United States Department of the Interiora123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Printed on 100 percent chlorine free/60 percent post-consumer content paper.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Roseburg Field Office

2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97471

Phone: (541) 957-3474 FAX: (541) 957-3475

In Reply Refer To: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116 March 18, 2013 Filename: D-Bug final BiOp 3-18-2013.doc Tails #: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116 TS#: 13-416 Alice B. Carlton, Forest Supervisor Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, Oregon 97471 Subject: Biological Opinion on the Umpqua National Forest’s Proposed D-Bug Project

(FWS Reference number: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). Dear Ms. Carlton: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) on the Umpqua National Forest’s (Forest) proposed D-Bug project (proposed action or project) and its effects on the threatened northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (spotted owl) as well its designated critical habitat. This Opinion is based on our review of the Biological Assessment (Assessment) (USDA FS 2013), dated March 14, 2013, that was prepared by the Forest as well as other supporting information cited herein. The Service prepared this Opinion in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and in response to the Forest’s February 8, 2013 request for reinitiation of formal consultation. The enclosed Opinion includes a finding that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl or destroy or adversely modify spotted owl critical habitat (50 CFR Part 17 Vol. 77, No.46) (USDI FWS 2012). This current Opinion covers the entire D-Bug project as did the earlier, September 2010, consultation (FWS # 13420-2010-F-0161). While the Forest issued a decision notice on the first portion of the D-Bug project pursuant to the original biological opinion, we have covered it in this analysis as well because no timber harvest activities have yet occurred on the ground. Covering the D-Bug project in its entirety ensures that the aggregate impacts of the project are fully considered and allows us to take into account any new information. Subsequent to the 2010 Opinion, there have been updates to both the local and range-wide spotted owl habitat datasets; therefore, direct comparisons of baseline conditions and effects to spotted owls cannot be made between the Opinions. The Assessment includes a finding that it may take several years to fully complete the proposed action. Please note that the enclosed Opinion is valid for the period associated with proposed action and in compliance with the Incidental Take Statement. However, in accordance with the implementing regulations for section 7 at 50 CFR § 402.16, reinitiation of consultation is

D-Bug Timber Sale; Umpqua National Forest – FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONSULTATION HISTORY ......................................................................................................... 5 BIOLOGICAL OPINION ................................................................................................................. 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................ 5 STATUS OF THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ....................................................................... 12 STATUS OF SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT ................................................................. 52 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................... 55 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT .......... 62 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TO SPOTTED OWLS ....................................................................... 68 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 68 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ............................................................................................ 69 REINITIATION NOTICE .............................................................................................................. 72 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................... 73 APPENDIX A. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE D-BUG PROJECT ........................ 87 APPENDIX B. Spotted Owl Rangewide habitat trend assessment from 1994 to January 29, 2013................................................................................................................................................. 89 APPENDIX C. example form for PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONAND MONITORING. ....... 92

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Treatment type and acreages in the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug Action Area. (FWS reference: # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). .............................................................................. 6 Table 2. Proposed temporary road construction within the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug Action Area. (FWS reference: # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). ........................................................ 7 Table 3. Summary of spotted owl habitat loss between 1994 and 2013 on all land ownerships (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). ............................................................................. 36 Table 4. Summary of spotted owl habitat loss between 1994 and 2013 on NWFP lands (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). ........................................................................................ 37 Table 5. Demographic results from spotted owl demographic study areas (adapted from Forsman et al. 2011). ................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 6. Environmental Baseline for Revised Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat for the West Cascades South Unit, Sub-Unit WCS-5, Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug project area (FWS Ref. #: 1EOFW00-2013-F-0116). ...................................................................................... 46 Table 7. Environmental Baseline for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug Action Area (FWS Ref. #: 1EOFW00-2013-F-0116). ................................................................................................. 49 Table 8. Summary of treatment acres to NRF habitat within KPAC home ranges, core use areas and nest patches for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug project (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). ........................................................................................................... 56 Table 9. Characteristics of spotted owl dispersal habitat developed by the Deschutes National Forest and adapted for use for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug consultation. .................... 58 Table 10. Summary of anticipated acres impacted in critical habitat for the spotted owl for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug project (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). .......... 62

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The 12 physiographic Provinces within the range of the northern spotted owl (USDI FWS 1992a, p. 31). ....................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2. Northern spotted owl demographic study areas (Forsman et al. 2011). ....................... 40



5

Figure 3. Spotted owl and Barred owl detection trends on the Tyee Density Study Area (Forsman et al. 2012). ................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 4. Percentage of sites occupied by pairs of northern spotted owls compared among land use allocations in the HJ Andrews-Central Cascades study area, Willamette National Forest, Oregon from 1997 – 2011 (Dugger et al. 2012). .......................................................................... 45 Figure 5. Example map showing treatment units with the greatest degree of change between pre- and post-harvest amounts of NRF habitat in spotted owl critical habitat for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug project (adapted from USDA FS 2013) (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). ............................................................................................................................................ 64

CONSULTATION HISTORY In September 2010 the Roseburg Office of the Service issued an Opinion to the Forest regarding the D-Bug fuels reduction timber sale project (FWS Reference # 13420-2010-F-0161). On October 5, 2010 the Forest signed the D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (D-Bug FEIS) (USDA FS 2010). The D-Bug FEIS indicated that two decisions were forthcoming that would implement the proposed action in two separate actions. The first decision notice was signed prior to the October 1, 201 implementation date provided for in the 2010 Opinion. No timber harvest activities have yet occurred under that decision. The Forest’s has not issued the second of two decision notices as of the date of this Opinion. Revised critical habitat for the spotted owl was designated, effective January 3, 2013. The Service completed reinitiation of consultation on the impacts of ongoing activities on the Forest to revised critical habitat for the spotted owl on January 3, 2013; that consultation addressed the D-Bug project as well as many other of the Forest’s ongoing projects (FWS # 01EOFW00-2013-F-035). On February 8, 2013, the Service received a request for re-initiation of formal consultation and a final Biological Assessment on the entire D-Bug project was provided by the Forest to the Service on March 14, 2013 (USDA FS 2013). This Opinion was drafted concurrently with the Assessment. Thus, in response to the final draft Assessment, received on March 8, 2013, a draft of this Opinion was provided to the Forest for review on the same day, and their comments have been considered in finalizing this Opinion. As stated above, this Biological Opinion analyzes the effects of the entire D-Bug project.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Forest’s Assessment (USDA FS 2013) includes a description and analyses of the effects from the proposed action and is incorporated herein by reference. The following description is based on the Assessment. The Forest’s Assessment indicates any potential modifications to the proposed action will not result in effects exceeding those described in this consultation.

According to the Assessment, the proposed action was designed to reduce fuel loadings within the Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lake Wildland Urban Interface (WUI’s), especially along evacuation routes and fuel breaks. Evacuation routes are identified by the community wildfire protection plans covering both of these WUI’s, and include Highways 138 and 230, Lemolo Lake-Birds Point Road, and the Diamond Lake Loop Road, Douglas County 2004. There are 4,630 acres proposed for treatment within the action area, of which only 3,882 acres are capable



6

of growing spotted owl habitat (Table 1). The Assessment indicates the following standards apply to all activities associated with the proposed action: • A wildlife biologist has participated in the planning and design of all activities affecting

listed species. • The Project Design Features in Appendix A will be implemented unless surveys indicate

either non-occupancy or non-nesting of target species. • Occupied spotted owl nest trees will not be felled or removed. • Seasonal restrictions will occur during the spotted owl early portion of the breeding season,

March 1 – July 15. • Applicable Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Standards and Guidelines (USDA FS/USDI BLM

1994a) were applied during project design.

Activities in the D-Bug project proposed action include: • Mixed conifer thinning. This is a variable density thinning from below, leaving a range

of tree densities from 50-90 trees per acre (tpa) ≥ 7” diameter at breast height (dbh) and an average post treatment canopy cover between 41-50% (stand-scale mean = 45%); this is the type of thinning planned for the majority of the NRF habitat in the units. Retention tree species preferences will be for white pine and for fire-adapted species: ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and Shasta red fir. Most large diameter trees of these species will be retained.

• Lodgepole variable density thinning. This is a standard thin that will leave a range of tree densities from 30-70 tpa ≥5” dbh and canopy covers of 35-40% post treatment.

• Non-commercial fuels reduction treatments. These encompass all forest types, and will consist of small diameter thinning from below focusing on the 3-7” dbh size class, with highly variable post treatment tpa due to the variability of the stands that will be treated by this prescription.

Table 1. Treatment type and acreages in the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug Action Area. (FWS reference: # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116).

Treatment Type

NRF Habitat1 Acres

Downgraded2

NRF Habitat Acres

Treated and Maintained3

Dispersal Habitat Acres Treated and Maintained

Habitat-Capable

Acres Treated

Total Treatment

Acres Mixed Conifer Thinning 881 0 491 1,344 1,403

Lodgepole Variable Density Thinning 189 0 1,639 1,865 2,102

Non-Commercial Fuels Reduction 227 227 441 674 1,026

Totals 1,070 227 2,571 3,882 4,530 1NRF = Spotted owl Nesting, Roosting, Foraging Habitat 2Downgrade: the downgrade of spotted owl NRF habitat is expected to reduce the function of the affected habitat in a manner that only provides for the dispersal of spotted owls, and not nesting, roosting or foraging post-project. 3Treat and Maintain: Treat and maintain prescriptions are expected to retain the function of any affected NRF or dispersal habitats post-project.



7

Hazard tree removal and fuels reduction treatments will be a combination of the non-commercial fuels reduction treatment combined with thinning snags identified as hazard trees (USDA 2008) within 150-400 feet of a road or trail. All treatment units will include slash piling and burning (piles will only be burned in the fall) or machine mastication in portions of treatment units with 30 percent slope or less. Project Design Features (Appendix A) will be followed to retain guy line and anchor trees and existing snag patches where feasible. There are two units utilizing skyline yarding, totaling 75 acres of NRF habitat (121 acres of total skyline treatment in the project). Temporary roads will also be built, but will be closed, decommissioned and rehabilitated (recontoured and revegetated) after use (Table 2). Table 2. Proposed temporary road construction within the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug Action Area. (FWS reference: # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116).

Temporary Road Type1 Miles in NRF

Habitat Miles in Dispersal

Habitat Total in Action Area New Temporary Road 5 0 7.6 Re-Use Existing Road 0.6 0 8.7 Total 5.6 0 16.3

1. “New temporary roads” = brand new temporary road construction – these will be obliterated after use. “Re-use Existing Roads” = existing non-system roads proposed for use which will remain post project. All units will receive two maintenance treatments of the understory and surface fuels (≤7” dbh trees) at 5 and 10 year intervals following the initial fuels treatment. These maintenance treatments will be done by hand thinning and piling of small diameter surface and ladder fuels (≤7” dbh trees); these activities will occur outside of the spotted owl breeding season within the Action Area. The units proposed for underburning will be treated in the fall, with no additional reductions in live tree densities or canopy closure anticipated. Likewise, no additional live tree mortalities or decreases in canopy closure are expected as a result of pile burning. The Assessment indicates there are other connected actions:

• Precommercial thinning 300 acres; • Noxious Weed Treatment, including seeding along roadsides (49 acres), seeding

temporary roads and landings (105.7 acres) and managing weeds after project implementation.

• Visual Management: Seeding, planting shrubs and stump flush cutting where needed.

It is not anticipated that any of the connected actions will significantly impact spotted owls or their habitat, as the pre-commercial thinning is only proposed in lodgepole pine stands that do not have the potential to develop into NRF habitat and the proposed treatments will maintain them as dispersal habitat. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA The Action Area has been defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402). The 42,533 acre Action Area (Figure 1) is located within Douglas County, Oregon and comprises all lands (100



8

percent are Forest-administered) within 1.2 miles of proposed treatment units and ten provincial home ranges (1.2 mile radius) associated with known or predicted spotted owl activity centers (KPACs) that could be directly, indirectly or cumulatively impacted by the proposed action (Figure 2). Spotted owls are documented to occur across the contextual forested lands within and surrounding the Action Area boundary which lies within the western Oregon Cascades physiographic province. Within the Action Area, approximately 39 percent (16,615 acres) is currently spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging (NRF) habitat and approximately 45 percent (18,997 acres) is dispersal-only spotted owl habitat. Approximately 18,521 acres of designated revised spotted owl critical habitat (USDI FWS 2012) occur within the Action Area. See the Environmental Baseline section of this Opinion for more information.



9

Figure 1. Action Area map for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug project (FWS reference: # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116).



10

Figure 2. General vicinity map for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug Action Area (FWS reference: # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116).



11

Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy Determination In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy analysis in this Opinion relies on four components: (1) the Status of the Species, which evaluates the spotted owl’s range-wide condition, the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the spotted owl in the Action Area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the Action Area to the survival and recovery of the spotted owl; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on the spotted owl; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, non-Federal activities in the Action Area on the spotted owl. In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed federal action in the context of the spotted owl’s current status, taking into account cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the spotted owl in the wild. The jeopardy analysis in this Opinion places an emphasis on consideration of the range-wide survival and recovery needs of the spotted owl and the role of the Action Area in the survival and recovery of the spotted owl as the context for evaluating the significance of the effects of the proposed federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of making the jeopardy determination. Analytical Framework for the Adverse Modification Determination This Opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead, we have relied upon the statutory provisions of the Act to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. In accordance with policy and regulation, the adverse modification analysis in this Biological Opinion relies on four components: (1) the Status of Critical Habitat, which evaluates the range-wide and provincial condition of designated critical habitat for the spotted owl in terms of primary constituent elements (PCEs), the factors responsible for that condition, and the intended recovery function of the critical habitat at the provincial and range-wide scales; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the critical habitat in the Action Area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the recovery role of affected critical habitat units in the Action Area; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on the PCEs and how that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat units; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, non-Federal activities in the Action Area on the PCEs and how that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat units. For purposes of the adverse modification determination, the effects of the proposed federal action on spotted owl critical habitat are evaluated in the context of the range-wide condition of the critical habitat at the provincial and range-wide scales, taking into account any cumulative



12

effects, to determine if critical habitat at the range-wide scale would remain functional (or would retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally established in areas of currently unsuitable but capable habitat) to serve its intended recovery role for the spotted owl. The analysis in this Opinion places an emphasis on using the intended range-wide and provincial scale recovery functions of spotted owl critical habitat and the role of the Action Area relative to those intended functions as the context for evaluating the significance of the effects of the proposed federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of making the adverse modification determination. Please note that a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for spotted owl critical habitat that triggers the need for completing an adverse modification analysis under formal consultation is warranted in cases where a proposed federal action will: (1) reduce the quantity or quality of existing spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersal habitat at the stand level to an extent that it would be likely to adversely affect the breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior of an individual spotted owl; (2) result in the removal or degradation of a known spotted owl nest tree when that removal reduces the likelihood of owls nesting within the stand; or (3) prevent or appreciably slow the development of spotted owl habitat at the stand scale in areas of critical habitat that currently do not contain all of the essential features, but have the capability to do so in the future; such actions adversely affect spotted owl critical habitat because older forested stands are more capable of supporting spotted owls than younger stands. Adverse effects to an individual tree within spotted owl critical habitat will not trigger the need to complete an adverse modification analysis under formal consultation if those effects are not measurable at the stand level. Section 7 analyses of activities affecting spotted owl critical habitat should consider effects on the ability to support a viable spotted owl population at the individual subunit and critical habitat unit scales but the determination of whether a proposed action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat is made at the scale of the entire critical habitat network (USDI FWS 2012 p.71940). STATUS OF THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL Legal Status The spotted owl was listed as threatened on June 26, 1990 due to widespread loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat across the owl’s entire range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve the owl (USDI FWS 1990, p. 26114). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery priority number for the spotted owl is 12C (USDI FWS 2011a, p. I6), on a scale of 1C (highest) to 18 (lowest). This number reflects a moderate degree of threat, a low potential for recovery, the spotted owl’s taxonomic status as a subspecies and inherent conflicts with development, construction, or other economic activity given the economic value of older forest which typically is spotted owl habitat. A moderate degree of threat equates to a continual population decline and threat to its habitat, although extinction is not imminent. While the Service is optimistic regarding the potential for recovery, there is uncertainty regarding our ability to alleviate the barred owl impacts to spotted owls and the techniques are still experimental, which matches our guidelines’ “low recovery potential” definition (USDI FWS



13

1983a p.43101-43104, b p.51985). The spotted owl was originally listed with a recovery priority number of 3C, but that number was changed to 6C in 2004 during the 5-year review of the species (USDI FWS 2004a, p. 55) and to 12C in the 2010 Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI FWS 2010, p.22). The revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl also assigns the spotted owl a recovery priority number of 12C (USDI FWS 2011a p. I-6) Life History Taxonomy The northern spotted owl is one of three subspecies of spotted owls currently recognized by the American Ornithologists’ Union. The taxonomic separation of these three subspecies is supported by genetic, (Barrowclough and Gutiérrez 1990, pp.741-742; Barrowclough et al. 1999, p. 928; Haig et al. 2004, p. 1354) morphological (Gutiérrez et al. 1995, p. 2), and biogeographic information (Barrowclough and Gutiérrez 1990, pp.741-742). The distribution of the Mexican subspecies (S. o. lucida) is separate from those of the northern and California (S. o. occidentalis) subspecies (Gutiérrez et al. 1995, p.2). Recent studies analyzing mitochondrial DNA sequences (Haig et al. 2004, p. 1354, Chi et al. 2004, p. 3; Barrowclough et al. 2005, p. 1117) and microsatellites (Henke et al., unpubl. data, p. 15) confirmed the validity of the current subspecies designations for northern and California spotted owls. The narrow hybrid zone between these two subspecies, which is located in the southern Cascades and northern Sierra Nevadas, appears to be stable (Barrowclough et al. 2005, p. 1116).

Physical Description The spotted owl is a medium-sized owl and is the largest of the three subspecies of spotted owls (Gutiérrez 1996, p. 2). It is approximately 46 to 48 centimeters (18 inches to 19 inches) long and the sexes are dimorphic, with males averaging about 13 percent smaller than females. The mean mass of 971 males taken during 1,108 captures was 580.4 grams (1.28 pounds) (out of a range 430.0 to 690.0 grams) (0.95 pound to 1.52 pounds), and the mean mass of 874 females taken during 1,016 captures was 664.5 grams (1.46 pounds) (out of a range 490.0 to 885.0 grams) (1.1 pounds to 1.95 pounds) (P. Loschl and E. Forsman, pers. comm. cited in USDI FWS 2008a, p. 43). The spotted owl is dark brown with a barred tail and white spots on its head and breast, and it has dark brown eyes surrounded by prominent facial disks. Four age classes can be distinguished on the basis of plumage characteristics (Moen et al. 1991, p. 493). The spotted owl superficially resembles the barred owl, a species with which it occasionally hybridizes (Kelly and Forsman 2004, p. 807). Hybrids exhibit physical and vocal characteristics of both species (Hamer et al. 1994, p. 488).

Current and Historical Range The current range of the 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 (USDI FWS 1990, p. 26115). The range of the spotted owl is partitioned into 12 physiographic provinces (Figure 3) based on recognized landscape subdivisions exhibiting different physical and environmental features (USDI FWS 1992a, p. 31). These provinces are distributed across the species’ range as follows:



14

• Four provinces in Washington: Eastern Washington Cascades, Olympic Peninsula, Western Washington Cascades, Western Washington Lowlands

• Five provinces in Oregon: Oregon Coast Range, Willamette Valley, Western Oregon Cascades, Eastern Oregon Cascades, Oregon Klamath

• Three provinces in California: California Coast, California Klamath, California Cascades The spotted owl is extirpated or uncommon in certain areas such as southwestern Washington and British Columbia. Timber harvest activities have eliminated, reduced or fragmented spotted owl habitat sufficiently to decrease overall population densities across its range, particularly within the coastal provinces where habitat reduction has been concentrated (USDI FWS 1992b, p. 1799). Behavior Spotted owls are territorial. However, home ranges of adjacent pairs overlap (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 22; Solis and Gutiérrez 1990, p. 746) suggesting that the area defended is smaller than the area used for foraging. Territorial defense is primarily effected by hooting, barking and whistle type calls. Some spotted owls are not territorial but either remain as residents within the territory of a pair or move among territories (Gutiérrez 1996, p. 4). These birds are referred to as “floaters.” Floaters have special significance in spotted owl populations because they may buffer the territorial population from decline (Franklin 1992, p. 822). Little is known about floaters other than that they exist and typically do not respond to calls as vigorously as territorial birds (Gutiérrez 1996, p. 4). Spotted owls are monogamous and usually form long-term pair bonds. “Divorces” occur but are relatively uncommon. There are no known examples of polygyny in this owl, although associations of three or more birds have been reported (Gutiérrez et al. 1995, p. 10).



15

Figure 1. The 12 physiographic Provinces within the range of the northern spotted owl (USDI FWS 1992a, p. 31).

Habitat Relationships Home Range. Home-range sizes vary geographically, generally increasing from south to north, which is likely a response to differences in habitat quality (USDI FWS 1990, p. 26117). Estimates of median size of their annual home range (the area traversed by an individual or pair during their normal activities (Thomas and Raphael 1993, p. IX-15) vary by province and range from 2,955 acres in the Oregon Cascades (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 194) to 14,211 acres on the Olympic Peninsula (USDI FWS 1994a, p. 3). Zabel et al. (1995, p. 436) showed that these provincial home ranges are larger where flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) are the predominant prey and smaller where wood rats are the predominant prey. Home ranges of adjacent pairs overlap (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 22; Solis and Gutiérrez 1990, p. 746), suggesting that the defended area is smaller than the area used for foraging. Within the home range there is a smaller area of concentrated use during the breeding season (~20% of the home range), often referred to as the core area (Bingham and Noon 1997, pp. 133-135). Spotted owl core areas vary in size geographically and provide habitat elements that are important for the reproductive efficacy of the territory, such as the nest tree, roost sites and foraging areas (Bingham and Noon



16

1997, p. 134). Spotted owls use smaller home ranges during the breeding season and often dramatically increase their home range size during fall and winter (Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 21-22; Sisco 1990, p. iii). Although differences exist in natural stand characteristics that influence home range size, habitat loss and forest fragmentation effectively reduce habitat quality in the home range. A reduction in the amount of suitable habitat reduces spotted owl nesting success (Bart 1995, p. 944) and abundance (Bart and Forsman 1992, pp. 98-99). Habitat Use. Forsman et al. (1984, pp.15-16) reported that spotted owls have been observed in the following forest types: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), grand fir (Abies grandis), white fir (Abies concolor), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Shasta red fir (Abies magnifica shastensis), mixed evergreen, mixed conifer hardwood (Klamath montane), and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The upper elevation limit at which spotted owls occur corresponds to the transition to subalpine forest, which is characterized by relatively simple structure and severe winter weather (Forsman 1975, p. 27; Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 15-16). Roost sites selected by spotted owls have more complex vegetation structure than forests generally available to them (Barrows and Barrows 1978, p.3; Forsman et al. 1984, pp.29-30; Solis and Gutiérrez 1990, pp.742-743). These habitats are usually multi-layered forests having high canopy closure and large diameter trees in the overstory. Spotted owls nest almost exclusively in trees. Like roosts, nest sites are found in forests having complex structure dominated by large diameter trees (Forsman et al. 1984, p.30; Hershey et al. 1998, p.1402). Even in forests that have been previously logged, spotted owls select forests having a structure (i.e., larger trees, greater canopy closure) different than forests generally available to them (Folliard 1993, p. 40; Buchanan et al. 1995, p.1402; Hershey et al. 1998 p. 1404). Foraging habitat is the most variable of all habitats used by territorial spotted owls (USDI FWS 1992a, p. 20). Descriptions of foraging habitat have ranged from complex structure (Solis and Gutiérrez 1990, pp. 742-744) to forests with lower canopy closure and smaller trees than forests containing nests or roosts (Gutiérrez 1996, p.5). Habitat Selection. Spotted owls generally rely on older forested habitats because such forests contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Features that support nesting and roosting typically include a moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 90 percent); a multi-layered, multi-species canopy with large overstory trees (with dbh of greater than 30 inches); a high incidence of large trees with various deformities (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 spotted owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 19). Nesting spotted owls consistently occupy stands with a high degree of canopy closure that may provide thermoregulatory benefits (Weathers et al. 2001, p. 686) and protection from predators.



17

Foraging habitat for spotted owls provides 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. 179-180; 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. 179-180), and young forests with some structural characteristics of old forests (Carey et al.1992, pp. 245-247; Irwin et al. 2000, pp. 178-179). Spotted owls select old forests for foraging in greater proportion than their availability at the landscape scale (Carey et al. 1992, pp. 236-237; Carey and Peeler 1995, p. 235; Forsman et al. 2005, pp. 372-373), 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, p. 56-57). Dispersal habitat is essential to maintaining stable populations by filling territorial vacancies when resident spotted owls die or leave their territories, and to providing adequate gene flow across the range of the species. Dispersal habitat, at a minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities. Dispersal habitat may include younger and less diverse forest stands than foraging habitat, such as even-aged, pole-sized stands, but such stands should contain some roosting structures and foraging habitat to allow for temporary resting and feeding for dispersing juveniles (USDI FWS 1992b, p. 1798). Forsman et al. (2002, p. 22) found that spotted owls could disperse through highly fragmented forest landscapes. However, the stand-level and landscape-level attributes of forests needed to facilitate successful dispersal have not been thoroughly evaluated (Buchanan 2004, p. 1341).

Spotted owls may be found in younger forest stands that have the structural characteristics of older forests or retained structural elements from the previous forest. In redwood forests and mixed conifer-hardwood forests along the coast of northwestern California, considerable numbers of spotted owls also occur in younger forest stands, particularly in areas where hardwoods provide a multi-layered structure at an early age (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 158; Diller and Thome 1999, p. 275). In mixed conifer forests in the eastern Cascades in Washington, 27 percent of nest sites were in old-growth forests, 57 percent were in the understory reinitiation phase of stand development, and 17 percent were in the stem exclusion phase (Buchanan et al. 1995, p. 304). In the western Cascades of Oregon, 50 percent of spotted owl nests were in late-seral/old-growth stands (greater than 80 years old), and none were found in stands of less than 40 years old (Irwin et al. 2000, p. 41). In the Western Washington Cascades, spotted owls roosted in mature forests dominated by trees greater than 50 centimeters (19.7 inches) dbh with greater than 60 percent canopy closure more often than expected for roosting during the non-breeding season. Spotted owls also used young forest (trees of 20 to 50 centimeters (7.9 inches to 19.7 inches) dbh with greater than 60 percent canopy closure) less often than expected based on this habitat’s availability (Herter et al. 2002, p. 437). In the Coast Ranges, Western Oregon Cascades and the Olympic Peninsula, radio-marked spotted owls selected for old-growth and mature forests for foraging and roosting and used



18

young forests less than predicted based on availability (Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 24-25; Carey et al. 1990, pp. 14-15; Forsman et al. 2005, pp. 372-373). Glenn et al. (2004, pp. 46-47) studied spotted owls in young forests in western Oregon and found little preference among age classes of young forest with spotted owls generally selecting mature and older conifer and broadleaf forest types. Habitat use is influenced by prey availability. Ward (1990, p. 62) found that spotted owls foraged in areas with lower variance in prey densities (that is, where the occurrence of prey was more predictable) within older forests and near ecotones of old forest and brush seral stages. Zabel et al. (1995, p. 436) showed that spotted owl home ranges are larger where flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) are the predominant prey and smaller where wood rats (Neotoma spp.) are the predominant prey. Recent landscape-level analyses in portions of Oregon Coast and California Klamath provinces suggest that a mosaic of late-successional habitat interspersed with other seral conditions may benefit spotted owls more than large, homogeneous expanses of older forests (Zabel et al. 2003, p. 1038; Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 573-579; Meyer et al. 1998, p. 43). In Oregon Klamath and Western Oregon Cascade provinces, Dugger et al. (2005, p. 876) found that apparent survival and reproduction was positively associated with the proportion of older forest near the territory center (within 730 meters) (2,395 feet). Survival decreased dramatically when the amount of non-habitat (non-forest areas, sapling stands, etc.) exceeded approximately 50 percent of the home range (Dugger et al. 2005, pp. 873-874). The authors concluded that they found no support for either a positive or negative direct effect of intermediate-aged forest—that is, all forest stages between sapling and mature, with total canopy cover greater than 40 percent—on either the survival or reproduction of spotted owls. It is unknown how these results were affected by the low habitat fitness potential in their study area, which Dugger et al. (2005, p. 876) stated was generally much lower than those in Franklin et al. (2000) and Olson et al. (2004), and the low reproductive rate and survival in their study area, which they reported were generally lower than those studied by Anthony et al. (2006). Olson et al. (2004, pp. 1050-1051) found that reproductive rates fluctuated biennially and were positively related to the amount of edge between late-seral and mid-seral forests and other habitat classes in the central Oregon Coast Range. Olson et al. (2004, pp. 1049-1050) concluded that their results indicate that while mid-seral and late-seral forests are important to spotted owls, a mixture of these forest types with younger forest and non-forest may be best for spotted owl survival and reproduction in their study area. Reproductive Biology The spotted owl is relatively long-lived, has a long reproductive life span, invests significantly in parental care, and exhibits high adult survivorship relative to other North American owls (Gutiérrez et al. 1995, p. 5). Spotted owls are sexually mature at 1 year of age, but rarely breed until they are 2 to 5 years of age (Miller et al. 1985, p. 93; Franklin 1992, p. 821; Forsman et al. 2002, p. 17). Breeding females lay one to four eggs per clutch, with the average clutch size being two eggs; however, most spotted owl pairs do not nest every year, nor are nesting pairs successful every year (Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 32-34, Anthony et al. 2006, p. 28), and renesting after a failed nesting attempt is rare (Gutiérrez 1996, p. 4). The small clutch size, temporal



19

variability in nesting success, and delayed onset of breeding all contribute to the relatively low fecundity of this species (Gutiérrez 1996, p. 4). Courtship behavior usually begins in February or March, and females typically lay eggs in late March or April. The timing of nesting and fledging varies with latitude and elevation (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 32). After they leave the nest in late May or June, juvenile spotted owls depend on their parents until they are able to fly and hunt on their own. Parental care continues after fledging into September (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 38). During the first few weeks after the young leave the nest, the adults often roost with them during the day. By late summer, the adults are rarely found roosting with their young and usually only visit the juveniles to feed them at night (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 38). Telemetry and genetic studies indicate that close inbreeding between siblings or parents and their offspring is rare (Haig et al. 2001, p. 35, Forsman et al. 2002, p. 18). Dispersal Biology Natal dispersal of spotted owls typically occurs in September and October with a few individuals dispersing in November and December (Forsman et al. 2002, p. 13). Natal dispersal occurs in stages, with juveniles settling in temporary home ranges between bouts of dispersal (Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 13-14; Miller et al. 1997, p. 143). The median natal dispersal distance is about 10 miles for males and 15.5 miles for females (Forsman et al. 2002, p. 16). Dispersing juvenile spotted owls experience high mortality rates, exceeding 70 percent in some studies (Miller 1989, pp. 32-41). Known or suspected causes of mortality during dispersal include starvation, predation, and accidents (Miller 1989, pp. 41-44; Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 18-19). Parasitic infection may contribute to these causes of mortality, but the relationship between parasite loads and survival is poorly understood (Hoberg et al. 1989, p. 247; Gutiérrez 1989, pp. 616-617, Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 18-19). Successful dispersal of juvenile spotted owls may depend on their ability to locate unoccupied suitable habitat in close proximity to other occupied sites (LaHaye et al. 2001, pp. 697-698). There is little evidence that small openings in forest habitat influence the dispersal of spotted owls, but large, non-forested valleys such as the Willamette Valley apparently are barriers to both natal and breeding dispersal (Forsman et al. 2002, p. 22). The degree to which water bodies, such as the Columbia River and Puget Sound, function as barriers to dispersal is unclear, although radio telemetry data indicate that spotted owls move around large water bodies rather than cross them (Forsman et al. 2002, p. 22). Analysis of the genetic structure of spotted owl populations suggests that gene flow may have been adequate between the Olympic Mountains and the Washington Cascades, and between the Olympic Mountains and the Oregon Coast Range (Haig et al. 2001, p. 35). Breeding dispersal occurs among a small proportion of adult spotted owls; these movements were more frequent among females and unmated individuals (Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 20-21). Breeding dispersal distances were shorter than natal dispersal distances and also are apparently random in direction (Forsman et al. 2002, pp. 21-22).



20

Food Habits Spotted owls are mostly nocturnal, although they also forage opportunistically during the day (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 51; 2004, pp. 222-223; Sovern et al. 1994, p. 202). The composition of the spotted owl’s diet varies geographically and by forest type. Generally, flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) are the most prominent prey for spotted owls in Douglas-fir and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forests (Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 40-41) in Washington (Hamer et al. 2001, p. 224) and Oregon, while dusky-footed wood rats (Neotoma fuscipes) are a major part of the diet in the Oregon Klamath, California Klamath, and California Coastal provinces (Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 40-42; 2004, p. 218; Ward et al. 1998, p. 84). Depending on location, other important prey include deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus, A. pomo), red-backed voles (Clethrionomys spp.), gophers (Thomomys spp.), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), bushy-tailed wood rats (Neotoma cinerea), birds, and insects, although these species comprise a small portion of the spotted owl diet (Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 40-43; 2004, p. 218; Ward et al. 1998; p. 84; Hamer et al. 2001, p.224). Other prey species such as the red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus), red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi), mice, rabbits and hares, birds, and insects) may be seasonally or locally important (reviewed by Courtney et al. 2004, p. 4-27). For example, Rosenberg et al. (2003, p. 1720) showed a strong correlation between annual reproductive success of spotted owls (number of young per territory) and abundance of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) (r2 = 0.68), despite the fact they only made up 1.6±0.5 percent of the biomass consumed. However, it is unclear if the causative factor behind this correlation was prey abundance or a synergistic response to weather (Rosenberg et al. 2003, p. 1723). Ward (1990, p. 55) also noted that mice were more abundant in areas selected for foraging by owls. Nonetheless, spotted owls deliver larger prey to the nest and eat smaller food items to reduce foraging energy costs; therefore, the importance of smaller prey items, like Peromyscus, in the spotted owl diet should not be underestimated (Forsman et al. 2001, p. 148; 2004, pp. 218-219). Population Dynamics The spotted owl is relatively long-lived, has a long reproductive life span, invests significantly in parental care, and exhibits high adult survivorship relative to other North American owls (Gutiérrez 1996, p. 5). The spotted owl’s long reproductive life span allows for some eventual recruitment of offspring, even if recruitment does not occur each year (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 576). Annual variation in population parameters for spotted owls has been linked to environmental influences at various life history stages (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 581). In coniferous forests, mean fledgling production of the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis), a closely related subspecies, was higher when minimum spring temperatures were higher (North et al. 2000, p. 805), a relationship that may be a function of increased prey availability. Across their range, spotted owls have previously shown an unexplained pattern of alternating years of high and low reproduction, with highest reproduction occurring during even-numbered years (e.g., Franklin et al. 1999, p. 1). Annual variation in breeding may be related to weather (i.e., temperature and precipitation) (Wagner et al. 1996, p. 74 and Zabel et al. 1996, p.81 In: Forsman et al. 1996) and fluctuation in prey abundance (Zabel et al. 1996, p.437-438).



21

A variety of factors may regulate spotted owl population levels. These factors may be density-dependent (e.g., habitat quality, habitat abundance) or density-independent (e.g., climate). Interactions may occur among factors. For example, as habitat quality decreases, density-independent factors may have more influence on survival and reproduction, which tends to increase variation in the rate of growth (Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 581-582). Specifically, weather could have increased negative effects on spotted owl fitness for those owls occurring in relatively lower quality habitat (Franklin et al. 2000, pp. 581-582). A consequence of this pattern is that at some point, lower habitat quality may cause the population to be unregulated (have negative growth) and decline to extinction (Franklin et al. 2000, p. 583). Olson et al. (2005, pp. 930-931) used open population modeling of site occupancy that incorporated imperfect and variable detectability of spotted owls and allowed modeling of temporal variation in site occupancy, extinction, and colonization probabilities (at the site scale). The authors found that visit detection probabilities average less than 0.70 and were highly variable among study years and among their three study areas in Oregon. Pair site occupancy probabilities declined greatly on one study area and slightly on the other two areas. However, for all owls, including singles and pairs, site occupancy was mostly stable through time. Barred owl presence had a negative effect on these parameters (see barred owl discussion in the New Threats section below). However, there was enough temporal and spatial variability in detection rates to indicate that more visits would be needed in some years and in some areas, especially if establishing pair occupancy was the primary goal. Threats Reasons for Listing The spotted owl was listed as threatened throughout its range “due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms” (USDI FWS 1990, p. 26114). More specifically, threats to the spotted owl included low populations, declining populations, limited habitat, declining habitat, inadequate distribution of habitat or populations, isolation of provinces, predation and competition, lack of coordinated conservation measures, and vulnerability to natural disturbance (USDI FWS 1992b, pp. 33-41). These threats were characterized for each province as severe, moderate, low or unknown (USDI FWS 1992b, p. 33-41) (The range of the spotted owl is divided into 12 provinces from Canada to northern California and from the Pacific Coast to the eastern Cascades; see Figure 3). Declining habitat was recognized as a severe or moderate threat to the spotted owl throughout its range, isolation of populations was identified as a severe or moderate threat in 11 provinces, and a decline in population was a severe or moderate threat in 10 provinces. Together, these three factors represented the greatest concerns about range-wide conservation of the spotted owl. Limited habitat was considered a severe or moderate threat in nine provinces, and low populations were a severe or moderate concern in eight provinces, suggesting that these factors were also a concern throughout the majority of the spotted owl’s range. Vulnerability to natural disturbances was rated as low in five provinces. The degree to which predation and competition might pose a threat to the spotted owl was unknown in more provinces than any of the other threats, indicating a need for additional



22

information. Few empirical studies exist to confirm that habitat fragmentation contributes to increased levels of predation on spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 11-8 to 11-9). However, great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), an effective predator on spotted owls, are closely associated with fragmented forests, openings, and clearcuts (Johnson 1992, p. 84; Laidig and Dobkin 1995, p. 155). As mature forests are harvested, great horned owls may colonize fragmented forests, thereby increasing spotted owl vulnerability to predation. New Threats The Service conducted a 5-year review of the spotted owl in 1994 (USDI FWS 2004a), for which the Service prepared a scientific evaluation of the status of the spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004). An analysis was conducted assessing how the threats described in 1990 might have changed by 2004. Some of the key threats identified in 2004 are:

• “Although we are certain that current harvest effects are reduced, and that past harvest is also probably having a reduced effect now as compared to 1990, we are still unable to fully evaluate the current levels of threat posed by harvest because of the potential for lag effects…In their questionnaire responses…6 of 8 panel member identified past habitat loss due to timber harvest as a current threat, but only 4 viewed current harvest as a present threat” (Courtney and Gutiérrez 2004, p. 11-7)

• “Currently the primary source of habitat loss is catastrophic wildfire, although the total amount of habitat affected by wildfires has been small (a total of 2.3% of the range-wide habitat base over a 10-year period).” (Courtney and Gutiérrez 2004, p. 11-8)

• “Although the panel had strong differences of opinion on the conclusiveness of some of the evidence suggesting [barred owl] displacement of [spotted owls], and the mechanisms by which this might be occurring, there was no disagreement that [barred owls] represented an operational threat. In the questionnaire, all 8 panel members identified [barred owls] as a current threat, and also expressed concern about future trends in [barred owl] populations.” (Courtney and Gutiérrez 2004, p. 11-8)

Barred Owls (Strix varia). With its recent expansion to as far south as Marin County, California along the Coast Range and Kings Canyon National Park in the southern Sierra Nevada (Gutiérrez et al. 2004, pp. 7-12-7-13; Steger et al.2006), the barred owl’s range now completely overlaps that of the spotted owl. Barred owls may be competing with spotted owls for prey (Hamer et al. 2001, p.226) or habitat (Hamer et al. 1989, p.55; Dunbar et al. 1991, p. 467; Herter and Hicks 2000, p. 285; Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 274; Wiens 2012). In addition, barred owls physically attack spotted owls (Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 274), and circumstantial evidence strongly indicated that a barred owl killed a spotted owl (Leskiw and Gutiérrez 1998, p. 226). Evidence that barred owls are causing negative effects on spotted owls is largely indirect, based primarily on retrospective examination of long-term data collected on spotted owls (Kelly et al. 2003, p. 46; Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 267; Olson et al. 2005, p. 921). The two species of owls appear to be competing for resources (Hamer et al.2001 p 226, Wiens 2012). However, given that the presence of barred owls has been identified as a negative effect while using methods designed to detect a different species (spotted owls), it is likely the effects are stronger than estimated (Wiens et al.2011). Because there has been no research to quantitatively evaluate the strength of different types of competitive interactions, such as resource partitioning and



23

competitive interference, the particular mechanism by which the two owl species may be competing is unknown. Barred owls were initially thought to be more closely associated with early successional forests than spotted owls, based on studies conducted on the west slope of the Cascades in Washington (Hamer et al.1989, p. 34; Iverson 1993, p.39). However, recent studies conducted in the Pacific Northwest show that barred owls frequently use mature and old-growth forests (Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 270; Schmidt 2006, p. 13, Wiens 2012 p. 65). In the fire prone forests of eastern Washington, a telemetry study conducted on barred owls showed that barred owl home ranges were located on lower slopes or valley bottoms, in closed canopy, mature, Douglas-fir forest, while spotted owl sites were located on mid-elevation areas with southern or western exposure, characterized by closed canopy, mature, ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir forest (Singleton et al. 2005, p. 1). Barred owls, though they are generalists, likely compete with spotted owls for prey resources (Hamer et al.2001, p 225; Gutierrez et al.p. 187; Livezy and Fleming 2007, p. 319). In one study comparing spotted owl and barred owl food habits in the Pacific Northwest, Hamer et al. (2001, p. 221, 226) indicated barred owl diets overlap strongly (76 percent) with spotted owl diets. Wiens et al.(2012 p. 3) found dietary overlap between pairs of spotted and barred owls in adjacent territories ranged from 28–70% (mean = 42%). However, barred owl diets are more diverse than spotted owl diets and include species associated with riparian and other moist habitats (e.g. fish, invertebrates, frogs, and crayfish), along with more terrestrial and diurnal species (Hamer et al. 2001, pp. 225-226; Wiens et al. 2012 p. 3)). Even though barred owls may be taking spotted owls’ primary prey only as a generalist, spotted owls may be affected by a reduction in the density of these prey. This could lead to depletion of available spotted owl prey to the extent that spotted owls cannot survive or reproduce (Gutierrez et al.2007 p. 187; Livezy and Fleming 2007, p. 319; Wiens 2012 p. 57). The presence of barred owls has been reported to reduce spotted owl detectability, site occupancy, reproduction, and survival. Olson et al. (2005, p. 924) found that the presence of barred owls had a significant negative effect on the detectability of spotted owls, and that the magnitude of this effect did not vary among years. The occupancy of historical territories by spotted owls in Washington and Oregon was significantly lower (p < 0.001) after barred owls were detected within 0.8 kilometer (0.5 miles) of the territory center but was “only marginally lower” (p = 0.06) if barred owls were located more than 0.8 kilometer (0.5 miles) from the spotted owl territory center (Kelly et al. 2003, p. 51). Pearson and Livezey (2003, p. 271) found significantly more barred owl site-centers in unoccupied spotted owl circles than occupied spotted owl circles (centered on historical spotted owl site-centers) with radii of 0.8 kilometer (0.5 miles) (p = 0.001), 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) (p = 0.049), and 2.9 kilometer (1.8 miles) (p = 0.005) in Gifford Pinchot National Forest. In Olympic National Park, Gremel (2005, p. 11) found a significant decline (p = 0.01) in spotted owl pair occupancy at sites where barred owls had been detected, while pair occupancy remained stable at spotted owl sites without barred owls. Olson et al. (2005, p. 928) found that the annual probability that a spotted owl territory would be occupied by a pair of spotted owls after barred owls were detected at the site declined by 5 percent in the HJ Andrews study area, 12 percent in the Coast Range study area, and 15 percent in the Tyee study area.



24

In contrast, Bailey et al. (2009, p. 2983), when using a two-species occupancy model, showed no evidence that barred owls exclude spotted owls from territories in Oregon. Most recently, preliminary results from a barred owl and spotted owl radio-telemetry study in Washington reported two spotted owls fleeing their territories and traveling six and 15 miles, believed to be as a result of frequent direct encounters with barred owls (Irwin et al. 2010 pp. 3-4). Both spotted owls were subsequently found dead (Irwin et al. 2010, p. 4). Olson et al. (2004, p. 1048) found that the presence of barred owls had a significant negative effect on the reproduction of spotted owls in the central Coast Range of Oregon (in the Roseburg study area). The conclusion that barred owls had no significant effect on the reproduction of spotted owls in one study (Iverson 2004, p. 89) was unfounded because of small sample sizes (Livezey 2005, p. 102). It is likely that all of the above analyses underestimated the effects of barred owls on the reproduction of spotted owls because spotted owls often cannot be relocated after they are displaced by barred owls (E. Forsman, pers. comm., cited in USDI FWS 2011a, p. B-11). Forsman et al. (2011) documented negative effects of barred owls on apparent survival at 5 study areas and negative effects of barred owls on fecundity at 4 of 11 study areas. They attributed the equivocal results for most of their study areas to the coarse nature of their barred owl covariate. Dugger et al.(2011, pp. 2463-2467) confirmed the synergistic effects of barred owls and territory habitat characteristics on extinction and colonization rates of territories by spotted owls. Extinction rates of spotted owl territories nearly tripled when barred owls were detected (Dugger et al.2011 p. 2464). Monitoring and management of northern spotted owls has become more complicated due to their possible reduced detectability when barred owls are present (Kelly et al. 2003, pp. 51-52; Courtney et al. 2004, p. 7-16 ; Olson et al. 2005, p. 929; Crozier et al. 2006, p.766-767). Evidence that northern spotted owls were responding less frequently during surveys led the Service and its many research partners to update the northern spotted owl survey protocol. The recent changes to the northern spotted owl survey protocol were based on the probability of detecting northern spotted owls when barred owls are present (USDI FWS 2011b). In a recent analysis of more than 9,000 banded spotted owls throughout their range, only 47 hybrids were detected (Kelly and Forsman 2004, p. 807). Consequently, hybridization with the barred owl is considered to be “an interesting biological phenomenon that is probably inconsequential, compared with the real threat—direct competition between the two species for food and space” (Kelly and Forsman 2004, p. 808). The preponderance of evidence suggests that barred owls are exacerbating the spotted owl population decline, particularly in Washington, portions of Oregon, and the northern coast of California (Gutiérrez et al. 2004, pp. 739-740; Olson et al. 2005, pp. 930-931). There is no evidence that the increasing trend in barred owls has stabilized in any portion of the spotted owl’s range in the western United States, and “there are no grounds for optimistic views suggesting that barred owl impacts on spotted owls have been already fully realized” (Gutiérrez et al. 2004, pp. 7-38). Wildfire. Studies indicate that the effects of wildfire on spotted owls and their habitat are variable, depending on fire intensity, severity and size. Within the fire-adapted forests of the



25

spotted owl’s range, spotted owls likely have adapted to withstand fires of variable sizes and severities. Bond et al. (2002, p. 1025) examined the demography of the three spotted owl subspecies after wildfires, in which wildfire burned through spotted owl nest and roost sites in varying degrees of severity. Post-fire demography parameters for the three subspecies were similar or better than long-term demographic parameters for each of the three subspecies in those same areas (Bond et al. 2002, p. 1026). In a preliminary study conducted by Anthony and Andrews (2004, p. 8) in the Oregon Klamath Province, their sample of spotted owls appeared to be using a variety of habitats within the area of the Timbered Rock fire, including areas where burning had been moderate. In 1994, the Hatchery Complex fire burned 17,603 hectares in the Wenatchee National Forest in Washington’s eastern Cascades, affecting six spotted owl activity centers (Gaines et al. 1997, p. 125). Spotted owl habitat within a 2.9-kilometer (1.8-mile) radius of the activity centers was reduced by 8 to 45 percent (mean = 31 percent) as a result of the direct effects of the fire and by 10 to 85 percent (mean = 55 percent) as a result of delayed mortality of fire-damaged trees and insects. Direct mortality of spotted owls was assumed to have occurred at one site, and spotted owls were present at only one of the six sites 1 year after the fire (Gaines et al. 1997, p. 126). In 1994, two wildfires burned in the Yakama Indian Reservation in Washington’s eastern Cascades, affecting the home ranges of two radio-tagged spotted owls (King et al. 1998, pp. 2-3). Although the amount of home ranges burned was not quantified, spotted owls were observed using areas that burned at low and medium intensities. No direct mortality of spotted owls was observed, even though thick smoke covered several spotted owl site-centers for a week. It appears that, at least in the short term, spotted owls may be resilient to the effects of wildfire—a process with which they have evolved. More research is needed to further understand the relationship between fire and spotted owl habitat use. At the time of listing there was recognition that large-scale wildfire posed a threat to the spotted owl and its habitat (USDI FWS 1990, p. 26183). New information suggests fire may be more of a threat than previously thought. In particular, the rate of habitat loss due to fire has been expected with over 102,000 acres of late-successional forest lost on Federal lands from 1993-2004 (Moeur et al. 2005, p. 110). Currently, the overall total amount of habitat loss from wildfires has been relatively small, estimated at approximately 1.2 percent on federal lands (Lint et al. 2005, p. v). It may be possible to influence through silvicultural management how fire prone forests will burn and the extent of the fire when it occurs. Silvicultural management of forest fuels are currently being implemented throughout the spotted owl’s range, in an attempt to reduce the levels of fuels that have accumulated during nearly 100 years of effective fire suppression. However, our ability to protect spotted owl habitat and viable populations of spotted owls from large fires through risk-reduction endeavors is uncertain (Courtney et al. 2004, pp. 12-11). The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) recognized wildfire as an inherent part of managing spotted owl habitat in certain portions of the range. The distribution and size of reserve blocks as part of the NWFP design may help mitigate the risks associated with large-scale fire (Lint et al. 2005, p. 77). West Nile Virus (WNV). WNV has killed millions of wild birds in North America since it arrived in 1999 (Caffrey and Peterson 2003, p. 12; Marra et al. 2004, p. 393). Mosquitoes are the primary carriers (vectors) of the virus that causes encephalitis in humans, horses, and birds.



26

Mammalian prey may also play a role in spreading WNV among predators, like spotted owls. Owls and other predators of mice can contract the disease by eating infected prey (Garmendia et al. 2000, p. 3111). One captive spotted owl in Ontario, Canada, is known to have contracted WNV and died (Gancz et al. 2004, p. 2137), but there are no documented cases of the virus in wild spotted owls. Health officials expect that WNV eventually will spread throughout the range of the spotted owl (Blakesley et al. 2004, p. 8-31), but it is unknown how the virus will ultimately affect spotted owl populations. Susceptibility to infection and the mortality rates of infected individuals vary among bird species (Blakesley et al. 2004, p. 8-33), but most owls appear to be quite susceptible. For example, eastern screech-owls breeding in Ohio that were exposed to WNV experienced 100 percent mortality (T. Grubb pers. comm. in Blakesley et al. 2004, p. 8-33). Barred owls, in contrast, showed lower susceptibility (B. Hunter pers. comm. in Blakesley et al. 2004, p. 8-34). Blakesley et al. (2004, p. 8-35) offer two possible scenarios for the likely outcome of spotted owl populations being infected by WNV. One scenario is that a range-wide reduction in spotted owl population viability is unlikely because the risk of contracting WNV varies between regions. An alternative scenario is that WNV will cause unsustainable mortality, due to the frequency and/or magnitude of infection, thereby resulting in long-term population declines and extirpation from parts of the spotted owl’s current range. WNV remains a potential threat of uncertain magnitude and effect (Blakesley et al. 2004, p. 8-34). Sudden Oak Death. Sudden oak death was recently identified as a potential threat to the spotted owl (Courtney and Guttierez 2004, p. 11-8). This disease is caused by the fungus-like pathogen, Phytopthora ramorum that was recently introduced from Europe and is rapidly spreading. At the present time, sudden oak death is found in natural stands from Monterey to Humboldt Counties, California, and has reached epidemic proportions in oak (Quercus spp.) and tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) forests along approximately 300 km of the central and northern California coast (Rizzo et al. 2002, p. 733). It has also been found near Brookings, Oregon, killing tanoak and causing dieback of closely associated wild rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.) and evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) (Goheen et al. 2002, p. 441). It has been found in several different forest types and at elevations from sea level to over 800 m. Sudden oak death poses a threat of uncertain proportion because of its potential impact on forest dynamics and alteration of key prey and spotted owl habitat components (e.g., hardwood trees - canopy closure and nest tree mortality); especially in the southern portion of the spotted owl’s range (Courtney and Guttierez 2004, p. 11-8). Inbreeding Depression, Genetic Isolation, and Reduced Genetic Diversity. Inbreeding and other genetic problems due to small population sizes were not considered an imminent threat to the spotted owl at the time of listing. Recent studies show no indication of significantly reduced genetic variation in Washington, Oregon, or California (Barrowclough et al. 1999, p. 922; Haig et al. 2001, p. 36). However, in Canada, the breeding population is estimated to be less than 33 pairs and annual population decline may be as high as 35 percent (Harestad et al. 2004, p. 13). Canadian populations may be more adversely affected by issues related to small population size including inbreeding depression, genetic isolation, and reduced genetic diversity (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 11-9). Low and persistently declining populations throughout the northern portion of



27

the species range (see “Population Trends” below) may be at increased risk of losing genetic diversity. Climate change. Climate change, a potential additional threat to spotted owl populations, is not explicitly addressed in the NWFP. Climate change could have direct and indirect impacts on spotted owls and their prey. However, the emphasis on maintenance of seral stage complexity and related organismal diversity in the Matrix under the NWFP should contribute to the resiliency of the Federal forest landscape to the impacts of climate change (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 9-15). There is no indication in the literature regarding the direction (positive or negative) of the threat. Based upon a global meta-analysis, Parmesan and Yohe (2003, pp. 37-42) discussed several potential implications of global climate change to biological systems, including terrestrial flora and fauna. Results indicated that 62 percent of species exhibited trends indicative of advancement of spring conditions. In bird species, trends were manifested in earlier nesting activities. Because the spotted owl exhibits a limited tolerance to heat relative to other bird species (Weathers et al. 2001, p. 685), subtle changes in climate have the potential to affect this. However, the specific impacts to the species are unknown. Disturbance-Related Effects. The effects of noise on spotted owls are largely unknown, and whether noise is a concern has been a controversial issue. The effect of noise on birds is extremely difficult to determine due to the inability of most studies to quantify one or more of the following variables: 1) timing of the disturbance in relation to nesting chronology; 2) type, frequency, and proximity of human disturbance; 3) clutch size; 4) health of individual birds; 5) food supply; and 6) outcome of previous interactions between birds and humans (Knight and Skagan 1988, pp. 355-358). Additional factors that confound the issue of disturbance include the individual bird’s tolerance level, ambient sound levels, physical parameters of sound and how it reacts with topographic characteristics and vegetation, and differences in how species perceive noise. Although information specific to behavioral responses of spotted owls to disturbance is limited, research indicates that close proximity to recreational hikers can cause Mexican spotted owls (S. o. lucida) to flush from their roosts (Swarthout and Steidl 2001, p. 314) and helicopter overflights can reduce prey delivery rates to nests (Delaney et al. 1999, p. 70). Additional effects from disturbance, including altered foraging behavior and decreases in nest attendance and reproductive success, have been reported for other raptors (White and Thurow 1985, p. 14; Andersen et al. 1989, p. 296; McGarigal et al. 1991, p. 5). Spotted owls may also respond physiologically to a disturbance without exhibiting a significant behavioral response. In response to environmental stressors, vertebrates secrete stress hormones called corticosteroids (Campbell 1990, p. 925). Although these hormones are essential for survival, extended periods with elevated stress hormone levels may have negative effects on reproductive function, disease resistance, or physical condition (Carsia and Harvey 2000, pp. 517-518; Sapolsky et al. 2000, p. 1). In avian species, the secretion of corticosterone is the primary non-specific stress response (Carsia and Harvey 2000, p. 517). The quantity of this hormone in feces can be used as a measure of physiological stress (Wasser et al.1997, p. 1019).



28

Recent studies of fecal corticosterone levels of spotted owls indicate that low intensity noise of short duration and minimal repetition does not elicit a physiological stress response (Tempel & Gutiérrez 2003, p. 698; Tempel & Gutiérrez 2004, p. 538). However, prolonged activities, such as those associated with timber harvest, may increase fecal corticosterone levels depending on their proximity to spotted owl core areas (Wasser et al. 1997, p.1021; Tempel & Gutiérrez 2004, p. 544). Post-harvest fuels treatments may also create above-ambient smoke or heat. Although it has not been conclusively demonstrated, it is anticipated that nesting spotted owls may be disturbed by heat and smoke intrusion into the nest grove.

Conservation Needs of the Spotted Owl Based on the above assessment of threats, the spotted owl has the following habitat-specific and habitat-independent conservation (i.e., survival and recovery) needs: Habitat-specific Needs 1. Large blocks of suitable habitat to support clusters or local population centers of spotted owls (e.g., 15 to 20 breeding pairs) throughout the owl’s range; 2. Suitable habitat conditions and spacing between local spotted owl populations throughout its range to facilitate survival and movement; 3. Suitable habitat distributed across a variety of ecological conditions within the spotted owl’s range to reduce risk of local or widespread extirpation; 4. A coordinated, adaptive management effort to reduce the loss of habitat due to catastrophic wildfire throughout the spotted owl’s range, and a monitoring program to clarify whether these risk reduction methods are effective and to determine how owls use habitat treated to reduce fuels; and 5. In areas of significant population decline, sustain the full range of survival and recovery options for this species in light of significant uncertainty. Habitat-independent Needs 1. A coordinated research and adaptive management effort to better understand and manage competitive interactions between spotted and barred owls; and 2. Monitoring to better understand the risk that WNV and sudden oak death pose to spotted owls and, for WNV, research into methods that may reduce the likelihood or severity of outbreaks in spotted owl populations. Conservation Strategy Since 1990, various efforts have addressed the conservation needs of the spotted owl and attempted to formulate conservation strategies based upon these needs. These efforts began with



29

the ISC’s Conservation Strategy (Thomas et al. 1990); they continued with the designation of critical habitat (USDI FWS 1992b), the Draft Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 1992a), and the Scientific Analysis Team report (Thomas et al. 1993), report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (Thomas and Raphael 1993); and they culminated with the NWFP (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994a, b). Each conservation strategy was based upon the reserve design principles first articulated in the ISC’s report, which are summarized as follows.

• Species that are well distributed across their range are less prone to extinction than species confined to small portions of their range.

• Large blocks of habitat, containing multiple pairs of the species, are superior to small blocks of habitat with only one to a few pairs.

• Blocks of habitat that are close together are better than blocks far apart. • Habitat that occurs in contiguous blocks is better than habitat that is more fragmented. • Habitat between blocks is more effective as dispersal habitat if it resembles suitable

habitat. Federal Contribution to Recovery Since it was signed on April 13, 1994, the NWFP has guided the management of Federal forest lands within the range of the spotted owl (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994a, 1994b). The NWFP was designed to protect large blocks of old growth forest and provide habitat for species that depend on those forests including the spotted owl, as well as to produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales. The NWFP included land use allocations which would provide for population clusters of spotted owls (i.e., demographic support) and maintain connectivity between population clusters. Certain land use allocations in the plan contribute to supporting population clusters: LSRs, Managed Late-successional Areas, and Congressionally Reserved areas. Riparian Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas and Administratively Withdrawn areas can provide both demographic support and connectivity/dispersal between the larger blocks, but were not necessarily designed for that purpose. Matrix areas were to support timber production while also retaining biological legacy components important to old-growth obligate species (in 100-acre owl cores, 15 percent late-successional provision, etc. (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994a, USDI FWS 1994b) which would persist into future managed timber stands.

The NWFP with its rangewide system of LSRs was based on work completed by three previous studies (Thomas et. al. 2006, pp. 279-280): the 1990 Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) Report (Thomas et. al. 1990), the 1991 report for the Conservation of Late-successional Forests and Aquatic Ecosystems (Johnson et. al. 1991), and the 1993 report of the Scientific Assessment Team (Thomas et. al. 1993). In addition, the 1992 Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI FWS 1992a) was based on the ISC report.

The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team predicted, based on expert opinion, the spotted owl population would decline in the Matrix land use allocation over time, while the population would stabilize and eventually increase within LSRs as habitat conditions improved over the next 50 to 100 years (Thomas and Raphael 1993, p. II-31, USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994b, pp. 3&4-229). Based on the results of the first decade of monitoring, Lint et al.(2005, p. 18) could not determine whether implementation of the NWFP would reverse the spotted owl’s declining population trend because not enough time had passed to provide the necessary measure of certainty. Lint et al. (2005) concluded the results from the first decade of monitoring did not



30

provide any reason to depart from the objective of habitat maintenance and restoration as described in the NWFP (Lint et al. 2005, p. 18; Noon and Blakesley 2006, p. 288). Bigley and Franklin (2004, pp. 6-34) suggested that more fuels treatments are needed in east-side forests to preclude large-scale losses of habitat to stand-replacing wildfires. Other stressors that occur in suitable habitat, such as the range expansion of the barred owl (already in action) and infection In fact, information collected during the first fifteen years of the NWFP, affirms overall NRF habitat declines have been less than anticipated on federal lands (3.4% over fifteen years versus the 2.5 % per decade anticipated), and that although protecting habitat is still very important to the survival and recovery of the spotted owl the rapidly increasing barred owl population(s) are proving a confounding influence (Davis et al.2011). Recent reports about the status of the spotted owl offer few management recommendations to deal with these emerging threats. The arrangement, distribution, and resilience of the NWFP land use allocation system may prove to be the most appropriate strategy in responding to these unexpected challenges (Bigley and Franklin 2004, pp. 6-34). The revised recovery plan builds on the NWFP and recommends continued implementation of the NWFP and its standards and guidelines (USDI FWS 2011a, p I-1). Under the NWFP, the agencies anticipated a decline of spotted owl populations during the first decade of implementation. Recent reports (Anthony et al. 2006, pp. 33-34) identified greater than expected spotted owl declines in Washington and northern portions of Oregon, and more stationary populations in southern Oregon and northern California. The reports did not find a direct correlation between habitat conditions and changes in vital rates of spotted owls at the meta-population scale. However, at the territory scale, there is evidence of negative effects to spotted owl fitness due to reduced habitat quantity and quality. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that dispersal habitat is currently limiting (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 9-12, Davis et al.2011). Even with the population decline, Courtney et al.(2004, p. 9-15) noted that there is little reason to doubt the effectiveness of the core principles underpinning the NWFP conservation strategy. The current scientific information, including information showing spotted owl population declines, indicates that the spotted owl continues to meet the definition of a threatened species (USDI FWS 2004a, p. 54). That is, populations are still relatively numerous over most of its historic range, which suggests that the threat of extinction is not imminent, and that the subspecies is not endangered; even though, in the northern part of its range population trend estimates are showing a decline. In June, 2011, the Service published the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI FWS 2011a). The revised recovery plan determined that the 12 existing physiographic provinces meet the criteria of recovery units (USDI FWS 2011a, p. III 1-2). Recovery Criteria described in the revised recovery plan (USDI 2011a p. II-3) are measurable and achievable goals to be met via implementation of the recovery actions. Achieving the recovery criteria will take time and progress is intended to be measured over the life of the plan, not on a short-term basis. The recovery criteria are the same for all twelve identified recovery units: 1) stable population trend; 2) adequate population distribution; 3) continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl habitat, and; 4) post-delisting monitoring (USDI FWS 2011a p III-3).



31

The revised recovery plan identifies competition with barred owls, ongoing loss of spotted owl habitat as a result of timber harvest, loss or modification of habitat from uncharacteristic wildfire, and loss of amount and distribution of spotted owl habitat as a result of past activities and disturbances as the most pressing threats to the spotted owl (USDI FWS 2011a, p. II-2). To address these threats, the current recovery strategy includes five basic steps: 1. Development of a range-wide habitat modeling framework; 2. Barred owl management; 3. Monitoring and research; 4. Adaptive management; and 5. Habitat conservation and active forest restoration (USDI FWS 2011a, p. II-2). The revised recovery plan lists recovery actions that address all five steps of the recovery strategy and further states that a habitat conservation network designed using the best available science is necessary to recover the spotted owl. The revised recovery plan indicates that the NWFP reserve network, in addition to other habitat conservation recommendations in the revised recovery plan (e.g., Recovery Actions 10, 32 and 6), meet that need in the near term (USDI FWS 2011a, p. II-3). Acknowledging that barred owls have reduced spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival, and that addressing this threat depends on initiating action as soon as possible, the revised recovery plan describes recovery actions which address research involving the competition between spotted and barred owls, experimental control of barred owls and, if recommended by research, management of barred owls (USDI FWS 2011a, p. II-4). The final recovery plan (USDI FWS 2008a) recommended implementing a robust monitoring and research program for the spotted owl. The revised recovery plan encourages continuation of these efforts, laying out the following primary elements to evaluate progress toward meeting recovery criteria: monitoring spotted owl population trends, comprehensive barred owl research and monitoring, continued habitat monitoring; inventory of spotted owl distribution, and; explicit consideration for climate change mitigation goals consistent with recovery actions (USDI FWS 2011a, p. II-5). The revised recovery plan also strongly encourages land managers to aggressively implement recovery actions. In other words, land managers should not be so conservative that, to avoid risk, they forego actions that are necessary to conserve the forest ecosystems that are necessary to the long-term conservation of the spotted owl. But they should also not be so aggressive that they subject spotted owls and their habitat to treatments where the long-term benefits do not clearly outweigh the short-term risks. Finding the appropriate balance to this dichotomy will remain an ongoing challenge for all who are engaged in spotted owl conservation (USDI FWS 2011a, p. II-12). The revised recovery plan estimates that recovery of the spotted owl could be achieved in approximately 30 years (USDI FWS 2011a, p. II-3). Conservation Efforts on Non-Federal Lands In the report from the Interagency Scientific Committee (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 3), the draft recovery plan (USDI FWS 1992a, p. 272), and the report from the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (Thomas and Raphael 1993, pp. IV-189), it was noted that limited Federal ownership in some areas constrained the ability to form a network of old-forest reserves to meet the conservation needs of the spotted owl. In these areas in particular, non-Federal lands would be important to the range-wide goal of achieving conservation and recovery



32

of the spotted owl. The Service’s primary expectations for private lands are for their contributions to demographic support (pair or cluster protection) to Federal lands, or their connectivity with Federal lands. In addition, timber harvest within each state is governed by rules that provide protection of spotted owls or their habitat to varying degrees.

There are 17 current or ongoing Conservation Plans (CPs) including Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs) that have incidental take permits issued for spotted owls—eight in Washington, three in Oregon, and six in California (USDI FWS 2011a, p. A-15). The CPs range in size from 76 acres to more than 1.8 million acres, although not all acres are included in the mitigation for spotted owls. In total, the HCPs cover approximately 3 million acres (9.4 percent) of the 32 million acres of non-Federal forest lands in the range of the spotted owl. The period of time that the HCPs will be in place ranges from 5 to 100 years; however, most of the HCPs are of fairly long duration. While each HCP is unique, there are several general approaches to mitigation of incidental take:

• Reserves of various sizes, some associated with adjacent Federal reserves • Forest harvest that maintains or develops suitable habitat • Forest management that maintains or develops dispersal habitat • Deferral of harvest near specific sites

Washington. In 1996, the State Forest Practices Board adopted rules (Washington Forest Practices Board 1996) that would contribute to conserving the spotted owl and its habitat on non-Federal lands. Adoption of the rules was based in part on recommendations from a Science Advisory Group that identified important non-Federal lands and recommended roles for those lands in spotted owl conservation (Hanson et al. 1993, pp. 11-15; Buchanan et al. 1994, p. ii). The 1996 rule package was developed by a stakeholder policy group and then reviewed and approved by the Forest Practices Board (Buchanan and Swedeen 2005, p. 9). Spotted owl-related HCPs in Washington generally were intended to provide demographic or connectivity support (USDI FWS 1992a, p. 272).

There are over 2.1 million acres of land in six HCPs and two SHAs in Washington (USDI FWS 2011a, p. A-15). Some of these conservation plans focus on providing nesting/roosting habitat throughout the area or in strategic locations, while others focus on providing connectivity through foraging and/or dispersal habitat. In addition, there is a long-term habitat management agreement covering 13,000 acres in which authorization of take was provided through an incidental take statement associated with a Federal land exchange (USDI FWS 2011a, p. A-15).

Oregon. The Oregon Forest Practices Act provides for protection of 70-acre core areas around sites occupied by an adult pair of spotted owls capable of breeding (as determined by recent protocol surveys), but it does not provide for protection of spotted owl habitat beyond these areas (Oregon Department of Forestry 2007, p. 64). In general, no large-scale spotted owl habitat protection strategy or mechanism currently exists for non-Federal lands in Oregon. The three spotted owl-related HCPs currently in effect cover more than 300,000 acres of non-Federal lands. These HCPs are intended to provide some nesting habitat and connectivity over the next few decades (USDI FWS 2011a, p. A-16). On July 27, 2010, the Service completed a programmatic SHA with the Oregon Department of Forestry that will enroll up to 50,000 acres of non-federal lands within the State over 50 years. The primary intent of this programmatic SHA is to increase time between harvests and to lightly to moderately thin younger forest stands



33

that are currently not habitat to increase tree diameter and stand diversity (USDI FWS 2011a p. A-16).

California. The California State Forest Practice Rules, which govern timber harvest on private lands, require surveys for spotted owls in suitable habitat and to provide protection around activity centers (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2007, pp. 85-87). Under the Forest Practice Rules, no timber harvest plan can be approved if it is likely to result in incidental take of federally listed species, unless the take is authorized by a Federal incidental take permit (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2007, pp. 85-87). The California Department of Fish and Game initially reviewed all timber harvest plans to ensure that take was not likely to occur; the Service took over that review function in 2000. Several large industrial owners operate under spotted owl management plans that have been reviewed by the Service and that specify basic measures for spotted owl protection. Four HCPs and two SHAs authorizing take of spotted owls have been approved; these HCPs cover more than 622,000 acres of non-Federal lands. Implementation of these plans is intended to provide for spotted owl demographic and connectivity support to NWFP lands (USDI FWS 2011a, p. A-16).

Current Range-wide Condition of the Spotted Owl The following assessment of the current range-wide condition of the spotted owl considers the effects of all past human activities and natural events that have led to the present-day status of the species and its habitat (USDI FWS/USDC NMFS 1998, pp. 4-19). Range-wide Habitat and Population Trends Habitat Baseline. The 1992 Draft Spotted Owl Recovery Plan estimated approximately 8.3 million acres of spotted owl habitat remained range-wide (USDI FWS 1992a, p. 37). However, reliable habitat baseline information for non-Federal lands is not available (Courtney et al. 2004, p. 6-5). The Service has used information provided by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service to update the habitat baseline conditions on Federal lands for spotted owls on several occasions since the spotted owl was listed in 1990. The estimate of 7.4 million acres used for the NWFP in 1994 (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994b, p. G-34) was believed to be representative of the general amount of spotted owl habitat on these lands. This baseline has been used to track relative changes over time in subsequent analyses, including those presented in Appendix B. In 2010, a new map depicting suitable spotted owl habitat throughout its range was prepared based on 2006 satellite imagery data used by the NWFP’s effectiveness monitoring program to prepare a 15-year monitoring report on the NWFP (Davis et al. 2011). Although the spatial resolution of this new habitat map currently makes it unsuitable for tracking habitat effects at the scale of individual projects, the Service has evaluated the map for use in tracking provincial and range-wide habitat trends and now considers these data as the best available information on the distribution and abundance of extant spotted owl habitat within its range as of 2006, when the base imagery was collected. To facilitate tracking of recent and future timber harvest and other actions that cause habitat loss (for example stand-replacement wildfires), the tracking database the Service uses to assess provincial and range-wide spotted owl habitat trends for activities conducted on Federal lands was updated on February 1, 2013 to utilize the map produced by



34

Davis et al. (2011) as the range-wide spotted owl habitat baseline against which future habitat effects will be measured. The Davis et al. (2011) map has also been adopted by the Forest’s Level 1 consultation streamlining team as the local baseline map for spotted owl habitat on the Forest. However, given that the spatial resolution of this map makes it unsuitable for tracking habitat effects at the scale of individual projects, there will be project-by-project field verification of spotted owl habitat conditions. The Service’s adoption of the 2006 satellite imagery data on spotted owl habitat as the new range-wide habitat baseline for Federal lands effectively resets the timeframe for establishing changes in the distribution and abundance of spotted owl habitat. On that basis, the assessment of local, provincial and range-wide spotted owl habitat status in this and future Opinions as well as Biological Assessments will rely on these 2006 habitat data to characterize changes in the status of spotted owl habitat. For purposes of comparison with the new habitat baseline, spotted owl habitat information collected during the 19 years since the NWFP was adopted is included in Table 2 and Appendix B. Please note the findings presented in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B that show the rate of NRF habitat harvesting on Federal lands managed under the NWFP through January 29, 2013 is 2.62 percent over 19 years (194,304/7,397,098 * 100), well below the anticipated rate of 2.5 percent per decade (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994a). NWFP Lands Analysis for the Period 1994 to 2001. In 2001, the Service conducted an assessment of spotted owl range-wide habitat baseline conditions. This assessment was the first since implementation of the NWFP began in 1994 (USDI FWS 2001, p. 1). This range-wide evaluation of habitat was compared to that presented in the FSEIS for the NWFP to determine if the rate of change in spotted owl habitat was consistent with the change anticipated in the NWFP. In particular, the Service considered habitat effects that were documented through the section 7 consultation process since 1994. In general, the analytical framework of these consultations focused on the reserve and connectivity goals established by the NWFP land-use allocations (USDA FS/ USDI BLM 1994a, p. 6), with effects expressed in terms of changes in suitable spotted owl habitat within those land-use allocations. The Service determined that consulted-on actions and their effects to spotted owl habitat were consistent with the expectations under the NWFP from 1994 to June 2001 (USDI FWS 2001, p. 32). Range-wide Spotted Owl Habitat Analysis for the Period 1994 to March 5, 2013. This analysis updates the information considered in USDI FWS (2001), relying particularly on information in documents the Service produced pursuant to section 7 of the Act and information provided by NWFP agencies on spotted owl habitat loss resulting from natural events (e.g., fires, windthrow, insect and disease). To track impacts to spotted owl habitat, the Service designed a Spotted Owl Consulted-on Effects Database which is used to record and track impacts caused by Federal actions to spotted owls and their habitat at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Data are entered into the database under various categories, including by land management agency, land-use allocation, physiographic province, and the type of spotted owl habitat affected. Based on Davis et al. (2011), in 1994 at least 8.5 million acres of suitable spotted owl habitat were estimated to occur on Federal lands managed under the NWFP. As of March 5, 2013, the



35

Service had completed consultation on proposed Federal actions that were likely to remove or downgrade as a result of timber harvest approximately 197,359 acres (Table 3), or approximately 2.3 percent of the 8.5 million acres (Table 4) of spotted owl NRF habitat estimated to occur on Federal lands. This reduction in suitable spotted owl habitat is consistent with expectations for timber harvest impacts under the NWFP (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994a). From 1994 through January 29, 2013(see Appendix B), spotted owl habitat lost due to natural events was estimated at approximately 249,068 acres range-wide (Table 2, Appendix B). About two-thirds of this loss was attributed to the lightning-caused Biscuit Fire that burned over 500,000 acres in southwest Oregon (in the Rogue River Basin) and northern California in 2002. This fire resulted in a loss of approximately 100,000 acres of spotted owl habitat (Table 3), including habitat within five LSRs. Approximately 18,630 acres of spotted owl habitat were also lost due to the lightning-caused B&B Complex and Davis Fires in the East Cascades Province of Oregon (Table 3). Most of these fires occurred prior to 2006 when the updated baseline data were collected. Spotted owl habitat loss due to natural events since 2006 has been approximately 51,000 acres (Table 4). Because there is no comprehensive spotted owl habitat baseline for non-NWFP Federal lands and non-Federal lands, there is little available information regarding spotted owl habitat trends on these lands. Yet, we do know that Service consultations on Federal actions conducted since 1994 have documented a projected loss of 475,394 acres (Table 3) of spotted owl habitat on non-NWFP Federal lands and non-Federal lands. Approximately 63 percent of these losses have yet to be realized because they are part of large-scale, long-term HCPs/SHAs. Combining effects to spotted owl habitat on Federal and non-Federal lands, the Service had consulted on the proposed removal/downgrading of approximately 672,753 acres of spotted owl habitat range-wide, resulting from all management activities, as of March 5, 2013 (Table 3).



36

Table 3. Summary of spotted owl habitat loss between 1994 and 2013 on all land ownerships (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). LAND OWNERSHIP CONSULTED ON

HABITAT CHANGES2 OTHER HABITAT

CHANGES3 Removed/

Downgraded Maintained Removed/

Downgraded Maintained NWFP (FS,BLM,NPS) 197,359 541,032 246,112 39,720 Bureau of Indian Affairs / Tribes 110,832 28,372 2,398 0 Habitat Conservation Plans/Safe Harbor Agreements 295,889 14,430 N/A N/A Other Federal, State, County, Private Lands 68,673 27,514 279 0 Total Changes 672,753 611,348 248,789 39,720

1. NRF=Spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. In California, suitable habitat is divided into two components: nesting/roosting (NR) habitat, and foraging (F) habitat. The NR component most closely resembles NRF habitat in Oregon and Washington. Due to differences in reporting methods, suitable habitat includes NRF for Washington and Oregon but only NR for California.

2. Includes both effects reported in USDI FWS (2001) and subsequent effects reported in the Spotted Owl Consulted-on Effects Database.

3. Includes effects to suitable NRF habitat (as generally documented through technical assistance, etc.) resulting from wildfires (not from suppression efforts), insect and disease outbreaks, and other natural causes, private timber harvest, and land exchanges not associated with a consultation under section 7 of the Act.

Between 2006 and 2013, spotted owl habitat loss on Federal lands due to management activities has varied among the individual provinces with most of the impacts concentrated within the Non-Reserve relative to the Reserve land-use allocations (Table 4). When spotted owl habitat loss due to management activities is evaluated as a proportion of the affected acres range-wide, the most pronounced losses have occurred within Oregon (85%), especially within the Oregon Cascades East and West Provinces (68%) (Table 4), followed by much smaller habitat losses in Washington (13%) and California (2.5%) (Table 4). When overall spotted owl habitat loss due to both management activities and natural events is evaluated as a proportion of provincial baselines, the California Klamath Mountains Province (41.5%) and the Oregon Cascades East and West Provinces (42%) have proportional losses greater than the average loss of spotted owl habitat across all provinces (8.33%) (Table 4).



37

Table 4. Summary of spotted owl habitat loss between 1994 and 2013 on NWFP lands (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116). PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE2

EVALUATION BASELINE3

HABITAT REMOVED/DOWNGRADED4

% PROVINCIAL BASELINE

AFFECTED BY MGMT

ACTIVITIES

% PROVINCIAL BASELINE

AFFECTED BY MGMT + NATURAL

EVENTS

% RANGE-WIDE EFFECTS

(MGMT ONLY / ALL EFFECTS)

Land Use Allocations Habitat

Loss to

Natural Events7 Total Total

Reserves5

Non- Reserves

6 Total WA

Eastern Cascades 643,500 2,435 2,238 4,673 1,691 6,364 0.73 0.99 10.28/6.58

Olympic Peninsula 762,400 6 0 6 1 7 0 0 0.01/0.01

Western Cascades 1,278,200 529 831 1,360 3 13,363 0.1 0.11 3/1.41

Western Lowlands 24,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OR Cascades East 376,900 2,183 5,527 7,710 9,630 17,330 2 4.6 16.96/17.92 Cascades West 2,214,800 1,126 21,953 23,079 0 23,079 1.04 1.04 51/23.86 Coast Range 607,800 183 698 881 0 881 0.14 0.14 1.9/0.91 Klamath

Mountains 884,300 2,617 4,103 6,720 0 6,720 0.76 0.76 14.8/6.95

Willamette Valley 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CA Cascades 204,600 10 1 11 325 336 0 0.16 0.02/0.35 Coast 143,000 274 1 275 175 450 0.2 0.31 0.6/0.47 Klamath 910,900 75 646 721 39,481 40,202 0.01 2.85 1.6/41.56 Total 8,555,200 9,438 35,998 45,436 51,296 96,732 0.53 1.13 100 1. NRF=Spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. In WA/OR, the values for Nesting/Roosting habitat generally represent the distribution of suitable spotted owl

habitat, including foraging habitat. In California, spotted owl foraging habitat occurs over a broader range of forest types than what is represented by nesting/roosting habitat. Baseline information for spotted owl foraging habitat as a separate category in CA is currently not available at a provincial scale.

2. Defined in the final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI FWS 2011p. A-3) as recovery units. 3. Spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat on all Federal lands (includes USFS, BLM, NPS, DoD, USFWS, etc.) as reported by Davis et al. (2011) for the NWFP 15-

year monitoring report (PNW-GTR-80, Appendix D). NR habitat acres are approximate values based on 2006 (OR/WA) and 2007 (CA) satellite imagery. 4. Estimated NRF habitat removed or downgraded from land management (timber sales) or natural events (wildfires) as documented through section 7 consultation or

technical assistance. Effects reported here include all acres removed or downgraded from 2006 to present. Effects in California reported here only include effects to NR habitat. Foraging habitat removed or downgraded in California is not summarized in this table.

5. Reserve Land-use allocations under the NWFP intended to provide demographic support for spotted owls, including LSR, MLSA and CRA. Non-reserve allocations under the NWFP intended to provide dispersal connectivity between reserves include AWA, AMA and Matrix.


Other Habitat Trend Assessments. In 2005, the Washington Department of Wildlife released the report, “An Assessment of Spotted Owl Habitat on Non-Federal Lands in Washington between 1996 and 2004” (Pierce et al. 2005). This study estimates the amount of spotted owl habitat in 2004 on lands affected by state and private forest practices. The study area is a subset of the total Washington forest practice lands, and statistically-based estimates of existing habitat and habitat loss due to fire and timber harvest are provided. In the 3.2-million acre study area, Pierce et al. (2005, p. 88) estimated there was 816,000 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat in 2004, or about 25 percent of their study area. Based on their results, Pierce and others (2005, p. 98) estimated there were less than 2.8 million acres of spotted owl habitat in Washington on all ownerships in 2004. Most of the suitable owl habitat in 2004 (56%) occurred on Federal lands, and lesser amounts were present on state-local lands (21%), private lands (22%) and tribal lands (1%). Most of the harvested spotted owl habitat was on private (77%) and state-local (15%) lands. A total of 172,000 acres of timber harvest occurred in the 3.2 million-acre study area, including harvest of 56,400 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat. This represented a loss of about 6 percent of the owl habitat in the study area distributed across all ownerships (Pierce et al. 2005, p. 91). Approximately 77 percent of the harvested habitat occurred on private lands and about 15 percent occurred on State lands. Pierce and others (2005, p. 80) also evaluated suitable habitat levels in 450 spotted owl management circles (based on the provincial annual median spotted owl home range). Across their study area, they found that owl circles averaged about 26 percent suitable habitat in the circle across all landscapes. Values in the study ranged from an average of 7 percent in southwest Washington to an average of 31 percent in the east Cascades, suggesting that many owl territories in Washington are significantly below the 40 percent suitable habitat threshold used by the State as a viability indicator for spotted owl territories (Pierce et al. 2005, p. 90). Moeur et al. 2005 (p. 110) estimated an increase of approximately 1.25 to 1.5 million acres of medium and large older forest (greater than 20 inches dbh, single and multi-storied canopies) on Federal lands in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area between 1994 and 2003. The increase occurred primarily in the lower end of the diameter range for older forest. The net area in the greater than 30 inch dbh size class increased by only an estimated 102,000 to 127,000 acres (Moeur et al. 2005, p. 100). The estimates were based on change-detection layers for losses due to harvest and fire and remeasured inventory plot data for increases due to ingrowth. Transition into and out of medium and large older forest over the 10-year period was extrapolated from inventory plot data on a subpopulation of Forest Service land types and applied to all Federal lands. Because size class and general canopy layer descriptions do not necessarily account for the complex forest structure often associated with spotted owl habitat, the significance of these acres to spotted owl conservation remains unknown. In 2011, Davis et al. produced the second in a series of monitoring reports on northern spotted owl population and habitat trends on Northwest Forest Plan administered lands. They summarized demographic analyses from Forsman et al. (2011) discussed below under trends in numbers, distribution and reproduction, and reported on a new effort using remotely sensed data from 1994 to 2007 to develop “habitat suitability” models, and ultimately suitable habitat maps for the entire range of the northern spotted owl for each of these time periods. They also created change-detection maps and reported on the cause of habitat change during this time period. The authors suggest that because of improvements in remotely sensed vegetation, and change-detection mapping, their habitat maps represent the best available information and should replace the baseline versions used for the first monitoring report. Davis et al. (2011) estimated 8.9 million acres of suitable habitat for the 1994 baseline map, as compared to 7.4 million acres



39

estimated by FEMAT in 1994, and 10.3 million acres estimated by Lint (2005) for the 10-year report. Davis et al. (2011) were not able to report on gains in nesting/roosting habitat suitability due to issues with current technology, and the need for additional time to capture the slow process of forest succession. However, they were able to report on gains in recruitment of younger forests or dispersal habitat. They estimated a gain of about 1.26 million ac of dispersal habitat, with the greatest increases in non-reserves than reserves. The largest increase in dispersal habitat was in the Oregon Coast Range province. Davis et al. (2011) estimated that nesting/roosting habitat declined by 3.4 percent (298,600 ac) rangewide on federal lands since 1994, which is less than the anticipated rate of habitat loss under the NWFP of 2.5 percent per decade. Most of the loss (79 percent) occurred within reserves and was the result of wildfires. Wildfires also were responsible for about half of the loss in non-reserves. Timber harvest accounted for about 45 percent (37,400 ac) in non-reserves, and 7 percent (16,000 ac) in reserves. The Oregon Klamath province lost the most nesting/roosting habitat (93,730 ac) due to the Biscuit Fire in 2002. They estimated a rangewide loss of about 417,000 ac of dispersal habitat, but like nesting/roosting habitat, most of the loss of dispersal habitat was due to wildfire. Davis et al. (2011) also created a wildfire suitability (likelihood) map for large fires throughout the range of the northern spotted owl. Their goal was to identify landscape-scale areas where large wildfires are more probable. They report that the California Klamath province has the most owl habitat in fire-prone landscapes, followed by the Oregon Western Cascades and Oregon Klamath provinces. Spotted Owl Numbers, Distribution, and Reproduction Trends. There are no estimates of the size of the spotted owl population prior to settlement by Europeans. Spotted owls are believed to have inhabited most old-growth forests or stands throughout the Pacific Northwest, including northwestern California, prior to beginning of modern settlement in the mid-1800s (USDI FWS 1989, pp. 2-17). According to the final rule listing the spotted owl as threatened (USDI FWS 1990, p. 26118), approximately 90 percent of the roughly 2,000 known spotted owl breeding pairs were located on Federally managed lands, 1.4 percent on State lands, and 6.2 percent on private lands; the percent of spotted owls on private lands in northern California was slightly higher (USDI FWS 1989, pp. 4-11; Thomas et al. 1990, p. 64). The current range of the 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 (USDI FWS 1990, p. 26115). The range of the spotted owl is partitioned into 12 physiographic provinces (Figure 3) based on recognized landscape subdivisions exhibiting different physical and environmental features (USDI FWS 1992a, p. 31). The spotted owl has become rare in certain areas, such as British Columbia, southwestern Washington, and the northern coastal ranges of Oregon. As of July 1, 1994, there were 5,431 known site-centers of spotted owl pairs or resident singles: 851 sites (16 percent) in Washington, 2,893 sites (53 percent) in Oregon, and 1,687 sites (31 percent) in California (USDI FWS 1995, p. 9495). By June 2004, the number of territorial spotted owl sites in Washington recognized by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was 1,044 (Buchanan and Swedeen 2005, p. 37). The actual number of currently occupied



40

spotted owl locations across the range is unknown because many areas remain unsurveyed (USDI FWS 2008a, p. 44). In addition, many historical sites are no longer occupied because spotted owls have been displaced by barred owls, timber harvest, or severe fires, and it is possible that some new sites have been established due to reduced timber harvest on Federal lands since 1994. The totals in USDI FWS (1995, p. 9495) represent the cumulative number of locations recorded in the three states, not population estimates.

Because the existing survey coverage and effort are insufficient to produce reliable range-wide estimates of population size, demographic data are used to evaluate trends in spotted owl populations. Analysis of demographic data can provide an estimate of the finite rate of population change (λ) (lambda), which provides information on the direction and magnitude of population change. A λ of 1.0 indicates a stationary population, meaning the population is neither increasing nor decreasing. A λ of less than 1.0 indicates a decreasing population, and a λ of greater than 1.0 indicates a growing population. Demographic data, derived from studies initiated as early as 1985, have been analyzed periodically (Anderson and Burnham 1992; Burnham et al. 1994: Forsman et al. 1996; Anthony et al. 2006 and Forsman et al. 2011) to estimate trends in the populations of the spotted owl.

In January 2009, two meta-analyses modeled rates of population change for up to 24 years using the re-parameterized Jolly-Seber method (λRJS). One meta-analysis modeled the 11 long-term study areas (Figure 4), while the other modeled the eight study areas that are part of the effectiveness monitoring program of the NWFP (Forsman et al. 2011).

Figure 2. Northern spotted owl demographic study areas (Forsman et al. 2011).



41

Table 5. Demographic results from spotted owl demographic study areas (adapted from Forsman et al. 2011).

Study Area Fecundity Apparent Survival1 λRJS

Population change2

Cle Elum Declining Declining 0.937 Declining Rainier Increasing Declining 0.929 Declining Olympic Stable Declining 0.957 Declining

Coast Ranges Increasing Declining since

1998 0.966 Declining

HJ Andrews Increasing Declining since

1997 0.977 Declining

Tyee Stable Declining since

2000 0.996 Stationary Klamath Declining Stable 0.990 Stationary

Southern Cascades Declining Declining since

2000 0.982 Stationary NW California Declining Declining 0.983 Declining

Hoopa Stable Declining since

2004 0.989 Stationary Green Diamond Declining Declining 0.972 Declining 1Apparent survival calculations are based on model average. 2Population trends are based on estimates of realized population change, which differs slightly from λRJS. Point estimates of λRJS were all below 1.0 and ranged from 0.929 to 0.996 for the 11 long-term study areas. There was strong evidence that populations declined on 7 of the 11 areas (Forsman et al. 2011), these areas included Rainier, Olympic, Cle Elum, Coast Range, HJ Andrews, Northwest California and Green Diamond. On other four areas (Tyee, Klamath, Southern Cascades, and Hoopa), populations were either stable, or the precision of the estimates was not sufficient to detect declines. The weighted mean λRJS for all of the 11 study areas was 0.971 (standard error [SE] = 0.007, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 0.960 to 0.983), which indicated an average population decline of 2.9 percent per year from 1985 to 2006. This is a lower rate of decline than the 3.7 percent reported by Anthony et al. (2006), but the rates are not directly comparable because Anthony et al. (2006) examined a different series of years and because two of the study areas in their analysis were discontinued and not included in Forsman et al. (2011). Forsman et al. (2011) explains that the indication populations were declining was based on the fact that the 95 percent confidence intervals around the estimate of mean lambda did not overlap 1.0 (stable) or barely included 1.0. The mean λRJS for the eight demographic monitoring areas (Cle Elum, Olympic, Coast Range, HJ Andrews, Tyee, Klamath, Southern Cascades and Northwest California) that are part of the effectiveness monitoring program of the NWFP was 0.972 (SE = 0.006, 95 percent CI = 0.958 to 0.985), which indicated an estimated decline of 2.8 percent per year on Federal lands with the range of the spotted owl. The weighted mean estimate λRJS for the other three study areas (Rainier, Hoopa and Green Diamond) was 0.969 (SE = 0.016, 95 percent CI = 0.938 to 1.000), yielding an estimated average decline of 3.1 percent per year. These data suggest that demographic rates for spotted owl populations on Federal lands were somewhat better than



42

elsewhere; however, this comparison is confounded by the interspersion of non-Federal land in study areas and the likelihood that spotted owls use habitat on multiple ownerships in some demography study areas. The number of populations that declined and the rate at which they have declined are noteworthy, particularly the precipitous declines in the Olympic, Cle Elum, and Rainier study areas in Washington and the Coast Range study area in Oregon. Estimates of population declines in these areas ranged from 40 to 60 percent during the study period through 2006 (Forsman et al. 2011). Spotted owl populations on the HJ Andrews, Northwest California, and Green Diamond study areas declined by 20-30 percent whereas the Tyee, Klamath, Southern Cascades, and Hoopa study areas showed declines of 5 to 15 percent.

Decreases in adult apparent survival rates were an important factor contributing to decreasing population trends. Forsman et al. (2011) found apparent survival rates were declining on 10 of the study area with the Klamath study area in Oregon being the exception. Estimated declines in adult survival were most precipitous in Washington where apparent survival rates were less than 80 percent in recent years, a rate that may not allow for sustainable populations (Forsman et al. 2011). In addition, declines in adult survival for study areas in Oregon have occurred predominately within the last five years and were not observed in the previous analysis by Anthony et al. 2006. Forsman et al. (2011) express concerns by the collective declines in adult survival across the subspecies range because spotted owl populations are most sensitive to changes in adult survival.

There are few spotted owls remaining in British Columbia. Chutter et al. (2004, p. v) suggested immediate action was required to improve the likelihood of recovering the spotted owl population in British Columbia. So, in 2007, personnel in British Columbia captured and brought into captivity the remaining 16 known wild spotted owls (USDI FWS 2008b, p. 48). Prior to initiating the captive-breeding program, the population of spotted owls in Canada was declining by as much as 10.4 percent per year (Chutter et al. 2004, p. v). The amount of previous interaction between spotted owls in Canada and the United States is unknown. Physiographic Provinces The Action Area lies entirely within the Oregon Cascades West Physiographic Province (OCWP), which extends from the California-Oregon border to the Oregon-Washington border. The OCWP is located in the geographic center of the spotted owl’s range and in addition to the interstate links on it north and south borders, it provides links to the Oregon Coast Ranges, Oregon Cascades East and the Oregon Klamath Mountains Physiographic Provinces. The 1994 FSEIS baseline (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994b) was 2,046,472 acres of spotted owl NRF habitat on federal lands within the OCWP, although consultation has been completed on the removal or downgrading of 70,373 acres through January 29, 2013, which, in addition to the loss of approximately 24,583 acres of NRF habitat due to natural events, has resulted in the decrease of 4.64 percent (94,956 acres) of the provincial baseline (Table 3). Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) The Forest is located within lands managed under the NWFP, which established the current conservation strategy for the spotted owl on federal lands. It is designed around the conservation needs of the spotted owl and based on the designation of a variety of land-use allocations whose objectives are either to provide for population clusters (i.e., demographic support) or to maintain connectivity between population clusters. Several land-use allocations are intended to contribute primarily to supporting population clusters: LSRs, Managed Late-Successional Areas (MLSAs),



43

Congressionally Reserved Areas (CRAs), Managed Pair Areas and Reserve Pair Areas. The remaining LUAs [Matrix, AMAs, Riparian Reserves (RRs), Connectivity Blocks, and AWAs] provide connectivity between habitat blocks intended for demographic support. The range-wide system of LSRs set up under the NWFP captures the variety of ecological conditions within the 12 different physiographic provinces to which spotted owls are adapted. This design reduces the potential for extinction due to large catastrophic events in a single province. Multiple, large LSRs in each province reduce the potential that spotted owls will be extirpated in any individual province and reduce the potential that large wildfires or other events will eliminate all habitat within a LSR. In addition, LSRs are generally arranged and spaced so that spotted owls may disperse to two or more adjacent LSRs and/or Wilderness complexes. This network of reserves reduces the likelihood that catastrophic events will impact habitat connectivity and population dynamics within and between provinces. It has been nineteen years since the adoption of the NWFP. Thomas et al. (1990) argued that the spotted owl population trend should stabilize at a lower equilibrium size sometime within the next 100 years. During the interim, there was an expectation the rate of decline would slowly decrease as habitat loss was arrested and new habitat regenerated in the habitat conservation areas. Similarly, the NWFP predicted a continuing decline of spotted owls until such time as new habitat developed (over a course of decades) (Appendix J of FSEIS) (Courtney et al. 2004). Lint et al. (2005) concluded that during the first ten years of the NWFP, the spotted owl habitat prognosis is seemingly correct. Anthony et al. (2006) stated spotted owl populations appeared to be stationary in several study areas as a result of high survival and stable fecundity rates, although federal study areas appear more stationary than those composed largely of private land. While the habitat provision of the NWFP is a necessary condition for spotted owls, it may not be a wholly sufficient provision (Courtney et al. 2004), given the spotted owl population declines observed in Washington (Anthony et al. 2006, Forsman et al. 2011). Information collected during the first fifteen years of the NWFP, affirms overall NRF habitat declines have been less than anticipated on federal lands (3.4% over fifteen years versus the 2.5% per decade anticipated), and that although protecting habitat is still very important to the survival and recovery of the spotted owl the rapidly increasing barred owl population(s) are proving a confounding influence (Davis et al.2011). Status within Spotted Owl Demography Study Areas The Action Area is located between three long-term spotted owl demographic study areas (DSA), the Tyee, HJ Andrews and Southern Cascades, out of fourteen throughout the spotted owl’s range. We believe information from these areas provides inference regarding the condition of spotted owls within their respective provinces (Anthony et al. 2006) and likely within the Action Area. It is important to draw a distinction between conclusions drawn from range-wide demographic analyses, in particular Anthony et al. 2006 and Forsman et al. 2011, and the trends apparent in local data from individual DSAs. Whereas the range-wide estimates of population change (λ) (Table 5) are largely based on individual spotted owl survival probabilities, the annual reports from the individual DSAs focus on individual spotted owl nest site/territory occupancy trends. It is quite plausible that in declining populations of long-lived K-selected species, the high re-capture probabilities of aging individuals, and the population trend estimates derived from them, will somewhat mask, or lag behind site occupancy trends for pairs, which are much more responsive to year-to-year decreases (J. Reid 2011, pers. comm.).



44

Tyee Demography Study Area The Tyee Study Area (TYE DSA) is located mostly on the western portion of the neighboring Roseburg District BLM, approximately 42 miles west of the Action Area. It was established to provide spotted owl demographic information for the Oregon Coast Ranges (Forsman et al. 2012). On this study area in 2011, pair occupancy decreased to 32 pairs, which is not only the lowest level observed during the 20+-year study, it is less than 50 percent of the number of pairs documented as recently as 2005. The total number of non-juvenile spotted owls on the study area was again the lowest ever observed: 91 individuals were documented (Forsman et al.2012). These changes in occupancy levels continue long-term trends apparent in the TYE DSA and may reflect a decrease in population size. In 2011 there were only three nests and only 2 young were documented (Forsman et al. 2012). Relative to the thirteen other spotted owl study areas represented in the 2009 meta-analysis, the demographic parameters estimated for the spotted owl population in the TYE DSA were at intermediate levels (Forsman et al. 2011). The greatest population declines were reported in the Oregon Coast Range and in all Washington study areas. These study areas had negative time trends in fecundity and/or survival. In contrast, spotted owl populations in southwestern Oregon and northern California appeared to be relatively stationary based on the 95 percent confidence intervals. However, as described previously, data collected since 1990 indicates downward trends in many areas, including all three of the study areas surrounding the Action Area. For example, the 91 spotted owls located within the TYE DSA in 2011 represents approximately 64 percent of the number of individuals documented in 1990 and was the lowest number of spotted owls detected since the study began. Barred owl detections (and likely numbers) continue to increase in the study area (Figure 5).

Figure 3. Spotted owl and Barred owl detection trends on the Tyee Density Study Area (Forsman et al. 2012).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

poly

gons

_

w

ith d

etec

tions

(N=1

60)

Year

Spotted and barred owl detections in Tyee DSA,

1990-2011

Spotted Owl

Barred Owl



45

H.J. Andrews-Central Cascades Demography Study Area The Central Cascades Study Area (HJA DSA) is centered on the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, on the McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest (WNF), approximately 48 miles north-northeast of the Action Area. It was established to provide spotted owl demographic information for the Central west Oregon Cascades Mountains. Dugger et al.(2012 p.5) presented evidence that this spotted owl population continued to decline on the HJA; 2011 represented the lowest number of either a pair or resident single spotted owl per site surveyed since 1996 and the highest number of sites surveyed without spotted owl presence since the study began in 1987 (Figure 6). The proportion of surveyed sites with barred owl detections (47%) was greater in 2010 than in any previous year. The percentage of sites where at least one response from a barred owl was recorded decreased from 2010 (47%) to 2011 (43%) but remains higher than in any other year since the initiation of the study. In 2010, spotted owls reproduced on only one site out of 174 sites checked, and in 2011, forty-three spotted owl pairs and four resident single females were surveyed for reproductive status by 31 August 2011 – only one pair reproduced (2 young). However, up through the 2009 meta-analysis, fecundity was shown to be increasing (Table 5) (Forsman et al. 2011). Figure 4. Percentage of sites occupied by pairs of northern spotted owls compared among land use allocations in the HJ Andrews-Central Cascades study area, Willamette National Forest, Oregon from 1997 – 2011 (Dugger et al. 2012).

South Cascades Demographic Study Area In the South Cascades Study Area (60 miles south of the Action Area) spotted owls occupied approximately 65 percent of the 170 spotted owl sites surveyed in 2011 (Dugger et al. 2012). While the relative proportion of sites occupied between years has been similar, this is confounded by the increase in the number of sites monitored. It should be noted, that overall, the percent occupancy rate of sites for this demographic area have been in substantial decline during



46

the past decade. Concurrently, the fecundity rate (number of young produced per year) is also showing a negative trend and apparent survival has been in decline since 2000 (Forsman et al. 2011). Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) The occupancy and fecundity trends reported for the two surrounding DSAs are calculated differently in each case, making direct comparisons between DSAs problematic. However, there appear to be general downward trends in LSR contributions. For example, the proportion of surveyed sites occupied in the LSRs for the HJA DSA has been declining for several years where in 2010 only 39 percent, and in 2011 only 30 percent of the sites with pairs were in the LSRs (Dugger et al. 2012) (Figure 6). 2012 Revised Spotted Owl Critical Habitat The proposed action is planned partially within revised designated critical habitat for the spotted owl (USDI FWS 2012), specifically within critical habitat unit West Cascades South, subunit WCS #5 (WCS-5) (Table 6). Table 6. Environmental Baseline for Revised Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat for the West Cascades South Unit, Sub-Unit WCS-5, Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug project area (FWS Ref. #: 1EOFW00-2013-F-0116). Critical Habitat Sub-

Unit Number Total federal acres Federal NRF habitat

acreage Federal Dispersal habitat acreage

WCS-5 356,718 219,053 (61%) 102,286(29%)

Critical Habitat Unit West Cascades South The West Cascades South critical habitat unit contains 1,397,642 ac (565,608 ha) (Glenn pers. comm) and comprises six subunits. This unit consists of the southern portion of the Western Cascades Section M242B, based on section descriptions of forest types from Ecological Subregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994a, Section M242B), and extends from the Columbia River south to include the North Umpqua River watershed. This region was separated from the northern section due to its relatively milder temperatures, reduced summer precipitation due to the influence of the Willamette Valley to the west, lower elevations, and greater proportion of western hemlock/Douglas-fir forest. The southern portion of this region exhibits a gradient between Douglas-fir/ western hemlock and increasing Klamath-like vegetation (mixed conifer/evergreen hardwoods) which continues across the Umpqua divide area. The southern boundary of this region is novel and reflects a transition to mixed-conifer forest (Franklin and Dyrness 1988, pp. 23-24, 137-143). The importance of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe increases to the south in this region, but most spotted owl nest sites are in decadent large trees, and occasionally nests of other raptors. Subunit WCS-5. The WCS-5 subunit consists of approximately 356,718 ac (144,359 ha) (Table 6) in Lane, Douglas and Deschutes Counties, Oregon, and comprises only Federal lands managed by the Forest Service under the NWFP (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994a, entire). Congressionally



47

reserved natural areas in Federal ownership are proposed for exclusion. Special management considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest and competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for demographic support to the overall population, as well as north-south and east-west connectivity between subunits and CHUs. Our evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing indicates that approximately 83 percent of the area of WCS-5 was covered by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by non-territorial owls and dispersing subadults, we consider this subunit to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition, there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. We have determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USDI FWS 2011a, p. ix). The increase and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from competition with the barred owl (Strix varia). Status of the Species in the Action Area Given the similarity of land use and ownership patterns, we infer trends documented in the surrounding spotted owl demographic study areas are similar within the Action Area. The Action Area is defined by 50 CFR 402 as "…all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” The Action Area is defined by the combined home ranges (Oregon Western Cascades Physiographic Provincial radius of 1.2 miles) of ten KPACs and a 1.2 mile buffer around the proposed harvest units (Figure 2). Located within the Clearwater River, Headwaters of North Umpqua, Upper North Umpqua and Diamond Lake fifth-field Watersheds, the Action Area encompasses approximately 42,533 acres, all of which (100 percent) are Forest-administered federal lands (Table 7). Climate Change Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). For the more central portion of the northern spotted owl’s range such as the location of the Action Area, climate models have provided a series of projections. For example, annual temperatures are likely to increase up to 3 degrees in the next couple of decades. Total precipitation may remain roughly similar to historic levels but likely increasing in the fall and winter months. Rising temperatures will cause snow to turn to rain in the lower elevations. As a result, the area is likely to experience more severe storm events, variable weather, higher and flashier winter and spring runoff events and increased flooding. Reduced snowpack and soil moisture along with hotter temperatures and longer fire seasons likely will increase significantly (Doppelt et al. 2008). While a change in forest composition or extent is likely as a result of climate change, the rate of that change is uncertain. In forests with long-lived dominant tree species, mature individuals can survive these stresses, so direct effects of climate on forest composition and structure would most likely occur over a longer time scale (100 to 500 years) in some areas than disturbances such as wildfire or insect outbreaks (25 to 100 years) (McKenzie et al. 2009).



48

The presence of high-quality habitat may buffer the negative effects of cold, wet, springs and winters on survival of spotted owls as well as ameliorate the effects of heat. This habitat might help maintain a stable prey base, thereby reducing the cost of foraging during the breeding season when energetic needs are high (Franklin et al. 2000). Although the scientific literature has explored the link between climate change and the invasion by barred owls, changing climate alone is unlikely to have caused the invasion (Livezey 2009). In general, climate change can increase the success of introduced or invasive species in colonizing new territory. Invasive animal species are more likely to be generalists, such as the barred owl, than specialist, such as the spotted owl and adapt more successfully to a new climate than natives. Recovery implementation for spotted owls should, whenever feasible, look for opportunities where managing their habitat also meets other societal priorities concerning climate change. At this point though, it is unclear, what role, if any, Federal and State forest lands will ultimately play in mitigating climate change. Environmental Baseline Of the 39,130 forest habitat-capable federal acres in the Action Area, 16,615 acres are currently spotted owl NRF habitat (39 percent of habitat-capable acreage) (Table 7). Approximately 14,623 acres (34 percent) of habitat-capable Forest lands in the Action Area are protected or reserved under the NWFP and the Umpqua National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan. There are 18,521 acres of revised spotted owl critical habitat in the Action Area.



49

Table 7. Environmental Baseline for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug Action Area (FWS Ref. #: 1EOFW00-2013-F-0116).

UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST, D-BUG TIMBER SALE – NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN ACRES

NSO NRF HABITAT

ACRES (% TOTAL)

CAPABLE NSO

HABITAT ACRES

(% TOTAL)

PROTECTED ACRES1 (% OF

TOTAL)

UNPROTECTED ACRES

(% OF TOTAL)

DISPERSAL2 ACRES (% OF

TOTAL) OWNERSHIP

-All Ownerships 42,533 16,615 (39%) 39,130 (92%) 14,623 (34%) 27,910 (64%) 18,997 (45%) -Private, State, and

other non-BLM Government

0 0 0 0 0 0

-Federal 42,533 16,615 (39%) 39,130 (92%) 14,623 (34%) 27,910 (64%) 18,997 (45%) LAND ALLOCATION - FEDERAL (hierarchal, no acres double-counted)

-Congressionally Reserved Areas (Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, Administratively Withdrawn)

6,571 1,169 (18%) 6,045 (92%)

14,623 (100%)

0 4,124 (63%)

-Late-Successional Reserves (mapped) 0 0 0 0 0

- Areas Withdrawn from the timber base (Wild and Scenic River Corridor, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Administratively Withdrawn)

7,705 2,582 (34%) 6,780 (88%) 0 4,468 (58%)

- 100-Acre Spotted Owl Core Areas in the Matrix

347 247 (71%) 330 (95%) 0 96 (28%)

-Riparian Reserves (Matrix and AMA acres only)

2,807 1,576 (56%) 2,554 (91%) 0 0 1,003 (36%)

-Matrix/Adaptive Management Areas 25,103 11,659 (46%) 23,094 (92%) 0 0 10,238 (41%)

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Acres NRF Habitat Acres

Capable NSO Habitat Acres

PROTECTED UNPROTECTED DISPERSAL

Critical Habitat Sub-unit WCS-5 18,521 11,483 (62%) 17,520 (95%) 5,556 (30%)

Notes: 1. Protected = land allocation with no programmed timber harvest which includes Congressionally Reserved land, LSR’s, Owl Cores and Wild and Scenic River Corridors. 2. Dispersal includes NRF habitat.

Barred Owls in the Action Area The Assessment indicates there are no current or recent surveys of spotted owls (or barred owls) in the Action Area, so barred owl occurrence in the Action Area is not readily quantifiable. However, historical surveys in the vicinity did document barred owls and their numbers are known to be increasing on all of the surrounding demography study areas. Therefore, we presume the trends in barred owl abundance underway on the demography study areas (as presented above) are indicative of trends within the Forest and the Action Area. As discussed in the Status of the Species section, the Revised Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 2011a) identifies competition from the barred owl as an important threat to the spotted owl. Since barred owls are more of habitat generalist but also use the same habitats and prey as spotted owls they are believed to be out competing spotted owls for habitat and food (USDI FWS 2011a and



50

Wiens 2012 and Yackulic et al. 2012). As shown above for the demographic study areas, there has been an almost steady increase in the number of barred owls as measured by the proportion of spotted owl sites with barred owls detected, with as many as 60 percent of the spotted owl sites having barred owls detected (Forsman et al. 2011). Forsman et al. (2011) found evidence barred owl detections were important sources of variation, and had negative effects on spotted owl apparent survival and recruitment. Recent information (Dugger et al. 2011) indicates that site extinction rates for spotted owls increased with decreased amounts of old forest at the site core use area scale, an effect that was two to three times greater when barred owls were detected. In addition, the detection of barred owls decreased the probability that spotted owls would colonize vacated nesting territories as the nearest neighbor distance between old-forest patches increased. Wiens (2012) also found that the relative probability of a location being selected by spotted owls was reduced if the location was in close proximity to the core-use are of a barred owl. Barred owls are known to use a wide variety of forest types, including early successional habitats. While a suggestion has been made that timber harvest activities may favor barred owls, an alternative hypothesis is that barred owls have a wider range of habitat use in the northern part of the spotted owl’s range, and the spotted owl has a narrower one. But in the more southerly part of the spotted owl’s range, the spotted owl seems to have a broader range of habitat use than does the barred owl (Courtney et al. 2004). Therefore, timber harvest may have the effect of reducing spotted owl habitat in some areas (Dugger et al. 2011), leading to a competitive advantage for barred owls, but perhaps not in others (Courtney et al. 2004). Wiens (2012) found that old forests represented high quality habitat for both species in terms of its influence on adult survival. This finding, along with evidence that the presence of barred owls reduced the amount of old forest available to spotted owls, suggest that spatially structured social aspects such as the presence of the barred owl affects habitat quality for spotted owls. However, in some portions of the spotted owl’s range, barred owl populations are increasing while spotted owls are declining, to some degree independently of forest management history in the area (Courtney et al. 2004). For example, barred owls are increasing while spotted owls are declining throughout the Olympic peninsula in both industrial and national forest, but also in the National Park (in areas never harvested) (Anthony et al. 2004). On the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (Washington), the density and impact of barred owls appears higher in areas without timber harvest (Pearson and Livezey 2003). Because the above studies suggest that the two species compete for resources, maintaining older, high quality habitat may help spotted owls persist, at least in the short-term. Our evaluation of the D-Bug project therefore focused on whether the proposed action could potentially exacerbate competitive interactions between the two species by reducing the availability of high-quality habitat (see Recovery Plan section below). As described below, treatments are proposed for high-quality habitat and therefore it seems the project may exacerbate the competitive interactions between the two species. However, although available evidence suggests that the presence and distribution of barred owls may affect habitat quality for spotted owls (Wiens 2012), there is currently no indication that silvicultural management influences barred owl habitat selection (E. Forsman, pers. comm., cited in USDI FWS 2011a p. B-11).



51

Role of the Action Area in the Survival and Recovery of the Spotted Owl Under the conservation strategy set forth in the NWFP, the contextual federal forest lands containing the Action Area are intended to provide: 1) habitat blocks reserved for breeding owls, and; 2) sufficient habitat amounts and distributions to facilitate spotted owl dispersal between the reserves. According to the Assessment, the federal lands within the Action Area are primarily Matrix lands (59%) (Table 7) and all of the proposed treatment units lie within Matrix lands. Under the NWFP the Matrix/AMAs, along with the riparian reserves, were allocated to provide for spotted owl dispersal between habitat blocks to be provided by the LSRs. There are approximately 2,807 acres of riparian reserves within the Action Area; of this approximately 1,576 acres (56%) are currently spotted owl NRF habitat. Under the NWFP, certain types of timber harvest are allowed in the riparian reserves, but these do not include removal of late successional forest. Although some proportion of the spotted owls in the Matrix/AMA and private lands in the Action Area are likely to be nesting and rearing young, the NWFP conservation strategy for the spotted owl does not rely on these nesting pairs and this nesting habitat to maintain the spotted owl population. The LSRs near the Action Area are intended to provide habitat blocks for the breeding population of spotted owls. However, as discussed above under the Status of the Species section, the NWFP assumed that about 2.5 percent of the Matrix/AMA would be subject to timber harvest per decade. At that rate, a large area of Matrix/AMA is expected to continue to support nesting spotted owls and the overall species’ population while additional spotted owl NRF habitat is developing within the LSR system. To date, consultation records show timber harvest in the Matrix/AMA have been consistent with that assumption (Tables 3, B-1 and B-2 [Appendix B], and see Davis et al. 2011). However, data from local DSAs (provided above) gives rise to concerns over how well the designated land use allocations are supporting the survival and recovery of the spotted owl, which is likely influenced to some extent by barred owls. According to the Assessment, there are over 18,997 acres of dispersal habitat (not including NRF habitat) within the Action Area at this time; eighty-four percent of the lands in the Action Area are currently functional dispersal habitat (including NRF habitat). On that basis, it appears the habitat needs for the owl as prescribed under the NWFP are currently being met (Lint et al. 2005 and Davis et al. 2011). However, the NWFP doesn’t address whether the habitat needs of the spotted owl could change in the face of an increasing population of barred owls (Davis et al. 2011). There is, however, currently no indication that silvicultural management influences barred owl habitat selection (E. Forsman, pers. comm. 2011). The revised spotted owl recovery plan (USDI FWS 2011a) ascribes a similar role for the Action Area, by relying on the NWFP for the federal contribution to spotted owl recovery and by emphasizing the importance of retaining the older, and more structurally complex stands between the reserves (Recovery Action 32). The proposed action may affect those roles (see below).



52

STATUS OF SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT Legal Status On January 15, 1992, the Service designated spotted owl critical habitat within 190 critical habitat units which encompassed nearly 6.9 million acres of Federal lands in California, Oregon, and Washington (USDI FWS 1992). In 2008 the Service revised spotted owl critical habitat into 29 units, comprising 174 sub-units, on approximately 5,312,300 acres of Federal lands in California, Oregon, and Washington (USDI FWS 2008a) in a geographic manner designed to protect clusters of reproductively-capable spotted owls and facilitate demographic interchange. On December 4, 2012, consistent with the best scientific data available, the standards of the Act and applicable regulations, the Service published a final rule (USDI FWS 2012) designating 9,577,969 ac (Glenn pers. comm) in 11 units and 60 subunits in California, Oregon, and Washington that meet the definition of critical habitat. The final rule became effective January 3, 2013. Purpose and Intent Through designation of revised critical habitat, the Service has encouraged land managers to consider implementation of forest management practices recommended in the Revised Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 2011a) to restore natural ecological processes where they have been disrupted or suppressed (e.g., natural fire regimes), and application of ecological forestry management practices (e.g., Franklin et al. 2007, entire) within critical habitat to reduce the potential for adverse impacts associated with commercial timber harvest when such harvest is planned within or adjacent to critical habitat. In the final rule, the Service encourages land managers to consider the conservation of existing high-quality spotted owl habitat, the restoration of forest ecosystem health, and the ecological forestry management practices recommended in the Revised Recovery Plan that are compatible with both the goals of spotted owl recovery and Standards and Guidelines of the Forest Plan. The final revised critical habitat designation is based on the current status and recent scientific research on spotted owl populations. The Service used the best scientific information available to identify those specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and which may require special management considerations or protection. For the spotted owl, these features include particular forest types that are used or likely to be used by spotted owls for nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersing habitat. In addition, the Service used the best available information to identify those areas that are otherwise determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. Relying on the recovery criteria set forth in the Revised Recovery Plan to determine what is essential to the conservation of the species the Service identified a habitat network that meets the following criteria:

• Ensures sufficient habitat to support stable, healthy populations across the range, and also within each of the 11 recovery units;

• Ensures distribution of spotted owl populations across the range of habitat conditions used by the species;

• Incorporates uncertainty, including potential effects of barred owls, climate change, and wildfire disturbance risk; and



53

• Recognizes that these protections are meant to work in concert with other recovery actions, such as barred owl (Strix varia) management.

The Service integrated habitat and demographic information relating to occupancy, survival, reproduction, and movement to develop a modeling tool that assesses the distribution of habitat quality and population dynamics across the range, and provides a more accurate picture of where high-quality spotted owl habitat exists. This model synthesized more than 20 years of data from on-the-ground demographic surveys, and allowed for analysis of how spotted owl populations would fare under different habitat conservation scenarios. The Service determined what is essential to recovery of the spotted owl by evaluating the performance of each potential critical habitat scenario considered against the recovery needs of the owl. Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) The PCEs in the final rule (USDI FWS 2012) are described as: (i) forest types in early-, mid-, or late-seral stages that support the spotted owl across its geographical range, and that occur in concert with (ii) habitat that provides for spotted owl nesting and roosting; or (iii) habitat that provides for spotted owl foraging, which varies widely across the spotted owl’s range, in accordance with ecological conditions and disturbance regimes that influence vegetation structure and prey species distributions; or (iv) habitat that supports the transience and colonization phases of spotted owl dispersal, which in all cases would optimally be composed of spotted owl nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat (PCEs ii or iii above), but which may also be composed of other forest types that occur between larger blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. Conservation Role of Critical Habitat Section 2 of the Act states, “The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved. Although the conservation of the listed species is the specific objective of a critical habitat designation, the essential physical or biological features that serve as the basis of critical habitat are often essential components of the ecosystem upon which the species depends. In such cases, a fundamental goal of critical habitat management is not only to conserve the listed species, but also to conserve the ecosystem upon which that species depends.” This is the case with the spotted owl. An ecosystem is defined as a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment, or as the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit (Krebs 1972, pp. 10–11; Ricklefs 1979, pp. 31–32, 869). These ecosystem interactions and functions are often referred to as ecological relationships or processes. Thus, to conserve the spotted owl as directed by the Act, one must also conserve the ecological processes that occur within the ecological landscape inhabited by the species. These processes—such as vegetation succession, forest fire regimes, and nutrient cycling—create and shape the physical or biological features that form the foundation of critical habitat. The spotted owl was initially listed as a threatened species largely due to the loss or degradation of the late-successional forest ecosystems upon which it depends. A complex interaction of physical or biological factors contribute to the development and maintenance of these ecosystems, which in turn provide the spotted owl with the environmental conditions required for its conservation and survival, such as large areas of suitable habitat, nest structures, and sufficient prey to sustain interconnected



54

populations of owls across the landscape. A fundamental goal of critical habitat management should thus be to understand, describe, and conserve these processes, which in turn will maintain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This ecosystem approach will ultimately have the highest likelihood of conserving listed species such as the spotted owl in the long term (Knight 1998, p. 43). Critical Habitat Unit West Cascades South The proposed action for this consultation occurs within critical habitat unit West Cascades South, subunit WCS-5 (USDI FWS 2012 p. 71918). Critical habitat unit West Cascades South contains 1,397,642 acres (Glenn pers. comm) and comprises six subunits. This critical habitat unit extends from the Columbia River south to the ridge separating the North Umpqua River and South Umpqua River watersheds. This critical habitat unit was separated from the northern sections (West Cascades North and West Cascades Central) due to its relatively milder temperatures, reduced summer precipitation due to the influence of the Willamette Valley to the west, lower elevations, and greater proportion of western hemlock/Douglas-fir forest. The southern portion of this critical habitat unit exhibits a gradient between Douglas-fir/western hemlock and increasing Klamath-like vegetation (mixed conifer/evergreen hardwoods), which continues across the Umpqua divide area. The southern boundary of this critical habitat unit is novel and reflects a transition to mixed-conifer forest (Franklin and Dyrness 1988, pp. 23–24, 137–143). The importance of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe increases to the south in this critical habitat unit, but most spotted owl nest sites are found in defective large trees, and occasionally nests of other raptors. Subunit WCS-5 The WCS-5 subunit consists of approximately 356,718 acres in Lane, Douglas and Deschutes Counties, Oregon, and comprises only Federal lands managed by the USDA Forest Service under the NWFP (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994a, entire) (Table 6). Special management considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest and competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for demographic support to the overall population, as well as north- south and east-west connectivity between subunits and critical habitat units. The Service’s evaluation of sites known to be occupied at the time of listing indicates that approximately 83 percent of the area of WCS-5 was covered by verified spotted owl home ranges at the time of listing. When combined with likely occupancy of suitable habitat and occupancy by nonterritorial owls and dispersing subadults, this subunit is considered to have been largely occupied at the time of listing. In addition, there may be some smaller areas of younger forest within the habitat mosaic of this subunit that were unoccupied at the time of listing. The Service has determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USDI FWS 2012 p. 71927). The increase and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for population growth, successful dispersal, and buffering from competition with the barred owl.



55

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

NRF and Dispersal Habitat Modification The proposed treatment units are distributed throughout portions of the Clearwater River, Headwaters of North Umpqua, Upper North Umpqua and Diamond Lake fifth-field watersheds where historically a predominantly medium-frequency high-intensity fire regime operating within a mosaic of mixed moisture regimes provided various conifer-dominated stand types. These stands ranged from very structurally-complex ancient forests in the refugia areas (a function, in part, of soil type and depth), which were rarely touched by high-intensity wildfire, to areas dominated by lodgepole pines which were apparently maintained by a moderate severity fire regime, with a fire return interval of 60-80 years (Agee 1993). Changes to the fire regime brought about by removing the influence of first Americans, continued wildfire suppression and local, short-term climate fluctuations have resulted in stands influenced less by fire than they were historically. The thinning and other fuel reduction prescriptions are primarily designed to increase human safety in a high-use year-round recreation area (qualifying as a Wildland Urban Interface -WUI) by modifying forest stand conditions to decrease the likelihood of catastrophic landscape-scale wildfire. Overall, the proposed action will downgrade 1,070 acres of NRF habitat to dispersal-only quality and treat but maintain the current function of 227 acres of NRF and 2,571 acres of dispersal-only habitat (Table 1). Post-project all treated stands that are currently dispersal-quality or better are expected to at least serve as dispersal-quality habitat for the spotted owl. In some cases, the treated stands are likely to develop more structural and species diversity as they mature than would be the case if left untreated. According to the Assessment, existing large snags and substantial coarse woody material will be protected as much as feasibly possible within the treatment units. There will, however, be impacts to adjacent stands of mature and old-growth forest due to the utilization (felling) of trees used as tail-holds and anchors for timber-yarding operations. There will also be minor impacts due to above-ambient noise levels during the latter portion of the spotted owl nesting season. These are described below. Anticipated beneficial effects of the proposed action may be derived in the Action Area at the landscape scale and over the long-term, due to reduced fuel loading, therefore lessening the risk of potential fire, and future loss, of spotted owl NRF habitat. Anticipated Spotted Owl Response to NRF modification

As noted above, the proposed action will downgrade approximately 1,070 acres of NRF habitat (Tables 1 and 8). This effect is likely to be caused by the proposed thinning and associated fuel reduction activities. Thinning will reduce canopy cover to below the 60-70 percent canopy cover recommended for maintaining NRF habitat (USDI FWS 2012). It is primarily the effect of reducing canopy cover and other essential features of NRF habitat (e.g., intermediate size trees, understory composition, etc.) within the home ranges associated with KPACs in the Action Area that is likely to adversely affect spotted owls. Other important biological features such as large trees with broken tops and deformities will remain on-site where feasible, but some loss of these features is expected in treated areas which may reduce availability of spotted owl nesting structures and denning sites for spotted owl prey. The treatment will promote remnant tree growth, and enhance their survivorship due to the reduction of competition from surrounding



56

trees. Pre-existing large snags and large downed wood will be retained to the greatest extent possible post- treatment. Nonetheless, spotted owls are expected to be displaced and/or to avoid (Bart and Forsman 1992, Bart 1995) areas where NRF and/or dispersal habitat is removed/downgraded, although there is some potential for short-term foraging opportunities in harvested areas (Folliard 1993).

There are 10 KPACs1 within the Action Area with spotted owl home ranges overlapping the proposed harvest units that are likely to be affected by the proposed action (Table 8). KPACS with NRF habitat amounts above 40 to 50 percent at the home range and 0.5 mile core-use area spatial scales are considered to be of higher habitat quality and to support higher levels of spotted owl occupancy and habitat fitness (Bart and Forsman 1992, Bart 1995, Dugger et al. 2005, Olson et al. 2004). Post-treatment, several of the KPACs, 352, 382, 430, and 554 (Table 8), will have NRF habitat amounts less than suggested in the literature as adequate to support spotted owls. Table 8. Summary of treatment acres to NRF habitat within KPAC home ranges, core use areas and nest patches for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug project (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116).

KPAC

NRF Habitat Acreage Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

300 meter Nest patch

(%)

800 meter Core Use

Area (%)

1.2 mile Home Range

(%)

300 meter Nest patch

(%)

800 meter Core Use

Area (%)

1.2 mile Home Range

(%) 348* 37 (53%) 180 (36%) 824 (28%) 37 (53%) 180 (36%) 814 (28%) 352* 29 (42%) 103 (21%) 885 (31%) 29 (42%) 103 (21%) 734 (25%) 379 66 (95%) 386 (77%) 2,435 (84%) 66 (95%) 386 (77%) 2,189 (76%) 382 51 (73%) 191 (38%) 1,212 (42%) 37 (53%) 140 (28%) 1,035 (36%) 417 67 (95%) 377 (75%) 1,982 (68%) 67 (95%) 377 (75%) 1,982 (68%) 430 63 (90%) 246 (49%) 1,191 (41%) 63 (90%) 233 (47%) 1,137 (39%) 434 60 (86%) 445 (89%) 2,180 (75%) 60 (86%) 426 (85%) 2,069 (71%) 551 54 (77%) 269 (54%) 747 (26%) 54 (77%) 269 (54%) 738 (25%) 554* 48 (69%) 287 (57%) 1,175 (41%) 48 (69%) 287 (57%) 1,062 (37%) 559 66 (94%) 361 (72%) 1,482 (51%) 66 (94%) 361 (72%) 1,476 (51%)

* These three KPACs are not in spotted owl critical habitat whereas the other seven are within critical habitat. Bold text shows where NRF habitat will be downgraded. Shaded rows indicate sites with the potential for take of spotted owls. Rosenberg and McKelvey (1999) reported that spotted owls are “central place” animals with the core use area (the area closest to the nest) being the focal area. Results from Bingham and Noon (1997) showed that spotted owls typically used 20-21 percent of their home range as core use area habitat, which generally included 60-70 percent of the sites within their home range used

1 Table 10 in the 2010 consultation (FWS reference # 13420-2010-F-0161) listed 17 KPACs, of which only 14 were close enough to be affected by proposed treatment units. The analysis supporting this Opinion focused only on the 14 KPACs with home ranges overlapping the proposed treatment units. Of those 14, four were dropped from the Forest’s spotted owl occupancy map because when considered in light of the updated NRF habitat data (Davis et al. 2011), there is not sufficient NRF habitat present in the nest patches, core use areas and home ranges associated with those four estimated (USDI/USDA 2008) activity centers to support a finding that these four KPACs are likely to be occupied by spotted owls. The incidental take statement reflects this change as well.



57

during the breeding season. As central place foragers, nesting spotted owls are likely very sensitive to activities that occur within their core areas and especially their nest patch (Swindle et al. 1997, Miller et al. 1989, and Meyer et al. 1998). Meyer et al. (1998) examined landscape indices associated with spotted owl sites versus random plots on BLM lands throughout Oregon. Across provinces, landscape indices highly correlated with the probability of spotted owl occupancy included the percent older forest (30 percent) within the 500 acres (analogous to a core-use area) surrounding the site. Zabel et al. (2003) found for their northwest California study that the highest probability of owl occupancy occurred when the core area was composed of 69 percent nest/roosting habitat. Bart (1995) found that core areas should contain 30-50 percent mature and old growth forest. Recently developed habitat-fitness and landscape models have demonstrated the importance of having sufficient amounts of NRF habitat within core use areas to adequately provide for spotted owl survival and reproduction along with access to prey. For example, Franklin et al. (2000) found that the proportion of good habitat was around 60 percent to lesser quality habitat for owl cores in northwest California. Dugger et al. (2005 and unpublished data) showed that when owl core areas in their southern Oregon study area had at least 50-60 percent older forest habitat, spotted owl fitness (i.e., survival and reproduction) was relatively higher than in core areas with lesser amounts. Olson et al. (2005) found similar results on their Oregon Coast Ranges study area. Based on the above information, the downgrading of 1,070 acres of NRF habitat within treated stands is likely to cause measurable reductions in spotted owl habitat quality on four of the 10 affected KPACSs (Table 8) and the likely reduction of primary prey species, such as the northern flying squirrel (see below). One or more of the four affected KPACs are likely to be abandoned by spotted owls and/or and have habitat-fitness reduced because available habitat amounts will be decreased to levels impairing these functions based on the findings of Olson et al. (2004), Dugger et al. (2005), Zabel et al. (2003), Meyer et al. (1998), and Carey et al. (1992). For example, the ability for spotted owls to breed and replace themselves is anticipated to decrease due to reduced habitat. Removal of the within-stand habitat structural features may likely remove foraging locations for a perch and wait predator like the spotted owl. Favorable microclimate conditions for sheltering the heat sensitive spotted owl will be reduced as well. Dispersal-only Habitat Modification Facilitation of spotted owl movements at the landscape scale have long been assessed as being a function of the percent land cover in a minimum structural condition [e.g., the “50-11-40” rule, Thomas et al. (1990); see also Lint et al. (2005) and Davis et al. (2011)]. As noted above in the “Environmental Baseline for the Spotted Owl” section, approximately 84 percent of the 42,533 –acre Action Area is comprised of spotted owl dispersal or better quality spotted owl habitat. Under the proposed action, the status of spotted owl dispersal-quality habitat in the Action Area is not likely to change and dispersal connectivity across the landscape post-treatment is likely to be sufficient facilitate spotted owl landscape-scale movements because 84 percent of the 42,533-acre Action Area is likely to be comprised of spotted owl dispersal or better quality spotted owl habitat. However, timber harvest under the proposed action is likely to temporarily decrease the quality of affected dispersal habitat in the treatment areas. Currently, portions of this habitat in both mixed conifer and lodgepole plant association groups (Table 9), which largely comprise the



58

Action Area, are likely to support some foraging activity by spotted owls based on the findings of Forsman (1984), USDI FWS (2008b), and the Deschutes National Forest Science Team (1996) (Table 9). Based upon analyses presented in the Assessment, reductions in several secondary spotted owl prey species are likely to occur. This anticipated reduction is likely due to the proposed reductions in snag levels and abundance, the amount of coarse woody material on the ground, canopy closure, canopy density and structural diversity within the treatment units. Reductions in prey availability are considered problematic for spotted owls because they may typically exist near a theoretical energetic threshold such that their ability to successfully reproduce can hinge on very subtle fluctuations in primary prey availability (Forsman 2004, Rosenberg et.al. 2003). Although this effect is uncertain, for purposes of this analysis and in accordance with Service ESA section 7 policy, we are giving the benefit of the doubt to the listed species. On that basis, these small reductions in prey densities are likely to reduce the reproductive performance of spotted owl pairs, especially those occupying habitat-limited home ranges and core use areas. Under those circumstances, it is likely that the number of spotted owls occupying or successfully reproducing with the Action Area is likely to be reduced in the foreseeable future. The objective of the proposed action is to maintain the treated areas in a condition such that fire can readily be kept out of those treated areas. These stands are not being treated to maintain or promote future development of structural complexity. Table 9. Characteristics of spotted owl dispersal habitat developed by the Deschutes National Forest and adapted for use for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug consultation.

Plant Association Group Even-aged Stands Uneven-aged Stands Mixed Conifer Wet 11” dbh, 40% Canopy Cover 11” dbh, 40% Canopy Cover Mixed Conifer dry 8” dbh, 35% Canopy Cover 11” dbh, 35% Canopy Cover

Ponderosa Pine 8” dbh, 35% Canopy Cover 11” dbh, 35% Canopy Cover Lodgepole Pine 7” dbh, 30% Canopy Cover 7” dbh, 30% Canopy Cover

Mountain Hemlock 7” dbh, 30% Canopy Cover 7” dbh, 30% Canopy Cover Anticipated Spotted Owl Prey Response to the Proposed Action

Overall, prey species for spotted owls in the Action Area include northern flying squirrels, red tree voles, woodrats and other mammalian species. In general, spotted owl primary prey species, such as northern flying squirrels, will likely avoid harvested NRF habitat (Carey 2000, Forsman et al. 2004) and dispersal-only habitat areas (Wilson 2010, Manning et al. 2012). This is anticipated due to the reduction in tree densities, canopy closure, and mid-story canopy, as well as impacts to existing snags and down coarse wood in harvested areas; all of these attributes are key habitat features that influence the carrying capacity of the affected stands for the spotted owl’s primary prey species listed above. These harvested areas will become much more inhospitable to flying squirrels, whose abundance is tied to complex mid-story canopies (Carey 2000 and Wilson 2010). Red tree vole populations may be impacted as well, due to removal of their nest structures, intact canopies and their food source, although this effect is difficult to quantify (Carey 1991). Other mammalian (e.g. mice, woodrats) and avian secondary prey species may respond positively to the new forest openings, or to the newly-created ecological edges (Sakai and Noon 1993). Also populations of other tree squirrels, such as the western gray



59

squirrel (Sciurus griseus) may respond favorably to increases in pine health and abundance (Vander Haegen et al. 2004). Overall, reduced prey availability is anticipated to impact spotted owls by reducing fitness for breeding, ability to provide sufficient food for young owls and/or less reproductive output. Northern Flying Squirrel Studies in young forest stands harboring similar mammalian prey assemblages have found that northern flying squirrels have generally responded negatively to thinning, although results have varied across the studies. Several studies have suggested that forest-thinning can temporarily (e.g., for up to 20 years) reduce the availability of truffles, which are a key food resource for northern flying squirrels and other small mammals on which spotted owls depend (Meyer et al. 2007). Although studies in British Columbia did not find any significant short-term differences in the densities, movements or reproduction of flying squirrels in young, commercially-thinned stands versus unthinned young stands (Ransome et al. 2004), the statistical power to determine that significance was very low due to small sample size effects (Holloway and Smith 2011). Carey (2000) found lower abundances of flying squirrels in recently-thinned (within 10 years) stands in Washington than in stands that were clear-cut 50 years prior to the study, with retention of both live and dead trees. Carey (2000) attributed his results to the apparently negative effects of commercial thinning on canopy connectivity, downed wood and truffle communities in the area. Wilson (2010) also reported most thinning is likely to suppress flying squirrel populations for several decades, but expected the eventual long-term benefits of variable-density thinning for squirrels are likely to be positive. While an emphasis on developing mid-story tree layers by thinning activities is critical if the goal is to accelerate late-seral conditions and promote prey for the spotted owl, the length of time between thinning and recovery of flying squirrel habitat suitability in young stands is likely to range from 30 to as much 100 years (Wilson 2010). Mixed results have also been reported in studies that examined the effects of forest-thinning on woodrats. Dusky-footed woodrats occur in a variety of conditions, including both old, structurally complex forests and younger seral stages, and are often associated with streams (Carey et al. 1992, 1999, Sakai and Noon 1993, Hamm and Diller 2009). Research has suggested that forest-thinning or associated practices (e.g., burning slash piles) could be detrimental to dusky-footed woodrats if it reduces hardwoods, shrubs or downed wood, yet treatments could ultimately benefit woodrats if they result in growth of shrubs or hardwoods (Innes et al. 2007). There have been no studies addressing bushy-tailed woodrat occurrence in or near the Action Area. The available literature suggests they may be more limited by abiotic features, such as the availability of suitable rocky areas for den sites (Smith 1997) or the presence of streams (Carey et al. 1992, 1999) than are dusky-footed woodrats and we see no evidence to dispute the likelihood of their presence in the Action Area. As with the dusky-footed woodrat, forest- thinning that reduces the availability of snags, downed wood or mistletoe could negatively impact the affected bushy-tailed woodrat populations (Lehmkuhl et al. 2006). A study of dusky-footed woodrats in the redwood region of California, however, did not find an association between abundances of woodrats and different intensities of commercial thinning (Hamm and Diller 2009). Species such as brush rabbits, woodrats, and other rodents are primarily associated with early-and mid-seral forest habitats (stands < 80 years of age) (Sakai and Noon 1993, Carey 2000), and



60

could benefit from increased understory and shrub development (Carey 2000, Haveri and Carey 2000). Although stand tree density management can have rapid, positive effects for many forest-floor prey species (e.g. mice, voles, chipmunks, songbirds) especially due to increased understory development (Carey 2001, Haveri and Carey 2000), spotted owls are likely depending on flying squirrels for prey in the Action Area. Considering all of the above information, the Service anticipates both short- and long-term reductions in flying squirrel populations associated with the proposed treatments. The reduced availability of key prey species could increase the energetics demands of spotted owls searching for prey and thus making the owls less fit to reproduce. Less abundant prey for some prey species may preclude the ability of adult spotted owls to provide sufficient food to developing young, which could increase mortality of fledging owls. Therefore, the ability of spotted owls to replace themselves in the overall population could be diminished. Anchor and Hazard Tree Removal The Assessment indicates that anchor tree removal activities will avoid known spotted owl nest trees, trees with nesting structure for spotted owls, or adjacent trees providing habitat function when possible. However, there is likely to be site-specific adverse effects to spotted owls where anchor (tailhold and guyline) trees and hazard trees associated with harvest units (anchor/hazard trees) are felled in adjacent NRF habitat as part of the proposed action and these effects may lead to a reduction in potential nest trees. This could reduce the suitability of these treated stands for spotted owl nesting and roosting. There are three harvest units (82, 158 and 161) within or adjacent to spotted owl NRF habitat where skyline logging is specified and may require the use of anchor trees. Guyline trees will be located within the units whenever possible. Whereas the guyline trees will be felled, tailhold trees will be left standing when feasible and the smallest possible trees will be selected, but trees of all diameters could be used. Use of old-growth trees will be avoided if possible. No guyline trees are proposed for felling within 100-acre spotted owl LSRs or spotted owl critical habitat. Felled guyline trees will not continue to function as potential spotted owl nest or roost trees in these stands, but they will remain on-site to serve as spotted owl habitat for prey species. Although the availability of potential nest trees might not appear to be the factor limiting spotted owl use of the affected stands, site-specific spotted owl surveys are not part of the proposed action. As such, a reasonable level of uncertainty remains regarding the role(s) identified anchor/hazard trees might be playing in spotted owl habitat quality within the affected stands. Although the effect of the proposed action on potential spotted owl nest trees is uncertain, for purposes of this analysis and in accordance with Service ESA section 7 policy, we are giving the benefit of the doubt to the listed species. On that basis, under certain circumstances which are considered likely to occur in the Action Area, anchor/hazard tree removal is likely adversely affect spotted owls by reducing the availability of nest trees in the action area. Road Construction There will be 16.3 miles of temporary roads re-used (8.7 miles) or created (7.6 miles) for this project; the new temporary roads will be removed upon project completion. None of these roads are within spotted owl dispersal habitat and 5.6 miles are within NRF habitat; five of these road miles are new temporary roads that will be obliterated after use. To the extent that road construction results in removal of potential spotted owl nest trees, the anticipated effects are



61

quite the same as for activities described above which will reduce nesting and roosting habitat suitability in treated NRF habitat. Fire Fire suppression has actively occurred in the Action Area since the 1930’s, suggesting portions of the Action Area have missed at least one fire return interval. Fire is expected to have both short and long-term adverse and beneficial effects to spotted owl prey species. The proposed action includes 125 acres of underburning within NRF habitat that will be downgraded to dispersal habitat. Underburning is proposed in units 82 and 194, both located adjacent to the Diamond Lake Lodge on the north end of Diamond Lake, at the south end of the Action Area. This is an area of high year-round recreation use (summer camping and fishing, and winter snowmobile and cross country skier use). Underburning has been prescribed for these units as a restorative treatment due to the higher density of white pines and fire-dependent ponderosa pines as well as the south aspects of these units. The intent of the underburning is primarily to reduce surface and ladder fuels, while at the same time reintroducing fire to those stands. The Assessment concludes that these stands were historically more likely to have frequent lower intensity fire within them (which the proposed underburning is attempting to mimic) based upon the predominance of ponderosa pine within the stands. The underburning will take place in the fall targeting smaller diameter surface fuels for consumption. These treatments are designed to retain the post-harvest function of the spotted owl habitat, therefore all NRF and dispersal habitat conditions found in the proposed units post-harvest will be retained during burning, and the stands will benefit from reduced surface and ladder fuels which can contribute to the establishment of stand replacing crown fires. Some small mammals may be directly impacted due to smoke or the inability to escape. Other small mammals may not be affected if they are mobile, protected within large downed coarse wood, or able to move underground or up a tree. However, there may be long-term benefits from a low intensity burn in that the expected increased plant vigor, forage production, and tree mortality resulting from burning could facilitate cavity creation and resultant denning opportunities. Another expected benefit is the likely decrease in potential for a stand replacement fire event in the drier forests found within the Action Area. Except for very short-term disturbance when the underburning is conducted, no adverse effects to the spotted owl are likely caused by the proposed action for the reasons discussed above. Disruption The proposed action will not likely have direct effects from noise on the spotted owl because a seasonal operating restriction has been placed upon all above-ambient noise-producing activities associated with the proposed action between March 1 and July 15 each year the project is active (Appendix A). Because the proposed underburning will occur in the fall, there will be minimal adverse impacts to any spotted owls associated with the KPACs in the Action Area and no disturbance or disruption impacts to nesting spotted owls are likely to occur because of the seasonal operating restrictions.



62

Significance of Adverse and Beneficial Effects of the Action on the Spotted Owl Based on the above information, the Service believes the downgrading of 1,070 acres of NRF habitat will have an adverse effect on spotted owls in the Action Area. On up to four spotted owl sites in the Action Area, these effects are anticipated to harm spotted owls. The anticipated impacts may include the abandonment of the sites by the adult owls due to less NRF habitat. The downgrade of habitat may also lead to reduction in breeding fitness and a decline in reproductive output and therefore impair the ability of spotted owls to replace themselves in the Action Area. Potential benefits from the proposed action will be in the form of fuel load reduction which may decrease fire risk and make the Action Area less vulnerable to large-scale wildfire. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT Due to implementation of the proposed action, there will be 347 acres of dispersal-only habitat and 106 acres of NRF habitat treated and maintained in its current functional role. Also 473 acres of NRF habitat will be downgraded to a less functional capacity within revised spotted owl critical habitat (Table 10). Please note that the amount of critical habitat acres being treated is less than the overall acres prescribed for treatment in the D-Bug proposed action. Table 10. Summary of anticipated acres impacted in critical habitat for the spotted owl for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug project (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116).

Project Name

Acreage Affected Treat &

Maintain 1 Removed 2 Downgraded 3

NRF4 D5 NRF D NRF D D-Bug 106 347 0 0 473 0

1 Treat and Maintain: Treat and maintain prescriptions are expected to retain the function of any affected NRF or dispersal habitats post-project implementation. 2 Removal: A removal of spotted owl NRF habitat will result in the affected habitat no longer functioning as nesting, roosting, foraging or dispersal habitat for the spotted owl. Likewise, a removal of dispersal habitat will no longer function to support dispersal of spotted owls across the landscape.. 3 Downgrade: the downgrade of spotted owl NRF habitat is expected to reduce the function of the affected habitat in a manner that only provides for the dispersal of spotted owls, and not nesting, roosting or foraging post-project implementation 4 NRF = Nesting, Roosting, Foraging Habitat 5 D = Dispersal-only Habitat Effects from NRF Downgrade in spotted owl critical habitat As described above, there is a potential beneficial effect due to implementation of the propsoed action in that the risk of landscape-scale wildfire, resulting in NRF habitat loss, will be reduced throughout the Action Area, including the portion that is critical habitat. However, the proposed action will downgrade 473 acres of NRF habitat within spotted owl critical habitat. The final rule encourages the interagency Level 1consultation teams to tailor the scale of their effects determinations to the localized biology of the life-history needs of the spotted owl (such as the



63

stand scale, a 500-acre circle or other appropriate, localized scale) (USDI FWS 2012 p.71939). The Forest Level 1 consultation team (Team) agreed to utilize a 500-acre area surrounding centroids of the subject harvest units because that scale provides a reasonable estimation of spotted owl core-use areas (USDI FWS 2012) and reliable estimates of parameters such as nest occupancy by pairs and individual spotted owl site productivity when the amount of habitat available is used as the treatment variable (Dugger et al. 2005, Olson et al. 2004). To conduct this analysis, all harvest units that were previously consulted on and are outside of the 2012 critical habitat that removed or downgraded NRF habitat were excluded from the GIS data layer that defined the NRF baseline. A focal statistic analysis using a circular neighborhood of 500 acres was used to recalculate the individual cell values in the pre-treatment NRF grid for the action area (a combination of a 1.2 mile buffer area around units, and any homeranges of NSO’s that overlapped with the units). Next, the proposed harvest units within revised critical habitat that either removed or downgraded NRF habitat were removed from the NRF baseline grid to form a post-treatment NRF grid. The same focal statistic analysis was completed for the post-treatment NRF grid. Next, each proposed harvest unit within designated critical habitat was assigned a centroid using the XTools extension in ArcGIS 10 called “shapes to centroids”. These centroids were then buffered by 800 meters (approximately 500 acres). Finally, the ArcGIS tool named “zonal statistics as a table” was used to calculate the pre-treament and post-treatment amount of NRF habitat within each 500 acre analysis area around each unit centroid - using the pre- and post-treatment neighborhood analysis NRF habitat grids. For a visual display, the post-treatment focal statistic NRF grid was subtracted from the pre-treatment focal statistic NRF grid to show a relative amount of NRF loss at the 500 acre scale (Figure 7). Downgrading NRF habitat will reduce canopy cover below 60 percent, adversely affecting PCE number 2, NRF habitat. Based upon this 500 acre analysis, the Forest Level 1Team determined the proposed action is likely to adversely affect revised critical habitat. This because there are 500 acre analysis areas which will undergo a greater than 40 percent reduction in the amount of available NRF habitat (Figure 7) and the Team determined that amount of habitat loss was not insignificant or discountable because we expect the ability of those areas to support spotted owl nesting (PCE number 2) to be reduced in a meaningfully measurable manner (Dugger et al. 2005, Olson et al. 2004, Franklin 2000).



64

Figure 5. Example map showing treatment units with the greatest degree of change between pre- and post-harvest amounts of NRF habitat in spotted owl critical habitat for the Umpqua National Forest’s D-Bug project (adapted from USDA FS 2013) (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0116).

The reddest places within the units shown in Figure 7 are where the immediate surrounding 500-acre landscape will undergo an approximate 40 percent reduction in the amount of NRF habitat available. The blue- and non-colored portions of the units are at the center of a 500-acre area where the proportion of the available NRF downgraded is very low. The west end of unit 115 was excluded from the analysis due to the use of a unit centroid as a focal point for the individual unit evaluations, but this does not affect the results of the analysis. Effects from NRF Habitat Treat and Maintain The proposed action will treat and maintain 106 acres of NRF habitat within WCS-5:

• canopy cover will remain above 60 percent; • snags and downed wood will be retained within treatment units to serve as prey habitat,

and; • the treated stands are expected to retain similar capabilities to provide nesting, roosting

and foraging opportunities post-treatment, and that impacts are expected to be insignificant to PCE2.



65

Effects from Dispersal Treat and Maintain within WCS-5: The proposed action will treat and maintain 347 acres of dispersal habitat within subunit WCS-5:

• canopy cover will remain above 40 percent; • snags and downed wood will be retained within treatment units to serve as prey habitat; • the NRF baseline within the affected subunit (WCS-5) will not be changed as a result of

the dispersal habitat being maintained; and, • the treated stands are expected to retain similar capabilities to provide dispersal cover

post-treatment and impacts are anticipated to be insignificant to PCE4. Purpose of SubUnit WCS-5 The final rule indicates that determinations of whether a proposed action likely to adversely affect critical habitat will destroy or adversely modify critical habitat need to be made at the scale of the critical habitat subunit. Approximately 43 percent of the Action Area occurs within subunit WCS-5, and no part of it occurs within any other nearby subunits. Thus the only subunit needing evaluation for this proposed action is subunit WCS-5. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the essential physical or biological features of the critical habitat to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of the critical habitat for the listed species. The conservation role or value of northern spotted owl critical habitat is to adequately support the life-history needs of the species to the extent that well-distributed and inter-connected northern spotted owl nesting populations at habitat carrying capacity levels are likely to persist within properly functioning ecosystems at the critical habitat unit and range-wide scales. This subunit is expected to function for demographic support to the overall population, as well as north-south and east-west connectivity between subunits and CHUs (USDI FWS 2012). This subunit facilitates spotted owl movements within the western Cascades as well as between the western Cascades and coastal Oregon and the Klamath Mountains. Impact of proposed action on the critical habitat subunit’s likelihood of serving its intended conservation function or purpose Facilitation of spotted owl movements at the landscape scale has long been assessed as being a function of the percent land cover in a minimum structural condition (for example the “50-11-40” rule, Thomas et al. 1990 or see Lint et al. 2005 and Davis et al. 2011). Approximately 84 percent dispersal or better quality spotted owl habitat currently occurs across the 42,533 acre Action Area, and within the 18,521 acre portion of the Action Area that is critical habitat, 17,019 acres (92 percent) are dispersal or better-quality habitat. Under the proposed action, all but 473 acres of the treated units will all be maintained as dispersal or better-quality habitat post-harvest. Post-harvest, the critical habitat portion of the Action Area will still be at least 89 percent dispersal or better quality habitat. It is the Service’s opinion that connectivity purpose of the subunit will not be adversely affected by this change in habitat amount. As for the demographic support function of the Unit and Sub-unit, we believe this is best represented and assessed by examining spotted owl demographic parameters such as site occupancy and habitat-fitness. Previous analyses herein indicate six of the ten affected KPAC



66

home ranges in the Action Area will be left with less than desirable amounts NRF habitat due to implementation of the proposed action. This analysis also indicates the possibility of reduced fitness or occupancy at 4 of the ten affected KPAC home ranges. The primary function of critical habitat subunit WCS-5 is to provide east-west and north-south connectivity and demographic support. The Action Area occurs in the eastern portion of the nearly contiguous Forest on the west side of the crest of the Cascades mountains. These harvest units occur along the eastern edge of the critical habitat subunit (Figure 7). However, habitat contiguity in the critical habitat portion of the Action Area will not likely be decreased enough to measurably affect spotted owl movements into and out of this portion of the CHU because the 18,521 acres of the Action Area within critical habitat will still be over 89% dispersal or better quality habitat post project implementation. Therefore, we expect connectivity will be maintained between the Western Cascades South CHU and the Klamath East CHU (subunits KLE 1 and 4) to the southwest and also with the east side of the crest of the Cascades Mountains. A second role of this critical habitat subunit is to contribute to the demographic stability of the area. The proposed action occurs within the home ranges of ten KPACs, seven of which are in critical habitat (Table 8). However, as described above, habitat quantity recommendations will continue to be met at the four of the six KPACs currently replete with sufficient habitat, the other two will still have at least 35 percent NRF habitat within their home ranges or will not be further decreased at one of the two habitat-limited KPACs. Thus, because there will likely only be significant reductions in occupancy and fitness at two of the seven KPACs and at only two out of 211 within WCS-5, we anticipate demographic support will still occur. Subunit WCS-5 includes 356,718 federal acres, of which 219,053 acres are currently NRF and 102,286 acres are currently dispersal habitat. There are 211 KPACs on federal land within the subunit. As described above, all but two affected KPAC home ranges and core use areas thought likely to be currently occupied will still retain habitat sufficient to continue to adequately support nesting, roosting, foraging and dispersal activities post-project implementation. Because nesting is considered not likely to be significantly reduced and dispersal characteristics within the subunit and connectivity to adjacent subunits are not considered likely to be measurably reduced, we conclude that the conservation value, in terms of the stated conservation objective for the subject CHU subunit (connectivity and demographic support), will not be significantly altered at the subunit scale by the proposed action. Therefore we conclude the proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for the spotted owl. However, the Assessment indicates that the long-term health of the forested areas in and near designated revised critical habitat is at risk, and that the proposed action was designed to address and lessen that landscape-scale risk. Faced with a trade-off between short-term impacts to the ability of the action area critical habitat to support the current estimated spotted owl numbers, and increasing the likelihood of persistence for the forested areas in the Action Area, Forest managers have chosen to implement risk reduction activities. Actions which enhance the long-term forest health of critical habitat are consistent with the conservation goals of critical habitat (USDI FWS 2012 p. 71938-39). Section 7 Compliance Findings The final rule indicates determinations on whether a proposed action will destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for the spotted owl need to be made at the critical habitat unit and range-



67

wide scales (USDI FWS 2012 p. 71938). The conservation role or value of critical habitat for the spotted owl is to adequately support the life-history needs of the species to the extent that well-distributed and interconnected spotted owl nesting populations are likely to persist within properly functioning ecosystems at the critical habitat unit and range-wide scales (USDI FWS 21012a p. 71938). Treating less than ½ of one percent of the current NRF habitat in the WCS-5 subunit will not represent an appreciable reduction in the conservation role or value of the entire revised critical habitat (USDI FWS 2012 p.71940). In summary, based upon the analysis described in the Effects section above, we believe that downgrading 473 acres of NRF habitat and treating but maintaining the current function of 453 acres of NRF and dispersal habitat within critical habitat will have a measureable reduction in spotted owl life history functions at the 500 acre scale and therefore will likely to adversely affect critical habitat. This measurable reduction is due to the quantity of habitat treated, reduced prey availability, and edge effects. However, the proposed action is not likely to appreciably reduce the conservation value of the sub-unit or Unit for spotted owls. As a result, the Service concludes that the project will not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, nor will it reduce critical habitat’s contribution to recovery of the spotted owl. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl The Revised Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 2011a) included four Recovery Criterion and 33 Recovery Actions, of which three Recovery Actions are most applicable to the D-Bug timber sale. Recovery Action 6 In moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat, land managers should implement silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands to accelerate the development of structural complexity and biological diversity that will benefit spotted owl recovery. The D-Bug project’s stated purpose and need is for fuels reduction within WUI’s and along evacuation routes. It is not designed to accelerate the development of structural complexity and biological diversity. Therefore the D-Bug project is not consistent with this recovery action. However, the Service acknowledges in the recovery plan that “specific locations on the landscape may be identified where it is desirable to manage the vegetation so that fire severity is reduced (e.g., in wildland urban interface or in areas where human activities have increased available fuel” (USDI FWS 2011a p. III-33). The D-Bug project is designed to reduce fuel loadings within WUI’s and along evacuation corridors.

Recovery Action 10 Conserve spotted owls sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl population. Recovery Action 10 suggests that in unsurveyed spotted owl habitat, like the D-Bug project, a project should conserve spotted owl habitat for demographic support. However, the revised recovery plan states, “active forest management may be necessary to maintain or improve ecological conditions. We support projects whose intent is to provide long-term benefits to forest resiliency and restore natural forest dynamic process, when this management is implemented in a landscape context and with carefully applied prescriptions to promote long-term forest health” (USDI FWS 2011a p.III-45). The D-Bug project is designed to reduce fire



68

risk and treat an insect infestation, two types of treatments recognized by the recovery plan as being necessary for federal land managers. All treatments are designed to occur within 400m of a road identified as an evacuation route or within a WUI boundary. These stands when treated will have increase fire resiliency, and will, over time develop into owl habitat. Therefore the D-Bug project is consistent with Recovery Action 10.

Recovery Action 32 Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-federal lands across its range, land managers should work with the Service as described below to maintain and restore such habitat while allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. These high- quality spotted owl habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees. Based on field observations by Service staff, approximately 5 percent of the proposed treatment units will occur within stands considered to be high-quality spotted owl habitat. These stands are all within the Diamond Lake WUI and along a designated evacuation route (Road Number 4795). However, due to the presence of the various fuel breaks that will be created and maintained in a functional condition throughout the action area, the long-term results of project implementation will likely be a significant reduction in the risk of losing untreated NRF and dispersal habitat within and adjacent to the action area. This risk reduction goal comports well with several long-term recovery plan objectives. INTERRELATED OR INTERDEPENDENT EFFECTS Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interrelated actions are related to the federal action, but do not depend on the federal action. Interdependent actions are those that might occur independently of the larger action, but which have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Interdependent actions depend on the federal action and would make no sense without the federal action. These effects have all been described in the effects section above. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TO SPOTTED OWLS Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the Action Area considered in this Opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed actin are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. No cumulative effects are anticipated because the Action Area is located exclusively on Federal lands. CONCLUSION After reviewing the current status of the spotted owl, the environmental baseline, effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the Forest’s proposed D-Bug project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl.



69

This conclusion is warranted because implementation of the proposed action is likely to maintain or enhance habitat conditions sufficient to support the conservation role of the Action Area for the spotted owl for the following reasons:

1. Implementation of the proposed action is likely to maintain a sufficient amount and distribution of dispersal habitat between Late Successional Reserves to facilitate natal and adult spotted owl dispersal (Davis et al. 2011). Approximately 84 percent (35,612 acres) of the Action Area is currently in this habitat condition (dispersal + NRF habitat) - all currently functional habitat, and will be maintained in at least a dispersal condition;

2. Implementation of the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the ability of Late-Successional Reserves near the Action Area to provide for viable clusters of reproducing spotted owls, and;

3. Implementation of the proposed action is not likely to significantly reduce the recovery contribution of the West Cascades physiographic province. The Service’s records of consultations completed indicate that approximately 3.4 percent of the federal baseline habitat present in 1994 could be removed due to consulted-on projects (Appendix Table B-2). The rate of habitat loss is approximately 1.7 percent per decade, well below the 2.5 percent per decade anticipated by the NWFP. The additional impacts to the provincial baseline due to the proposed action (1,070 acres of NRF habitat downgraded) will not significantly change the baseline condition of a province with approximately 2,200,000 acres of NRF habitat remaining (Table 4). Therefore, we conclude the province will continue to contribute to spotted owl recovery.

4. Implementation of the proposed action will potentially reduce the risk of landscape-scale wildfire which would reduce the risk of NRF habitat losses.

Based upon the critical habitat analysis described in the “Effects of the Action on Spotted Owl Critical Habitat” section above, the Service finds that downgrading of 473 acres of NRF habitat and treating but maintaining the current function of 453 acres of NRF and dispersal habitat within the 18,521 acres of critical habitat in the Action Area is not likely to impair the capability of critical habitat to provide demographic support or facilitate connectivity among adjacent subunits because: 1) harm is anticipated at only two of the estimated 211 spotted owl sites in critical habitat subunit WCS-5, and; 2) there is no loss of dispersal habitat anticipated due to proposed action. Therefore, demographic support and connectivity within and among adjacent subunits will not diminish. Whereas adverse effects are anticipated at the 500-acre scale, there are over 321,000 acres of NRF and dispersal habitat in the subunit. This combination of factors does not rise to the level of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, which is determined at the critical habitat unit or rangewide scale. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take



70

that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) of the ESA, take that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be a prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the Forest so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to any applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Forest has a continuing duty to regulate the activities covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the Forest (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require cooperators to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Forest must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in this Incidental Take Statement in accordance with 50 CFR §402.14(i)(3). Amount or Extent of Anticipated Take Based on the findings presented in the “Effects of the Action on the Spotted Owl” section above, the Service concludes that the D-Bug proposed action is likely to incidentally take 4 pairs (8 adults) and 6 juvenile spotted owls within the Action Area in the form of harm caused by the timber harvest of 1,070 acres of spotted owl NRF habitat under the proposed action. Although we are able to quantify the take in terms of the likely number of affected individuals, it is not practical to monitor spotted owls for purposes of determining if the take limit has been reached or exceeded for two reasons. First, there is a low likelihood of finding an injured or dead spotted owl because their home ranges are large (about 3,000 acres on average) and there is a high rate of removal of injured or dead individuals by predators and scavengers. Second, the nature of the anticipated take impact to the spotted owl is primarily in the form of reduced fitness of the affected adult and juvenile owls caused by degraded habitat conditions and associated impacts on spotted owl prey populations as a result of the proposed action. That reduced fitness is likely to cause reduced survival and reproduction of the affected spotted owls as discussed under the effects of the action section referenced above. Documenting this reduction is very difficult, and doing so may take months or years at considerable expense. Using habitat as a surrogate to express the amount or extent of take and to monitor the impacts of take on the spotted owl is a practical alternative because effects to habitat are the basis for the take impacts, and effects to habitat are observable and can be readily monitored. For those reasons, the amount or extent of take exempted herein is the downgrading of 1,070 acres of spotted owl NRF habitat within treated stands. Please note that the amount or extent of exempted take in this Opinion is less than the exempted level in the September 2010 Opinion on the proposed action. This difference is due to a reduction in the number of spotted owl sites (as described above in the Effects Section) likely to be impacted in a manner that biologically conforms to the statutory and regulatory definitions of take.



71

Effect of the Anticipated Take In the accompanying Opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the spotted owl or destruction or adverse modification of spotted owl critical habitat. Reasonable and Prudent Measures The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize the impacts of incidental take on the spotted owl: 1. Monitor the impacts of the proposed action on spotted owl NRF and dispersal habitat (see below). 2. Report the results of the monitoring activities to the Service (see below). 3. Salvage any dead or injured spotted owls detected during implementation of the proposed action. Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the Forest Service must comply with the following terms and conditions that implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 1. Monitor the impacts of the proposed action on spotted owl NRF and dispersal habitat on a monthly basis until the proposed action is complete. 2. Prepare an annual report of monitoring results using the following format and provide that report to the Service’s Roseburg Field Office by January 31 of each year during implementation of the proposed action (Appendix C). 3. If a dead, injured, or sick endangered or threatened species specimen is located, initial notification must be made to the nearest Service Law Enforcement Office, located at 9025 SW Hillman Court, Suite 3134, Wilsonville, OR 97070; phone: 503-682-6131 along with the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office in Roseburg, OR. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment or the handling of dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangered and threatened species or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to carry out instructions provided by Law Enforcement to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed. Notice: The Service will not refer the incidental take of any migratory bird for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712), if such take is in compliance with the terms and conditions (including amount and/or number) specified herein. The incidental take statement contained in this Opinion does not constitute an exemption for non-listed migratory birds and bald or golden eagles from the prohibitions of take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712), or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (U.S.C. 668-668d), respectively. Proposed federal actions, including those by applicants, should (through appropriate means) avoid, reduce, or otherwise minimize such take which is subject to prosecution under these statutes. If the exempted level of incidental take is exceeded or is likely to be exceeded based on the monitoring of the impacts of incidental take required above, reinitiation of formal consultation is required.



72

REINITIATION NOTICE As identified above, the Forest provides monitoring reports on the effects of all forest management activities implemented or sold on an annual basis in order to ensure that effects determinations and take authorizations in the consultation are not exceeded. Additionally, the Forest conducts normal internal reviews prior to implementation sufficient to ensure that the actions comport with the consultation. If at any time during these reviews the Forest determines that the project will result in effects not previously consulted upon or an increase in extent or amount of incidental take anticipated by the ITS (for example, because the project has been modified or there is new information on the amount of NRF habitat that will be affected or occurrence of spotted owls in the vicinity) consultation will be reinitiated pursuant to the requirements of section 7 of the ESA if appropriate. As provided in (50 CFR § 402.16), reinitiation of consultation is required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of exempted incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agencies’ action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this Opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. When consultation is reinitiated, the provisions of section 7(d) apply. This concludes formal consultation and conferencing on the Forest’s D-Bug project. If you have any questions, please contact us at (541) 957-3474.



73

LITERATURE CITED Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington DC, 493 pps.

Andersen, D. E., O.J. Rongstad, and W. R. Mytton. 1989. Response of nesting red-tailed hawks to helicopter overflights. The Condor 91: 296-299.

Anderson, David E. and Burnham. 1992. Evidence that Northern Spotted Owl populations are declining, Part II. In USDI FWS 1992b, Draft Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl, Appendix C.

Anthony, R.G. and S. Andrews. 2004. Winter habitat use by spotted owls on Bureau of Land Management within the boundaries of the Timbered Rock fire; Summary Report. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University.

Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J.E. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, K.M. Dugger, K.E. Fehring, T.L. Fleming, R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel, R.J. Gutiérrez, P.J. Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, and S.G. Sovern. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Wildlife Monograph No. 163.

Bailey, L.L., J. A. Reid, E.D. Forsman, J.D. Nichols. 2009 Modeling co-occurrence of northern spotted and barred owls: Accounting for detection probability differences. Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 2983–2989

Barrowclough, G. F. and R. J. Gutiérrez. 1990. Genetic variation and differentiation in the spotted owl. Auk 107:737-744.

Barrowclough, G.F., R.J. Gutiérrez, and J.G. Groth. 1999. Phylogeography of spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) populations based on mitochondrial DNA sequences; gene flow, genetic structure, and a novel biogeographic pattern. Evolution 53(3):919-931.

Barrowclough, G.F., J.G. Groth, and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2005. Genetic structure, introgression and a narrow hybrid zone between northern and California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis). Molecular Ecology 14:1109–1120.

Barrows, C.W., and K. Barrows. 1978. Roost characteristics and behavioral thermoregulation in the spotted owl. Western Birds 9:1-8.

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation Biology 9 (4):943-946.

Bart J. and E. Forsman. 1992. Dependence of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) on old-growth forests in the western USA. Biological Conservation 1992: 95-100.

Bigley, R. and J. Franklin. 2004. Habitat trends. In: Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L.

Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004.

Bingham, B.B., and B.R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat “take”: Application to habitat conservation planning. Conservation Biology 11 (1):127-138

Blakesley, J.A., W. LaHaye, J.M.M. Marzluff, B.R. Noon, and S. Courtney. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl – demography. Chapter 8 In: Courtney, S.P., J.A.



74

Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004.

Bond, M.L., R.J. Gutierrez, A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye, C.A. May, and M.E. Seamans. 2002. Short-term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(4):1022-1028.

Buchanan, J., E. Hanson, D. Hays, and L. Young. 1994. An evaluation of the Washington Forest Practices Board Wildlife Committee preferred alternative for a spotted owl protection rule. Washington Forest Practices Board Spotted Owl Scientific Advisory Group. Olympia, Washington.

Buchanan, J.B., L.L. Irwin, and E.L. McCutchen. 1995. Within-stand nest site selection by spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:301-310.

Buchanan, J.B. 2004. Managing habitat for dispersing northern spotted owls - are the current management strategies adequate? Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1333–1345.

Buchanan, J.B. and P. Swedeen. 2005. Final briefing report to the Washington State Forest Practices Board regarding spotted owl status and forest practices rules. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 84 pp.

Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson, and G.C. White. 1994. Estimation of vital rates of the northern spotted owl. Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Caffrey, C. 2003. Determining impacts of West Nile Virus on crows and other birds. American Birds (103rd Count) 57:14-21.

Caffrey, C. and C.C. Peterson. 2003. West Nile Virus may not be a conservation issue in northeastern United States. American Birds (103rd Count) 57:14-21.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. California Forest Practices Rules: 2001. Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapters 4, 4.5, and 10. Sacramento, CA.

Campbell, N.A. 1990. Biology. 2nd Edition University of California Riverside. Benjamin Cummings Publ. pp. 574.

Carey, A.B., J.A. Reid, and S.P. Horton. 1990. Spotted owl home range and habitat use in southern Oregon coast ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:11–17.

Carey, A. B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forests. US Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-276, Portland, Oregon.

Carey, A. B., S. P. Horton, and B. L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base and landscape character. Ecological Monographs 62: 223-250.

Carey, A.B. and K.C. Peeler. 1995. Spotted owls: resource and space use in mosaic landscapes. Journal of Raptor Research 29(4):223-229.

Carey, A.B. 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. Ecological Applications 10(1):248–257.

Carsia, R. V., and S. Harvey. 2000. Adrenals. Chapter 19 in G. C. Whittow, editor. Sturkie’s Avian Physiology. Academic Press, San Diego, California.



75

Chi, T., A. Henke, J. Smith, and C. Brinegar. 2004. Spotted owl mitochondrial DNA haplotyping. San Jose State University. Unpublished results submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Chutter, M.J., I. Blackburn, D. Bonin, J. Buchanan, B. Costanzo, D. Cunnington, A. Harestad, T. Hayes, D. Heppner, L. Kiss, J. Surgenor, W. Wall, L. Waterhouse, and L. Williams. 2004. Recovery strategy for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 74 pp.

Courtney, S.P. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl – threats. In: Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004.

Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A. B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutierrez, J. M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA. 508 pp.

Crozier, M.L., M.E. Seamans, R.J. Gutierrez, P.J. Loschl, R.B. Horn, S.G. Sovern, and E.D.

Forsman. 2006. Does the presence of barred owls suppress the calling behavior of spotted owls? The Condor 108:760-769.

Davis, R.J., K.M. Duggar, S. Mohoric, L. Evers, and W.C. Aney. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan - the first

15 years (1994-2008): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-850. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 147 pp.

Delaney, D. K., T. G. Grubb, P. Beier, L. L. Pater, and M. H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on

Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60-76. Diller, L.V. and D.M. Thome. 1999. Population density of northern spotted owls in managed young-

growth forests in coastal northern California. Journal of Raptor Research 33: 275–286. Doppelt, B., R. Hamilton, C. Deacon, and M. Koopman. 2008. Preparing for climate change in the Rogue

River Basin of southwest Oregon. Climate Change Leadership Initiative. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. 43 pp.

Dugger, K.M., F. Wagner, R.G. Anthony, and G.S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat

characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The Condor 107:863-878.

Dugger, K.M., S. Ackers, R. Claremont, R. Leach, B. Meiering, D. Sedgwick, K. Skybak, A. Smoluk.

2012. Annual report for Central Cascades Density Study Area, 2011. Dugger, Katie, R.G. Anthony, S. Andrews. 2011. Transient Dynamics of Invasive Competition: barred

Owls, Spotted Owls, Habitat and the Demons of Competition Present. Ecological Applications (7). 2459-68.

Dunbar, D.L., B.P. Booth, E.D. Forsman, A.E. Hetherington, and D.J. Wilson. 1991. Status of the spotted owl, Strix occidentalis, and barred owl, Strix varia, in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist 105:464-468.



76

Folliard, L. 1993. Nest site characteristics of northern spotted owls in managed forest of northwest California. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Forsman, E.D. 1975. A preliminary investigation of the spotted owl in Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon

State University, Corvallis. 127 pp. Forsman, E.D., Meslow, E.C., Wight, H.M. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon.

Wildlife Monographs, 87:1-64.

Forsman, E.D., S. DeStafano, M.G. Raphael, and R.G. Gutiérrez. 1996. Demography of the northern spotted owl. Studies in Avian Biology No. 17. 122 pp.

Forsman, E.D., I.A. Otto, S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor, D.W. Hays, H. Allen, S.L. Roberts, and D.E. Seaman.

2001. Spatial and temporal variation in diets of spotted owls in Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 35(2):141-150.

Forsman, E.D., Anthony, R. G., Reid, J. A., Loschl, P. J., Sovern, S. G., Taylor, M., Biswell, B. L.,

Ellingson, A., Meslow, E. C., Miller, G. S., Swindle, K. A., Thrailkill, J. A., Wagner, F. F., and D. E. Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs, No. 149. 35 pp.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow, and C.J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of

northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38(3):214-230. Forsman, E.D., T.J. Kaminski, J.C. Lewis, K.J. Maurice, S.G. Sovern, C. Ferland, and E.M. Glenn. 2005.

Home range and habitat use of northern spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 39(4):365-377.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, K.M. Dugger, E.M. Glenn, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, K.P.

Burnham, D.R. Anderson, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, J.B. Lint, R.J. Davis, S.H. Ackers, L.S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, S.A. Gremel, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, J.A. Reid, J. Rockweit, J. Schaberl, T.J. Snetsinger, and S.G. Sovern. 2011. Population demography of northern spotted owls: 1985–2008. Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society.

Forsman, E., J.A. Reid, S.M. Flannagan, J.S. Mowdy, and A.L. Price. 2012. Demographic characteristics

of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) on the Tyee density study area, Roseburg, Oregon: 1985-2011. Annual research report for 2011. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR and Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 18p.

Franklin, J.F. and C.T.Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press.

Franklin, A.B. 1992. Population regulation in northern spotted owls: theoretical implications for management. Pages 815-827 in D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett (eds.). Wildlife 2001: populations. Elsevier Applied Sciences, London, England.

Franklin, A.B., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, R.J. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, C. Sanchez, J.D. Nicols and J.

Hines. 1999. Range-wide status and trends in northern spotted owl populations. Colorado Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Fort Collins, Colorado and Oregon Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Corvallis, Oregon. Unpublished report.



77

Franklin, J.F., R.J. Mitchell, and B.J. Palik. 2007. Natural disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry. General Technical Report NRS-19. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.

Franklin, A. B., D. R. Anderson, R. J. Gutierrez, and K. P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70: 539–590.

Gaines, W.L., R.A. Strand, and S.D. Piper. 1997. Effects of the Hatchery Complex Fires on northern

spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades. Pages 123-129 in Dr. J.M. Greenlee, ed. Proceedings of the First Conference on Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats, November 13-16, 1995. International Association of Wildland Fire. Coeur d’Alene, ID.

Gancz, A., I.Kk. Barker, R. Lindsay, A. Dibernardo, K. McKeever, and B. Hunter. 2004. West Nile

Virus outbreak in North American owls, Ontario, 2002. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10:2135-2142.

Garmendia, A.E., H.J. Van Kruiningen, R.A. French, J.F. Anderson, T.G. Andreadis, A. Kumar, and A.B.

West. 2000. Recovery and identification of West Nile virus from a hawk in winter. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 38:3110-3111.

Glenn, E.M, M.C. Hansen, and R.G. Anthony. 2004. Spotted owl home-range and habitat use in young

forests of western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1):33-50. Goheen, E.M., E.M. Hansen, A. Kanaskie, M.G. Williams, N. Oserbauer, and W. Sutton. 2002. Sudden

oak death caused by Phytophthora ramorum in Oregon. Plant Disease 86:441. Gremel, S. 2005. Factors controlling distribution and demography of Northern Spotted Owls in a

reserved landscape. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for a Master of Science degree. University of Washington.

Gutiérrez, R.J. 1989. Hematozoa from the spotted owl. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 24:614–618. Gutiérrez, R.J., A.B. Franklin, and W.S. LaHaye. 1995. Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) in: A. Poole

and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America, No. 179. The Academy of Natural Sciences and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 28 pages.

Gutiérrez, R.J. 1996. Biology and distribution of the northern spotted owl. Pages 2-5 in E.D. Forsman,

S. DeStefano, M.G. Raphael, and R.J. Guiterrez (Eds): Studies in Avian Biology No. 17. Gutiérrez, R. J., M. Cody, S. Courtney, and D. Kennedy. 2004. Assessment of the potential threat of the

northern barred owl. In: Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004.

Haig, S.M., R.S. Wagner, E.D. Forsman, and T.D. Mullins. 2001. Geographic variation and genetic

structure in spotted owls. Conservation Genetics 2(1): 25-40. Haig, S.M., T.D. Mullins, E.D. Forsman, P. Trail, and L. Wennerberg. 2004. Genetic identification of

spotted owls, barred owls, and their hybrids: legal implications of hybrid identity. Conservation Biology 18:1347-1357.



78

Hamer, T.E., S.G. Seim, and K.R. Dixon. 1989. Northern spotted owl and northern barred owl habitat use and home range size in Washington: preliminary report. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Hamer, T.E., E.D. Forsman, A.D. Fuchs, and M.L. Walters. 1994. Hybridization between barred and

spotted owls. Auk 111(2):487-492. Hamer, T.E., D.L. Hays, C.M. Senger, and E.D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls and

northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Research 35(3):221-227.

Hamm, K.A., and L.V. Diller. 2009. Forest management effects on abundance of woodrats in northern California. Northwestern Naturalist. 90:97-106.

Hanson, E., D. Hays, L. Hicks, L. Young, and J. Buchanan. 1993. Spotted Owl Habitat in Washington: A Report to the Washington Forest Practices Board. Washington Forest Practices Board, Spotted owl Advisory Group. Final Report: December 20, 1993. Olympia, Washington. 116 pages.

Harestad, A., J. Hobbs, and I. Blackburn. 2004. Précis of the Northern Spotted Owl in British Columbia.

Pages. 12-14 in Zimmerman, K., K. Welstead, E. Williams, J. Turner, (editors). Northern Spotted Owl Workshop Proceedings. Forrex Series (online No. 14), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Haveri, B.A. and A.B. Carey. 2000. Forest management strategy, spatial heterogeneity, and winter birds in Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin Volume 28, Number 3, Fall 2000.

Henke, A.L., T.Y. Chi, J. Smith, C. Brinegar. Unpublished Draft. Microsatellite Analysis of Northern and California Spotted Owls in California. Conservation Genetics Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

Hershey, K.T., E.C. Meslow, and F.L. Ramsey. 1998. Characteristics of forests at spotted owl nest sites

in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4):1398-1410. Herter, D.R., L.L. Hicks, H.C. Stabins, J.J. Millspaugh, A.J. Stabins, and L.D. Melampy. 2002. Roost

site characteristics of northern spotted owls in the nonbreeding season in central Washington. Forest Science 48(2):437-446.

Herter, D.R., and L.L. Hicks. 2000. Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat in the central

Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 34(4): 279-286. Hoberg, E.P., G.S. Miller, E. Wallner-Pendleton, and O.R. Hedstrom. 1989. Helminth parasites of

northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 25:246–251.

Holloway, G.L., and W.P. Smith. 2011. A meta-analysis of forest age and structure effects on northern flying squirrel densities. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 75:668-674.

Innes, R.J., D.H. Van Vuren, D.A. Kelt, M.L. Johnson, J.A. Wilson and P.A. Stine. 2007. Habitat associations of dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) in mixed-conifer forests of the northern Sierra-Nevada. Journal of Mammalogy, 88(6):1523–1531, 2007.



79

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., and A. Reisinger (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

Irwin, L.L., D.F. Rock, and G.P. Miller. 2000. Stand structures used by northern spotted owls in

managed forests. Journal of Raptor Research 34(3):175-186.

Irwin, Larry, Dennis Rock, and Suzanne Rock. 2010. Spotted Owl and Barred Owl Resource Selection In Southwestern Washington-Progress Report February 2010. . National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

Iverson, W.F. 1993. Is the barred owl displacing the spotted owl in western Washington? M.S. Thesis,

Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.

Iverson, W.F. 2004. Reproductive success of Spotted Owls sympatric with Barred Owls in western Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 38(1):88-91.

Johnson, D.H. 1992. Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the central Oregon Cascades. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Johnson, D. H., K. Norman, Jerry F. Franklin, Jack Ward Thomas, and John Gordon. 1991. Alternatives for Management of Late-Successional Forests of the Pacific Northwest. A report for the Conservation of Late-successional Forests and Aquatic Ecosystems.

Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls replacing spotted owls? Condor 105:45-53.

Kelly, E.G. and E.D. Forsman. 2004. Recent records of hybridization between barred owls (Strix varia) and northern spotted owls (S. occidentalis caurina). Auk 121:806-810.

King, G.M., K.R. Bevis, M.A. Rowe, E.E. Hanson. 1998. Spotted owls use of habitat impacted by 1994 fires on the Yakama Indian Reservation: three years post fire. Presented at the Second Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species Conference. Coeur d’Alene, ID, 1998.

Knight, R. L. and S. K. Skagen. 1988. Effects of recreational disturbance on birds of prey: a review. Pages 355-359 in R. L. Glinski et al., editors. Proceedings of the Southwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C.

Knight, R.L. 1998. Ecosystem management and conservation biology. Landscape and Urban Planning 40:41-45.

Krebs, C.J. 1972. Ecology. The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Harper and Row, New York. 694 pp.

Lahaye, W.S., R.J. Guiterrez, and J.R. Dunk. 2001. Natal dispersion of the spotted owl in southern California: dispersal profile of an insular population. Condor 103:691-700.

Laidig, K.J., and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Spatial overlap and habitat association of Barred Owls and Great Horned Owls in southern New Jersey. J. Raptor Res. 29:151–157.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., K.D. Kistler, J.S. Begley and J. Boulanger. 2006. Demography of northern flying squirrels informs ecosystem management of western interior forests. Ecological Applications 16:584–600.



80

Leskiw, T., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a Spotted Owl by a Barred Owl. Western Birds 29:225–226.

Lint, J., et al. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan – The first ten years (1994-2003): Status and trend of northern spotted owl populations and habitat. PNW Station Edit Draft (Lint, Technical Coordinator, 2005). USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, PNW-GTR-2005. Portland, OR 230pp

Livezey, K.B. 2005. Iverson (2004) on spotted owls and barred owls: comments on methods and conclusions. Journal of Raptor Research 39(1):102-103.

Livezey, K.B. 2009b. Range expansion of Barred Owls, part II: facilitating ecological changes. American Midland Naturalist 161:323–349.

Livezey, K.B., and T.L. Fleming. 2007. Effects of barred owls on spotted owls: the need for more than incidental detections and correlation analyses. Journal of Raptor Research 41:319-325.

Manning, T., Hagar, J. C., & McComb, B. C. (2012). Thinning of young Douglas-fir forests decreases density of northern flying squirrels in the Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management, 264, 115-124.

Marra, P. P., S. Griffing, C. Caffrey, A. M. Kilpatrick, R. McLean, C. Brand, E. Saito, A. P. Dupuis, L. Kramer, and R. Novak. 2004. West Nile virus and wildlife. BioScience 54: 393-402.

McGarigal, K., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs. 1991. Interactions of humans and bald eagles on the Columbia River estuary. Wildl. Monogr. 115. 47 pp.

McKenzie, D., D.L. Peterson, and J.J. Littell. 2009. Global warming and stress complexes in forests of western North America. Pages 319–338 In A. Bytnerowicz, M.J. Araugh, A.R. Riebau, and C. Andersen, editors. Developments in Environmental Science, Volume 8. Elsevier, The Netherlands.

McNab, W.H. and P.E. Avers. 1994. Ecological Sub-Regions of the United States. U.S. Forest Service.

Meyer, J.S., Irwin, L.L., and M.S. Boyce. 1998. Influence of habitat abundance and fragmentation on northern spotted owls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 139: 1-51.

Meyer, M.D., D.A. Kelt and M.P. North. 2007. Microhabitat Associations of Northern Flying Squirrels in Burned and Thinned Forest Stands of the Sierra Nevada. American Midland Naturalist (157): 202-211.

Miller, G.S., S.K. Nelson, and W.C. Wright. 1985. Two-year-old female spotted owl breeds successfully. Western Birds 16:69-73.

Miller, G.S. 1989. Dispersal of juvenile northern spotted owls in western Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 139 pages.

Miller, G.S., R.J. Small, and E.C. Meslow. 1997. Habitat selection by spotted owls during natal dispersal in western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 61(1):140-150.

Moen, C.A., A.B. Franklin, and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1991. Age determination of subadult northern spotted owls in northwest California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:489-493.



81

Moeur, Melinda; Spies, Thomas A.; Hemstrom, Miles; Martin, Jon R.; Alegria, James; Browning, Julie; Cissel, John; Cohen, Warren B.; Demeo, Thomas E.; Healey, Sean; Warbington, Ralph. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan–The first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trend of late-successional and old-growth forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-646. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 142 p.

Noon, B.R. and J.A. Blakesley. 2006. Conservation of the northern spotted owl under the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology 20:288–296.

North, M.P., J.F. Franklin, A.B. Carey, E.D. Foresman, and T. Hamer. 1999. Forest stand structure of the northern spotted owl’s foraging habitat. For. Sci. 45:520 –527.

North, M.P., G.Steger, R.Denton, G.Eberlein, T. Munton, and K. Johnson. 2000. Association of weather and nest-site structure with reproductive success in California spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3):797-807.

Olson, G.S., E. Glenn, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, and W.J. Ripple. 2004. Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management.

Olson, G.S., R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, S.H. Ackers, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, K.M Dugger, E.M. Glenn, and W.J. Ripple. 2005. Modeling of site occupancy dynamics for northern spotted owls, with emphasis on the effects of barred owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3):918-932.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2007. Forest Practices Administrative Rules and Forest Practices Act. Salem, OR.

Parmesan C.and G. Yohe. 2003. A Globally Coherent Fingerprint of Climate Change Impacts Across Natural Systems.

Pearson, R.R., and K.B. Livezey. 2003. Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 37(4):265-276.

Pierce, D.J., J.B. Buchanan, B.L. Cosentino, and S. Snyder. 2005. An assessment of spotted owl habitat on non-federal lands in Washington between 1996 and 2004. Wildlife Department of Wildlife Research Report.

Ransome, B.R., P.M.F. Lindgren, D.S. Sullivan and T.P. Sullivan. 2004. Long-term responses of ecosystem components to stand thinning in young lodgepole pine forest. I. Population dynamics of northern flying squirrels and red squirrels. Forest Ecology and Management 202 (2004) 355–367.

Ricklefs, R. E. 1979. Ecology. Chiron Press, New York, NY, USA. 966 pp.

Rizzo, D.M., M. Garbeloto, J.M. Davidson, G.W. Slaughter, and S.T. Koike. 2002. Phytophthora ramorum as the cause of extensive mortality of Quercus spp. and Lithocarpus densiflorus in California. Plant Disease 86:205-214.

Rosenberg, D.K. and R.G. Anthony. 1992. Characteristics of northern flying squirrel populations in young second- and old-growth forests in western Oregon. Can. J. Zool. 70:161-166.



82

Rosenberg, D.K., and K.S. McKelvey. 1999. Estimation of habitat selection for central place foraging animals. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1028–1038.

Rosenberg, D.K., K.A. Swindle, and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Influence of prey abundance on northern spotted owl reproductive success in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:1715-1725.

Sakai, H.F. and B.R. Noon. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forest in northwestern California. J. Wildlife Management 57(2):373-382.

Sapolsky, R.M., L.M Romero and A.A. Munck. 2000. How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory and preparative actions. Endochronology journals.

Schmidt, K. 2006. Northern spotted owl monitoring and inventory, Redwood National and State Parks, 2005 annual report. Redwood National and State Parks, Orick, California.

Singleton, P, S. Graham, W. Gaines, and J. Lehmkuhl. 2005. The ecology of barred owls in fire-prone forests. USDA PNW December 2005 Progress Report; Wenatchee, Washington. Sisco, C.L. 1990. Seasonal home range and habitat ecology of spotted owls in northwestern California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

Sisco, C.L. 1990. Seasonal home range and habitat ecology of spotted owls in northwestern California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

Smith, F.A. 1997. Neotoma cinerea. Mammalian Species 564:1–8.

Spies, T.A., B.C. McComb, R.S.H. Kennedy, M.T. McGrath, K. Olsen, and R.J. Pabst. 2007. Potential effects of forest policies on terrestrial biodiversity in a multi-ownership province. Ecological Applications 17(1):48-65.

Solis, D. M. And R. J. Gutierrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in northwestern California. The Condor 92:739-748.

Sovern, S.G., E.D. Forsman, B.L. Biswell, D.N. Rolph, and M. Taylor. 1994. Diurnal behavior of the spotted owl in Washington. Condor 96(1):200-202.

Steger, G. N., L.R. Werner, and T. E.Munton. 2006. First documented record of the barred owl in the southern Sierra Nevada. WesternBirds 37:106-109.

Swarthout, E.C.H. and R.J. Steidl. 2001. Flush responses of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. J. Wildlife Management 65(2):312-317.

Swindle, K.A., W.J. Ripple, E.C. Meslow and D. Schafer. 1999. Old forest distribution around spotted owl nests in the central Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1212–1221.

Tempel D.J. and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2003. Fecal Corticosterone Levels in California Spotted Owls Exposed to Low-intensity Chainsaw Noise.

Tempel D.J. and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2004. Factors Relating to Fecal Corticosterone Levels in California Spotted Owls: Implications for Assessing Chronic Stress.



83

Thomas, J.W.; E.D. Forsman; J.B. Lint; E.C. Meslow; B.R. Noon; and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. 427 pp.

Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, A.G. Gunderson, R.S. Holthausen, B.G. Marcot, G.H. Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

Thomas, J.W., and M.G. Raphael (Eds.). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological,

Economic, and Social Assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). July 1993. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Jerry F. Franklin, John Gordon, and K. Norman Johnson. 2006. The Northwest

Forest Plan: Origins, Components, Implementation Experience, and Suggestions for Change. In Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 2, 277–287

Thome, D.M., C.J. Zabel and L.V. Diller. 1999. Forest stand characteristics and reproduction of northern

spotted owls in managed north-coastal California forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 63 (1): 44-59.

USDA FS (Forest Service). 2008. Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response. Pacific

Northwest Region USDA Forest Service. USDA FS. 2012. Biological Assessment for Parker-Wyatt Timber Sale Project. USDA Forest Service

Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg, OR. December, 2012. USDA FS/USDI BLM (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management). 1994a. Record of decision for

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. 2 vols. and appendices.

USDA FS/USDI BLM (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management). 1994b. Final supplemental

environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forests related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983a. Endangered and threatened species listing and recovery

priority guidelines. Federal Register, vol. 48, no. 184. Pp. 43098-43105. September 21, 1983. USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983b. Endangered and threatened species listing and recovery

priority guidelines - correction. Federal Register, vol. 48, no. 221. p. 51985. November 15, 1983. USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1989. The northern spotted owl; A status review supplement.

April 21, 1989. Portland, OR. USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl; final rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17: 26,114-26,194.



84

USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Fed. Reg. Vol. 57. 10:1796-1838. January 15, 1992.

USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992b. Draft final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2 Volumes. Portland, Oregon. USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994a. Letter from D.C. Frederick (U.S. FWS) to J. Belcher

(Washington Department of Natural Resources) dated February 1, 1994, regarding correction to spotted owl home-range data for the Olympic Peninsula. U.S. FWS, Olympia, Washington.

USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994b. Final biological opinion for the preferred alternative of

the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. In: USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl: Appendix G. Portland, Oregon, USA.

USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed

special rule for the conservation of the northern spotted owl on non-federal lands. Federal Register 60:9483–9527.

USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. A range wide baseline summary and evaluation of data

collected through section 7 consultation for the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat: 1994-2001. Portland, OR. Unpublished document. 41 pages.

USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Estimates of distances at which incidental take of

murrelets and spotted owls due to harassment are anticipated from sound-generating, forest-management activities in Olympia National Forest. Lacey, WA.

USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004a. Northern Spotted Owl Five Year Review: Summary and

Evaluation, Portland, OR. 72pp. USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Draft: Smoke Effects on Northern Spotted Owls.

Portland, OR. USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

Revised designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Fed. Reg. Vol. 73. No. 157. August 13, 2008.

USDI FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008b. Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. Region 1.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon.

USDI FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. Region 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon.

USDI FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011a. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. Region 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon.

USDI FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011b. Memorandum dated February 7, 2011, “2011 Northern Spotted Owl Survey Protocol” and attached “Protocol for Surveying Proposed



85

Management Activities That May Impact Northern Spotted Owls” for guidance and methodology).

USDI FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. Region 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. Published in the Federal Register December 4, 2012.

USDI FWS/USDC NMFS (Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

USDI/USDA (Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service). 2008. Methodology for estimating the number of northern spotted owls affected by proposed federal actions. Version 2. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

Vander Haegen, M., S. Van Leuven, and D. Anderson. 2004. Surveys for western gray squirrel nests on sites harvested under approved forest practice guidelines: analysis of nest use and operator compliance. Wildlife Research Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.

Ward, J. W. Jr. 1990. Spotted owl reproduction, diet and prey abundance in northwest California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata.

Ward, J. W. Jr., R.J. Gutiérrez, and B.R. Noon. 1998. Habitat selection by northern spotted owls: the consequences of prey selection and distribution. Condor 100:79-92.Weathers, W.W., P.J. Hodumand, and J.A. Blakesley. 2001. Thermal ecology and ecological energetics of California spotted owls. The Condor 103:678-690.

Washington Forest Practices Board. 1996. Permanent rules for the northern spotted owl. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington.

Wasser, S. K., K. Bevis, G. King, and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 11: 1019-1022.

Weathers, W.W., Hodum, P.J., and J.A. Blakesley. 2001. Thermal ecology and ecological energetics of California spotted owls. The Condor 103: 678-690.

White, C. M., and T. L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled disturbance. The Condor 87:14-22.

Wiens, J.D., Anthony, R.G., and E.D. Forsman. 2011. Barred Owl Occupancy Surveys Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(3):531–538.

Wiens, J.D. 2012. Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern spotted owls and

barred owls in western Oregon. PhD thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 140 pp.

Wilson, T.M. 2010. Limiting factors for northern flying squirrels (glaucomys sabrinus) in the Pacific Northwest: A Spatio-temporal analysis. PhD thesis Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Yackulic, C. B., R. Chandler, E. F. Zipkin, J. A. Royle, J.D. Nichols, E.H. Campbell Grant, and S.Veran. 2012. Presence-only modeling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences?. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. doi: 10.1111/2041-210x.12004



86

Zabel, C. J., K. M. McKelvey, and J. P. Ward, Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:433-439.

Zabel C.J., S.E. Salmons, and M. Brown. 1996. Demography of northern spotted owls in southwestern Oregon. Studies in Avian Biology 17:77-82.

Zabel, C. J., J. R. Dunk, H. B. Stauffer, L. M. Roberts, B. S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern spotted owl habitat models for research and management application in California. Ecological Applications 13:1027–1040.

Personal Communication

J. O’Reilly, Personal Communication, August 2010

Eric Forsman, U.S. Forest Service. Personal Communication. 2011.

Betsy Glenn, USDI FWS. Personal Communication. December 19, 2012.

Janice Reid, U.S. Forest Service. Personal Communication. October 2011.



87

APPENDIX A. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE D-BUG PROJECT Seasonal Restrictions 1. To protect nesting Northern Spotted Owls, prohibit timber harvesting and road construction

operations from March 1 to July 15 in mixed conifer stands that contain portions of nesting, roosting or foraging (NRF) habitat (See analysis file for map and .shp file of exact areas).

Coarse Woody Debris 2. In the stands mapped as NRF, retain existing large down wood (>6 inch diameter) and

snags (>9 inch dbh) to the extent practical and safe. Where feasible, avoid mechanical impacts and movement of large down wood and leave felled snags on site. In particular retain the largest Lodgepole snags in units harvesting Lodgepole pine stands.

3. If feasible, in skyline units, retain all trees used as anchors in the skyline operation as long

as they do not pose a hazard. 4. Retain clumps and individual snags as available within variable density thinning units.

Retain all hollow snags and logs, and snags with existing cavities. 5. OSHA requires that hazardous trees/snags be felled to protect workers on the ground

during forest operations. Snags that must be felled for safety reasons should be retained to help attain down wood requirements.

6. When removing hazard trees retain as high of a stump as is operationally safe to do so. 7. Anchor Tree Removal: Cable logging systems may use healthy green trees to anchor

rigging (tailholds) and yarders (guyline trees). Anchor Tree Removal may take place wherever the above activities occur, in any habitat type. The smallest possible anchor trees will be selected in all instances, trees with suitable spotted owl or will be avoided when possible, and anchor trees will be left standing when feasible. These measures will help to reduce impacts to spotted owl habitat features. Anchor Tree Removal will avoid, when possible:

• Known spotted owl nest trees, or adjacent trees providing habitat function; • Trees with nesting structure for spotted, or adjacent trees providing habitat function; • Trees with nesting structure for spotted owls, or adjacent trees providing habitat

function. Firewood Permits 8. If firewood permits are proposed outside of landing decks, patches of dead lodgepole pine,

or the immediate road prism, the Level One Team wildlife biologists should be contacted to determine if effects are still within the scope of this BA.

Prescribed and Pile Burning 9. Prescribed and pile burning will take place in the fall only in suitable owl habitat.



88

Trail Maintenance 10. If trail maintenance requires felling of five or more large trees/snags (28" in diameter or

greater at the centerline of the trail) per mile in a single year, the Level One Team wildlife biologists should be contacted to determine if effects are still within the scope of this BA.

11. If trail maintenance requires logging out of more than 15 trees (28" in diameter or greater

at the centerline of the trail) per mile in a single year, the Level One Team wildlife biologists should be contacted to determine if effects are still within the scope of this BA.

12. Retain down logs that are bucked from trails in the largest pieces possible/practical to

provide coarse wood habitat.



89

APPENDIX B. SPOTTED OWL RANGEWIDE HABITAT TREND ASSESSMENT FROM 1994 TO JANUARY 29, 2013. NWFP Lands Analysis for the Period 1994 to 2001. In 2001, the Service conducted an assessment of spotted owl range-wide habitat baseline conditions. This assessment was the first since implementation of the NWFP began in 1994 (USDI FWS 2001, p. 1). This range-wide evaluation of habitat was compared to that presented in the FSEIS for the NWFP to determine if the rate of change in spotted owl habitat was consistent with the change anticipated in the NWFP. In particular, the Service considered habitat effects that were documented through the section 7 consultation process since 1994. In general, the analytical framework of these consultations focused on the reserve and connectivity goals established by the NWFP land-use allocations (USDA FS/ USDI BLM 1994a, p. 6), with effects expressed in terms of changes in suitable spotted owl habitat within those land-use allocations. The Service determined that consulted-on actions and their effects to spotted owl habitat were consistent with the expectations under the NWFP from 1994 to June 2001 (USDI FWS 2001, p. 32). Range-wide Spotted Owl Habitat Analysis for the Period 1994 to March 5, 2013. This analysis updates the information considered in USDI FWS (2001), relying particularly on information in documents the Service produced pursuant to section 7 of the Act and information provided by NWFP agencies on spotted owl habitat loss resulting from natural events (e.g., fires, windthrow, insect and disease). To track impacts to spotted owl habitat, the Service designed a Spotted Owl Consulted-on Effects Database which is used to record and track impacts caused by Federal actions to spotted owls and their habitat at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Data are entered into the database under various categories, including by land management agency, land-use allocation, physiographic province, and the type of spotted owl habitat affected. Based on Davis et al. (2011), in 1994 at least 8.5 million acres of suitable spotted owl habitat were estimated to occur on Federal lands managed under the NWFP. As of March 5, 2013, the Service had completed consultation on proposed Federal actions that were likely to remove or downgrade as a result of timber harvest approximately 197,359 acres (Table 3), or approximately 2.3 percent of the 8.5 million acres (Table 4) of spotted owl NRF habitat estimated to occur on Federal lands. This reduction in suitable spotted owl habitat is consistent with expectations for timber harvest impacts under the NWFP (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994a). From 1994 through January 29, 2013(see Appendix B), spotted owl habitat lost due to natural events was estimated at approximately 249,068 acres range-wide (Table 2, Appendix B). About two-thirds of this loss was attributed to the lightning-caused Biscuit Fire that burned over 500,000 acres in southwest Oregon (in the Rogue River Basin) and northern California in 2002. This fire resulted in a loss of approximately 100,000 acres of spotted owl habitat (Table 3), including habitat within five LSRs. Approximately 18,630 acres of spotted owl habitat were also lost due to the lightning-caused B&B Complex and Davis Fires in the East Cascades Province of Oregon (Table 3). Most of these fires occurred prior to 2006 when the updated baseline data were collected. Spotted owl habitat loss due to natural events since 2006 has been approximately 51,000 acres (Table 4). Because there is no comprehensive spotted owl habitat baseline for non-NWFP Federal lands and non-Federal lands, there is little available information regarding spotted owl habitat trends on these lands. Yet, we do know that Service consultations on Federal actions conducted since 1994 have documented a projected loss of 475,394 acres (Table 3) of spotted owl habitat on non-



90

NWFP Federal lands and non-Federal lands. Approximately 63 percent of these losses have yet to be realized because they are part of large-scale, long-term HCPs/SHAs. Combining effects to spotted owl habitat on Federal and non-Federal lands, the Service had consulted on the proposed removal/downgrading of approximately 672,753 acres of spotted owl habitat range-wide, resulting from all management activities, as of March 5, 2013 (Table 3). Appendix B-Table B-1. Summary of spotted owl habitat loss between 1994 and 2013 on all land ownerships. (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0092). LAND OWNERSHIP CONSULTED ON

HABITAT1 CHANGES2 OTHER HABITAT

CHANGES3 Removed/

Downgraded Maintained Removed/

Downgraded Maintained NWFP (FS,BLM,NPS) 194,305 535,109 246,111 39,720 Bureau of Indian Affairs / Tribes 108,210 28,372 2,398 0 Habitat Conservation Plans/Safe Harbor Agreements 295,889 14,430 N/A N/A Other Federal, State, County, Private Lands 68,673 5,620 279 0 Total Changes 667,077 605,425 248,788 39,720

1. NRF=Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. In California, suitable habitat is divided into two components: nesting/roosting (NR) habitat, and foraging (F) habitat. The NR component most closely resembles NRF habitat in Oregon and Washington. Due to differences in reporting methods, suitable habitat includes NRF for Washington and Oregon but only NR for California.

2. Includes both effects reported in USDI FWS (2001) and subsequent effects reported in the Spotted Owl Consulted-on Effects Database.

3. Includes effects to suitable NRF habitat (as generally documented through technical assistance, etc.) resulting from wildfires (not from suppression efforts), insect and disease outbreaks, and other natural causes, private timber harvest, and land exchanges not associated with a consultation under section 7 of the Act.

Appendix B-Table B-2. Summary of spotted owl habitat loss between 1994 and 2013 on NWFP lands. (FWS reference # 01EOFW00-2013-F-0092). PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE1

EVALUATION BASELINE2

HABITAT3 REMOVED/DOWNGRADED4

% PROVINCIAL BASELINE AFFECTED

% RANGE-WIDE EFFECTS

Land Use Allocations Habitat Loss

to Natural Events7 Total Total Reserves5

Non- Reserves6 Total

WA

Eastern Cascades 706,849 4,557 6,392 10,949 14,307 25,256 3.57 5.73

Olympic Peninsula 560,217 869 1,711 2,580 299 2,879 0.51 0.65

Western Cascades 1,112,480 778 11,579 12,357 3 12,360 1.11 2.81

OR Cascades East 443,659 2,589 14,368 16,957 40,884 57,841 13.04 13.13

Cascades West 2,046,472 3,872 66,501 70,373 24,583 94,956 4.64 21.56

Coast Range 516,577 447 4,002 4,449 66 4,515 0.87 1.03



91

Klamath Mountains 785,589 3,923 56,360 60,283 101,676 161,959 20.62 36.77

Willamette Valley 5,658 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CA Cascades 88,237 10 4,820 4,830 329 5,159 5.85 1.17 Coast 51,494 464 79 543 275 818 1.59 0.19 Klamath 1,079,866 1,546 9,438 10,984 63,689 74,673 6.92 16.96 Total 7,397,098 19,055 175,250 194,305 246,111 440,416 5.95 100

1. Defined by the NWFP as the 12 physiographic provinces presented in Figure 3&4-1 on page 3&4-16 of the FSEIS. The WA Western Lowlands and OR Willamette Valley provinces are not listed as they are not expected to contribute to spotted owl recovery.

2. 1994 FSEIS baseline (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994b). 3. NRF=Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. In California, suitable habitat is divided into two components:

nesting/roosting (NR) habitat, and foraging (F) habitat. The NR component most closely resembles NRF habitat in Oregon and Washington. Due to differences in reporting methods, effects to suitable spotted owl habitat compiled in this, and all subsequent tables include effects to NRF habitat for 1994-6/26/2001. After 6/26/2001, values for suitable spotted owl habitat includes NRF habitat for Washington and Oregon, but only NR for California.

4. Includes both effects reported in USDI FWS 2001 and subsequent effects reported in the Spotted Owl Consulted-on Effects Database (web application and database.)

5. Land-use allocations (LSR, MLSA, and CRA) intended to provide large blocks of habitat to support clusters of breeding pairs of spotted owls.

6. Land-use allocations (AWA, AMA, and MX) intended to provide habitat to support movement of spotted owls among reserves.

7. Acres for all physiographic provinces, except the Oregon Klamath Mountains, are from the Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (Courtney et al. 2004) and subsequent effects entered into the Spotted Owl Consulted-on Effects Database. Acres for the Oregon Klamath Mountains province are from the biological assessment entitled: Fiscal year 2006-2008 programmatic consultation: re-initiation on activities that may affect listed species in the Rogue-River/South Coast Basin, Medford BLM, and Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest and from subsequent effects entered into the Spotted Owl Consulted-on Effects Database.



92

APPENDIX C. EXAMPLE FORM FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONAND MONITORING.

United States Department of the Interiora123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Documents

Transcript of United States Department of the Interiora123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...