Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

38258

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Proposed Rules
is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action, consistent with our August 27, 2019, final rule revising portions of our regulations that implement section 7 of the Act see 84 FR 44976, pp. 45017
45018. The biological opinion on the RMPs also describes some additional specific conditions concerning northern spotted owl demographics and barred owl management implementation under which reinitiation of consultation would be necessary FWS 2016, pp.
703705.
BLM incorporated key aspects of the recovery plan for the northern spotted owl into its RMPs, consistent with its authorities and resources. Important features of BLMs approach include:
Overall impacts to extant northern spotted owls are minimized. Take of northern spotted owl territorial pairs or resident singles from timber harvest will be avoided to the greatest possible extent during the first 5 to 8 years of the RMPs as the barred owl removal experiment FWS 2013 is conducted and evaluated. Subsequent effects to northern spotted owls would be meted out over time in the Harvest Land Base and minimized in other land use allocations.
If the barred owl removal experiment leads to a longer term barred owl management program, BLM will support such a program on the lands they manage. Barred owl management would help offset the adverse effects associated with the RMPs and is expected to result in a net positive impact on the recovery of northern spotted owls when considering the overall effect of the RMPs over the next 50 years.
There will be a net increase in suitable habitat for northern spotted owls during the life of the RMPs due to forest ingrowth outpacing harvest, and the RMPs contain more reserve acres and habitat than the NWFP.
As individual projects are proposed under these RMPs, BLM will consult at the project-specific level with the Service as necessary, providing assurances that jeopardy and adverse modification will be avoided and an opportunity to further minimize impacts to northern spotted owls as on-theground actions are designed and implemented.
BLM will reinitiate section 7
consultation with the Service if the population projections for the northern spotted owl described in the biological opinion on the RMPs are not realized within the timeframes anticipated in the consultation.
For these reasons, as described in its biological opinion issued to the BLM

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:23 Jul 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

FWS 2016, pp. 45, the Service expects an overall net improvement in northern spotted owl populations on BLM lands under the RMPs, including when taking into account any take or adverse impacts to northern spotted owls due to timber harvest, fuels management, recreation, and other activities occurring under the RMPs.
Our analysis of the impacts on the lands within the Harvest Land Base recognized that while this LUA was not intended to be relied upon for demographic support of northern spotted owls, the management direction under the RMPs includes provisions that would contribute to the further development of late-successional habitat, including additional critical habitat PBFs, over time FWS 2016, p.
553; 77 FR 71876, December 4, 2012, pp. 7190671907. Although latesuccessional habitat within the Harvest Land Base may not remain on the landscape for the long term, the presence of northern spotted owl habitat within the Harvest Land Base in the short term would assist in northern spotted owl movement PBF 4 across the landscape and could potentially provide refugia from barred owls while habitat continues to mature into more complex habitat and develop additional PBFs over time in reserved LUAs FWS
2016, p. 553; 77 FR 71876, December 4, 2012; pp. 7190671907.
The spatial configuration of reserves;
the management of those reserves to retain, promote, and develop northern spotted owl habitat; and the management and scheduling of timber sales within the Harvest Land Base are all expected to provide for northern spotted owl dispersal between physiographic provinces and between and among large blocks of habitat designed to support clusters of reproducing northern spotted owls FWS 2016, p. 698. In particular, BLM
refined their preferred alternative management approach to minimize the creation of strong barriers to northern spotted owl east-west movement and survival between the Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Western Cascades physiographic provinces, and northsouth movement and survival between habitat blocks within the Oregon Coast Range province, by augmenting its allocation to LSRs in those areas BLM
2016c, p. 17. Therefore, BLM-planned timber harvest during the interim period while a barred owl management strategy is considered is not expected to substantially influence the distribution of northern spotted owls at the local, action area, or rangewide scales.
The area included in the 2012 critical habitat designation 77 FR 71876 was
PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

increased from previous designations in part to account for and buffer localized impacts to habitat as a consequence of natural e.g., wildfire and humancaused disturbance e.g., timber harvest. That is, we anticipate some loss of habitat within individual critical habitat units and, for the human-caused impacts, have worked closely with land managers to ensure these impacts are consistent with the long-term recovery of the species. Of the designated critical habitat on BLM-managed lands in western Oregon addressed by the RMPs, 15 percent of critical habitat is designated on the Harvest Land Base and 85 percent is designated on other LUAs. The Harvest Land Base portion of the BLM landscape is expected to provide less contribution to northern spotted owl critical habitat over time, while the reserve portions of the BLM
lands will provide the necessary contributions for northern spotted owl conservation FWS 2016, p. 554.
Although the loss of some or all the PBFs within northern spotted owl critical habitat within the Harvest Land Base is an adverse effect and cannot be discounted, as we noted in the 2016
biological opinion on the RMPs FWS
2016, p. 691, the protection, ingrowth, and further development of PBFs within northern spotted owl critical habitat in reserve LUAs are expected to improve the function of all critical habitat units within the areas covered by the RMPs.
The reserve LUAs have the additional advantage of improving critical habitat conditions in areas where barred owl management is most likely to be implemented. Barred owl management, if implemented, would be most likely to occur where we anticipate the future core of the northern spotted owl population to reside and where critical habitat can provide the greatest value.
Additionally, we noted that the functionality of the critical habitat network on BLM-managed lands and rangewide was anticipated to improve, in part as the land management agencies updated their land management plans to incorporate recommendations of the revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl USFWS 2011, p. II3.
Accordingly, we found in our 2016
biological opinion on the RMPs FWS
2016, p. 700 that, even with the projected timber harvest in the Harvest Land Base, the management direction implemented under the RMPs is fully consistent with the revised recovery plan USFWS 2011 and would not appreciably diminish the conservation value of, or adversely modify, critical habitat FWS 2016, p. 702. The conservation measures put in place by BLMs 2016 RMPs, including
E:FRFM20JYP1.SGM

20JYP1