Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence

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

General Standards

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.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES

Northern Spotted Owl

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.

Legal Status

The northern spotted owl was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act on June 26, 1990, due to widespread habitat loss and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to provide for its conservation. The Fish and Wildlife Service believed that 1) the populations was above carrying capacity due to drastic reductions in habitat and an increase in forest fragmentation 2) the owl population is declining rapidly, and 3) the population will decline further, even if harvest of suitable habitat is halted (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a).

Species Description

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 California subspecies is supported by genetic and biogeographical information (Haig et al. 2001 and Haig et al. In press). The distribution of the northern subspecies includes southwestern British Columbia, western Washington and Oregon, and northwestern California south to Marin County (American Ornithologists Union 1957, Forsman et al. 1984, Gutiérrez et al. 1995). It is a medium-sized (46-48cm in length and weighing approximately 490-850g) dark brown owl with a barred tail, white spots on the head and breast, and dark brown eyes surrounded by prominent facial disks (Bent 1938, Gutiérrez et al. 1995). Males and females have similar plumage, but females typically weigh 10-20 percent more than males (Johnsgard 2002).

Habitat Use – Summary

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 Oregon Coast Range, Klamath Province and Western Cascades (Miller et al. 1997). Mature and old-growth forest was used slightly more than expected based on availability during the transience phase and nearly twice its availability during the colonization phase. Closed pole-sapling-sawtimber habitat type was used roughly in proportion to availability in both phases; open sapling and clearcuts were used less than expected based on availability during colonization.

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 Oregon Coast Range and Klamath Provinces, old-growth forest was the only forest type used for foraging and roosting in greater proportion than its availability at the landscape scale (Carey et al. 1992). At a finer scale, however, owls used portions of young forests for foraging in greater proportion than its availability, especially where woodrats were present (Carey and Peeler 1995). The latter analysis was based on frequency of use by owls within approximately 20 ha landscape units classified according to cover type and topography (Courtney et al. 2004).

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).

Habitat Use - Stand Structure

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), Klamath Province, California. Temperatures at roosts were lower than at random sites in adjacent younger stands; temperatures at random locations within roost stands were intermediate between roost and younger stand locations. Ting (1998) also compared temperature profiles within mature/old growth and younger forest at both WCSA and Redwood National Park (RNP) in coastal California. Both age classes of forest stands were similar in RNP and were cooler than stands on the WCSA. Mature/old growth stands were cooler than younger stands at WCSA.

Nesting

Hershey et al. (1998) compared stand structure of nest sites and paired random sites in four Provinces (Olympic Peninsula, Washington, and Coast Range, Klamath and Western Cascades, Oregon). Random sites were restricted to stands dominated by trees > 50 cm dbh. Evidence of fire was present at 86 percent of nest sites and 76 percent of random sites. The total density and basal area of live trees were higher at nest than random sites, mostly due to greater densities and basal area of trees < 23 cm dbh. Variation in tree diameters between nest and random sites was similar. Density and basal area of broken-top trees and volume of down logs in decay classes 4 & 5 (most decadent) were higher at nest than random sites.

On the eastern slope of the Cascades, Washington, on the Wenatchee National Forest, Buchanan et al. (1995) compared habitat characteristics at 62 nest sites with those at 62 paired random sites within the same forest stands. Nests were in mixed conifer forests within grand fir (Abies grandis), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forest associations. Nest sites had lower canopies of dominant/codominant and intermediate trees, more Douglas fir trees 35-60 cm dbh, more ponderosa pine trees 61-84 cm dbh, greater live tree basal area, greater basal area of decadent snags, and less basal area of more intact snags. Volume of coarse woody debris and percent canopy closure were similar between nest sites and random sites within nest stands. Evidence of past fire was visible at 92 percent of nest sites. These data were reanalyzed by Buchanan and Irwin (1998) by stratifying nests within five Fire Management Analysis Zones (FMAZ). FMAZ were designated by the Wenatchee National Forest based on vegetation associations, topography, precipitation, frequency of lightning strikes, and estimates of fuel loading and fire frequency. In addition to differences in tree species among zones, trees were smaller and younger and had higher canopy closure in more xeric zones.

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, Oregon. Random sites were restricted to habitat types used by owls. Stands sampled for foraging were all from owl pairs that nested at least once and received disproportionate use (4 percent of telemetry locations in 1 percent of adaptive kernel home range; all were within 60 percent adaptive kernel core area). Zero nests, 13 percent of foraging and 38 percent of random locations were in stands < 40 yrs old. Foraging and nesting stands had significantly greater number of large (> 50 cm dbh) snags than random stands. Volume of large and small woody debris was greater at foraging than nesting and random stands. Herbaceous and shrubby understory vegetation < 0.5 m tall was less at foraging than nesting and random locations for most stand age classes. All stands used by owls had canopy cover > 80 percent (estimated using a spherical densiometer).

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 California Coast Range than in other provinces, and were found in commercial forests more often than public lands of the Western Cascades, Oregon (Courtney et al. 2004). Trees containing platform nests were generally smaller than trees containing cavity nests. Differences in nest types was not attributable solely to tree species; Douglas fir was a common nest tree species throughout the range of the Northern Spotted Owl, providing top cavities in mesic regions and mistletoe platform nests in more xeric regions (Courtney et al. 2004).

Prey

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 Oregon (Forsman et al. 2001, 2004).

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 and Core Area Size

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 Oregon (Klamath Province) (Carey et al. 1992) to 3669 hectares (9,066 acres) in Washington (Eastern Cascades Province) (King 1993). Spotted owls maintain smaller home ranges during the breeding season and often dramatically increase their home range size during fall and winter, likely in response to prey densities (Forsman et al. 1984, Sisco 1990).

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 Oregon Coast Range. The Elliot State Forest study area (ESF) contained a mix of old, mature and pole size conifer, and the North Coast Range study area (NCR) contained mostly forest < 80 yrs old. Both study areas consisted of approximately 23-25 percent hardwood forest, predominantly in riparian areas. Home ranges were larger at NCR than ESF whereas core area size was similar among study areas. Variation in home range size was best explained by models containing the proportion of mature/old forest within the home range (41 percent of variation explained), with smaller home ranges having greater proportions of mature/old conifer forest. There was very little mature/old forest at NCR. On average, owl locations at both study areas were closer to edges between hardwood forest and other cover types and farther from forest-nonforest edges than random points, but the authors noted this was not true for all individuals.

In contrast to these findings, in study areas dominated by late-successional forest in the southern Oregon Coast Range and California Klamath Province, home range size of spotted owls was not correlated with the proportion of the home range in old-growth forest (Zabel et al. 1995). Rather, the proportion of the diet containing woodrats explained 41 percent of the variation in spotted owl home range size. Home ranges were smaller where woodrats dominated the diet and larger where flying squirrels dominated. Within one study area where woodrat density was estimated, home range size was negatively correlated with woodrat abundance.

The response of one northern spotted owl to timber harvest was evaluated in a detailed study in the Oregon Coast Range (NCR study area, above; Meiman et al. 2004). This male owl’s breeding season home range and core area sizes were similar pre- and post-harvest but its nonbreeding season home range and core area sizes were larger after harvest. The owl’s core area of use shifted away from the thinned stand following harvest. Inferences from this study were limited because it included only one individual owl.

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 Oregon (Meyer et al. 1998) and up to 0.6 km radius in another study in Oregon (Swindle et al. 1999). Differences in outer rings indicated that differences between larger circles were not simply artifacts of differences in nested smaller circles in this population (Meyer et al. 1998).

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).

Reproduction

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).

Dispersal

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 Willamette Valley) are apparent barriers to dispersing juvenile and adult spotted owls (Forsman et al. 2002). The degree to which water bodies, such as the Columbia River and Puget Sound, function as barriers to dispersal is unclear. Analysis of genetic structure of spotted owl populations suggests that relatively high rates of gene flow occur between the Olympic Mountains and Washington Cascades (across the Puget Trough) and between the Olympic Mountains and the Coast Range of Oregon (across the Columbia River) (Haig et al. 2001), indicating that these areas may not be substantial barriers to movement.

Reasons for Listing

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).

New Threats

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 Marin County, California and the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, such that it is now roughly coincident with the range of the northern spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 7-13). Further, notwithstanding the likely bias in survey methods towards underestimating actual barred owl numbers (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 7-16), barred owl populations appear to be increasing throughout the Pacific Northwest, particularly in Washington and Oregon (Zabel et al. 1996, Dark et al. 1998, Wiedemeier and Horton 2000, Kelly et al. 2003, Pearson and Livezey 2003, Anthony et al. 2004). Barred owl numbers now may exceed northern spotted owl numbers in the northern Washington Cascades (Kuntz and Christopherson 1996) and British Columbia (Dunbar et al. 1991) and appear to be approaching northern spotted owl numbers in several other areas (e.g., Redwood National and State Parks in California [Schmidt 2003]). Barred owl populations in the Pacific Northwest appear to be self-sustaining, based on current density estimates and apparent distribution (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 7-16).

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 Roseburg study area, 46 percent of northern spotted owls moved more than 0.8 km, and 39 percent of northern spotted owls were not relocated again in at least 2 years after barred owls were detected within 0.8 km of the territory center. Observations provided by Gremel (2000) from the Olympic National Park are consistent with those of Kelly et al. (2003); he documented significant displacement of northern spotted owls following barred owl detections “coupled with elevational changes of northern spotted owl sites on the east side of the Park” (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 7-29). Pearson and Livezey (2003) reported similar findings on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest where unoccupied northern spotted owl sites were characterized by significantly more barred owl sites within 0.8‑km, 1.6‑km, and 2.9‑km from the territory center than in occupied northern spotted owl sites.

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 Wenatchee and Olympic demographic study areas showed possible effects (Anthony et al. 2004). However, both studies described the shortfalls of their methods to adequately test for this effect. Iverson (2004) reported no effect of barred owl presence on northern spotted owl reproduction, but his results could have been influenced by small sample size. Barred owls had a negative effect on northern spotted owl survival on the Wenatchee and Olympic study areas and possibly an effect on the Cle Elum study area (Anthony et al. 2004). Olson et al. (in press) found a significant (but weak) negative effect of barred owl presence on northern spotted owl reproductive output but not on survival at the Roseburg study area (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 7-36 to 7-37).

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., California and Oregon Klamath regions). In spite of these uncertainties, the preponderance of the evidence gathered thus far is consistent with the hypothesis that barred owls are playing some role in northern spotted owl population decline, particularly in Washington and portions of Oregon and the northern coast of California (Courtney et al. 2004, pgs. 7-41 to 7-42 and 11-8).

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 Pacific Northwest was only 17.5 percent lower than ratios calculated for all other assemblages examined. The SEI panel concluded that this difference may be too slight to permit “coexistence by dint of size and size-related ecology alone” (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 7-12).

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 Wenatchee National Forest, eastern Cascades, Washington, affecting activity centers of six northern spotted owl sites (Gaines et al. 1997). Spotted owl habitat within 2.9 km radii of the activity centers was reduced by 8–45 percent (mean 31 percent) due to direct effects of the fire and by (cumulatively) 10-85 percent (mean = 55 percent) due to delayed mortality of fire-damaged trees and insect caused tree mortality. Spotted owl habitat was defined as having ≥ 60 percent canopy closure, numerous snags, and ≥ 2 canopy layers, and was measured from field-verified aerial photo interpretation before the fire, immediately post-fire, and one year post-fire (Gaines et al. 1997). Spotted owl habitat loss was greater on mid-upper slopes (especially south-facing) than within riparian areas or on benches (Gaines et al. 1997). Direct mortality of spotted owls was assumed to have occurred at one site. Data were too sparse for reliable comparisons of site occupancy or reproductive output between sites affected by the fires and other sites on the Wenatchee National Forest.

Two wildfires burned in the Yakama Indian Reservation, eastern Cascades, Washington, in 1994, affecting home ranges of two radio-tagged spotted owls (King et al. 1997). Although the amount of home ranges burned was not quantified, owls were observed using areas that received low and medium intensity burning. No direct mortality of spotted owls was observed even though thick smoke covered several owl site centers for a week.

West Nile Virus

West Nile virus (WNV) has been identified as a potential threat of unknown magnitude to the northern spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004). WNV has killed millions of wild birds in North America since it arrived in 1999 (McLean et al. 2001, Caffrey 2003, Marra et al. 2004). Mosquitoes are the primary carriers (vectors) of the virus which causes encephalitis in humans, horses, and birds. Mammalian prey may also play a role in spreading WNV among predators, like northern spotted owls. Owls and other predators of mice can contract the disease by eating infected prey (Garmendia et al. 2000, Komar et al. 2001). Recent tests of tree squirrels (which includes flying squirrels) from Los Angeles County, California, found over 70 percent were positive for WNV (R. Carney, pers. comm. 2004, cited in Courtney et al. 2004). One captive northern spotted owl in Ontario, Canada, is known to have contracted WNV and died.

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 Ohio experienced 100 percent mortality (T. Grubb, pers. comm., cited in Courtney et al. 2004). Barred owls, in contrast, showed lower susceptibility (B. Hunter, pers. comm., cited in Courtney et al. 2004). Some level of innate resistance may occur (Fitzgerald et al. 2003), which could explain observations in several species of markedly lower mortality in the second year of exposure to WNV (Caffrey and Peterson 2003). Wild birds also develop resistance to WNV through immune responses (Deubel et al. 2001). The effects of WNV on bird populations at a regional scale have not been large, even for susceptible species (Caffrey and Peterson 2003), perhaps due to the short-term and patchy distribution of mortality (K. McGowan, pers. comm., cited in Courtney et al. 2004) or annual changes in vector abundance and distribution.

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 Europe and is rapidly spreading. At the present time sudden oak death is found in natural stands from Monterey to Humboldt Counties, California, and has reached epidemic proportions in oak (Quercus spp.) and tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) forests along approximately 300 km of the central and northern California coast (Rizzo et al. 2002). It has also been found near Brookings, Oregon, killing tanoak and causing dieback of closely associated wild rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.) and evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) (Goheen et al. 2002). It has been found in several different forest types and at elevations from sea level to over 800 m. It poses a threat of uncertain proportions because of its potential impact on forest dynamics and alteration of key habitat components (i.e., hardwood trees); especially in the southern portion of the spotted owl’s range (Courtney et al. 2004).

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 Washington, Oregon, or California (Barrowclough et al. 1999, Haig et al. in press, Henke et al. unpublished). However, in Canada, the breeding population is estimated to be less than 33 pairs and annual population decline may be as high as 35 percent (Harestad 2004). It is possible (but not necessarily the case) that the Canadian populations may be more adversely affected by issues related to small population size including inbreeding depression, genetic isolation, and reduced genetic diversity (Courtney et al. 2004, pg. 3-27). Low and persistently declining populations throughout the northern portion of the species range (see “Population Trends” below) may be at increased risk of losing genetic diversity.

Habitat Trends

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 Oregon physiographic provinces (Klamath Mountains and West Cascades). Reported habitat loss (i.e., expected and realized loss through consultation and reported loss through natural disturbance) in the Oregon Klamath Mountains province and the two Oregon Cascades provinces make up 84 percent of the reported habitat loss on Federal lands range-wide since 1994 (Table 3). Reasons for the comparatively greater rates of loss in these provinces include a higher percentage of acres outside of reserves than in other provinces, a shift to density-management harvest (which can impact up to three times as many acres as a regeneration harvest for an equal amount of timber volume removed) and habitat loss due to fires.

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 Oregon (Rogue River basin) and northern California in 2002. This fire resulted in the loss of approximately 66,000 acres of spotted owl nesting/roosting/foraging habitat, including habitat within five LSRs and five critical habitat units.

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).

The number of populations that have declined and the rate at which they have declined are noteworthy, particularly the precipitous declines on the four Washington study areas and WSR in Oregon (Anthony et al. 2004). Declines in adult survival rates may be an important factor contributing to declining population trends. Survival rates declined over time on 5 of the 14 study areas: 4 study areas in Washington, which showed the sharpest declines, and 1 study area in the Klamath province of northwest California (Anthony et al. 2004). In Oregon, there were no time trends in apparent survival for four of six study areas, and remaining areas had weak non-linear trends. In California, two study areas showed no trend, one showed a slight decline, and one showed a significant linear decline as described above (Anthony et al. 2004). Like the trends in annual rate of population change, trends in adult survival rate showed clear declines in some areas, but not in others.

Demographic Regional Trends

British Columbia – has a small population of northern spotted owls. This population is relatively isolated and is apparently declining sharply and is absent from large areas of apparently-suitable habitat (Courtney et al. 2004). Breeding populations have been estimated at fewer than 33 pairs and may be declining as much as 35 percent per year (Harestad et al. 2004). The amount of interaction between spotted owls in Canada and the U.S. is unknown (Courtney et al. 2004). The Canadian population has reached the point where it is now vulnerable to stochastic demographic events, that could cause further declines and perhaps extirpation and conditions are not likely to improve in the short term (Courtney et al. 2004, pgs. 3-26 to 3-27).

Olympic Peninsula (Olympic study area) – Adult fecundity was stable but lower than the range-wide mean. Adult survival declined over time, was negatively associated with the number of barred owls detected on the study area annually and negatively associated with reproduction at the beginning of the annual survival interval. Evidence for population decline was moderate.

Western Cascades, Washington (Rainier study area) – Adult fecundity was stable but lower than the range-wide mean. Adult survival declined over time and was negatively associated with reproduction at the beginning of the annual survival interval. Evidence for population decline was moderate.

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 Wenatchee than any other study area. Adult survival was negatively associated with the number of barred owls detected on the Wenatchee study area. Evidence for population decline was strong.

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 Coast Range study area; however, the owl population appeared to be stable on the Tyee study area.

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, Oregon, was grouped with the two study areas on the west slope of the Cascades, Oregon, in the 2004 meta-analysis because of similar vegetation types (predominantly Douglas fir; Anthony et al. 2004). However, adult fecundity was fourth-highest and survival was second-lowest among all studies on the Warm Springs study area, which also showed strong evidence for population decline. Evidence for population decline was moderate on the H. J. Andrews study area and weak on the South Cascades study area.

Klamath Province, Oregon and California (Klamath, NW California and Hoopa study areas) – Mean adult fecundity in this province was similar to the range-wide mean. Fecundity was stable on one study area and declined over time on two study areas. Adult survival declined over time on the Northwest California study areas but was stable on the Klamath and Hoopa study areas. Evidence for population decline was weak.

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 (λ_H) 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 λ_H ranged from 0.438 to 1.178 (mean = 1.075). Based on 95 percent confidence intervals, 69 percent of owl territories had estimates of λ_H> 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., λ_H > 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 (Coast Range only).

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 Klamath Province in California (Franklin et al. 2000), a mixture of older forests with younger forests and nonforested areas appeared to benefit owl life history traits. Estimates of λ_H ranged from 0.74 to 1.15 (mean = 1.05, variance = 0.005), with 95 percent confidence intervals around λ_H for all but one territory overlapping 1, indicating a potentially stable population based on habitat pattern (Olson et al. 2004).

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 Oregon Coast Range, although large patches of older forest within the home range do appear necessary to maintain a stable population (Courtney et al. 2004). These findings should not be extended to other areas of the subspecies’ range (Courtney et al. 2004).

Ongoing Conservation Efforts

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 Canada was described in the 1997 British Columbia Spotted Owl Management Plan (Spotted Owl Management Inter-agency Team 1997). However, because this plan was expected to result in only a 60 percent chance of the spotted owl population stabilizing or possibly improving over the long-term, it was not endorsed by the Canadian Spotted Owl Recovery Team. A new (2002) Canadian Spotted Owl Recovery Team has developed a recovery strategy that they feel is ecologically and technically feasible, but details of the plan are currently unavailable (Courtney et al. 2004).

Conservation Needs

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 August 6, 2004, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. 03-35279) to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat.

Legal Status

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 January 15, 1992, the Service designated critical habitat for the spotted owl within 190 critical habitat units (CHUs) encompassing nearly 6.9 million acres across Washington (2.2 million), Oregon (3.2 million), and California (1.4 million) (USDI 1992a).

Primary Constituent Elements

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 CHU having a local, provincial, and range-wide role in spotted owl conservation. Most CHUs were expected to provide suitable habitat for population support, while some were designated primarily for connectivity (or both). Ultimately, CHUs were to provide for the recovery of the spotted owl.

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.

Current Condition

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 Oregon Klamath Mountains and Western Oregon Cascades physiographic provinces (Table 4). Besides providing large blocks of suitable habitat to support population clusters and intra-provincial connectivity, these provinces also provide important inter-provincial links. The Oregon Klamath Mountains province provides a link between the Oregon Coast Range and Western Oregon Cascades provinces and south into the northern California provinces. The northern portion of the Western Oregon Cascades province provides the link to the Washington Cascades across the Columbia Gorge area of concern while the southern portion of this province shares the three linkage areas within the I-5 area of concern which connect this province with the Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Klamath Mountains provinces (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a).

Within the Oregon Klamath Mountains province, consulted-on effects have had a

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 CHU network from meeting its intended functions of contributing to the conservation and recovery of the spotted owl ( USDI 2001a and 2003c).

Table 4. Changes in northern spotted owl suitable critical habitat (acres) documented via section 7 consultation for all physiographic provinces throughout Northwest Forest Plan Lands; aggregate changes from 1994 to the current range-wide update (April 6, 2004).

Physiographic Provinces		Habitat removed/downgraded ¹			Evaluation Baseline ²	% of Provincial Baseline Affected	% of Rangewide Effects
Physiographic Provinces		Reserves ³	Non-Reserves ⁴	Total
WA	Olympic Peninsula	12	59	79	197,009	0.04	0.16
	Western Lowlands	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	Coast Range	15	1,209	1,224	348,717	0.35	2.78
	Willamette Valley	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
	Klamath Mountains	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).

³Land-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 Oregon Klamath Mountain and Western Oregon Cascades Provinces have been impacted to some degree and the majority of consulted-on effects have occurred in these provinces, total consulted-on effects in these provinces represent only 3.28 and 2.21 percent of their suitable critical habitat extant in 1994, respectively. Further, the effects to CHUs were dispersed within these provinces. For these reasons, we conclude that the current distribution of suitable owl nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat in CHUs in the Oregon Klamath Mountains and Western Oregon Cascades Provinces is allowing for essential inter- and intra-provincial connectivity and essential population clusters to persist.

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 Oregon provinces. However, since 1994, only a small percentage of extant critical habitat range-wide has been removed or downgraded, and the critical habitat networks in all provinces appear to be functioning as intended.

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 California and the Biscuit fire in southwest Oregon.

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 California Coast Range Provinces and is expected to provide habitat for 24 northern spotted owl pairs over time (USDI 1991). Due to the extent of overlap with LSR 305 and the percent of overall acres that burned at high severity, it is reasonable to conclude that a substantial amount of suitable habitat was removed from CHU CA-30. However, CHU CA-30 is over 88,000 acres, approximately 48 percent of which was suitable habitat before the Big Bar Complex fire.

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 CHU provides a continuous band of nesting habitat between CHUs OR-69 and OR-67 and was established to ensure well distributed blocks of suitable habitat were maintained between these units (USDI 1991). CHU OR-69, which lost approximately 45 percent (5,791 acres) of its available suitable habitat, is located in the area that provides the single link of critical habitat through the northwest portion of the Klamath Mountains Province leading to the Coast Range Province (USDI 1991). Although not as important to inter-provincial connectivity, CHU OR-70 is a vital intra-provincial link, providing the only link for the north-south movement of northern spotted owls between OR-72 and OR-69 (USDI 1991). The Biscuit Fire removed approximately 37 percent (7,208 acres) of suitable habitat from OR-70.

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 Klamath Mountains Province and the Western Cascades and Coast Provinces (OR-62, OR-63, and OR-67) were not affected by the Biscuit Fire. Therefore, it is anticipated that the CHU network in southern Oregon continues to function as intended and is still fulfilling the conservation and recovery needs of the northern spotted owl in this part of the species range.

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 CHU network from providing for northern spotted owl conservation and recovery across the species range. The Service reached this conclusion based on the following reasons: (1) only 1.4 percent of designated critical habitat has been affected by consulted-on actions range-wide; (2) although the majority of consulted-on effects occurred in the Oregon Klamath Mountain and Western Oregon Cascades Provinces, the CHU network within these provinces continues to contribute to spotted owl recovery; (3) notwithstanding that natural disturbances have resulted in the removal and degradation of large blocks of suitable habitat and reduced the resilience of the CHU network to future effects, they have not prevented the CHU network from functioning to promote recovery of the spotted owl within any province.

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.

Non-Federal Lands

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;

Washington: In 1993 the State Forest Practices Board adopted rules (Forest Practices Board 1996) that would “contribute to conserving the northern spotted owl and its habitat on non-Federal lands,” based on recommendations from a Science Advisory Group (SAG) which identified important non-Federal lands and recommended roles for those lands in owl conservation (Hanson et al. 1993, Buchanan et al. 1994). Owl-related HCPs in Washington (USFWS 2001a) generally provide the demographic support and connectivity support that are recommended in these reports, and the final draft recovery plan (USDI 1992b), and provide support to the NWFP.

· Oregon: The Oregon Forest Practices Act provides for protection of 70-acre owl core areas around known nest sites, but does not provide for protection of owl habitat beyond these areas (ODF 2000). In general, there is no large-scale spotted owl habitat protection strategy or mechanism currently present on non-Federal lands in Oregon. The four owl-related HCPs currently in effect address relatively few acres of land; however, they will provide some nesting habitat and connectivity over the next few decades (USFWS 2001a).

· California: In 1990 State Forest Practice Rules (FPRs), which govern timber harvest on private lands, were amended to require surveys for spotted owls in suitable habitat and to provide protection around activity centers (CDF 2001). Under the FPRs, no timber harvesting plan (THP) can be approved if it is likely to result in incidental take of Federally-listed species, unless authorized by a Federal HCP. The California Department of Fish and Game reviewed all THPs to ensure that take was not likely to occur, and the Service took over that review function in 2000. Several large industrial owners operate under Spotted Owl Management Plans, concurred in by the Service, in which they’ve specified the basic measures they will undertake for owl protection. Three HCPs, authorizing take of northern spotted owls, have been approved. Implementation of these plans will provide for owl demographic and connectivity support to NWFP lands.

Bald Eagle

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 Oregon are tracked annually by Isaacs and Anthony (2002 and 2003).

In the Pacific Northwest, bald eagles typically nest in multi-layered, uneven-aged, coniferous stands with old-growth trees that are located within one mile of large bodies of water (Anthony et al. 1982). Factors such as tree height, diameter, tree species, position on the landscape, distance from water, and distance from disturbance appear to influence nest selection. Nest trees usually provide an unobstructed view of the associated water body. Live, mature trees with deformed tops are often selected for nesting. Availability of suitable trees for nesting and perching is critical for maintaining bald eagle populations. Bald eagles often construct several nests within a territory and alternate between them from year to year. Snags, trees with exposed lateral branches, or trees with dead tops are often present in nesting territories and are used for perching or as points of access to and from the nest. Such trees also provide vantage points from which territories can be defended.

The bald eagle was listed as a threatened species in Oregon and Washington under the ESA on February 14, 1978. This status is a result of past and present destruction of habitat, harassment, disturbance, shooting, electrocution, poisoning, a declining food base, and environmental contaminants. Currently, the primary threats to bald eagles are habitat degradation and environmental contaminants in some areas.

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 Oregon, 416 breeding territories were occupied in 2003. Productivity resulted in a 5-year average of 1.01 young per occupied territory. Several Recovery Zones had lower productivity averages below 1.03 young per occupied territory in 2003, indicating that localized regions of poorer reproduction still persist within Oregon. Nesting success resulted in a 5-year average of 64 percent. The net annual population increase was 7.4 percent for 1980-2001, with the average for 2003 at 3.7 percent. It is suggested by Isaacs and Anthony (2003) that population growth may be slowing or survey effort has not detected nesting in new areas. Data gathered during the next two seasons should help determine the trend. Overall, the nesting population continues to grow, and expand into new areas (Isaacs and Anthony 2002).

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

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.

Spotted owl

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 Willamette Province (USDI 2001b).

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 Willamette Province supports an estimated 1,365,831 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat on Federal lands, including 1,214 known spotted owl sites Table 5. Within this province, approximately 1,050,087 forest-capable acres have been designated as critical habitat for spotted owls.

Table 5. Status of the northern spotted owl and its habitat within the Willamette Province.

	Total Acres	Protected		Unprotected
	Total Acres	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 - Capable Acres⁵	2,577,280	1,405,073	55	1,172,207	45
Suitable Habitat - Current Acres	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. ⁹Spotted 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 BLM Eugene District administers 152,500 acres within the action area (Appendix A, table 3a). Of these, 146,500 acres (96 percent) are forest-capable. Of the forest-capable acreage, 35,700 acres (24 percent) are currently suitable spotted owl habitat. There are 89,500 acres of forest-capable lands that are protected or reserved (61 percent of the total forest capable). Within the current suitable spotted owl habitat (35,700 acres), 28,000 acres (78 percent) are protected. Eighty-one known owl sites occur within this portion of the District, 20 (25 percent) of which are protected. Of the 81 spotted owl activity centers, 11 have over 40 percent suitable habitat within their home ranges. Of the 20 spotted owl activity centers that are protected, all occur in LSR RO222, with five spotted owl activity centers having over 40 percent suitable habitat within their home ranges (USDI 2001c)

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 Mt. Hood National Forest administers 1,021,733 acres within the action area (Appendix C, Table 3c). Of these, 915,700 acres (90 percent) are forest-capable. Of the forest-capable acreage, 404,736 acres (44 percent) are currently suitable spotted owl habitat. There are 557,875 acres of forest-capable lands that are protected or reserved (61 percent of the total forest-capable). Of these, 279,076 acres (50 percent of the protected acreage) are suitable spotted owl habitat. There are a total of 303 known spotted owl sites within this Forest, 141 (47 percent) of which are protected. Of the 303 spotted owl activity centers, 231 have over 40 percent suitable habitat within their home ranges. Of the 141 spotted owl activity centers that are protected, 135 occur in LSRs, of these 81 have over 40 percent suitable habitat within their home ranges (USDI 2001c).

The Willamette National Forest administers 1,689,363 acres (Appendix D, Table 3d). Of these, 1,407,717 acres (83 percent) are forest-capable. Of the forest-capable acreage, 777,421 acres (55 percent) are currently suitable spotted owl habitat. There are 841,116 acres of forest-capable lands that are protected or reserved (60 percent of the total forest-capable). Of these, 421,064 acres (54 percent of the protected acreage) are suitable spotted owl habitat. There are a total of 685 known spotted owl sites within the Willamette National Forest, 265 (39 percent) of which are protected. Of the 685 spotted owl activity centers, 522 have over 40 percent suitable habitat within their home ranges. Of the 265 spotted owl activity centers that are protected, 218 have over 40 percent suitable habitat within their home ranges.

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 Willamette Province, revealed that several of the projects previously consulted on had been dropped. As a result, 13,850 acres of NRF were returned to the baseline for the Willamette Province. Of the 13,850 acres of NRF returned to the baseline, 4,467 acres were in critical habitat (J. Lint, State Biologist, BLM, Eugene, Oregon, and E. Rybak, Threatened and Endangered Species Biologists, USFS, Portland, Oregon, pers. Comm., June 22, 2001).

Consulted-on effects, from 1994 through 2004, relative to the Willamette Province are summarized in Table 6. The majority, 34,865 acres of suitable habitat (62 percent), of consulted-on actions involve removal or downgrade of habitat in Matrix lands. Proposed harvest of suitable habitat from Matrix represents 5.84 percent of Matrix in the Province. Suitable habitat proposed for removal within LSRs is less than 0.25 percent of available suitable habitat within LSRs in the Province.

Within the Willamette Province there are approximately 1,050,090 capable acres of spotted owl critical habitat, of which approximately 658,009 acres (63 percent) is currently suitable spotted owl habitat. Within the Province 14,768 acres of suitable habitat has been removed or downgraded within 18 critical habitat units; this corresponds to 2.24 percent of available suitable habitat in the critical habitat units. Overall loss of spotted owl suitable habitat excluding private and tribal lands which were not included in the baseline, associated with incidental take, represents 3.85 percent of the 1994 FSEIS Baseline.

Table 6. Baseline and summary of consulted on effects through 2004 of suitable habitat (acres) within the Willamette Province.

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%

¹Northern 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 Willamette Province.

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 Willamette National Forest spotted owl demographic study reports that site occupancy has remained near 80 percent since 1995. Although pair occupancy seems to have declined since 1989, the percentage of sites that were occupied by pairs in 2003 increased by 9 percent above the 2002 pair occupancy rate. Matrix pairs increased by three pairs to 22 pairs in 2003, AMA pairs declined by one pair to 23, and LSR pairs declined by two pairs to 26 pairs in 2003. Number of young fledged was down from 78 in 2001 and 58 in 2002 to 20 in 2003 (Anthony 2003).

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 Franklin (1999) the HJA study area was reported to be experiencing an annual rate of decline of 7.49 percent (lambda = 0.9254). Current analysis (Anthony et al. 2004) reports an annual rate of decline of 2.2 percent (lambda = 0.978). Although the estimates presented in the documents are not directly comparable, due to different analytical procedures, there is no indication that the spotted owl population changes in the study area has stabilized or increased.

Continuing threats to the spotted owl in the Willamette Province include the high levels of private timber harvest that continues to occur and overstocked stands that are at risk of catastrophic fires, and insects and disease due to decades of fire suppression. A large fire at this time has the potential to remove a large number of acres of NRF and LSR, wilderness, and Matrix lands (USFWS 2001b). In 2003, two wildfires occurred within the spotted owl HJA demography study area which is included in the Willamette Province. The Clark fire which started in July, grew to 2,009 ha (4964 ac). A total of five nest trees were affected with two of the trees being occupied by a spotted owl pair four out of the five years of surveys. The Booth and Bear Butte fire (B & B Complex) began on August 19, 2003 and burned over 36,734 ha (90,769 ac) with 8,111 ha (20,042 ac) occurring within the Willamette National Forest. One site center on the study area was within the fire boundary and contained four nest trees which have been occupied by spotted owls 12 out of the 14 years of monitoring (Anthony 2003).

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 Washington, but for Oregon, they found little or no effect of barred owls on spotted owl fecundity and survival. However, Kelly (2001) found that barred owls were having a negative effect on occupancy of territories by spotted owls in Oregon but not reproduction. Anthony et al. (2004) indicated that many of the participants in their study believed also that barred owls were having an effect on spotted owl occupancy.

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.

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

The BA indicates that spotted owl CHUs found within the Willamette Province have 56 percent overlap with LSR land allocations (Table 7). Of the 1,217,280 acres found within the CHUs, 676,222 (56 percent) are also allocated as LSRs. This affords a greater degree of protection to critical habitat as Forest Plan protections for LSRs are automatically imposed on those LSR acres that are found within a CHU. Thus any spotted owl clusters found within these areas also benefit from the increased protection (USFWS 2001a).

Table 7. Northern Spotted Owl CHUs and LSR acres in the Willamette Province.

CHU	CHU Acres	LSR Acres	LSR/CHU percent overlap
OR-1	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 Willamette Province means that current management within CHUs should promote the development of additional spotted owl habitat on the landscape.

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 Willamette Province.

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 Willamette Province based on 2001 data¹.

Critical Habitat Unit	Total Acres¹	Total Capable Acres ²	Total NRF Acres³	NRF % of Capable	Total Dispersal Acres	Spotted owl Activity Centers > 40%⁴	Spotted owl Activity Centers 30-40%⁴	Spotted owl Activity Centers < 30%⁴	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 Willamette Province is contained within the bald eagle Willamette Recovery Zone (RZ 12). In 2003, 63 bald eagle territories were surveyed in RZ 12 of which 59 were occupied (Isaacs and Anthony 2003). The recovery goal for this zone is 42 territories with 25 territories occupied (USDI 1986). Although the number of occupied territories is above the recovery level for this zone, an increase in the number of territories available would allow compensation for future nest loss (due to blow down, fire, etc.), providing greater stability for the population.

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 Oregon and Washington (BEWTOW) recommended site-specific planning as the best method for managing bald eagle habitat (USDI 1986; BEWTOW 1990). Site planning requires that each eagle nesting or roosting site be studied and managed according to the unique set of circumstances (e.g., land form, land use, landowner, eagle use) at that site. Most site plans assist the recovery process by maintaining habitat conditions to support nesting, roosting, and foraging, and implementing conservation measures designed to alleviate ongoing threats and to avoid conflicts with identified use activities which are identified to occur within the foreseeable future. Some site plans assist

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, Willamette Province.

Administrative Unit	Known	Potential
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area	4	20
Eugene BLM	7	4
Mount Hood National Forest	1	20
Salem BLM	2	1
Willamette National Forest	7	24
Total	21	69

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

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, Willamette Province – CY2005-2006.

Activity	Suitable						Dispersal			Total
	Remove			Downgrade	Degrade		Remove	Degrade		Total
	Acres			Acres	Acres	Trees	Acres	Acres	Trees	Acres	Trees
Regeneration	433			--	--	--	804	--	--	1,237	--
Heavy Thinning	1,415			2,589	--	--	6,407	675	--	11,086	--
Light/Moderate Thinning			--		2,940	--	--	24,530	--	27,470	--
Down Salvage	--			--	275	--	--	150	--	425	--
Individual Tree Removal		--		--	--	7,076	--	--	713	--	7,789
Underburning	--			--		--	--	100*	--	100*	--
Terrestrial Habitat Improvement					500			200		700
City of the Dalles					8		20	19		47
Total	1,848			2,589	3,723	7,076	7,231	25,574	713	40,965	7,789

* 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. Willamette Province - CY 2005-2006, Summary of effects determinations¹ to listed species from habitat modification performed in compliance with the standards listed in the proposed action.

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-NLAA²in 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. ²The 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, Willamette Province - CY 2005-2006

	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. ³Includes associated Riparian Reserves. ⁴Remove means to eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. ⁵Downgrade as a result of heavy thinning. Downgrade means to change the functionality of spotted owl habitat from suitable to dispersal. ⁶Degrade means to affect the quality of, but not remove the functionality of this type of habitat.

Northern Spotted Owl:

Habitat Modification Effects

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 Clatsop State Forest. Although sample sizes were not large, proportional use of the thinned area was significantly less during and post-harvest operations than during the pre-harvest period. The nature of this effect is not clear, but it may include an influence on prey availability, microclimate conditions, or higher vulnerability to predation. In addition, home range expansion of one spotted owl was observed, and a shift of the core use area away from the thinned stand. These effects suggest that commercial thinning in proximity to spotted owl activity centers may have short term adverse impacts, although thinning treatment may eventually encourage forest development suitable for spotted owls.

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:

The immediate displacement of birds from traditional nesting areas;
The concentration of displaced birds into smaller, fragmented areas of suitable nesting habitat that may already be occupied;
Increased competition for suitable nest sites;
Decreased potential for survival of remaining spotted owls and offspring due to increased predation and/or limited resource (forage) availability;
Diminished reproductive success for nesting pairs;
Diminished population due to declines in productivity and recruitment;
Reduction of future nesting opportunities; and
Reduced connectivity between remaining habitat areas.

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 Mt. Hood for The City of the Dalles Property project.

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 the Dalles Property

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:

Disturbance Effects

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 Willamette Province is considered to be March 1 through July 15. After July 15, it is presumed that most fledgling spotted owls are capable of sustained flight and can move away from harmful disturbances. For this reason, disturbance from most proposed actions within disruption distances of known nests, activity centers, or unsurveyed suitable habitat during the latter portion of the breeding period (between July 16 and September 30), may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, spotted owls via disturbance.

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:

Effects to the Species

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 Willamette Province spotted owl meta-population because effects are short lived and most projects occur outside the critical breeding period.

SPOTTED OWL:

Effects to Critical Habitat

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, Willamette Province - CY2005-2006

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.

³LSR – 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 Willamette National Forest.

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 (Mt. Hood: 1,518 acres; Willamette: 2,315 acres) could fall within designated critical habitat. Of these acres, Mt. Hood would remove 500 acres and downgrade 834 acres (Table 14) of suitable habitat. Heavy thinning would remove 2,499 acres of dispersal habitat within the action area.

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 (Eugene: 535 acres; Mt. Hood: 1,298 acres; Willamette: 4,790 acres) fall within critical habitat. Of these acres, 647 acres (397 acres from the Mt. Hood and 250 acres from the Willamette) would degrade, but not downgrade, suitable habitat. Light to moderate thinning in suitable habitat may reduce the average canopy cover to 60 percent, but stands would maintain suitable habitat. Light to moderate thinning of the remaining 5,976 acres would degrade dispersal habitat, but would still maintain sufficient forest cover to allow continued use by dispersing owls. Degradation of dispersal habitat is not expected to have adverse effects to the function of critical habitat. Silvicultural treatments that retain at least 40 percent average canopy cover in each treatment unit would maintain the minimum attributes of dispersal habitat.

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).

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-20	57,254	55,552	32,382					4	10,291			5

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 Willamette Province (USDI, 1991), the following information discusses the objectives and possible effects to each CHU within the Willamette Province.

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 CHU contains approximately 32 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.

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 to fulfill its intended function.

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 CHU.

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 is expected to continue to its role in providing a range-wide distribution of suitable nesting habitat.

CHU OR-9 established to maintain and provide essential NRF habitat, thereby supporting owl pair clusters. Is the only CHU bordering the southern portion of the Columbia Gorge area of concern which was recognized due to existing habitat conditions and the areas’ importance to maintaining inter-provincial linkage between the Washington and Oregon Cascades provinces. OR-9 straddles the crest of the Cascades and assists in maintaining adequate distribution of suitable nesting habitat blocks within north-central Oregon. 84 percent LSR overlap with RO201. This CHU contains approximately 54 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.

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’s ability to persist as intended.

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 CHU to function as originally intended.

OR-11 borders the western edge of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation and rides the crest of the Cascades Range. OR-11 consists of and is designated to provide for essential NRF habitat and should support clusters of owl pairs. Unit OR-11 is adjacent to the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in an area believed to lack sufficient connection for maintaining a range-wide distribution of owl nesting habitat. This unit will also provide dispersal habitat while ensuring linkage of nesting habitat to units OR-10 and OR-2 to the north and units OR-12 and OR-13 to the south. 23 percent LSR overlap with stringer portion of RO207.

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 CHU is expected to continue to function as intended.

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 CHU should allow it to continue to maintain its role by providing essential NRF habitat. The degraded habitat is predicted to continue to function as NFR habitat.

OR-13 provides essential NRF and dispersal habitat. The southern portion includes a part of the Santiam Pass area of concern which was established due to; the existing poor quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat; the relative low owl numbers; and the general concern of creating an intra-provincial zone of impasse to owls within the Western Cascades province. Unit OR-13 helps maintain existing habitat along this area of concern, therefore, is important in providing dispersal habitat as well as assisting in maintaining the well-distributed range-wide suitable owl habitat. The northern portion of unit OR-13 crosses into the Eastern Cascades province and like all units along the crest of the Cascades, provides an essential link between the Western and Eastern Cascades provinces through lower elevation passes containing, at minimum, dispersal habitat. There is 53 percent LSR overlap with RO214 and has 54 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.

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 CHU is expected to continue to provide eseential NRF and dispersal habitat..

OR-14 was designated along the western edge of the Western Cascades province to provide essential NRF and dispersal habitat. The Santiam Pass area of concern (see OR-13 discussion) passes through the southern portion of unit OR-14, thereby elevating the importance of unit OR-14 for maintaining and improving owl nesting habitat within this area. It has approximately 72 percent LSR overlap with RO213 and has 54 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.

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 Santiam Pass area of concern and also adjoins the west side of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness. It helps maintain existing habitat along the area of concern and is, therefore, important for maintaining proper range-wide distribution of habitat and a north-south continuum of owl numbers. The positioning of unit OR-15 also provides an important linkage between several other units; OR-13, OR-14, and OR-16 to the west and units OR-3 and OR-4 to the east within the Eastern Cascades province. It contains an estimated 46 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.

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 CHU linkage.

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 Andrews Experimental Forest which contains some of the largest blocks of suitable owl habitat in this province. Unit OR-16 provides a major north-south link within the Western Cascades province with the northern portion incorporating the Santiam Pass area of concern which helps maintain the range-wide distribution of nesting habitat for the spotted owl. OR-16 has 23 percent LSR overlap with RO215 and RO217 and 56 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.

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 CHU will continue its original role of maintaining and providing essential NRF habitat.

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 CHU will continue to be met.

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 CHU has 57 percent LSR overlap with RO219 and 47 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.

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 CHU to fulfill its original purpose.

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 Waldo Lake and the Diamond Peak Wilderness Areas which straddle the crest of the Oregon Cascades. This connection not only helps maintain the north-south continuum of owl habitat along the spine of the Cascades Mountains, but ensures connectivity between the Western and Eastern Cascades provinces through the Waldo Lake, Three Sisters, and Diamond Peak Wilderness areas, which do contain some amounts of suitable owl habitat. This CHU includes a 54 percent LSR overlap with RO220 and RO221 and 45 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.

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 CHU is expected to persist in its goal to maintain and provide essential NRF and dispersal habitats.

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 Coast Ranges provinces. Unit OR-20 is centrally located between units OR-18, OR-19, OR21, OR-22, OR-25, OR-26, and OR-28 and in turn provides an important north-south and east-west link within the heart of the owls range. The western portion of this unit consists of checkerboard BLM and private land ownerships which limit the possibility of developing large blocks of suitable nesting habitat in this area of range-wide importance. There is approximately 70 percent LSR overlap with RO222 and 57 percent NRF habitat on Federal lands.

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 CHU or Province scale.

Table 17. Proposed treatments that May Affect northern spotted owl Critical Habitat Units, Willamette Province - CY 2005-2006.

CHU	Suitable Habitat				Dispersal Habitat			Total
	Remove	Down-grade	Degrade		Remove	Degrade		Total
	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 Willamette Province, approximately 43 percent of the Federally-managed suitable habitat is designated as LSR. LSRs are designed to restore and maintain late-successional habitat for the survival and recovery of spotted owls as well as other species dependent on this seral stage for their life history needs. No regeneration harvest will occur in the LSRs.

Regeneration harvest in LSRs is not covered under this assessment. The Willamette administrative units anticipate the downgrading of 238 acres of spotted owl suitable habitat in LSRs over the next two calender years, 2005 -2006 due to heavy thinning. These acres are associated with the Douglas Cabin Timber Sale and the South Mills Reduction which are both fire reduction projects east of the Cascades that have been reviewed by the Regional Ecosystem Office. Degradation of 1,137 acres of suitable habitat is expected with light to moderate thinning in an additional 597 acres associated with the previously mentioned fire reduction projects. Also, light to moderate thinning of 500 acres for terrestrial habitat improvements in multiple locations and 40 acres of suitable habitat for a Railroad ROW fuels reduction west of the Cascades will degrade suitable habitat. The Railroad ROW project, on the Willamette National Forest, is still in the planning stage and associated with a railroad right-of-way. Willamette National Forest will be seeking review by the Regional Ecosystem Office for this project.

The Willamette administrative units anticipate the removal of 2,398 acres of dispersal habitat in LSRs over the next two years, 2005-2006, due to heavy thinning projects. Heavy thinning reduces canopy closure to 30-40 percent within the treatment units, thus temporarily eliminating dispersal habitat. The loss of 2,398 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat occurs in two LSRs with the majority (2,315 acres) occurring in LSR RO-219. Heavy thinning is generally applied within a treatment unit in order to create openings in the canopy, generally less than one acre in size in 25-80 year-old stands. These openings are designed to accelerate attainment of at least some late-successional stand conditions (multiple layers, large trees, for example).

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 Willamette Province, in the short term. Because only 238 acres of LSR suitable habitat is being temporarily downgraded to dispersal (for fire reduction), additional suitable habitat treated for fire reduction will maintain the functional value of these stands for spotted owls. Additional activities in dispersal habitat will only occur in areas where dispersal habitat is currently sufficient for owl dispersal, or treatments will retain dispersal post-treatment. The Service anticipates the proposed projects will have minimal impact on LSRs within the Willamette Province. The LSRs in the Willamette Province should still function for dispersal and reproduction to the extent they currently are providing for spotted owl conservation (i.e. recovery), to maintain clusters of owls and connectivity as they did when the NWFP was adopted in 1994.

SPOTTED OWL:

Effects to Connectivity

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 Willamette Province.

Bald Eagle:

Habitat Modification

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 Portland contribute annually to bald eagle productivity surveys conducted throughout Oregon. These productivity surveys are conducted by the Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit of Oregon State University and monitor known bald eagle territories two or more times per year. Suspected territories are also monitored during these surveys, thereby reducing the potential that new bald eagle territories remain undetected. The appropriate resource agency or land manager is informed when new territories are discovered.

The following section describes the evaluation of effects to bald eagles from the programs of activities proposed to occur within the Willamette Province. Impacts to bald eagles from regeneration harvest and moderate and heavy thinning are not evaluated in this document because these activities are not proposed within 0.25 mile (0.5 mile sight distance) of known eagle nest and roost sites (see the standards common to all actions on page 8).

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:

Disturbance

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:

Effects to the Species

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 Willamette Province. The loss of individual bald eagles due to injury or death is not anticipated due to the high visibility of bald eagles, the intensive survey effort for the species, and the implementation of the standards common to all actions.

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.

SERVICE CONCURRENCE

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 Willamette Province for CY 05-06. Activities which may affect, and are likely to adversely affect the bald eagle, spotted owl, or spotted owl critical habitat were addressed in the preceding biological opinion.

CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS

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 Washington, Oregon, and Northern California is used for timber production (Thomas et al. 1990, USDA and USDI 1994b). Historically, non-Federal landowners have practiced even-aged management (clear cutting) of timber over extensive acreage. Given current market conditions, it is reasonable to assume that these past management practices are likely to continue, thereby reducing the amount of suitable habitat for spotted owls on non-Federal lands over time. Before the spotted owl was listed as a threatened species under the ESA, Thomas et al. (1990) estimated that most non-Federal spotted owl habitat in Oregon would be eliminated within 10 years. Although the trend to harvest continues, not all non-Federal owl habitat was harvested during the 1990's. Hence, harvest activities on non-Federal lands can be expected to continue to impact spotted owls located within adjacent Federal lands through the continued reduction and fragmentation of habitat.

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.

CONCLUSION

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 Willamette Province and especially within the LSR network. The LSRs will continue to support viable clusters of owls and these proposed actions will not preclude spotted owl movements between LSRs or between physiographic provinces. The 238 acres of suitable habitat in LSRs being removed is being downgraded to reduce fuel loading and the possibility of catastrophic fires which should preserve NRF habitat over the long-term.

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 Willamette Province because of the relatively small amount of habitat that will be affected by the proposed activities. The proposed action will remove/downgrade 0.3 percent (3,836 acres) of spotted owl critical habitat, 0.2 percent (1,337 acres) of spotted owl suitable habitat in critical habitat units and 2.2 percent (2,499 acres) of spotted owl dispersal habitat in critical habitat units. The proposed action could degrade up to 6,623 acres (647 acres of suitable and 5,976 of dispersal) of critical habitat through light to moderate thinning. These habitats would be degraded in the short term but would continue to function as suitable and dispersal habitat. The critical habitat unit system will function as intended, contributing to the conservation of the spotted owl by providing for clusters of breeding spotted owls and dispersal across the landscape.

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.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

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.

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE

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.

Northern Spotted Owl

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.

Bald Eagle

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.

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

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 9025 SW Hillman Court, Suite 3134, Wilsonville, Oregon 97070; phone: 503-682-6131. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment or the handling of dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangered and threatened species or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to carry out instructions provided by Law Enforcement to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

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 Willamette

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.

LITERATURE CITED

American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American Birds. Fifth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, The Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Pages 285-286.

Anthony, R. 2002. Demographic characteristics of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the southern Cascades; Annual Research Report-Unpublished. Oregon State University.

Anthony, R. 2003. Demographic characteristics of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the southern Cascades; Annual Research Report-Unpublished. Oregon State University.

Anthony, R., F. Wagner, K. Dugger, and G. Olson. 2002b. Identification and evaluation of northern spotted owl habitat in managed forests of southwestern Oregon and the development of silvicultural systems for managing such habitat. Report on Step 2: Analysis of habitat characteristics and owl demography on three density study areas. Oregon Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

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, Portland, Oregon. September 2004. 179pp.

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 Western Oregon Cascades - H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. As Part of The Northern Spotted Owl Effectiveness Monitoring Plan for The Northwest Forest Plan. Unpublished Annual Report. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

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 Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 47:332-342.

Arno, S. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, J. K. and J. K. Smith, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems, effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 2. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT.

Bald Eagle Working Team for Oregon and Washington. 1990. Working implementation plan for bald eagle recovery in Oregon and Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 72 pp.

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 California. Journal of Raptor Research 14:73-77.

Bart J. and E. D. Forsman. 1992. Dependence of northern spotted owls Strix occidentalis caurina on old-growth forests in the western USA. Biological Conservation 62: 95-100.

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, Cambridge, MA. 220 pgs.

Bent, A.C. 1938. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. Part 2. Pages 202-213 in Bulletin 170, United States National Museum.

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, Nov 13-16, 1995. Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. International Association of Wildland Fire.

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 California. 1992. Journal of Wildlife Management, 56(2): 388-392.

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 Cascade Mountains Province in Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 79:33-40.

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., S. DeStefano, M.G. Raphael, and R.J. Gutierrez (Tech. Eds.). Demography of the northern spotted owl. Studies in Avian Biology. No. 17.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2003. West Nile Virus Website. Accessed on March 20, 2003, at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2001. California Forest Practices Rules: 2001. Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chps. 4, 4.5, and 10. Sacramento, CA.

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 United States. American Birds (103rd Count) 57:14-21.Carlson, P.C., W.S. LaHaye, and A.B. Franklin. 1998. Incestuous behavior in spotted owls. Wilson Bulletin 110(4):562-564.

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 Forest Meteorology 63:219-237.

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

Craighead, J.J., and F.C. Craighead. 1956. Hawks, owls and wildlife. Stackpole, Harrisburg, PA U.S.A.

Csuti, B., J.A. Kimerling, T.A. O=Neil, M.M. Shaugnessy, E.P.Gaines, and Juso, M.M. 1997. Atlas of Oregon wildlife: distribution, habitat, and natural history. Oregon State University Press; Corvallis, Oregon. 492 pages.

Dark, S. J., R. J. Gutierrez, and G. I. Gould. 1998. The barred owl (Strix varia) invasion in California. Auk 115:50-56.

Dawson, W.L. 1923. The birds of California. San Diego, California. South Moulton Company.

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 Alaska. Journal of Field Ornithology 72(1):136-149.

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, U.S. Air Force CES/CEV, Holloman Air Force Base, Project Order No. CE P.O. 95-4. 49pp.

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 West Nile viruses. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 951:195-206.

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

Duncan, R.B. and R. Sidner. 1990. Bats in spotted owl pellets in southern Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 50:197-200.

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 Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

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 Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 35(2):141-150.

Forsman, E.D., Meslow, E.C., and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow, and C.J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38(3):214-230.

Forsman, E.D., 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. April 19, 1999.

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. U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado and Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, Fort Collins, CO and Corvallis, OR. 71 pp.

Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs, 70(4): 539-590.

Franklin, A.B., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, R.J. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, C. Sanchez, J.D. Nicols and J. Hines. 1999. Range-wide status and trends in northern spotted owl populations. Colorado Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Fort Collins, Colorado and Oregon Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Corvallis, Oregon. Unpublished report.

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 California. Studies in Avian Biology 17:83-91.

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 California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis): A meta-analysis. Ornithological Monographs 54:1-54.

Gaines, W.L., R.A. Strand, and S.D. Piper. 1997. Effects of the Hatchery Complex Fires on northern spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades. Pages 123-129 in Dr. J.M. Greenlee, ed. Proceedings of the First Conference on Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats, November 13-16, 1995. International Association of Wildland Fire. Coeur d'Alene, ID.

Ganey, J.L. 1992. Food habits of Mexican spotted owls in Arizona. Wilson Bulletin 104(2):321-326.

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 Arizona. Wilson Bulletin 110:206-217.

Garmendia, A.E., Van Kruiningen, H.J., French, R.A., Anderson, J.F., Andreadis, T.G., Kumar, A. and A.B. West. 2000. Recovery and identification of West Nile virus from a hawk in winter. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 38:3110-3111.

Glenn, E.M., M.C. Hansen, R.G. Anthony. 2004. Spotted Owl Home-Range and Habitat Use in Young Forests of Western Oregon. J. Wildl. Man. 68(1):33-50.

Goheen, E.M., E.M. Hansen, A. Kanaskie, M.G. Williams, N. Oserbauer, and W. Sutton. 2002. Sudden oak death caused by Phytophthora ramorum in Oregon. Plant Disease 86:441.

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, California. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Department of Parks and Recreation. Arcata, CA. 61 pages.

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 California: preliminary analysis. Pages 60-65 in R.J. Gutiérrez, and A.B. Carey (eds). Ecology and Management of the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service GTR-PNW-185. Portland, Oregon.

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 North America, No. 179. The Academy of Natural Sciences and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 28pp.

Gremel, S. 2000. Spotted owl monitoring in Olympic National Park: 2000 annual report. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, Washington.

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 Washington. M.S. Thesis. Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.

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 Washington: preliminary report. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Hanson, E., D. Hays, L. Hicks, L. Young, and J. Buchanan. 1993. Spotted Owl Advisory Group (SAG), Spotted owl habitat in Washington, a report to the Washington Forest Practices Board.

Harestad, A., J. Hobbs, and I. Blackburn. 2004. Précis of the Northern Spotted Owl in British Columbia. Pages. 12-14 in Zimmerman, K., K. Welstead, E. Williams, J. Turner, (editors). Northern Spotted Owl Workshop Proceedings. Forrex Series (online No. 14), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

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

Hershey, K.T., E.C. Meslow, and F.L. Ramsey. 1998. Characteristics of forests at spotted owl nest sites in the Pacific Northwest. J. Wildlife Management 62(4):1398-1410.

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 Washington. Forest Science 48(2):437-446.

Hunter, J.E., R.J. Gutiérrez, and A.B. Franklin. 1995. Habitat configuration around Spotted Owl sites in northwestern California. Condor 97:684–693.

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. Oregon State University. Results of the 2002 bald eagle nest survey. Unpublished literature.

Isaacs, F. and B. Anthony. 2003. Oregon State University. Results of the 2003 bald eagle nest survey. Unpublished literature.

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

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

Jimerson, T. M., and D. W. Jones. 2000. Ecological and watershed implications of the Megram Fire. USDA Forest Service, Eureka, CA

Johnson, D.H. 1992. Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the central Oregon Cascades. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR.

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., USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. 96 pp.

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., Corvallis, OR U.S.A.

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 Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California.

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 West Nile virus infection in birds in the New York City vicinity during an outbreak in 1999. Emerging Infectious Diseases 7(4):621-5.

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 New York 1999 strain of West Nile virus. Emerging Infectious Diseases 9(3):311-322.

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. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, North Cascades National Park, Sedro Woolley, Washington.

Lahaye, W.S., and R.J. Gutierrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted owl in northwestern California. Condor 101: 324-330.

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

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

Laymon, S.A. 1988. The ecology of the spotted owl in the central Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California.

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 Columbia River estuary. Wildl. Monogr. 115. 47pages.

McLean, R.G., S.R. Ubico, S.E. Docherty, W.R. Hansen, L. Sileo, and T.S. McNamara. 2001. West Nile Virus and transmission and ecology in birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 951:54-57.

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. Oregon Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4):1254-1262.

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

Miller, G.S., R.J. Small, and E.C. Meslow. 1997. Habitat Selection by Spotted Owls During Natal Dispersal in Western Oregon. J. Wildlife Management 61(1):140-150.

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

North, M.P., J.F. Franklin, A.B. Carey, E.D. Forsman, and T. Hamer. 1999. Forest stand structure of the northern spotted owl’s foraging habitat. Forest Science, 45(4): 520-527.

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

Olson, G.S., 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. Journal of Wildlife Management.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2000. Forest Practices Administrative Rules and Forest Practices Act. Salem, OR.

Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. 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 Klamath Province. U.S. Forest Service Redwood Science Laboratory, Arcata, CA. Unpublished report.

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. 2000. Land cover at northern spotted owl nest and non-nest sites, east-central coast ranges, Oregon. M.S. thesis. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Pidgeon, A.M. 1995. Habitat characteristics of northern spotted owls in the unmanaged forest of the Yakama Indian Reservation, eastern Washington. M.S. thesis, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA.

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 Oregon. J. Wildlife Management 61(1):151-158.

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

Rohlf, D. J. 1989. The endangered species act, a guide to its protections and implementation. Stanford Environmental Law Society, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA. 207pp.

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

Roylance, F.D. 2002. West Nile virus and raptors die-off. The Baltimore Sun, September 30, 2002.

Sisco, C. L., and R. J. Gutierrez. 1984. Winter ecology of radio-tagged spotted owls on the Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest. Eureka, CA.

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

Solis, D. M. 1983. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in Northwestern California. M. S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

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

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 Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

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, Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 63:1212–1221.

Taylor, A. L., and E. D. Forsman. 1976. Recent range extension of the barred owl in western North America, including the first records for Oregon. Condor 78:560-561.

Tesh, R.B. 2003. Cross immunity - West Nile versus St. Louis encephalitis virus in areas of overlap. Fourth National Conference on West Nile Virus in the United States. New Orleans, LA, February 9-11, 2003.

Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, A.G. Gunderson, R.S. Holthausen, B.G. Marcot, G.H. Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. Portland, Oregon. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 523 pp.

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

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. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Ting, T.F. 1998. The thermal environment of northern spotted owls in northwestern California: possible explanations for use of interior old growth and coastal early successional stage forest. M.S. thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994a. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. 2 vols. and appendices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994b. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forests related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998. The Willamette

Province fiscal year 1999 habitat modification biological assessment for effects to listed species.

U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department. of the Interior. 2003. Rogue River South Coast biological assessment FY 2004-2008 for activities that may affect listed species in the South Coast Rogue River Province. USDA (Forest Service, Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests), USDI (Bureau of Land Management, Medford, OR).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S Department of the Interior. 2004. Biological assessment for projects with the potential to modify the habitat of Northern spotted owls and/or bald eagles or modify critical habitat of the northern spotted owl, Willamette Province calender years 2005-2006.

USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Final supplemental environmental impact statement to remove or modify the survey and manage mitigation measure standards and guidelines, Volume 1―Summary, Chapters 1-4. Forest Service National Forests in Regions 5 and 6 and Bureau of Land Management Districts in Washington, Oregon, and California within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. January 2004.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Environmental Protection Agency, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. Biological assessment for the Big Bar Complex Fire. Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Forest Service, Redding, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Gotchen Risk Reduction and Restoration Project. Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, WA.

U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998. Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook. Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. Recovery plan for the pacific bald eagle. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987. The northern spotted owl status review. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1989. The northern spotted owl; a status review supplement. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl; final rule. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register, 50 CFR 17: 26,114-26,194.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990b. 1990 status review: northern spotted owl; Strix occidentalis caurina. Report to the Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Narratives describing the role, condition, and value of CHUs. Unpublished reports in the administrative record. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 10:1796-1838. January 15, 1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992b. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. Final draft. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 2 Volumes.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994. Final biological opinion for the preferred alternative of the supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; bald eagle reclassification; final rule. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register Notice: 36,000-36,010.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife, proposed rule. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register, July 6, 1999. Pages 36454-36464.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001a. A range wide baseline summary and evaluation of data collected through section 7 consultation for the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat: 1994-2001. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001b. Northern Spotted Owl Environmental Baseline Update for the Willamette Province. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001c. Formal and informal consultation and informal conferencing on habitat modification and noise disturbance timber harvest activities for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003a. Northern spotted owl consultation effects tracker. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 internal website, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003b. Estimates of distances at which incidental take of murrelets and spotted owls due to harassment are anticipated from sound-generating, forest-management activities in Olympia National Forest. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003c. Biological opinion on activities that may affect listedspecies in the Rogue River Basin for fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year (FY) 2008 (log # 1-14-03-F-511).

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. Northern Spotted Owl, Five-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 72 pgs.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Northern spotted owl consultation effects tracker. Region 1 internal website, Portland, OR.

Verner, J., R.J. Gutiérrez, and G.I. Gould, Jr. 1992. The California spotted owl: general biology and ecological relations. Pages 55-77 in Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutiérrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., and T.W. Beck (technical coordinators). The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of Its Current Status. PSW-GTR-133, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

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 Oregon and Washington. Bald Eagle Working Team for Oregon and Washington. Olympia, WA.

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

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, Arcata, CA.

Appendix A . Unit Specific Data for the Eugene District BLM

Resource Area or Ranger Dist /Province	5^th 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
Upper Willamette	N/A	Down Salvage	Down Salvage	75 100 50	GFMA/CONN GFMA/CONN RR	N/A	Suitable Dispersal Suitable	Degrade Degrade Degrade	NLAA-Hab Mod NLAA-Disturb
Upper Willamette	N/A	Individual Tree Removal	Individual Tree Removal	30 trees 30 trees 20 trees 20 trees	GFMA/CONN GFMA/CONN LSR LSR	N/A	Suitable Dispersal Suitable Dispersal	Degrade Degrade Degrade Degrade	LAA-Hab Mod (50 trees) NLAA-Disurb
Upper Willamette	1709000304 1709000302 1709000109 1709000407	Aster vialis restoration	Light-mod thinning	15	GFMA	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA- Hab Mod NLAA- Disturb
Upper Willamette	1709000407	Cash Creek Meadow Restoration	Light-mod thinning	10	GFMA	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA- Hab Mod NLAA- Disturb
Upper Willamette	1709000407	Upper Cash Creek (Belly Acres) TS	Light-mod thinning	550 150	GFMA/CONN RR	N/A	Dispersal Dispersal	Degrade Degrade	NLAA- Hab Mod NE- Disturb
Upper Willamette	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
Upper Willamette	170900020	Brush Mountain TS	Light-mod thinning	375 200	CONN (AOC)* RR	N/A	Dispersal Dispersal	Degrade Degrade	NLAA-Hab Mod NLAA-Disturb

Upper Willamette	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
Upper Willamette	Unknown	Unknown	Light-mod thinning	300 200	GFMA/CONN RR	N/A	Dispersal Dispersal	Degrade Degrade	NLAA- Hab Mod NLAA- Disturb

Table 3a. Eugene BLM - CY2005-2006. Status of the northern spotted owl and its habitat **

	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 Willamette Province portion of Eugene BLM = 35,700 acres. ** 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. ³Includes 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	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 (includes associated riparian 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
Critical Habitat Unit	Remove	Downgrade	Degrade	Remove/ Downgraded	Degrade	TotalAcres
OR-16	-	-	-		535	535
OR-20	-	-	-	-	-	-
OR-21	-	-	-	-	-	-
OR-22	-	-	-	-	-	-
OR-23	-	-	-	-	-	-
OR-25	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total	-	-	-		535	535

¹Nesting, roosting, and foraging

[This page intentionally left blank.]

5^th. Field Watershed	Project	Proposed Treatment ¹	Acres (Trees)	LUA	Critical Habitat (include Acres/ CHU#/ 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


Lower Clackamas	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	Butte Crk Thin	Heavy Thin	50	MX	N/A	NRF	Downgrade	LAA
Butte Creek	Butte Crk Thin	Light to Moderate Thin	500	MX/RR*	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA
Molalla	Butte Crk Thin	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
North Santiam	AG47	Light to Moderate Thin	350	MX/RR*	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA
Little North Santiam	AG47	Light to Moderate Thin	75	MX/RR*	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA

Thomas Creek	Thomas Crab FY04 Carry over	Light to Moderate Thin	80	LSR*	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA

Table 1c. Proposed projects for the Mt Hood National Forest CY2005-2006.

Resource Area of Ranger District/ Province	5^TH Field Watershed	Project	Proposed Treatment	Acres	Land Use Allocation	Critical Habitat Unit	Habitat Type	Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove	Effect
Resource Area of Ranger District/ Province	5^TH Field Watershed	Project	Proposed Treatment	Acres	Land Use Allocation	Critical Habitat Unit	Habitat Type	Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove	Hab Mod	Disturbance
Clackamas River RD	District-wide	Misc. Salvage Thinning Sale	Heavy thin Heavy thin	125 ac 125 ac	Unknown – Assume in Matrix-RR	Unknown – Assume in OR-10	Unknown Assume in NRF	Downgrade Remove	LAA	LAA
	North Fork Clackamas & Lower Clackamas River	No Whiskey Timber Sale	Lt./mod thin Heavy thin Lt./mod thin Heavy thin Heavy thin Heavy thin	1197 ac 324 ac 432 ac 108 ac 75 ac 25 ac	Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix RR-Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix	All None	Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal NRF NRF	Degrade Remove Degrade Remove Downgrade Downgrade	NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA LAA	All LAA
	South Fork Clackamas & Clear Creek	South Fork Timber Sale	Lt./mod thin Heavy thin Lt./mod thin Heavy thin	301 ac 75 ac 100 ac 25 ac	Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix RR-Matrix	All None	All Dispersal	301 ac 75 ac 100 ac 25 ac	All NLAA	All LAA
	Collawash River & Hot Springs Fork Collawash	Collawash Timber Sale	Lt./mod thin Heavy thin Lt./mod thin Heavy thin Heavy thin Heavy thin	163 ac 54 ac 41 ac 14 ac 46 ac 16 ac	Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix RR-Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix	None None None None OR 12 OR 12	Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal NRF NRF	Degrade Remove Degrade Remove Downgrade Downgrade	NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA LAA	All LAA
	Lower Clackamas River	Mutt Timber Sale	Lt./mod thin Heavy thin Lt./mod thin Heavy thin	90 ac 22 ac 29 ac 8 ac	Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix RR-Matrix	All OR-10	All Dispersal	Degrade Remove Degrade Remove	All NLAA	NLAA NLAA 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
Clackamas River RD	District - Wide	Misc. Salvage/ Thinning Sale	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 Degrade 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 Zag RD	District-wide	Hazard Tree Removal	Individual Tree Removal	1500 trees	Unknown – Assume in LSR	Unknown – Assume in OR-1	NRF	Degrade	LAA	LAA
	Zig Zag River	Hazard Tree Removal – Hwy 26 Summer Homes	Individual Tree Removal	150 trees 50 trees	RR-Matrix RR-Matrix	None OR-10	NRF NRF	Degrade Degrade	NLAA NLAA	LAA LAA
	Sandy River and Eagle Creek	Wildcat Timber Sale	Lt./mod thin Heavy thin Lt./mod thin Heavy thin Heavy thin Heavy thin	170 ac 57 ac 42 ac 14 ac 107 ac 27 ac	Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix RR-Matrix Matrix RR-Matrix	All OR-10	Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal NRF NRF	Degrade Remove Degrade Remove Downgrade Downgrade	NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA LAA LAA	All LAA
	District-wide	Misc. Salvage Thinning Sale	Heavy thin Heavy thin	125 ac 125 ac	Unknown – Assume in Matrix-RR	Unknown – Assume in OR-1	Unknown Assume in NRF	Downgrade Remove	LAA	LAA
	Zigzag River and Salmon River	Government Camp Fuels Reduction Project	Heavy thin Heavy thin Heavy thin Heavy thin	40 ac 10 ac 40 ac 10 ac	Matrix Matrix-RR Matrix Matrix-RR	None	Dispersal Dispersal NRF NRF	Remove Remove Downgrade Downgrade	NLAA NLAA LAA LAA	LAA
	Zigag River and Salmon River	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 The Dalles Watershed	South Mill	The City of The Dalles property	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 Sale	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 Degrade Remove Degrade Remove Degrade	LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA	LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA
Hood River RD	Mill Creek	Mill Creek Planning Area	Heavy Thin Lt./Mod. Thin Regen	330 ac 596 ac 33 ac	Matrix Matrix Matrix	None	NRF NRF Disp	Downgrade Degrade Remove	LAA NLAA NLAA	NLAA NLAA NLAA
	White River	Bearknoll Timber Sale	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 Sale	Heavy thin Heavy thin	125 ac 125 ac	Unknown – Assume in Matrix-RR	Unknown – Assume in OR-1	Unknown Assume in NRF	Downgrade Remove	LAA	LAA
Hood River RD	District-Wide	Misc. Salvage/ Thinning Sale	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 Degrade Remove Degrade Remove Degrade	LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA	LAA LAA NLAA LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA
Barlow RD	Badger-Tygh	Douglas Cabin Fuels Reduction*	Heavy Thin Heavy thin Lt./mod thin Lt./mod thin Lt./mod thin Lt./mod thin	83 ac 138 ac 397 ac 570 ac 348 ac 48 ac	LSR-RO203 LSR-RO203 LSR-RO203 LSR RO203 Matrix RR-Matrix	OR 1 OR 1 OR 1 OR 1 None None	Dispersal NRF NRF Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal	Remove Downgrade Degrade Degrade Degrade Degrade	NLAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA	All NLAA
Barlow RD	District-wide	Hazard Tree Removal	Ind. Tree Removal	1500 trees	Unknown – Assume in LSR	Unknown – Assume in OR-2	NRF	Degrade	LAA	LAA
Barlow 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	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 Degrade 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 Heavy Thin Lt./Mod Thin Lt./Mod thin Lt./Mod thin Lt./Mod thin	100 ac 400 ac 200 ac 100 ac 600 ac 400 ac	LSR-RO202 Matrix LSR-RO202 RR-Matrix Matrix Matrix	None	NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF Dispersal	Downgrade Downgrade Degrade Degrade Degrade Degrade	LAA LAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA	All LAA
	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 Sale	Heavy thin Heavy thin	125 ac 125 ac	Unknown – Assume in Matrix-RR	Unknown – Assume in OR-2	Unknown Assume in NRF	Downgrade Remove	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.

Resource Area of Ranger District/ Province	5^TH Field Watershed	Project	Proposed Treatment	Acres	Land Use Allocation	Critical Habitat Unit	Habitat Type	Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove	Effect
Columbia Gorge Scenic Area (Oregon Only)	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
Columbia Gorge Frontal	Bell and Franklin Creek Trail Reconstruction	Individual Tree Removal	15 trees	RR-Matrix	OR-9	NRF	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA

Table 3c. Status of the northern spotted owl and its habitat, Mt. Hood NF, CY2005-2006.*

Mt. Hood	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, CRGNSA^10, 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. ¹⁰Figures for the CRGNSA include only the Willamette and Deschutes Provinces portion of the Scenic Area.

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 Hatfield Wilderness	116,839	114,141	56,587	50%
RO202, 203, 204 Badger Creek Wilderness	86,907	72,399	40,892	56%
RO209, 210 Bull of the Woods Wilderness	50,917	45,057	26,149	58%
RO205, 206, 207 Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness	120,287	110,233	61,476	56%
RO207, 214 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness	26,942	16,039	10,501	65%
Mt. Hood Wilderness	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 Forest is 404,323 acres (includes both Oregon East Cascades and Oregon West Cascades portions of the forest combined). The total 404,323 acres is used for calculations within this table because the habitat removed or downgraded came from both portions of the Mt Hood National Forest. ** 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 – Mt. Hood
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 – Mt. Hood
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 – Mt. Hood and CRNSA
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 – Mt. Hood
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 – Mt. Hood
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 – Mt. Hood
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 – Mt. Hood
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
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 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	Total
	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
Action	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	Total
	Remove² Acres	Downgrade³ Acres	Acres	Trees	Remove/ Downgraded² Acres	Degrade⁴ Acres	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
¹Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat, (i.e. suitable). ²Remove means to eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. ³Downgrade resulting from heavy thinning. Downgrade means to change the functionality of spotted owl habitat from suitable to dispersal. ⁴Degrade 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
Columbia Gorge Scenic Area	--	215
TOTAL	13,338	6,415

[This page intentionally left blank.]

Table 1d. CY2005-2006 Proposed Projects – Willamette National Forest

5^th 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
5^th Field Watershed¹	Project Name	Type of Project²	Proposed Treatment³	Acres	Trees	Land Use Allocation	LSR Number⁴	Acres	Trees	CHU #	Habitat Type	Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove	Hab Mod	Distur-bance
Detroit
North Santiam, upstream tribs.	Presleys Twin	Timber Sale	Light/moderate thin	850		Matrix		350		OR-16	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
North Santiam, upstream tribs.	Presleys Twin	Timber Sale	Light/moderate thin	150		Matrix		150		OR-15	Suitable	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
North Santiam, upstream tribs., North Santiam, downstream tribs., Breitenbush, Little North Fork	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
					4	LSR-RR			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 Sale	Light/moderate thin	1800		Matrix		900		OR-14	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
Quartzville	Quartzville LSR Thin*	Timber Sale	Light/moderate thin	1000		LSR	213	1000		OR-14	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
Calapooia	Lower Cala Thin*	Timber Sale	Light/moderate thin	100		AMA		100		OR-16	Suitable	Degrade	LAA	LAA
	Lower Cala Thin*	Timber Sale	Light/moderate thin	100		AMA		100		OR-16	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
	Estimated Salvage	Salvage Sale	Down Salvage	20		AMA		20		OR-16	Suitable	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
Middle Santiam	Estimated Salvage	Salvage Sale	Down Salvage	20		Matrix		20		OR-14	Suitable	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
Mckenzie	Estimated Salvage	Salvage Sale	Down Salvage	20		Matrix		20		OR-15	Suitable	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
Mckenzie	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
McKenzie River
South Fork McKenzie River; McKenzie River/Quartz Creek	Hartz	Timber Sale	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 Sale	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

Upper McKenzie River	Scott Anderson Overstory Removal	Timber Sale	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 Sale	Heavy Thin	2315		LSR-RR	RO-219	2315		OR-18	Dispersal	Remove	NLAA	NLAA
Fall Creek	Hehe Thin	Timber Sale	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
Hills Creek Reservoir	Jim's Creek Savanna Restoration Project	Habitat Restoration	Heavy Thin	40		Mx-RR					Suitable	Downgrade	LAA	NLAA
North Fork of Middle Fork Willamette River	Niner EA	Commercial Thin Timber Sale	Heavy Thin	2500		Matrix					Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
	Niner EA	Commercial Thin Timber Sale	Heavy Thin	675		Mx-RR					Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
	Buzzard**	Timber Sale	Heavy Thin	500		Matrix					Dispersal	Remove	NLAA	NLAA
	Buzzard**	Timber Sale	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	South Willamette Trail Bridge	Foot Bridge Construction/ Replacement	Individual Tree Removal		4	LSR	RO-222		4	OR-20	Suitable	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
Willamette, Lower N. Fk. Middle Fk.	North Fork Trail Bridges	Foot Bridge Construction/ Replacement & New Trail Construction	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, Willamette River	Willamette Pass Water Storage	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					Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
					25	LSR					Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
Hills Creek Reservoir, Row River	5850-2102 Reconstruction	Road Reconstruction	Individual Tree Removal		500	LSR	RO222	5		OR-20	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
North Fork of Middle Fork Willamette River	Road 19 Realignment	Road Construction	Regeneration	1		Mx-RR					Dispersal	Remove	NLAA	NLAA
North Fork of Middle Fork Willamette River	Thaddeus Rock Quarry Expansion	Rock Pit Expansion	Regeneration	3		Matrix		3		OR-18	Suitable	Remove	LAA	NLAA
Salt Creek/ Willamette River/ Deschutes River Browns Creek	Willamette Pass Fuels Reduction*	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/ Willamette River/ Hills Creek	Bald Butte	Fuels Reduction	Light/moderate thin	75		Matrix					Suitable	Degrade	NLAA	NLAA
Salt Creek/ Willamette River/ Hills Creek	Bald Butte	Fuels Reduction	Light/moderate thin	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

	Total	Total Protected¹	(% of total)¹	Total Unprotected	(% of total)²
Acres within Boundary	1,797,417	857,737	48%	831,663	46%
Acres of Ownership⁴	1,689,400	857,737	51%	831,663	49%
Suitable Habitat - Capable Acres⁵	1,319,945	617,097	47%	702,848	53%
Suitable Habitat – Current Acres	836,647	459,941	55%	376,706	45%
Spotted Owl Activity Centers⁹	685	265	39%	420	61%
Spotted Owl Activity Centers >40%⁵	522	218	42%	304	58%
Spotted Owl Activity Centers 30-40%⁶	87	25	29%	62	71%
Spotted Owl Activity Centers <30%⁷	76	22	29%	54	71%
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. 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. ³Acres include both private and federal lands. ⁴Federal land only. ⁵Those 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. ⁶Spotted owl activity centers with greater than or equal to 1182 acres of suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile radius. ⁷Spotted 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. ⁸Spotted owl activity centers with less than 886 acres of suitable habitat within a 1.2 mile radius. ⁹Spotted 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 ¹⁰Habitat data updated in 2004.

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
RO209/Opal Creek Wilderness	39,285	30,475	17,756	58%
RO213/Middle Santiam Wilderness	65,824	61,372	44,474	72%
RO214/Mt. Jefferson Wilderness	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 Lake Wilderness	88,676	56,255	39,700	71%
RO221/Diamond Peak Wilderness	35,536	15,069	12,911	86%
Mt. Washington Wilderness	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. Willamette NF – Actual Acres of Suitable Habitat Removed/Downgraded (Awarded and Pending Sales)

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 – Willamette NF
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 – Willamette NF
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 – Willamette NF
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– Willamette NF
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– Willamette NF
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 – Willamette NF
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 – Willamette NF
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 – Willamette NF
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 – Willamette NF.

	Matrix*				AMA			LSR		Total
	Non-RR		Riparian Reserve (RR)		Non-RR		RR	LSR		Total
	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 – Willamette NF

Harvest Method	Suitable Habitat				Dispersal			Total
	Remove¹	Downgrade²	Degrade³		Remove/ Downgrade	Degrade		Total
	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
¹Remove means to eliminate the functionality of this type of habitat. ²Downgrade 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. ⁴Light to moderate thin acres – includes commercial thin acres.

^{^[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.

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)

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%

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%

5th. Field Watershed	Project	Proposed Treatment ¹	Acres (Trees)	LUA	Critical Habitat (include Acres/ CHU#/ underlying LUA	Habitat Type	Degrade/ Downgrade/ Remove	Effect ²
*CY 2006 Timber Sales*
Middle North Santiam	Snake Creek	Light to Moderate Thin	300	MX/RR*	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA
Middle North Santiam	Snake Creek	Light to Moderate Thin	20	LSR/RR*	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA
Middle North Santiam	Snake Creek	Regen	30	MX	N/A	NRF	Remove	LAA
Middle North Santiam	Snake Creek	Heavy Thin	20	MX	N/A	NRF	Downgrade	LAA

Middle North Santiam	House Mountain	Heavy Thin	30	MX/RR*	N/A	NRF	Downgrade	LAA
Middle North Santiam	House Mountain	Light to Moderate Thin	60	MX/RR*	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA
Little North Santiam	House Mountain	Light to Moderate Thin	620	MX/RR*	N/A	Dispersal	Degrade	NLAA LAA Disturb
Little North Santiam	House Mountain	Regen	45	MX	N/A	Dispersal	Remove	NLAA

	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. ²Federal 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. ⁹Based 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.

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.

Action	Matrix¹		Riparian Reserves – Matrix³		AMA	RR-AMA³	Late Successional Reserves²		Total
Action	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.

Proposed Treatment	Suitable Habitat				Dispersal Habitat			Total
	Remove	Downgrade	Degrade		Remove	Degrade		Total
	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

Effect in Critical Habitat Units Only	Matrix¹			RR-Mx¹		Adaptive Management Areas		RR-AMA	LSR²		Total
Effect in Critical Habitat Units Only	Acres		Trees	Acres	Trees	Acres	Trees	Ac/trees	Acres	Trees	Acres	Trees
Suitable Habitat – CHU
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 – CHU
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
¹Includes administratively withdrawn areas ² Includes associated riparian reserves

Ranger District	Acres	Trees
Detroit	1,000	160
Sweet Home	3,060	40
McKenzie River	2,994	0
Middle Fork	9,473	624
Total	16,527	824

5^th 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
Long Tom River	13352	8163	6109	3667	2442	2054
Lower Coast Fork Willamette River	5259	2322	1676	898	778	946
Middle Fork Willamette/ Lookout Point	13975	9259	7115	4893	2222	2144
Mosby Creek	6168	2318	2667	1089	1578	( - 349 )
Row River	14973	9204	8076	5892	2184	1128
Upper Coast Fork Willamette River	16989	10615	7442	5332	2110	3172
Upper Siuslaw River	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.

	Old AOC (acres)	New AOC (acres)	Net (acres)
Detroit	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