Biological
Opinion and Letter of Concurrence
for Effects to Bald Eagles, Northern
Spotted Owls and
Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat
from the
Bureau of Land Management,
the
And the
Calendar Years 2005-2006
Habitat Modification Activities within
the
(FWS Reference Number 1-7-05-F-0228)
Prepared by the
Of the
____________________________________
Kemper M. McMaster, State
Supervisor
________________________________
Date
This document transmits the Fish and Wildlife Service’s
biological opinion (BO)based on our review of the proposed habitat modification
projects located in the Willamette Province located in the Western Oregon
Cascades Physiographic Province, and its effects on the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), the northern spotted
owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (spotted owl), and spotted owl critical
habitat in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended (16U.S. C. 1531 et seq.).
Your
This biological opinion is based on information provided in the August 2004 biological assessment; the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team Report (USDA et al. 1993) (FEMAT); the 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 (USDA/USDI 1994b) (FSEIS); Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (Courtney et al. 2004); Service files; and informal consultation between our staffs. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office.
As
in fiscal years 1997 - 2003, the Willamette Province Level 1 Team (Team) agreed
to consult programmatically on activities which may affect listed species via
habitat modification. Since 2002, the
habitat modification programmatic consultations have changed from a yearly
process to an every other year process that covers two calendar years (CY) of
activities. This programmatic will cover
calendar years 2005 and 2006 (
At a regularly scheduled, quarterly meeting in the fall of 2003, the Team discussed the programmatic areas to be included in this consultation and any potential additional information needs. During June, each administrative unit estimated the number and magnitude of projects likely to occur during the 2005-2006 calendar years and several drafts of the Biological Assessment (BA) were circulated among Team members for review. Via phone, fax, and electronic mail throughout July and August 2004, Team members continued to review and discuss draft documents. A final draft document satisfactory to all was completed and the action agencies began procedures for formally submitting the BA to the Service.
Formal and informal consultation was officially initiated by
this office on
DESCRIPTION
OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Standards
and Definitions Common to All Actions.
Home
Range and Core Area Composition
Habitat
Effects to Demographic Rates
Northern Spotted Owl Critical
Habitat
Conservation
Strategy and Objectives
Status
of the Species in the Action Area
Effects to Late
Successional Reserves
Interrelated and Interdependent Effects
REASONABLE
AND PRUDENT MEASURES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS
REINITIATION-
CLOSING STATEMENT
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Unit Specific Data for the Eugene
District BLM
Appendix
B. Unit Specific Data for the Cascades
Resource Area, Salem District, BLM
Appendix
C. Unit Specific Data for the Mt. Hood
National Forest and the
Unit
Specific Data for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
Appendix
D. Unit Specific Data for the Willamette
National Forest
Appendix
E. Eugene District BLM AOC, LSR and CHU
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table
1. Disruption Distances for northern
spotted owls
Table
5. Status of the northern spotted owl
and its habitat within the Willamette Province.
Table
7. Northern Spotted Owl CHUs and LSR
acres in the Willamette Province.
Table
15. Affected Acres within Critical
Habitat Units, Willamette Province - CY 2005-2006.
Appendix A Tables,
Eugene BLM.
Table
1a. Eugene BLM – CY2005-2006, Proposed
Projects
Table
3a. Eugene BLM - CY2005-2006. Status of
the northern spotted owl and its habitat
Table
8a. Current status of Critical Habitat
Units by Northwest Forest Plan allocation
Table
13a. Effects to northern spotted owl
habitat by activity type1, Eugene BLM - CY2005-2006
Table
17a. Effects to northern spotted owl
critical habitat units (acres), Eugene BLM - CY2005-2006
Table
1b. Cascades Resource Area, Salem BLM,
CY 2005-2006, Proposed projects
Table
1c. Proposed projects for the Mt Hood
National Forest CY2005-2006.
Table
2c. Projects for the Columbia River
Gorge National Scenic Area, CY2005-2006.
Table
3c. Status of the northern spotted owl
and its habitat, Mt. Hood NF, CY2005-2006.
Table
4c. Status of the northern spotted owl
and its habitat, CRGNSA1, CY2005-2006.
Table
7c. Actual Acres Removed/Downgraded
(Awarded and Pending Sales)
Table
8c. Current status of Critical Habitat
Units by Northwest Forest Plan allocation.
Table
12c. Effects to northern spotted owl
suitable and dispersal habitat (acres), CY2005-2006.
Table
13c. Effects to northern spotted owl
habitat by harvest method CY2005-2006.
Table
17c. Effects to northern spotted owl
critical habitat units (acres), CY 2005-2006.
Table
1d. CY2005-2006 Proposed Projects –
Willamette National Forest
Table
3d. Status of the northern spotted owl
and its habitat CY2005-2006 – Willamette NF
Table
5d. Late-successional reserves and
associated northern spotted owl habitat.
Table
13d. Effects to northern spotted owl
habitat by harvest method CY2005-2006 – Willamette NF
Table
17d. Effects to northern spotted owl
Critical Habitat Units, CY 2005-2006 – Willamette NF
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The
proposed actions are described in the BA cited above and are incorporated by
reference. The analysis of the impacts
of these actions is limited to their effects on listed species and spotted owl
critical habitat. This BO does not
analyze whether individual projects are consistent with the standards and
guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP),
nor does it constitute Service endorsement of the proposed action. The
Service assumes that proposed actions will comply with the Record of Decision
and the Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP
(USDA/USDI 1994b), and with the Willamette and Mt. Hood National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) and respective BLM Resource Management
Plans (RMP), as stated in the biological assessment (BA); that is, any activity
which is not wholly consistent with the NWFP,
as well as the applicable LRMP/RMP, is not covered by the following biological
opinion (BO). Projects will be
implemented between the signing of this BO and
For the programs of activities included in this consultation, each administrative unit estimated the number of actions, and the potential impacts of those actions, anticipated for completion in calendar years 2005 -2006. These estimates of potential impacts were based upon currently identified projects, discussions with planners, and assessing projects completed in previous years. Proposed actions will be tracked throughout the year using the Project Implementation and Monitoring Form (2002 version) to monitor actions that are likely to adversely affect spotted owls, and to ensure that the actual levels of incidental take resulting from project implementation do not exceed the anticipated levels of incidental take. These monitoring reports are due to the Service annually, by December 31.
The action
area includes the entire Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA),
the entire
A project is implemented when the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) record of decision or decision notice is signed.
Capable habitat for
the northern spotted owl is habitat that either is currently suitable or is
capable of becoming suitable in the future.
Dispersal habitat for the northern spotted owl generally consists of mid-seral stage stands between 40
and 80 years of age with canopy closures of 40 percent or greater and trees
with a mean diameter breast high (dbh) of 11 inches or greater. Spotted owls use dispersal-only habitat to
move between blocks of suitable habitat; juveniles use it to disperse from
natal territories. Dispersal habitat may
have roosting and foraging components, enabling spotted owls to survive, but
lack structure suitable for nesting. Site-specific
determinations and delineations of dispersal-only habitat are made by the unit
wildlife biologist.
Suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl consists of habitat used by owls for nesting, roosting AND
foraging (NRF). Generally this habitat
is 80 years of age or older, multi-storied and has sufficient snags and down
wood to provide opportunities for nesting, roosting and foraging. The canopy closure generally exceeds 60
percent.
Known sites for the bald eagle consist of known (i.e., currently or historically
occupied) nesting or roosting sites as determined and delineated by the unit
wildlife biologist.
Degrade habitat means
to affect the quality of known bald eagle nest or roost sites, or spotted owl
suitable or dispersal-only habitat WITHOUT altering the functionality of such
habitat.
Downgrade habitat
means to alter the functionality of known bald eagle sites or spotted owl
suitable habitat so that the habitat no longer supports nesting, roosting, and
foraging behavior.
Remove habitat means
to alter known bald eagle nest or roost sites, or spotted owl suitable or
dispersal habitat, so that the habitat no longer supports nesting, roosting or
foraging.
The breeding period of the northern bald eagle is January 1
- August 31.
The wintering period of the northern bald eagle is November
15 - March 15.
The breeding period of the
northern spotted owl is March 1 - September 30.
The critical
breeding period of the northern spotted owl is March 1 – July 15.
During the
critical breeding period, activities occurring within the distances shown in
Table 1 from occupied or unsurveyed spotted owl suitable habitat could significantly disrupt the normal behavior pattern of individual animals or breeding pairs (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2004:51). Activities occurring within 0.25 mile (0.5 mile line of sight) of bald eagle nest locations or roost sites during the entire breeding period could significantly disrupt the normal behavior pattern of individual animals or breeding pairs.
Table
1. Disruption
Distances for northern spotted owls
Type of Activity |
Disruption Distance |
Use of an
impact pile driver, jackhammer or rock drill |
60 yards |
Use of a Type
I or II helicopter |
880 yards (0.5
mile) |
Use of a Type
III or IV helicopter |
120 yards |
Use of
chainsaws |
65 yards |
Use of heavy
equipment |
35 yards |
Burning |
440 yards
(0.25 mile) |
Table 2 describes
the types of activities evaluated by this assessment and the conditions under
which each activity may proceed. Together,
these activities constitute the proposed action.
The numbers and
acres of each type of activity proposed by the individual administrative units
are shown in Appendices A-D. The
proposed action includes all processes needed to plan, evaluate, survey,
prepare and complete activities including, but not limited to, falling,
bucking, hauling, post-harvest burning, and firewood sales.
Table 2. Description of proposed habitat modification to
spotted owl and bald eagle habitat by activity type1,
Activity Type |
Description |
Land
Use Allocation |
Regeneration Harvest |
Regeneration
harvest is the removal of most of the overstory by any cable, ground based,
horse, or helicopter operation. Harvest might be described as clear-cut,
regeneration harvest, seed tree retention, shelterwood cut, or selective cut.
The only remaining standing trees would be seed trees, retained green trees,
snags, or coarse woody debris recruitment trees. The habitat lost is canopy
cover, roosting and nesting trees, foraging areas, and some large down woody
material. Unit of measure is acres harvested. |
Matrix (including connectivity/ administrative
withdrawals) |
Heavy Thinning |
Heavy
thinning maintains a minimum of 30 percent average canopy closure throughout
a stand (i.e., each 40-acre treatment area maintains an average canopy
closure of at least 30 percent even though small areas might have a canopy
closure below 30 percent). (Any treatment that would lower canopy closure to
less than 30 percent is considered a regeneration harvest.) Unit of measure is
acres thinned. |
|
Heavy
thinning in known or suitable habitat is the partial removal of the overstory
primarily for commodity outputs. Such treatments may be described as density
management, selective cut, partial cut, or mortality (standing) salvage. |
Matrix & Associated
Riparian Reserve (including connectivity/ administrative withdrawals) |
|
Heavy
thinning in habitat that is not yet suitable spotted owl habitat can be for
forest health or to improve the structural characteristics of a stand. |
Any Land Use Allocation |
|
Light to Moderate Thinning |
Light
thinning in known or suitable habitat is the partial removal of the overstory
primarily for commodity outputs. It might be described as commercial
thinning, density management, selective cut, partial cut, mortality
(standing) salvage, or under burning for fuel reduction. Such thinning in
suitable habitat maintains a minimum 60 percent average canopy cover
throughout the stand. If thinning in suitable habitat results in <60
percent but > 30 percent average canopy cover, it is considered “heavy
thinning.” Unit of measure is acres thinned. |
Any Land Use Allocation |
Light
to moderate thinning in dispersal habitat can be for forest health or to
improve the structural characteristics of a stand. Such thinnings maintain a minimum of 40
percent average canopy cover throughout the stand. In some instances, they can have long-term
benefits to spotted owls by encouraging late-successional characteristics to
occur more rapidly. |
Any Land Use Allocation |
|
Down Salvage |
Salvage
includes removal of large downed woody material2 from areas
outside of the road prism and landings that is considered habitat
modification (landings and spur roads within the road prism is considered
disturbance only). Unit of measure is
acres salvaged. |
Any Land Use Allocation |
Individual Tree Removal |
Removal
of individual trees is for purposes of hazard tree removal or projects such
as in-stream habitat enhancement, snag creation, trail head expansion,
Emergency Relief Funding Operations, road realignment and repair, culvert
replacement, or right-of-way or facility maintenance, including but not
limited to transmission lines, radio sites, agency buildings, campgrounds,
lookouts, and ski areas. Unit of
measure is number of individual trees. |
|
Individual
tree removal may include the loss of trees with nesting structures and
unoccupied known nest trees. A known nest tree may be removed only when it is
an immediate hazard and when the tree is unoccupied by nesting birds or their
young. |
Matrix &
Associated Riparian Reserve (including connectivity/ administrative
withdrawals) |
|
Individual
tree removal does not include the removal of individual trees with nesting
structures or occupied nest trees. A known nest tree may be removed only when
it is an immediate hazard and when the tree is unoccupied by nesting birds or
their young. |
LSRs, CW & AMAs |
|
Under Burning |
This
is limited to under burnings (i.e., “cool burns”) for forest health (habitat
enhancement or restoration), fuels reduction, or the maintenance of Native American
culturally significant plant communities. Unit of measure is number of acres
treated. |
Matrix & Associated Riparian
Reserve (including connectivity/ administrative withdrawals) |
Terrestrial Habitat Enhancement |
This
type of activity includes habitat enhancement in suitable or dispersal
habitat for watershed health, wildlife, or botany that modifies forest
habitat by changing the canopy cover, or altering snag or coarse woody debris
composition of the stand. In occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat, this
activity would only occur after July 15 and prior to March 1 if within the
disruption distances identified in Table 1. No suitable nesting trees would
be treated or damaged and treatment would not occur in areas where
site-specific information indicates use by nesting listed species. Projects
may include the use of hand tools or chainsaws for tree-topping or bottom
girdling to create snags or wildlife trees, or tree felling for coarse woody
debris. This activity also includes the creation of openings of no more than
1/4 acre for habitat diversity. Groups of no more than 1/4 acre would be at
least one site potential tree height apart. All treatment units would
maintain an average canopy cover of 60 percent in suitable habitat, or 40
percent canopy cover in dispersal habitat, with no more than 10 percent of
the treatment unit impacted. Treated trees would be left on site or moved to
improve habitat at other project areas. Unit of measure is acres treated. |
Any Land Use Allocation |
1 Generally these programmatic types refer to harvest treatments but
they are also used to achieve other objectives. 2 Any land use
allocation if the proposed activity meets the criteria of the Northwest
Forest Plan for coarse woody debris. |
Standards and Definitions Common to All Actions
1) A wildlife biologist shall participate in the
planning and design of all activities affecting listed species.
2) All proposed activities should consider the
analyses for the management of federally listed species contained in pertinent
watershed analyses and late-successional reserve assessments, as amended.
3) Except in the case of hazard tree removal,
individual tree removal does not include the removal of (1) individual trees
with nesting structures within the Late-Successional Reserve and
Congressionally Withdrawn land use allocations, or (2) occupied nest trees. A known nest tree may be removed only when it
is an immediate hazard and when the
tree is unoccupied by nesting birds or their young. An emergency consultation request from the
action agency would be initiated to complete the process.
4) Using the Project Implementation & Monitoring Form, each administrative unit must monitor, and file a monitoring report with the Fish and Wildlife Service for all activities that are likely to adversely affect a listed species, result in the loss of suitable or potential habitat or potential structure, or affect critical habitat. Monitoring reports would be filed by December 31 of the year the project is implemented or sold. (Each administrative unit will decide if it will use the year of project implementation or sale.) Such monitoring is necessary to meet ESA requirements for programmatic consultation. Monitoring also helps ensure that actual levels of adverse affect, whether from habitat modification (identified in Tables 12 and 13) or associated disturbances (identified in Table 1 ), as well as impacts to critical habitat, that would result from the implementation of the proposed action, do not exceed the anticipated levels. Before exceeding an anticipated level of incidental take, or adverse affect, the administrative unit would inform the interagency Level 1 Team and re-initiate formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Standards Specific to the Northern Spotted Owl
5) No blasting shall occur within 1.0 mile of occupied or
unsurveyed suitable spotted owl habitat in any land use allocation between
March 1 and July 15. Blasting may occur
between July 16 and September 30 in the Matrix land use allocation, and between
October 1 and February 28 in all land use allocations. (Blasting that would not result in habitat
modification would be addressed in the disturbance-only biological assessment.)
6) Except for the removal of hazard trees to protect public
safety, no activity except hauling shall take place within the disruption
distance (Table 1) of spotted owl suitable habitat during the March 1 to July
15 critical nesting period, unless the habitat is known to be unoccupied or has
no nesting activity as determined by protocol survey. The distance and timing may be modified by
the unit wildlife biologist according to site-specific information.
7) To minimize adverse effects from disturbance, the
administrative units, to the extent feasible, shall schedule the implementation
of activities that may affect spotted owls outside of the critical breeding
period (March 1 – July 15).
8) No helicopter use within the disruption distance
(vertical or horizontal) of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat of the
spotted owl between March 1 and July 15 is addressed by this assessment.
9) No activity that, in the opinion of the unit wildlife
biologist, would remove spotted owl dispersal habitat in areas where the amount
of post-activity habitat would be insufficient for owl dispersal, is addressed
by this assessment.
10) In-stream habitat restoration projects and snag
creation projects that, in the opinion of the unit biologist, remove or modify
trees with potential nesting structures are not addressed by this assessment.
11) No activity that would remove or
downgrade northern spotted owl critical habitat in an Area of Concern (AOC) is
addressed by this opinion. Within critical
habitat that is suitable and located within an AOC, only individual tree
removal and underburning are addressed by this opinion. In critical habitat that is dispersal within
an AOC, this opinion addresses only light to moderate thinning and individual
tree removal activities, as long as a canopy cover of at least 40 percent after
treatment is maintain.
Standards and Definitions Specific to the Bald Eagle
12) No activity within 0.25 mile, or a
0.5-mile sight distance, of a known bald eagle nest location shall be
implemented between January 1 and August 31, unless the nest is verified to be
unoccupied by the unit wildlife biologist.
13)
No activity within 0.25 mile, or a 0.5-mile sight distance, of a known bald
eagle roost shall be implemented between November 15 and March 15, unless the
roost is verified to be unoccupied by the unit wildlife biologist.
14)
No regeneration harvest, heavy thinning, or moderate thinning within 0.25 mile,
or a 0.5-mile sight distance, of a known bald eagle nest or roost location is
addressed by this assessment.
15) No activity is proposed that would occur within 0.25 mile (0.5 mile line of sight including aircraft) (1.0 mile for blasting) of a known bald eagle nest or communal winter roost site. By following these guidelines, there are no anticipated adverse effects to bald eagles by the proposed activities.
On February 10, 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service a non-jeopardy biological opinion (1-7-94-F-14) addressing the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and its effect on all listed species within the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). This opinion did not address any incidental take of spotted owls or because the proposed action lacked sufficient details to do so. Such analyses were deferred to future project-scale consultations where more specific information would be available on baseline (action area) conditions and project-related activities.
The northern spotted owl was listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act on
The northern spotted owl is one of three spotted owl
subspecies (Dawson 1923, American Ornithologists Union 1957, Hamer et al. 1994, Gutiérrez et al. 1995).
The taxonomic separation between the northern and
Spotted owls generally inhabit older forested habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal (Forsman et al. 1984, Bart and Forsman 1992, Gutiérrez et al. 1995, Gutiérrez 1996, LaHaye and Gutiérrez 1999). Specifically, spotted owls require: a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; moderate to high canopy closure; a high incidence of trees with large cavities and other types of deformities; numerous large snags; an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and open space within and below the upper canopy for spotted owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1990). Forested stands with high canopy closure also provide thermal cover (Weathers et al. 2001), as well as protection from avian predators. Recent landscape-level analyses suggest that in some parts of the subspecies’ range a mosaic of late-successional habitat interspersed with other vegetation types may benefit spotted owls more than large, homogeneous expanses of older forests (Meyer et al. 1998, Franklin et al. 2000, Zabel et al. 2003, Olson et al. in review). This pattern may be the result of a trade-off between the benefits to survival conferred by interior older forest and benefits to reproduction conferred by less interior older forest and more complex edge between the two habitat categories (Franklin et al. 2000).
Juvenile Dispersal
Subsequent to the owl being listed, only one study has
reported on habitat use by dispersing juvenile northern spotted owls; it was
conducted in the
Foraging and Roosting
In the Western Cascades of
Washington, spotted owls used mature/old forest (dominated by trees > 50 cm
dbh with > 60 percent canopy closure) more often than expected for roosting
during the non-breeding season and used
young forest (trees 20-50 cm dbh with > 60 percent canopy closure) less
often than expected based on availability (Herter et al. 2002).
In the
In the Western Cascades of Oregon, 23 percent of foraging locations obtained using radio telemetry were in late seral/old-growth stands (≥ 80 yrs old), even though these stands comprised only 10 percent random of the locations. Similarly, 13 percent of foraging locations and 38 percent of random locations were in stands <40 yrs old. Most of the study area was harvested 60 years previous to the study or regenerated after fires 100 years previously. Consequently, “nearly all stands sampled contained more than one large (> 80 cm dbh) tree/ha” and foraging stands had more large snags (> 50 cm dbh) than random stands (Irwin et al. 2000:179).
Nesting
In mixed conifer forest of the Eastern Cascades, 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). Buchanan et al. (1995) did not evaluate the proportion of the greater landscape in the different stages of stand development. In a study of 20 nests in the Klamath Province, Oregon, all were found in old conifer forest (Ripple et al. 1997). In the Western Cascades, Oregon, 50 percent of spotted owl nests were in late seral/old-growth stands (≥ 80 yrs old) and none were found in stands < 40 yrs old although 10 percent and 38 percent of random locations, respectively, were in these stand ages (Irwin et al. 2000; see section 3.2 for description of study area).
Foraging and Roosting
North et al. (1999) measured
forest structural variables at spotted owl foraging locations obtained from
radio-telemetry of 11 owls in the Olympic Peninsula and Western Cascades,
Washington. Six stand attributes
differed by and were positively related to owl use intensity: density of trees ≥ 80 cm dbh, snag
basal area, snag volume, intact snag volume, foliage volume, and tree height
class diversity.
Vegetation structure was measured at spotted owl roosts located using radio-telemetry during the non-breeding season in the Western Cascades, Washington (Herter et al. 2002). Spotted owls roosted in areas lower in elevation, with larger tree dbh, fewer trees/ha, greater canopy cover, less shrub cover, and less down wood than found at random locations. Stepwise logistic regression selected the number of trees/ha, shrub cover, and volume of down wood for discriminating between roost and random stands.
King (1993) compared
vegetation characteristics between 219 owl use sites (86 percent roosting
locations combined with 14 percent foraging locations) and 209 random sites in
the Eastern Cascades, Washington, on managed forest in the Yakama Indian
Reservation. Nearly all stands in the
study area had been selectively harvested prior to the study (uneven age management). Owls used sites with higher canopy closure,
higher basal areas of medium-sized fir trees (27.5-52.4 cm dbh), higher slopes,
taller mature-sized trees (52.5-89.9 cm dbh), and lower shrub height, grass
cover, bare ground, and herb cover.
Canopy cover was by far the most important discriminator between owl and
random sites. Pidgeon (1995) conducted a
study similar to that of King (1993) on the unmanaged portion of the Yakama
Indian Reservation, comparing 163 owl use sites with 138 random locations. Ground cover of litter, canopy cover, basal area of large conifers, and log
volume were the best discriminators between used and random locations and were
higher at random locations.
Ting (1998) compared the ambient temperature at spotted owls
roost locations with temperatures at random locations within the same stand and
random locations within adjacent stands of younger forest on the Willow Creek
Study Area (WCSA),
Nesting
Hershey et al. (1998) compared stand structure of nest sites
and paired random sites in four Provinces (Olympic Peninsula, Washington, and
On the eastern slope of the Cascades,
In the Oregon Coast Range, density of snags < 53 cm dbh, number of horizontal vegetation layers and density of broad-leaved trees were higher at spotted owl nest than random sites whereas density of live conifers 53–86 cm dbh and density of snags 53–86 cm dbh were lower at nest than random sites (Thrailkill et al. 1998). Random sites were located in stand types used by spotted owls for nesting within the study area (Thrailkill et al. 1998).
Irwin et al. (2000) compared vegetation structure among nesting, foraging and random stands within home ranges
of 12 pairs of spotted owls in the Western Cascades,
LaHaye and Gutiérrez (1999) measured stand structure at 44 spotted owl nests and 44 paired random sites within the same stands in the Coast Range and Klamath Provinces of California. Among 17 variables compared, basal area of trees > 90 cm dbh, basal area of hardwoods 41-60 cm dbh, and basal area of Douglas-fir snags were different between nests and random points, and were greater at the nest site for all three variables.
Nest Trees
Platform nests were more prevalent in the Eastern Cascades
and
Spotted owls are mostly nocturnal (Forsman et al. 1984), but
they may forage opportunistically during the day (Laymon 1991, Sovern et al. 1994).
Composition of prey in the spotted owl’s diet varies regionally,
seasonally, annually, and locally, which is likely in response to prey
availability (Laymon 1988, Duncan and Sidner 1990, Ganey 1992, Verner et al.
1992, Carey 1993, Ward and Block 1995, Forsman et al. 2001). Northern flying
squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) and
woodrats (Neotoma spp.) are usually
the predominant prey both in biomass and frequency (Barrows 1980; Forsman et
al. 1984; Ward 1990; Bevis et al. 1997; Forsman et al. 2001, 2004) with a clear
geographic pattern of diet, paralleling differences in habitat (Thomas et al. 1990). Northern flying squirrels are generally the
dominant prey item in the more mesic Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)/western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
forests characteristic of the northern portion of the range, whereas woodrats
are generally the dominant prey item in the drier mixed conifer/mixed evergreen
forests typically found in the southern portion of the range (Forsman et al. 1984,
Thomas et al. 1990, Ward et al. 1998, reviewed by Courtney et al. 2004). These prey items were found to be co-dominant
in the southwest interior of
Other prey species (i.e., red tree vole [Arborimus longicaudas], red backed voles [Clethrionomys gapperi], mice, rabbits and hares, birds, and insects) may be seasonally or locally important (reviewed by Courtney et al. 2004). For example, Rosenberg et al. (2003) showed a strong correlation between annual reproductive success of owls (number of young per territory) and abundance of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), despite the fact that they only made up only 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). 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. 1984, 2001, 2004).
Factors other than prey abundance also affect prey availability, notably foraging opportunity (Courtney et al. 2004). Some researchers have suggested that owls make less use of younger stands, because owls may be less maneuverable and, therefore, less able to catch prey there (Rosenberg and Anthony 1992, Zabel et al. 1993). Carey and Peeler (1995) disagrees with this interpretation, and suggests instead that lack of suitable perches limit foraging opportunities. This appears to agree with data showing that owls use sapling stands, and densely vegetated riparian areas with woodrats (Carey et al. 1992, Cary and Peeler 1995). It is reasonable to hypothesize that prey abundance is not a perfect predictor of availability (Courtney et al. 2004).
Home range size varies geographically, increasing from south
to north, which is likely in response to differences in habitat quality (USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b). Spotted
owl home ranges are larger where northern flying squirrels are the predominant
prey and are smaller where woodrats are the predominant prey (Zabel et al. 1995). When available prey density is low or there
is an increased reliance on a single large prey species (e.g., northern flying
squirrels), owls respond by increasing home range size (Carey et al. 1992, Zabel et al. 1995). Estimates of home
range size vary from 472 hectares (1,166 acres) in southern
A home range core area was defined as the area within a home range that receives disproportionately high use (Bingham and Noon 1997), and may be estimated empirically using kernel methods. Core area sizes were extremely variable among owls but similar at two study areas in the Oregon Coast Range, averaging 94 ha even though Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP) home range size (more sensitive to sample size; see above) differed by study area (Glenn et al. 2004).
The influence of landscape attributes on home range size has
been inferred by comparing differences in forest age, amounts of mature and
old-growth forest, forest fragmentation, tree species composition and
distribution of major prey species with differences in home range area
(Courtney et al. 2004). Carey et al.
(1992) found that the area traversed by owls (100 percent MCP home range) was
85 percent larger in more heavily fragmented Douglas fir forest in the Oregon
Coast Range and 237 percent larger in more heavily fragmented mixed conifer
forest in the Klamath Province relative to less fragmented areas of the same
forest types/geographical areas. However, the amount of old forest within home ranges
was similar among study areas in the Carey et al. (1992) study.
Glenn et al. (2004) compared home range sizes in two study
areas in the
In contrast to these findings, in study areas dominated by
late-successional forest in the southern
The response of one northern spotted owl to timber harvest
was evaluated in a detailed study in the
Home Range and
Core Area Composition
Many researchers have compared stand conditions surrounding owl locations to random locations by mapping circles of various radii around owl nests or roosts, and then comparing forest conditions within the circles (Courtney et al. 2004). In nearly all cases, the amount of mature and old-growth forest was greater within circles containing owls than random locations, ranging from 30–78 percent at owl sites and 6-63 percent at random sites (see Swindle et al. 1999).
One study in the Eastern Cascades of Washington found results contrary to this general trend (Irwin et al. in press). Irwin et al. (in press) found more mature and old-growth forest (> 64 cm dbh) in random locations than owl locations and more forest 20-64 cm dbh in owl locations than random locations. Furthermore, owl locations were positively associated with proximity to riparian habitat and negatively associated with trees 13-19 cm dbh and with elevation. Irwin et al. (in press) hypothesized that development of dense understories of shade tolerant trees 13-19 cm dbh, which resulted from fire suppression since 1910, may have led to abandonment of 45 owl territories in mesic forests of their study area.
In some studies, landscape composition was evaluated within
nested circles. In general, differences
between owl locations and random sites diminished as circle size increased
(Hunter et al. 1995, Ripple et al. 1997, Meyer et al. 1998, Swindle et al.
1999, Perkins 2000). Amount of mature
and old-growth forest was higher in owl sites than random landscape locations
even within annuli created by concentric circles up to 3.4 km radius in one
study in
In general, across studies, hardwood and younger conifer forest types were not greater within owl circles than random circles with the following exception: greater amounts of hardwood forest were found in owl than random sites beyond the smallest (0.8 km radius) circles in the Klamath Province of Oregon (Meyer et al. 1998).
In the Oregon Coast Range spotted owls were negatively associated with 0-40 and 41-70 yr old stands at three of four spatial scales evaluated (50, 100, and 600 ha), positively associated with 101-200 yr old stands at 200 ha scale and positively associated with > 200 yr old stands at all scales based on stepwise logistic regression for 82 owl and 82 random sites (Zabel et al. 2001).
In relative terms, the spotted owl is long-lived, has a long reproductive life-span, produces fewer and larger young, invests significantly in parental care, experiences later or delayed maturity, and exhibits high adult survivorship (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). Spotted owls typically do not reach sexual maturity until they are 2 years old (Thomas et al. 1990), although they occasionally breed at 1 year of age (Anthony et al. 2004). Upon reaching sexual maturity, females typically lay one or two eggs (range: one egg to three eggs) (Gutiérrez 1996). Reproduction can vary greatly among years, with most pairs breeding in good years, and few pairs breeding in poor years (Forsman et al. 1984, Gutiérrez et al. 1995, Franklin et al. 1999, Anthony et al. 2004). Delayed maturation, small clutch size, and temporal variability in nesting success all contribute to the relatively low fecundity (number of female offspring produced per territorial female) of this species (Gutiérrez 1996). Although some evidence for mating between close relatives has been documented (Carlson et al. 1998, Forsman et al. 2002), it is generally a rare event, and not likely to result in genetic problems under normal circumstances (Courtney et al. 2004).
Spotted owls are highly territorial (Forsman et al. 1984, Gutiérrez et al. 1995, Franklin et al. 1996) and usually monogamous, with courtship beginning in late February to early March and nesting occurring from March to June. Timing of nesting and fledging varies with latitude and elevation (Forsman et al. 1984). At about 35 days old, the young fledge but are incapable of flight (Forsman 1976). During this time, adults may not roost with their young during the day, but they respond to begging vocalizations by bringing food to the young (Forsman et al. 1984). By August, parents spend substantially less time attending their young, while fledglings begin to forage opportunistically but clumsily (Gutiérrez et al. 1985). By September, parents feed their young irregularly and some juveniles begin to disperse (Gutiérrez et al. 1985, Forsman et al. 2002).
Most young disperse by early November (Gutiérrez et al. 1985, Forsman et al. 2002).
Dispersal by juveniles (natal dispersal) occurs in stages, with juvenile
spotted owls settling in temporary home ranges between bouts of dispersal
(Forsman et al. 2002). Median natal
dispersal distances are approximately 14 kilometers for males and 23 kilometers
for females (range = 0.6 to 111.2 kilometers) (Forsman et al. 2002).
In addition to dispersing as juveniles, a small percentage of
non-juvenile spotted owls (6 percent in Forsman et al. 2002) disperse shorter
distances in search of new mates and/or new territories (breeding
dispersal). Dispersing juvenile spotted
owls experience relatively high mortality rates (Forsman et al. 1984, Gutiérrez et al. 1985, Miller
1989) but accurately estimating these rates is confounded by an inability to
discriminate between death and permanent emigration (Raphael et al. 1996, Franklin et al. 2004, Anthony et al. 2004).
Leading known causes of mortality are starvation, predation, and
accidents (Miller 1989, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a, Forsman et al. 2002).
Parasitic infection may contribute to these causes of mortality (Forsman
et al. 2002).
Forested landscapes traversed by dispersing owls typically
included a fragmented mosaic of roads, clear-cuts, non-forest areas, and a
variety of forest age classes ranging from young forests on harvested areas, to
old-growth forests ≥ 250 years old (Forsman et al. 2002). Large non-forested
valleys (e.g., the
The northern 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 Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b). At the time of listing, significant threats to the spotted owl included: low populations; declining populations; limited habitat; declining habitat; distribution of habitat or populations; isolation of provinces; predation and competition; lack of coordinated conservation measures; and vulnerability to natural disturbance (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a).
Barred Owls
Since listing of the northern spotted owl, new information
suggests that hybridization with the barred owl (Strix varia) is less of a threat (Kelly and Forsman 2004) and
competition with the barred owl is a greater threat than previously anticipated
(Courtney et al. 2004). Since 1990, the barred owl has expanded its
range south into
Barred
owls apparently compete with spotted owls through a variety of mechanisms: prey overlap (Hamer et al. 2001); habitat
overlap (Hamer et al. 1989, Dunbar et
al. 1991, Herter and Hicks 2000, Pearson and Livezey 2003); and agonistic
encounters (Leskiw and Gutiérrez 1998, Pearson and Livezey 2003). New information on encounters between barred
owls and northern spotted owls comes primarily from anecdotal reports which
corroborate initial observations that barred owls react more aggressively
towards northern spotted owls than the reverse (Courtney
et al. 2004, pg. 7-25). There is also
limited circumstantial evidence of barred owl predation on northern spotted
owls (Leskiw and Gutiérrez 1998, Johnston 2002). Information collected to date indicates that
encounters between these two species tend to be agonistic in nature, and that
the outcome is unlikely to favor the northern spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 7-25).
Although
barred owls were initially thought to be more closely associated with early
successional forests than northern spotted owls (Hamer 1989, Iverson 1993),
recent studies indicate that barred owls are capable of utilizing a broader
range of habitat types relative to northern spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 7-20). The only study comparing northern spotted owl
and barred owl food habits in the Pacific Northwest indicated that barred owl
diets overlapped strongly (>75 percent) with northern spotted owl diets
(Hamer et al. 2001). However, barred owl diets were also more
diverse than northern spotted owl diets, including species associated with
riparian and other moist habitats, as well more terrestrial and diurnal
species.
Evidence that barred owls are causing the displacement of
spotted owls is largely indirect, based primarily on retrospective examination
of long-term data collected on northern spotted owls. Correlations between local northern spotted
owl declines and barred owl increases have been noted in the northern
Washington Cascades (Kuntz and Christopherson 1996, Herter and Hicks 2000,
Pearson and Livezey 2003), on the Olympic peninsula (Wiedemeier and Horton
2000, Gremel 2000, 2003), in the southern Oregon Cascades (e.g., Crater Lake
National Park [Johnston 2002]), and in the coastal redwood zone in California
(e.g., Redwood National and State Parks [Schmidt 2003]). Northern spotted owl occupancy was
significantly lower in northern spotted owl territories where barred owls were
detected within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the northern spotted owl territory center
than in northern spotted owl territories where no barred owls were detected
(Kelly et al. 2003). Kelly et al. (2003)
also found that in northern spotted owl territories where barred owls were
detected, northern spotted owl occupancy was significantly lower (P < 0.001) after barred owls were
detected within 0.8 km of the territory center; occupancy was “only marginally
lower” (P = 0.06) if barred owls were
located more than 0.8 km from northern spotted owl territory centers. In the
At two study areas in Washington, investigators found relatively high numbers of territories previously occupied by northern spotted owls that are now apparently not occupied by either spotted or barred owls (e.g., 49 of 107 territories in the Cascades [Herter and Hicks 2000]; 23 of 33 territories in the Olympic Experimental State Forest [Wiedemeier and Horton 2000]). Given that habitat was still present in these vacant territories, some factor(s) may be reducing habitat suitability or local abundance of both species. For example, weather conditions could cause prolonged declines in abundance of both species (Franklin et al. 2000). Because northern spotted owls have been anecdotally reported to give fewer vocalizations when barred owls are present, it is possible that these putatively vacant territories are still occupied by northern spotted owls that do not respond to surveys. Likewise, survey protocols for northern spotted owls are believed to under-detect barred owls (Courtney et al. 2004). Thus, some proportion of seemingly vacant territories may be an artifact of reduced detection probability of the survey protocol. Nonetheless, previously occupied territories apparently vacant of both Strix species suggests that factors other than barred owls alone are contributing to declines in northern spotted owl abundance and territorial occupancy (Courtney et al. 2004, pgs. 7-31 and 7-35).
Two
studies (Kelly 2001, Anthony et al.
2004) attempted to determine whether barred owls affected fecundity of northern
spotted owls in the long-term demographic study areas. Neither study was able to clearly do so,
although the
Regarding interactions between barred and northern spotted
owls, the uncertainties associated with methods, analyses, and possible
confounding factors (e.g., effects of past habitat loss, weather) warrant
caution in interpretation of the patterns emerging from the data and
information collected to date (Courtney et al. 2004, pgs. 7-39 to 7-40).
Further, data are currently lacking that would allow accurate prediction
of how barred owls will affect northern spotted owls in southern, more xeric,
portion of the range (i.e.,
Courtney
et al. (2004, pgs. 7-9 to 7-12) compared the size differences between barred
owls and northern spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest to size ratios of
coexisting species of Strix owl
species, including that of the Mexican spotted owl and the barred owl in the
southwest U.S. and Mexico. This analysis
was conducted to explore the potential for eventual coexistence of, or niche
partitioning by, barred owls and northern spotted owls based primarily on
differences in size. Results of this
analysis indicated that the difference in size between the northern spotted owl
and the barred owl in the
Wildfire
At the time of listing there was recognition that catastrophic wildfire posed a threat to the spotted owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). New information suggests that fire may be a greater and growing threat than was previously thought. In particular, the rate of habitat loss in the relatively dry East Cascades and Klamath provinces has been greater than expected (see Habitat Trends). Furthermore, we now recognize that our ability to protect spotted owl habitat and viable populations of spotted owls from these large fires through risk-reduction endeavors is largely uncertain (Courtney et al. 2004).
In 1994, the Hatchery Complex
wildfires burned 17,603 ha in the
Two wildfires burned in the
Yakama Indian Reservation, eastern Cascades,
Health
officials expect that WNV will eventually spread throughout the range of the
northern spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 8-33), but it is unknown how
WNV will ultimately affect spotted owl populations. Susceptibility to infection and mortality
rates of infected individuals vary among bird species, even within groups (Courtney
et al. 2004, pg. 8-35). Owls appear to be quite susceptible. For example, breeding screech owls (Megascops asio) in
Courtney et al. (2004) offer competing propositions for the likely outcome of spotted owl populations being infected by WNV. One proposition is that spotted owls can tolerate severe, short-term population reductions due to WNV, because owl populations are widely distributed and number in the several hundreds to thousands. An alternative proposition 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.
Sudden Oak
Death
Sudden oak death was recently identified as a potential
threat to the northern spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004). This disease is
caused by the fungus-like pathogen, Phytopthora
ramorum that was recently introduced from
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 reduced genetic variation and past
bottlenecks in
The amount of spotted owl habitat continues to decline on a range-wide basis across all ownerships, although at a rate that is less than in the years prior to the listing of the spotted owl, particularly on Federal lands within the NWFP boundary (Courtney et al. 2004). Approximately 7.4 million acres of suitable habitat were estimated to exist on Federal lands in 1994 (Table 3). As of December 2003, action agencies have consulted with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service on the removal of 155,999 acres (2.11 percent of total) of suitable habitat on Federal lands managed under the NWFP. For the first decade of the NWFP, range-wide consulted-on effects were consistent with timber harvest rate assumptions (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994, 2001).
Although
most provinces have experienced some degree of habitat loss since 1994, total
effects have not been proportionally distributed across the range of the
spotted owl (Table 3). Most
management-related, consulted-on habitat loss has been concentrated in the
Since
1994, habitat lost due to natural events is estimated to be approximately
224,041 acres range-wide (Table 3). A
large portion of this loss can be attributed to the Biscuit Fire that burned
over 500,000 acres in southwest
We have no empirical information on increases in spotted owl habitat (on any ownership) resulting from habitat that has developed through vegetative succession (i.e., ingrowth); however, projections from the 2004 Survey and Manage FSEIS indicated an average 600,000-acre net increase in late-successional forest (>80 years old) per decade (unevenly distributed), including the decade since the Forest Plan was signed (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004, pg. 111). There has been no attempt to track range-wide changes in younger forests used by spotted owls for dispersal.
There is little available information regarding spotted owl habitat trends on non-Federal lands. Yet, we do know that internal Fish and Wildlife Service consultations conducted since 1992 have documented the eventual loss of 407,849 acres of habitat on non-Federal lands. Most of these losses have yet to be realized because they are part of large-scale, long-term Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs).
Table 3. Northern spotted owl numbers (1986-1992) and
habitat loss due to Federal management actions and natural events (1994-2003),
by physiographic province.
Number
of
Spotted
Owls Estimated Habitat Loss, 1994-2003 (acres)2
(1986-1992)1 acres
of Provincial
Proportion
Physiographic habitat
in Insect/ of
Range-wide
Province Pairs Singles 1994 Mgmt Fire Wind Disease Total (%) Habitat
Loss (%)
WA
Olympic
East Cascades 218 12 706,849 -5,024 -5,754 0 0 -10,778 1 3
West Cascades 290 45 1,112,480 -11,139 0 0 -250 -11,389 1
OR
Cascades East 181 39 443,659 -13,867 -4,008 0 -55,000 -72,875 16 19
Cascades West 1,081 308 2,045,763 -51,122 -24,583 0 0 -75,705 4 20
CA
Cascades 40 23 88,237 -5,091 0 0 0 -5,091 <1 1
Total 3,753 980 7,397,098 -155,999 -168,301 -100 -55,640 -380,040 5 NA
1 From Gutierrez (1994).
2 From Courtney et
al. (2004). Fires occurring in 2003
were not included here as the data are not yet available.
There are no estimates of the historical population size and distribution of the northern spotted owl within preferred habitat, although spotted owls are believed to have inhabited most old growth forests throughout the Pacific Northwest prior to modern settlement (mid-1800s), including northwestern California (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1989). According to the final rule listing the owl as threatened (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a), 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 1987; USDA Forest Service 1988; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1989; Thomas et al. 1990).
Gutiérrez (1994), using data from 1986-1992, tallied 3,753 known pairs and 980 singles throughout the range of the northern spotted owl (Table 3). At the time the NWFP was initiated (July 1, 1994), there were 5,431 known locations of, or site centers of spotted owl pairs or resident singles: 851 sites (16 percent) in Washington, 2,893 (53 percent) in Oregon, and 1,687 (31 percent) in California (USDI 1995). The actual population of owls across the range was undoubtedly larger than either of these counts because some areas were, and remain, unsurveyed (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992c, Thomas et al. 1993).
Because existing survey coverage and effort are insufficient to produce reliable population estimates, researchers use other indices, such as demographic data, to evaluate trends in spotted owl populations. Analysis of demographic data can provide an estimate of the rate and direction of population growth [i.e., lambda (λ)]. A λ of 1.0 indicates a stationary population (i.e., neither increasing nor decreasing), a λ less than 1.0 indicates a declining population, and a λ greater than 1.0 indicates a growing population.
In January 2004, at the spotted owl demographic meta-analysis workshop, two meta-analyses were conducted on the rate of population change using the reparameterized Jolly-Seber method (λRJS); one for all 13 study areas and one for the eight study areas that are part of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program of the Northwest Forest Plan (Anthony et al. 2004). Data were analyzed separately for individual study areas, as well as simultaneously across study areas were decreasing (see Figure 1). Precision of the λRJS estimates areas (true meta-analysis). Estimates of λRJS ranged from 0.896-1.005 for the 13 areas, and all but 1 (TYE) of the estimates were <1.0 suggesting population declines for most areas (Anthony et al. 2004). There was strong evidence that populations on the WEN, CLE, WSR, and SIM study areas declined during the study, and there also was evidence that populations on the RAI, OLY, COA, and HJA for RAI and OLY were poor and not sufficient to detect a difference from 1.00. The estimate of λRJS for RAI (0.896) was the lowest of all of the areas. Populations on TYE, KLA, CAS, NWC, and HUP appeared to be stationary during the study, but there was some evidence that the last three were declining (λRJS <1.00). The weighted mean λRJS for all of the study areas was 0.963 (SE = 0.009, 95 percent CI = 0.945-0.981), suggesting that populations over all of the areas were declining by about 3.7 percent per year from 1985-2003. The mean λRJS for the eight monitoring areas on Federal lands was 0.976 (SE = 0.007, 95 percent CI = 0.962-0.990) and 0.942 (SE = 0.016, 95 percent CI = 0.910-0.974) for non-Federal lands, an average 2.4 versus 5.8 percent decline per year.
This suggests that spotted owl populations on Federal lands had better demographic rates than elsewhere, but interspersion of land ownership on the study areas confounds this analysis.
The
number of populations that have declined and the rate at which they have
declined are noteworthy, particularly the precipitous declines on the four
Olympic
Western Cascades,
Eastern Cascades, Washington
(Cle Elum and Wenatchee study areas) – Adult fecundity was highest among all
regions, was stable on the Wenatchee study area, and showed some evidence of a
decrease over time on the Cle Elum study area.
Adult survival declined over time on both study areas and was lower on
the
Coast Range, Oregon (Coast
Ranges and Tyee study areas) – Adult fecundity was lowest among all regions,
increased over time on the Tyee study area and showed some evidence of a
decrease over time on the Coast Range study area. Adult survival was stable. Evidence for population decline was moderate
on the
Cascades, Oregon (H. J. Andrews, Warm Springs and South Cascades
study areas) – Adult fecundity similar to the range-wide mean and was stable or
declined over time on the individual study areas. Annual survival was stable and was negatively
associated with reproduction at the beginning of the annual survival interval. The Warm Springs study area, on the east
slope of the Cascades,
Coast Range, California (Simpson and Marin study areas) – Adult fecundity was higher than the range-wide mean, was stable on the Marin study area, and showed some evidence for a decline over time on the Simpson study area. Adult survival was stable over time. Evidence for population decline on the Simpson study area was moderate.
Habitat Effects to Demographic Rates
Franklin et al. (2000) analyzed data from a marked
population of spotted owls for the first 10 years of study in the Klamath
Province, California and evaluated the effects of weather variables and
landscape characteristics on temporal and spatial variation of survival and
reproductive rates. From the best models
of these relationships, they estimated habitat fitness potential (λH)
of individual owl sites using modified Leslie projection matrix methods, which
did not include juvenile survival.
Franklin et al. (2000) mapped vegetation within 158 ha around each owl
site center, defining two habitat categories:
suitable owl habitat or older forest (mature and old-growth conifer
≥ 53 cm dbh, percent of conifers ≥ 40 percent, overstory canopy
cover ≥ 70 percent) and all other habitat. Survival was positively and non-linearly
associated with the amount of interior older forest (>100 m from an edge),
the amount of edge between older forest and other vegetation types, and showed
a quadratic (convex) relationship to the distance between patches of older
forest. Reproductive output was
negatively and non-linearly associated with the amount of interior older
forest, had a quadratic (concave) relationship to the number of older forest
patches, and was positively associated with the amount of edge between older
forest and other vegetation types. Thus,
there appeared to be a trade-off between the benefits to survival conferred by
interior older forest and benefits to reproduction conferred by less interior
older forest and more convoluted edge between the two habitat categories. Estimates of λH ranged from
0.438 to 1.178 (mean = 1.075). Based on
95 percent confidence intervals, 69 percent of owl territories had estimates of
λH > 1, indicating
owls at these territories more than replaced themselves. Franklin et al. (2000) suggested that habitat
quality may determine the magnitude of λ (finite rate of population
growth) and recruitment may determine variation around λ. In addition,
owls in territories of higher habitat quality (i.e., λH > 1)
had greater survival during inclement weather than those in poorer quality
habitat, suggesting that habitat quality buffered individuals from the negative
effects of weather.
Three additional studies
estimated the effects of weather and habitat on spotted owl survival and
reproduction in the Oregon Coast Range (Olson et al. 2004), central Cascades, (Anthony et al. 2002a), and southern Cascades (Anthony
et al. 2002b). Long-term spotted owl
demographic data were available from each of the study areas. Modeling generally followed the methods of
Franklin et al. (2000). Olson et al.
(2004) and Anthony et al. (2002a) used three scales of analysis: 600, 1500 and 2400 m radius circles,
corresponding to 113, 707, and 1810 ha.
Vegetation was classified as late-seral conifer, mid-seral conifer,
non-habitat, and broadleaf (
In the central Oregon Coast
Range, survival had a quadratic (convex) relationship to the amount of mid- and
late-seral forest within 1500 m of owl site centers (707 ha circles; Olson et
al. 2004). The best model explained only
16 percent of the variation in the data.
Of the variation explained by the model, habitat accounted for 85
percent. Reproductive output was
positively related to the amount of edge between mid- and late-seral forests
and other habitat classes. The best
model explained 84 percent of the total variability; however, the habitat
variable accounted for only 3 percent of the variation explained by the
model. Consistent with results from the
In
the western Cascades, owl survival had a quadratic (concave) relationship to
the amount of non-habitat within 1500 m of owl site centers. The best model of survival explained 58
percent of total variance, and habitat accounted for 32 percent of the variance
explained by the model. Owl productivity
showed a negative linear relationship to the largest patch size of old conifer
(> 50 cm dbh) forest within 1500 m of owl site centers (Anthony et al. 2002a). The best model explained 77 percent of the
variation in owl productivity; however, 99.6 percent of this variation was
accounted for by owl age, 0.4 percent by climate, and an immeasurable amount by
habitat.
In
the southern Cascades, two nested circles (167 and 1565 ha) and the ring
between the circles (1388 ha) were used to characterize habitat at owl sites (Anthony
et al. 2002b). The best model of owl
survival indicated that survival increased non-linearly with the amount of
mature and old growth forest within 167 ha around site centers and had a quadratic
(convex) relationship to the amount of non-habitat in the 1388 ha ring. These two habitat covariates explained 54
percent of the spatial variation in survival; temporal variation was
essentially zero (Anthony et al. 2002b).
Owl productivity was positively related to the proportion of mature and
old-growth forest within 600 m of owl site centers. However, the best model accounted for 25
percent of the total variance in reproductive output and the habitat variable
only accounted for 7 percent of the model variance. Seventy-four percent of the model variance
was explained by a biannual pattern in reproduction (“even-odd year effect”)
and the experience of male owls on a territory (Anthony et al. 2002b).
Effects of forest fragmentation and heterogeneity on
northern spotted owl survival and reproduction varied among studies (Courtney
et al. 2004). While a fragmentation
index was negatively associated with site occupancy in some studies, a
trade-off between large patches of mature/old forest and juxtaposition of land
over types appeared to benefit spotted owls in other studies (Courtney et al.
2004). Home ranges composed entirely of
pristine old forest may not be optimal for spotted owls in the Klamath province
and
The NWFP is the current conservation strategy for the
spotted owl on Federal lands. It is
designed around the conservation (i.e. recovery) needs of the spotted owl and
based upon the designation of a variety of land-use allocations to protect
large blocks of habitat for spotted owl population clusters and to maintain
connectivity between population clusters.
Several land-use allocations are intended to contribute primarily to
supporting population clusters: Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs), Managed Late
Successional Areas (MLSAs), Congressionally Reserved Areas (CRAs), and Managed
Pair and Reserve Pair Areas. The
remaining land-use allocations―Matrix, Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs),
Riparian Reserves (RRs), Connectivity Blocks, and Administratively Withdrawn
Areas (AWAs)―are designed to provide connectivity between habitat blocks
intended for demographic support.
The range-wide system of reserves set up under the NWFP captures the variety of ecological conditions to which spotted owls are adapted. The designers of this reserve network incorporated redundancy, reserving more forest land in more reserves than they believed absolutely necessary. Their intent was to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic events impacting habitat connectivity and population dynamics within and between provinces. Although the NWFP anticipated that spotted owl populations would decline in areas outside of reserves, populations were expected to stabilize and eventually increase within reserves, as habitat conditions improved over the next 50 to 100 years (Thomas and Raphael 1993, USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a, 1994b).
The NWFP predicted that the northern spotted owl populations would continue to decline for some time after plan implementation, as the consequence of lag effects at both individual and population levels, and the continued harvest of habitat (See Record of Decision). The fact of such a decline (Anthony et al. 2004) is not in and of itself unexpected or reason to doubt the effectiveness of the core NWFP strategy (Courtney et al. 2004). The problem in assessing this decline is that we lack a strong benchmark to know whether this decline is greater or less than that predicted under the NWFP (Courtney et al. 2004).
The NWFP has achieved several important goals for spotted owl conservation, most importantly protecting the majority of existing suitable habitat from timber harvest of federal lands. The basic premise of needing to protect suitable habitat was one of the main reasons for listing the spotted owl, and formed the core of the NWFP. Nothing has changed to alter this fundamental principle of owl conservation. Similarly, nothing has altered the general premise that the reserves for spotted owls should be well-distributed throughout the range of the species, if reserves are to form the basis for range-wide recovery (Courtney et al. 2004). The combined effects of historic habitat loss and new threats that are not habitat-associated don’t reduce the importance of the NWFP as a necessary component of spotted owl conservation, but raises questions as to how to address non-habitat factors in such a way to ensure a sufficient strategy for conservation (USDI 2004).
The conservation strategy for spotted owls on Federal Lands, as described in the NWFP, does not include non-Federal lands. On non-Federal lands, timber harvest is governed by rules within each State that provide varying degrees of protection to spotted owls and/or their habitat. In some areas, private lands, especially those addressed in the 13 Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) for the northern spotted owl, contribute substantially to the overall function of NWFP reserves (Courtney et al. 2004).
A
conservation strategy for spotted owls in
Based on the above assessment of threats, the spotted owl has the following habitat-specific and habitat-independent conservation (i.e., recovery) needs:
Habitat-specific
needs
(1) large blocks of suitable habitat maintained 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 maintained between local spotted owl populations throughout its range to facilitate survival and movement; (3) suitable habitat managed across a variety of ecological conditions within the spotted owl’s range to reduce risk of local or widespread extirpation; (4)(a) a coordinated, adaptive management effort to reduce the loss of habitat due to catastrophic wildfire throughout the spotted owl’s range, (b) a research program to clarify whether these risk reduction methods are effective, and (c) a research program to determine how owls use habitat treated to reduce fuels; and, (5) in areas of significant population decline, spotted owl habitat managed to 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
should be made to better understand and manage competitive interactions between
spotted and barred owls; and (2) monitoring to better understand the risk that
West Nile virus and sudden oak death pose to spotted owls and, for West Nile
virus, research into methods that may reduce the likelihood or severity of
outbreaks in spotted owl populations.
Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat
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
statute and the
The Act requires the Service to
designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable when
listing a species as threatened or endangered.
Critical habitat consists of geographical areas occupied by the species
at the time of listing which contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special
management protection and areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation of the
species. Under the Act, conservation
means to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to
bring an endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. That is to say the species is recovered and
removed from the list of endangered and threatened species (USDI 1992a). Critical habitat is provided protection under
section 7 of the Act by ensuring that activities funded, authorized, or carried
out by federal agencies do not adversely modify such habitat to the point that
it no longer aids in the recovery of the intended species. On
Primary constituent elements are environmental factors the Service determines are essential to a species’ conservation. For the northern spotted owl the primary constituent elements of critical habitat have been identified as the physical and biological features that support nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal (USDI 1992a).
Conservation Strategy and Objectives
Spotted owl critical habitat designation is based on the
identification of large blocks of suitable habitat well distributed across the
range of the spotted owl, containing the primary constituent elements. As such, designation of spotted owl critical
habitat reflects the conservation principles emphasized by the ISC strategy
(Thomas et al. 1990) of 1) providing large areas of suitable habitat to support
population clusters, and 2) provide for dispersal between population clusters (USDI
1992a). CHUs were intended to identify a
network of habitats that provided the functions considered important to
maintaining a stable, self-sustaining, and interconnected population over the
spotted owl range with each
The final rule designating critical habitat (USDI 1992a) stated that “Analysis of impacts should consider provinces, subprovinces, and individual CHUs, as well as the entire range of the subspecies.” The rule also expressed the expectation that the physiographic province be the primary scale of analysis for evaluating project-related effects to critical habitat to determine if range-wide conservation and recovery goals are being met.
Critical Habitat Range-wide. In 1994, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) established the environmental baseline for northern spotted owl critical habitat on Federal lands under NWFP management as 3,141,987 acres of suitable habitat (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). Tracking changes to that environmental baseline is crucial for evaluating effects to spotted owl critical habitat. The following discussion reports on changes that have occurred to the baseline condition since implementation of the NWFP, relying specifically on Service consultations conducted pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The current condition of critical habitat is also influenced by natural events including wildfire, windthrow, and insect and disease damage.
Since the implementation of the NWFP, approximately 1.4 percent (44,024 acres, Table 4) of extant suitable critical habitat has been consulted-on for removal or downgrading (USDI 2004).
Consultation data indicate effects to critical habitat have
not been evenly distributed throughout the range of the northern spotted
owl. The majority of the consulted-on
effects (approximately 68 percent totaling 30,083 acres) to suitable
northern spotted owl critical habitat range-wide have occurred in the
Within the
disproportionate impact on individual CHUs. The impact of nesting, roosting and foraging
habitat has been greatest within OR-74 and OR-75, however, these units still provide
12,772 and 5,014 acres of suitable and dispersal quality habitat, respectively. Additionally, consulted-on effects within this
province have been dispersed. Recent
analysis by the Service has concluded that consulted-on effects within this
province have not prevented the
Physiographic Provinces |
Habitat removed/downgraded 1 |
Evaluation Baseline 2 |
% of Provincial Baseline Affected |
% of Rangewide Effects |
|||
Reserves 3 |
Non-Reserves 4 |
Total |
|
|
|
||
WA |
Olympic |
12 |
59 |
79 |
197,009 |
0.04 |
0.16 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
W. Cascades |
3 |
4,929 |
4,932 |
514,578 |
0.96 |
11.20 |
|
E. Cascades |
86 |
4,549 |
4,635 |
326,592 |
1.42 |
10.53 |
|
OR |
|
15 |
1,209 |
1,224 |
348,717 |
0.35 |
2.78 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Cascades W. |
22 |
19,771 |
19,793 |
894,134 |
2.21 |
44.96 |
|
Cascades E. |
334 |
1,372 |
1,706 |
138,684 |
1.23 |
3.88 |
|
|
0 |
10,290 |
10,290 |
313,269 |
3.28 |
23.37 |
|
CA |
Coast |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2,616 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Klamath |
0 |
808 |
808 |
355,701 |
0.23 |
1.84 |
|
Cascades |
0 |
365 |
365 |
50,687 |
0.72 |
0.83 |
|
TOTAL |
472 |
43,552 |
44,024 |
3,141,987 |
1.40 |
100.00 |
1 Includes both effects
reported in USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service 2001a
and subsequent effects compiled in the Northern Spotted Owl Consultation
Effects Tracker (web application and database).
2 1994 FSEIS baseline (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management
1994b).
3 Land-use allocations intended
to provide large blocks of habitat to support clusters of breeding pairs.
4 Land-use allocations
intended to provide habitat to support movement of northern spotted owls among
reserves.
Notwithstanding that many of the CHUs in the
Outside of the Oregon Klamath Mountain and Western Oregon
Cascades Provinces, 13,941 acres of suitable habitat have been consulted-on for
removal or downgrading from designated critical habitat range-wide since 1994
(Table 4). These effects were dispersed over
seven physiographic provinces and less than 2 percent of existing suitable
critical habitat was removed from any individual province. The removal or downgrading of suitable
critical habitat has occurred to varying degrees across the northern spotted owls
range and is disproportionately higher in the two
The impact of natural events also needs to be considered
when evaluating the current condition of spotted owl critical habitat. Critical habitat units were identified to
provide large blocks of suitable habitat spatially distributed to provide for
the recovery of the spotted owl and to facilitate dispersal. The distribution framework of CHUs was
intended to protect individual CHUs from isolation due to catastrophic natural
events. Since its designation in 1992,
numerous fires of different scale and intensity have occurred within CHUs, most
notably the Big Bar Complex in northern
The Big Bar Complex Fire, which included the Megram and Onion fires, burned approximately 140,000 acres in the summer and fall of 1999 (USDA Forest Service 2000). Burn severity maps indicate 31 percent of the Big Bar Complex burned at high fire severity while 54 percent and 12 percent of the fire burned at moderate and low severity, respectively (Jimerson and Jones 2000). This mixed fire regime (high, moderate, and low severity burn pattern) are characteristic of Coast Douglas-fir and Douglas-fir/hardwood plant communities (Arno 2000). High intensity fires are stand replacing fires that remove spotted owl habitat; whereas low intensity fires generally have little lasting effect on habitat. Habitat effects associated with moderate intensity fires are difficult to assess immediately following a fire and are better evaluated over longer time periods.
Fifty thousand of the acres burned in the Big Bar Complex
Fire occurred in LSR 305. That LSR has a
93 percent overlap with CHU CA-30.
Critical habitat unit CA-30 functions as an important link between the
California Klamath and
The
Biscuit Fire, which began in July 2002, removed approximately 17,200 acres of
suitable northern spotted owl habitat from five CHUs (OR-65, OR-68, OR-69,
OR-70, and OR-71). CHUs most impacted by
the Biscuit Fire were OR-68, OR-69, and OR-70.
These units were identified for their important contribution to
connectivity in areas where quality habitat were lacking and/or to ensure a
range-wide distribution of spotted owls.
CHU OR-68 lost approximately 21 percent (1,951 acres) of its available
suitable habitat. That
Due to the amount of habitat loss associated with the
Biscuit Fire, the ability of CHUs OR-69, OR-70, and OR-71 to function as
originally intended has been diminished to some degree. The amount of habitat lost in the Biscuit
Fire also reduces the resilience of the above CHUs to future catastrophic
events and increases the likelihood that additional effects could result in a
loss of function. However, the amount
and distribution of suitable and dispersal habitat currently existing within
these CHUs should allow for movement of northern spotted owls through and
between these CHUs (see USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management
2003) and important inter- and intra-provincial links provided by these CHUs
should still be functioning. Other CHUs
important to connectivity between the
This evaluation of critical habitat indicates that effects
since 1994 may have impaired, to varying degrees, the ability of individual
CHUs to fulfill their intended functions.
However, these effects have not precluded the
The NWFP’s network of LSRs overlap designated critical habitat by about 70 percent along with owl habitat in other LUAs and in the Matrix contributing to connectivity (and some population support). Although the NWFP was designated using ISC principles and incorporated recommendations from the owl recovery team (USDI 1992b), it did not substitute for the network of designated critical habitat. The assessment of critical habitat condition and function for this BO was analyzed independent of the contribution that LSR network provided to spotted owl conservation and recovery.
Although all previous efforts to develop conservation plans for the spotted owl identified the importance of contributions from non-Federal (including State, Tribal, and private) lands, specific expectations for these lands have never been finalized. As a result, most Federal interactions with landowners rely on the conservation recommendations in the ISC plan (Thomas et al. 1990), the final draft recovery plan (USDI 1992b), FEMAT (USDA et al. 1993), and the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994) as general guidance. Since implementation of the NWFP in 1994, consistency with and support of the Plan (for the spotted owl) has been the primary focus of conservation efforts with non-federal landowners.
The Service’s primary expectations for non-Federal lands are for contributions to northern spotted owl demographic support (pair or cluster protection) or to provide connectivity with NWFP lands. A review of the 13 HCPs issued to date that address the owl indicates that they are generally providing those functions across the landscape (USFWS 2001a). However, there is a considerable time scale difference between HCPs and actions consulted on for the NWFP and other agencies; the term of most large-scale HCPs covers periods of 20 to 100 years (and more) whereas the term of actions on NWFP lands is from 1 to 5 years. Therefore, their effects and contributions need to be considered over a longer time frame. As such, the primary evaluation question focuses on the long-term contribution of these plans (i.e., consistency with NWFP expectations).
The level to which non-Federal lands contribute to spotted owl conservation is also influenced by the forest practice regulations in each state;
·
·
A detailed account of the taxonomy, ecology, and
reproductive characteristics of the bald eagle is found in the Pacific States
Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI 1986), the final rule to reclassify the bald
eagle from endangered to threatened in the 48 contiguous states (USDI 1995), and
the proposed rule to remove the bald eagle from the Endangered Species List in
the 48 contiguous states (USDI 1999). History
and trends in the status of bald eagle nests in
In the
The bald eagle was listed as a threatened species in
A Recovery Plan for the bald eagle in the Pacific states
was issued in 1986 in accordance with Section 4(f)(1) of the Act. The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan
established recovery population goals, habitat management goals, and management
zones (i.e., Recovery Zones) for a seven-state Pacific Recovery Region
(Recovery Region). It outlined the
following criteria for de-listing the bald eagle in the Recovery Region (USDI
1986):
1) There should be a minimum of 800 pairs nesting in the Recovery Region.
2) These pairs should be producing an annual average of at least 1.0 fledged young per pair, with an average success rate per occupied territory of not less than 65 percent over a 5-year period.
3) To ensure an acceptable distribution of nesting pairs, population recovery goals must be met in at least 80 percent of the management zones (i.e., 38 out of 47 Recovery Zones) identified in the Recovery Plan.
4) Wintering populations should be stable or increasing.
Available information indicates that eagle populations are increasing range-wide. The species= status recovered sufficiently to warrant reclassification from endangered to threatened throughout the lower 48 states on July 12, 1995 (USDI 1995); this action did not change the status of the species for Oregon and Washington where eagles remain listed as threatened. In the Pacific Recovery Region, the number of occupied territories has consistently increased since 1986 and exceeded 800 beginning in 1990 when 861 territories were reported. Although productivity objectives have been met and averaged about 1.03 young per occupied territory since 1990, distribution goals and nesting targets in several Recovery Zones within the Recovery Region have not been met (USDI 1995).
In
The Environmental Baseline is defined as Athe past and present impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process [50CFR 402.02].@
The action area is defined at 50 CFR 402 to mean “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action”. For the purpose of the this consultation, the Service recognizes the action area to include all lands within the boundaries of the Willamette National Forest, the Mt. Hood National Forest, the Willamette Province portion of the Eugene and Salem BLM Districts, and the Willamette and Deschutes Province portions of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. This analysis area enables the administrative units and the Service to more fully understand the cumulative and interrelated and interdependent effects of the action on such a wide-ranging species as the owl within a more appropriate landscape context. Detailed information on lands outside BLM and FS jurisdiction is not available.
Status of the Species in the Action Area
The following status information was compiled by each administrative unit in the Willamette Province for this consultation; each administrative unit provided a table (Appendices A-D) depicting the status of spotted owls and bald eagles, and associated habitat under their jurisdiction within the Willamette Province from currently available data (USDA and USDI 2004). Summarized below (with some additional information), these tables provide general
species habitat and status information for lands managed by each administrative unit within the province. These tables are similar to those presented in the CY03-04 habitat modification BO (FWS Ref. #1-7-03-F-0008) and the CY04-05 disturbance-only BO (FWS Ref. #1-7-04-F-0184), but have been reviewed and corrected by each administrative unit. According to the biological assessment, the information provided and presented herein more accurately reflects the current status of the baseline condition along with a discussion of relevant information available to the Service.
In June 2001, the Service completed a range-wide assessment
of consulted-on effects to the spotted owl and its critical habitat from 1994
to 2001 (USDI 2001a). The same type of
assessment was also done at the scale of the
These baseline evaluations, which are updated periodically, are considered important information and have been used in this biological opinion along with changes since that update to characterize the range-wide and action area condition of the spotted owl and its critical habitat.
Based
on updated information provided by the administrative units, and Appendices A-E, the
Table 5.
Status of the northern spotted owl and its habitat within the
|
Total
Acres |
Protected |
Unprotected |
||
Total
Acres |
% of Total1 |
Total
Acres |
% of Total2 |
||
Acres within Boundary3 |
7,222,160 |
1,748,822 |
24 |
5,365,321 |
75 |
Acres of Ownership4 |
3,075,012 |
1,734,089 |
56 |
1,340,923 |
44 |
Suitable Habitat - |
2,577,280 |
1,405,073 |
55 |
1,172,207 |
45 |
Suitable Habitat - |
1,365,831 |
839,204 |
61 |
526,627 |
39 |
|
Number of Activity Centers |
|
Number of Activity Centers9 |
||
Spotted owl Activity Centers |
1,124 |
464 |
41 |
660 |
59 |
Spotted owl Activity Centers >40%6 |
796 |
297 |
37 |
499 |
63 |
Spotted owl Activity Centers 30-40%7 |
139 |
38 |
27 |
101 |
73 |
Spotted owl Activity Centers <30%8 |
189 |
39 |
21 |
150 |
79 |
1 Acres in this column are comprised of: Late Successional Reserves (LSR), 100-acre
LSRs, Congressionally Withdrawn Areas, Riparian Reserves, District Designated
Reserves, and Scenic Area Open Spaces. Spotted owl data are composed of LSR
or designated wilderness areas only. These figures include those owl activity
centers whose centers fall within the LSR or wilderness. The 1.2 mile radius
surrounding the activity center may actually extend into unprotected areas. 2 Acres in this column are comprised of: Matrix, Adaptive Management Areas, and
Administratively Withdrawn Areas. Administratively Withdrawn Areas are
included in the unprotected column because technically these areas are not
designed to provide spotted owl habitat but rather to serve some other
function such as “recreation and visual areas, back country, and other areas
where management emphasis precludes scheduled timber harvest” (Record of
Decision A-4). The respective administrative land and resource management
plans may protect and/or reduce the likelihood that spotted owl habitat
located within Administratively Withdrawn Areas would be modified. Spotted
owl data are composed of everything but LSR and designated wilderness data. 3 Acres include both private and federal lands. 4 Federal land only. 5 Acres that are either currently suitable spotted owl habitat
or have the potential to become suitable in the future. Suitable habitat is
defined as nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. 6 Spotted owl activity centers with greater than or equal to
1182 acres of suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile radius. 7 Spotted owl activity centers that have between 886 and 1182
acres of suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile radius. 8 Spotted owl activity centers with less than 886 acres of
suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile radius. 9 Spotted owl activity centers based on what was
reported by each admin unit in Appendices A-D. |
The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area administers 42,323 acres (Appendix C, Table 4c). Of these 33,389 acres (79 percent) are forest-capable. Of the forest-capable acreage, 17,878 acres (54 percent) are currently suitable spotted owl habitat. There are 32,595 acres of forest-capable lands that are protected or reserved (98 percent of the total forest-capable). Of these, 17,657 acres (54 percent of the protected acreage) are suitable spotted owl habitat. There are a total of 8 spotted owl occupied sites within the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area and all are protected. Of the 8 spotted owl activity centers that are protected, all have over 40 percent spotted owl suitable habitat within their home ranges.
The
The BLM Salem District, Cascades Resource Area, administers 169,056 acres within the action area (Appendix B, table 3b). Of these, 161,746 acres (96 percent) are forest-capable. Of the forest-capable acreage, 70,870 acres (44 percent) are currently suitable spotted owl habitat. There are 108,006 acres of forest-capable lands that are protected or reserved (67 percent of the total forest-capable). Of these, 54,530 acres (51 percent of the protected acreage) are suitable spotted owl habitat. There are a total of 47 known spotted owl sites within this portion of the District, 30 (63 percent) of which are protected. Of the total 47 spotted owl activity centers, 24 have over 40 percent suitable habitat within their home ranges. Of the 30 spotted owl activity centers that are protected 21 have over 40 percent suitable habitat within their home ranges.
The
The
The major findings of our 2001 spotted owl environmental
baseline update for the Willamette Province were as follows: (1) most (96 percent)
consulted-on actions related to the removal/downgrade of spotted owl suitable
habitat occurred in the Matrix/Adaptive Management Area (AMA) land use
allocations; (2) loss of spotted owl suitable habitat from Matrix and AMA
represents approximately 2.5 percent of all NRF in the Willamette Province
relative to the baseline as presented in the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement on the Management of Habitat for
Late-Successional and Old -Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of
the Northern Spotted Owl (FSEIS); (3) NRF habitat removed from
Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) was minimal; only 0.1 percent of NRF habitat
within LSRs in the Willamette Province based on the FSEIS baseline was
consulted on for removal and these actions were necessary for public safety and
forest health reasons; (4) 13,481 acres of NRF habitat have been or will be
removed from Critical Habitat Units (CHUs); this corresponds to 1.8 percent of
the available NRF habitat within CHUs in the Willamette Province relative to
the FSEIS baseline; (5) overall loss of NRF habitat associated with incidental
take represents 2.5 percent of the FSEIS baseline for the Willamette Province;
and (6) harassment-related take of owls, which predominately involves noise
disturbance, has largely been difficult to quantify but is considered to result
in minimal adverse effects to owls because the impacts occur at a single point
in time, pose a lesser risk than habitat removal, and have generally been
minimized through terms and conditions of Incidental Take Statements requiring
operating restrictions.
Concurrently with the baseline
assessment, there was an interagency review of the status of projects covered
under a selected number of past BOs throughout the range of the spotted owl (USDI
2001a). This review, that included three
BOs from the
Consulted-on effects, from 1994 through 2004, relative to
the
Within the
Table 6. Baseline and summary of consulted on
effects through 2004 of suitable habitat (acres) within the
Data Type |
Total of base line |
LSR/MLSA |
Matrix |
AMA |
CWA/ AWA |
private |
Tribal |
CHUs |
Evaluation Baseline
of suitable habitat 1 |
1,458,349 acres of suitable habitat |
485,461 |
596,120 |
86,208 |
290,560 |
no baseline was established |
no baseline was established |
658,009 acres within all or portions of 19 CHUs |
Removed/ Downgraded
(1994- June 2001) |
50,081 2 |
1,023 |
28,976 |
2,105 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13,481 within 18 CHUs |
Removed/
Downgraded (June 2001 – April 2004) |
6,127 |
143 |
5,889 |
95 |
0 |
419 |
0 |
1,287 within 7 CHUs |
Total difference from baseline |
56,208 |
1,166 |
34,865 |
2,200 |
0 |
419 |
0 |
14,768 acres within 18 CHUs |
Percent Change since 1994 |
3.85% |
0.24% |
5.84% |
2.55% |
0% |
n/a |
n/a |
2.24% |
1 Northern spotted owl baseline (1994 FSEIS) obtained
from the Service’s Northern Spotted Owl range wide data base
2 Total includes 17,977 acres of NRF habitat that was
removed, but did not have a LUA
Harassment-related take of spotted owls involves noise effects to an average of 16,064 acres of spotted owl habitat annually; this represents approximately 1.10 percent of available spotted owl habitat based on the FSEIS baseline.
All of suitable habitat removed/downgraded on private lands
since the baseline update is associated with a programmatic right-of-way
consultation with Salem BLM and Eugene BLM (FWS reference: 1-7-02-F-428). This biological consultation accounts for the
anticipated effect of 419 acres of suitable habitat removal on private land
within the
Based on these effects, the Service has concluded that consulted-on effects within the Willamette Province since 1994 have not significantly affected connectivity between LSRs (including the South Willamette-North Umpqua Area of Concern and Santiam Pass Area of Concern) or the ability of the reserves and critical habitat units to function in a manner consistent with the conservation and recovery needs of the spotted owl as provided for in the NWFP.
The 2003 annual report for the
The results of the spotted owl population changes (lambda)
in the demographic study area have been presented and documented throughout the
years as data on survival and fecundity are collected (Burnham et al. 1996,
Franklin et al. 1999, Anthony et al. 2004).
In
Continuing threats to the spotted owl in the
Competition with barred owls (Strix
varia) may also be a significant threat to spotted owls as barred owls
increase in numbers throughout the range of the spotted owl (Kelly et al. 2003,
Pearson and Livezey 2003). Anthony et
al. (2004) analyzed the effect of barred owls on the demographic rates of spotted
owls and found some evidence for negative effects of barred owls on spotted owl
fecundity and survival in
Data from the HJA spotted owl demographic study suggest that barred owls are becoming increasingly common in the study area and have displaced several spotted owls. A hybrid that was discovered in 1999 nested and produced two young in 2002 (Anthony 2002). A second hybrid, paired with a barred owl, was observed in the study area in 2002. In the study area, several pairs of spotted owls have been either displaced or inhibited from responding to surveys as a result of barred owl presence (Anthony 2003). The percentage of sites containing pairs of barred owls has remained constant, while the percentage of sites containing single barred owls continues to increase. Also, hybridization between barred owls and spotted owls has increased. A spotted owl male paired with a barred owl female produced one young in 1999 and two young in 2002 (Anthony 2003). In 2003, two hybrids were located in the Fall Creek LSR bringing the total number of non-juvenile hybrids in the study area to four with three hybrids located in the Fall Creek LSR.
The
BA indicates that spotted owl CHUs found within the
Table 7. Northern Spotted Owl CHUs and LSR acres in the
|
|
LSR Acres |
LSR/CHU percent overlap |
48,180 |
20,967 |
43.5 |
|
OR-2 |
31,229 |
6,059 |
19.4 |
OR-9 |
121,152 |
100,424 |
82.9 |
OR-10 |
88,821 |
50,899 |
57.3 |
OR-11 |
50,189 |
11,490 |
22.9 |
OR-12 |
62,488 |
34,502 |
55.2 |
OR-13 |
86,781 |
48,155 |
55.5 |
OR-14 |
104,368 |
76,735 |
73.5 |
OR-15 |
44,473 |
3,545 |
7.9 |
OR-16 |
105,954 |
29,381 |
27.7 |
OR-17 |
45,400 |
30,694 |
67.6 |
OR-18 |
108,877 |
65,635 |
60.3 |
OR-19 |
140,590 |
76,968 |
54.7 |
OR-20 |
57,254 |
56,332 |
87.9 |
OR-21 |
2,021 |
347 |
17.2 |
OR-22 |
5,390 |
369 |
6.8 |
OR-23 |
3,710 |
0 |
0 |
OR-25 |
26,188 |
22,254 |
84.9 |
OR-28 |
84,215 |
41,466 |
49.2 |
Overall
Total |
1,217,280 |
676,222 |
56% |
The
NWFP set an objective to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional
forest ecosystems. The goals included
protecting existing late-successional habitat and encouraging the development
of additional late-successional habitat, while maintaining diversity associated
with native species, and thus to provide a network of fully functioning LSRs
throughout the Pacific Northwest (USDA and USDI 1998). Thus, the goals for LSR management are
consistent with the function of CHUs to contribute to recovery. Although LSRs do not substitute for CHUs, the
overlap between the two in the
Based on the data available in 1994,
the 19 CHUs contained 731,477 acres of suitable owl habitat (USFWS 2001a). Of this available suitable habitat 57 percent
overlapped with LSR land designations. Between
1994 and 2004, 1,166 net acres of suitable habitat (0.24 percent) have been
removed or downgraded from the LSRs in the
The action area
contains approximately 1.22 million acres of habitat within 19 spotted owl
critical habitat units (Table 7). Of these acres, about 1,015,774 acres are
capable of supporting suitable spotted owl habitat and 577,009 acres currently
support suitable spotted owl habitat (Table 8).
Table
8. Critical habitat units and associated northern spotted owl habitat and
activity center data within the
Critical Habitat Unit |
Total Acres1 |
Total Capable Acres 2 |
Total NRF Acres3 |
NRF % of Capable |
Total Dispersal Acres |
Spotted owl Activity Centers |
Spotted owl Activity Centers |
Spotted owl Activity Centers |
Total Spotted Owl Activity Centers |
OR-1 |
48,180 |
39,601 |
15,425 |
39% |
11,422 |
7 |
4 |
7 |
18 |
OR-2 |
31,229 |
29,657 |
15,015 |
51% |
7,172 |
7 |
2 |
4 |
13 |
OR-9 |
121,152 |
81,542 |
65,647 |
57% |
32,382 |
19 |
2 |
0 |
21 |
OR-10 |
88,821 |
78,244 |
39,289 |
50% |
16,929 |
20 |
7 |
2 |
29 |
OR-11 |
50,189 |
43,032 |
21,469 |
50% |
3,860 |
12 |
4 |
5 |
21 |
OR-12 |
62,488 |
58,506 |
34,429 |
59% |
4,827 |
12 |
9 |
3 |
24 |
OR-13 |
86,781 |
68,588 |
22,480 |
51% |
77 |
21 |
16 |
6 |
43 |
OR-14 |
104,368 |
96,307 |
56,540 |
58% |
5,442 |
33 |
9 |
8 |
50 |
OR-15 |
44,473 |
32,579 |
20,452 |
64% |
1,820 |
16 |
4 |
1 |
21 |
OR-16 |
105,954 |
91,610 |
59,470 |
65% |
1,791 |
46 |
5 |
1 |
52 |
OR-17 |
45,400 |
36,707 |
26,236 |
71% |
0 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
OR-18 |
108,877 |
104,522 |
51,184 |
53% |
1,948 |
66 |
4 |
4 |
74 |
OR-19 |
140,590 |
94,220 |
63,145 |
68% |
6,082 |
57 |
4 |
7 |
68 |
OR-20 |
57,254 |
55,552 |
32,382 |
58% |
10,291 |
27 |
1 |
5 |
33 |
OR-21 |
2,021 |
2,000 |
842 |
38% |
279 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
OR-22 |
5,390 |
5,360 |
715 |
8% |
2,464 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
OR-23 |
3,710 |
8,769 |
210 |
15% |
2,379 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
OR-25 |
26,188 |
25,881 |
14,284 |
51% |
1,238 |
7 |
2 |
14 |
23 |
OR-28 |
84,215 |
49,691 |
37,795 |
75% |
1,421 |
39 |
1 |
0 |
40 |
TOTAL |
1,217,280 |
1,002,368 |
577,009 |
58% |
111,824 |
409 |
74 |
76 |
559 |
1 Some cells updated in 2004 to reflect changes due to past
harvest, land exchanges, and updated GIS databases, or new locations of spotted
owl activity centers.
2 Those acres that are either currently suitable (i.e.,
nesting, roosting, and foraging) spotted owl habitat or have the potential to
become suitable in the future.
3 Nesting, roosting, and foraging (i.e., suitable).
4 See Table 5, footnotes 6 - 9, for a description of these
parameters. Included in these columns are all activity centers that
originate
in LSRs. This includes those activity centers with a home range entirely
contained within the LSR, extending into other protected areas, or extending
into unprotected areas.
Bald eagle
The bald eagle recovery plan for the Pacific states (USDI 1986) (Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana and Wyoming) aims for an average across the Pacific states of one young per pair annually and a five-year average of 65 percent successful nesting.
The majority of the
Of the 59 occupied territories in 2003, nesting was successful at 36 territories (68 percent), with 59 eaglets hatched; the outcome of six occupied territories was unknown. This resulted in an average of 1.11 young per occupied territory (the third highest productivity rate in Oregon) in 2003 and a five-year average of 1.10 young per occupied territory in RZ 13 (Isaacs and Anthony 2003).
The Recovery Plan Team and Bald Eagle Working
Team for
recovery by also incorporating habitat enhancement measures to maintain or increase bald eagle use and viability into the future.
Table 9, summarizes known bald eagle nest locations and management areas/potential nest locations in the action area. The five administrative units manage 21 known bald eagle nest sites and 69 management areas or potential nest sites. All known nest sites, historic and occupied, are
protected by unit planning decisions in that no unit would permit or implement any action that would be inconsistent with use of the site by nesting bald eagles.
Table
9. Status of known bald eagle nest
locations and management areas / potential nest locations,
Administrative Unit |
Known |
Potential |
|
4 |
20 |
|
7 |
4 |
1 |
20 |
|
|
2 |
1 |
|
7 |
24 |
Total |
21 |
69 |
The proposed habitat modification activity types (Table 10) may impact the spotted owl and bald eagle in a variety of ways, and at differing levels, depending on where and when the action is to occur. The following analysis of potential effects addresses each species individually with respect to each activity type. According to the Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook (USDI and USDC 1998), a “may affect” determination is required when a proposed action may pose any effects to listed species or designated critical habitat. When any adverse effects to listed species and critical habitat may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, a “likely to adversely affect” determination is appropriate. However, when effects to listed species are expected to be discountable or insignificant, “is not likely to adversely affect” is the appropriate conclusion. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the level where injury or death would occur.
Discountable effects are those unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur (Table 11).
Table
10. Proposed Northern Spotted owl habitat affects by activity type,
|
* 100 acres of underburning
will occur in non-capable habitat but smoke may affect owls on adjacent lands not
calculated in the Total column.
Table
11.
Programmatic Type |
Effect to Species/Habitat |
Critical Habitat |
|
Regeneration Harvest |
|||
Northern
Bald Eagle |
NE (see standard 7 in proposed action) |
None designated |
|
Northern
Spotted Owl |
MA-LAA in suitable habitat MA-LAA in dispersal only habitat MA-NLAA2 in dispersal only
habitat |
May Affect |
|
Heavy Thinning |
|||
Northern
Bald Eagle |
NE (see standard 7 in proposed action) |
None designated |
|
Northern
Spotted Owl |
MA-LAA in suitable habitat MA-LAA in dispersal only habitat MA-NLAA2
in dispersal-only habitat |
May Affect |
|
Light to Moderate Thinning |
|||
Northern
Bald Eagle |
MA-LAA (MA-NLAA)3 |
None designated |
|
Northern
Spotted Owl |
MA-LAA (MA-NLAA)4
in suitable habitat MA-LAA in dispersal only habitat MA-NLAA2 in dispersal-only habitat |
May Affect |
|
Down Salvage |
|||
Northern
Bald Eagle |
NE |
None designated |
|
Northern
Spotted Owl |
MA-NLAA MA-LAA |
May Affect |
|
Individual Tree Removal |
|||
Northern
Bald Eagle |
MA-LAA (MA-NLAA)5 |
None designated |
|
Northern
Spotted Owl |
MA-LAA (MA-NLAA)6 |
May Affect |
|
Under Burning |
|||
Northern
Bald Eagle |
NE |
None designated |
|
Northern
Spotted Owl |
MA-LAA |
May Affect |
|
Terrestrial Habitat Enhancement |
|
|
|
Northern Bald Eagle |
NE |
Not designated |
|
Northern Spotted Owl |
MA-NLAA |
May Affect |
|
1 NE=No
effect; MA-NLAA=May affect but not likely to adversely affect; MA-LAA=May
affect and likely to adversely affect. 2 The
effects determination is MA-NLAA in situations where only dispersal habitat
is treated, and where the availability of dispersal habitat is not limiting
in the area of consideration, the action either occurs more than the
disruption distance from occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat or outside
of the critical breeding period. This
may include long-term beneficial effects from treatments designed to
encourage faster or desirable late-successional conditions. 3 MA-NLAA if
no overstory components are removed that would affect known nest or roost
sites. 4 The effects
determination would be MA-NLAA if no potential nest trees are lost and
suitable habitat is degraded but remains functional as suitable habitat
(i.e., suitable habitat is neither downgraded nor removed), the action occurs
outside of the critical breeding period. 5 The effects
determination would be MA-NLAA if trees with nesting structures are not
limiting in the area of consideration, the action occurs outside of the
breeding period. 6 The effects
determination would be MA-NLAA if potential nest trees are not removed, the
quality of habitat is not degraded, the activity occurs outside of the
critical nesting period. |
|||
Table 12. Proposed effects to northern spotted owl
suitable and dispersal habitat by land use allocation,
|
Matrix1 |
Matrix Riparian
Reserves2 |
AMA |
AMA RR |
LSR3 |
TOTAL |
|||||||||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|||||||
Suitable Habitat |
|||||||||||||||||
Remove4 |
1,258 |
-- |
590 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
1,848 |
-- |
||||||
Downgrade5 |
1,553 |
-- |
798 |
-- |
|
-- |
-- |
238 |
|
2,589 |
-- |
||||||
Degrade6 |
2,036 |
147 |
430 |
344 |
120 |
10 |
-- |
1,137 |
6,575 |
3,723 |
7,076 |
||||||
Total
Suitable Habitat |
4,847 |
147 |
1,818 |
344 |
120 |
10 |
-- |
1,375 |
6,575 |
8,160 |
7,076 |
||||||
Dispersal Habitat |
|||||||||||||||||
Remove |
3,603 |
-- |
530 |
-- |
466 |
-- |
234 |
2,398 |
|
7,231 |
-- |
||||||
Degrade6 |
12,386 |
42 |
8,698 |
26 |
545 |
-- |
90 |
3,855 |
645 |
25,574 |
713 |
||||||
Total
Dispersal Habitat |
15,989 |
42 |
9,228 |
26 |
1,011 |
-- |
324 |
6,253 |
645 |
32,805 |
713 |
||||||
Grand Total |
20,836 |
189 |
11,046 |
370 |
1,131 |
10 |
324 |
7,628 |
7,220 |
40,965 |
7,789 |
||||||
1 Includes
administratively withdrawn areas. 2 Riparian
Reserves not associated with LSRs – includes both matrix and AMA. 3 Includes associated
Riparian Reserves. 4 Remove means to
eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. 5 Downgrade as a result
of heavy thinning. Downgrade means to change the functionality of spotted owl
habitat from suitable to dispersal. 6 Degrade means to affect
the quality of, but not remove the functionality of this type of habitat. |
|||||||||||||||||
Northern Spotted Owl:
The primary threat to the northern spotted owl is the loss of NRF habitat due to timber harvest across its range. Spotted owl habitat consists of four components: nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. The effects of habitat modification activities on spotted owl habitat depends upon the type of silvicultural prescriptions used, and the location of the harvest relative to suitable habitat. Impacts may include a complete loss of habitat, a degradation of habitat, a reduction in forest connectivity, or harvest of unsuitable habitat adjacent to and contiguous with suitable habitat. Removal of spotted owl habitat and other harvest prescriptions that result in even-aged, monotypic forests produce spotted owl habitat which may be used for dispersal, but would not be suitable for nesting, roosting, or foraging. Silvicultural prescriptions that promote multi-aged and multi-storied stands may in some cases retain suitability for spotted owls and perhaps increase the quality of habitat over time.
Silvicultural thinning of second growth Douglas-fir stands within
proximal use of nesting areas of spotted owls may result in short term adverse
impacts. Meiman et al (2004) reports
changes in spotted owl use following a commercial thinning in stands near core
areas in the
The decline of the spotted owl is linked to the removal and degradation of available NRF.
Appropriate vegetational and structural components are necessary factors in the determination of suitable habitat. The removal of any of those components during the implementation of a proposed action may adversely affect the spotted owl population in several ways. These include:
Given the above concerns, the following determinations concerning habitat modification were made regarding the six proposed programs of activities which comply with the standards presented on pages 5-7:
C Regeneration harvest (in Matrix only) activities, and associated road construction and the creation of coarse woody debris and snags may remove 433 acres of suitable and 804 acres of dispersal spotted owl habitat (Table 10) that could significantly impair breeding, feeding, and roosting. Therefore, regeneration harvest may affect, and is likely to adversely affect spotted owls (Table 11). Since this activity will remove habitat assumed to be occupied by owls, it is likely to result in the taking of owls currently using those habitats. In areas currently sufficient for spotted owl dispersal where sufficient dispersal habitat will remain in the area post-harvest to facilitate spotted owl movement through the area, regeneration harvest of 813 acres of dispersal only habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, spotted owls. As stipulated in standards common to all actions, this opinion does not address activities occurring in areas where dispersal habitat is insufficient for spotted owl dispersal (as per standard 9 in the proposed action).
C
Heavy thinning and associated road
construction and the creation of coarse woody debris and snags may occur in
suitable habitat only within the Matrix and in LSR RO203, LSR RO202 and where
stands are not yet suitable or where suitable habitat has been surveyed to
protocol and determined unoccupied. As
noted above, this BO does not address activities occurring in areas where dispersal
habitat is insufficient for spotted owl dispersal. Heavy thinning of 4,004 acres of suitable
habitat has been proposed under this programmatic consultation. Of the 4,004 acres, 2,589 acres are expected
to have greater than 40 percent canopy cover and function as dispersal after
treatment. The other 1,415 acres will be
below 40 percent canopy cover and will be classified as non-habitat. Both groups of treatment will be removing
suitable spotted owl habitat that could significantly impair breeding, feeding
and roosting, thus resulting in taking of owls currently using these areas. Therefore, heavy thinning may affect, and
is likely to adversely affect spotted owls (Table 11). The S&Gs of the NWFP allow silviculture
systems proposed for LSRs for prevention of large-scale disturbances by fire,
wind, insects, and disease and as stated in the BA, all actions will comply
with the S&Gs of the NWFP.
As
stipulated in standards common to all actions, this assessment does not address
activities occurring in areas where dispersal habitat is insufficient for
spotted owl dispersal. Heavy thinning in
dispersal habitat reduces canopy closure to 30 - 40 percent within the
treatment unit, thus temporarily eliminating dispersal habitat. However, because this activity will only
occur in areas where dispersal habitat is currently sufficient so that, spotted
owls will still be able to disperse through the general area post-treatment,
the heavy thinning of 7,082 acres of dispersal habitat may affect, but is
not likely to adversely affect spotted owls (Table 11). Also 20 acres of dispersal habitat is
proposed for heavy thinning by
The
effects of heavy thinning on spotted owls and their habitat will be variable
depending on the stand treated and the time since treatment. These types of actions may involve short-term
impacts, but many are intended to result in long-term improvements to owl
habitat. Heavy thinning in dispersal
habitat is likely to temporarily reduce the quality or function of the habitat. However, these effects will ameliorate over
time as the stand continues to grow and often will provide better habitat
structure in the long term. In addition,
thinning in stands that are not yet suitable (i.e. the areas of dispersal type
habitat) may accelerate the development of future owl habitat compared with no
treatment. Long-term improvements to
habitat will result in beneficial effects
of the action.
C
Light to moderate thinning (in
any land use allocation) and associated road construction and the creation
of coarse woody debris and snags may occur within any land use allocation. Light to moderate thinning of suitable
habitat may reduce the average canopy cover to no less than 60 percent in
suitable habitat and no less than 40 percent in dispersal habitat within each
treatment unit. Light to moderate
thinning of 2,931 acres of suitable habitat has been proposed under this
programmatic consultation. Degrading
suitable habitat may temporarily shift the use of the area by spotted owls and
may potentially injure spotted owls through impairment of behavioral patterns
including breeding, feeding or roosting, but if suitable habitat is still
functional, then the light to moderate thinning of 2,940 acres of suitable
habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls (Standard
6) (Table 11). This activity is proposed
in LSR RO203, LSR RO202, and 100 acre LSRs 2800 and 4100. As stated in the BA, all actions will comply
with the S&Gs of the NWFP.
These
thinning activities may also degrade 24,530 acres of dispersal habitat, the
maintenance of at least 40 percent canopy cover would retain the function of
dispersal habitat. Therefore, the light
to moderate thinning of 24,530 acres may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect, spotted owls (Table 11). The City of
Project is
proposed to degrade 27 acres of spotted owl habitat (8 acres of suitable and 19
acres of dispersal) from city land which may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls.
The
effects of light to moderate thinning on spotted owls and their habitat will be
variable depending on the stand treated and the time since treatment. These types of actions may involve short-term
impacts, but result in long-term improvements to owl habitat. Light to moderate thinning in suitable
habitat may produce adverse affects to spotted owls and reduce the quality or
function of their habitat. However,
these effects will generally ameliorate over time as the stand continues to
grow and often will provide better habitat structure in the long term. In addition, thinning in stands that are not
yet suitable may accelerate the development of future owl habitat compared with
no treatment. Long-term improvements to
habitat will result in beneficial effects
of the action.
C Down salvage (in any land use allocation) removes large downed wood, and coarse woody debris which are a component of suitable habitat for spotted owls. Two factors combine to minimize the impacts of down salvage in the action area. First, areas targeted for salvage are likely to have experienced a loss (partial or total) of habitat function due to some stochastic event (e.g. fire or blow-down). Second, the requirements for the maintenance of coarse woody debris in sufficient quantities to comply with the Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP, makes it unlikely that down salvage would result in adverse effects to spotted owl habitat during the near term or in the future. Standards and Guidelines for salvage in the NWFP guide management to retain adequate quantities of coarse woody debris in the new stand so that in the future it will still contain amounts similar to naturally regenerated stands. Province-level plans will establish appropriate levels of coarse wood. Consequently, the down salvage of 425 acres may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, spotted owls (Table 11).
C Individual tree removal (in any land use allocation) may fell a) trees with nesting structures in Matrix, b) unoccupied nest trees in any land-use allocation if a hazard to human health or property exists, and c) trees without nesting structures in any land-use allocation. In suitable habitat, a maximum of 7,076 trees will be removed and in dispersal habitat, a maximum of 713 trees will be removed. Because the trees may be used for nesting, the removal of an individual tree with nesting structure in suitable habitat may affect the spotted owl. The loss of these trees may cause spotted owl breeding behavior to be significantly disrupted to the degree that injury or death is likely to occur. If the tree to be removed is used for nesting, or if the availability of trees with suitable nesting structures is limited in the area, individual tree removal may affect, and is likely to adversely affect spotted owls (Table 11).
However, most individual tree removal generally occurs in or around campgrounds or other facilities, or along roads, where breeding spotted owls are less likely to occur. In these areas where human activity is prevalent, individual tree removal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls (each specific effects determination shall be made by the wildlife biologist on site). In addition, if individual trees do not contain nesting structures and removal does not degrade the quality of either suitable or dispersal spotted owl habitat, then individual tree removal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls. The creation of snags in areas where snags are insufficient would have direct beneficial effects on the spotted owl, because such treatments would accelerate the growth of forest conditions needed by the owl.
C Terrestrial habitat enhancement and associated road construction modifies forested habitat by changing the canopy cover, or altering snag or coarse woody debris composition of the stand to enhance watershed health, wildlife, or botanical resources. Although individual trees or small groups of trees may be treated within spotted owl suitable habitat or dispersal habitat, no suitable nest trees would be selected and all treated trees would remain on site. In addition, all treatment units would maintain an average canopy cover of at least 60 percent in suitable habitat, or 40 percent average canopy cover in dispersal habitat, with no more than 10 percent of the project area impacted, and would not occur during the critical breeding period in occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat. Because no suitable nest trees would be treated, and minimal impact to the suitability of the area for spotted owl use is anticipated, the treatment of 700 acres across the province for terrestrial habitat enhancement activities may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls (Table 11).
C Under Burning on 100 acres of non-capable habitat on adjacent lands may affect spotted owls due to smoke. Therefore under burning may affect, and is likely to adversely affect spotted owls (Table 11).
SPOTTED OWL:
Proposed
actions, which include habitat modification treatments and associated road
construction, yarding, loading, hauling, site preparation, burning, brushing,
piling, scarification and coarse woody debris and snag creation, that generate
noise above local ambient levels may disturb spotted owls and interfere with
essential foraging or nesting behaviors.
Disturbance from proposed actions conducted within the disruption
distance (Table 1, page 3) of unsurveyed suitable habitat between March 1 and
July 15, may affect, and is likely to
adversely affect, northern spotted owls.
Noise-producing activities projected for implementation during this
critical time period could result in the incidental take of spotted owls due to
harassment from disturbance.
Disturbance
from proposed actions conducted beyond the disruption distance (page 3) but
within 0.25 mile of unsurveyed suitable habitat between March 1 and July 15, may affect, but are not likely to adversely
affect, northern spotted owls.
In the Central
Cascades, 86 percent of owl young fledge (i.e., leave the nest tree) by
June 30 (Turner, pers. comm. 1999). Based
on Forsman’s (1984) observations that most young owls were capable of short,
clumsy flights between trees within one week after fledging, it is likely that
two weeks would allow sufficient development of owlets to achieve sustained
flight. Therefore, the spotted owl critical period in the
Many forest roads that would
be used for projects under this BO are currently open and used by the public
and other private timber operators. In
many areas the roads are already in use for log hauling by private companies
and many recreational vehicles can be as loud or louder than log trucks. Habituation to noise has previously been reported for other
raptors (osprey (Pandion haliaetus),
red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis),
and bald eagles) and recently Delaney et al. (1999) observed that
Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) habituate to
noise, although the result was not statistically significant. Other information from Delaney et al. (1999) on Mexican spotted owls
concluded that gradual crescendo in noise levels of helicopters reduced the response
rates as compared with a stationary disturbance (chainsaws) and that most
flushes occurred at < 60 meters with no flushes occurring during the
incubation or nesting phases. Log
hauling is similarly a gradual onset of noise such that a startle response is
not likely, and the noise moves along the road.
Other recent
work with murrelets, a forest canopy nesting bird, have shown no correlation
between road proximity and nest success (Golightly et al. 2002). Therefore timber hauling over open roads during
the breeding season may
affect, but are not likely to adversely affect spotted owls.
Disturbances associated with the use of helicopters, however, may be of greater impact due to the intensity of the noise, possible hovering in a single location, and wind disturbance associated with rotor wash. Thus, activities requiring the use of helicopters may affect, and are likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls during the entire breeding period if such activities occur within 0.5 mile (Type I and II helicopters) or 120 yards (Type III and IV helicopters) (horizontal or vertical) of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat. However, according to Standard 9, the use of Type I and II helicopters within 0.5 mile, or Type III and IV helicopters within 120 yards, of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat between March 1 and July 15 is not addressed in this assessment.
Activities requiring the use of Type III and Type IV helicopters may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls during the entire breeding period if such activities occur more than 120 yards and within 0.5 mile (horizontal or vertical) of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat.
Helicopters are often used in the placement of logs in stream restoration work. However, there are no fish log projects proposed under the BA, or analyzed within this BO where helicopter use would cause disturbance sufficient to rise to the level of take for spotted owls.
Disturbance from proposed actions conducted (1) outside of the breeding period (between October 1 and February 28), (2) more than 0.5 mile (Type I and II helicopters) or 0.25 mile (Type III and IV helicopters) (horizontal or vertical) from a known activity center or unsurveyed suitable habitat during any time of the year, or (3) in surveyed unoccupied habitat during any time of the year, would have no effect on northern spotted owls.
SPOTTED OWL:
Based on the above determinations, the proposed activities are anticipated to adversely affect spotted owls through the harvest of up to 4,446 acres of suitable habitat, degrade suitable habitat by light to moderate thinning of up to 2,939, and the removal of up to 7,076 trees which may be currently used for nesting or occur in areas where the availability of suitable nest trees is limited (Table 11).
According to the biological assessment for CY 2005-2006, the administrative units of the province currently contain 1,365,831 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat (USDA and USDI 2004). The proposed action, as designed, would remove/downgrade 4,446 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat over two calendar years. This would remove 0.3 percent of the existing suitable spotted owl habitat within the action area; 0.5 percent (2,818) of the 526,627 acres unreserved suitable spotted owl habitat within the action area, and 0.2 percent (1,628 acres) of the 839,204 acres of reserved suitable spotted owl habitat within the action area.
As a result of individual tree removal, the proposed activities are anticipated to adversely affect spotted owls through the removal of up to 7,076 trees which may be currently used for nesting or occur in areas where the availability of suitable nest trees is limited. Except for hazard trees, trees with nesting structures will not be removed from LSR, CW and AMA land use allocations. Removal of occupied tress is prohibited under this consulation; the effects of those actions would be considered in subsequent regular emergency consultation. In the case of hazard trees, active nesting trees will be protected until after the young have fledged (as per standard 3 in the proposed action) or covered in a subsequent emergency consultation. Such a loss of structural components is unlikely to preclude nesting in the action area because removal will be scattered over the landscape.
The removal of suitable habitat can adversely affect spotted owls in numerous ways. Suitable habitat removal may occur within a known spotted owl home range, in unsurveyed habitat that may or may not be within a known spotted owl home range, or, if surveys are current, in unoccupied habitat. The most benign impact would be timber harvest that is in unoccupied habitat, although there are very few locations (if any) that have full protocol surveys that have determined that the area is unoccupied. In these instances, the Service believes that the loss of habitat precludes future spotted owl occupancy which is likely to adversely affect the species as a whole, although no injury of an individual spotted owl would be anticipated. In the absence of data on spotted owl occupancy, the Service must make assumptions that give the benefit of the doubt to the species. Therefore, unsurveyed spotted owl habitat is assumed to be occupied. Henceforth, any removal of unsurveyed suitable habitat is assumed to have an adverse affect and the Service assumes that this loss of suitable habitat could significantly impair normal spotted owl behavioral patterns and could potentially kill or injure a spotted owl.
The removal and degradation of suitable habitat is likely to adversely affect spotted owls by reducing the amount of nesting, roosting or foraging opportunities for the adults or any juvenile spotted owls. Whether the loss of suitable habitat is within a known spotted owl home range or in unsurveyed suitable spotted owl habitat, the Service anticipates that normal spotted owl behavioral patterns will be impaired or harm due to injury or death may occur. There may be rare situations, however (such as fully surveyed areas that have no spotted owls), where site-specific information indicates that harm due to injury or death is not anticipated. The loss of these 4,446 acres or the degradation of 2,939 acres of spotted owl suitable habitat across the action area may make reproduction and survival for a few spotted owls more difficult. However, the Service does not anticipate that the removal will make spotted owl dispersal more difficult as removal will only occur in areas where dispersal habitat is sufficient.
Disturbance of spotted owls during the critical nesting period is not allowed under this opinion for project activities that are within the disruption distance (Table 1) of known pair activity centers (see standard 6 in the proposed action) except for the removal of hazard trees to protect public safety, and hauling, shall take place within the disruption distance unless protocol surveys are conducted and the sites are found to be unoccupied or the pair is not nesting. This opinion, does not address the effects of helicopter operations occurring within the disruption distance of spotted owl occupied or unsurveyed suitable spotted owl habitat between March 1 and July 15 (see standard 8 in the proposed action). The BA does not propose any blasting, therefore, this opinion does not cover blasting.
Disturbance may disrupt normal spotted owl behavioral patterns during the critical nesting period by the following: (1) if the harvest is within the disruption distance of unsurveyed suitable spotted owl habitat; (2) if harvest is within a home range or within the disruption distance of an activity center during the late nesting season; (3) if a Type I or II helicopter is used within 0.25 mile of a spotted owl activity center or unsurveyed suitable spotted owl habitat during the late nesting season; (4) if a Type I or II helicopter is used within 0.25 mile of a spotted owl activity center or unsurveyed suitable spotted owl habitat and an activity center is present. Absent specific information to the contrary, the Service anticipates that disturbance of spotted owls may occur from many, if not all, of the proposed activities. The Service anticipates that the proposed actions that generate noise or smoke above ambient levels may disturb spotted owls and interfere with essential nesting behaviors.
The effects to the spotted owl from noise disturbance are largely unknown, and whether noise is a concern or not has often been debated. In the most recent review of spotted owls, it was not considered a threat to the species (Courtney et al. 2004). Most information is anecdotal resulting in considerable differences of opinion. Even though the potential for adverse affects may occur within the disruption distance, it is likely that the most severe impacts of noise disturbance occur within a narrower zone. As noise attenuates, the likelihood that it remains at a level sufficient to cause injury is reduced. However, the exact distance where noise disrupts breeding is difficult to predict and can be influenced by a multitude of factors. Site specific information (e.g. project length, topographic features, or frequency of disturbance to an area) could also factor into how noise will affect spotted owls.
The potential for noise-producing activities to create the likelihood of injury to spotted owls is also dependent on the background or baseline levels of noise present in the environment. In areas that are continually exposed to higher ambient noise levels (e.g. areas near well traveled roads), owls are probably less susceptible to small increases in noise because they are accustom to such activities. Spotted owls do occur in areas near human activities and may habituate to certain levels of noise.
Although there is lower risk to the species from noise as
opposed to habitat loss, noise above ambient levels may disturb adult or
juvenile spotted owls and could cause them to flush from their nest site, cause
a juvenile to prematurely fledge or interrupt foraging activity. These impacts
could result in the reduced fitness or even death of an individual bird. Overall, these impacts should not
significantly reduce the
SPOTTED OWL:
Table 13.
Effects determination for northern spotted owl critical habitat,
Willamette Province CY- 2005-2006
Effects
Determination |
Activity |
May Affect
(MA) |
Regeneration Harvest may affect critical
habitat due to the loss of primary constituent elements. Heavy Thinning may affect critical
habitat due to the loss of primary constituent elements. Light to Moderate
Thinning
modifies suitable or dispersal habitat, which is a primary constituent
element of critical habitat. Down salvage would remove some
coarse woody debris, which is a primary constituent element of critical
habitat. However. Individual Tree Removal fells trees
exhibiting nesting structures as a result of hazard reduction. The removal of
trees within designated critical habitat, particularly trees currently
exhibiting potential nesting structures, may affect spotted owl critical
habitat. However, these trees are generally single trees scattered over the
landscape, and therefore, are not expected to alter the function of spotted
owl critical habitat. Under burning in critical habitat
could remove coarse woody debris: a
primary constituent element of critical habitat. Consequently, under burning
may affect critical habitat. Terrestrial habitat
enhancement
may treat some trees in suitable or dispersal habitat but no suitable nest
trees would be selected and all treated trees would remain on site.
Terrestrial habitat enhancement treatments in critical habitat may alter the
primary constituent elements that may result in minimal short-term impacts,
but these actions would facilitate the development of late-successional
habitat characteristics over the long-term. Thus, this may affect spotted owl
critical habitat. |
No Effect (NE) |
None |
Table 14. Maximum levels of effect to northern spotted owl
critical habitat due to proposed habitat modifications,
Action in critical habitat |
Matrix1 |
Riparian Reserves – Matrix2 |
AMA |
RR-AMA2 |
Late Successional Reserves3 |
Total |
||||||||||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
||||||||
Suitable Habitat |
||||||||||||||||||
Remove |
3 |
- |
500 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
503 |
- |
|||||||
Downgrade |
153 |
- |
543 |
- |
|
- |
- |
138 |
- |
834 |
- |
|||||||
Degrade |
210 |
44 |
- |
69 |
120 |
10 |
- |
897 |
6,470 |
1,227 |
6,593 |
|||||||
Subtotal Suitable |
366 |
44 |
1,043 |
69 |
120 |
10 |
- |
1,035 |
6,470 |
2,564 |
6,593 |
|||||||
Dispersal-only Habitat |
||||||||||||||||||
Remove |
79 |
- |
22 |
- |
|
|
- |
2,398 |
- |
2,499 |
- |
|||||||
Degrade |
1,510 |
- |
71 |
- |
545 |
|
90 |
3,760 |
100 |
5,976 |
100 |
|||||||
Subtotal Dispersal |
1,589 |
- |
93 |
- |
545 |
|
90 |
6,158 |
100 |
8,475 |
100 |
|||||||
Grand Total |
1,955 |
44 |
1,136 |
69 |
665 |
10 |
90 |
7,193 |
6,570 |
11,039 |
6,693 |
|||||||
1 Includes
administratively withdrawn areas. 2 RR – outside Late
Successional Reserves. 3 LSR – includes
associated riparian reserves. |
Although any activity occurring within designated critical habitat which impacts any of the primary constituent elements may affect spotted owl critical habitat, the proposed action includes a standard and guideline that will reduce the impact to critical habitat. The administrative units will exclude projects that would cause the loss of dispersal habitat where dispersal habitat is currently insufficient or may be limited post-treatment (see Standard 9 in the Description of the Proposed Action)
Regeneration harvest may occur within designated critical
habitat and will remove all of the primary constituent elements. Therefore, regeneration harvest in critical
habitat may affect critical habitat (Table 13). Of the 1,237 acres that may be harvested by
regeneration methods throughout the Province, 3 acres of suitable habitat could
fall within designated critical habitat. The three acres of suitable habitat are
associated with a rock pit expansion project proposed by the
Heavy thinning
may occur within designated critical
habitat and therefore may affect
critical habitat (Table 13). Heavy
thinning of dispersal habitat would reduce the average canopy cover to 30-40
percent within the treatment unit, and therefore would remove spotted owl
dispersal habitat. Of the 11,086 acres
that may be heavily thinned throughout the Province, 3,833 acres (
Heavy thinning of dispersal habitat (i.e., habitat that is not yet suitable) reduces canopy closure to 30 - 40 percent within the treatment unit, thus temporarily eliminating dispersal habitat. However, this activity would only occur in areas where dispersal habitat is currently sufficient so that, post-treatment, spotted owls would still be able to disperse through the general area (Standard 14). Thus, the proposed action will maintain the particular function of providing for owl movement through the critical habitat units.
The
effects of heavy thinning on spotted owl critical habitat will be variable
depending on the stand treated and the time since treatment. Heavy thinning in dispersal habitat may
reduce the quality or function of the habitat.
However, in some stands, these effects will ameliorate over a short time
as the stand continues to grow and often will provide better habitat structure
in the long term. It is expected that
thinning in these stands will likely accelerate the development of future owl
habitat compared with no treatment (USDI 2004).
These activities work toward achieving the primary function of critical
habitat which is to provide suitable habitat for successful reproduction. Long-term improvements to habitat will result
in beneficial effects of the action.
Although proposed heavy thinning operations could affect up to 0.3 percent of the approximately 1,217,280 acres designated critical habitat, (0.2 percent of the approximately 577,009 acres of suitable critical habitat and 2.2 percent of the 111,824 acres of critical dispersal habitat) within the Willamette Province, the proposed treatments will be spread over multiple watersheds and CHUs. Furthermore, heavy thinning treatments will occur only in areas where dispersal habitat is currently sufficient and spotted owls would continue to be able to disperse through the area post-treatment. Therefore, heavy thinning of 3,833 acres of habitat may alter the primary constituent elements of critical habitat, which may result in minimal short-term impacts, but these actions would facilitate the development of late-successional habitat characteristics over the long-term within designated critical habitat.
Light to moderate
thinning may occur within designated critical habitat and therefore may affect critical habitat (Table 13). Of the proposed 26,921 acres of light to
moderate thinning, 6,623 acres (
The
proposed light to moderate thinning operations could effect up to 0.5 percent
of critical habitat within the province (0.1 percent of the 577,009 acres
within suitable critical habitat and 5.3 percent of the 111,824 acres within
dispersal habitat). The effects of light
to moderate thinning on spotted owl critical habitat will be variable depending
on the stand treated and the time since treatment. These types of actions may involve minimal
short-term impacts, but result in long-term improvements to owl habitat. Most of the light to moderate thinning in
dispersal habitat also occurs in LSRs and is designed to promote the
development of late-successional habitat.
Because habitat function would only be minimally impacted, light to
moderate thinning of 6,623 acres within designated critical habitat units is
not expected to alter the function of spotted owl critical habitat and may affect, but are not likely to adversely
affect spotted owls. Long-term
improvements to habitat will result in beneficial
effects of the action.
Down salvage removes large downed wood. Coarse woody debris contributes is a biological feature of NRF habitat; its removal may affect designated critical habitat (Table 13). Two factors combine to minimize the impacts of down salvage in the action area. First, areas targeted for salvage are likely to have experienced a loss (partial or total) of habitat function due to some stochastic event (e.g. fire or blowdown). Second, the requirements for the maintenance of coarse woody debris in sufficient quantities to comply with the Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP, makes it unlikely that down salvage would result in adverse effects to spotted owl designated critical habitat during the near term or in the future. Standards and Guidelines for salvage in the NWFP guide management to retain adequate quantities of coarse woody debris in the new stand so that in the future it will still contain amounts similar to naturally regenerated stands. Province-level plans will establish appropriate levels of coarse wood.
Although the loss of coarse woody debris associated with the down salvage of 80 acres may affect spotted owl critical habitat, the Standards and Guidelines provide a mechanism to incorporate adequate levels of coarse wood that will contribute to the function of critical habitat.
Terrestrial habitat enhancement modifies forested habitat by changing the canopy cover, or altering snag or coarse woody debris composition of the stand to enhance watershed health, wildlife, or botanical resources. Because it may occur in designated critical habitat and may alter the primary constituent elements upon which it was designated, this activity may affect spotted owl critical habitat (Table 13). Although individual trees or small groups of trees in suitable or dispersal habitat may be treated, no suitable nest trees would be selected and all treated trees would remain on site. Terrestrial habitat enhancement treatments in critical habitat affecting 100 trees plus 500 acres may alter the primary constituent elements of critical habitat, but projects are primarily designed to have beneficial effects. These actions improve habitat characteristics and may facilitate the development of late-successional habitat characteristics over the long-term within designated critical habitat.
Individual tree removal occurs as a result of hazard reduction or incidental loss of tailhold or guyline trees. The removal of trees within designated critical habitat, particularly trees currently exhibiting potential nesting structures, may affect spotted owl critical habitat (Table 13). However, these 6,593 trees are generally single trees scattered over the landscape, and their loss is not expected to alter the function of spotted owl critical habitat. These trees are often left on site to contribute to coarse woody debris levels.
Under
Burning on 100 acres of non-capable habitat adjacent to spotted owl
critical habitat may affect spotted owls due to smoke disturbance. Therefore under burning may affect spotted owl critical habitat (Table 13).
Table 15. Affected Acres within Critical Habitat Units,
Critical Habitat Unit |
Total Acres1 |
Total Capable Acres 2 |
Total NRF Acres3 |
Total NRF Acres Removed |
Total NRF Acres Down-graded |
Total NRF Acres Remaining |
Total NRF Acres Degraded |
NRF Trees Degraded |
Total Dispersal Acres |
Total Dispersal Acres Removed |
Total Dispersal Acres Remaining |
Total Dispersal Acres degraded |
Dispersal Trees degraded |
OR-1 |
48,180 |
39,601 |
15,425 |
250 |
388 |
14,787 |
397 |
3,000 |
11,422 |
83 |
11,339 |
570 |
|
OR-2 |
31,229 |
29,657 |
15,015 |
125 |
125 |
14,765 |
|
1,500 |
7,172 |
|
|
|
|
OR-9 |
121,152 |
81,542 |
65,647 |
|
|
|
|
215 |
32,382 |
|
|
|
|
OR-10 |
88,821 |
78,244 |
39,289 |
125 |
259 |
38,905 |
|
1,550 |
16,929 |
101 |
16,828 |
331 |
|
OR-12 |
62,488 |
58,506 |
34,429 |
|
62 |
34,367 |
505 |
175 |
4,827 |
|
|
|
50 |
OR-13 |
86,781 |
68,588 |
22,480 |
|
|
|
|
14 |
77 |
|
|
|
|
OR-14 |
104,368 |
96,307 |
56,540 |
|
|
|
25 |
105 |
5,442 |
|
|
1,900 |
50 |
OR-15 |
44,473 |
32,579 |
20,452 |
|
|
|
170 |
20 |
1,820 |
|
|
|
|
OR-16 |
105,954 |
91,610 |
59,470 |
|
|
|
120 |
10 |
1,791 |
|
|
985 |
|
OR-18 |
108,877 |
104,522 |
51,184 |
3 |
|
51,181 |
|
|
16,,047 |
2,315 |
13,732 |
2,185 |
|
OR-19 |
140,590 |
94,220 |
63,145 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
6,082 |
|
|
|
|
OR-20 |
57,254 |
55,552 |
32,382 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
10,291 |
|
|
5 |
|
1 Some cells updated in 2004 to reflect changes due to
past harvest, land exchanges, and updated GIS databases, or new locations of
spotted owl activity centers.
2 Those acres that are either currently suitable (i.e.,
nesting, roosting, and foraging) spotted owl habitat or have the potential to
become suitable in the future.
3 Nesting, roosting, and
foraging (i.e., suitable).
Critical Habitat Unit |
Total Acres |
Total Capable Acres |
Total NRF Acres |
Total NRF % |
Total NRF Removed |
Total NRF Down-graded |
% NRF Down-graded/ Removed |
Total NRF Degraded |
% NRF Degraded |
Total Dispersal Acres |
Total Dispersal Removed |
% Dispersal Removed |
Total Dispersal degraded |
% Dispersal degraded |
OR-1 |
48,180 |
39,601 |
15,425 |
32 |
250 |
388 |
4.0 |
397 |
2.5 |
11,422 |
83 |
0.7 |
570 |
5 |
OR-2 |
31,229 |
29,657 |
15,015 |
48 |
125 |
125 |
2.0 |
|
|
7,172 |
|
|
|
|
OR-9 |
121,152 |
81,542 |
65,647 |
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
32,382 |
|
|
|
|
OR-10 |
88,821 |
78,244 |
39,289 |
44 |
125 |
259 |
1.0 |
|
|
16,929 |
101 |
0.5 |
331 |
2 |
OR-11 |
50,189 |
43,032 |
21,469 |
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
3,860 |
|
|
|
|
OR-12 |
62,488 |
58,506 |
34,429 |
55 |
|
62 |
0.2 |
505 |
1.5 |
4,827 |
|
|
|
|
OR-13 |
86,781 |
68,588 |
22,480 |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
OR-14 |
104,368 |
96,307 |
56,540 |
54 |
|
|
|
25 |
0.0 |
5,442 |
|
|
1,900 |
35 |
OR-15 |
44,473 |
32,579 |
20,452 |
46 |
|
|
|
170 |
0.8 |
1,820 |
|
|
|
|
OR-16 |
105,954 |
91,610 |
59,470 |
56 |
|
|
|
120 |
0.2 |
1,791 |
|
|
985 |
55 |
OR-17 |
45,400 |
36,707 |
26,236 |
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
OR-18 |
108,877 |
104,522 |
51,184 |
47 |
3 |
|
0.0 |
|
|
16,047 |
2,315 |
14 |
2,185 |
14 |
OR-19 |
140,590 |
94,220 |
63,145 |
45 |
|
|
|
10 |
0.0 |
6,082 |
|
|
|
|
OR-20 |
57,254 |
55,552 |
32,382 |
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
10,291 |
|
|
5 |
0 |
OR-21 |
2,021 |
2,000 |
842 |
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
|
OR-22 |
5,390 |
5,360 |
715 |
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
2,464 |
|
|
|
|
OR-23 |
3,710 |
8,769 |
210 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
2,379 |
|
|
|
|
OR-25 |
26,188 |
25,881 |
14,284 |
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
1,238 |
|
|
|
|
OR-28 |
84,215 |
49,691 |
37,795 |
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
1,421 |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
1,217,280 |
1,002,368 |
577,009 |
47 |
503 |
834 |
0.2 |
1,127 |
0.2 |
111,824 |
2,499 |
2.2 |
5,976 |
5.3 |
Table 16. Proposed Affects to All Critical Habitat
Units within the
Based on the proposed projects provided by each
administrative unit in Appendices A-E, Tables 15 and 16 and the 2001 spotted owl environmental baseline update for the
CHU OR-1 was designated to provide and maintain essential
NRF and dispersal habitat for owls in the northern Oregon Cascades. Unit OR-1 provides the northern-most
extension of critical habitat within the Eastern Cascades province. Although unit OR-1 straddles the crest of the
Cascades, only approximately 5 percent of the unit is located in the Western
Cascades province. 42 percent LSR
overlap with RO202 and RO203. Currently
this
The proposed actions would remove 251 acres, downgrade 388 acres and degrade 397 acres of NRF habitat within OR-1. Removal of 3,000 hazard trees would also degrade suitable habitat. The removal and downgrade of 639 acres would reduce the existing amount of suitable habitat within OR-1 from 15,425 to 14,786 acres – a reduction of 4 percent.
The proposed action would remove 84 acres and degrade 570 acres of dispersal only habitat within OR-1. The removal of 84 acres would reduce the amount of dispersal habitat within
OR-1 from 11,422 to 11,338 acres – a reduction of 0.7 percent. The degrading of 570 acres of dispersal habitat will not change the function of dispersal habitat within OR-1.
Although the proposed action may reduce NRF and dispersal
habitat and weaken OR-1’s ability to provide and maintain essential NRF, the
proposed treatments will be spread over multiple districts, and thinning will
occur only in areas where spotted owls would continue to be able to disperse
through the area post-treatment. The
proposed action may alter the primary constituent elements of critical habitat,
resulting in short-term impacts, but these actions are not expected to
significantly reduce the ability of this
CHU OR-2 borders the northern edge of the Warm Springs
Indian Reservation on the eastern slope of the Oregon Cascades. The unit includes, and was designated to
provide, essential NRF habitat in an area of relatively sparse available
habitat and low numbers of northern spotted owls. Establishing unit OR-2 and unit OR-11,
adjacent to the Reservation lands to the west, help maintain the continuum of
owl habitat and north-south intra-provincial and east-west inter-provincial
linkages in and around the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Unit OR-2 is associated with the eastern edge
of the subspecies’ range and is extremely important to maintaining a range-wide
distribution of suitable nesting habitat.
19 percent LSR overlap with stringer portion of RO204. Approximately 48 percent of NRF habitat on
Federal lands is contained within this
The proposed action would affect NRF habitat by removing 125 acres, downgrading 125 acres and removing 1,500 hazard trees within OR-2. The removal and downgrade of 250 acres would reduce the existing amount of NRF from 15,015 to 14,765 acres, a reduction of 2.0 percent. The removal of 1,500 trees would be scattered throughout the district and degrade NRF.
The proposed treatments may alter the primary constituent
elements within OR-2 which could diminish its ability to function as
intended. However, the treatments
proposed will be dispersed throughout the district and the
CHU OR-9 established to maintain and provide essential NRF
habitat, thereby supporting owl pair clusters.
Is the only
The proposed action will not remove NRF habitat in
OR-9. The action proposes to degrade
some suitable habitat by removing 215 trees which could minimally reduce the
quality of the suitable habitat in the area, but is not expected to result in a
loss of the functionality of the habitat or of the
CHU OR-10 designated to maintain and provide essential NRF habitat and support a cluster of owl pairs. Unit OR-10 provides an important link in the north-south continuum of owl habitat between units OR-12 and OR-2 to the south and OR-9 and OR-1 to the north as well as within the Western Cascades province as a whole. OR-10 has a 57 percent LSR overlap with the larger, northern portion of RO207, and contains approximately 44 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.
The proposed action would remove 125 acres and downgrade 259 aces of NRF habitat within OR-10. Also, some NRF would be degraded by removing 1,500 trees. The removal and downgrade of 384 acres would reduce the existing amount of NRF within OR-10 from 39,289 to 38,905, a 1 percent reduction.
The proposed action would remove 101 acres and degrade 331 acres of dispersal habitat within OR-10. The removal of 101 acres would reduce the amount of dispersal habitat from 16,929 to 16,828, a 0.5 percent reduction. Dispersal habitat will continue to function as dispersal post-harvest (Standard 9).
Actions proposed in OR-10 are dispersed between multiple
watersheds and two ranger districts. Although primary constituent elements may
be reduced, this reduction is not expected to reduce the ability of the
OR-11 borders the
western edge of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation and rides the crest of the
Currently OR-11 contains approximately 44 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.
The proposed action does not include actions that affect
OR-11, and this
OR-12 was designated to maintain and provide essential nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat and support a cluster of owl pairs. Unit OR-12 helps maintain range-wide distribution of suitable nesting habitat in the northern portion of the Western Cascades province and helps maintain a strong north-south distribution of suitable nesting habitat by linking units OR-10, OR-11, OR-13, and OR-14. There is a 54 percent LSR overlap with RO209 and RO210 and approximately 55 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.
The proposed action would downgrade 62 acres of NRF, degrade 505 acres and remove 175 trees within OR-12. Downgrading 62 acres would reduce the existing amount of NRF habitat from 34,429 to 34,367, a reduction of 0.2 percent. The degrading of 505 acres may reduce the quality of this habitat but it would still function as NRF habitat.
The proposed action would be dispersed throughout multiple
locations within two administration units. Downgrading suitable habitat may
alter primary constituent elements.
However, the amount of suitable and dispersal habitat currently
available within this
OR-13 provides
essential NRF and dispersal habitat. The
southern portion includes a part of the
Although the proposed action includes degrading some
suitable habitat by the removal of 14 trees from NRF within OR-13, no trees
with nesting structures (except for hazard trees; Standard 3) will be
removed. NRF habitat and this
OR-14 was designated
along the western edge of the Western Cascades province to provide essential
NRF and dispersal habitat. The
The proposed action would affect NRF habitat by degrading 25 acres and removing 105 trees within OR-14 which may reduce the quality of the habitat but is not expected to reduce its ability to function as suitable habitat. Also, the degrading 1,900 acres along with 50 trees proposed to be removed would degrade dispersal habitat. Dispersal habitat will continue to function as dispersal habitat post-harvest (Standard 9), and OR-14 is anticipated to continue to provide essential NRF and dispersal habitat.
OR-15 consists of
essential NRF and dispersal habitat which encompasses a large part of the
The proposed action would degrade 170 acres and remove 20
trees from NRF habitat. The degradation
and removal of trees is not expected to inhibit the ability of OR-15 to
continue to facilitate
OR-16 was designated to
maintain and provide essential NRF habitat.
Unit OR-16 is located in an area of minimal north-south CHU connectivity
within the Western Cascades province and links units OR-14 and OR-15 in the
north to units OR-18 and OR-l7 to the south.
Unit OR-16 includes the
The proposed action would degrade 120 acres and remove 10
trees from NRF habitat within OR-16.
This degradation is not expected to change the functionality of suitable
habitat in the area. Also, 985 acres of
dispersal habitat would be degraded but would continue to function as dispersal
habitat. Although NRF and dispersal
habitat will be affected, it is anticipated that this
OR-17 was designated to
maintain and provide essential NRF habitat.
Unit OR-17 contains some the area’s largest contiguous blocks of
suitable nesting habitat so it is not only important for providing secure
nesting habitat in the core of the Western Cascades province, but given its
link to the Three Sisters Wilderness which rides the crest of the Cascades
Mountains, this unit helps secure an inter- provincial link to the Eastern
Cascades province. The wilderness
contains some large blocks of suitable habitat, but also encompasses large
expanses of unsuitable, high-elevation mountain peaks. OR-17 has a 62 percent LSR overlap with RO218
and 58 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.
Currently there are no projects proposed with effects to OR-17 and the
original objective of this
OR-18 was designated to
maintain and provide essential NRF habitats which will in turn ensure dispersal
opportunities between adjacent units OR-16, OR-17, OR-19, and OR-20. The entire area is highly fragmented except
for a major drainage running east-west through the unit. Portions of this unit consist of the most
contiguous blocks of suitable habitat in the area with the remaining Forest
Service lands appearing to be highly fragmented. This
The proposed action would remove 3 acres of NRF habitat with
in OR-18, reducing the NRF acres from 51,184 acres to 51,181 a 0.0 percent
reduction. Dispersal habitat is proposed
to be affected by the removal of 2,315 acres and the degrading of 2,185
acres. Removal of 2,315 acres of
dispersal habitat would reduce the available dispersal acres from 16,047 to
13,732, a reduction of 14 percent. This reduction
could, to some degree, diminish the ability of dispersal habitat to
function. However, the proposed
treatments will occur only in areas where spotted owls would continue to be
able to disperse through the area post-treatment. The proposed action may alter the primary
constituent elements of critical habitat, resulting in short-term and long-term
impacts, but these impacts are not expected to significantly reduce the ability
of this
OR-19 was designated to
maintain and provide essential NRF and dispersal habitats. This unit includes some of the largest blocks
of contiguous nesting habitat available in a highly fragmented area with
relatively little available spotted owl habitat remaining. Unit OR-19 adjoins the
The proposed action would degrade 10 acres of NRF
habitat. This is not expected to reduce
the functionality of the suitable habitat in OR-19, and the
OR-20 contains the
essential elements of NRF habitat and, because of its location, plays an
integral role in providing dispersal opportunities and maintaining
well-distributed nesting habitat throughout the Western Cascades. Unit OR-20 is located along the western edge
of this province and provides the northeastern lead into the South
Willamette-North Umpqua portion of the I-5 area of concern. This link to the area of concern elevates the
importance of this unit for ensuring linkage of nesting habitat from the
Western Cascades to the
The proposed action would remove 4 trees from NRF and degrade 5 acres of dispersal habitat through individual tree removal within OR-20. The effects to OR-20 are not likely to reduce its ability to provide dispersal opportunities and maintain the objects originally planned.
OR-21 was established to provide an essential stepping stone of suitable owl nesting habitat along the eastern end of the South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern. This area of concern was identified by the Service due to past harvest practices, current habitat conditions, and land ownership patterns, thereby elevating the importance of maintaining and improving suitable owl habitat. Unit OR-2l is checkerboard land ownership consisting of essential NRF and dispersal habitat. Establishing units OR-21 and OR-22 helps maintain and improve the distribution of suitable nesting habitat an area of highly limited habitat capabilities in the already identified area of concern. 0 percent LSR overlap. There are no actions proposed in OR-21 included in this BO.
OR-22 was established to provide an essential Astepping stone@ of suitable owl nesting habitat along the eastern end of the South Willamette-North Umpqua portion of the I-5 area of concern. Unit OR-22 consists of essential NRF and dispersal habitat. Unit OR-22 helps maintain and improve the distribution of suitable nesting habitat in an area of highly limited habitat capabilities in the already identified area of concern. The checkerboard ownership pattern and resultant forest harvest practices of this unit will limit its potential for developing into a large contiguous block of suitable nesting habitat in this region of range-wide significance. 0 percent LSR overlap. There are no actions proposed in OR-22 included in this BO.
OR-23 consists of essential NRF and dispersal habitat. The checkerboard BLM and private lands within the center of the South Willamette-North Umpqua portion of the I-5 area of concern were designated as unit OR-23. Units OR-24 and OR-23 are the primary supporting A stepping stones of owl habitat within an area of the most tenuous inter- provincial linkage between the Coast Ranges and Western Cascades provinces. 0 percent LSR overlap. There are no actions proposed in OR-23 included in this BO.
Critical habitat unit OR-25 is the stronghold of the eastern end of the South Willamette-North Umpqua portion of the I-5 area of concern. OR-25 was designated to provide NRF habitat and help ensure that the range-wide inter-provincial linkage is maintained and improved. The fact that most of this unit is checkerboard lands under BLM and private management, elevates the importance of this unit in the context of range-wide issues. Along with the adjacent unit OR-26, unit OR-25 helps maintain a core population area with relatively high concentrations of owl sites. 83 percent LSR overlap with RO222. There are no actions proposed in OR-25 included in this BO.
OR-28 includes suitable owl habitat within the core of the Western Cascades province and provides important linkage with critical habitat units OR-30 and OR-19 along the crest of the Cascades Mountains, OR-7 of the Eastern Cascades province, and OR-26, OR-20, OR-29, and OR-27 toward the west and the South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern. Unit OR-28 provides an important inter-provincial link to the Eastern Cascades and incorporates essential NRF and dispersal habitat. The unit contains highly fragmented habitat in the northern portion
and nearly encircles the Boulder Creek Wilderness. 51 percent LSR overlap with RO222. There are no actions proposed in OR-28 included in this BO.
All of the proposed activity types may occur within critical habitat, and therefore may affect 11,041 acres and 6,693 trees within spotted owl critical habitat, (Table 14 and appendices A-D). Of these numbers, only 1,338 acres associated with regeneration harvest and heavy thinning is expected to adversely affect spotted owl critical habitat. Of the 5 acres proposed for regeneration harvest (4 acres of suitable habitat and 1 acre of dispersal habitat), all are from the Matrix. Heavy thinning will remove 500 acres and downgrade 834 acres of suitable critical habitat, and remove 2,499 acres of dispersal critical habitat. However, this would not occur in areas where dispersal habitat would be limited post-harvest. This proposed thinning could affect up to 0.4 percent of the total acres of spotted owl critical habitat (0.2 percent of suitable critical habitat and 0.2 percent of dispersal critical habitat) within the Province. Through light to moderate thinning, 657 acres of suitable habitat within critical habitat is proposed to be degraded but is expected to still function as suitable habitat. Through light to moderate thinning, 5,976 acres of dispersal habitat is anticipated to be degraded in critical habitat and will still function as dispersal habitat.
The loss of down wood debris associated with down salvage may degrade 80 acres of critical habitat in spotted owl suitable habitat. Although down salvage operations in critical habitat will remove downed wood, a biological feature of critical habitat, sufficient coarse woody debris will remain post-salvage and the removal of excess down wood is designed to assist in the full regeneration of the area. In addition, 100 individual trees and 500 acres within critical habitat may also be impacted in association with terrestrial habitat enhancement and 6,593 individual trees removed as hazard trees, road/trail repair.
Significant modification to critical
habitat or its function is not anticipated because these actions will be
dispersed across the province, and all permissible activity types under this
biological opinion (see Standards in the Description of the Proposed Action)
are strictly defined to minimize adverse effects. Should all these proposed actions occur
within designated critical habitat, only 0.9 percent of critical habitat and
0.4 percent of capable suitable habitat within the Province will be
affected. Projects will be scattered
over 12 of 19 CHUs in the Province (see Appendices A-D for specific units and
projects). These impacts to critical
habitat function and structure are thought to be minimal in the Province and
the critical habitat unit system will continue to function as it currently
does, and continue to serve as habitat for the conservation of the spotted owl
by providing for clusters of breeding spotted owls and dispersal across the
landscape. Many of the proposed projects
will promote the development of owl habitat and contribute to the recovery of
habitat within the action area and produce long-term beneficial effects. The effects of the action on spotted owl
critical habitat are not anticipated to alter the conservation or recovery function of CHUs at
the individual
Table 17. Proposed treatments that May Affect northern
spotted owl Critical Habitat Units,
|
Suitable Habitat |
Dispersal Habitat |
Total |
||||||
Remove |
Down-grade |
Degrade |
Remove |
Degrade |
|||||
Acres |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
OR-1 |
250 |
388 |
397 |
3,000 |
83 |
570 |
-- |
1,688 |
3,000 |
OR-2 |
125 |
125 |
-- |
1,500 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
250 |
1,500 |
OR-9 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
215 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
215 |
OR-10 |
125 |
259 |
-- |
1,550 |
101 |
331 |
-- |
816 |
1,550 |
OR-11 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OR-12 |
-- |
62 |
505 |
175 |
-- |
-- |
50 |
567 |
225 |
OR-13 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
14 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
14 |
OR-14 |
-- |
-- |
25 |
105 |
-- |
1,900 |
50 |
1,925 |
155 |
OR-15 |
-- |
-- |
170 |
20 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
170 |
20 |
OR-16 |
-- |
-- |
120 |
10 |
|
985 |
-- |
1,105 |
10 |
OR-17 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OR-18 |
3 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
2,315 |
2,185 |
-- |
4503 |
-- |
OR-19 |
-- |
-- |
10 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
10 |
-- |
OR-20 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
4 |
-- |
5 |
-- |
5 |
4 |
OR-21 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OR-22 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OR-23 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OR-25 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OR-28 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Total |
503 |
834 |
1,227 |
6,593 |
2,499 |
5,976 |
490 |
11,039 |
6,693 |
SPOTTED OWL:
Effects to Late Successional Reserves
Within the
Regeneration harvest in LSRs is not
covered under this assessment. The
The
In addition to removal of dispersal habitat, light to moderate thinning of 3,855 acres may degrade spotted owl dispersal habitat, but because canopy closure would remain above 40 percent, dispersal habitat will be maintained. The majority of this activity (2,185 acres) is expected to occur in LSR RO-219. These impacts are designed to speed the development of suitable spotted owl habitat in dense uniform conifer stands in managed plantations.
As stipulated in standards common to all actions, this assessment does not address activities occurring in areas where dispersal habitat is insufficient for spotted owl dispersal. This activity will only occur in areas where dispersal habitat is currently sufficient so that, post-treatment, spotted owls will still be able to disperse through the general area. Heavy thinning and light to moderate thinning in dispersal habitat may help to place these stands on a quicker trajectory toward late successional conditions because trees left will be open grown resulting in larger trees.
Individual tree removal of 7,076 trees from suitable and 713 trees from dispersal habitat within LSRs, will not include trees with nesting structures, as per standard 3 in the proposed action. Because these trees are generally single trees scattered over the landscape, habitat function is expected to be minimally impacted, and the individual tree removal within LSRs is not expected to alter the function of spotted owl habitat or the function of the LSR.
The effects of these actions will, to
some degree, reduce the dispersal and nesting capabilities of spotted owls in
LSRs in the
SPOTTED OWL:
Under the NWFP, it is expected that protected LUAs outside
of LSRs, such as RRs, will provide adequate habitat to facilitate owl movement
and survival between LSRs (USDA/USDI 1994a).
The proposed actions will affect approximately 11,370 acres of owl
habitat within Riparian Reserves, outside of LSRs. In addition, at least 370 individual trees
will be removed from Riparian Reserves, outside of LSRs. Of the acres affected, 428 acres of suitable
habitat and 8,786 acres of dispersal-only habitat will be degraded (Table 12),
but these stands will continue to function for owls as currently designated
because the features that comprise these designations will be maintained. Also, 798 acres of suitable habitat will
be downgraded, 592 acres of suitable habitat will be removed and 766 acres of
dispersal-only habitat will be removed through heavy thinning. No
regeneration harvest will occur in riparian reserves. Individual tree removal, 370 trees,
may include the loss of trees with nesting structures which will adverse effect
spotted owls due to loss of potential nesting opportunities. However, projects will not remove occupied
nest trees and generally trees removed are single trees scattered over
the landscape.
The individual tree removal, down grading of suitable
habitat to dispersal and the removal of suitable and dispersal habitat where
dispersal is not limited (as per standard 13 in the proposed action), should
have no affect on owl dispersal. In the
long-term, heavy thinning may have a beneficial effect on the spotted owl
because this treatment is expected to accelerate development of large trees
which are a component suitable habitat.
Regeneration harvest of 1,205 acres (440 acres of suitable and 765 acres
of dispersal) of Matrix/AWA/AMA may affect dispersal, but impacts should be
minimal due to the small percent of habitat affected and affects will be over
several projects throughout the province.
Therefore, the Service believes that effects to connectivity will
be minimal as a result of the proposed action and that the remaining suitable
habitat in Matrix /AWA/AMA, along with substantial amounts of dispersal-only
habitat, will contain adequate roosting and foraging opportunities and
sufficient cover to provide for movement and survival of owls between LSRs in
the
Habitat degradation and habitat loss still threaten the
bald eagle and are key reasons for listing the bald eagle as a threatened
species. Bald eagles typically nest in
multi-layered, uneven-aged, coniferous stands with old-growth trees near large
bodies of water. Availability of
suitable trees for nesting and perching is critical for maintaining bald eagle
populations.
Region 6 of the Forest Service and the State Office of BLM
in
The following section describes the evaluation of effects
to bald eagles from the programs of activities proposed to occur within the
Light to moderate thinning could cause the loss of
potential nest or roost trees. Although
overstory structure will be maintained, and because nesting bald eagles are
sufficiently visible, it is unlikely that an occupied nest tree or roost tree
would be removed. Therefore light to
moderate thinning may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect bald eagles.
Down salvage removes large down woody
material. Because coarse woody debris is
not a constituent element of known nesting or roosting habitat for bald eagles,
the salvage of downed wood throughout the
province would have no effect on bald
eagles.
Individual tree removal falls trees exhibiting
nesting structures as a result of hazard reduction or incidental losses from
other activities. However, because
nesting bald eagles are sufficiently visible, it is unlikely that an occupied
nest tree or roost tree would be removed.
In those areas where the availability of potential nesting structure is
not a limiting factor in eagle breeding, the removal of an individual tree with
nesting structure in known sites may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles. In those areas where the availability of
potential nesting structures are a limiting factor in eagle breeding, the
removal of an individual tree with a nesting structure in known habitat may affect, and is likely to adversely
affect, bald eagles (Table 11). Each
specific effects determination shall be made by the wildlife biologist on
site. However, there are few areas
within the province where the availability of potential nesting trees is
limited, and tree removal in known nesting habitat would not occur during the
breeding period.
Under burning
would have no effect on bald eagles
because such actions would not occur with 0.25 mile (0.5 mile sight distance)
of a known nest or roost site during the breeding period, and would remove only
coarse woody debris which is not a constituent element of eagle nesting or
roosting habitat.
Bald Eagle:
Bald eagles are known to be highly susceptible to disturbance, particularly during their nesting season (Stalmaster et. al. 1985; McGarigal et. al. 1991). Activities occurring near a nest site may result in reproductive failure due to the disruption of normal egg-laying, incubation, or foraging behaviors; chronic disturbance can lead to nest abandonment or even site desertion. Consequently, activities which may impact nesting bald eagles are generally avoided; the standards presented on pages 5-7 prohibit the implementation of actions within 0.25 mile, or 0.5 mile sight distance, of known nest sites from January 1 to August 31, unless the nest is verified to be unoccupied by the unit wildlife biologist, and actions within 0.25 mile, or 0.5 mile sight distance, of known roost from November 15 to March 15, unless the roost is verified to be unoccupied by the unit wildlife biologist. However, some proposed projects will occur in or near suitable bald eagle habitat.
· Because of the high visibility of bald eagles and the considerations identified above, it is unlikely that projects would be located in areas with undiscovered bald eagle nests or roosts. If a new bald eagle nest or roost is discovered, any project activity within 0.25 mile or 0.5-mile sight distance will immediately be evaluated by the unit wildlife biologist for potential effects on bald eagles and mitigated to prevent disturbances. As stipulated in the standards on page 7, no project within 0.25 miles or 0.5 miles sight distance of a known bald eagle nest locations or roost site shall be implemented between January 1 and August 31. Because the administrative units have sufficient knowledge of nesting locations and will schedule actions in these areas outside of the breeding and roosting periods, the interagency Team determined that disturbances from the proposed actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, nesting bald eagles due to the low likelihood of affecting unidentified nesting eagles (Table 11).
· Disturbances to daytime roosts may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect eagles due to the ability of the eagle to forage in other areas. Disturbances to winter roosts would be avoided due to actions being prohibited within 0.25 mile, or 0.5 mile sight distance, of known roost between November 15 and March 15.
· Disturbances from proposed actions between September 1 and November 14, proposed actions that occur during any time of the year but are more than 0.25 mile or a 0.5-mile sight distance from known nest site, roost sites and unsurveyed suitable habitat, or actions within 0.25 mile or a 0.5-mile sight distance from known unoccupied nest site, or unoccupied roost sites would have no effect on bald eagles.
· Disturbance associated with blasting is considered to have an impact out to 1.0 mile due to the intensity of the noise from the blast, but no blasting is proposed in the BA. Therefore, blasting is not covered under this biological opinion.
BALD EAGLE:
Based
on the above effects determinations, the proposed CY2005-2006 activities are
anticipated to affect bald eagles through the harvest of suitable habitat and
the removal of individual potential nest trees, but activities are not likely
to adversely affect bald eagles. These
actions will be dispersed across an estimated 3.03 million acres of Federal
land in the
Interrelated and Interdependent Effects
Regulations implementing the Act, require that the Service
consider the effects of activities which are interrelated and interdependent to
the proposed Federal action (50 CFR Part 402.02). The Act defines interrelated activities as
those which are part of a larger action and depend upon the larger action for
their justification, and interdependent activities as those projects which have
no independent utility apart from the action that is under consideration.
No interrelated and interdependent effects associated with
the proposed projects are expected. If
any such effects on Federal or private land is expected as a result of the
proposed activities, this consultation should be reinitiated.
Your letter also requested informal consultation and
concurrence for those actions described in the assessment which may affect,
but are not likely to adversely affect bald eagles and spotted owls, or
spotted owl critical habitat. Table 13
in the BA summarize the effect determinations by programmatic type along with
the Effects of the Action descriptions and anticipated impacts. The Service
concurs with these determinations, but notes that due to the potential
disturbance effects to spotted owls and not knowing what part of the spotted
owl breeding season the projects will occur in, the majority of the proposed
projects, that would otherwise result in a not like to adversely effect call,
must be assumed to have an adverse effect on owls. The Service concurs that if the following
four types of activities: 1) the removal of trees without nesting
structures, 2) dispersal habitat removed where dispersal is not limited, 3)
down salvage and 4) NRF and/or dispersal degraded when the stands still maintain
their function, occur outside the critical nesting
period with no helicopter use, outside the breeding season, or greater than the
disruption distances (Table 1) from suitable spotted owl habitat, then
they may affect, but are not likely to adversely
affect spotted owls.
For bald eagles, the Service concurs that light to moderate
thinning, if no overstory is removed, and individual tree removal, if trees
with nesting structures are not limited in the area, may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect bald
eagles. Nesting bald eagles are
sufficiently visible that it is unlikely that an occupied nest tree would be
removed during the breeding period. Also, because of the low likelihood that
projects would be located in areas with undiscovered bald eagle nests, noise
disturbance related to the proposed actions are not likely to disturb bald
eagles.
This concludes informal consultation for activities resulting
in not likely to adversely affect determinations in the
Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
While the Service or the Action Agencies do not have the authority under section 7 of the Act to affect private actions, cumulative effects analysis of foreseeable State and private actions provide the Service and the action agencies greater insight toward understanding the current environmental baseline and likely trends. This insight is necessary to provide the Action Agencies and the Service with a broader context in which to fully evaluate the impact of the Federal action.
Habitat for spotted owls has not been comprehensively classified or surveyed on state or private lands. Most lands, including the larger state and private timber company holdings, have been harvested within the past 50 years, and are now in either shrub, pole, or large pole condition classes. Some mature forested stands exist on county, state, or private land, but these stands represent a small proportion of private land ownership. The mature stands provide limited amounts of suitable habitat for listed forest species. Mature and large pole stands are presently being logged at an accelerated rate due to present economic conditions. This trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
The majority of late successional/old-growth forests on
state and private land in
It is generally recognized that Federal lands will make significant contributions to the recovery of spotted owls through implementation of the NWFP. However, non-Federal lands are important where Federal lands are absent or where suitable habitat on Federal lands is believed insufficient to maintain local populations or, in the case of the spotted owl, provide demographic support across and between physiographic provinces (Thomas et al. 1990). While contributions on all non-Federal land may not be critical across the range of these species, contributions in certain regions may provide demographic support to LSRs which are not yet fully functional and necessary connectivity between LSRs.
After reviewing the current status of the spotted owl and
bald eagle, including critical habitat, the environmental baseline for both
species, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is
the Service's biological opinion that the CY 2005-2006 Habitat Modification
Projects in the Willamette Province are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the bald eagle or spotted owl and is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify designated critical habitat for the spotted owl. The Service reached these conclusions based
on the following factors:
1.
Of the 40,434 acres
proposed for treatment activities, the majority (81 percent) will occur in
matrix, riparian reserves, and adaptive management areas land use allocations
where commercial timber harvest was planned to occur under the NWFP. Furthermore, thinning harvest methods will be
used on 71 percent of the acres such that the habitat is degraded with respect
to owl use, but the functionality is intact.
2.
The amount of spotted
owl habitat removed (both NRF (suitable) and dispersal) will not significantly
reduce the amount of suitable habitat available within the
3.
Adverse effects to spotted owls due to noise
disturbance would be temporary in
nature and are not expected to have long-term
impacts.
4.
Impacts to critical habitat function and
structure are expected to be minimal in the
5.
Projects will be scattered over 12 of the 19
CHUs within the action area. Although
heavy thinning and light to moderate thinning will affect spotted owls, these
activity types may help to place stands on a quicker trajectory to older forest
conditions, because trees left will be released resulting in larger trees more
quickly than if competing with other trees.
The removal of 3,002 acres (503 acres of suitable and 2,499 acres of
dispersal) of spotted owl habitat will be scattered over the province, and no
activities will remove dispersal habitat where dispersal is limited (as per
standard 9 in the proposed action).
6.
No known bald eagle nest or roost trees will be
removed as a result of the proposed action nor will the action occur within
0.25 mile (0.5 line-of-sight) of nests or roosts during critical breeding or
roosting periods when disturbance would be likely to occur.
Sections 4(d) and 9 of the Act, as amended, prohibit taking (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or wildlife without a special exemption. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined as 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 any take of listed animal species that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or the applicant. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered a prohibited taking provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement. The measures described below are non-discretionary. Failure to comply with these measures may cause the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) to lapse.
The Service anticipates the take of spotted owls associated with the projects herein described in the Description of the Proposed Action section and Appendices A through D of this biological opinion. The levels and amounts of take are the “worst case” scenario. Actual levels of take will undoubtedly be lower, and will be recalculated annually by analyzing required project implementation and monitoring forms.
The Service anticipates the incidental take of all spotted owl pairs or resident singles associated with the regeneration harvest of 433 acres, the heavy thinning of 4,004 acres and the removal of 7,076 individual trees under the CY2005-2006 program of habitat modifying activities in the Willamette Province, as described in the Description of the Proposed Action section, Table 11 and Appendices A through D of this biological opinion. The Service is assuming that unsurveyed suitable habitat is occupied based on past survey information and the dependence of spotted owls on mature/old growth habitat. This take is difficult to quantify because of the lack of site specific information of spotted owl activity centers.
The Service anticipates the incidental take of spotted owls
due to disturbance associated with the regeneration harvest of 1,237 acres,
heavy thinning of 11,106 acres, light to moderate thinning of 27,470 acres,
down salvage of 425 acres and the removal of 7,789 individual trees. This take is difficult to quantify because of
the lack of site specific information of spotted owl activity centers and since
not all disturbances will rise to the level of harassment.
The Service does not anticipate incidental take of bald
eagles as a result of the proposed action.
This is because 1) the high visibility of bald eagles and intensive
survey effort for the species makes it unlikely that projects would be located
in areas with undiscovered bald eagle nests, and 2) no project within 0.25
miles or 0.5 mile sight distance of a known bald eagle nest site would be
implemented during the critical nesting or roosting periods when disturbance
would be likely to occur.
The Service will not refer the incidental take of any bird
covered under this take statement 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. However, the take
prohibitions of these statutes still apply in full to non-listed migratory
birds and golden eagles. 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.
Spotted owl
The removal of spotted owl
habitat will reduce the ability of localized areas to support spotted owls and
reduce the individual fitness of owls currently using those areas. The Service anticipates that disturbance
during the breeding season could cause spotted owls to abandon their nest,
flush from their nest site, cause a juvenile to prematurely fledge or interrupt
foraging activity.
REASONABLE
AND PRUDENT MEASURES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The activity
type definitions and standards common to all actions (see Description of the
Proposed Action) were designed by the action agencies to refine the nature of
the actions covered under this consultation and to minimize the incidental take
of listed species. Based on the
implementation of these standards for the seven activity types defined in Table
2 and the treatment levels provided in Table 10, the Service believes that
incidental take for listed species has been minimized to the extent that
reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions are not
necessary. However, it is appropriate to
provide reasonable and prudent measures for monitoring the project activities.
This opinion
neither anticipates nor addresses any action that [1] is not consistent
with the general program definitions provided in Table 1 and all the standards
common to all actions, [2] was not included in the anticipated treatment
levels depicted in Table 10 and Appendixes A-D, or [3] exceeds those
effects identified in Table 10 and Appendixes A-D and summarized above. As stated in the standards applicable to all
proposed actions, standard number 10, adverse effects and any resulting
incidental take shall be tracked by each administrative unit and reported to
the interagency Team using the updated (2004) Project Implementation
& Monitoring Form.
The Service
believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary to monitor
the project activities:
1.
Monitor
and report on the implementation of projects and their adverse effects.
In order to be
exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Forest Service and
BLM must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the
reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required
reporting/monitoring requirements. These
terms and conditions are non-discretionary.
Terms and
Conditions:
1)
Consistent
with 50 CFR 402.14(i)3, which states that "...the Federal agency or any applicant
must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the
Service as specified in the incidental take statement.", to receive coverage under this BO, projects
listed herein must be implemented (i.e. NEPA record of decision or decision
notice is signed) during the calendar years covered by this opinion (CY 2005 –
CY 2006). The BLM and Forest Service
must monitor and report on those projects that are implemented or covered under
this biological opinion. In addition,
the effects and any resulting incidental take from covered projects
shall be tracked by each administrative unit and reported to the interagency
team using the updated (2004)
Project Implementation & Monitoring Form.
These forms must be submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service no
later than 120 days after the end of each calender year in which the project
was implemented.
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
Section 7(a)(1) of ESA
directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes
of ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and
threatened species. Conservation
recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid
adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
In order for the Service to
be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or
benefiting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification
of the implementation of any conservation recommendations.
1) Minimize the rate of harvest of suitable
spotted owl habitat within the Matrix and critical
habitat outside of LSRs which do not currently have sufficient
owl habitat.
2) Monitor the habitat
utilization and occupancy rates of barred owls in the
Province
to assess the threat of competition on spotted owl survival and recovery.
3) Defer timber harvest within
0.7 miles of active spotted owl nests between March 1 and
September 30 to allow adult
owls and their young to successfully utilize this area for breeding, feeding,
and sheltering prior to juvenile dispersal.
4) Conduct annual Level 1
implementation monitoring of timber sales that have been
harvested and were addressed
in either this consultation or a previous consultation.
5) Facilitate the development of
late-successional habitat by maintaining maximum numbers of Class 1 and Class 2
logs, and sufficient numbers of standing snags in various size classes.
6)
The Service recommends that each action agency better assess
likely treatment levels and associated
impacts to listed species to more accurately reflect annual activities prior to
initiation of future programmatic consultations. More accurate estimates of treatment levels
will permit a more accurate analysis of effects, and thereby allow the Service
to continue to address consultations with a large suite of activity types with
a high level of confidence into the future.
REINITIATION- CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal
consultation on the actions outlined in your request for consultation. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation
of formal 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 incidental take is exceeded; (2) new
information reveals effects of the agency 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 the 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. In
instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any
operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.
American Ornithologists'
Anthony, R. 2002.
Demographic characteristics of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina)
in the southern Cascades; Annual Research Report-Unpublished.
Anthony, R. 2003.
Demographic characteristics of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina)
in the southern Cascades; Annual Research Report-Unpublished.
Anthony,
R., F. Wagner, K. Dugger, and G. Olson.
2002b. Identification and
evaluation of northern spotted owl habitat in managed forests of southwestern
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. 2004.
Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls,
1985-2003. Final Report to the
Interagency Regional Monitoring Program,
Anthony,
R.G., G.S. Olson, S. Ackers, E. Forsman, W.J. Ripple, and E.M. Glenn. 2002a.
Predicting Abundance and Demographic Performance of Northern Spotted
Owls from Vegetative Characteristics: Report on Results of
Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland,
and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald
eagles in the
Bald Eagle Working Team
for
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.
Barrows, C.C. 1980. Feeding ecology of the spotted owl in
Bart J. and E. D.
Forsman. 1992. Dependence of northern spotted owls Strix
occidentalis caurina on old-growth forests in the western
Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation Biology 9 (4): 943-946.
Begon, M., and M.
Mortimer. 1986. Population Ecology: A Unified Study of
Animals and Plants. Blackwell Scientific
Publications,
Bent, A.C. 1938. Life Histories of North American Birds of
Prey. Part 2. Pages 202-213 in
Bulletin 170,
Bevis, K.R., G.M. King, and
E.E. Hanson. 1997. Spotted Owls And 1994 Fires On The Yakama Indian
Reservation. Pages 117-22 in J.M.
Greenlee, ed. Proceedings - Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species
Habitats Conference,
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., A.B.
Franklin, and R.J. Gutierrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and nest site selection in
northwestern
Buchanan, J.B., L.L. Irwin, and E.L. McCutchen. 1995. Within-stand nest site selection by spotted owls in the Eastern Washington Cascades. J. Wildlife Management 59(2):301-310.
Buchanan,
J.B. and L.L. Irwin. 1998. Variation in spotted owl nest site
characteristics within the eastern
Burnham, K.P., D.R.
Anderson, and G.C. White. 1996. Meta-analysis of vital rates of the northern
spotted owl. Pages 92-101. In Forsman, E.D.,
CDC (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention). 2003. West Nile Virus Website. Accessed on
California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF).
2001.
Carey, A.B., S.P. Horton, and B.L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base and landscape character. Ecological Monographs 62(2):223-250.
Carey, A.B. and K.C. Peeler. 1995. Spotted owls: resource and space use in mosaic landscapes. J. Raptor Res. 29(4):223-239.
Caffrey, C. 2003. Determining impacts of West Nile Virus on
crows and other birds. American Birds
(103rd Count) 57:12-13.
Caffrey, C. and C.C.
Peterson. 2003. West Nile Virus may not be a conservation
issue in northeastern
Chen, J., J.F. Franklin and T.A. Spies. 1992. Vegetation responses to edge environments in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 2(4):387-396.
Chen, J., J.F. Franklin
and T.A. Spies. 1993. Contrasting microclimates among clearcut,
edge, and interior and old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Agricultural and
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.
Craighead, J.J., and F.C.
Craighead. 1956. Hawks, owls and wildlife. Stackpole,
Csuti, B., J.A. Kimerling,
T.A. O=Neil, M.M. Shaugnessy, E.P.Gaines, and
Juso, M.M. 1997. Atlas of
Dark, S. J., R. J.
Gutierrez, and G. I. Gould. 1998. The barred owl (Strix varia) invasion
in
De Santo, Toni L., and
Mary F. Willson. 2001. Predator abundance and predation of artificial
nests in natural and anthropogenic coniferous forest edges in southeast
Dechesne, S. B. C., and J. L. Smith. 1997.
Wildlife inventory Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii 1994-1996. Husby Group of Companies. 49 pages.
Delaney, D. K., T. G.
Grubb, L.L. Pater. 1997. Effects of Helicopter Noise on Nesting
Mexican Spotted Owls,
Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, L.L. Pater and H.M. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. J. Wildl. Manage. 63(1):60-76.
Deubel, V., L. Fiette, P. Gounon, M.T. Drouet, H. Khun, M.
Huerre, C. Banet, M. Malkinson, and P. Despres.
2001. Variations in biological
features of
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
Fitzgerald, S.D., J.S. Patterson, M. Kiupel, H.A. Simmons, S.D. Grimes, C.F. Sarver, R.M. Fulton, B.A. Fulton, B.A. Steficek, T.M. Cooley, J.P. Massey, and J.G. Sikarskie. 2003. Clinical and pathological features of West Nile Virus infection in native North American owls (family Strigidae). Avian Diseases 47:602-610.
Forsman,
E.D. 1976. A preliminary investigation of the spotted owl in
Forsman, E.D., and P. Loschl. 2003. The 2002 annual report for the Oregon Coast Ranges Spotted Owl Demography Study.
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
Forsman,
E.D., Meslow, E.C., and H.M. Wight.
1984. Distribution and biology of
the spotted owl in
Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow, and C.J. Zabel. 2004.
Diets and foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in
Forsman, E.D., R.G.
Anthony, J. A. Reid, P. J. Loschl, S. G. Sovern, M. Taylor, B.L. Biswell, A.
Ellingson, E. C. Meslow, G. S. Miller,
K. A. Swindle, J. A. Thrailkill, F. Wagner, and D. E. Seaman. 2002.
Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs, No. 149. 35 pp. Forsman, E.D. and R. Anthony. 1999.
Analysis of demographic rates of northern spotted owls. Executive Summary.
Franklin, A. B., K .P.
Burnham, G. C. White, R. J. Anthony, E. D. Forsman, C. Schwarz, J. D. Nichols,
and J. Hines. 1999. Range-wide status and trends in northern
spotted owl populations.
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
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.
Franklin,
A.B., R.J. Gutiérrez, B.R. Noon, and J.P. Ward, Jr. 1996.
Demographic characteristics and trends of northern spotted owl
populations in northwestern
Franklin, A.B., R.J. Gutiérrez, J.D. Nichols, M.E. Seamans, G.C.
White, G.S. Zimmerman, J.E. Hines, T.E. Munton, W.S. LaHaye, J.A. Blakesley,
G.N. Steger, B.R. Noon, D.W.H. Shaw, J.J. Keane, T.L. McDonald, S.
Britting. 2004. Population dynamics of the
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,
Ganey, J.L. 1992. Food habits of Mexican spotted owls in
Ganey, J.L., W.M. Block,
J.K. Dwyer, B.E. Strohmeyer, and J.S. Jenness.
1998. Dispersal movements and
survival rates of juvenile Mexican spotted owls in northern
Garmendia,
A.E., Van Kruiningen, H.J., French, R.A.,
Glenn,
E.M., M.C. Hansen, R.G. Anthony.
2004. Spotted Owl Home-Range and
Habitat Use in Young Forests of
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
Golightly,
R. T., P. N. Hebert, and D. L. Orthmeyer. 2002. Evaluation of human-caused disturbance on the
breeding success of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in
Redwood National and State Parks,
Gutiérrez, R.J.
1994. Changes in the distribution
and abundance of spotted owls during the past century. Studies in Avian Biology 15:293-300.
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., A.B. Franklin, W. La Haye, V.J. Meretsky, and J.P. Ward. 1985.
Juvenile spotted owl dispersal in northwestern
Gutiérrez,
R. J., A. B. Franklin, and W. S. LaHaye.
1995. Spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis) in A. Poole and F. Gill (eds). The birds of
Gremel,
S. 2000.
Spotted owl monitoring in Olympic National Park: 2000 annual
report.
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.
Hamer, T. E. 1988.
Home range size of the northern barred owl and northern spotted owl in
western
Hamer, T. E., D.L. Hays, S.M. Senger, and E.D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. J. Raptor Res 35(3): 221-227.
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., S.G. Seim, and K.R. Dixon. 1989. Northern spotted owl and northern barred owl
habitat use and home range size in
Hanson, E., D. Hays, L. Hicks, L. Young,
and J. Buchanan. 1993. Spotted Owl Advisory Group (SAG), Spotted owl habitat in
Harestad,
A., J. Hobbs, and
Henke,
A.L., T.Y. Chi, J. Smith, C. Brinegar. Unpublished Draft. Microsatellite Analysis of Northern and
Hershey,
K.T., E.C. Meslow, and F.L. Ramsey. 1998.
Characteristics of forests at spotted owl nest sites in the
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.
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
Hunter, J.E., R.J.
Gutiérrez, and A.B. Franklin. 1995. Habitat configuration around Spotted Owl
sites in northwestern
Irwin, L.L., D.F. Rock, and G.P. Miller 2000. Stand structures used by northern spotted owls in managed forests. J. Raptor Res. 34(3):175-186.
Irwin, L.L., T.L. Flemming, and J. Beede. In Press. Are spotted owl populations sustainable in fire-prone forests? J. Sustainable Forestry - review copy
Isaacs, F. and B.
Anthony. 2002.
Isaacs, F. and B.
Anthony. 2003.
Iverson,
W.F. 1993. Is the barred owl displacing the spotted owl
in western
Iverson, W.F. 2004.
Reproductive success of Spotted Owls is sympatric with Barred Owls in
western
Jimerson, T. M., and D.
W. Jones. 2000. Ecological and watershed implications of the
Megram Fire.
Johnson, D.H. 1992.
Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the central
Oregon Cascades. Master’s Thesis,
Johnson, K.N., S. Crim,
K. Barber, M. Howell, and C. Cadwell.
1993. Suitainable harvest levels
and short-term timber sales for options considered in the report of the Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team: Methods, Results, and Interpretations. Oregon State Univ.,
Johnsgard, P.A. 2002. North American Owls: Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002. Pages 176-193.
Kelly, E.G. 2001. Range expansion of the Northern Barred Owl: an
evaluation of the impact on Spotted Owls.
M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ.,
Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls displacing 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. 1993.
Habitat characteristics of northern spotted owls in eastern
King, G.M., K.R. Bevis, M.A. Rowe, E.E.
Hanson. 1997. Spotted owl use of habitat impacted by 1994 fires on
the Yakama Indian Reservation: three
years post fire.
Komar,
N., N.A. Panella, J.E. Burns, S.W. Dusza, T.M. Mascarenhas, and T.O.
Talbot. 2001. Serologic evidence for
Komar, N., S. Langevin,
S. Hinten, N. Nemeth, E. Edwards, D. Hettler, B. Davis, R. Bowen, and M.
Bunning. 2003. Experimental infection of North American
birds with the
Kuntz
II, R.C. and R.G. Christophersen.
1996. A survey of the northern
spotted owl in North Cascades National Park Service Complex. NPS Technical Report NPS/CCSONOCA/NRTR-96/05.
Lahaye, W.S., and R.J.
Gutierrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the
northern spotted owl in northwestern
Lahaye, W.S., R.J.
Guiterrez, and J.R. Dunk. 2001. Natal dispersion of the spotted owl in
southern
Laidig, K.J., and D.S.
Dobkin. 1995. Spatial overlap and habitat association of
Barred Owls and Great Horned Owls in southern
Leskiw, T., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a Spotted Owl by a Barred Owl. Western Birds 29:225–226.
Luginbuhl J.M., J.M. Marzluff, J.E. Bradley, M.G. Raphael,
and D.E. Varland. 2001. Corvid survey techniques and the relationship
between corvid relative abundance and nest predation. Journal of Field Ornithology 72(4):556-572.
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(5):393-402.
McGarigal,
K., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs.
1991. Interactions of humans and
bald eagles on the
Meiman, S., R. Anthony,
E. Glenn, T. Bayless, A. Ellingson, C. Smith, M.C. Hansen. In Press. JB: 2004. Effects of commercial thinning on home range
and habitat use patterns of a male northern spotted owl: a case study.
Meyer, J.S., Irwin, L.L.,
and M.S. Boyce. 1998. Influence of habitat abundance and
fragmentation on northern spotted owls in western
Miller,
G.S., R.J. Small, and E.C. Meslow.
1997. Habitat Selection by
Spotted Owls During
Miller, G.S. 1989.
Dispersal of juvenile northern spotted owls in western
North, M.P., J.F.
Franklin, A.B. Carey, E.D. Forsman, and T. Hamer. 1999.
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
Olson, G.S., E. Glenn, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, J.A.
Reid, P.J. Loschl, and W.J. Ripple. In
Press. Modeling demographic
performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF).
Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature vol. 421: 37-42.
Paton, P., C. Zabel, B.
Bingham, H. Sakai, and C. Ogan.
1990. Examination of home-range
size and habitat use of the spotted owl in the
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. J. Raptor Res., 37(4): 265-276.
Perkins,
J.P.
Pidgeon,
A.M. 1995. Habitat characteristics of northern spotted
owls in the unmanaged forest of the Yakama Indian Reservation, eastern
Washington. M.S. thesis,
Ripple,
W.J., P.D. Lattin, K.T. Hershey, F.F. Wagner, and E.C. Meslow. 1997. Landscape
composition and pattern around northern spotted owl nest sites in southwest
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
Rohlf, D. J. 1989.
The endangered species act, a guide to its protections and
implementation. Stanford Environmental
Law Society,
Roylance, F.D. 2002.
West Nile virus and raptors die-off. The
Sisco, C. L., and R. J.
Gutierrez. 1984. Winter ecology of radio-tagged spotted owls
on the
Sisco, C.L. 1990.
Seasonal home range and habitat ecology of spotted owls in northwestern
Solis, D. M. 1983. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted
owls in
Sovern, S.G., E.D. Forsman, B.L. Biswell, D.N. Rolph, and M.
Taylor. 1994. Diurnal behavior of the spotted owl in
Stalmaster,
M.V., R.L. Knight, B.L. Holder, and R.J. Anderson. 1985.
Bald eagles. Pages 270-290 in
E.R. Brown, tech. ed. Management of
wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western
Swarthout, E.C. and R.J. Steidl. 2001. Flush responses of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. Journal of 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 Oregon Cascade Mountains,
Taylor, A. L., and E. D.
Forsman. 1976. Recent range extension of the barred owl in
western
Tesh, R.B. 2003.
Cross immunity -
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
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.
Thrailkill, J.A., R.G.
Anthony, E.C. Meslow, J.P. Perkins and R.J. Steidl. 1998. Demography and
habitat associations of the spotted owl on the Eugene District Bureau of Land
Management, Central Oregon Coast Ranges.
Ting, T.F. 1998. The
thermal environment of northern spotted owls in northwestern
Province fiscal year 1999 habitat modification biological
assessment for effects to listed species.
U.S. Department of the
Interior and
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004.
Northern spotted owl consultation effects tracker. Region 1 internal website,
Verner, J., R.J. Gutiérrez,
and G.I. Gould, Jr. 1992. The
Ward, J.W. Jr., R.J. Gutierrez, and B.R. Noon. 1998. Habitat selection by northern spotted owls: the consequences of prey selection and distribution. Condor 100: 79-92.
Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife. 1990. Working implementation plan for bald
eagle recovery in
Weathers, W.W., P.J.
Hodum, and J.A. Blakesley. 2001. Thermal ecology and ecological energetics of
Wiedemeier, D.J. and S.P. Horton. 2000. Trends in spotted owl and barred owl detections in the Olympic Experimental State Forest from 1991 to 1999. Northwestern Naturalist 81(3):63.
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 (USA). Ecological Applications 13(4):1027-1040.
Zabel, C.J., M. Brown, T. Hines, D. Thome, A. Wright, J.R.
Dunk, C. Organ, and L. Leeman. 2001.
Habitat associations of the northern spotted owl in the Coos Bay BLM
District, Oregon. Final Report. USDA
For. Serv. Pac.Southwest Res. Sta., Redwood Sciences Lab,
Appendix
A. Unit Specific Data for the
Table 1a.
Resource Area or Ranger Dist
/Province |
5th Field Watershed |
Project Name |
Proposed Treatment |
Acres (unless otherwise noted) |
Land Use Allocation (LSR #) |
Critical Habitat (acres/CHU#
/LUA) |
Habitat Type |
Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove |
Effect |
|
N/A |
Down Salvage |
Down Salvage |
75 |
GFMA/CONN |
N/A |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA-Hab Mod |
|
N/A |
Individual
Tree Removal |
Individual Tree
Removal |
30 trees |
GFMA/CONN |
N/A |
Suitable |
Degrade |
LAA-Hab Mod
(50 trees) |
|
1709000304 1709000302 1709000109 1709000407 |
Aster vialis restoration |
Light-mod
thinning |
15 |
GFMA |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA- Hab
Mod NLAA-
Disturb |
|
1709000407 |
Cash Creek Meadow Restoration |
Light-mod
thinning |
10 |
GFMA |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA- Hab
Mod NLAA-
Disturb |
|
1709000407 |
Upper Cash
Creek (Belly Acres) TS |
Light-mod
thinning |
550 150 |
GFMA/CONN RR |
N/A |
Dispersal Dispersal |
Degrade Degrade |
NLAA- Hab
Mod |
|
1709000302 |
Bear Creek
TS |
Light-mod
thinning |
300 90 145 |
AMA AMA-RR AMA |
OR-16 |
Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal |
Degrade Degrade Degrade |
NLAA-Hab Mod NLAA-
Disturb NLAA Hab Mod NLAA-
Disturb |
|
170900020 |
|
Light-mod
thinning |
375 200 |
CONN (AOC)* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA-Hab Mod |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1709000302 |
Rowdy Camp |
Light-mod
thinning |
675 440 75 |
GFMA/CONN RR GFMA/CONN |
N/A |
Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal |
Degrade Degrade Degrade |
NLAA- Hab
Mod NLAA-
Disturb NLAA Hab Mod NLAA-
Disturb |
|
Unknown |
Unknown |
Light-mod
thinning |
300 200 |
GFMA/CONN RR |
N/A |
Dispersal Dispersal |
Degrade Degrade |
NLAA- Hab
Mod NLAA-
Disturb |
*
Within the South Willamette-North
Table 3a.
|
Total |
Total Protected1 |
(% of total)1 |
Total Unprotected |
(% of total)2 |
Acres within
Boundary3 |
1,070,800 |
95,500 |
9% |
975,300 |
91% |
Acres of
Ownership4 |
152,500 |
95,500 |
63% |
57,000 |
37% |
Suitable
Habitat - Capable Acres5 |
146,500 |
89,500 |
61% |
57,000 |
39% |
Suitable
Habitat – Current Acres |
35,700 |
28,000 |
78% |
7,700 |
22% |
Spotted Owl
Activity Centers6 |
81 |
20 |
25% |
61 |
75% |
Spotted Owl
Activity Centers >40%7 |
11 |
5 |
45% |
6 |
55% |
Spotted Owl
Activity Centers 30-40%8 |
5 |
2 |
40% |
3 |
60% |
Spotted Owl
Activity Centers <30%9 |
65 |
13 |
20% |
52 |
80% |
1 Acres in
this column are composed of: Late
Successional Reserves (LSR), 100-acre LSRs, Congressionally Withdrawn Areas,
Riparian Reserves, District Designated Reserves, and Scenic Area Open Spaces.
Spotted owl data are composed of LSR and wildernesses only. These figures
include those owl activity centers whose centers fall within the LSR or the
wilderness. The 1.2 mile radius surrounding the activity center may actually
extend into unprotected areas.
2 Acres in this
column are composed of: Matrix, Adaptive
Management Areas, and Administratively Withdrawn Areas. Administratively
withdrawn areas are included in the unprotected column because technically
these areas are not designed to provide spotted owl habitat but rather to serve
some other function such as “recreation and visual areas, back country, and
other areas where management emphasis precludes scheduled timber harvest”
(Record of Decision A-4). The respective administrative land and resource management
plans may protect and/or reduce the likelihood that spotted owl habitat located
within Administratively withdrawn areas would be modified. Spotted owl data are
composed of everything but LSR and wilderness data.
3 Acres include
both private and federal lands.
4 Federal land
only.
5 Acres that are
either currently suitable spotted owl habitat or have the potential to become
suitable in the future. Suitable habitat is defined as nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat.
6 Spotted owl
activity center data are not current. They are primarily based on 1996
analyses.
7 Spotted owl
activity centers with greater than or equal to 1182 acres of suitable habitat
within a 1.2 mile radius.
8 Spotted owl
activity centers that have between 886 and 1182 acres of suitable habitat
within a 1.2 mile radius.
9 Spotted owl
activity centers with less than 886 acres of suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile
radius.
** Some
cells updated to reflect changes due to past harvest, land exchanges, and
updated GIS databases, or new locations of spotted owl activity centers.
Table 5a. Late-successional
reserves and associated northern spotted owl habitat, Eugene BLM- CY2005-2006
Late Successional Reserves |
Total Acres |
Total Capable Acres1 |
SUITABLE Acres2 |
SUITABLE % of Capable |
RO222 |
23,700 |
22,800 |
12,800 |
56% |
1 Those acres that are
either currently suitable spotted owl habitat of have the potential to become
suitable in the future. Suitable habitat is defined as nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat. 2 Nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat. |
Table 7a. Eugene BLM Acres of spotted owl suitable
habitat* actually removed or downgraded
(Awarded and Pending Sales)
Fiscal Year |
BO Number |
Acres of
suitable (NRF) habitat removed or downgraded |
1995 |
1071995F290 |
170 |
1996 |
1071996F207 |
516 |
1997 |
1071996F459 |
812 |
1998 |
1071997F396 |
355 |
1999 |
1071998F381 |
15 |
2000 |
1072000F155 |
0 |
2001 |
None |
0 |
2002 |
1072002F200 |
0 |
2003 |
1072003F0008 |
45 |
2004** |
1072003F0008 |
0 |
Total 1995-2004 |
1913 (5.36%) |
|
2005-2006 |
Proposed |
0 |
Total actual,
anticipated and proposed 1995-2006 |
1913 (5.36%) |
|
* Current northern spotted owl suitable
habitat in the ** 2004 acres are anticipated to be sold by the
end of the CY. |
Table
8a. Current status of Critical Habitat
Units by Northwest Forest Plan allocation
|
Matrix Acres |
Adaptive Management Area Acres |
Late Successional Reserve Acres |
Administrative Withdrawn Acres |
Congressionally Withdrawn Acres |
Total
Acres |
OR-16 (BLM only) |
||||||
Suitable |
0 |
2062 |
110 |
0 |
0 |
2172 |
Dispersal |
0 |
1594 |
102 |
0 |
0 |
1696 |
Capable
– Currently non-habitat |
0 |
640 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
640 |
Non-Capable* |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Totals |
0 |
4296 |
212 |
0 |
0 |
4508 |
OR-20 (BLM only) |
||||||
Suitable |
2200 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2200 |
Dispersal |
4600 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4600 |
Capable
– Currently non-habitat |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
Non-Capable* |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Totals |
6812 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6812 |
OR-21 |
||||||
Suitable |
495 |
0 |
347 |
0 |
0 |
842 |
Dispersal |
279 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
279 |
Capable
– Currently non-habitat |
900 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
900 |
Non-Capable* |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Totals |
1674 |
0 |
347 |
0 |
0 |
2021 |
OR-22 |
||||||
Suitable |
456 |
0 |
259 |
0 |
0 |
715 |
Dispersal |
2354 |
0 |
110 |
0 |
0 |
2464 |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
2172 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2172 |
Non-Capable* |
39 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
39 |
Totals |
5021 |
0 |
369 |
0 |
0 |
5390 |
OR-23 |
||||||
Suitable |
210 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
210 |
Dispersal |
2379 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2379 |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
1117 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1117 |
Non-Capable* |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
Totals |
3710 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3710 |
OR-25 |
||||||
Suitable |
1728 |
0 |
12556 |
0 |
0 |
14284 |
Dispersal |
266 |
0 |
972 |
0 |
0 |
1238 |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
1918 |
0 |
8725 |
0 |
0 |
10643 |
Non-Capable* |
22 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
23 |
Totals |
3934 |
0 |
22254 |
0 |
0 |
26188 |
Table 12a. Effects to northern spotted owl suitable and
dispersal habitat (acres), Eugene BLM - CY2005-2006
|
Matrix1 |
AMA
RR |
Riparian Reserves2 |
Late-Successional Reserves3 |
Total |
|||||||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
||||||
Suitable |
||||||||||||||
Remove |
0 |
- |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
- |
||||
Downgrade |
- |
- |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||||
Degrade |
75 |
30 |
- |
|
50 |
- |
- |
20 |
125 |
50 |
||||
Total Suitable Habitat |
75 |
30 |
- |
|
50 |
- |
- |
20 |
125 |
50 |
||||
Dispersal
Habitat |
||||||||||||||
Remove |
75 |
- |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
75 |
- |
||||
Degrade |
2,025 |
30 |
535 |
90 |
990 |
- |
- |
20 |
3550 |
50 |
||||
Total Dispersal Habitat |
2,100 |
30 |
535 |
90 |
990 |
- |
- |
20 |
3625 |
50 |
||||
Grand Total |
2,175 |
80 |
535 |
90 |
1,040 |
- |
- |
40 |
3750 |
100 |
||||
1
This includes administratively withdrawn areas. 2 Not
associated with LSRs. 3 Includes
associated Riparian Reserves |
||||||||||||||
Table 13a. Effects to northern spotted owl habitat by
activity type1, Eugene BLM - CY2005-2006
Harvest Method |
Suitable |
Dispersal |
Total |
||||||
Remove |
Downgrade |
Degrade4 |
Remove/ Downgrade2 |
Degrade4 |
Acres |
Trees |
|||
Acres |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
|||
Regeneration |
- |
- |
- |
- |
75 |
- |
- |
75 |
- |
Heavy Thin |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Light-Moderate Thin |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3450 |
- |
3450 |
- |
Down Salvage) |
- |
- |
125 |
- |
- |
100 |
- |
225 |
- |
Individual Tree Removal |
- |
- |
- |
50 |
- |
- |
50 |
- |
100 |
Total |
- |
- |
125 |
50 |
75 |
3550 |
50 |
3750 |
100 |
1 See Table 1
in the body of the biological assessment. |
Table 16a. Anticipated
levels of affect (acres) to northern spotted owl critical habitat due to
proposed habitat modifications, Eugene BLM - CY2005-2006
Action |
Matrix* |
Adaptive Management Areas |
Late-Successional Reserves |
Riparian Reserves (outside
late-successional reserves) |
Total |
Suitable
Habitat |
|||||
Remove |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Degrade |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Dispersal
Habitat |
|||||
Remove |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
|
Degrade |
0 |
535 |
0 |
0 |
535 |
Total |
0 |
535 |
0 |
0 |
535 |
*
This includes administratively withdrawn areas. |
Table 17a. Effects
to northern spotted owl critical habitat units (acres), Eugene BLM - CY2005-2006
Critical Habitat Unit |
Suitable Habitat1 |
Dispersal Habitat |
TotalAcres |
|||
Remove |
Downgrade |
Degrade |
Remove/ Downgraded |
Degrade |
||
OR-16 |
- |
- |
- |
|
535 |
535 |
OR-20 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
OR-21 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
OR-22 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
OR-23 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
OR-25 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Total |
- |
- |
- |
|
535 |
535 |
1 Nesting, roosting, and foraging
[This page
intentionally left blank.]
Appendix B. Unit
Specific Data for the Cascades
Resource Area, Salem District, BLM
Table 1b.
Cascades Resource Area, Salem BLM, CY 2005-2006, Proposed projects
5th.
Field Watershed |
Project |
Proposed
Treatment 1 |
Acres
(Trees) |
LUA |
Critical
Habitat (include
Acres/ underlying
LUA |
Habitat
Type |
Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove |
Effect
2 |
CY
2005 Timber Sales |
||||||||
Molalla |
B Cubed (Best Bauer) CY04 Carry over |
Heavy Thin / Density Mgmt. |
650 |
MX |
N/A |
NRF |
Remove |
LAA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Hillock FY04 Carry over |
Light to Moderate Thin |
270 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
Middle Clackamas |
Hillock FY04 Carry over |
Light to Moderate Thin |
230 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
|
||||||||
Butte Creek |
|
Heavy Thin |
50 |
MX |
N/A |
NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
Butte Creek |
|
Light to Moderate Thin |
500 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
Molalla |
|
Light to Moderate Thin |
200 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
|
||||||||
Mill Creek |
AG47 |
Light to Moderate Thin |
100 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
|
AG47 |
Light to Moderate Thin |
350 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
Little |
AG47 |
Light to Moderate Thin |
75 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
|
||||||||
|
Thomas Crab FY04 Carry over |
Light to Moderate Thin |
80 |
LSR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
5th.
Field Watershed |
Project |
Proposed
Treatment 1 |
Acres
(Trees) |
LUA |
Critical
Habitat (include
Acres/ underlying
LUA |
Habitat
Type |
Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove |
Effect
2 |
CY
2006 Timber Sales |
||||||||
Middle |
Snake Creek |
Light to Moderate Thin |
300 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
Middle |
Snake Creek |
Light to Moderate Thin |
20 |
LSR/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
Middle |
Snake Creek |
Regen |
30 |
MX |
N/A |
NRF |
Remove |
LAA |
Middle |
Snake Creek |
Heavy Thin |
20 |
MX |
N/A |
NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
|
||||||||
Middle |
|
Heavy Thin |
30 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
Middle |
|
Light to Moderate Thin |
60 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
Little |
|
Light to Moderate Thin |
620 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
Little |
|
Regen |
45 |
MX |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
5th.
Field Watershed |
Project |
Proposed
Treatment 1 |
Acres
(Trees) |
LUA |
Critical
Habitat (include
Acres/ underlying
LUA |
Habitat
Type |
Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove |
Effect
2 |
CY
2006 Timber Sales (continued) |
||||||||
|
Annie’s
Cabin |
Heavy
Thin |
250 |
MX |
N/A |
NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
|
Annie’s
Cabin |
Light
to Moderate Thin |
1100 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
|
||||||||
Rock Cr. / |
|
Heavy
Thin |
60 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
Rock Cr. / |
|
Light
to Moderate Thin |
1000 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
|
||||||||
Crabtree Creek |
Round Mountain |
Light
to Moderate Thin |
620 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
Crabtree Creek |
Round Mountain |
Heavy
Thin |
40 |
MX |
N/A |
NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
|
Round Mountain |
Light
to Moderate Thin |
40 |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
|
Round Mountain |
Heavy
Thin |
20 |
MX |
N/A |
NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
CY 2005 and CY
2006 Miscellaneous Projects |
||||||||
multiple locations |
Phellinus Treatment |
Regen |
20 |
MX |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
multiple locations |
Salvage |
Down Salvage |
50 |
MX |
OR-12, 5 acres, MX OR-14, 5 acres, MX |
NRF |
Degrade |
LAA |
multiple locations |
Salvage |
Down Salvage |
50 |
MX |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
multiple locations |
Hazard Trees |
Individual Tree Removal |
100 trees |
MX/RR |
N/A |
NRF |
Degrade |
LAA |
5th.
Field Watershed |
Project |
Proposed
Treatment 1 |
Acres
(Trees) |
LUA |
Critical
Habitat (include
Acres/ underlying
LUA |
Habitat
Type |
Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove |
Effect
2 |
multiple locations |
Hazard Trees |
Individual Tree Removal |
100 trees |
LSR/RR RO208, RO209, RO212, RO213, RO246 |
OR-12, 50 trees OR-14, 50 trees |
NRF |
Degrade |
LAA, hab mod & disturb |
multiple locations |
Snag Creation, Topping, Girdling |
Terrestrial Habitat Improvement |
500 acres up to 8 trees/ acre |
LSR/RR* RO208, RO209, RO246 and owl core areas |
OR-12 |
NRF |
Degrade |
NLAA, seasonal restriction applied |
multiple locations |
Snag Creation, Topping, Girdling |
Terrestrial Habitat Improvement |
200 acres up to 4 trees/ acre |
MX/RR* |
N/A |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
multiple locations |
Fish Projects |
Individual Tree Removal |
25 sites 100 trees |
MX/RR, LSR RO209, RO212 |
OR-12, 100 trees |
NRF |
Degrade |
NLAA, seasonal restriction
applied |
multiple locations |
ERFO or Road Repair Projects |
Individual Tree Removal |
50 trees |
LSR/RR,
RO209,RO212, RO213 |
OR-12, 25 trees OR-14, 25 trees |
NRF |
Degrade |
LAA |
multiple locations |
ERFO or Road Repair Projects |
Individual Tree Removal |
100 trees |
LSR/RR,
RO209,RO212, RO213 |
OR-12, 50 trees OR-14, 50 trees |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
Mollalla |
Small Meadow Restoration (NFP) |
Under Burn, Conifer
Tree Felling |
100 |
MX and LSR RO209, RO213 |
OR-12, OR-14 |
Non-capable |
Not Applicable |
LAA, disturb from smoke in adjacent NRF
habitat |
*
Treatments in LSR and RR that may have short term effects of degrading
habitat, but have intermediate to long term beneficial effects to the
development of suitable habitat. When treatments are planned for MX/RR,
approximately 28 percent of the total acres are estimated to occur in RR. 1 Seasonal restriction
from March 1 through July 15 is planned for modification of NRF habitat, with
the exception of Individual Tree Removal. The seasonal restriction can be
waived if protocol surveys are conducted, and nesting spotted owls are not
found. 2 LAA = Likely to
adversely affect; NLAA = Not likely
to adversely affect |
Table 3b. Cascades Resource Area, Salem BLM, CY
2005-2006, Status of the northern spotted owl and its habitat**.
|
Total |
Total
Protected 1 |
Percent
of total 1 |
Total
Unprotected2 |
Percentof
total 2 |
Acres within
Boundary3 |
3,190,795 |
112,906 |
4% |
3,077,889 |
96% |
Acres of
Ownership4 |
169,056 |
112,906 |
67% |
56,150 |
33% |
Suitable
Habitat - Capable Acres5 |
161,746 |
108,006 |
67% |
53,740 |
33% |
Suitable
Habitat – Current Acres |
70,870 |
54,530 |
77% |
16,340 |
23% |
Spotted Owl
Activity Centers9 |
47 |
30 |
64% |
17 |
36% |
Spotted Owl Activity
Centers >40%6 |
24 |
21 |
88% |
3 |
12% |
Spotted Owl
Activity Centers 30-40%7 |
7 |
6 |
86% |
1 |
14% |
Spotted Owl
Activity Centers <30%8 |
16 |
3 |
19% |
13 |
81% |
1 Acres in this
column are composed of LSR, 100-acre LSRs, Congressionally Withdrawn Areas,
Riparian Reserves, District Designated Reserves, and Scenic Area Open Spaces.
Spotted owl data are composed of LSR and wildernesses only. These figures
include those owl activity centers whose centers fall within the LSR or the
wilderness. The 1.2 mile radius surrounding the activity center may actually
extend into unprotected areas. 2 Federal Acres and
spotted owl data in this column are composed of Matrix, Adaptive Management
Areas, and Administratively Withdrawn Areas. Administratively Withdrawn Areas
are included in the unprotected column because technically these areas are
not designed to provide spotted owl habitat but rather to serve some other
function such as “recreation and visual areas, back country, and other areas
where management emphasis precludes scheduled timber harvest” (Record of
Decision A-4). The respective administrative land and resource management
plans may protect and/or reduce the likelihood that spotted owl habitat
located within Administratively Withdrawn Areas would be modified. 3 Acres include both
private and federal lands. 4 Federal land only. 5 Those acres that
are either currently suitable spotted owl habitat or have the potential to
become suitable in the future. 6 Spotted owl
activity centers with greater than or equal to 1,182 acres of suitable
habitat within a 1.2 mile radius. 7 Spotted owl
activity centers that have between 886 and 1,182 acres of suitable habitat
within a 1.2 mile radius. 8 Spotted owl
activity centers with less than 886 acres of suitable habitat within a 1.2
mile radius. 9 Based on most
current data ranging from 1993 to 2004. ** Some cells updated to reflect changes due to
past harvest, land exchanges, and updated GIS databases, or new locations of
spotted owl activity centers. |
Table 5b. Cascades Resource Area, Salem BLM, CY
2005-2006, Late-successional reserves and associated northern spotted owl
habitat
Late Successional Reserves |
Total
Acres |
Total
Capable Acres |
NRF
Acres |
NRF
% of Capable |
RO208 |
6,297 |
6,185 |
4,395 |
71% |
RO209 |
17,639 |
16,715 |
9,910 |
59% |
R0209A |
1,220 |
1,217 |
615 |
51% |
RO212 |
3,880 |
3,774 |
2,439 |
65% |
RO213 |
26,523 |
25,069 |
14,889 |
59% |
RO246 |
2,388 |
2,260 |
1,672 |
74% |
TOTAL |
57,947 |
55,220 |
33,920 |
61% |
Table 6b. Cascades
Resource Area, Salem BLM, CY 2005-2006, LSR/wilderness complexes and associated
northern spotted owl habitat
Late Successional Reserve/ Wilderness |
Total
Acres |
Total
Capable Acres |
NRF
Acres |
NRF
% of Capable |
RO209/ Table
Rock Wilderness |
23,439 |
22,515 |
14,910 |
66% |
Table 7b. Cascades Resource Area, Salem BLM, CY
2005-2006, Acres of northern spotted owl suitable habitat actually removed or
downgraded**.
Fiscal Year |
Biological Opinion Number |
Acres of suitable (NRF) habitat*
removed or downgraded |
1995 |
1071995F290 |
0 |
1996 |
1071996F207 |
200 |
1997 |
1071996F459 |
640 |
1998 |
1071997F396 |
211 |
1999 |
1071998F381 |
0 |
2000 |
1072000F155 |
85 |
2001 |
None |
0 |
2002 |
1072002F200 |
10 |
2003 |
1072003F008 |
10 |
2004 |
1072003F008 |
995** |
Sub-Total 1995-2004 |
2,151 |
|
2005-2006 |
Proposed |
1,170 |
TOTAL ACTUAL,
ANTICIPATED AND PROPOSED |
3,321 |
|
*
Current northern spotted owl suitable habitat in the Cascades Resource Area =
70,870 acres. **
Includes acreage anticipated to be sold and/or awarded, but not harvested. |
Table 8b. Cascades
Resource Area, Salem BLM - Current status of Critical Habitat Units by Northwest Forest Plan Land Use Allocation
NSO Habitat Type |
Matrix Acres |
Adaptive Management Area Acres |
Late Successional Reserve Acres |
Administrative Withdrawn Acres |
Congressionally Withdrawn Acres * |
Total Acres |
OR-10 ( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
139 |
|
|
|
|
139 |
Dispersal |
6 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
56 |
|
|
|
|
56 |
Non-Capable |
9 |
|
|
|
|
9 |
Totals |
210 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
210 |
OR-12 ( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
552 |
|
9,168 |
|
4,974 |
14,694 |
Dispersal |
408 |
|
1,444 |
|
349 |
2,201 |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
842 |
|
5,586 |
|
68 |
6,496 |
Non-Capable |
82 |
|
1,060 |
|
308 |
1,450 |
Totals |
1,884 |
0 |
17,258 |
0 |
5,699 |
24,841 |
OR-14 ( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
4,325 |
|
17,680 |
39 |
|
22,044 |
Dispersal |
1,122 |
|
467 |
|
|
1,589 |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
2,841 |
|
11,071 |
|
|
13,912 |
Non-Capable |
359 |
|
1,602 |
2 |
|
1,963 |
Totals |
8,647 |
0 |
30,820 |
41 |
0 |
39,508 |
Table 12b. Cascades
Resource Area, Salem BLM, CY 2005-2006, Effects to northern spotted owl
suitable and dispersal habitat
Action |
Matrix1 |
Riparian Reserves – Matrix3 |
AMA |
RR-AMA3 |
Late Successional Reserves2 |
Total |
||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
Suitable Habitat |
||||||||||
Remove4 |
680 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
680 |
- |
Downgrade5 |
380 |
- |
90 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
470 |
- |
Degrade6 |
50 |
|
- |
100 |
- |
- |
500 |
250 |
550 |
350 |
Total Suitable |
1100 |
|
90 |
100 |
- |
- |
500 |
250 |
1700 |
350 |
Dispersal Habitat |
||||||||||
Remove/
Downgrade4 |
65 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
65 |
- |
Degrade6 |
50 |
- |
5665 |
- |
- |
- |
100 |
100 |
5815 |
100 |
Total Dispersal |
115 |
- |
5665 |
- |
- |
- |
100 |
100 |
5880 |
100 |
|
||||||||||
GRAND TOTAL |
1225 |
50 |
5775 |
50 |
- |
- |
600 |
350 |
7580 |
450 |
1 Includes
administratively withdrawn areas. 2 LSR – includes
associated riparian reserves. 3 RR – outside Late
Successional Reserves. 4 Remove means to
eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. 5 Downgrade means to
change the functionality of spotted owl habitat from suitable to dispersal. 6 Degrade means to
affect the quality of, but not remove the functionality of this type of
habitat. |
Table 13b. Cascades Resource Area, Salem BLM, CY
2005-2006, Effects to northern spotted owl habitat by activity type
Proposed
Treatment |
Suitable Habitat |
Dispersal Habitat |
Total |
||||||
Remove |
Downgrade |
Degrade |
Remove |
Degrade |
|||||
Acres |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
Regeneration |
30 |
- |
- |
- |
65 |
- |
- |
95 |
- |
Heavy Thinning |
650 |
470 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1140 |
- |
Light to Moderate Thinning |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5565 |
- |
5565 |
- |
Down Salvage |
- |
- |
50 |
- |
- |
50 |
- |
100 |
- |
Individual Tree Removal |
- |
- |
- |
350 |
- |
- |
100 |
|
450 |
Underburning |
- |
- |
|
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Terrestrial Habitat Enhancement |
- |
- |
500 |
- |
- |
200 |
- |
700 |
- |
Total |
680 |
470 |
550 |
350 |
65 |
5815 |
100 |
7600 |
450 |
Table
16b. Cascades Resource Area, Salem BLM,
CY 2005-2006, Anticipated levels of affect to northern spotted owl critical
habitat due to proposed habitat modifications
Action |
Matrix1 |
Riparian Reserves – Matrix3 |
AMA |
RR-AMA3 |
Late Successional Reserves2 |
Total |
||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
Suitable Habitat |
||||||||||
Remove4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Downgrade5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Degrade6 |
10 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
500 |
250 |
510 |
250 |
Total Suitable |
10 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
500 |
250 |
510 |
250 |
Dispersal Habitat |
||||||||||
Remove/ Downgrade4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Degrade6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
100 |
- |
100 |
Total Dispersal |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
100 |
- |
100 |
|
||||||||||
GRAND TOTAL |
10 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
500 |
350 |
510 |
350 |
1 Includes
Administratively withdrawn areas. 2 LSR – includes
associated riparian reserves. 3 RR – outside Late
Successional Reserves. 4 Remove means to
eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. 5 Downgrade means to change
the functionality of spotted owl habitat from suitable to dispersal. 6 Degrade means to
affect the quality of, but not remove the functionality of this type of
habitat. |
Table 17b. Cascades
Resource Area, Salem BLM, CY 2005-2006, Effects to northern spotted owl
critical habitat units
Critical Habitat Unit |
Suitable Habitat |
Dispersal Habitat |
Total |
||||||
Remove |
Downgrade |
Degrade |
Remove |
Degrade |
|||||
Acres |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
OR-12 |
- |
- |
505 |
175 |
- |
- |
50- |
505 |
225- |
OR-14 |
- |
- |
5 |
75- |
- |
- |
50- |
5 |
125- |
Total |
- |
- |
510 |
250 |
- |
- |
100 |
510 |
350 |
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Appendix C. Unit Specific Data for the
Unit
Specific Data for the
Table 1c. Proposed
projects for the Mt Hood National Forest CY2005-2006.
5TH
Field Watershed |
Project |
Proposed Treatment |
Acres |
Land Use Allocation |
Critical Habitat
Unit |
Habitat Type |
Degrade/ Downgrade/
Remove |
Effect |
||
Hab Mod |
Disturbance |
|||||||||
|
District-wide |
Misc. Salvage Thinning |
Heavy thin |
125 ac |
Unknown – Assume in Matrix-RR |
Unknown – Assume in OR-10 |
Unknown Assume in NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
LAA |
|
No Whiskey Timber |
Lt./mod thin |
1197 ac |
Matrix |
All |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
All |
|
South Fork Clackamas & Clear Creek |
South Fork Timber |
Lt./mod thin |
301 ac |
Matrix |
All |
All |
301 ac |
All |
All |
|
|
Collawash Timber |
Lt./mod thin |
163 ac |
Matrix |
None |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
All |
|
|
Mutt Timber |
Lt./mod thin |
90 ac |
Matrix |
All OR-10 |
All Dispersal |
Degrade |
All NLAA |
NLAA |
|
District-wide |
Hazard Tree Removal |
Individual Tree Removal |
1500 trees |
Unknown – Assume in LSR |
Unknown – Assume in OR-10 |
NRF |
Degrade |
LAA |
LAA |
|
|
District -
Wide |
Misc.
Salvage/ Thinning |
Heavy Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin |
50 acres 50 acres 50 acres 25 acres 25 acres 25 acres 400 acres 400 acres 100 acres 100 acres |
Matrix Matrix Matrix RR RR RR Matrix Matrix RR RR |
None |
NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF Disp Disp Disp Disp |
Downgrade Remove Degrade Downgrade Remove Remove Degrade Remove Degrade |
LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA |
LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA |
Zig |
District-wide |
Hazard Tree
Removal |
Individual
Tree Removal |
1500 trees |
Unknown –
Assume in LSR |
Unknown –
Assume in OR-1 |
NRF |
Degrade |
LAA |
LAA |
|
Hazard Tree
Removal – Hwy 26 Summer Homes |
Individual
Tree Removal |
150 trees |
RR-Matrix |
None |
NRF |
Degrade |
NLAA |
LAA |
|
|
Wildcat
Timber |
Lt./mod thin |
170 ac |
Matrix |
All OR-10 |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
All LAA |
|
District-wide |
Misc.
Salvage Thinning |
Heavy thin |
125 ac |
Unknown –
Assume in Matrix-RR |
Unknown –
Assume in OR-1 |
Unknown
Assume in NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
LAA |
|
|
Government |
Heavy thin |
40 ac |
Matrix |
None |
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
LAA |
|
|
Government
Camp Trails Project |
Lt/Mod
Thin |
0.8 acres 0.2 acres 0.8 acres 0.2 acres 6 acres 2 acres 6 acres 2
acres |
Matrix RR-Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix |
None |
Dispersal Dispersal NRF NRF Dispersal Dispersal NRF NRF |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NA |
|
The City of |
South Mill |
The City of |
Mod. Thin Light thin Light Thin |
20 ac 19 ac 8 ac |
City land |
None |
Disp Disp NRF |
Remove Degrade Degrade |
LAA NLAA NLAA |
NLAA NLAA NLAA |
Zigzag RD |
District -
Wide |
Misc.
Salvage/ Thinning |
Heavy Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin |
25 acres 25 acres 25 acres 15 acres 15 acres 15 acres 200 acres 200 acres 50
acres 50
acres |
Matrix Matrix Matrix RR RR RR Matrix Matrix RR RR |
None |
NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF Disp Disp Disp Disp |
Downgrade Remove Degrade Downgrade Remove Remove Degrade Remove Degrade |
LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA |
LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA |
|
Mill Creek |
Mill Creek Planning
Area |
Heavy Thin |
330 ac |
Matrix |
None |
NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
NLAA |
|
Bearknoll
Timber |
LT./Mod Thin |
531 ac |
Matrix |
None: AOC #
2 |
Disp |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
District-wide |
Hazard Tree
Removal |
Ind. Tree
Removal |
1500 trees |
Unknown –
Assume in LSR |
Unknown –
Assume in OR-1 |
NRF |
Degrade |
LAA |
LAA |
|
District-wide |
Misc.
Salvage Thinning |
Heavy thin |
125 ac |
Unknown –
Assume in Matrix-RR |
Unknown –
Assume in OR-1 |
Unknown
Assume in NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
LAA |
|
|
District-Wide |
Misc.
Salvage/ Thinning |
Heavy Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin |
50 acres 50 acres 50 acres 25 acres 25 acres 25 acres 400 acres 400 acres 100 acres 100 acres |
Matrix Matrix Matrix RR RR RR Matrix Matrix RR RR |
None |
NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF Disp Disp Disp Disp |
Downgrade Remove Degrade Downgrade Remove Remove Degrade Remove Degrade |
LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA |
LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA |
|
Badger-Tygh |
Douglas
Cabin Fuels Reduction* |
Heavy Thin |
83 ac |
LSR-RO203 |
OR 1 |
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
All |
District-wide |
Hazard Tree
Removal |
Ind. Tree
Removal |
1500 trees |
Unknown –
Assume in LSR |
Unknown –
Assume in OR-2 |
NRF |
Degrade |
LAA |
LAA |
|
|
District-Wide |
Misc.
Salvage/ Thinning |
Heavy Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin |
50 acres 50 acres 50 acres 25 acres 25 acres 25 acres 400 acres 400 acres 100 acres 100 acres |
Matrix Matrix Matrix RR RR RR Matrix Matrix RR RR |
None |
NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF Disp Disp Disp Disp |
Downgrade Remove Degrade Downgrade Remove Remove Degrade Remove Degrade |
LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA |
LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA |
Mill Creek |
South Mill
Fork Fuels Reduction |
Heavy Thin |
100 ac |
LSR-RO202 |
None |
NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
All |
|
15 Mile
Creek |
8 Mile Creek
Campground Veg. Mgmt. |
Lt./Mod thin |
20 ac |
RR-Matrix |
None |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
District-wide |
Misc.
Salvage Thinning |
Heavy thin |
125 ac |
Unknown –
Assume in Matrix-RR |
Unknown –
Assume in OR-2 |
Unknown
Assume in NRF |
Downgrade |
LAA |
LAA |
* Douglas Cabin Fuels Reduction is primarily within the Douglas Cabin
LSR, which is also CHU OR-1. The LSR assessment was completed in 1998 and
approved by the Regional Ecosystem Office in 1998. This is a very dry, east of
Cascades Mountains LSR with a very high fire risk. Insects have heavily
impacted portions, causing loss and degradation of NRF and dispersal habitat.
Conditions have
deteriorated further since the original analysis in 1998-1999.
Without some level of stocking control to reduce the
susceptibility to insects and to reduce the ladder fuel and fire risk,
significantly more acres of NRF and dispersal habitat will be lost than will
occur with the treatments. All of the NRF that will be lost or downgraded and
dispersal habitat to be lost, will be lost or downgraded without treatment
because of insect attack. However, without treatment the fire hazard would
become extreme. Treatment will simply accelerate the loss by at most 10 years,
but will greatly enhance the likelihood that the remaining habitat can be
protected from catastrophic loss from fire and further insect attack. These
factors were all spelled out in the LSR Assessment. The acres to be treated and
impacts are within the guidelines of that assessment.
** The South Mills Reduction is partially within
the Surveyor’s Ridge LSR. The LSR assessment was completed in 1997 and approved
by the REO in 1997. This area is within the Dalles Municipal Watershed and a
dry eastside fire ecosystem at high risk. Without some level of stocking control
to reduce the susceptibility to insects and to reduce the ladder fuel and fire
risk, significantly more acres of NRF and dispersal habitat will be lost than
will occur with the treatments. The goal of this project would be to alter
vegetation so that the crown fire potential is reduced or eliminated, promote
fire tolerant trees (e.g. Douglas fir, ponderosa pine), maintain water quality
and quantity for the municipal watershed, and reduce the risk of catastrophic
fire loss in the Surveyor’s Ridge LSR.
Table 2c.
Projects for the
Resource Area of Ranger
District/ Province |
5TH Field Watershed |
Project |
Proposed Treatment |
Acres |
Land Use Allocation |
Critical Habitat Unit |
Habitat Type |
Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove |
Effect |
|
Hab Mod |
Disturbance |
|||||||||
|
District-wide |
Hazard Tree
Removals at trail heads, campgrounds, and roadsides |
Individual
Tree Removal |
200 trees |
Unknown –
Assume in LSR |
Unknown – Assume
in OR-9 |
NRF |
Degrade |
LAA |
LAA |
|
|
Individual
Tree Removal |
15 trees |
RR-Matrix |
OR-9 |
NRF |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Table 3c. Status of the northern spotted owl and its
habitat,
|
Total |
Total
Protected1 |
(%
of total)1 |
Total
Unprotected |
(%
of total)2 |
Acres within Boundary3 |
1,065,420 |
640,356 |
60% |
425,064 |
40% |
Acres of Ownership4 |
1,021,733 |
626,596 |
61% |
395,137 |
39% |
Suitable Habitat -
Capable Acres5 |
915,700 |
557,875 |
61% |
357,825 |
39% |
Suitable Habitat –
Current Acres |
404,736 |
279,076 |
69% |
125,660 |
31% |
Spotted Owl Activity
Centers9 |
303 |
141 |
17% |
252 |
83% |
Spotted Owl Activity
Centers >40%6 |
231 |
45 |
19% |
186 |
81% |
Spotted Owl Activity
Centers 30-40%7 |
40 |
5 |
12% |
35 |
88% |
Spotted Owl Activity
Centers <30%8 |
32 |
1 |
3% |
31 |
97% |
* Data is based on 1999
figures 1Acres
in this column are comprised of Late Successional Reserves (LSR), 100-acre
LSRs, Congressionally Withdrawn Areas, Riparian Reserves, District Designated
Reserves, and Scenic Area Open Spaces. Spotted owl data is composed of LSR
and wildernesses only. These figures include those owl activity centers whose
centers fall within LSR or the wilderness. The 1.2 mile radius surrounding
the activity center may extend into unprotected areas. 2Acres
and spotted owl data in this column are comprised of Matrix, Adaptive
Management Areas, and Administratively Withdrawn Areas. Administratively
withdrawn areas are included in the unprotected column because technically
these areas are not designed to provide spotted owl habitat but rather to
serve some other function such as “recreation and visual areas, back country,
and other areas where management emphasis precludes scheduled timber harvest”
(Record of Decision A-4). The respective administrative land and resource
management plans may protect and/or reduce the likelihood that spotted owl
habitat located within Administratively withdrawn areas would be modified.
Spotted owl data is composed of everything but LSR and wilderness data. 3Acres
include both private and federal lands. 4Federal
land only. 5Acres
that are either currently suitable spotted owl habitat or have the potential
to become suitable in the future. Suitable habitat is defined as nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat. 6
Spotted owl activity centers with greater than or equal to 1182 acres of
suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile radius. 7
Spotted owl activity centers that have greater than or equal to 886 and less
than 1182 acres of suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile radius. 8
Spotted owl activity centers with less than 886 acres of suitable habitat
within a 1.2 mile radius. 9
Spotted owl activity centers from 1989-Present, surveyed under current
protocol. Protected spotted owl activity centers are comprised of LSR and
wildernesses only. These figures include those owl activity centers whose
centers fall within the LSR or the wilderness. The 1.2 mile radius
surrounding the activity center may actually extend into unprotected areas. |
Table 4c. Status
of the northern spotted owl and its habitat, CRGNSA10, CY2005-2006.*
crgnsa |
Total |
Total Protected1 |
(% of total)1 |
Total Unprotected |
(% of total)2 |
Acres
within Boundary3 |
97,228 |
42,323 |
43 |
55,405 |
57 |
Acres
of Ownership4 |
42,323 |
41,350 |
98 |
973 |
2 |
Suitable
Habitat - Capable Acres5 |
33,389 |
32,595 |
98 |
794 |
2 |
Suitable
Habitat – Current Acres |
17,878 |
17,657 |
99 |
221 |
1 |
Spotted
Owl Activity Centers9 |
8 |
8 |
100 |
0 |
- |
Spotted
Owl Activity Centers >40%6 |
8 |
8 |
100 |
0 |
- |
Spotted
Owl Activity Centers 30-40%7 |
0 |
0 |
- |
0 |
- |
Spotted
Owl Activity Centers <30%8 |
0 |
0 |
- |
0 |
- |
* Data is based on 1999 figures 1Acres in this column
are comprised of Late Successional Reserves (LSR), 100-acre LSRs,
Congressionally Withdrawn Areas, Riparian Reserves, District Designated
Reserves, and Scenic Area Open Spaces. Spotted owl data is composed of LSR
and wildernesses only. These figures include those owl activity centers whose
centers fall within LSR or the wilderness. The 1.2 mile radius surrounding
the activity center may extend into unprotected areas. 2Acres and spotted owl
data in this column are comprised of Matrix, Adaptive Management Areas, and
Administratively Withdrawn Areas. Administratively withdrawn areas are
included in the unprotected column because technically these areas are not
designed to provide spotted owl habitat but rather to serve some other
function such as “recreation and visual areas, back country, and other areas
where management emphasis precludes scheduled timber harvest” (Record of
Decision A-4). The respective administrative land and resource management
plans may protect and/or reduce the likelihood that spotted owl habitat
located within Administratively withdrawn areas would be modified. Spotted
owl data is composed of everything but LSR and wilderness data. 3Acres include both
private and federal lands. 4Federal land only. 5Acres that are either
currently suitable spotted owl habitat or have the potential to become
suitable in the future. Suitable habitat is defined as nesting, roosting, and
foraging habitat. 6 Spotted owl activity
centers with greater than or equal to 1182 acres of suitable habitat within a
1.2 mile radius. 7 Spotted owl activity
centers that have greater than or equal to 886 and less than 1182 acres of
suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile radius. 8 Spotted owl activity
centers with less than 886 acres of suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile
radius. 9 Spotted owl activity centers from
1989-Present, surveyed under current protocol. Protected spotted owl activity
centers are comprised of LSR and wildernesses only. These figures include
those owl activity centers whose centers fall within the LSR or the
wilderness. The 1.2 mile radius surrounding the activity center may actually
extend into unprotected areas. 10
Figures for the CRGNSA include only the |
Table 5c. Late-successional
reserves and associated northern spotted owl habitat, Mt Hood National Forest/CRGNSA
- CY 2005-2006.
Late-Successional Reserves |
Total Acres |
Total Capable Acres 2 |
NRF Acres 3 |
NRF % of Capable |
RO201 |
108,901 |
106,658 |
58,169 |
55% |
RO202 |
23,719 |
19,698 |
8,850 |
45% |
RO203 |
4,181 |
4,068 |
1,425 |
35% |
RO204 |
34,052 |
30,366 |
15,909 |
52% |
RO205 |
5,296 |
5,139 |
3,698 |
72% |
RO206 |
1,618 |
1,567 |
926 |
59% |
RO207 |
104,108 |
86,942 |
46,395 |
53% |
RO208 |
3,089 |
2,767 |
2,187 |
79% |
RO209 |
8,065 |
8,001 |
4,514 |
56% |
RO210 |
16,172 |
15,605 |
11,602 |
74% |
Total |
309,202 |
280,811 |
205,916 |
73% |
1 Those acres that are either currently
suitable spotted owl habitat of have the potential to become suitable in the
future. Suitable habitat is defined as nesting, roosting and foraging habitat.
2 Nesting, roosting and foraging habitat.
Table 6c. Late-successional
reserves (LSRs)/wilderness complexes and associated northern spotted owl
habitat, Mt Hood National Forest/CRGNSA - CY 2005-2006.
LSR/Wilderness Complex |
Total Acres |
Total Capable Acres 2 |
NRF Acres3 |
NRF% of Capable |
RO201 |
116,839 |
114,141 |
56,587 |
50% |
RO202,
203, 204 |
86,907 |
72,399 |
40,892 |
56% |
RO209,
210 |
50,917 |
45,057 |
26,149 |
58% |
RO205,
206, 207 |
120,287 |
110,233 |
61,476 |
56% |
RO207,
214 |
26,942 |
16,039 |
10,501 |
65% |
|
46,436 |
26,015 |
6,908 |
27% |
Total |
448,328 |
383,885 |
202,512 |
53% |
1Those
acres that are either currently suitable spotted owl habitat of have the
potential to become suitable in the future. Suitable habitat is defined as
nesting, roosting and foraging habitat.
2Nesting,
roosting, and foraging habitat.
3RO207
is an LSR that is composed of 2 larger areas attached via a ‘stringer.’ The
‘top’ portion of RO207 is a part of the RO205, 206, 207/Salmon Huckleberry
Wilderness complex.
Table 7c. Actual
Acres Removed/Downgraded (Awarded and Pending Sales)
Fiscal Year |
BO Number |
Acres of
suitable (NRF) habitat removed or downgraded |
1995 |
1071995F290 |
451 |
1996 |
1071996F207 |
1,354 |
1997 |
1071996F459 |
1,321 |
1998 |
1071997F396 |
543 |
1999 |
1071998F381 |
413 |
2000 |
1072000F155 |
0 |
2001 |
None |
0 |
2002 |
1072002F200 |
0 |
Total Awarded 1995-2002 |
4082 (1.0%)* |
|
2003/2004** |
1072003F0008 |
1,592 |
2005-2006** |
|
2,853 |
Total actual,
anticipated and proposed |
8,527 (2.1%)* |
|
* Current spotted owl habitat on the Mt Hood
National ** Anticipated |
Table 8c. Current status of Critical Habitat Units by
Northwest Forest Plan allocation.
NSO Habitat Type |
Matrix Acres |
Adaptive Management Area Acres |
Late Successional Reserve Acres |
Administratively Withdrawn Acres |
Congressionally Withdrawn Acres |
Total Acres |
OR-1 – |
||||||
Suitable |
6,579 |
0 |
7,255 |
1,591 |
0 |
15,426 (32%) |
Dispersal |
6,366 |
0 |
3,916 |
1,140 |
0 |
11,422 (24%) |
Capable
– Currently non-habitat |
5,945 |
0 |
5,320 |
1,497 |
0 |
12,763 (26%) |
Non-Capable* |
3,055 |
0 |
4,476 |
1,040 |
0 |
8,577 (18%) |
Totals |
21,945
(46%) |
0 |
20,967
(43%) |
5,268
(11%) |
0 |
48,188 |
OR-2 – |
||||||
Suitable |
11,328 |
0 |
2,811 |
876 |
0 |
15,015
(48%) |
Dispersal |
4,555 |
0 |
2,291 |
326 |
0 |
7,172
(23%) |
Capable
– Currently non-habitat |
6,559 |
0 |
776 |
179 |
0 |
7,514
(24%) |
Non-Capable* |
1,291 |
0 |
181 |
56 |
0 |
1,528
(5%) |
Totals |
23,733 |
0 |
6,059 |
1,437 |
0 |
31,190 |
OR-9 – |
||||||
Suitable |
7,938 |
0 |
54,805 |
2,904 |
0 |
65,648
(54%) |
Dispersal |
1,599 |
0 |
27,660 |
3,123 |
0 |
32,383
(27%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
2,251 |
0 |
16,138 |
2,588 |
0 |
20,977
(17%) |
Non-Capable* |
186 |
0 |
1,821 |
139 |
0 |
2,202
(2%) |
Totals |
11,974
(10%) |
0 |
100,424
(83%) |
8,754
(7%) |
0 |
121,210 |
OR-10 – |
||||||
Suitable |
14,478 |
0 |
22,817 |
1,590 |
265 |
39,150
(44%) |
Dispersal |
5,939 |
0 |
10,451 |
395 |
138 |
16,923
(19%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
11,585 |
0 |
9,678 |
779 |
9 |
22,052
(25%) |
Non-Capable* |
1,568 |
0 |
7,953 |
966 |
0 |
10,487
(12%) |
Totals |
33,570
(38%) |
0 |
50,899
(57%) |
3,730
(4%) |
412
(1%) |
88,613 |
|
||||||
OR-11 – |
||||||
Suitable |
14,013 |
|
7,025 |
431 |
0 |
21,469
(43%) |
Dispersal |
3,282 |
|
532 |
46 |
0 |
3,860
(8%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
14,229 |
|
2,722 |
750 |
0 |
17,701
(35%) |
Non-Capable* |
4,405 |
|
1,211 |
1,543 |
0 |
7,159
(14%) |
Totals |
35,929
(72%) |
|
11,490
(23%) |
2,770
(5%) |
0 |
50,189 |
OR-12 – |
||||||
Suitable |
7,939 |
0 |
11,580 |
214 |
2 |
19,735
(52%) |
Dispersal |
780 |
0 |
858 |
988 |
0 |
2,627
(7%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
8,096 |
0 |
4,311 |
347 |
0 |
12,755
(34%) |
Non-Capable* |
1,900 |
0 |
495 |
137 |
0 |
2,532
(7%) |
Totals |
18,715
(50%) |
0 |
17,244
(46%) |
1,686
(4%) |
2
(0%) |
37,649 |
OR-13 – |
||||||
Suitable |
1,872 |
0 |
1,903 |
189 |
9 |
3,972
(22%) |
Dispersal |
7 |
0 |
77 |
79 |
3 |
166
(1%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
1,691 |
0 |
870 |
94 |
0 |
2,657
(15%) |
Non-Capable* |
191 |
|
5,253 |
5,646 |
5 |
11,094
(62%) |
Totals |
3,761
(21%) |
|
8,103
(45%) |
6,008
(34%) |
17
(0%) |
17,890 |
Table 12c. Effects
to northern spotted owl suitable and dispersal habitat (acres), CY2005-2006.
|
MATRIX* |
RR-Matrix |
LSR |
TOTAL |
||||
Matrix acres |
Matrix trees |
RR - acres |
RR- trees |
LSR - acres |
LSR - trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
Suitable
Habitat |
||||||||
Remove1 |
175 |
-- |
590 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
765 |
-- |
Downgrade2 |
1,173 |
-- |
668 |
-- |
238 |
-- |
2,079 |
-- |
Degrade3 |
1,378 |
-- |
192 |
215 |
597 |
6,200 |
2,167 |
6,415 |
Total Suitable |
2,726 |
-- |
1,450 |
215 |
835 |
6,200 |
5,011 |
6,415 |
Dispersal
Habitat |
||||||||
Remove1 |
2,005 |
-- |
529 |
-- |
83 |
-- |
2,617 |
-- |
Degrade3 |
4,607 |
-- |
1,064 |
-- |
570 |
-- |
6,241 |
-- |
Total Dispersal |
6,612 |
-- |
1,593 |
-- |
653 |
-- |
8,858 |
-- |
Total |
9,338 |
-- |
3,043 |
215 |
1,488 |
6,200 |
13,869 |
6,415 |
1
Remove means to eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. 2 Downgrade
as a result of heavy thinning. Downgrade means to change the functionality of
spotted owl habitat from suitable to dispersal. 3 Degrade
means to affect the quality of, but not remove the functionality of this type
of habitat. *This may include Administratively and Congressionally withdrawn
(outside wilderness and LSR) areas. |
Table 13c. Effects to northern spotted owl habitat by
harvest method CY2005-2006.
Harvest Method |
Suitable Habitat |
Dispersal |
Total |
|||||
Remove1 |
Downgrade2 |
Degrade3 |
Remove/ Downgrade |
Degrade |
||||
Acres |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
|
Regeneration/
Acres |
|
-- |
-- |
-- |
33 |
-- |
33 |
-- |
Heavy
Thin/Acres |
765 |
2,079 |
-- |
-- |
2,584 |
-- |
5,428 |
-- |
Light-Moderate
Thin/Acres4 |
-- |
-- |
2,167 |
-- |
-- |
6,241 |
8,408 |
-- |
Down Salvage |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Individual
Tree Removal |
-- |
-- |
-- |
6,415 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
6,415 |
Totals |
774 |
2,079 |
2,158 |
6,415 |
2,626 |
5,701 |
13,869 |
6,415 |
1
Remove means to eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. 2 Downgrade means to change the functionality
of spotted owl habitat from suitable to dispersal. 3 Degrade means to affect the quality of, but
not remove the functionality of this type of habitat. 4 Light to moderate thin acres – includes commercial thin
acres. |
Table 16c. Anticipated levels of effect (acres) to northern
spotted owl Critical Habitat due to proposed habitat modifications CY
2005-2006.
Action |
Matrix * |
Riparian
Reserve Matrix |
Late-Successional
Reserves (includes associated riparian reserves) |
TOTAL |
|||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
|
Suitable
Habitat |
|
||||||||
Remove |
|
-- |
500 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
501 |
-- |
|
Downgrade
|
153 |
-- |
543 |
-- |
138 |
-- |
834 |
-- |
|
Degrade
|
-- |
-- |
-- |
65 |
397 |
6,200 |
397 |
6,265 |
|
Total Suitable |
153 |
-- |
1,043 |
65 |
535 |
6,200 |
1,732 |
6,265 |
|
Dispersal
Habitat |
|
||||||||
Remove
|
79 |
-- |
22 |
-- |
83 |
-- |
185 |
-- |
|
Degrade
|
260 |
-- |
71 |
-- |
570 |
-- |
901 |
-- |
|
Total Dispersal |
340 |
-- |
93 |
-- |
653 |
-- |
1,086 |
-- |
|
TOTAL |
493 |
-- |
1,136 |
65 |
1,188 |
6,200 |
2,818 |
6,265 |
|
*This
includes Administratively withdrawn areas. |
|
Table 17c. Effects to northern spotted owl critical
habitat units (acres), CY 2005-2006.
Critical Habitat Unit |
NRF Habitat1 |
Dispersal Habitat |
Total |
|||||
Remove2
Acres |
Downgrade3
Acres |
Degrade4 |
Remove/ Downgraded2
Acres |
Degrade4
Acres |
||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|||||
OR-1 |
250 |
388 |
397 |
3,000 |
83 |
570 |
1,690 |
3,000 |
OR-2 |
125 |
125 |
-- |
1,500 |
-- |
-- |
250 |
1,500 |
OR-9 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
215 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
215 |
OR-10 |
125 |
259 |
-- |
1,550 |
101 |
331 |
816 |
1,550 |
OR-12 |
-- |
62 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
62 |
-- |
Total |
500 |
834 |
397 |
6,265 |
184 |
901 |
2,816 |
6,265 |
1 Nesting,
roosting, foraging habitat, (i.e. suitable). 2 Remove
means to eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. 3 Downgrade
resulting from heavy thinning. Downgrade means to change the functionality of
spotted owl habitat from suitable to dispersal. 4 Degrade
means to affect the quality of, but not remove the functionality of this type
of habitat. |
Table 18c. Total
acres, by ranger district, of spotted owl habitat (suitable and dispersal)
removed, downgraded, or degraded, for CY 2005-2006.
RANGER
DISTRICT |
ACRES |
TREES |
Clackamas River Ranger District |
4,620 |
1,500 |
Zigzag Ranger District |
1,405 |
1,700 |
Hood River Ranger District |
2,434 |
1,500 |
Barlow Ranger District |
4,879 |
1,500 |
|
-- |
215 |
TOTAL |
13,338 |
6,415 |
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Appendix D. Unit Specific Data for the
Table 1d. CY2005-2006 Proposed Projects –
5th Field Watershed1 |
Project Name |
Type of Project2 |
Proposed Treatment3 |
Number of… |
Land Use Allocation |
LSR Number4 |
Critical Habitat Units5 |
Habitat Type |
Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove |
Effect |
||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
Hab Mod |
Distur-bance |
||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Presleys Twin |
Timber |
Light/moderate thin |
850 |
|
Matrix |
|
350 |
|
OR-16 |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
150 |
|
|
150 |
|
OR-15 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|||||
|
District wide hazard tree removal |
Hazard tree removal |
Individual Tree Removal |
|
80 |
Matrix |
|
|
8 |
OR-13 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
LAA |
|
|
8 |
OR-14 |
|||||||||||
|
|
8 |
OR-15 |
|||||||||||
6 |
Mx-RR |
|
|
2 |
OR-13 |
|||||||||
4 |
LSR-RR |
|
|
2 |
OR-14 |
|||||||||
|
|
2 |
OR-15 |
|||||||||||
15 |
LSR |
RO-214 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
15 |
LSR |
RO-209 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
District wide campground /special uses |
Individual Tree Removal |
Individual Tree Removal |
|
8 |
LSR |
RO-214 |
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
LAA |
|
8 |
LSR |
RO-209 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
14 |
LSR-RR |
|
|
2 |
OR-13 |
|||||||||
6 |
Mx-RR |
|
|
2 |
OR-13 |
|||||||||
4 |
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
Sweet Home |
||||||||||||||
Middle Santiam |
Middle Santiam Thin |
Timber |
Light/moderate thin |
1800 |
|
Matrix |
|
900 |
|
OR-14 |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Quartzville |
Quartzville LSR Thin* |
Timber |
Light/moderate thin |
1000 |
|
LSR |
213 |
1000 |
|
OR-14 |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Calapooia |
|
Timber |
Light/moderate thin |
100 |
|
AMA |
|
100 |
|
OR-16 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
LAA |
LAA |
100 |
|
AMA |
|
100 |
|
OR-16 |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
Estimated Salvage |
Salvage |
Down Salvage |
20 |
|
AMA |
|
20 |
|
OR-16 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
Middle Santiam |
Estimated Salvage |
Salvage |
Down Salvage |
20 |
|
Matrix |
|
20 |
|
OR-14 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Mckenzie |
Estimated Salvage |
Salvage |
Down Salvage |
20 |
|
Matrix |
|
20 |
|
OR-15 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Individual tree |
Hazard Tree |
Individual Tree Removal |
|
10 |
Matrix |
|
|
10 |
OR-15 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
Middle Santiam |
Individual tree |
Hazard Tree |
Individual Tree Removal |
|
10 |
Matrix |
|
|
10 |
OR-14 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Calapooia |
Individual tree |
Hazard Tree |
Individual Tree Removal |
|
10 |
AMA |
|
|
10 |
OR-16 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Quartzville |
Individual tree |
Hazard Tree |
Individual Tree Removal |
|
10 |
LSR |
|
|
10 |
OR-14 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
||||||||||||||
|
Hartz |
Timber |
Regeneration |
153 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Remove |
LAA |
NLAA |
Light/moderate Thin |
201 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|||
Light/moderate Thin |
124 |
|
Matrix-RR |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|||
Heavy Thin |
441 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|||
McKenzie River/Elk Creek |
McKenzie Tribs |
Timber |
Heavy Thin Regeneration Heavy Thin |
333 |
|
AMA |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Remove |
MA-NLAA |
NLAA |
133 |
|
AMA |
|
|
|
|
Remove |
MA-NLAA |
NLAA |
|||||
234 |
|
AMA-RR |
|
|
|
|
Remove |
MA-NLAA |
NLAA |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Scott Anderson Overstory Removal |
Timber |
Regeneration |
334 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Remove |
MA-NLAA |
NLAA |
Light/moderate thin |
133 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
MA-NLAA |
NLAA |
|||
Light/moderate thin |
100 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
MA-NLAA |
NLAA |
|||
Middle Fork |
||||||||||||||
Fall Creek |
Hehe Thin |
Timber |
Heavy Thin |
2315 |
|
LSR-RR |
RO-219 |
2315 |
|
OR-18 |
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Light/moderate thin |
2185 |
|
LSR-RR |
RO-219 |
2185 |
|
OR-18 |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|||
Hills Creek Reservoir |
Jim's Creek Savanna Restoration Project |
Habitat Restoration |
Regeneration |
400 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Remove |
LAA |
NLAA |
Heavy Thin |
40 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Downgrade |
LAA |
NLAA |
|||
|
Niner EA |
Commercial Thin Timber |
Heavy Thin |
2500 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
675 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Buzzard** |
Timber |
Heavy Thin |
500 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
Light/moderate thin |
124 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|||
District Wide |
Area Salvage |
Downed Salvage |
Down Salvage |
40 |
|
Matrix |
|
10 |
|
OR-19 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Middle Fork Willamette/Lookout Point |
|
|
Individual Tree Removal |
|
4 |
LSR |
RO-222 |
|
4 |
OR-20 |
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
North Fork Trail Bridges |
|
Individual Tree Removal |
|
14 |
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
4 |
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
|
2 |
LSR-RR |
100 Ac. LSR |
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
Salt Creek, |
|
Water Empoundment Development |
Regeneration |
5 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District Wide |
Hazard Tree Removal |
Hazard Abatement |
Individual Tree Removal |
|
13 |
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
13 |
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
25 |
LSR |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
12 |
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
|
12 |
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
25 |
LSR |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
Hills Creek Reservoir, |
5850-2102 Reconstruction |
Road Reconstruction |
Individual Tree Removal |
|
500 |
LSR |
RO222 |
5 |
|
OR-20 |
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
Road 19 Realignment |
Road Construction |
Regeneration |
1 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Thaddeus Rock Quarry Expansion |
Rock Pit Expansion |
Regeneration |
3 |
|
Matrix |
|
3 |
|
OR-18 |
Suitable |
Remove |
LAA |
NLAA |
|
Salt Creek/ |
|
Fuels Reduction |
Light/moderate thin |
50 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
Salt Creek/Willamette River |
Salt Creek Summer Homes |
Fuels Reduction |
Light/moderate thin |
15 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
5 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
|||||||
5 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
|||||||
Salt Creek/Willamette River |
Railroad ROW |
Fuels Reduction |
Light/moderate thin |
140 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
200 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
20 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
80 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
20 |
|
LSR |
LSR-2800 |
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
20 |
|
LSR |
LSR4100 |
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
Fields RAWS Site |
Site maintenance |
Regeneration |
5 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
Remove |
NLAA |
NLAA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salt Creek/ |
Bald |
Fuels Reduction |
Light/moderate thin |
75 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
25 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
||||
Hills Creek |
Hills Creek Pvt Lands Fuels Reduction*** |
Fuels Reduction |
Light/moderate thin |
15 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
Degrade |
NLAA |
NLAA |
5 |
|
Matrix |
|
|
|
|
Dispersal |
|||||||
5 |
|
Mx-RR |
|
|
|
|
Suitable |
*
Consulted under BO 1072003F0008 – FY
2003-2004. Re-consultation because Decision Notice not signed prior to
expiration date.
**
Previously consulted on in FY1999.
***
Previously consulted on as “CT Beach Summer Homes
Table 3d. Status
of the northern spotted owl and its habitat CY2005-2006 – Willamette NF10
Table 5d. Late-successional
reserves and associated northern spotted owl habitat.
Late Successional Reserves |
Total Acres |
Total Capable Acres |
Suitable Acres3 |
Suitable % of Capable |
RO209 |
29,279 |
23,896 |
13,421 |
56% |
RO213 |
57,109 |
54,783 |
36,459 |
67% |
RO214 |
40,022 |
36,230 |
20,587 |
57% |
RO215 |
26,730 |
24,462 |
18,589 |
76% |
RO216 |
604 |
601 |
460 |
77% |
RO217 |
9,146 |
8,963 |
8,350 |
93% |
RO218 |
26,881 |
23,495 |
18,640 |
79% |
RO219 |
66,017 |
64,835 |
30,143 |
46% |
RO220 |
51,746 |
46,476 |
27,831 |
60% |
RO221 |
16,584 |
14,837 |
10,130 |
68% |
RO222 |
93,051 |
86,886 |
56,477 |
65% |
TOTAL |
417,169 |
385,464 |
241,087 |
63% |
1Those acres that are either currently
suitable spotted owl habitat or have the potential to become suitable in the
future. Suitable habitat is defined as nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. 2Nesting, roosting, foraging (i.e.
suitable). |
Table 6d. Late-successional
reserve/wilderness complexes and associated northern spotted owl habitat.
Late Successional Reserve |
Total Acres |
Total Capable Acres |
Suitable Acres |
Suitable % of Capable |
39,285 |
30,475 |
17,756 |
58% |
|
RO213/Middle
Santiam Wilderness |
65,824 |
61,372 |
44,474 |
72% |
RO214/Mt.
|
111,599 |
49,217 |
29,289 |
60% |
RO215/Menagerie
Wilderness |
32,639 |
30,081 |
23,423 |
78% |
RO218/Three
Sisters Wilderness |
214,281 |
105,287 |
97,553 |
93% |
RO220/Waldo
|
88,676 |
56,255 |
39,700 |
71% |
RO221/Diamond
Peak Wilderness |
35,536 |
15,069 |
12,911 |
86% |
|
40,212 |
4,924 |
4,249 |
86% |
TOTAL |
628,052 |
352,680 |
269,355 |
76% |
1Those acres that are either currently
suitable spotted owl habitat or have the potential to become suitable in the
future. Suitable habitat is defined as nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat. 2Nesting, roosting, and foraging (i.e.
suitable). |
Table 7d.
Fiscal Year |
BO Number |
Acres of suitable (NRF) habitat removed or downgraded |
1995 |
1071995F290 |
842 |
1996 |
1071996F207 |
1395 |
1997 |
1071996F459 |
2232 |
1998 |
1071997F396 |
7106 |
1999 |
1071998F381 |
3022 |
2000 |
1072000F155 |
824 |
2001 |
None |
0 |
2002 |
1072002F200 |
202 |
2003 |
1072003F0008 |
5 |
2004* |
1072003F0008 |
917 |
Total 1995-2004 |
15,628 |
|
2005-2006 |
Proposed |
523 |
Total actual and proposed |
16,151 |
|
* Anticipated |
Table 8d. Current
status of Critical Habitat Units by Northwest Forest Plan allocation and by
Unit.
|
Matrix Acres |
Adaptive Management Area Acres |
Late Successional Reserve Acres |
Administratively Withdrawn Acres |
Congressionally
Withdrawn Acres |
Total
Acres |
OR-14 – |
||||||
Suitable |
5,756 |
0 |
27,744 |
461 |
445 |
34,406 (53%) |
Dispersal |
2,942 |
0 |
884 |
27 |
0 |
3,853 (6%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
7,286 |
0 |
14,086 |
21 |
154 |
21,547 (33%) |
Non-Capable* |
1,731 |
0 |
3,201 |
116 |
6 |
5,054 (8%) |
Totals |
17,715 (27%) |
0 |
45,915 (71%) |
625 (1%) |
605 (1%) |
64,860 |
OR-15 – |
||||||
Suitable |
10,955 |
0 |
2,663 |
6,833 |
1 |
20,452 (46%) |
Dispersal |
1,803 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
8 |
1,820 (4%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
9,601 |
0 |
337 |
608 |
1 |
10,547 (24%) |
Non-Capable* |
5,463 |
0 |
542 |
5,646 |
3 |
11,654
(26%) |
Totals |
27,822 (63%) |
0 |
3,545 (8%) |
13,093 (29%) |
13 (0%) |
44,473 |
OR-16 – |
||||||
Suitable |
675 |
34,775 |
21,617 |
231 |
0 |
57,298 (56%) |
Dispersal |
93 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
95 (0%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
945 |
24,435 |
4,693 |
14 |
0 |
30,087 (30%) |
Non-Capable* |
64 |
11,004 |
2,857 |
41 |
0 |
13,966 (14%) |
Totals |
1,777 (2%) |
70,214 (69%) |
29,169 (29%) |
286 (0%) |
0 |
101,446 |
OR-17– |
||||||
Suitable |
4,379 |
1,745 |
17,993 |
1,688 |
431 |
26,236 (58%) |
Dispersal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (0%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
4,350 |
558 |
4,915 |
714 |
61 |
10,598 (23%) |
Non-Capable* |
398 |
103 |
7,786 |
215 |
64 |
8,566 (19%) |
Totals |
9,127 (20%) |
2,406
(5%) |
30,694 (68%) |
2,617 (6%) |
556 (1%) |
45,400 |
* Non-capable includes
areas such as lakes, rivers, rock outcroppings, roads, poor soil conditions
as well as those above 4500 feet in elevation. |
||||||
OR-18– |
||||||
Suitable |
17,134 |
0 |
31,871 |
2,179 |
0 |
51,184 (47%) |
Dispersal |
1,243 |
0 |
704 |
1 |
0 |
1,948 (2%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
19,782 |
0 |
30,838 |
725 |
0 |
51,345 (47%) |
Non-Capable* |
1,315 |
0 |
2,222 |
863 |
0 |
4,400 (4%) |
Totals |
39,474 (36%) |
0 |
65,635 (60%) |
3,768 (3%) |
0 |
108,877 |
* Non-capable includes
areas such as lakes, rivers, rock outcroppings, roads, poor soil conditions
as well as those above 4500 feet in elevation. Some
cells updated in 2004 to reflect changes due to past harvest, land exchanges,
and updated GIS databases. |
||||||
OR-19 – |
||||||
Suitable |
19,122 |
0 |
35,063 |
7,167 |
1,793 |
63,145 (45%) |
Dispersal |
3,116 |
0 |
2,691 |
98 |
177 |
6,082 (4%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
9,664 |
0 |
15,532 |
514 |
868 |
26,578 (19%) |
Non-Capable* |
13,408 |
0 |
23,682 |
7,257 |
438 |
44,785 (32%) |
Totals |
45,310 (32%) |
0 |
76,968 (55%) |
15,036 (11%) |
3,276 (2%) |
140,590 |
OR-20 – |
||||||
Suitable |
44 |
0 |
30,124 |
14 |
0 |
30,182 (60%) |
Dispersal |
3 |
0 |
5,688 |
0 |
0 |
5,691 (11%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
14 |
0 |
12,832 |
22 |
0 |
12,868 (26%) |
Non-Capable* |
12 |
0 |
1,688 |
1 |
0 |
1,701 (3%) |
Totals |
73 (0%) |
0 |
50,332 (100%) |
37 (0%) |
0 |
50,442 |
OR-28 – |
||||||
Suitable |
16,281 |
0 |
19,838 |
1,676 |
0 |
37,795 (45%) |
Dispersal |
901 |
0 |
499 |
21 |
0 |
1,421 (2%) |
Capable – Currently non-habitat |
4,386 |
0 |
6,889 |
226 |
0 |
11,501 (14%) |
Non-Capable* |
17,901 |
0 |
14,240 |
1,357 |
0 |
33,498 (40%) |
Totals |
39,469 (47%) |
0 |
41,466 (49%) |
3,280 (4%) |
0 |
84,215 |
Table 12d. Effects
to northern spotted owl suitable and dispersal habitat (acres), CY2005-2006 –
|
Matrix* |
AMA |
LSR |
Total |
|||||||
Non-RR |
Riparian
Reserve (RR) |
Non-RR |
RR |
||||||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
Suitable Habitat |
|||||||||||
Remove1 |
403 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
403 |
-- |
Downgrade2 |
-- |
-- |
40 |
-- |
|
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
40 |
-- |
Degrade3 |
525 |
117 |
188 |
29 |
120 |
10 |
-- |
40 |
105 |
873 |
261 |
Suitable Total |
928 |
117 |
228 |
29 |
120 |
10 |
-- |
40 |
105 |
1,316 |
261 |
Dispersal Habitat |
|||||||||||
Remove/ Downgrade1 |
1,438 |
- |
1 |
-- |
466 |
-- |
234 |
2,315 |
-- |
4,454 |
-- |
Degrade3 |
5,685 |
12 |
979 |
26 |
100 |
-- |
-- |
3185 |
525 |
9,949 |
563 |
Dispersal Total |
7,123 |
12 |
980 |
26 |
566 |
-- |
234 |
5,500 |
525 |
14,403 |
563 |
Total |
8,051 |
129 |
1,208 |
55 |
686 |
10 |
234 |
5,540 |
630 |
15,719 |
824 |
1Remove
means to eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. 2Downgrade
as a result of heavy thinning. Downgrade means to change the functionality of
spotted owl habitat from suitable to dispersal. 3Degrade
means to affect the quality of, but not remove the functionality of this type
of habitat. *This
may also include administratively and congressionally withdrawn (outside
wilderness and LSR) areas. |
Table 13d. Effects
to northern spotted owl habitat by harvest method CY2005-2006 –
Harvest Method |
Suitable Habitat |
Dispersal |
Total |
||||||
Remove1 |
Downgrade2 |
Degrade3 |
Remove/ Downgrade |
Degrade |
|||||
Acres |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
|
Regeneration/ Acres |
403 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
631 |
-- |
-- |
1,034 |
-- |
Heavy Thin/Acres |
-- |
40 |
-- |
-- |
3,823 |
675 |
-- |
4,538 |
-- |
Light-Moderate
Thin/Acres4 |
-- |
100 |
673 |
-- |
-- |
9,274 |
-- |
10,047 |
-- |
Down Salvage |
-- |
-- |
100 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
100 |
-- |
Individual Tree
Removal |
-- |
-- |
-- |
261 |
-- |
-- |
563 |
-- |
824 |
Totals |
403 |
140 |
773 |
261 |
4,454 |
9,949 |
563 |
15,719 |
824 |
1 Remove means to eliminate the
functionality of this type of habitat. 2 Downgrade means to change the
functionality of spotted owl habitat from suitable to dispersal. 3 Degrade means to affect the quality of,
but not remove the functionality of this type of habitat. 4 Light to moderate thin acres – includes
commercial thin acres. |
Table 16d. Anticipated
levels of effect to spotted owl critical habitat due to proposed habitat
modifications CY 2005-2006.
Effect in Critical Habitat Units
Only |
Matrix1 |
RR-Mx1 |
Adaptive
Management Areas |
RR-AMA |
LSR2 |
Total |
||||||
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Ac/trees |
Acres |
Trees |
Acres |
Trees |
||
Suitable Habitat – |
||||||||||||
Remove |
3 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
3 |
-- |
|
Downgrade
|
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
-- |
|
Degrade
|
200 |
44 |
-- |
4 |
120 |
10 |
-- |
-- |
20 |
320 |
78 |
|
Suitable
Total |
203 |
44 |
-- |
4 |
120 |
10 |
-- |
-- |
20 |
323 |
78 |
|
Dispersal Habitat – |
||||||||||||
Remove/Downgrade
|
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
2,315 |
-- |
2,315 |
-- |
|
Degrade
|
1,250 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
100 |
-- |
-- |
3,190 |
-- |
4,540 |
-- |
|
Dispersal
Total |
1,250 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
100 |
-- |
-- |
5,505 |
-- |
6,855 |
-- |
|
TOTAL |
1,453 |
44 |
-- |
4 |
220 |
10 |
-- |
5,505 |
16 |
7,178 |
78 |
|
1 Includes administratively withdrawn areas 2 Includes associated
riparian reserves |
||||||||||||
Table 17d. Effects
to northern spotted owl Critical Habitat Units, CY 2005-2006 –
Critical Habitat
Unit |
NRF
Habitat1 |
Dispersal
Habitat |
Total |
|||||
Remove2
Acres |
Downgrade3
Acres |
Degrade4 |
Remove/ Downgraded2
Acres |
Degrade4
Acres |
Acres |
Trees |
||
Acres |
Trees |
|||||||
OR-13 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
14 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
14 |
OR-14 |
-- |
-- |
20 |
30 |
-- |
1,900 |
1,920 |
30 |
OR-15 |
-- |
-- |
170 |
20 |
|
-- |
170 |
20 |
OR-16 |
-- |
|
120 |
10 |
-- |
450 |
570 |
10 |
OR-18 |
3 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
2,315 |
2,185 |
4,503 |
-- |
OR-19 |
-- |
-- |
10 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
10 |
-- |
OR-20 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
5 |
5 |
-- |
Total |
3 |
0 |
320 |
78 |
2,315 |
4,540 |
7,128 |
78 |
1 Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat, (i.e. suitable). 2 Remove means to eliminate the functionality of this
type of habitat. 3 Downgrade resulting from heavy thinning. Downgrade
means to change the functionality of spotted owl habitat from suitable to
dispersal. 4 Degrade means to affect the quality of, but not
remove the functionality of this type of habitat. |
Table 18d. Total
acres, by ranger district, of spotted owl habitat (suitable and dispersal)
removed, downgraded, or degraded, for CY 2005-2006 –
Ranger District |
Acres |
Trees |
|
1,000 |
160 |
Sweet
Home |
3,060 |
40 |
|
2,994 |
0 |
Middle
Fork |
9,473 |
624 |
Total |
16,527 |
824 |
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Appendix E.
Evaluation
of the
South
Willamette-North
Late-Successional
Reserves 267 and 268,
and
Critical Habitat Units OR-21, OR-22, OR-23 and OR-25
Reason
for Evaluation
The Biological Opinion (
The South Willamette-North Umpqua Area of
Concern, herein referred to as the Area
of Concern (AOC), is a corridor of federal land in the BLM Eugene and
Roseburg districts that facilitates movement of spotted owls between the North
Coast and Willamette planning provinces (i.e.,
between the Coast Range and Cascade Mountains). This document evaluates that
portion of the the AOC contained in the
As delineated by
the BLM, the AOC (Map A1) is “anchored by” and “connects” LSRs 222 (
Forsman et al. (2002:22-23) verified recent
(1985 to 1996) owl movement through the AOC. However, subsequent Oregon
Department of Forestry (ODF) records (1996 to 2000) indicated that more than
1,500 partial cuts, clear cuts and other harvests had occurred on almost 56,500
acres of nonfederal land within the boundary of the AOC. This equated to an
average annual loss of 11,300 acres during that period. The ODF had no data
available to estimate how much of this harvest actually had occurred or
modified dispersal habitat, so their data were not a direct indicator of the
number of nonfederal acres that have been harvested in the AOC between 1996 and
2000. However, their data suggested that annual harvest continued at those
levels after 2000. In addition, because harvest on nonfederal land often
targeted the 45 to 75-year, or older, age classes, much of the nonfederal
harvest probably continued to remove spotted owl suitable and dispersal-only
habitats
This suggests
that little, if any, dispersal habitat remains on nonfederal land within the
AOC, the continued existence of any remaining nonfederal dispersal habitat is
uncertain, and that continued owl movements through this area, if any, will
rely almost entirely on habitat conditions on BLM-administered land. The BLM,
therefore, reevaluated habitat conditions, and the potential affects of the
proposed habitat modification projects, within the AOC because:
The
estimated losses of dispersal habitat on nonfederal lands suggest that owl
movements through the AOC relies almost entirely on BLM-administered habitat;
The
BLM’s 1997 evaluation of the AOC is out of date as the end of fiscal year 2004;
Better
analytical methods of dispersal habitat condition now are available.
Proposed Activities within the AOC
One timber sale
project, the
Basis for Evaluation
Under the
Northwest Forest Plan, habitat conditions within and surrounding large blocks
of owl nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF) habitat are to be provided to
facilitate owl movement between the blocks and ensure the survival of
dispersing owls. According to the FSEIS on the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA
& USDI 1994:Appendix J-2), the (assessment) panel in the Forest Ecosystem
Management and Assessment Team questioned the ability of the Alternative 9 (the
basis for the Northwest Forest Plan) to provide adequate dispersal because it
lacked a specific habitat provision (such as the “50-11-40 rule” [Thomas et al. 1990:310] contained in
alternatives 1 – 6). After the panel rated the alternatives, Alternative 9 was
modified to adopt Riparian Reserve Scenario 1 and to add the Managed Late
Successional Areas. With these changes, the FSEIS concluded that Alternative 9
would be rated similar to Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 with respect to potential
future habitat outcomes. The “well distributed” outcome ratings of alternatives
2, 3, 4 and 5 were, respectively, 90, 90, 91 and 88, out of 100.
The practical
difference between Alternative 9, and alternatives 1 – 6, was that Alternative
9 did not explicitly describe or prescribe the quantity and arrangement of
dispersal habitat in space and time. Instead, the
quantity and arrangement of connectivity habitat in Alternative 9 were products
of the
Upon reflection, Northwest Forest Plan provisions for owl dispersal on the
federal land base were correct. The Northwest Forest Plan did not
describe a specific condition, quantity or distribution of habitat to support
owl dispersal because, unlike nesting-roosting-foraging habitat, the minimum
habitat conditions for owl movement and survival were largely unknown. (The
exceptions were the minimums of 11-inches dbh and 40 percent canopy cover.) Although there existed scientifically valid
criteria to estimate when a reserve block could support a cluster of
reproducing owls, there were insufficient criteria to estimate when the same
reserve block could support owl movement and survival. Instead, the Northwest
Forest Plan simply pledged to maintain owl dispersal across the federal
landscape.
To evaluate dispersal habitat condition within the AOC, therefore, the task
was to (1) describe the de facto
Northwest Forest Plan mechanism for providing dispersal, then (2) develop a
method to evaluate the development of the habitat to support dispersal. The
core of the dispersal framework of the Northwest Forest Plan was the land base
in the federal outs. The forest capable acres in the federal outs would, at
some point in time during the life of the Northwest Forest Plan, provide
dispersal habitat. Since the federal outs were not uniformly distributed on the
landscape, the dispersal habitat arrangement was not uniformly distributed. In
the long term, the amount and arrangement of dispersal habitat would depend on
the condition of the federal outs. The contribution by the 80- and 150-year
rotation standards for the Matrix LUA, and the periodic losses from stochastic
events, were recognized as significant, but secondary, influences.
Therefore, to evaluate dispersal (owl movement and survival) within the
AOC, this evaluation examines the dispersal habitat potential of each
fifth-field watershed in the absence of any stochastic event. Instead of an
arbitrary measure to estimate when a fifth-field watershed would become
biologically functional with respect to supporting dispersal (i.e., a measure not supported by
science), this analysis assumes that the Northwest Forest Plan anticipated that
all forest-capable lands in the federal outs would support dispersal habitat.
The analysis, therefore, evaluates, in each watershed, the current acres of
dispersal habitat on all federal lands outside of the reserve blocks
Methods
Habitat data
came from BLM Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) Data updated through at least
January 2004. The evaluation examined the habitat conditions of all
forest-capable federal outs in the AOC at the scale of the fifth-field
watershed. For a fifth-field watershed to be functional with respect to owl
dispersal, 100 percent of all forest-capable federal out acres in the watershed
had to provide dispersal habitat. Where less that 100 percent of forest-capable
federal outs supported dispersal habitat, the evaluation assumed that dispersal
habitat condition would be maintained on other land use allocations (Matrix
lands) within the same fifth-field watershed in sufficient quantities to meet
the 100 percent standard for that watershed.
In other
words, a fifth-field watershed was considered to be biologically functional,
with respect to providing dispersal habitat, when the acres of dispersal
habitat on all non-LSR federal lands within the watershed equaled or exceeded
the acres of federal land contained in the federal outs in that watershed.
The evaluation
continues with examinations of dispersal habitat conditions in the two LSRs and
the four CHUs. Only BLM lands were included in the analysis because due to the
lack of data on adjacent Forest Service lands. Dispersal habitat was defined as
forest stands greater than or equal to 40 years old with at least 40 percent
canopy closure (the equivalent of dispersal habitat elsewhere in this
document).
Results
Fifth-field Watersheds
The following
table compares forest-capable acres, and acres of dispersal habitat, in each
fifth-field watershed of the AOC.
Column 3 indicates the target condition of each
fifth-field watershed (i.e., the
acres of forest-capable land in federal outs, 100 percent of which is to
provide dispersal habitat).
Column 4 indicates the acres of dispersal habitat
currently (2004) supported by the federal outs in each fifth-field watershed.
The shortfalls between Column 3 and Column 4 are shown in
Column 5. These are the acres of dispersal habitat
that must be maintained in the Matrix land use allocation of each fifth-field
watershed until the federal outs of each watershed support 100 percent
dispersal habitat.
Column 2 indicates the acres of dispersal habitat
currently (2004) supported by all non-LSR land use allocations in each
fifth-field watershed. A comparison of columns 2 and 3 (shown in Column 6) indicates that all
fifth-field watersheds currently support sufficient dispersal habitat except
for the Mosby Creek Watershed, which is 349 acres (13 percent) below functional
condition with respect to providing for owl dispersal.
Overall, the
non-LSR land use allocations on all fifth-field watersheds in the AOC currently
(2004) support 52,802 acres of dispersal habitat, which is 13,409 acres/34
percent more dispersal habitat than needed to maintain the minimum dispersal
function of the AOC.
5th
Field Watershed |
1. Acres
of forest capable land; all non-LSR LUAs |
2. Acres
of dispersal habitat; all non-LSR LUAs |
3. Acres
of forest-capable land; federal outs |
4. Acres
of dispersal habitat; federal outs |
5. Acres
of dispersal habitat that must be maintained in the Matrix LUA (Column 3
minus Column 4) |
6.
Difference between Acres of dispersal habitat on all non-LSR LUAs and Acres
forest capable land in federal outs A (Column 2
minus Column 3) |
Fall
Creek |
4433 |
3314 |
2497 |
1941 |
556 |
817 |
|
13352 |
8163 |
6109 |
3667 |
2442 |
2054 |
|
5259 |
2322 |
1676 |
898 |
778 |
946 |
Middle
Fork |
13975 |
9259 |
7115 |
4893 |
2222 |
2144 |
Mosby
Creek |
6168 |
2318 |
2667 |
1089 |
1578 |
( - 349 ) |
|
14973 |
9204 |
8076 |
5892 |
2184 |
1128 |
|
16989 |
10615 |
7442 |
5332 |
2110 |
3172 |
|
11717 |
7608 |
3811 |
2831 |
980 |
3796 |
Totals |
86687 |
52802 |
39393 |
26542 |
12851 |
13409 |
A Positive value indicates watershed is
currently meeting analysis assumptions for providing dispersal habitat and
indicates the acres of dispersal habitat that can be removed in CY05-06
without affecting these assumptions. Negative value indicates watershed is
not currently meeting analysis assumptions for providing dispersal habitat
and indicates the acres of dispersal habitat the watershed is lacking to
qualify as biologically functional with respect to dispersal and connectivity
habitat. |
Late-Successional Reserves
Acres of
forest-capable land and suitable habitat in LSRs RO222 and RO267 are shown in
Table 6. LSR RO222 currently (2004) supports 13,617 acres of dispersal habitat
(of which 12,455 are suitable), which means that 60 percent of forest-capable
acres in the LSR support dispersal. LSR RO267 currently (2004) supports 25,992
acres of dispersal habitat (of which 17,348 are suitable), which means that 65
percent of forest-capable acres in the LSR support dispersal habitat.
Critical Habitat Units
OR-21. This
OR-22. This
OR-23. This
OR-25. This
Information on
CHUs OR-21, OR-22, OR-23 and OR-25 is provided in Table 9. Within these CHUs,
55 percent, 59 percent, 70 percent and 59 percent, respectively, of
forest-capable lands currently (2004) support dispersal habitat.
Conclusions
One timber sale
project is proposed in the AOC during fiscal years 2005-2006: The Brush Mountain timber sale, a light to
moderate thinning in the Connectivity land use allocation in the
The shortfall of
349 acres of dispersal habitat in the Mosby Creek Watershed is not considered
to be significant because no habitat modifications are proposed in the
watershed, and because all adjacent fifth-field watersheds are above functional
levels with respect to dispersal habitat conditions and would remain above
those levels under the proposed action.
No actions in
the AOC are proposed in LSRs 267 or 268, or in CHUs OR-21, OR-22, OR-23 or
OR-25, so dispersal habitat conditions in those area would remain unaffected.
Total |
33 mmbf |
It should be
noted that this is not the quantity of harvest coming from the Area of Concern
(AOC) alone. This sale quantity will come from matrix lands throughout the
districts. The combined harvest of these three districts during the period from
1970-1989 was between 200 and 300 mmbf in most years. It is estimated that
within the boundaries of the old AOC, where growth rate is conservatively
estimated at 500 board feet per acre per year, forests are growing 70 mmbf
annually. Thus, recovery of dispersal conditions is occurring much faster than
current harvest rates.
6. Land ownership patterns on the north end of
the AOC in the Detroit District are dominated by fairly contiguous federal
ownership whereas in the south end it is dominated by a checkerboard patter of
private and federal lands in the Sweet Home District. These acres of
checkerboard ownership are more critical to dispersal than blocked federal
lands, so dropping the acres in
Summary
The acre
differences by Ranger District between the old AOC and the new AOC follow:
|
Old AOC (acres) |
New AOC (acres) |
Net (acres) |
|
83,429 |
50,437 |
-32,992 |
Sweet Home |
44,019 |
48,181 |
4,162 |
McKenzie |
719 |
817 |
98 |
Total |
139,708 |
120,573 |
-19,135 |
The resulting
overall change in size of the two areas is only 19,135 acres, and dispersal
needs will be more effectively met than is currently the case. This boundary
adjustment is effective as of
This analysis
was prepared by:
Ken Byford,
Rick Breckel,
Cheryl Friesen,
McKenzie District Wildlife Biologist
Virgil Morris,
Sweet Home District Wildlife Biologist
Lauri Turner,
Detroit District Wildlife Biologist
[1] “Dispersal,” in this evaluation, does not pertain exclusively to the ability of spotted owls to move across the landscape. Instead, dispersal pertains to the ability of an owl to inhabit an area, and to survive there indefinitely, until such time that they can establish a nesting territory. It does not mean to imply that breeding or “generational dispersal” could occur in dispersal habitat, even though some dispersal habitat also is suitable for nesting. In truth, “connectivity” would be a more accurate term to use in this evaluation because connectivity does not imply that young owls always move away from their natal areas. However, this evaluation uses “dispersal” to avoid any confusion with the Connectivity land use allocation.
[2] The federal outs in the AOC consist of Known Spotted Owl Activity Centers, occupied marbled murrelet stands, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, Riparian Reserves (outside the reserve blocks), 25-30 percent late-successional retention blocks within the BLM Connectivity land use allocation, and 15 percent retention blocks by fifth-field watershed.