagit, 

Snohomish, King, and Kittitas Counties, 

Washington, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 

and Wenatchee National Forests. 

(ii) Note: Map of Northwest Cascades 

Unit (Map 3) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.015</GPH><FNP>
32490 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(10) Okanogan Unit (Unit 3). 

Whatcom, Okanogan, and Chelan 

Counties, Washington. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangles Azunite 

Peak, Big Goat Mountain, Brief, 

Chikamin Creek, Crater Mountain, 

Hoodoo Peak, Hungry Mountain, Martin 

Peak, Mazama, McAlester Mountain, 

McCleod Mountain, Midnight 

Mountain, Oval Peak, Pasayten Peak, 

Pyramid Mountain, Robinson Mountain, 

Saska Peak, Shull Mountain, Silver 

Falls, Silver Star Mountain, Slate Peak, 

South Navarre Peak, Stormy Mountain, 

and Thompson Ridge. 

(i) The Okanogan Unit consists of 

115,638 ac (46,797 ha) in Whatcom, 

Okanogan, and Chelan Counties, 

Washington, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Okanogan and 

Wenatchee National Forests. 

(ii) Note: Map of Okanogan Unit (Map 

4) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.016</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32491 

(11) Entiat Unit (Unit 4). Chelan and 

Kittitas Counties, Washington. From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles 

Benchmark Mountain, Blewett, 

Cashmere Mountain, Chikamin Creek, 

Chikamin Peak, Chiwaukum Mountains, 

Cle Elum Lake, Davis Peak, Easton, 

Enchantment Lakes, Jack Ridge, Kachess 

Lake, Labyrinth Mountain, 

Leavenworth, Liberty, Mission Peak, 

Monitor, Mount David, Mount Howard, 

Peshastin, Plain, Poe Mountain, Polallie 

Ridge, Red Top Mountain, Reecer 

Canyon, Ronald, Saska Peak, Schaefer 

Lake, Silver Falls, Stampede Pass, 

Stevens Pass, Sugarloaf Peak, Swauk 

Pass, Swauk Prairie, Teanaway, 

Teanaway Butte, Tiptop, Trinity, Tyee 

Mountain, Van Creek, and Winton. 

(i) The Entiat Unit consists of 304,817 

ac (123,355 ha) in Chelan and Kittitas 

Counties, Washington, and is comprised 

of lands managed by the Wenatchee and 

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests. 

(ii) Note: Map of Entiat Unit (Map 5) 

follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.017</GPH><FNP>
32492 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(12) Southwest Washington Cascades 

Unit (Unit 5). Clark, Cowlitz, King, 

Kittitas, Lewis, Pierce, Skamania, and 

Thurston Counties, Washington. From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Bare 

Mountain, Bearhead Mountain, Big 

Huckleberry Mountain, Burnt Peak, 

Carson, Cedar Flats, Clear West Peak, 

Cougar, East Canyon Ridge, Eatonville, 

French Butte, Gifford Peak, Goat 

Mountain, Greenhorn Buttes, Lester, 

Little Huckleberry Mountain, Lone 

Butte, Lookout Mountain, McCoy Peak, 

Mineral, Morton, Mossyrock, Mount 

Defiance, Mount Mitchell, Mount Wow, 

Nagrom, Newautum Lake, Noble Knob, 

Norse Peak, Ohanapecosh Hot Springs, 

Packwood, Packwood Lake, Purcell 

Mountain, Quartz Creek Butte, Randle, 

Sawtooth Ridge, Siouxon Peak, Smith 

Creek Butte, Spencer Butte, Spirit Lake 

East, Stabler, Steamboat Mountain, Sun 

Top, Sunrise, Tatoosh Lakes, 

Termination Point, The Rockies, Tower 

Rock, Wahpenayo Peak, White Pass, 

White River Park, and Willard. 

(i) The Southwest Washington 

Cascades Unit consists of 523,710 ac 

(211,938 ha) in King, Pierce, Thurston, 

Lewis, Skamania, Cowlitz, Kittitas, and 

Yakima Counties, Washington, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the Mt. 

Baker-Snoqualmie, Gifford Pinchot, and 

Wenatchee National Forests. 

(ii) Note: Map of Southwest 

Washington Cascades Unit (Map 6) 

follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.018</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32493 

(13) Southeast Washington Cascades 

Unit (Unit 6). Kittitas, Yakima, and 

Skamania Counties, Washington. From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles 

Bumping Lake, Cle Elum, Cougar Lake, 

Darland Mountain, Foundation Ridge, 

Frost Mountain, Goose Prairie, Guler 

Mountain, King Mountain, Little 

Huckleberry Mountain, Meeks Table, 

Mount Adams East, Mount Clifty, Old 

Scab Mountain, Pinegrass Ridge, Quartz 

Mountain, Rimrock Lake, Ronald, 

Sleeping Beauty, Spiral Butte, Tieton 

Basin, Timberwolf Mountain, Trout 

Lake, and White Pass. 

(i) The Southeast Washington 

Cascades Unit consists of 143,400 ac 

(58,031 ha) in Kittitas, Yakima, and 

Skamania Counties, Washington, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot National 

Forests. 

(ii) Note: Map of Southeast 

Washington Cascades Unit (Map 7) 

follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.019</GPH><FNP>
32494 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(14) Northern Oregon Coast Ranges 

Unit (Unit 7). Benton, Lane, Lincoln, 

Polk, Tillamook, and Yamhill Counties, 

Oregon. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Alsea, Blaine, Cannibal 

Mountain, Cummins Peak, Devils Lake, 

Digger Mountain, Dolph, Dovre Peak, 

Elk City, Eurchre Mountain, Falls City, 

Fanno Ridge, Five Rivers, Flat 

Mountain, Grand Ronde, Grass 

Mountain, Greenleaf, Harlan, Heceta 

Head, Hellion Rapids, Herman Creek, 

Laurel Mountain, Mapleton, Marys 

Peak, Mercer Lake, Mowrey Landing, 

Neskowin, Neskowin OE W, Niagara 

Creek, Nortons, Prairie Peak, Sheridan, 

Socialist Valley, Springer Mountain, 

Stony Mountain, Stott Mountain, 

Summit, Tidewater, Tiernan, Toledo 

South, Trask Mountain, Triangle Lake, 

Valsetz, Waldport, Walton, Warnicke 

Creek, Windy Peak, Wren, and Yachats. 

(i) The Northern Oregon Coast Ranges 

Unit consists of 321,420 ac (130,074 ha) 

in Tillamook, Yamhill, Polk, Lincoln, 

Benton, and Lane Counties, Oregon, and 

is comprised of lands managed by the 

Siuslaw National Forest (187,562 ac 

(75,904 ha)) and Salem and Eugene 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Districts (133,858 ac (54,170 ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of Northern Oregon 

Coast Ranges Unit (Map 8) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.020</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32495 

(15) Southern Oregon Coast Ranges 

Unit (Unit 8). Coos, Douglas, and Lane 

Counties, Oregon. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangles Baldy Mountain, 

Callahan, Clay Creek, Coos Mountain, 

Deer Head Point, Dora, Goodwin Peak, 

Gunter, Kellogg, Kelly Butte, Loon Lake, 

Mapleton, North Fork, Old Blue, 

Reedsport, Roman Nose Mountain, 

Scottsburg, Sitkum, Smith River Falls, 

Tiernan, Tioga, Twin Sisters, and Tyee. 

(i) The Southern Oregon Coast Ranges 

Unit consists of 204,276 ac (82,668 ha) 

in Lane, Coos, and Douglas Counties, 

Oregon, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Siuslaw National Forest 

(67,751 ac (27,418 ha)) and Eugene, 

Roseburg, and Coos Bay BLM Districts 

(136,525 ac (55,250 ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of Southern Oregon 

Coast Ranges Unit (Map 9) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.021</GPH><FNP>
32496 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(16) Western Oregon Cascades North 

Unit (Unit 9). Clackamas, Hood River, 

Linn, Marion, and Multnomah Counties, 

Oregon. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Bagby Hot Spring, Battle 

Ax, Bedford Point, Bonneville Dam, 

Breitenbush Hot Springs, Brightwood, 

Bull of the Woods, Bull Run, Bull Run 

Lake, Carpenter Mountain, Carson, 

Chimney Peak, Coffin Mountain, Dee, 

Detroit, Echo Mountain, Elkhorn, Fish 

Creek Mountain, Government Camp, 

Harter Mountain, Hickman Butte, High 

Rock, Idanha, Lawhead Creek, Marion 

Forks, Mother Lode Mountain, Mount 

Bruno, Mount Defiance, Mount 

Jefferson, Mount Lowe, Mount Mitchell, 

Multnomah Falls, Olallie Butte, 

Quartzville, Rhododendron, Tamolitch 

Falls, Tanner Butte, Three Lynx, Tidbits 

Mountain, Timothy Lake, Upper Soda, 

Wahtum Lake, and Wolf Peak. 

(i) The Western Oregon Cascades 

North Unit consists of 334,738 ac 

(135,464 ha) in Linn, Marion, 

Clackamas, Hood River, and Multnomah 

Counties, Oregon, and is comprised of 

lands managed by the Mt. Hood and 

Willamette National Forests. 

(ii) Note: Map of Western Oregon 

Cascades North Unit (Map 10) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.022</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32497 

(17) Hood River Unit (Unit 10). 

Clackamas, Hood River, and Wasco 

Counties, Oregon. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangles Badger Lake, Dog 

River, Fivemile Butte, Flag Point, 

Friend, Mount Hood South, Parkdale, 

Post Point, Wapinitia Pass, and Wolf 

Run. 

(i) The Hood River Unit consists of 

42,863 ac (17,273 ha) in Hood River and 

Wasco Counties, Oregon, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the Mt. 

Hood National Forest. 

(ii) Note: Map of Hood River Unit 

(Map 11) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.023</GPH><FNP>
32498 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(18) Eastern Oregon Cascades Unit 

(Unit 11). Deschutes, Jefferson, and 

Klamath Counties, Oregon. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangles Black Butte, 

Black Crater, Candle Creek, Crane 

Prairie Reservoir, Crescent Lake, Cryder 

Butte, Davis Mountain, Elk Lake, 

Hamner Butte, Irish Mountain, Marion 

Lake, Mount Washington, Odell Butte, 

Odell Lake, Prairie Farm Spring, Shitike 

Butte, The Twins, Three Creek Butte, 

Three Fingered Jack, and Trout Creek 

Butte. 

(i) The Eastern Oregon Cascades Unit 

consists of 106,665 ac (43,166 ha) in 

Jefferson, Deschutes, and Klamath 

Counties, Oregon, and is comprised of 

lands managed by the Deschutes 

National Forest. 

(ii) Note: Map of Eastern Oregon 

Cascades Unit (Map 12) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.024</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32499 

(19) Western Oregon Cascades South 

Unit (Unit 12). Douglas, Jackson, Lane, 

and Linn Counties, Oregon. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangles Abbott Butte, 

Acker Rock, Bearbones Mountain, 

Belknap Springs, Blair Lake, Buckeye 

Lake, Butler Butte, Chucksney 

Mountain, Clear Lake, Cougar Reservoir, 

Deadman Mountain, Diamond Peak, 

Dumont Creek, Fall Creek Lake, Fish 

Creek Desert, Fish Mountain, French 

Mountain, Goat Point, Groundhog 

Mountain, Hamaker Butte, Harvey 

Mountain, Holland Point, Huckleberry 

Mountain, Illahee Rock, Irish Mountain, 

Linton Lake, McCredie Springs, 

McKenzie Bridge, Mount David 

Douglas, Mount June, Nimrod, North 

Sister, Oakridge, Potter Mountain, 

Quartz Mountain, Ragsdale Butte, Red 

Butte, Reynolds Ridge, Rigdon Point, 

Saddleblanket Mountain, Sardine Butte, 

Sinker Mountain, Staley Ridge, 

Steamboat, Sugarpine Creek, Taft 

Mountain, Toketee Falls, Twin Lakes 

Mountain, Union Creek, Waldo 

Mountain, Warner Mountain, Westfir 

West, and Whetstone Point. 

(i) The Western Oregon Cascades 

South Unit consists of 448,403 ac 

(181,463 ha) in Jackson, Douglas, Lane, 

and Linn Counties, Oregon, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue River 

National Forests (448,324 ac (181,406 

ha)) and Eugene BLM Districts (79 ac 

(32 ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of Western Oregon 

Cascades South Unit (Map 13) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.025</GPH><FNP>
32500 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(20) Willamette/North Umpqua Unit 

(Unit 13). Douglas and Lane Counties, 

Oregon. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Beaver Creek, Blue 

Mountain, Burnt Mountain, Chilcoot 

Mountain, Clay Creek, Cottage Grove, 

Cottage Grove Lake, Crow, Curtin, 

Drain, Elkton, Fairview Peak, Gunter, 

Harness Mountain, Harrington Creek, 

High Point, Letz Creek, Putnam Valley, 

Scaredman Creek, Scotts Valley, and 

Silica Mountain. 

(i) The Willamette/North Umpqua 

Unit consists of 119,637 ac (48,415 ha) 

of lands in Lane and Douglas Counties, 

Oregon, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Eugene and Roseburg 

BLM Districts. 

(ii) Note: Map of Willamette/North 

Umpqua Unit (Map 14) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.026</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32501 

(21) Rogue/Umpqua Unit (Unit 14). 

Douglas and Josephine Counties, 

Oregon. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Bunker Creek, Canyonville, 

Cedar Springs Mountain, Chipmunk 

Ridge, Chrome Ridge, Days Creek, 

Dutchman Butte, Galice, Glendale, 

Hobson Horn, Kelsey Peak, Live Oak 

Mountain, McCullough Creek, Merlin, 

Milo, Mount Peavine, Mount Reuben, 

Nickel Mountain, Onion Mountain, 

Quines Creek, Rabbit Mountain, Richter 

Mountain, Starvout Creek, and Tiller. 

(i) The Rogue/Umpqua Unit consists 

of 165,504 ac (66,977 ha) in Douglas and 

Josephine Counties, Oregon, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

Umpqua National Forest (13,147 ac 

(5,320 ha)) and Roseburg and BLM 

Medford Districts (152,357 ac (61,657 

ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of Rogue/Umpqua Unit 

(Map 15) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.027</GPH><FNP>
32502 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(22) Oregon Klamath Mountains Unit 

(Unit 15). Coos, Curry, and Josephine 

Counties, Oregon. Del Norte County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Agness, Barklow Mountain, 

Big Craggies, Biscuit Hill, Bosley Butte, 

Brandy Peak, Chetco Peak, China Flat, 

Chrome Ridge, Collier Butte, Eden 

Valley, Eight Dollar Mountain, Father 

Mountain, Fourth of July Creek, High 

Divide, High Plateau Mountain, Horse 

Sign Butte, Illahe, Kelsey Peak, Marial, 

Mount Bolivar, Mount Butler, Mount 

Emily, Ophir Mountain, Pearsoll Peak, 

Port Orford, Quail Prairie Mountain, 

Silver Peak, Sixes, and York Butte. 

(i) The Oregon Klamath Mountains 

Unit is a total of 195,211 ac (79,215 ha), 

including 189,424 ac (76,657 ha) in 

Coos, Curry, and Josephine Counties, 

Oregon, and 5,787 ac (2,342 ha) in the 

northernmost portion of Del Norte 

County, California. It is comprised of 

lands managed by the Siskiyou and Six 

Rivers National Forests (194,745 ac 

(78,810 ha)) and Coos Bay BLM District 

(466 ac (188 ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of Oregon Klamath 

Mountains Unit (Map 16) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.028</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32503 

(23) Klamath Intra-Province Unit 

(Unit 16). Jackson and Josephine 

Counties, Oregon. Siskiyou County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Ashland, Buckhorn Bally, 

Condrey Mountain, Cottonwood Peak, 

Dutchman Peak, Kerby Peak, Mount 

Ashland, Murphy, Murphy Mountain, 

Oregon Caves, Siskiyou Peak, Talent, 

and Williams. 

(i) The Klamath Intra-Province Unit is 

a total of 96,572 ac (39,081 ha), 

including 90,437 ac (36,598 ha) in 

Josephine and Jackson Counties, 

Oregon, and 6,135 ac (2,483 ha) in the 

northern portion of Siskiyou County, 

California. It is comprised of lands 

managed by the Rogue-Siskiyou and 

Klamath National Forests (57,977 ac 

(23,462 ha)) and Medford BLM District 

(38,595 ac (15,619 ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of Klamath IntraProvince Unit (Map 17) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.029</GPH><FNP>
32504 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(24) Southern Cascades Unit (Unit 

17). Jackson and Klamath Counties, 

Oregon. Siskiyou County, California. 

From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles 

Brown Mountain, Copco, Crystal Spring, 

Dewey Gulch, Imnaha Creek, Lake of the 

Woods North, Lake of the Woods South, 

Little Chinquapin Mountain, MacDoel, 

Mount Ashland, Mount McLoughlin, 

Panther Rock, Parker Mountain, Pelican 

Bay, Pelican Butte, Prospect North, 

Prospect South, Red Blanket Mountain, 

Robinson Butte, Rustler Peak, Secret 

Spring Mountain, Siskiyou Pass, Soda 

Mountain, and Willow Lake. 

(i) The Southern Cascades Unit is a 

total of 226,430 ac (91,634 ha), 

including 186,732 ac ( 75,568 ha) in 

Jackson and Klamath Counties, Oregon, 

and 39,698 ac (16,065 ha) in the 

northern portion of Siskiyou County, 

California. It is comprised of lands 

managed by Rogue-Siskiyou, Winema, 

and Klamath National Forests (191,612 

ac (77,543 ha)) and Medford and 

Lakeview BLM Districts (34,818 ac 

(14,090 ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of Southern Cascades 

Unit (Map 18) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.030</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32505 

(25) Coastal Redwoods Unit (Unit 18). 

Del Norte County, California. From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles 

Gasquet, Hiouchi, and Requa. 

(i) The Coastal Redwoods Unit 

consists of 6,937 ac (2,807 ha) in Del 

Norte County, California, and is 

comprised of lands managed by Six 

Rivers National Forest. 

(ii) Note: Map of Coastal Redwoods 

Unit (Map 19) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.031</GPH><FNP>
32506 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(26) Coastal Humboldt Unit (Unit 19). 

Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity 

Counties, California. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangles Bell Springs, 

Boonville, Bridgeville, Bull Creek, Cahto 

Peak, Ettersburg, Fields Landing, Harris, 

Honeydew, Hydesville, Iaqua Buttes, 

Jewett Rock, Larabee Valley, Leggett, 

Lincoln Ridge, Mad River Buttes, 

McWhinney Creek, Noble Butte, Orrs 

Springs, Tan Oak Park, and Weott. 

(i) The Coastal Humboldt Unit 

consists of 49,308 ac (19,954 ha) in 

Humboldt and Mendocino Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the BLM Arcata Field 

Office. 

(ii) Note: Map of Coastal Humboldt 

Unit (Map 20) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.032</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32507 

(27) King Range Unit (Unit 20). 

Humboldt and Mendocino Counties, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Bear Harbor, Bear Harbor 

OE W, Briceland, Cooskie Creek, 

Honeydew, Shelter Cove, Shubrick 

Peak, and Shubrick Peak OE S. 

(i) The King Range Unit consists of 

40,308 ac (16,312 ha) in Humboldt and 

Mendocino Counties, California, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

BLM Arcata Field Office. 

(ii) Note: Map of King Range Unit 

(Map 21) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.033</GPH><FNP>
32508 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(28) South Fork Mountain Divide Unit 

(Unit 21). Humboldt and Trinity 

Counties, California. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangles Alderpoint, 

Black Lassic, Blake Mountain, Board 

Camp Mountain, Dinsmore, Forest Glen, 

Grouse Mountain, Hennessy Peak, Hupa 

Mountain, Lord-Ellis Summit, Naufus 

Creek, Pony Buck Peak, Ruth Lake, Sims 

Mountain, Smoky Creek, Sportshaven, 

Swim Ridge, Willow Creek, and Zenia. 

(i) The South Fork Mountain Divide 

Unit consists of 141,180 ac (58,752 ha) 

in Humboldt and Trinity Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Six Rivers and ShastaTrinity National Forests (141,054 ac 

(57,082 ha)) and BLM Arcata Field 

Office (4,126 ac (1,670 ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of South Fork 

Mountain Divide Unit (Map 22) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.034</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32509 

(29) Eel-Russian River Unit (Unit 22). 

Mendocino and Trinity Counties, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Bluenose Ridge, Brushy 

Mountain, Covelo East, Foster 

Mountain, Four Corners Rock, Iron 

Peak, Jamison Ridge, Laytonville, Long 

Ridge, Mina, Newhouse Ridge, Thatcher 

Ridge, Willis Ridge, and Willits. 

(i) The Eel-Russian River Unit 

consists of 21,940 ac (8,879 ha) in 

Mendocino and Trinity Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the BLM Ukiah and Arcata 

Field Offices. 

(ii) Note: Map of Eel-Russian River 

Unit (Map 23) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.035</GPH><FNP>
32510 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(30) Mendocino Coast Ranges Unit 

(Unit 23). Colusa, Glenn, Lake, 

Mendocino, Tehama, and Trinity 

Counties, California. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangles Ball 

Mountain, Bartlett Mountain, Black 

Rock Mountain, Brushy Mountain, Buck 

Rock, Crockett Peak, Elk Mountain, 

Felkner Hill, Foster Mountain, Fouts 

Springs, Hall Ridge, Hull Mountain, 

Kneecap Ridge, Lake Pillsbury, Log 

Spring, Mendocino Pass, Newhouse 

Ridge, North Yolla Bolly Mountains, 

Plaskett Meadows, Plaskett Ridge, 

Potato Hill, Potter Valley, Riley Ridge, 

Saint John Mountain, Sanhedrin 

Mountain, Thatcher Ridge, Van Arsdale 

Reservoir, and Wrights Ridge. 

(i) The Mendocino Coast Ranges Unit 

consists of 215,105 ac (87,050 ha) in 

Mendocino, Lake, Colusa, Glenn, 

Tehama, and Trinity Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Mendocino National 

Forest. 

(ii) Note: Map of Mendocino Coast 

Ranges Unit (Map 24) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.036</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32511 

(31) Western Klamath-Siskiyou 

Mountains Unit (Unit 24). Del Norte, 

Humboldt, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity 

Counties, California. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangles Bark Shanty 

Gulch, Big Bar, Broken Rib Mountain, 

Chanchelulla Peak, Dedrick, Dees Peak, 

Del Loma, Denny, Devils Punchbowl, 

Fish Lake, Hayfork, Hayfork Bally, 

Helena, Hopkins Butte, Hossimbim 

Mountain, Hurdygurdy Butte, 

Hyampom Mountain, Ironside 

Mountain, Jim Jam Ridge, Johnsons, 

Junction City, Lonesome Ridge, Mount 

Hilton, Orleans, Orleans Mountain, 

Pony Buck Peak, Prescott Mountain, 

Rush Creek Lakes, Salmon Mountain, 

Salyer, Shelly Creek Ridge, Ship 

Mountain, Somes Bar, Thurston Peaks, 

Tish Tang Point, Trinity Mountain, 

Weitchpec, and Wildwood. 

(i) The Western Klamath-Siskiyou 

Mountains Unit consists of 240,130 ac 

(87,178 ha) in Del Norte, Humboldt, 

Trinity, Shasta, and Siskiyou Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Six Rivers and ShastaTrinity National Forests (236,460 ac 

(95,692 ha)) and BLM Redding Field 

Office (3,670 ac (1,485 ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of Western KlamathSiskiyou Mountains Unit (Map 25) 

follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.037</GPH><FNP>
32512 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(32) Scott and Salmon Mountains 

Unit (Unit 25). Siskiyou County, 

California. Josephine County, Oregon. 

From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles 

Boulder Peak, Cecilville, Clear Creek, 

Deadman Peak, Deadman Point, Dillon 

Mountain, Dutch Creek, Eaton Peak, 

English Peak, Etna, Figurehead 

Mountain, Forks of Salmon, 

Grasshopper Ridge, Grayback Mountain, 

Grider Valley, Hamburg, Horse Creek, 

Huckleberry Mountain, Indian Creek 

Baldy, Kangaroo Mountain, McKinley 

Mountain, Medicine Mountain, Orleans 

Mountain, Russell Peak, Sawyers Bar, 

Scott Bar, Seiad Valley, Slater Butte, 

Somes Bar, Tanners Peak, Ukonom 

Lake, Ukonom Mountain, and Yellow 

Dog Point. 

(i) The Scott and Salmon Mountains 

Unit is a total of 242,450 ac (98,116 ha), 

including 242,292 ac (98,052 ha) in 

Siskiyou County, California, and 158 ac 

(64 ha) in Josephine County, Oregon, 

and is comprised of lands managed by 

the Klamath National Forest. 

(ii) Note: Map of Scott and Salmon 

Mountains Unit (Map 26) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.038</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32513 

(33) Trinity Divide Unit (Unit 26). 

Siskiyou County, California. From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Billys 

Peak, Callahan, Deadman Peak, 

Grasshopper Ridge, and Scott Mountain. 

(i) The Trinity Divide Unit consists of 

13,870 ac (5,613 ha) in Siskiyou County, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Klamath National 

Forest. 

(ii) Note: Map of Trinity Divide Unit 

(Map 27) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.039</GPH><FNP>
32514 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(34) Shasta-Trinity Lakes Unit (Unit 

27). Shasta and Trinity Counties, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Carrville, Covington Mill, 

Damnation Peak, French Gulch, 

Lamoine, Lewiston, Mumbo Basin, 

Papoose Creek, Rush Creek Lakes, 

Schell Mountain, Siligo Peak, Tangle 

Blue Lake, Trinity Center, Trinity Dam, 

Whisky Bill Peak, and Ycatapom Peak. 

(i) The Shasta-Trinity Lakes Unit 

consists of 86,819 ac (35,134 ha) in 

Shasta and Trinity Counties, California, 

and is comprised of lands managed by 

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

(85,730 ac (34,694 ha)) and BLM 

Redding Field Office (1,090 ac (441 ha)). 

(ii) Note: Map of Shasta-Trinity Lakes 

Unit (Map 28) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.040</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32515 

(35) Eastern Klamath Mountains Unit 

(Unit 28). Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Big Bend, Chicken Hawk 

Hill, China Mountain, City of Mount 

Shasta, Dead Horse Summit, Devils 

Rock, Dunsmuir, Girard Ridge, Goose 

Gap, Grizzly Peak, Lake McCloud, 

Minnesota Mountain, Mount Eddy, 

Roaring Creek, Seven Lakes Basin, 

Shoeinhorse Mountain, Skunk Ridge, 

Tombstone Mountain, Weed, and 

Yellowjacket Mountain. 

(i) The Eastern Klamath Mountains 

Unit consists of 110,756 ac (44,821 ha) 

in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, 

California, and is comprised of lands 

managed by the Shasta-Trinity and 

Klamath National Forests. 

(ii) Note: Map of Eastern Klamath 

Mountains Unit (Map 29) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.041</GPH><FNP>
32516 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(36) Shasta/McCloud Unit (Unit 29). 

Shasta and Siskiyou Counties, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Ash Creek Butte, Bartle, 

Burney, Burney Falls, Chalk Mountain, 

City of Mount Shasta, Dead Horse 

Summit, Elk Spring, Grizzly Peak, Horse 

Peak, Kinyon, Little Glass Mountain, 

McCloud, Mount Shasta, Rainbow 

Mountain, Skunk Ridge, and Tennant. 

(i) The Shasta/McCloud Unit consists 

of 73,316 ac (29,670 ha) in Siskiyou and 

Shasta Counties, California, and is 

comprised of lands managed by the 

Klamath and Shasta-Trinity National 

Forests. 

(ii) Note: Map of Shasta/McCloud 

Unit (Map 30) follows: 

* * * * * Dated: May 31, 2007. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 07–2805 Filed 6–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3EP12JN07.042</GPH>