Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AU37

FWS ID: [FWS-R1-ES-2008-0051; 92210-1117-0000-FY08-B4]

NOTICE: Part III

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl

DATES: This rule becomes effective on September 12, 2008.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising currently designated critical habitat 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 finalize revised critical habitat for the northern spotted owl on a total of approximately 5, 312, 300 acres (ac) (2, 149, 800 hectares (ha)) of Federal lands in California, Oregon, and Washington.

SUMMARY: Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the revised designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information on the northern spotted owl and critical habitat, please refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32450).

Prior and subsequent to the listing of the northern spotted owl in 1990 (55 FR 26114), many committees, task forces, and work groups were formed to develop conservation strategies for the northern spotted owl. Information on these efforts can be found in the proposed critical habitat rule (72 FR 32450). We recently released the final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008), which incorporates the best available scientific information regarding the conservation of the northern spotted owl. The final recovery plan recommends a the network of habitat blocks, or managed owl conservation areas (MOCAs), in the westside provinces in the range of the northern spotted owl, and a broader landscapebased habitat management approach (without MOCAs) for the dry forest eastside provinces in Washington and Oregon. The westside provinces include the Olympic Peninsula, Western Washington Lowlands, Western Washington Cascades, Oregon Coast Range, Willamette Valley, Western Oregon Cascades, and California Coast. The Willamette Valley and Western Washington Lowland provinces are excluded from the MOCA network because, given their low population numbers and isolation from other populations, the recovery plan assumed that these areas could not play an essential role in the recovery of the species (USFWS 2008, pp. 14 to 15). The Oregon Klamath and California Klamath are currently included in the MOCA network of the westside provinces; however, the recovery plan notes that this is an interim strategy for the complex habitat in these provinces (USFWS 2008, p. 24), which are also largely considered fireprone similar to the eastside provinces. Hence when we refer to the ``fireprone'' provinces, we include the Oregon Klamath and California Klamath with the dry forest eastside provinces. The eastside provinces refer to the Eastern Washington Cascades, Eastern Oregon Cascades, and California Cascades.

We believe the recovery strategy described in the final recovery plan will be effective, and therefore the MOCAs delineated in that plan and identified as essential to the conservation of the species serve as the basis for this critical habitat designation in the westside provinces. The landscape management approach for the eastside provinces, identified in the 2008 final recovery plan (USFWS 2008) and by the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI) Scientific Panel (SEI 2008) as the most effective approach for managing northern spotted owl habitat in dry forests, was not incorporated into this rule because it cannot be translated into critical habitat at this time, until the new approach called for by the recovery plan is further defined. In the eastside provinces the areas identified for designation in the proposed critical habitat (72 FR 32450), based on the Option 1 MOCAs in the 2007 draft recovery plan, are finalized in this rule. These MOCAs represent the most current delineation of specific areas that provide the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the northern spotted owl in that region, as required by our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12.

Here we provide detailed background information on this most recent recovery planning process, as understanding the science and strategy behind the habitat network recommended in the recovery plan is integral to understanding the revised critical habitat designation.
2006 to 2008 Recovery Planning Process for the Northern Spotted Owl

In April 2006, we convened an interdisciplinary, interagency Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Team (Recovery Team) to incorporate the most recent scientific information into a final recovery plan for the species. The Recovery Team sought input from northern spotted owl experts on the main threats to the northern spotted owl population; these experts identified three primary threats to the species: competition from barred owls, past habitat loss, and current habitat loss. The Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl was released in April 2007 (72 FR 20865). Following a 90day public comment period and a series of public meetings in California, Oregon, and Washington, we received more than 75, 000 public comments. In addition, we collaborated with the American Ornithologists' Union and the Society for Conservation Biology to conduct two sets of blind peer reviews, and requested and received additional independent peer reviews of the 2007 draft recovery plan from scientists with expertise regarding the northern spotted owl and its habitat. We initiated the revisions to the draft recovery plan in October 2007, and contracted a consultant, SEI, to assist with review of
[[Page 47327]]
the science and peer review comments on the recovery plan, and convened expert panel workgroups on barred owls, habitat issues, and fire ecology to evaluate and respond to technical issues and to evaluate the recommendations of SEI. The final recovery plan, substantially revised from the original draft, was released in May 2008. Revisions from the draft recovery plan included the elimination of Option 2, the ``rule set'' option for siting of conservation areas, as well as the addition of more recent modeling work to evaluate the size and spacing criteria of the recommended reserve network.

The final recovery plan identifies competition with the barred owl, ongoing loss of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvest and catastrophic fire, and loss of amount and distribution of suitable habitat as a result of past activities and disturbances as the most important rangewide threats to the northern spotted owl. The final recovery plan describes a variety of recovery actions to address these threats and recover the species, concentrating primarily on habitat conservation, habitat management, and barred owl control (USFWS 2008, p. 12), following a strategy designed for evaluation and adaptive management over the next 10 years (USFWS 2008, pp. VIII to IX). Of these actions, it is Recovery Action 4 that forms the foundation of this critical habitat designation: ``Establish a network of MOCAs (as presented in Appendices C and D) that are of sufficient size and spacing to achieve longterm recovery of spotted owls'' (USFWS 2008, p. 20). Although the recovery plan speaks to the potential contributions of various lands to the conservation of the owl, it is the MOCA network that is specifically identified as representing those ``areas that contain or will develop suitable habitat considered essential for spotted owl recovery'' (USFWS 2008, p. 13). As section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat, in part, as those specific areas that provide the physical and biological features determined to be essential to the conservation of the species, we have designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl on the basis of the MOCA network.

The 2008 final recovery plan specifically delineates MOCAs in the westside provinces occupied by the northern spotted owl (Western Washington Cascades, Western Oregon Cascades, Western Washington Lowlands, Olympic Peninsula, and Oregon Coast Range) and adopts a broader scale landscape management strategy without defined boundaries in the eastside provinces (USFWS 2008; p. 9, p. 14, Appendices C and D). The recovery plan recognized the need for an adaptive management approach in the Klamath provinces, but recommends a MOCA network for these provinces as an interim strategy that isexpected to change following the work of the Dry Forest Landscape Workgroup (USFWS 2008, p. 24).

The MOCA network is a set of large habitat blocks, each capable of supporting 20 or more breeding pairs of owls (MOCA 1s), and smaller habitat blocks capable of supporting up to 19 breeding pairs of owls (MOCA 2s). The MOCA strategy is founded on the concepts and information first presented in ``A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl, compiled by the Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl'' (hereafter ``ISC Report''; Thomas et al. 1990). The 1992 Final Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 1992) reflected the ISC Report in its focus on managing large blocks of suitable habitat throughout the range of the northern spotted owl that could support selfsustaining populations of 20 breeding pairs, and spacing the blocks and managing between them to permit movement between the blocks. The ISC Report initially delineated and mapped a network of Habitat Conservation Areas, which were modified into Designated Conservation Areas (DCAs) in the 1992 final draft recovery plan. In 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) amended 26 land resource management plans (LRMPs) of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to provide a network of landuse allocations identified as Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) to provide habitat for multiple latesuccessional forest species, including the northern spotted owl. In 2004, a comprehensive scientific review confirmed that this reserve strategy designed for the northern spotted owl is based on sound scientific principles that have not substantially changed since the species was listed (Courtney et al. 2004). Additionally, more recent modeling by Marcot et al. (2008) has reaffirmed the size and spacing criteria utilized in the final MOCA network (summarized in USFWS 2008, pp. 76 to 81).

One of the significant departures in the 2008 final recovery plan, as revised from the 2007 draft recovery plan, is that it eliminates the MOCA system on the dry forest provinces east of the Cascade Mountain crest in Washington and Oregon where habitat loss from standreplacing fires has been relatively high. These areas have a natural pattern of frequent, natural disturbances that preclude the longterm persistence and effectiveness of any static habitat management areas (Agee 2003; Spies et al. 2006). An independent scientific panel advised that a simple reserve network of MOCAs failed to adequately address the eastside fire threats and the maintenance of spotted owl habitat in dry forests cannot rely on static reserves in such a highrisk landscape (USFWS 2008, p. 108; see also Courtney et al. 2008, pp. 53 to 72). Consequently, in the Eastern Washington Cascades, Eastern Oregon Cascades, and California Cascades provinces, the 2008 final recovery plan describes a habitat management strategy that seeks to identify and maintain welldistributed, spatially dynamic patches of high quality habitat, manage the lands outside of high quality patches to restore ecological processes and functions, and reduce the potential of stand replacement fires and insect and disease outbreaks; the plan does not delineate specific, mapped conservation areas (USFWS 2008, p. 21). The recovery plan also calls for a study of how to best address the fire prone, but more complex habitat, of the Klamath province (USFWS 2008, pp. 23 to 25).

The landscape strategy of moving habitat patches recommended for the eastside provinces does not translate easily into critical habitat, which is defined by statute as ``specific areas'' and which, per our implementing regulations, must ``be defined by specific limits using reference points and lines as found on standard topographic maps of the area'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A) and 50 CFR 424.12(c)). Consequently, the areas identified for designation in the proposed critical habitat (72 FR 32450), which were based on the MOCAs identified for that region in the 2007 draft recovery plan, are finalized in this rule. These areas meet the criteria regarding contiguity, habitat quality, size, spacing, and distribution used to identify critical habitat within the range of the northern spotted owl, and represent the most current specific areas designed for the conservation of the northern spotted owl that also meet the delineation requirements for critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12). Many of these areas have been designated as LSRs, or are managed under LRMPs to develop the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of northern spotted owl habitat. However, as the Service, land management agencies, and scientists work together to implement the landscapebased habitat management strategy described in the 2008 final recovery plan for the fireprone
[[Page 47328]]
provinces, we may consider adjustments to critical habitat to better reflect the results of that effort.

The MOCA network identified in the 2008 Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008), and the MOCAs identified for the eastside provinces under Option 1 of the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2007), serve as the basis for this revised critical habitat designation. The 2008 final recovery plan concludes that the habitat needs for recovery of the northern spotted owl in the United States can be achieved by managing for appropriate habitat on Federal lands within the range of the species, with voluntary recovery measures on intervening nonFederal lands. As in the 1992 designation, we have included only Federal lands in the revised designation. The 2008 final recovery plan focuses on managing large blocks of habitat in designated conservation areas (MOCAs) on Federal lands in the westside provinces throughout the range of the spotted owl and spacing the blocks and managing the areas between them to permit movement of spotted owls between and among the blocks (USFWS 2008, p. 70).

The Federal lands comprising the MOCA network of the final recovery plan include areas of congressionallyreserved lands, such as designated wilderness areas; these areas were therefore included in the recovery plan's assessment that the MOCA network is sufficient to achieve the recovery of the northern spotted owl As in the 1992 designation of critical habitat, congressionallyreserved lands such as wilderness areas and national parks are not included within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. However, the contribution of these congressionallyreserved areas must be considered in any evaluation of the sufficiency of the overall conservation habitat network for the recovery of 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 a final rule designating 6, 887, 000 acres (2, 787, 000 ha) of Federal lands in Washington, Oregon, and California as 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 (USFWS 1992). This plan was never finalized, however, and a new draft recovery plan was released in April of 2007 (USFWS 2007; 72 FR 20865). The final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl was released on May 16, 2008 (USFWS 2008).

On January 13, 2003, we entered into a settlement agreement with the American Forest Resources Council, Western Council of Industrial Workers, Swanson Group Inc., and Rough & Ready Lumber Company to conduct a 5year status review of the northern spotted owl and consider potential revisions to its critical habitat. On April 21, 2003, we published a notice initiating the 5year review of the northern spotted owl (68 FR 19569). We then published a second information request for the 5year 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 5year 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 5year review on November 15, 2004, concluding that the northern spotted owl should remain listed as a threatened species under the Act (USFWS 2004).

As amended, the settlement agreement called for the Service to submit any proposed revised critical habitat designation we deemed appropriate to the Federal Register by June 1, 2007, and to submit any final revised critical habitat designation, as appropriate, to the Federal Register by July 30, 2008. The settlement agreement required that the review of critical habitat would include a revised consideration of economic and other impacts. The proposed revised critical habitat rule was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32450). On May 21, 2008, we published a notice announcing the availability of a draft economic analysis and the reopening of the public comment period on the proposed revised critical habitat designation (73 FR 29471). This notice also alerted the public of the opportunity to comment on the proposed revision of critical habitat in the context of the recently released final recovery plan. The comment period closed on June 20, 2008.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed revision of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl in the proposed rule published on June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32450). We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; tribes; scientific organizations; and other interested parties, and invited them to comment on the proposed rule.

We conducted two comment periods that resulted in 1, 413 comments directly addressing the proposed revised critical habitat designation. Of these, 1, 138 were template or form letter responses. During the comment period that opened for the draft economic analysis on May 21, 2008, and closed on June 20, 2008, we received seven additional comments directly addressing the proposed revised critical habitat designation.

Comments received were grouped into related topics specific to the proposed critical habitat revision for the northern spotted owl and are addressed in the following summary and incorporated in the final rule as appropriate. We received one request for a public hearing, but this was later withdrawn.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and current Departmental guidance, we solicited expert opinions from nine knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and/or conservation biology principles. We received responses from six of these individuals. We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding northern spotted owl critical habitat, and address them in the following summary.
Peer Review Comments
(1) Comment: Three peer reviewers recommended that the Service not rely on the 2007 draft recovery plan as the basis for critical habitat designation. One reviewer notes that we continue to rely on the 2007 draft recovery plan as the best scientific information available, stating that it is the most current assessment and conservation guidance, but not necessarily the best. Two reviewers questioned whether the reduction of more than 1.5 million acres was consistent with the best scientific understanding of the species' conservation needs, and asked how we can justify dropping critical habitat from the current designation when the species is continuing to decline. One reviewer pointed to the work of Carroll and Johnson (in press), which indicates the current proposal will result in reduced habitat as well as reduced abundance of owls.

[[Page 47329]]

Our Response: The revised critical habitat is based on the final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (with the exception of critical habitat in the eastside provinces, which are based on the Option 1 MOCAs of the draft recovery plan (USFWS 2007), for reasons detailed in the Background section), which describes the habitat needed to recover the species using the best available scientific information integrated with an assessment of the needs for recovery of the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2008). This final plan reflects substantial revisions to the 2007 draft plan made in response to public and peer review comments, as well as additional independent scientific review. The network of habitat blocks recommended by the recovery plan represents the habitat component of the recovery strategy for the northern spotted owl and serves as the foundation of this critical habitat designation. The MOCA 1s are designed to provide for the management of large blocks of habitat throughout the range of the owl sufficient to each support selfsustaining populations of at least 20 pairs of spotted owls, while the MOCA 2s are designed for smaller populations. The spacing of the blocks and management of the areas between them are intended to permit the movement of spotted owls between these habitat blocks (USFWS 2008, Appendix C). These areas were identified based on the best available information, including modeling conducted for the 1992 draft recovery plan (published subsequently as Lamberson et al. 1994) and more recent habitat modeling conducted specifically for the 2008 final recovery plan, which estimated occupancy levels given habitat sizing and spacing variations (Marcot et al. 2008). Based on this scientific data and modeling, we believe the recovery strategy described in the final recovery plan will be effective, and the habitat conservation areas delineated in that plan and identified as essential to the conservation of the species serve as the basis for this critical habitat designation.

Similar to the reserve network of the Northwest Forest Plan, the MOCAs delineated in the final recovery plan include congressionally reserved areas, such as wilderness areas and national park lands. These areas were considered in evaluating the effectiveness of the MOCA network in providing the habitat component of recovery for the northern spotted owl, but consistent with the Secretary's decision in our 1992 critical habitat designation, these congressionallyreserved areas are not included in this designation. For this reason, the acreage in designated critical habitat will be less than that in the MOCA network.

It is important to note that this critical habitat reflects only the habitat element of the final recovery plan, i.e., the establishment of the MOCA network under Recovery Action 4 (USFWS 2008, p. 20). Other factors that may play a role in achieving the recovery of the northern spotted owl, such as management of barred owls, are not necessarily reflected in this critical habitat designation. The recovery plan identifies several threats that may be contributing to the ongoing decline of the northern spotted owl, including barred owls and avian disease. In addition to the establishment of the MOCA network, the final recovery plan describes 33 additional recovery actions to address a variety of threats (USFWS 2008, pp. 17 to 35). Critical habitat represents one component of recovery.

The work of Carroll and Johnson (in press) evaluated, in part, the proposed revision of critical habitat, which in turn was based on the habitat network recommended in the 2007 draft recovery plan (USFWS 2007). This final revision of critical habitat is based upon the MOCA network recommended in the final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008). We acknowledge that the final MOCAs cover fewer acres than the LSRs in the same provinces, as Carroll and Johnson point out. We note that LSRs were delineated for multiple latesuccessional species, and not just the northern spotted owl. However, the key question is whether the final MOCAs (and the critical habitat designation based on those MOCAs) are sufficient to provide the habitat component of recovery for the species.

The size and spacing of the final MOCAs are derived from consideration of the collective work of several authors (e.g., Thomas et al. 1990; USDA et al. 1993; Lamberson et al. 1994; Noon and McKelvey 1996; Forsman et al. 2002) and on more recent modeling work (Marcot et al. 2008) contracted specifically for the final northern spotted owl recovery plan. Our consideration of all of the modeling data evaluating the likelihood of longterm persistence of the northern spotted owl population across its range, as well as plan feasibility and likelihood of implementation, led the final recovery plan to the recommendation of the final MOCA network in westside provinces and landscape management strategy in the fireprone eastside provinces. These are considered sufficient to achieve the recovery of the northern spotted owl, in conjunction with the other recovery actions identified in the recovery plan (USFWS 2008, p. VIII).
(2) Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that the proposed revised critical habitat rule ignored a large number of scientific papers on the northern spotted owl published since the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990), and specifically overlooked the work of Noon and McKelvey (1996) suggesting that managing for clusters of 20 pairs of spotted owls is not sufficient for longterm population stability.

Our Response: The revised critical habitat is based on the 2008 final recovery plan, which is based on the consideration of all of the best available science, including recent studies on spotted owl habitat size, spacing and occupancy modeling, and all other documents published since the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990), either through specific analysis or through the work of recent reviews (e.g., status review (Courtney et al. 2004), northern spotted owl 5year review (USFWS 2004)). We contracted with SEI for a detailed scientific review of the 2007 draft recovery plan, as well as to provide assistance with responses to specific public comments and peer review comments on scientific and technical issues. This information, as well as other scientific information and comments received on the 2007 draft recovery plan, was used in the development of the 2008 final recovery plan.

Relative to the specific paper mentioned, Noon and McKelvey (1996), the authors state that their recent modeling data support perhaps 30 to 40 spotted owl pairs per conservation area. The data supporting this statement were never published, however. The final recovery plan did, to the extent possible, consider the work of Noon and McKelvey (1996) amongst all of the modeling efforts evaluated in the delineation and evaluation of the MOCA network (USFWS 2008, pp. 74 to 75, p. 81). We contracted more recent modeling of the block size and spacing necessary for spotted owl recovery (Marcot et al. 2008), which included the most recent spotted owl dispersal data (see ``2008 Modeling of Size of MOCAs and Distances Between MOCAs, '' USFWS 2008, pp. 76 to 81). Based on the best available data on block size and spacing, including the results of Noon and McKelvey (1996) and Marcot et al. (2008), we believe a level of population persistence reasonable to achieve recovery is attained by habitat blocks large enough for at least 20 reproducing spotted owl pairs. The 2008 final recovery plan, on which critical habitat is based, does provide more than the
[[Page 47330]]
minimum level of habitat for 20 pairs in some areas, with 23 MOCAs (over half of the MOCA 1s) large enough to support at least 30 spotted owl pairs, as recommended by Noon and McKelvey (1996) (using the calculation from the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990) and final recovery plan (USFWS 2008)). The critical habitat designation includes both the MOCA 1s and MOCA 2s identified in the final recovery plan.

It is important to note that the goal of the most recent modeling efforts by Marcot et al. (2008) was not to identify the number of owl pairs needed per habitat block, but rather to identify the amount and relative configuration of habitat that would be needed to maintain a stable population of spotted owls over the long term. To answer this question, they modeled several different numbers of owl pairs, from 4 to 49 per habitat unit, with those habitat units at various distances from one another (USFWS 2008, pp. 76 to 81). The hexagonal design of the model limited the numbers of pairs that could be evaluated such that the simulation of round numbers, such as 10 or 20 pairs, was not possible; this modeling effort was therefore limited to assessments of 4, 9, 25, 36, and 49 pairs of owls per habitat block. Accordingly, to evaluate the results of the model for the target number of 20 owl pairs, the recovery plan concludes that simple interpolation suggests that a cluster size of 20 territories per cluster would fare only slightly worse than that of 25 territories per cluster (USFWS 2008, p. 77). This assumption led to the final determination that, given a population with a finite rate of population growth ([lgr]) equal to 1, clusters of 20 pairs of owls in habitat blocks of the size and spacing recommended in the final MOCA network had a high likelihood of remaining stable over a time period of 100 years. Examination of the modeling data shows that at the spacing of habitat blocks recommended in the final recovery plan (12 miles (mi) (19 kilometers (km)) for large habitat blocks, or MOCA 1s), the likelihood of longterm persistence of owls in habitat blocks was essentially the same whether they supported 25, 36, or 49 pairs of owls (Figures C1, C2, and C3, USFWS 2008, pp. 79 to 81). In other words, at the spacing recommended by the recovery plan, there did not appear to be any significant benefit to managing for more than 20 pairs of owls per habitat block in terms of achieving longterm persistence of populations.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that Zielinski et al. (2006) describe an approach to finding an optimal reserve network that would be appropriate to use over the entire range of the northern spotted owl.

Our Response: The revised critical habitat is based on the habitat reserve system in the 2008 final recovery plan, which is in turn based on the 1992 draft recovery plan reserve system that covers the entire U.S. range of the northern spotted owl. The Zielinski et al. (2006) model has been applied to only a limited portion of the range of the species, which is inadequate for the critical habitat effort. We believe the reserve network recommended in the 2008 final recovery plan, as revised from the 2007 draft plan, is based on the best available science, including recent information on spotted owl habitat size, spacing, and occupancy from modeling.
(4) Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned the scientific basis for changing the boundaries of existing reserves on BLM lands and questioned whether habitat quality was considered when DCA boundary adjustments were made.

Our Response: The revised critical habitat is based on the MOCA reserve system in the 2008 final recovery plan, which describes the habitat areas and amount believed to be essential to the recovery of the northern spotted owl. The MOCAs were based on the DCAs from the 1992 draft recovery plan, with some modifications. A key criterion for these DCAs, which formed the starting place for the final MOCA network, was the inclusion of as much highquality habitat as possible, as well as maximizing the number of known spotted owl sites, within an effective and efficient system of habitat blocks (USFWS 2008, p. 69). Modifications to the boundaries were largely an effort to better align MOCAs with the reserve allocations in the BLM and U.S. Forest Service land use plans, to meet or maintain the spacing requirements, or to include areas where BLM modeling demonstrated future habitat was most likely to form into large or small blocks of habitat capable of supporting larger clusters of reproducing spotted owls (USFWS 2008, pp. 82 to 83). During all of these modifications we attempted to maximize the amount and quality of existing spotted owl habitat in any added areas, and we maintained the size and spacing parameters of the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990). The recovery team worked with maps of spotted owl habitat produced by Biomapper, which include lands that meet the criterion of providing habitat with a suitability score equal to or greater than that used by 90 percent of known spotted owl pairs (Davis and Lint 2005, p. 41). In addition, we contracted to have the size and spacing criteria reanalyzed (Marcot et al. 2008) using the most recent spotted owl dispersal data and demographic parameters. Based on these results, we believe that the size and spacing of the habitat blocks that comprise the MOCA network, on which the critical habitat units are based, are sufficient to achieve the habitat component of the recovery strategy for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2008, p. 81).
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that we use predictive habitat modeling to determine areas of high value to owls (especially for nesting and roosting) that may not currently be surveyed.

Our Response: The critical habitat units are based on the MOCA system from the 2008 final recovery plan (or, in the eastside provinces, the Option 1 MOCAs from the 2007 draft recovery plan), which was established and modified to include spotted owl habitat and known historic spotted owl locations. By trying to maximize spotted owl habitat within the MOCAs, and therefore also within the critical habitat units, we believe we have effectively maximized the acres of PCEs present within each critical habitat unit. In addition, forest age and composition information has been collected in many of the areas identified as MOCAs. We also used the latest habitat models available, such as those described by Davis and Lint (2005) and the models developed by BLM for their Western Oregon Plan Revision analyses, to predict those areas of habitat that are of high value to owls, even if not currently surveyed.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that there was no scientifically valid justification for continuing to rely only on Federal lands for recovery of the northern spotted owl, especially in the face of continuing population declines despite the 1992 critical habitat designation and 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994), and with no concomitant increase in habitat quality.

Our Response: The revised designation of northern spotted owl critical habitat is based on the MOCAs from the 2008 final recovery plan, which form a habitat network designed to contribute to the recovery of spotted owl populations through rangewide distribution and connectivity of blocks of habitat. The 2008 final recovery plan is based on the best available science, including recent information on spotted owl habitat size, spacing, and occupancy modeling and provides for a level of owl dispersal and persistence within a Federal land based MOCA system that is expected to contribute to
[[Page 47331]]
the habitat component requisite for the recovery of the species (USFWS 2008, p. 18). It has long been recognized that the vast majority of remaining suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl, over 90 percent in Oregon and Washington, is on Federal lands (e.g., Thomas et al. 1990, p. 65; USFWS 1992, p. 31); thus conservation actions have focused on these areas.

Nonfederal lands, described as Conservation Support Areas in the 2008 final recovery plan, are recognized as providing additional habitat contributions and support to the MOCA system; although recognized as potentially helpful in achieving recovery plan goals, these areas were not considered essential to the conservation of the species (USFWS 2008, p. 14). The recovery plan identifies only the specific areas of the MOCA network, which is entirely based on Federal lands, as essential to the conservation of the species (USFWS 2008, p. 13); thus the MOCA network serves as the basis of this critical habitat designation. In addition, the recovery criteria set forth in the recovery plan consider the successful performance of the MOCA network as one of the indicators that recovery has been achieved, but do not require the contributions of Conservation Support Areas as an essential component of recovery (USFWS 2008, p. 18). That Conservation Support Areas were not considered strictly essential to the conservation of the species should not be interpreted as meaning that these areas are unimportant for the species; these lands simply did not meet the more exacting statutory definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, which specifies that areas designated as critical habitat must have the physical and biological features which are essential to the species' conservation.

We believe that the habitat network recommended in the final recovery plan will be sufficient to recover the northern spotted owl, assuming the currently observed negative population trend has been addressed. As noted in the recovery plan, if negative population growth continues, the population will continue to decline regardless of how much habitat is available (USFWS 2008, p. 77). Population declines have been attributed to a variety of factors in addition to loss of habitat from wildfire and timber harvest, including barred owls, poor weather conditions, and forest defoliation caused by insect infestations (Anthony et al. 2006, p. 33). Thus one key to recovery is to reverse the current population trend, which is one of the goals of the recovery plan, and which will require actions to address a variety of threats in addition to habitat loss or degradation. The evidence thus far points to low adult survivorship as the most likely contributor to the declining population trend (Anthony et al. 2006, p. 30, and references therein), and the most recent scientific review points to the barred owl as a plausible cause of low survivorship in many parts of the northern spotted owl's range, while noting that there is no evidence that actions such as increasing the size of habitat reserves would increase survivorship (Courtney et al. 2008, pp. 120 to 121). At present the best available scientific information indicates that the revised critical habitat designation provides the network of large blocks of habitat called for by the recovery plan; we consider these areas sufficient to achieve the recovery of the northern spotted owl, in conjunction with the other recovery actions in the final recovery plan (USFWS 2008, pp. VII to VIII)
(7) Comment: Three peer reviewers expressed concern about several aspects of Option 2 of the draft recovery plan, including the lack of specificity on the rule set for small blocks, the need for a more specific description of suitable habitat, and concerns about the clarity of the rule set.

Our Response: Option 2 has been deleted from the 2008 Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. This final revised critical habitat designation does not rely on any aspect of Option 2 presented in the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl.
(8) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the implication of deviating from ISC Report principles (Thomas et al. 1990) in terms of amounts and location of habitat in the proposed critical habitat and stated that the proposal did not provide additional modeling or further analysis to justify the change. He also cautioned that the viability conclusions from the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990) may not hold for the current proposed critical habitat.

Our Response: This critical habitat designation is based on the recovery plan MOCA system, which was delineated starting with the location and size of the DCAs from the 1992 draft recovery plan, which in turn applied the principles of the ISC Report (USFWS 2008, Appendix C). As part of establishing the MOCA network, some modifications were made to the DCAs to better align them with the reserve allocations in the BLM and U.S. Forest Service land use plans (e.g., LSRs), to meet or maintain the spacing requirements, or to include areas where BLM modeling demonstrated future habitat was most likely to form into large or small blocks of habitat capable of supporting larger clusters of reproducing spotted owls. In the process of making these modifications the recovery team attempted to maximize the amount of existing spotted owl habitat in any added areas, while maintaining the size and spacing parameters of the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990).

After publication of the proposed critical habitat revision in 2007, we contracted to have the size and spacing criteria reanalyzed using the most recent spotted owl dispersal and demographic data in the course of revising the draft recovery plan (Marcot et al. 2008). The subsequently revised habitat network of the final recovery plan served as the basis for this final revision of critical habitat. Based on this most recent analysis, in conjunction with consideration of all other available data (e.g., Thomas et al. 1990; USFWS 1992; Lamberson et al. 1994; USDA and USDI 1994; Noon and McKelvey 1996; Forsman et al. 2002), we believe that the specific habitat component of recovery is achievable through the MOCA network on which this revised critical habitat designation is based (USFWS 2008, p. 81).
(9) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that the critical habitat proposal did not include an analysis of the value of the habitat being designated. He stated that we could not justify reduction in habitat unless we can demonstrate a clear increase in quality of that habitat.

Our Response: The original critical habitat designation was based on the information in the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990), and was designated early in the process of determining how to best implement the concepts in that report. As described in the rule, the 1992 critical habitat included not only the reserves identified in the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990), but also included additional areas outside of these reserves. These additions included areas of better quality suitable habitat, as well as areas designed to support connectivity and habitat linkages between and within provinces, and were expanded to section lines to facilitate legal descriptions. The MOCAs in the 2008 final recovery plan represent the application of the same concepts, but with better information on habitat, habitat use, and known sites, including the results of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (USDA et al. 1993) that informed the Northwest Forest Plan. While this final critical
[[Page 47332]]
habitat contains less area than the 1992 critical habitat designation, we believe it represents the application of the same conservation principles necessary for achieving the recovery of the northern spotted owl. Furthermore, recent modeling work (Marcot et al. 2008) indicates that the size and spacing criteria utilized in the final recovery plan should be sufficient to achieve the recovery criterion set forth for the MOCA network (Recovery Criterion 2), assuming the root cause of negative population growth has been addressed (USFWS 2008, p. 18). (10) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the proposed revision of critical habitat does not define the quality of habitat for owls, which may vary by forest condition. He recommended that the Service clarify that, while northern spotted owls do not exclusively require old growth, they do preferentially select oldgrowth forest.

Our Response: Numerous studies and reviews over the past decades describe how spotted owls generally rely on older forested habitats (e.g. Carroll and Johnson, in press; Courtney et al. 2004) because such forests contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, and foraging, and the recent SEI review notes that there is an association between demographic performance of northern spotted owls and the availability of late successional oldgrowth forest (SEI 2008, p. 11). However, because northern spotted owls also use mature and structurally diverse forests, we did not limit our discussion to strictly oldgrowth. Oldgrowth forests meet the description of PCEs (i), (ii), and (iii), and would be included in any analysis of effects of actions to critical habitat.
(11) Comment: One peer reviewer notes that there is not a clear relationship between habitat quality and demographic performance; therefore the amount of critical habitat may have little impact on the longterm viability of the owl population.

Our Response: It is clear that without a sufficient area of habitat the spotted owl will not reach recovery (e.g., Courtney et al. 2008, p. 16; USFWS 2008, p. VII). Therefore, we have used all the best scientific information available since the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990) to establish a system of critical habitat units designed to provide sufficient habitat, representing all of the PCEs, well distributed across the range of the spotted owl to ensure its survival and recovery. Other actions, such as potential control of barred owls, will also play a role in improving the demographic performance of the species. Such actions do not, however, preclude the need for management of sufficient suitable habitat in dynamic dry forest landscapes and the establishment of the MOCA network as essential elements of the recovery strategy for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2008, p. 12). We believe that the habitat network recommended in the final recovery plan will be sufficient to recover the northern spotted owl, assuming the currently observed negative population trend has been addressed. As noted in the recovery plan, if negative population growth continues, the population will continue to decline regardless of how much habitat is available (USFWS 2008, p. 77). Population declines have been attributed to a variety of factors in addition to loss of habitat from wildfire and timber harvest, including barred owls, poor weather conditions, and forest defoliation caused by insect infestations (Anthony et al. 2006, p. 33). Thus one key to recovery is to stabilize population growth, which is one of the goals of the recovery plan, and which will require actions to address a variety of threats in addition to habitat loss or degradation. The evidence thus far points to low adult survivorship as the most likely contributor to the declining population trend (Anthony et al. 2006, p. 30, and references therein), and the most recent scientific review points to the barred owl as a plausible cause of low survivorship in many parts of the northern spotted owl's range, while noting that there is no evidence that actions such as increasing the size of habitat reserves would increase survivorship (Courtney et al. 2008, pp. 120 to 121). In sum, at present the best available scientific information indicates that the revised critical habitat designation provides the network of large habitat blocks called for in the recovery plan; however, to be fully effective this habitat network must operate in conjunction with the implementation of all recovery actions identified in the recovery plan (USFWS 2008, pp. VII to VIII). (12) Comment: Three peer reviewers questioned how, if northern spotted owl populations are declining across its range, can reducing the amount of critical habitat, as proposed, lead to recovery?

Our Response: In determining which areas to propose as critical habitat within the area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we consider the physical and biological features (i.e., PCEs) that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations and protection. Critical habitat addresses one component of spotted owl recovery, but it is not intended to be the only tool for recovery. The species may continue to face non habitat threats regardless of how much critical habitat is designated (e.g., Courtney et al. 2008, p. 120; USFWS 2008, p. VII). Population modeling indicates that the maintenance and restoration of habitat as described in the 2008 final recovery plan, upon which this critical habitat revision is based, is adequate to support welldistributed populations of reproducing spotted owl pairs over the long term to achieve recovery of the species (Marcot et al. 2008). An important element of the model for this reserve system is that it must assume a stable population (a finite rate of population growth, or [lgr], of 1), otherwise a declining population will eventually proceed to extinction no matter how large the reserves are (USFWS 2008, p. 77). Increasing adult survivorship appears to be the key factor in achieving population stability for the northern spotted owl (Anthony et al. 2006, p. 30; Courtney et al. 2008, p. 120; USFWS 2008, p. 47, p. 77). The most recent scientific review of the draft recovery plan acknowledges that there is no evidence to suggest that increasing the size of habitat reserves would alter adult survivorship, and points to control of barred owls as a more likely means of increasing the survivorship of spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2008, pp. 120 to 121). Reducing the currently observed population decline of the northern spotted owl is one of the key shortterm strategies of the final recovery plan, which invokes recovery actions such as potential control of barred owls in addition to the protection of habitat to achieve this goal (USFWS 2008, pp. 12 to 15).
(13) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the requirement of adequate habitat for dispersal is not very useful without some quantification of what is `adequate.'

Our Response: In the revision of northern spotted owl critical habitat, we state that ``...the provision of adequate habitat to provide for successful dispersal is essential to the conservation of the species.'' This is not a description of the PCE or a requirement of critical habitat, but rather a description of the general function of the PCE. We have made some changes in the regulatory language describing the PCEs to clarify the habitat components necessary to this PCE. In addition, whether there is adequate dispersal habitat would be a determination made during an Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) section 7 consultation and would be based, in part, on the baseline
[[Page 47333]]
condition of critical habitat and any noted deficiencies in dispersal condition.
(14) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that although the critical habitat rule describes one of the PCEs to include the appropriate amount and spatial arrangement of nesting habitat, we never described what that amount and arrangement is.

Our Response: We used the best available scientific information to determine the PCEs for northern spotted owl critical habitat. Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) require us to list the known PCEs for the species; we have listed and described those PCEs to the best of our understanding. PCEs in critical habitat can include a variety of types and scales of features. Because the individual components of forest stands that serve as northern spotted owl habitat vary across the range, we could not describe each potential combination that would lead to habitat supporting territorial and dispersing northern spotted owls. As noted repeatedly in the recent Scientific Review of the Draft Northern Owl Recovery Plan, there is tremendous regional variation in the ecology of the northern spotted owl and the importance of various factors determining the viability of the species throughout its range (Courtney et al. 2008, p. 16); thus prescriptions for recovery of the northern spotted owl must of necessity be locally specific (Courtney et al. 2008, p. 22). However, we have revised the final rule to clarify the PCEs where possible.
(15) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the reasons for the reduction in relatively large areas of the designated critical habitat in some areas (e.g., eastern Washington and western Oregon Cascades) because it was not clear how the reasons for changes described in the rule apply to these areas. The areas are not above the elevation limit of the species and contain habitat for the spotted owl.

Our Response: The 1992 critical habitat rule was completed without the benefit of a final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl and drew heavily on the concepts from the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990) and its recommended reserves. In the 1992 rule, we expanded the application of the ISC reserve concept to address uncertainties relative to connectivity, include larger areas of fairly unfragmented existing habitat and areas of high quality habitat within or adjacent to the ISC reserves, and facilitate legal boundary descriptions. This resulted in the designation of more than 1 million acres of critical habitat beyond the initial ISC reserve boundaries. Over the past decades, we have benefited from additional information and experience with the application and implementation of the large block concepts of the ISC strategy, thereby reducing the previous uncertainty and improving our understanding of the areas essential for the conservation of the northern spotted owl. The amount of habitat in this final rule is based upon the best available information, including the modeling conducted for the 1992 draft recovery plan (Lamberson et al. 1994) as well as more recent habitat modeling estimating occupancy levels given habitat sizing and spacing variations conducted for the 2008 final recovery plan (Marcot et al. 2008).
(16) Comment: Two peer reviewers requested a clarification of the role of various habitats, pointing out that nesting and roosting habitat also provide for foraging and dispersal, foraging habitat also provides for dispersal, and dispersal habitat is primarily limited to dispersal only.

Our Response: We have clarified this in the preamble to the final rule.
(17) Comment: One peer reviewer asked if dispersal habitat would be considered critical habitat, given that dispersal habitat was not mapped and distances between blocks were increased to the maximum.

Our Response: Spotted owl dispersal habitat is described in PCE (iii) and is critical habitat where it occurs within the critical habitat unit boundaries described in the rule. Habitat described in PCE (ii) will also function for dispersal. Dispersal habitat outside of the designated areas is not critical habitat because it is not essential to the conservation of the species. This is because the recovery plan provides for northern spotted owl dispersal through the appropriate spacing of MOCAs. The distances between critical habitat units were designed to be within 12 mi (19 km) for large critical habitat units (those capable of supporting 20 or more spotted owl pairs) and within 7 mi (11 km) for small critical habitat units (those capable of supporting fewer than 20 spotted owl pairs), as outlined in the ISC Report (Thomas et al. 1990). As part of the most recent recovery planning process, we reanalyzed those dispersal distances using updated dispersal data (USFWS 2008, p. 75) and found no basis for modifying those distances. Dispersal between critical habitat units is anticipated to occur under current forest management; thus we did not consider it necessary to designate these areas as critical habitat. The dispersal habitat identified here under PCE (iii) occurs within the critical habitat units with those physical and biological features determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. (18) Comment: One peer reviewer asked if the habitat quality criteria were applied to congressionallyreserved or administratively withdrawn lands in the selection process. Many such areas at high elevations are of relatively little value to spotted owls.

Our Response: When the MOCAs were established, the recovery team attempted to maximize the amount of habitatcapable acres and acres of existing spotted owl habitat, even when including areas that were congressionallyreserved (e.g., wilderness areas) or administratively withdrawn (e.g., recreational areas not scheduled for timber harvest). We also limited critical habitat to areas within the anticipated elevation limit of spotted owls. In designating critical habitat based on the MOCAs, we did not include congressionallyreserved lands within the MOCAs, as in our 1992 designation, but did include administratively withdrawn areas.
(19) Comment: Three peer reviewers wrote that the critical habitat designation should incorporate the potential effects of barred owls, which reduce or eliminate the value of habitats for the spotted owl. The feasibility of managing barred owls may impact the location and amount of critical habitat. One reviewer suggested that the 1992 critical habitat units should be maintained, even if this exceeds the current MOCA network, to allow northern spotted owls within currently reserved areas to compete with barred owls.

Our Response: We agree that the feasibility of managing barred owls may affect the recovery of the spotted owl. The 2008 final recovery plan reaffirmed that the barred owl poses one of the most important threats to the northern spotted owl, and considered whether additional habitat may be needed to address the barred owl threat. The final recovery plan recommended the establishment of the MOCA network, which serves as the basis of this critical habitat designation, in addition to potential barred owl control and management of the dryforest landscape in the eastside provinces, as essential elements of the recovery strategy for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2008, p. 12). The MOCAs represent the habitat that the recovery plan recognized as essential for the recovery of the species (USFWS 2008, p. 13); hence this critical habitat designation is based on that reserve network. Although the larger MOCAs (MOCA 1s) are designed to support a minimum of 20 pairs of owls,
[[Page 47334]]
nearly half of the large MOCAs are large enough to support over 30 pairs of spotted owls, providing for some level of exclusion by barred owls while still meeting the size necessary for 20 or more spotted owl pairs.

Recovery Action 32 of the final recovery plan also called for a shortterm strategy of maintaining substantially all of the older and more structurally complex multilayered conifer forests outside of MOCAs in the westside provinces of the spotted owl's range, allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. Providing habitat for the northern spotted owl may then lend itself to provide additional support for reducing the threat from the barred owl (USFWS 2008, pp. 34 to 35). However, the recovery plan acknowledges that forest stands that may potentially meet the intent of this shortterm management strategy have not yet been defined or identified (USFWS 2008, p. 34). Whether any of this habitat should be designated as critical habitat may be further considered as it is delineated.
(20) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned statements in the proposed revision of northern spotted owl critical habitat that enhancing juvenile survivorship would play an important role in maintaining stable populations of spotted owls, when all evidence points to adult survivorship as most sensitive life history parameter.

Our Response: While adult survival has greater impact on demographic modeling of spotted owl populations, dispersal is a very important component of the life history of the species. Dispersal allows for the mixing of genes, recolonization of areas with deficit populations, and replacement of territorial spotted owls that die. Our consideration of dispersal and the survival of dispersing juveniles does not detract from the importance of adult survival. However, maintaining stable populations also depends on the adults producing enough young that survive to territorial status to replace themselves. Increasing juvenile survival should add support to overall population stability.
(21) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned how the owl habitat value of wilderness areas and national parks was evaluated.

Our Response: In delineating the MOCAs, only congressionally reserved areas that were capable of supporting spotted owl habitat were included in the recovery plan; this was based on habitat mapping and elevation limits on habitat suitability. This critical habitat rule is based on these MOCAs, and although, as in our 1992 designation, congressionallyreserved areas within MOCAs are not being designated as critical habitat, these areas were included in the recovery plan's evaluation of the adequacy of the MOCA network. Thus we consider that such congressionallyreserved areas included in the MOCAs would function in concert with critical habitat to support clusters of owls. (22) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that the critical habitat proposal did not provide a specific discussion of the concept of habitat fitness, and more particularly, how management in the northern part of the range (flying squirrel habitat) may differ from that in the southern part of the range (woodrat habitat).

Our Response: Spotted owl habitat varies across the range of the species, as does the most effective configuration of habitat within a home range to maximize survival and reproduction (e.g., Courtney et al. 2008, p. 16). We have identified PCEs that include the habitat types necessary for spotted owl life stages, but we also recognize that the amount, quality, and configuration of those habitat types depends on local conditions and other factors such as prey availability. Providing for such conditions will necessarily involve different management in different portions of the range; however, describing the multitude of management options and combinations of options is beyond the scope of this critical habitat designation. This designation defines the ``what'' and ``how much'' of habitat essential for the conservation of the species; the ``how'' aspect will be addressed across the range of the species in response to habitat conditions as part of the Act's section 7 consultation process.
(23) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that the proposed revised critical habitat made some use of section 3(5)(a) of the Act to exclude areas from critical habitat consideration and suggested that this should be dominant approach to any exclusions, rather than relying on section 4(b)(2) exclusions.

Our Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat; to the extent that certain areas do not meet that definition, they not included. The Secretary has the discretion to exclude lands that have been proposed under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as part of the critical habitat (unless the failure to designate such an area would result in the extinction of the species). As described in the proposed rule, all areas proposed for designation were considered for possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2). No exclusions have been made in this final revised critical habitat designation.
(24) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that critical habitat should consider the potential value of some surrounding matrix lands, which may also provide habitat for owls. In some areas these may have become better habitat than the areas within critical habitat. The reviewer did not suggest that these areas be included in critical habitat.

Our Response: Lands outside of critical habitat (e.g., in the timber land base of land use plans) may play a role in recovery of the northern spotted owls. As noted earlier, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant. There are areas outside the final critical habitat designation that continue to support spotted owls and their habitat; we expect that these areas will contribute to recovery. However, we also note that section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the species, except under special circumstances determined by the Secretary. Based on the final recovery plan, we do not believe it is necessary to include matrix areas in this designation.
(25) Comment: Several peer reviewers provided input on specific statements, including suggestions or

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, (see ADDRESSES); Ken Berg, Field Supervisor, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503 (telephone 3607539440); Michael Long, Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521 (telephone 7078227201). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 8008778339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.