We’ve had many discussions about spotted owls, owls and wildfire, and so on.. in the interest of hearing from different voices, I thought I’d post this press release from AFRC:
NSO Critical Habitat: Myths and Facts
On January 13, 2021 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a rule designating more than 6.1 million acres of critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO). Anti-forestry groups are making false claims about what the rule means for owls and our forests. Learn the truth.
MYTH: This rule reduces protections for the Northern Spotted Owl.
FACT: The rule focuses critical habitat on lands that provide actual habitat for the species. The 2012 critical habitat designation included millions of acres that are not even suitable habitat for the owl.
The new rule does not affect the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), neither does it affect or undermine the Endangered Species Act or other federal laws and regulations relating to the protection and recovery of the species – including a requirement that federal land management agencies consult on individual projects that may affect the species.
MYTH: This rule is a midnight giveaway to the timber industry.
FACT: The rule was required by a court approved settlement of litigation challenging the 2012 critical habitat rule issued by the Obama Administration filed nearly eight years ago by a coalition of industry, labor unions, and local governments.
The rule is responsive to a unanimous 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision finding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not authorize the government to designate lands as critical habitat unless it is in fact habitat for the species. The rule also recognizes that the federal government has a legal mandate- recently affirmed in federal court– to harvest timber from the BLM O&C lands under the principles of sustained yield forest management.
MYTH: This rule will lead to the extirpation of the NSO.
FACT: The NSO Recovery Plan[1] states that simply protecting habitat will not recover the spotted owl since the best available science indicates that competition from the barred owl poses a significant risk to the survival of the species. The 2018 Northwest Forest Plan Science Synthesis[2] concluded that “It appears unlikely that spotted owls can persist without significant reductions in barred owl populations.” The Recovery Plan also identified catastrophic wildfire as a growing threat to the NSO.
MYTH: This rule allows timber companies to clearcut old growth forests on federal lands critical to the survival of the NSO.
FACT: Industrial-style clearcutting is not permitted on any federal land. The NSO Recovery Plan restricts federal land managers from cutting any trees in forests (inside and outside of critical habitat) containing high quality NSO habitat, including old growth. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are also required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on any timber projects that may affect the NSO.
MYTH: Timber harvest is the biggest threat to the survival of the NSO.
FACT: The NSO Recovery Plan states that competition from the invasive barred owl and habitat loss pose the greatest risk to the survival of the owl. A 20-year monitoring report (1994-2013)[3] on the Northwest Forest Plan published in 2015 concluded that over 80% of owl habitat loss during the 20-year period was due to wildfire and disease, not timber harvest.
MYTH: Prohibiting timber harvests by humans will save the spotted owl.
FACT: A recent study[4] found that NSOs have drastically declined since the barred owl invasion in a landscape dominated by old-growth forests where timber harvest and active management has not occurred (Mt Rainer National Park). The USFWS’s NSO recovery plan points to the need for active forest management, yet forest management restrictions from previous critical habitat designations made it difficult for federal land managers to implement forest thinning and other activities to help mitigate further losses of habitat from wildfire.
Despite overwhelming evidence about the paramount threat posed by the barred owl and commitments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a barred owl removal program, little has been done to reduce the growing barred owl population.
[1] https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf
[2] Spies, T.A.; Stine, P.A.; Gravenmier, R. [and others]. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station
[3] https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/reo/monitoring/downloads/nso/Nwfp20yrMonitoringReportSummaryNsoHabitat.pdf
[4] https://academic.oup.com/condor/article/121/3/duz031/5543734?login=true
Sadly, some people don’t understand the species needs for both nesting habitat and foraging habitat. Many of those people think that the owl’s foraging habitats should also be protected from timber projects, not knowing that owls will hunt on many differing landscapes.
I’m sure there is a known number of nests that were lost to wildfires last year. Those impacts must be exceedingly severe on the remaining owls, which often depend on already existing nests to produce offspring the next year.
Strange post, since my experience is that AFRC specializes in myths, not facts.
Interesting thing to say about an info source.. is there some source you can suggest that specializes in facts? Always looking…
I offer my fact-check (some of the “facts” perpetuate myths).
Does this rule reduce protections for the Northern Spotted Owl?
The myth is that “critical habitat” must be currently used by spotted owls; however, removing protection from habitat in other locations that could support their future recovery would be considered harmful under ESA – which requires agencies to use their authorities to promote recovery. (What should be considered “actual habitat” in the ESA regulations is being litigated: https://forestpolicypub.com/2021/02/26/january-2021-litigation/.)
In fact, in the Federal Register Notice for critical habitat designation for spotted owls the Fish and Wildlife Service concedes that it reduces protections for spotted owls: “Although regardless of a critical habitat determination, Federal agencies will still be required to complete section 7 consultation for the northern spotted owl where the species is present, we acknowledge that there could be adverse impacts to the habitat if the species is not present at the time of the consultation.” It also acknowledges some other “benefits of inclusion,” which represent “reduced protection” for spotted owls.
Was this rule required by the Supreme Court?
Hardly. The Supreme Court found that “habitat” needed to be defined before “critical habitat” could be designated. It approved a settlement that required the ESA agencies to define “habitat,” but said nothing about how they should define it. Their new definition is now in court (see above).
Will this rule lead to the extirpation of the NSO?
The purported “facts” presented are not relevant to this question. While there are other factors that affect the survival of this species, that does not mean that loss of habitat could not be a cause of future extinction. “Simply” protecting habitat means that things must be done “in addition to” protecting habitat.
Will this rule lead to more clearcutting on federal land?
It is true that consultation is already required on federal lands regarding jeopardy to the species, but the criteria for evaluating effects on critical habitat are different, so eliminating that requirement could lead to different results, including more clearcutting. (There is an attempt to make a point about “industrial-style” clearcutting, which is not defined, and therefore this statement may not be legally correct.) However, the NSO Recovery Plan does not “restrict” anything on federal lands – unless its provisions have been incorporated into the applicable land management plans. (The Recovery Plan appears to assume that they have been.)
Is the barred owl the “greatest risk to the survival of the owl?”
The NSO Recovery Plan does NOT “state” this. In the summary of the current status, it says this: “Managing sufficient habitat for the spotted owl now and into the future is important for its recovery. However, it is becoming more evident that securing habitat ALONE will not recover the spotted owl. Based on the best available scientific information, competition from the barred owl (S. varia) poses a significant and complex threat to the spotted owl” (my emphasis).
Is it true that “forest management restrictions from previous critical habitat designations made it difficult for federal land managers to implement forest thinning and other activities to help mitigate further losses of habitat from wildfire”?
There is no citation for this, and Forest Service comments apparently did not address it. The FWS refers to a letter from the Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture supporting the decision, “because of the difficulties encountered by the Forest Service in achieving its statutory mission for managing the National forests, specifically, “the devastation to the spotted owl habitat and to other property caused by wildfire …” The rationale included in the spotted owl critical habitat rule includes, “POTENTIAL project alterations in critical habitat areas that are currently unoccupied by spotted owls…” (my emphasis). It provides no documentation of past occurrences (though, as mentioned above, it concedes they could occur in the future).
“The NSO Recovery Plan restricts federal land managers from cutting any trees in forests (inside and outside of critical habitat) containing high quality NSO habitat, including old growth.”
This statement is not true. I suggest reading the recovery plan again.
I have marked timber in a ‘unit’ of a CASPO PAC. There were appropriate limits on what could be cut, and there just wasn’t that many 10-14.9 inch trees to be cut. It is considered a non-commercial task, included under the timber sale contract. Of course, in reality, logs from other units are used to pay for the work. The intent of cutting those small trees is to keep the understory to a minimum, while strictly preserving all of the overstory.
One will be suspicious of the obvious slant in the very first paragraph when they characterize those concerned about NSO protections as “‘ANTI-FORESTRY groups’ … making false claims …” Do they really mean “anti-logging groups?” Forestry pertains to so much more than just logging (or fire).