Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are unsure how the new proposal for spotted owl critical habitat will affect future on-the-ground actions. That clouds some future management decisions on federal lands in Douglas County.
The northern spotted owl, the Northwest’s long-iconic species caught between economic and conservation struggles tied to logging, is facing a reduction in critical habitat.
Listed as threatened in 1990 under the Endangered Species Act — and declining in numbers since then — the northern spotted owl could lose 1.6 million acres of Northwest forests with tighter logging restrictions, mainly in Oregon.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a new critical habitat proposal for the bird. It calls for reducing 22 percent of 6.9 million acres of land designated in 1992 as critical habitat for the spotted owl.
The northern spotted owl, the Northwest’s long-iconic species caught between economic and conservation struggles tied to logging, is facing a reduction in critical habitat.
Listed as threatened in 1990 under the Endangered Species Act — and declining in numbers since then — the northern spotted owl could lose 1.6 million acres of Northwest forests with tighter logging restrictions, mainly in Oregon.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a new critical habitat proposal for the bird. It calls for reducing 22 percent of 6.9 million acres of land designated in 1992 as critical habitat for the spotted owl.
The proposal stems from a 2002 timber industry lawsuit, settled in 2003, against the Fish and Wildlife Service that called for a new look at where northern spotted owls live and thrive. One of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs was the Swanson Group Inc. of Glendale.
Data gathered over 15 years by the agency now suggest that much of the habitat is unoccupied by spotted owls, or they have been pushed out by their more aggressive cousin, the barred owl.
The cut in critical habitat would occur largely in Western Oregon, where 1.1 million acres are on the chopping block. It could open more federal lands in Douglas County to forestry management and logging.
But local agency officials are not sure how the proposal — which should be finalized by 2008 — will tie in with plans currently underway.
“We have a timber-sale program already planned,” which should be finalized by late August, said Cheryl Caplan, spokeswoman for the Umpqua National Forest.
The Umpqua forest’s five-year plan calls for an increase in timber production, Caplan said, and will integrate the critical habitat plan for the northern spotted owl, if approved. She added, however, that lands removed from critical habitat protection will still be surveyed for at-risk species and undergo consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service before action on them is proposed.
“We do that already,” Caplan said.
The critical habitat proposal is different than the 2007 draft recovery plan for the spotted owl, recently released by the Fish and Wildlife Service, but closely resembles it.
Joan Jewett, spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said that when the agency decided to take a new look at critical habitat for spotted owls, it decided to also develop a draft recovery plan. “As we were doing that, we realized we never did another recovery plan for the owl.”
A recovery plan, in fact, was never finalized for the northern spotted owl. Protections for it have always fallen under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, a set of Clinton-era conservancy guidelines for maintaining threatened or endangered species’ habitat.
Within the draft recovery plan, the barred owl — an East Coast species — is identified as the main threat to its avian cousin. A percentage of its removal has been proposed by luring barred owls in close range of shotguns and shooting them.
Wildfires and logging fell behind barred owls on a list of threats to spotted owls.
Francis Eatherington, conservation director for the Roseburg-based Umpqua Watersheds, said it’s unfortunate the critical habitat proposal and draft recovery plan will decrease protection for the spotted owl.
“The Bush administration is just attacking all of the species in peril to increase logging,” she said.
Eatherington insists easements in critical habitat will open old-growth forests, where spotted owls nest and feed, to logging.
“All of our older forests are publicly owned,” she said. “If we can’t protect (spotted owls) on public forests, we can’t protect them on private land.”
The Fish and Wildlife Service says the new critical habitat proposal follows the same conservation strategies of the 1992 critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl. In each, wilderness areas and national parks were not included because they are out-of-bounds to industry and development and thereby already considered blocks of protected habitat. And the Northwest Forest Plan, which designates late successional reserves to promote old-growth forest, was not yet finalized when critical habitat was first set aside for the northern spotted owl.
Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, the lead group in the settled lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service, said allowing land managers in the Forest Service and BLM to set aside critical habitat areas for spotted owls makes more sense than drawing lines on a map.
“We’ve learned a lot more about where the owls live and what they need,” West said.
Two options are identified in the draft recovery plan for improving spotted owl numbers: Option 1 sets aside Managed Owl Conservation Areas, habitat blocks that would support 20 or more pairs of owls or less than 20 pairs, depending on the area.
On Forest Service land, Jewett said the critical habitat proposal closely resembles Option 1.
On BLM land, however, because the BLM is currently working on a new plan to boost timber production on O&C railroad lands called the Western Oregon Plans Revisions, Jewett said the critical habitat proposal resembles Option 2: let the land managers decide how best to protect the species. Where that will occur, however, no one’s really sure yet.
“We’re reviewing the proposal along with everyone else,” wrote Bob Hall, spokesman for the Roseburg district of the BLM, in response to an e-mail. “(The) BLM is anxious to see the final outcome of the recovery plan as it can then be incorporated into some of our ongoing planning efforts, including the Western Oregon Plan Revisions.”
Hall also mentioned that alternatives of the plan revisions will be available later for public comment.
Bob Ragon, executive director of the Douglas Timber Operators, said he’s concerned that the proposed critical habitat plan does not call for a reduction in fuels, or thinning, like the draft recovery plan.
Jewett said timber sales, road-building and recreation still occur in critical habitat areas as long as the action doesn’t adversely “modify” the environment.
She added that, in any case, federal land agencies must notify the Fish and Wildlife Service when a species listed under the Endangered Species Act is found on land proposed for a timber sale or other action.
“BLM or Forest Service, they have to consult with us on the affect of the species.”
• You can reach reporter Adam Pearson at 957-4213 or by e-mail at apearson@newsreview.info.
Data gathered over 15 years by the agency now suggest that much of the habitat is unoccupied by spotted owls, or they have been pushed out by their more aggressive cousin, the barred owl.
The cut in critical habitat would occur largely in Western Oregon, where 1.1 million acres are on the chopping block. It could open more federal lands in Douglas County to forestry management and logging.
But local agency officials are not sure how the proposal — which should be finalized by 2008 — will tie in with plans currently underway.
“We have a timber-sale program already planned,” which should be finalized by late August, said Cheryl Caplan, spokeswoman for the Umpqua National Forest.
The Umpqua forest’s five-year plan calls for an increase in timber production, Caplan said, and will integrate the critical habitat plan for the northern spotted owl, if approved. She added, however, that lands removed from critical habitat protection will still be surveyed for at-risk species and undergo consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service before action on them is proposed.
“We do that already,” Caplan said.
The critical habitat proposal is different than the 2007 draft recovery plan for the spotted owl, recently released by the Fish and Wildlife Service, but closely resembles it.
Joan Jewett, spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said that when the agency decided to take a new look at critical habitat for spotted owls, it decided to also develop a draft recovery plan. “As we were doing that, we realized we never did another recovery plan for the owl.”
A recovery plan, in fact, was never finalized for the northern spotted owl. Protections for it have always fallen under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, a set of Clinton-era conservancy guidelines for maintaining threatened or endangered species’ habitat.
Within the draft recovery plan, the barred owl — an East Coast species — is identified as the main threat to its avian cousin. A percentage of its removal has been proposed by luring barred owls in close range of shotguns and shooting them.
Wildfires and logging fell behind barred owls on a list of threats to spotted owls.
Francis Eatherington, conservation director for the Roseburg-based Umpqua Watersheds, said it’s unfortunate the critical habitat proposal and draft recovery plan will decrease protection for the spotted owl.
“The Bush administration is just attacking all of the species in peril to increase logging,” she said.
Eatherington insists easements in critical habitat will open old-growth forests, where spotted owls nest and feed, to logging.
“All of our older forests are publicly owned,” she said. “If we can’t protect (spotted owls) on public forests, we can’t protect them on private land.”
The Fish and Wildlife Service says the new critical habitat proposal follows the same conservation strategies of the 1992 critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl. In each, wilderness areas and national parks were not included because they are out-of-bounds to industry and development and thereby already considered blocks of protected habitat. And the Northwest Forest Plan, which designates late successional reserves to promote old-growth forest, was not yet finalized when critical habitat was first set aside for the northern spotted owl.
Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, the lead group in the settled lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service, said allowing land managers in the Forest Service and BLM to set aside critical habitat areas for spotted owls makes more sense than drawing lines on a map.
“We’ve learned a lot more about where the owls live and what they need,” West said.
Two options are identified in the draft recovery plan for improving spotted owl numbers: Option 1 sets aside Managed Owl Conservation Areas, habitat blocks that would support 20 or more pairs of owls or less than 20 pairs, depending on the area.
On Forest Service land, Jewett said the critical habitat proposal closely resembles Option 1.
On BLM land, however, because the BLM is currently working on a new plan to boost timber production on O&C railroad lands called the Western Oregon Plans Revisions, Jewett said the critical habitat proposal resembles Option 2: let the land managers decide how best to protect the species. Where that will occur, however, no one’s really sure yet.
“We’re reviewing the proposal along with everyone else,” wrote Bob Hall, spokesman for the Roseburg district of the BLM, in response to an e-mail. “(The) BLM is anxious to see the final outcome of the recovery plan as it can then be incorporated into some of our ongoing planning efforts, including the Western Oregon Plan Revisions.”
Hall also mentioned that alternatives of the plan revisions will be available later for public comment.
Bob Ragon, executive director of the Douglas Timber Operators, said he’s concerned that the proposed critical habitat plan does not call for a reduction in fuels, or thinning, like the draft recovery plan.
Jewett said timber sales, road-building and recreation still occur in critical habitat areas as long as the action doesn’t adversely “modify” the environment.
She added that, in any case, federal land agencies must notify the Fish and Wildlife Service when a species listed under the Endangered Species Act is found on land proposed for a timber sale or other action.
“BLM or Forest Service, they have to consult with us on the affect of the species.”
• You can reach reporter Adam Pearson at 957-4213 or by e-mail at apearson@newsreview.info.
The proposed critical habitat rule was published Tuesday in the Federal Register. It can be downloaded at www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/nsopch.html.
Hard copies can also be obtained by contacting the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 S.E. 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266. Comments on the proposal can be e-mailed to northernspottedowlCH@fws.gov or mailed to Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 S.E. 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266. Comments can be faxed to (503) 231-6195. The proposal is open to public comment for 60 days until Aug. 13. For more information, go to www.regulations.gov and follow instructions on the federal “erulemaking” portal, or call (503) 231-6179. • An extension for the comment period on the 2007 northern spotted owl draft recovery plan has been granted until Aug. 24. The draft recovery plan, released April 26, identifies criteria and actions needed for stopping the spotted owl’s decline and reducing its threats. The northern spotted owl is protected as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Comments on the plan can be e-mailed to NSOplan@fws.gov or mailed to NSO Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232. Copies of the draft recovery plan are available by request from the same Portland address or by calling (503) 231-6131. Copies can also be downloaded at www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/plans.html. |
