Frequently Asked Questions about Northern Spotted Owl Recovery

Status of the Northern Spotted Owl:

What are the main characteristics of the northern spotted owl?
What is the status of the northern spotted owl?
What are the main threats to the northern spotted owl?
How much habitat is there for the northern spotted owl?
How do encroaching barred owls affect northern spotted owls?
How long will it take to recover the northern spotted owl?


           
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl:

What is a recovery plan?
What is the status of the northern spotted owl recovery plan?
Why was the northern spotted owl recovery plan revised?
What are the main provisions of the northern spotted owl recovery plan?
How does the northern spotted owl recovery plan affect federal lands?
How does the northern spotted owl recovery plan affect non-federal lands?

Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl:

What is a critical habitat designation?
What criteria are used to select areas to be designated as critical habitat?
What is the status of the northern spotted owl’s critical habitat designation?
Why is the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation being revised?
How does the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation affect federal lands?
How does the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation affect non-federal lands?

What action is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taking?
Are there opportunities for public review and comment on the critical habitat proposal?
How were the specific areas selected as proposed critical habitat?
Why is this proposed critical habitat designation different from previous ones?
Why does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service propose critical habitat in areas that are likely to be excluded in the final designation?
How will critical habitat lands be managed?
What is the likely economic impact of the critical habitat proposal?
Where are the proposed 11 critical habitat units located?
Why do the proposed critical habitat areas on state and private lands vary in different parts of the northern spotted owl’s range?
Why were no tribal lands included in the critical habitat proposal?
Which areas of the proposed critical habitat are presently occupied by northern spotted owls?
What is the relationship between the proposed critical habitat areas and the reserve areas established by the Northwest Forest Plan?

Barred Owl / Northern Spotted Owl Interaction:

What is known about the barred owl’s movement into the northern spotted owl’s range?
What is known about the interaction between barred owls and northern spotted owls?
What is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doing about the barred owl threat to the northern spotted owl?

What action is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taking?
Are there opportunities for public review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement on experimental removal of barred owls?
Is there evidence that barred owl removal might benefit northern spotted owls?
Did the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service take ethical considerations into account when developing this proposal? 
What are the removal methods the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is evaluating? 
Is there potential for translocation of captured barred owls or placement in permanent captivity? 
If it proceeds, when would the barred owl removal experiment begin?
If it proceeds, where would the barred owl removal experiment take place?
Does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to use barred owl removal as an ongoing management tool?
Has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used wildlife removal as a management tool in other situations?
What are some of the commonly cited scientific research papers relating to barred owls?

Back to top>

Status of the Northern Spotted Owl:

What are the main chacteristics of the northern spotted owl?

The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is a medium-sized owl and the largest of three subspecies of spotted owls currently recognized by the American Ornithologists’ Union (the other two subspecies are the Mexican and California spotted owls).

Northern spotted owls are dark brown with a barred tail and white spots on the head and breast, and have dark brown eyes surrounded by prominent facial disks.  Males and females have similar plumage but males are smaller than females.  The spotted owl’s head does not have ear tufts as some owls do.  They weigh about 22 ounces, are about a foot and a half in length, and have a wingspan of about 45 inches.  In the wild, spotted owls often live 16-17 years. 

Spotted owls feed primarily on northern flying squirrels in the northern western hemlock/Douglas fir forests and dusky-footed woodrats in the southern, drier, mixed conifer/mixed evergreen forests.  They also will prey on other small mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects.  Non-migratory and highly territorial, spotted owls general remain in the same areas throughout the year but will expand their territories in fall and winter when prey becomes more difficult to find.  They are primarily nocturnal and they mate for life.

The current range of the northern spotted owl extends from southwest British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains, coastal ranges, and intervening forested lands in Washington, Oregon, and California as far south as Marin County.  Spotted owls generally rely on older forested habitat that contains the structures and characteristics they require for nesting, roosting, and foraging.  Like most species of owls, spotted owls do not build nests.  They nest in the broken tops of trees, in tree cavities, and on natural platforms in large trees, such as mistletoe brooms and nests built by other species. 

To listen to the spotted owl’s distinctive call, click here.

What is the status of the northern spotted owl?

Since 1990, the northern spotted owl has been listed under the Endangered Species Act as “threatened,” meaning it is likely to become “endangered” within all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future.  Endangered status is more serious, meaning a species is already in danger of extinction.

There are currently 11 long term “demographic study areas” throughout the spotted owl’s range in Washington, Oregon, and California where owls are annually surveyed.  Within those study areas there are dozens of spotted owl sites.  Each year, scientists collect demographic data (relating to occupancy, survival, reproduction, and movement) from a portion of those sites.  Every five years, data from the annual surveys is consolidated to calculate population trend estimates.  This is how scientists determine the overall rate of decrease or increase in the spotted owl population.  These surveys are designed to monitor population trends, not count how many individual owls there are.

The most recent annual survey indicates that the spotted owl continues to decline in seven of the 11 study areas, primarily in the northern part of the range where there are higher concentrations of encroaching barred owls.  Populations are considered stationary in the other four areas.  The overall population is declining at a rate of 2.9 percent per year.

The most important factors scientists consider in assessing the viability of the spotted owl are 1) whether population trends are increasing and 2) whether spotted owls are maintaining their geographic distribution throughout their range.  Recovery efforts seek to promote an increasing population trend so that spotted owls are well-distributed across their range.  This will ensure sufficient genetic interchange and the species’ ability to withstand catastrophic events.

What are the main threats to the northern spotted owl?

There are two main threats to the northern spotted owl’s continued survival.  One is habitat loss primarily due to timber harvest and catastrophic fire.  The other is competition from barred owls, a larger, more aggressive, and more adaptable relative from eastern North America that has progressively encroached into the spotted owl’s range.  Spotted owl recovery can only be achieved by addressing both of these threats.

Both threats were identified when the spotted owl was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, but their magnitude has changed over the years.  In the early years after the spotted owl was listed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service anticipated that the spotted owl would continue to decline in the short term and that it would take decades to re-grow habitat that has been lost over the last 100 years or more.  As replacement habitat is grown, the habitat threat facing spotted owls should lessen.  Barred owls were recognized as a threat when the spotted owl was listed, but the magnitude of that threat has grown significantly since then as their populations continue to expand throughout the forests of the Pacific Northwest.  We are concerned that the spotted owl is likely to go extinct in some parts of its range without barred owl management.

How much habitat is there for the northern spotted owl?

The northern spotted owl generally inhabits late-successional forest habitats with high canopy cover and larger trees (late-successional forests are dominated by stands of mature and old growth age classes of trees).  The spotted owl ranges from southwest British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains and coastal ranges in Washington, Oregon, and California as far south as Marin County. 

When the spotted owl was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that its habitat had declined 60-88 percent since the early 1800s.  Habitat protections put in place since that time have slowed habitat loss and are starting to increase the amount of older forest habitat available for spotted owls.

The latest data indicate there are about 8.6 million acres of nesting and roosting habitat on federal lands and about 3.5 million acres of nesting and roosting habitat on non-federal lands throughout the spotted owl’s range.  Spotted owls use a broader area for foraging, but recovery efforts focus more on nesting and roosting habitat.

How do encroaching barred owls affect northern spotted owls?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified competition from encroaching barred owls as one of two main threats to the northern spotted owl’s continued survival (habitat loss is the other). 

Barred owls now outnumber spotted owls in many portions of the latter’s range.  Researchers have seen strong evidence that spotted owl population declines are more pronounced in areas where barred owls have moved into their range.  Declines are greatest where barred owls have been present the longest.  We are concerned that the spotted owl is likely to go extinct in some parts of its range without barred owl management.

Barred owls are larger, more aggressive, and more adaptable than spotted owls.  They displace spotted owls, disrupt their nesting, and compete with them for food.  Researchers also have seen a few instances of barred owls interbreeding with or killing spotted owls.  Because the spotted owl is already struggling due to diminished habitat, the effect of the barred owl’s presence is like “adding insult to injury.”  An already vulnerable population has a much more difficult time withstanding dramatic changes in the ecosystem such as the encroachment of a competitor.  A healthy population, on the other hand, has more flexibility to adapt to changes.

Until recently, most of the information on barred owl/spotted owl interactions was gathered incidentally from observations taking place in the course of other field research.  Researchers’ observations seemed to indicate that barred owl populations were increasing and causing harm to spotted owls, but they were only getting a sense of the trend, not comprehensive data.  These observations eventually led to more specific research to study barred owl populations, the nature and magnitude of competition between the two species, and the impacts of the barred owl’s presence on spotted owls.

See this fact sheet for more information on the evolution of the barred owl threat, as well as references to the most commonly cited research related to barred owl/spotted owl interactions.

How long will it take to recover the northern spotted owl?

Recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act usually occurs in three general phases.  First, a listed species is prevented from going extinct.  Then, initial recovery actions help a listed species’ population stabilize.  The final phase is turning the trajectory around and helping the species rebound to the point it no longer needs Endangered Species Act protection.  This final recovery phase is often the most difficult and time-consuming.

The northern spotted owl recovery plan outlines actions over a 30-year timeframe and envisions that recovery can be accomplished in that time if those actions are effectively implemented.  Reducing competition from the encroaching barred owl is our most imminent challenge in recovering the spotted owl.  With strong habitat conservation and forest restoration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains there is a good chance of succeeding in recovering the spotted owl over the long term if we adequately address the barred owl threat in the short term.

Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl:

What is a recovery plan?

The most significant provision of the Endangered Species Act is that all listed species are protected from “take” (meaning to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct).  Two other major provisions supplement “take” protections to help listed species rebound.  These are recovery plans and critical habitat designations. 

Recovery plans consolidate the best available scientific information on listed species and make recommendations on actions needed to achieve recovery.  They guide conservation and habitat management activities to help listed species rebound to the point they no longer need the protection of the Endangered Species Act.  Recovery plans are usually developed by a recovery team that includes representatives of state and federal agencies, tribes, academic institutions, and private organizations.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeks public review and comment on draft recovery plans before they are finalized. 

Recovery plans do not establish regulations or restrictions on activities such as land use and management.  They do, however, play an important role in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s consultation with other federal agencies when their proposed actions have the potential to affect a listed species.  Under the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must avoid activities that jeopardize listed species or adversely modify areas of their designated critical habitat.  The scientific information in recovery plans is often used to inform critical habitat designations as well.

What is the status of the northern spotted owl recovery plan?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a revised northern spotted owl recovery plan in June 2011. 

The history of recovery planning in the case of the northern spotted owl is unique.  After the species was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, a draft recovery plan was developed in 1992, but it was not finalized.  In 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan was created as a broad conservation framework to address the needs of many late-successional forest-dependent species, including the spotted owl (late-successional forests are dominated by stands of mature and old growth age classes of trees).  The Northwest Forest Plan served many of the same purposes as a recovery plan. 

Guiding federal land management and protection measures for the spotted owl and many other species, the Northwest Forest Plan amended federal land use plans within 19 National Forests (19.4 million acres) and seven districts of Bureau of Land Management lands (2.7 million acres).  Six National Parks (totaling 2 million acres) also were covered under the Northwest Forest Plan.  Part of the Northwest Forest Plan framework was a network late-successional reserves to be managed for conservation while other areas were classified as “matrix” lands to be managed for timber production. 

Most recovery plans do not include special land classifications or reserve networks.  However, it is not uncommon for recovery plans to identify habitat characteristics or areas of habitat that are considered important to achieve recovery.  The scientific information in recovery plans is often used to inform critical habitat designations as well. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized the first official recovery plan for the spotted owl in 2008, but we decided to revise it after it faced legal challenges and negative peer reviews from leading scientific organizations (see “Why was the northern spotted owl recovery plan revised?”).  We released a draft revised recovery plan in September 2010 and invited public review and comment for a 90-day period.  An updated appendix relating to a new habitat modeling tool was later made available for an additional 30-day public review and comment period.  We reviewed about 12,000 public comments altogether on the draft revised plan before it was finalized in June 2011.

See the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan for more information.   

Why was the northern spotted owl recovery plan revised?

The original 2008 northern spotted owl recovery plan and a 2008 revised critical habitat designation were challenged in court shortly after they were completed.  In addition, in December 2008, the Inspector General of the Interior Department issued a report concluding that the integrity of the decision-making process for the recovery plan was potentially jeopardized by improper political influence.  As a result, in July 2009, the federal government requested voluntary remand of the 2008 recovery plan and revised critical habitat designation.  In September 2010, the court issued an opinion remanding the 2008 recovery plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for issuance of a revised plan within nine months (by June 1, 2011, but this deadline was later extended until July 1, 2011).  The court subsequently ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to propose a revised critical habitat designation by November 15, 2011 (extended until February 28, 2012) and a final designation by November 15, 2012.

The revised spotted owl recovery plan, finalized in June 2011, includes new scientific information and addresses concerns raised by members of The Wildlife Society, Society for Conservation Biology, and American Ornithologists’ Union who provided negative peer review on the 2008 plan.  We regarded these organizations’ concerns as legitimate and compelling enough to warrant further consideration.  Along with our recovery partners, we moved forward with implementing many aspects of the original 2008 recovery plan while developing certain refinements to address legal and scientific concerns. 

What are the main provisions of the northern spotted owl recovery plan?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working to recover the northern spotted owl in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and many other state, tribal, and private sector partners.  The spotted owl recovery plan includes 34 recovery actions and makes three overarching recommendations:  1) protect the best of the spotted owl’s remaining habitat, 2) revitalize forest ecosystems through active management, and 3) reduce competition from the encroaching barred owl.  

• To protect the best of the spotted owl’s remaining habitat, we recommend conserving spotted owl sites and high quality habitat across the landscape.  This means the habitat protections provided under land use plans on federal lands will continue to be a focus of recovery, but protection of other areas is likely needed to achieve full success (including some areas previously slated for timber production on federal lands, and possibly some non-federal lands in certain parts of the owl’s range where federal lands are limited). 

• To revitalize forest ecosystems through active management, we recommend actions that make forest ecosystems healthier and more resilient to the effects of climate change and catastrophic wildfire, disease, and insect outbreaks.  This involves an “ecological forestry” approach in certain areas, which may include carefully applied prescriptions such as fuels treatment to reduce the threat of severe fires, thinning to help older trees grow faster, and restoration to enhance habitat and return the natural dynamics of a healthy forest landscape.  We also recommend continually evaluating and refining active forest management techniques.

• To reduce competition from the encroaching barred owl, we recommend managing barred owl populations to give the spotted owl a chance to rebound enough that the two species may eventually be able to co-exist.  To test the feasibility and effectiveness of barred owl management, we are proposing experimental removal of barred owls in certain portions of the spotted owl’s range to see what effect this has on spotted owls.  If the experiment proceeds and the effects on spotted owls are positive, we may consider the efficacy and feasibility of barred owl removal on a broader scale.

See the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan for more information. 

How does the northern spotted owl recovery plan affect federal lands?

The bulk of federal lands potentially affected by northern spotted owl recovery are managed by the U.S. Forest Service (about 20 million acres) and the Bureau of Land Management (about 2 million acres).  Recovery efforts are carried out in close coordination with these and other agencies and partners. 

When the spotted owl recovery plan was finalized in June 2011, the Forest Service and BLM recognized the importance of interagency collaboration in achieving recovery objectives.  The Forest Service said the effect on the vegetation management program would be substantially smaller than the agency originally estimated and the BLM said that the recovery plan was likely to have few or limited effects on the timber program in the near term (see Forest Service Letter and BLM Letter.)

In the spotted owl recovery plan, two recovery actions (#10 and #32) in particular relate to the Forest Service and BLM’s land use programs.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and BLM worked together to develop recommendations that enable the conservation of high quality spotted owl habitat (e.g., older growth and occupied forest) in a prioritized fashion and reduce the likelihood that following the recovery plan recommendations would inadvertently encumber otherwise appropriate timber harvest or vegetation management aimed at restoring forests through “ecological forestry” management practices.  (The ecological forestry approach will vary in different areas, but may involve fuels treatment to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, disease outbreaks, and insect infestations, and careful thinning to help older trees grow faster.)  This was especially necessary to make sure that appropriate dry forest restoration treatments were not unintentionally affected.

Habitat conservation for the spotted owl has contributed to stronger forest protections since the species was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1990.  There are a number of other contributing factors to the decline in timber harvest in the Northwest over the last few decades.  These include:

• Federal land managers’ requirements to protect riparian reserves under the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, part of the Northwest Forest Plan;

• Specific legal requirements, such as those under “Survey and Manage” litigation affecting the BLM.  These requirements relate to a host of late-successional forest-dependent species included in the conservation provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan (late-successional forests are dominated by stands of mature and old growth age classes of trees). 

• Other specific timber sales, especially in old growth forests, have repeatedly been stalled due to litigation that is not necessarily related to the spotted owl (in some cases, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has officially determined timber sales will not jeopardize the spotted owl population, yet the sales face other legal challenges that prevent harvest).

In addition, estimates on the impacts of spotted owl recovery on timber harvest also should take into account:

• The recovery plan recommends some modification of Northwest Forest Plan guidelines relating to harvest in late-successional reserves if doing so is part of forest management to promote ecosystem health, which may increase timber output in some areas where it does not jeopardize the spotted owl population, and
  

• Some additional timber output can be expected from ecological forestry management practices recommended in the recovery plan.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is providing expertise and technical support for three forest pilot projects on BLM lands in southwestern Oregon that demonstrate the ecological forestry approach.  So far we have approved two timber sales that are part of these projects.

How does the northern spotted owl recovery plan affect non-federal lands?

All species listed under the Endangered Species Act are protected from “take” anywhere they occur, whether or not they have a recovery plan or a critical habitat designation (“take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct). Recovery plans do not regulate, restrict, or dictate any land uses on non-federal lands (or federal lands).  The purpose of recovery plans is to identify a species’ greatest conservation needs and recommend the best ways to provide for them so that a listed species will no longer need Endangered Species Act protection.  Because more than two-thirds of all listed species live all or part of their lives on privately owned land, non-federal landowners are often important partners in endangered species recovery. 

Protecting habitat on federal lands has been the focus of recovery efforts since the northern spotted owl was listed in 1990.  In more recent years the sufficiency of conserving habitat primarily on federal lands has been increasingly questioned.  The spotted owl recovery plan acknowledges that certain areas on non-federal lands can (and do) play a valuable role in recovery and recommends working collaboratively with valuable conservation partners such as state agencies, private landowners, and tribes. 

The spotted owl recovery plan does not lay out specific details on a role for non-federal lands in recovery.  Rather, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends ongoing dialogue and collaborative decision-making with state agency partners and citizens to determine the best way forward.  We also will continue to consult and collaborate with tribal governments in accordance with their status as sovereign nations with inherent powers of self-governance.  Several tribes have long worked to monitor and conserve spotted owls on their lands, making valuable contributions to recovery.  

Our goal is to work with partners and citizens to evaluate the potential contribution of state and private lands to recovery in areas where federal lands are limited.  In those areas, we will work together to develop economic and other sensible incentives for voluntary habitat conservation partnerships such as Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans.

A Safe Harbor is a voluntary agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a private landowner.  Safe Harbors are area- and species-specific, though they sometimes cover more than one species with similar habitat needs.  Safe Harbors encourage private landowners to carry out habitat conservation measures on their land to benefit listed species.  In exchange, we provide assurances that future land use restrictions will not be imposed if the species is then attracted to the site.  This provides landowners with more certainty for their land use planning. 

Under Safe Harbors, some “incidental take” of individual species may potentially occur in return for the landowner’s commitment to conservation measures that contribute to the species’ population overall.  (“Incidental take” refers to take that occurs as an indirect, unintended result of an otherwise lawful activity.  We can authorize such take through a special permit process—a key part of Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans.) 

Similarly, Habitat Conservation Plans are for non-federal landowners, usually government agencies, private organizations, or businesses, whose otherwise lawful activities are expected to occasionally result in incidental take of a listed species.  We work with these landowners to develop provisions for monitoring, minimizing, and mitigating for potential incidental take.

There are currently five Safe Harbor agreements for the spotted owl—two in Washington, one (statewide) in Oregon, and two in northern California.  There are currently 12 Habitat Conservation Plans for the spotted owl: six in Washington covering more than 2 million acres, two in Oregon covering 200,000 acres, and four in California covering more than 200,000 acres.

Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl:

What is critical habitat designation?

The most significant provision of the Endangered Species Act is that all listed species are protected from “take” (meaning to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct). Two other major provisions supplement “take” protections to help listed species rebound. These are recovery plans and critical habitat designations.

Critical habitat designations do not establish specific land management standards or prescriptions. Designations do not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, sanctuary, or any other conservation area where no land management occurs. Critical habitat areas can be actively managed in ways that support species recovery.

In developing a critical habitat proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service first identifies areas within the range of a species at the time it is listed that have the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of a species and that may require special management. We seek public review and comments when critical habitat designations are proposed.

Proposed critical habitat designations are often larger than final ones because other factors are taken into account to refine proposals before they are finalized. After identifying areas essential for the conservation of the species and that may require special management, we consider factors such as the economic impacts of proposals and conservation measures already in place that may preclude the need for designating certain areas.

Federal agencies must avoid activities that jeopardize listed species and must ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out does not destroy or adversely modify areas of designated critical habitat. Federal agencies are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on proposed actions that could affect a listed species or its critical habitat. In cases where proposed actions would harm a species or its critical habitat, we work with the involved agency to develop “reasonable and prudent” alternatives so a project may go forward. (Also see “How does the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation affect federal lands?)

A critical habitat designation that includes private or other non-federal lands has no direct effect on land uses unless there is a federal connection, such as an activity that is funded or permitted by a federal agency. However, identifying non-federal lands that are essential to the conservation of a species informs state and local government agencies and private landowners of the value of the habitat and may help facilitate voluntary conservation partnerships such as Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans. (See: “How does the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation affect non-federal lands?” for more information.)

What criteria are used to select areas to be designated as critical habitat?

A critical habitat designation identifies areas within the range of a species at the time it is listed that have the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of a species and that may require special management. For the northern spotted owl, for example, these features include particular forest types of sufficient area, quality, and configuration to support the needs of territorial owl pairs throughout the year distributed across the species’ range, including habitat for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal.

What is the status of the northern spotted owl’s critical habitat designation?

The northern spotted owl’s current (2008) critical habitat designation is being revised (also see: "Why is the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation being revised?"). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a revised critical habitat proposal on February 28, 2012 and is under a court-ordered deadline to finalize a revised critical habitat designation by November 15, 2012.

In 1991, a year after the spotted owl was listed under the Endangered Species Act, we proposed 11.6 million acres of critical habitat in Washington, Oregon, and California on federal, state, tribal, and private lands. That proposal was refined, and in 1992 we finalized a critical habitat designation of 6.9 million acres of critical habitat, all on federal lands. (It is not uncommon for final critical habitat designations to be significantly refined from what is initially proposed because of additional factors that are taken into account after the identification of lands essential for the conservation of the species and that may require special management. These factors include economic impacts and conservation agreements already in place that may preclude the need to designate certain areas.)

In 2007, we proposed a revised critical habitat designation of 5.3 million acres, all on federal lands. In 2008, we finalized that proposal. Shortly thereafter, we were litigated on that critical habitat designation, leading to the current effort to revise it to resolve legal and scientific concerns.

Why is the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation being revised?

Both the original 2008 northern spotted owl recovery plan and the 2008 revised critical habitat designation were challenged in court shortly after they were completed. In addition, in December 2008, the Inspector General of the Interior Department issued a report concluding that the integrity of the decision-making process for the recovery plan was potentially jeopardized by improper political influence. As a result, in July 2009, the federal government requested voluntary remand of the 2008 recovery plan and revised critical habitat designation. In September 2010, the court issued an opinion remanding the 2008 recovery plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for issuance of a revised plan within nine months (by June 1, 2011, but this deadline was later extended until July 1, 2011). The court subsequently ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to propose a revised critical habitat designation by November 15, 2011 (this was later extended until February 28, 2012) and a final one by November 15, 2012.

How does the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation affect federal lands?

In areas where northern spotted owls occur, federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the potential effects of their proposed actions on spotted owls by virtue of it being a listed species, regardless of whether these lands are designated critical habitat.

Areas designated as critical habitat receive added protection. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat.

The consultation process is the mechanism for ensuring that “jeopardy” to a species or destruction or “adverse modification” of its critical habitat does not occur. Federal agencies must enter into consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when their proposed actions could affect a listed species or its critical habitat.

We then make a finding, called a biological opinion, on both the effect on the species and its critical habitat (unless the species does not have designated critical habitat, in which case we only address the effect on the species). For the species, we specifically say that the project will or will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. For critical habitat (if designated), we specifically say that the project will or will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. If we find either jeopardy or adverse modification to be likely, we negotiate “reasonable and prudent alternatives” so that a project may go forward.

The consultation process allows agencies to work together proactively to tailor actions to achieve agency goals without increasing threats to listed species. Most federal projects are likely to move ahead, but some will be modified to minimize harm to the species and its critical habitat.

For example, based on consultation records over the last three years in Oregon, we consulted with other federal agencies on about 50 projects per year, about 20 of which were forest management projects by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and none of them resulted in a “jeopardy” biological opinion. Of these, about nine per year contained critical habitat.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not recommend that spotted owl critical habitat areas be set aside and left alone. For the spotted owl, we strongly support active forest management where appropriate, even in critical habitat areas, if it helps restore overall forest health. Many Pacific Northwest forests are out of balance due to an interaction of natural and human influences. In the drier and diseased forests, we support aggressive intervention to protect older trees, reduce unnatural fire risk, and better manage insect outbreaks. In the moist forests west of the Cascade Mountains, we support thinning and patchy regeneration harvests that mimic natural forest processes and provide good wildlife habitat.

One of the main recommendations in the spotted owl recovery plan is active management to restore forest ecosystem health and resilience to climate change, wildfire, and insect infestations. This can involve an “ecological forestry” management practices in certain areas, which may include carefully applied prescriptions such as fuels treatment to reduce the threat of severe fires, thinning to help older trees grow faster, and restoration to enhance habitat and return the natural dynamics of a healthy forest landscape. Some additional timber output can be expected from these types of forest prescriptions.

How does the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation affect non-federal lands?

All species listed under the Endangered Species Act are protected from “take” anywhere they occur (“take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct). Critical habitat designations do not provide additional protection for a species on non-federal lands unless any proposed land uses involve federal funding or permitting. If there is a federal connection, the federal agency responsible for issuing a permit or providing funding must enter into consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure a proposed action does not jeopardize the listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat (see: "How does the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation affect federal lands?" for further explanation of the consultation process).

For the current critical habitat proposal, we are proposing to exclude several categories of land from the final designation, including state and private lands which are already managed for conservation. When a critical habitat designation includes non-federal lands but there is no federal connection, there is no direct effect on landowners, but the designation serves to inform state and local government agencies and private landowners as to the value of the habitat. For that reason, a critical habitat designation may help facilitate voluntary conservation partnerships such as Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans. There are currently five Safe Harbor agreements for the northern spotted owl—two in Washington, one (statewide) in Oregon, and two in northern California. There are currently 12 Habitat Conservation Plans for the spotted owl: six in Washington covering more than 2 million acres, two in Oregon covering 200,000 acres, and four in California covering more than 200,000 acres.

A Safe Harbor is a voluntary agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a private landowner. Safe Harbors are area- and species-specific, though they sometimes cover more than one species with similar habitat needs. Safe Harbors encourage private landowners to carry out habitat conservation measures on their land to benefit listed species. In exchange, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides assurances that future land use restrictions will not be imposed if the species is then attracted to the site. This provides landowners with more certainty for their land use planning.

Under Safe Harbors, some “incidental take” of individual species may potentially occur in return for the landowner’s commitment to conservation measures that contribute to the species’ population overall. (“Incidental take” refers to take that occurs as an indirect, unintended result of an otherwise lawful activity. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can authorize such take through a special permit process—a key part of Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans.)

Similarly, Habitat Conservation Plans are for non-federal landowners, usually government agencies, private organizations, or businesses, whose otherwise lawful activities are expected to occasionally result in incidental take of a listed species. We work with these landowners to develop provisions for monitoring, minimizing, and mitigating for potential incidental take.

Because more than two-thirds of all listed species live all or part of their lives on privately owned land, non-federal landowners are often important partners in endangered species recovery.

What action is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taking?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is revising the 2008 critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl because that designation was challenged in court and considered insufficient. The current proposal encompasses areas considered essential to the conservation of the spotted owl and that may require special management. We have already taken the step of proposing to exclude several categories of land from the final critical habitat designation, including approximately 4 million acres of state lands, private lands, and federal lands—such as national parks and wilderness areas—much of which is already managed for conservation.

We also will use public and stakeholder feedback, as well as the information from an economic analysis, to assess additional areas for exclusion from the remaining approximately 10 million acres that are initially eligible for potential critical habitat designation. It is expected that as a result of these additional exclusions, the size of the final designation would be reduced further. (Also see: "Why does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service propose critical habitat in areas that are likely to be excluded in the final designation?)

Over the last 20 years, spotted owl habitat has been identified and managed as the 7.4 million acres of late-successional reserve lands under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan and two previous critical habitat designations (6.9 million acres of federal lands designated in 1992 and 5.3 million acres of federal lands designated in 2008). All of these were distributed across the geographic range of the spotted owl, including the Olympic Peninsula; the Cascade Mountains of Washington, Oregon, and northern California; the Coast Ranges in Oregon and California; and the Klamath Provinces in Oregon and California.

Are there opportunities for public review and comment on the critical habitat proposal?

Yes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service encourages anyone with an interest in northern spotted owl recovery to provide comments on the critical habitat proposal. A 90-day public review and comment period began on March 8, 2012, when the spotted owl critical habitat proposal was published in the Federal Register. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeks public review and comments whenever critical habitat designations are proposed. The Endangered Species Act’s requirements for the critical habitat process are rigorous, providing for a full evaluation of economic impacts of proposed designations, thorough scientific review, and extensive public involvement.

We want to ensure there is ample time to review and provide comments on both the critical habitat proposal and an economic analysis that will be made available for at least a 30-day public comment period in May 2012. The critical habitat proposal will continue to be available for public review and comment during the comment period on the economic analysis.

In addition, we intend to hold at least three public information meetings on this critical habitat proposal; at least one in each of the three states within the spotted owl’s range. We will announce specific meeting locations and times in local news media outlets and on this website once they are arranged.

Comments on the critical habitat proposal can be provided two ways:

• Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Send a Comment or Submission.”
  

• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
  

How were the specific areas selected as proposed critical habitat?

According to the Endangered Species Act, a critical habitat designation is for land within the range of a species at the time it is listed that has the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of a species and that may require special management. For the northern spotted owl, these features include particular forest types of sufficient area, quality, and configuration to support the needs of territorial owl pairs throughout the year distributed across the species’ range, including habitat for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took a new approach in developing this critical habitat proposal. We integrated habitat and demographic information (relating to occupancy, survival, reproduction, and movement) to develop a modeling tool that assesses habitat quality and population dynamics across the range. This gives us a more accurate picture of where high quality spotted owl habitat still exists. It synthesizes more than 20 years’ worth of data from on-the-ground demographic surveys. All this information combined allows us to evaluate how spotted owl populations would fare under different habitat conservation scenarios. This ultimately provides an improved tool for determining what areas are in most need of special management to recover the owl. The modeling tool also can take into account different levels of barred owl impacts on spotted owl populations.

The main objectives we considered in identifying the proposed critical habitat designation were:

• Ensure sufficient habitat to support stable, healthy populations across the range, and also within each of the 11 recovery units;
  
  
• Ensure distribution of spotted owl populations across the range of habitat conditions used by the species;
  
  
• Incorporate uncertainty, including potential effects of barred owls, climate change, and wildfire disturbance risk; and
  
  
• Recognize that these protections are meant to work in concert with other recovery actions, such as barred owl management.

Why is this proposed critical habitat designation different from previous ones?

Today’s proposal is based on the current status and recent scientific research on spotted owl populations. Especially in recent years, leading scientists have consistently recommended further habitat protection for the spotted owl in light of its continued decline (the overall population is declining at a rate of 2.9 percent per year). They also have emphasized the importance of doing so in the short term as recovery partners evaluate approaches for managing competition from the encroaching barred owl.

Recent science affirms the need to conserve larger areas of habitat to save the spotted owl. This was demonstrated through two scientific peer review processes—on the 2008 and 2011 spotted owl recovery plans—and in recent studies by leading spotted owl researchers. (For example, Forsman et al. 2011 “Population Demography of Northern Spotted Owls,” and Dugger et al. 2011 “Transient Dynamics of Invasive Competition: Barred Owls, Spotted Owls, Habitat, and the Demons of Competition Present.”

Another reason the current critical habitat proposal is different is because it initially identifies about 2.6 million acres of Congressionally protected areas of suitable spotted owl habitat that were not included in previous critical habitat proposals or final designations. Congressionally reserved areas include lands with designations that prevent timber harvest, as well as other federal lands which are not administered by U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. These other lands include national parks and monuments, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national wildlife refuges. Many of these areas are proposed for exclusion because their management already promotes spotted owl conservation.

In addition, the current proposal includes state and private lands that were not previously designated critical habitat. This is in line with recommendations in the spotted owl recovery plan to consider ways to facilitate additional habitat protection in areas where federal lands are limited. For example, the current critical habitat proposal identifies areas where we would like to work with state and private landowners on partnerships such as voluntary Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans. We propose to exclude many of the state and private lands included in the proposal when we finalize the spotted owl critical habitat designation because of existing conservation partnership agreements that sustain spotted owl habitat. (Also see: "Why does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service propose critical habitat in areas that are likely to be excluded in the final designation?")

Why does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service propose critical habitat in areas that are likely to be excluded in the final designation?

Critical habitat proposals are often larger than final critical habitat designations. This is because the Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to start by identifying all areas essential to the conservation of a species and that may require special management, and then to take other factors into consideration to refine proposals before critical habitat designations are finalized.

Final critical habitat designations are refined by taking into account:

• The economic impacts of proposed designations,

• Conservation efforts already in place that could preclude the need for designating certain areas,

• Scientific peer review,

• Other public comments.

We will be using such additional information to evaluate and refine the current spotted owl critical habitat proposal. An economic analysis will be made available for public review and comment for at least 30 days in May 2012. We also propose to exclude Congressionally reserved lands and state and private lands currently managed to sustain spotted owl habitat (such as those covered under voluntary Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans) in the final critical habitat designation. We are working with leading scientific organizations to obtain a thorough peer review of the proposal. We will consider all public comments we receive on the proposal and the economic analysis before finalizing the spotted owl’s critical habitat designation.

How will critical habitat lands be managed?

The Endangered Species Act does not require that critical habitat areas be set aside and left alone; they can and should be actively managed to promote the health of ecosystems.  For the northern spotted owl, for example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service strongly supports active forest management where appropriate, even in critical habitat areas, if it helps restore overall forest health.  We maintain that what’s good for the ecosystem is good for the spotted owl.  We work in close coordination with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management since most spotted owl critical habitat is on lands these agencies manage. 

One of the main recommendations in the spotted owl recovery plan is active management to restore forest ecosystem health and resilience to climate change, wildfire, and insect infestations.  Many Pacific Northwest forests are out of balance due to an interaction of natural and human influences.  In the drier and diseased forests, we support aggressive intervention to protect older trees, reduce unnatural fire risk, and better manage insect outbreaks.  In the moist forests west of the Cascade Mountains, we support thinning and patchy regeneration harvests that mimic natural forest processes.

One kind of active management that the Forest Service and BLM are applying in certain areas is “ecological forestry.”  This approach may include carefully applied prescriptions such as fuels treatment to reduce the threat of severe fires, thinning to help older trees grow faster, and restoration to enhance habitat and return the natural dynamics of a healthy forest landscape. 

One reason we support ecological forestry management practices is they provide forest managers flexibility in designing timber harvest activities that are compatible with spotted owl conservation.  The ecological forestry approach involves precise forest treatments that allow select timber harvest as part of broader efforts to restore forest health.  At times, this may mean a short term loss of individual spotted owls in exchange for a long term gain in the quantity and quality of habitat for the spotted owl population.

What is the likely economic impact of the critical habitat proposal?

The critical habitat proposal affirms basic recommendations of the northern spotted owl recovery plan:  conserve the older forests occupied by spotted owls wherever they occur on federal lands, and actively manage forests to restore ecosystem health in many of the parts of the species’ range.  

Critical habitat should have relatively minor economic impacts on timber harvest on federal lands for two reasons.  First, the harvest of many older forests, including areas in “matrix” lands that were established for timber production under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, is highly controversial.  Timber harvest in these areas is often stalled or precluded by litigation challenges for a variety of concerns independent of spotted owl recovery issues.  The critical habitat proposal includes many of these already encumbered or controversial areas, and thus is not expected to create additional impacts in such areas. 

Second, the proposal encourages “ecological forestry” management practices within critical habitat when it promotes forest restoration and ecosystem health.  Many Pacific Northwest forests are out of balance due to an interaction of natural and human influences.  In the drier and diseased forests, we support intervention to protect older trees, reduce unnatural fire risk, and better manage insect outbreaks.  In the moist forests west of the Cascade Mountains, we support thinning and patchy regeneration harvests that better mimic natural forest processes.  Application of such science-based forest treatments could provide significant economic and employment opportunity in many areas and should generally be compatible with the goals of spotted owl recovery.  It may also reduce the potential for litigation of some timber harvest proposals that apply these methods.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be contracting with economics experts to develop a thorough economic analysis on the critical habitat proposal, which will evaluate timber harvest-related and other potential economic impacts.  This report will be made available in May 2012 for public review and comment period prior to our finalization of the spotted owl critical habitat designation.  The Endangered Species Act requires us to start by identifying all areas essential to the conservation of a species and that may require special management, and then to take other factors, such as economic impacts, into consideration to refine proposals before critical habitat designations are finalized. 

Where are the proposed 11 critical habitat units located?

To establish critical habitat units, the range of the northern spotted owl was divided into 11 regions based on degree of similarity of structural characteristics of spotted owl habitat within each region, latitudinal patterns of topography and climate, and regional differences in forest ecosystems.  Each critical habitat unit is composed of the proposed critical habitat within each individual region.  The eleven critical habitat units include:

Why do the proposed critical habitat areas on state and private lands vary in different parts of the northern spotted owl’s range?   

Protecting habitat on federal lands has been the focus of recovery efforts since the spotted owl was listed in 1990.  In more recent years the sufficiency of conserving habitat primarily on federal lands has been increasingly questioned.  Certain areas on non-federal lands can (and do) play an important role in recovery, especially through voluntary conservation partnerships such as Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans.  As recommended in the spotted owl recovery plan, we want to maximize our collaborative efforts with valuable conservation partners such as state agencies and private forest landowners, especially in areas of limited public land ownership.

Federal lands still comprise the majority of the current critical habitat proposal, but some state and private lands are also identified among the areas essential to the conservation of the spotted owl.  We attempted to maximize reliance on public lands, looking first to federal lands and secondarily to state lands.  We incorporated private lands only when we considered that federal and state lands may be insufficient to meet the spotted owl’s recovery needs.  In some areas of limited federal land ownership, state and private lands have a vital role to play in contributing to habitat connectivity, which facilitates dispersal and colonization, key factors in achieving an adequate population distribution.

Many of the state and private lands identified in the current proposal may be excluded in our final critical habitat designation.  This is because of conservation measures already in place, such as Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans support spotted owl recovery, precluding the need to designate some areas. 

Why were no tribal lands included in the critical habitat proposal? 

American Indian tribal governments are sovereign nations with inherent powers of self-governance.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that many Northwest tribes have long worked to conserve and monitor northern spotted owls on their lands, making valuable contributions to recovery.  These efforts have supported forest conservation and maintained tribal cultural values. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, outlines the policies and responsibilities of the federal government in matters affecting tribal interests (confirmed by Presidential Memorandum; 74 FR 57879; in 2009).  In addition to the Executive Order, Interior Secretarial Order 3206 states that Indian lands shall not be designated as critical habitat, nor areas where the “tribal trust resources … or the exercise of tribal rights” will be impacted, unless such lands or areas are determined “essential to conserve a listed species” (the main criteria for critical habitat designations).  In such cases we “shall evaluate and document the extent to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by designating only other lands.”

We determined that excluding tribal lands from the critical habitat designation would have the benefit of promoting federal policies regarding tribal sovereignty and self-governance and promote a positive working relationship between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the tribes, with a very small reduction in the benefits of designation.  We are committed to our ongoing collaborative efforts that advance the mutual conservation goals of the U.S. and tribal governments.

Which areas of the proposed critical habitat are presently occupied by northern spotted owls?

Critical habitat designations are defined in the context of lands occupied at the time of listing under the Endangered Species Act.  We consider all of the areas included in the current northern spotted owl critical habitat proposal to be occupied at time the species was listed in 1990.  This is based on surveys and monitoring of known spotted owl territories that cover these lands.  We believe spotted owls inhabit all but one of the 63 sub-units of today’s proposed critical habitat, although the barred owl’s encroachment into the spotted owl’s range and its subsequent expansion have caused some areas to be more sparsely occupied than previously.  (The one unoccupied sub-unit that is included in the proposal, on Joint Base Lewis-McChord military base in Washington, is a potentially significant stepping stone for dispersing spotted owls.)

What is the relationship between the proposed critical habitat areas and the reserve areas established by the Northwest Forest Plan? 

The overall footprint of the Northwest Forest Plan, about 24 million acres in Washington, Oregon, and California, is the U.S. range of the northern spotted owl.  The plan provides for the conservation of many late-successional forest-dependent species that live within the same area (late-successional forests are dominated by stands of mature and old growth age classes of trees.)  On federal lands within the overall footprint, the Northwest Forest Plan established two main land classifications:  late-successional reserves to be managed for conservation and “matrix” lands to be managed primarily for timber production.  The Northwest Forest Plan footprint also includes other reserve lands established separately by Congress, such as national parks and wilderness areas.  

All areas of spotted owl critical habitat on federal lands (past designations and current proposed areas) overlay Northwest Forest Plan lands.  The Northwest Forest Plan has no effect on federal agencies’ requirement to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on proposed actions that may affect the spotted owl population or adversely modify its critical habitat (also see "How does the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation affect federal lands?")

In general, forest management in late-successional reserves must be neutral or beneficial to late-successional species.  When these areas are overlaid by critical habitat, management is expected to follow guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan and recommendations from the spotted owl recovery plan.  In most cases there is little difference between the two.

When critical habitat overlays matrix lands, timber harvest is expected to be consistent with the spotted owl recovery plan, taking into account its strong recommendations to protect spotted owl occupied sites and high quality habitat.  One reason we support “ecological forestry” management practices is they provide forest managers flexibility in designing timber harvest activities that are compatible with spotted owl conservation over the long term.  The ecological forestry approach involves precise forest treatments that allow select timber harvest as part of broader efforts to restore the health and natural dynamics of forest ecosystems.  This may involve fuels treatment to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildlife, disease outbreaks, and insect infestations, and careful thinning to help older trees grow faster.   

Barred Owl / Northern Spotted Owl Interaction:

What is known about the barred owl’s movement into the northern spotted owl’s range?

Barred owls are native to eastern North America.  It is believed they began moving west of the Mississippi River around the turn of the 20th century.  Barred owls reached the range of the northern spotted owl in British Columbia by about 1959, continued to expand southward, and were first documented in Washington, Oregon, and California in the 1970s.  Barred owls now outnumber spotted owls in many portions of the latter’s range. 

The barred owl’s movement could have been a natural range expansion or human-caused or a combination of both; no one knows why for sure, and we will likely never know.  We do know that barred owls were not imported or spread by people, unlike many other encroaching or invasive species. 

There are several theories about why barred owls progressively moved westward.  The most common one is that it was caused by changes to the environment in the Great Plains as people increasingly settled there and dramatically altered the landscape.  Things like fire suppression, the decimation of bison, and orchard planting may have altered natural barriers that previously inhibited the barred owl’s cross-country migration and settlement into new areas.

What is known about the interaction between barred owls and northern spotted owls?

Barred owls are larger, more aggressive, and more adaptable than northern spotted owls.  They displace spotted owls, disrupt their nesting, and compete with them for food.  Researchers also have seen a few instances of barred owls interbreeding with or killing spotted owls. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified competition from barred owls as one of two main threats to the spotted owl’s continued survival (habitat loss is the other).

The barred owl encroached into the spotted owl’s range and rapidly expanded and increased in number especially over the last few decades.  Barred owls now outnumber spotted owls in many portions of the latter’s range.  Researchers have seen strong evidence that spotted owl population declines are more pronounced in areas where barred owls have moved into their range.  Declines are greatest where barred owls have been present the longest.  We are concerned that the spotted owl is likely to go extinct in some parts of its range without barred owl population management.

Because the spotted owl is already struggling due to its reduced habitat, the effect of the barred owl’s presence is like “adding insult to injury.”  An already vulnerable population has a much more difficult time withstanding dramatic changes in the ecosystem such as the encroachment of a competitor.  A healthy population, on the other hand, has more flexibility to adapt to changes.

Until recently, most of the information on barred owl/spotted owl interactions was gathered incidentally from observations taking place in the course of other field research.  Researchers’ observations seemed to indicate that barred owl populations were increasing and causing harm to spotted owls, but they were only getting a sense of the trend, not comprehensive data.  These observations eventually led to more specific research to study barred owl populations, the nature and magnitude of competition between the two species, and the impacts of the barred owl’s presence on spotted owls.

What is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doing about the barred owl threat to the northern spotted owl?

About one-third of the northern spotted owl recovery plan focuses on addressing the threat of the encroaching barred owl.  The most significant effort is a proposal to conduct a barred owl removal experiment.  An upcoming draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the experiment outlines options for removing barred owls from certain areas of the spotted owl’s range to see if removing them would have a positive effect on spotted owls.  If the experiment proceeds and the effects on spotted owls are positive, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may consider the effectiveness and feasibility of barred owl removal on a broader scale.   We would be required by the National Environmental Policy Act to initiate a separate process on any proposal to use barred owl removal as a management tool.  (Also see: "More information on the proposal for experimental removal of barred owls" section for several additional FAQs on this topic.)

See this newsletter for more information on the EIS process.

Another important effort related to barred owl management is the development of an updated survey protocol for the spotted owl.  The survey protocol was first developed in 1992 to help guide forest management activities, but needed to be refined because the barred owl’s presence suppresses spotted owl detection during audio surveys, an important tool for locating spotted owls. 

Click here for more information on the new spotted owl survey protocol.

Along with partners, we also designed a barred owl-specific survey protocol for locating barred owls that was later tested by field researchers.  This is part of broader research currently underway that is helping us get a better sense of the occurrence and distribution of barred owls and the competitive interactions between barred owls and spotted owls. 

More information on the proposal for experimental removal of barred owls:

What action is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taking?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is releasing a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) outlining options for experimental removal of barred owls from certain areas of the northern spotted owl’s range to see if removing them would have a positive effect on spotted owls. Managing competition from encroaching barred owls is one of the main recommendations in the spotted owl recovery plan. 

No policy decision is made by the draft EIS.  The purpose of releasing the draft is to seek public review and comment on the various options relating to experimental removal of barred owls prior to making a policy decision.  We will consider all public comments received, refine the proposal, and release a final EIS, probably by the end of the 2012.

The options we’re considering include non-lethal and lethal methods of removal (non-lethal methods include capture and translocation or capture and permanent captivity).  The draft EIS also includes a “no action” option.  We have used non-lethal and lethal removal of wildlife as a management tool in many other situations where no other options existed to conserve an endangered species or species of concern.  In this case, we are concerned that spotted owls are likely to become extinct in parts of their range without barred owl population management.  Even with those high stakes, these are very difficult considerations and we do not take them lightly.  All options are designed to minimize trauma, pain, and suffering.

The purpose of the experiment would be:

• To obtain and evaluate information on the effects of barred owls on spotted owl occupancy, survival, reproduction, and population trend through experimental removal;

• To determine the feasibility of barred owl removal; and

• To expeditiously develop information for potential decisions on future management of barred owls.

If the proposed experiment proceeds, it would give us valuable information about how barred owls impact the population growth and dynamics of spotted owls.  The experiment would allow us to gather information without being excessive, helping to assess the efficacy and feasibility of barred owl population management.  We hope to determine whether the barred owl population could be managed to an extent that would allow the spotted owl a chance to rebound enough that the two species can eventually co-exist. 

The draft EIS includes eight potential courses of action, called “alternatives,” for public consideration, including one to take no action.  Each alternative includes information on the experiment location(s), the estimated cost and duration, the approximate number of barred owls that would be removed, the potential effect on other species, and any potential social, economic, cultural, and recreational effects.  If it proceeds, the experiment would take place over a period of 3-10 years (the duration varies in the different alternatives).  The cost of the experiment would depend on the alternative chosen, but we estimate it would range from $1.2 million to $17 million.

The draft EIS proposes that experiment sites include one or more of the 11 “demographic study areas” where monitoring of spotted owl population dynamics has taken place for two decades, or other areas within the range of the spotted owl.  Most proposed study areas for the experiment are focused on federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service.  One proposed study area includes the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation in California.  Interspersed state and private lands may occur within the boundaries of a study area but would only be included in the experiment with landowner permission.  Each experiment site would include a treatment area where barred owls would be removed and control areas where they would not.  This would allow comparisons of spotted owl data before and after removal. 

Are there opportunities for public review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement on experimental removal of barred owls?

Yes.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service encourages anyone with an interest in northern spotted owl recovery to provide comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  We will accept public comments for 90 days from the draft EIS's publication in the Federal Register on March 8, 2012.  We will hold at least two public meetings at different locations within the range of the spotted owl in Washington, Oregon, and California.  We will announce specific meeting locations and times in local news media outlets and on this website once they are arranged. 

To submit written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comment is in reference to the Barred Owl Draft EIS:

• Email:  barredowlEIS@fws.gov

• U.S. mail:  Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266.

• In-Person drop-off, viewing, or pickup:  Call (503) 231-6179 to make an appointment during regular business hours to drop off comments or view received comments at the above address.

• Fax:  Paul Henson, 503-231-6195, Attn.:  Barred Owl Draft EIS.

Is there evidence that barred owl removal might benefit northern spotted owls?   

There are reasons to believe that removing encroaching barred owls may benefit northern spotted owls.  This is part of what led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider a scientific experiment to further study the effects of barred owl removal on spotted owls. 

In 2006, the California Academy of Sciences obtained permits to collect 20 barred owl specimens in northern California.  They collected barred owls from three sites formerly occupied by spotted owls on Green Diamond Resource Company’s lands in coastal northern California.   Spotted owls returned to all three sites after barred owls were removed.   While only a small pilot effort, this indicates that spotted owls will re-occupy sites from which barred owls are removed, at least under some circumstances.

In addition, in southern British Columbia, where spotted owls are on the brink of extinction, the provincial government is undertaking an effort that involves protecting about a dozen known birds remaining in the wild, bringing a small number of birds into captivity for a breeding program, and conducting a limited barred owl removal experiment.  In 2007, the British Columbia natural resources agency began an effort to capture and translocate barred owls from about 10 sites historically occupied by spotted owls, but doing so proved extremely challenging.  In 2009, the agency included lethal methods of removal.  About 90 barred owls have been removed so far, and seven spotted owls that were not known to exist have returned to previously occupied sites, some as soon as a year after removing barred owls.  Successful breeding also was observed following barred owl removal.

Did the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service take ethical considerations into account when developing this proposal? 

Yes.  There is a chapter specifically devoted to ethical considerations in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on experimental removal of barred owls to support northern spotted owl recovery.

As part of our spotted owl recovery plan implementation process, in early 2009, we established a Barred Owl Stakeholder Group.  This group included representatives of broad-interest environmental organizations, bird-specific conservation groups, animal welfare organizations, the timber industry, tribes, state and local government agencies, and others.

The Barred Owl Stakeholder Group was one of a variety of sources of information that helped the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consider the ethical aspects of potential barred owl management decisions.  To facilitate constructive group dialogue, we hired an environmental ethicist who helped all of us better understand the value conflicts embedded in environmental controversies.  He also provided background information for exploring various ethical theories and moral questions to gain insight on a range of perspectives on wildlife-related ethics. 

What are the removal methods the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is evaluating? 

The draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on experimental removal of barred owls to support northern spotted owl recovery evaluates the use of non-lethal and lethal methods of removal, and combinations of the two.  Non-lethal methods could include capture and translocation or capture and permanent captivity.  Capture would be conducted with tested techniques such as mist nets with decoys.  Lethal methods would involve killing on site using a shotgun; this is considered the best way to minimize the potential for trauma, pain, and suffering because it is most likely to result in instantaneous death.

If the experiment proceeds, all barred owl removal would be conducted using methods that are as safe, humane, and efficient as possible.  Every effort would be made to minimize the risk of unnecessary injury or trauma to barred owls and other species.  A detailed description of the potential procedures is described in Appendix E of the draft EIS.

Is there potential for translocation of captured barred owls or placement in permanent captivity? 

As part of assessing the feasibility of a potential barred owl removal experiment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has begun to explore options relating to translocation of captured barred owls or placement in permanent captivity. 

We chose not to consider releasing captured barred owls in other areas of the Northwest.  This was primarily because it could increase their population even more and lead to other problems, such as barred owl predation on other species that did not evolve with it.  However, we have looked into translocating barred owls back to their historical range.

We contacted 29 state fish and wildlife agencies within the historical range of the barred owl about the potential for translocation of captured barred owls and their release into the wild.  We also have initiated contact with zoos nationwide about the potential for placing captured barred owls in permanent captivity. 

More than 20 state agencies have responded to our requests for assistance with this effort, but none was willing to accept barred owls from the Northwest.  Their reasons included a lack of sufficient unoccupied habitat; concerns over dilution of local gene pools; potential conflicts with resident barred owls; disease or parasites; costs; and conflicts with other species.  So far, we have heard from only a few zoos, and they indicated an interest in providing for permanent captivity for up to five birds. 

We intend to continue exploring the feasibility of permanent captivity as we proceed through the EIS process.

If it proceeds, when would the barred owl removal experiment begin?

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service moves forward with the proposed barred owl removal experiment to support northern spotted owl recovery, the soonest we would expect to take action would likely be late 2013.  After the 90-day public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), we will review all public comments received and develop a final course of action.  We would probably finalize an EIS by the end of 2012.  Unless the “no action” alternative is chosen, survey work to locate barred owls could take place during the spring of 2013, and the first removal could begin later that year.   We may be able to get an initial spotted owl population trend estimate after three years. 

If it proceeds, where would the barred owl removal experiment take place?

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service moves forward with the proposed barred owl removal experiment to support northern spotted owl recovery, study areas depend on which alternative is chosen out of seven outlined in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

The draft EIS proposes that experiment sites include one or more of the 11 “demographic study areas” where monitoring of spotted owl population dynamics has taken place for two decades, or other areas within the range of the spotted owl.  Most proposed study areas for the experiment are focused on federal lands (U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service).  One proposed study area includes the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation in California.  Interspersed state and private lands may occur within the boundaries of a study area but would only be included in the experiment with landowner permission.  Each experiment site would include a treatment area where barred owls would be removed and control areas where they would not.  This would allow comparisons of spotted owl data before and after removal. 

Click here to view maps showing the potential study areas for the proposed barred owl removal experiment.

Does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to use barred owl removal as an ongoing management tool?

If the proposed experimental removal of encroaching barred owls proceeds, any decision on barred owl removal as a broader management tool to support northern spotted owl recovery would first depend on two things:  1) whether the experiment is effective, and if so, 2) whether it would be feasible to use the removal method(s) that were tested on a broader scale. 

Even if the answer to both of those questions is yes, it doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would choose to employ broad-scale removal as a management tool.  There would likely be other things to consider once we completed the experiment.  If we did decide to pursue it, we would be required by the National Environmental Policy Act to initiate a separate process on any proposal to use barred owl removal as a management tool.  The current proposal is only for the experiment to study the effects of limited barred owl removal on spotted owls. 

Has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used wildlife removal as a management tool in other situations? 

There have been several occasions when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found it necessary to carry out removal measures for one species to safeguard another species listed under the Endangered Species Act or a species of concern.  Such measures are only considered when there are no other viable options.  Even so, these are very difficult considerations and we don’t take them lightly.  Our actions are always designed to minimize trauma, pain, and suffering. 

Examples of the agency’s use of removal as a management tool include:  taking red-tailed hawks to help endangered parrots; taking brown-headed cowbirds to protect Kirkland’s warblers and southwestern willow flycatchers; and taking several species of raptors to protect San Clemente Island loggerhead shrikes.  In the Northwest, examples of removal measures taken to protect listed species include removing sea lions and Caspian terns to benefit salmon, and removing foxes, crows, and ravens to protect western snowy plovers.

What are some of the commonly cited scientific research papers relating to barred owls?

The following is a list (more references are included in the draft Environmental Impact Statement on experimental removal of barred owls in support of northern spotted owl recovery).  Also see this timeline on the evolution of the barred owl threat, which summarizes the significance of this key research.

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

Buchanan, J.B., R.J. Gutierrez, R.G. Anthony, T. Cullinan, L.V. Diller, E.D. Forsman, and A.B, Franklin. 2007. A synopsis of suggested approaches to address potential competitive interactions between barred owls and spotted owls.  Biol. Invasions 9:679-691

Courtney, S.P., J. A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dunbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A. B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, L. M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowoski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR, U.S.A.

Dugger, K.M., R.G. Anthony, and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive competition: barred owls, spotted owls, and the demons of competition present.  Ecological Applications.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, K.M. Dugger, E.M. Glenn, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, K.P. Burnham, D.R. Anderson, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, J.B. Lint, R.J. Davis, S.H. Ackers, L.S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, S.A. Gremel, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, J.A. Reid, J. Rockweit, J. Schaberl, T.J. Snetsinger, and S.G. Sovern. 2011. Population demography of northern spotted owls: 1985–2008. Studies in Avian Biology 40. Cooper Ornithological Society.

Gutiérrez, R.J., M. Cody, S. Courtney and A.B. Franklin. 2007. The invasion of barred owls and its potential effect on the spotted owl: a conservation conundrum. Biological Invasions 9:181–196.

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.

Note:  the citation for the published version of the above is:

Hamer, T. E., E. D. Forsman, and E. M. Glenn. 2007. Home range attributes and habitat selection of barred owls and spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Condor 109:750–768.

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

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

Singleton, P.H., J.F. Lehmkuhl, W.L. Gaines, and S.A. Graham. 2010. Barred owl space use and habitat selection in the eastern Cascades, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:285–294.

USFWS. 1989. Status review supplement for the northern spotted owl.

Wiens, J.D., R.G. Anthony, and E.D. Forsman. 2011. Barred owl occupancy surveys within the range of the northern spotted owl.  Journal of Wildlife Management 75(3): 531-583.

Critical Habitat

Barred Owl