United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-408

September 1997

Of Spotted Owls, Old Growth,

and New Policies: A History

Since the Interagency Scientific

Committee Report

Bruce G. Marcot and Jack Ward Thomas
Authors

BRUCE G. MARCOT is a research wildlife ecologist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 1221 SW Yamhill,

Suite 200, Portland, OR 97208-3890; and JACK WARD THOMAS is wildlife faculty member, School of

Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812. He was Chief, USDA Forest Service, during

preparation of the paper.
Abstract

Marcot, Bruce G.; Thomas, Jack Ward. 1997. Of spotted owls, old growth, and new policies: a

history since the Interagency Scientific Committee report. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-408.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

34 p.

This paper tracks the recent history of planning, management, and litigation regarding northern

spotted owls and their habitat on Federal public lands since the 1989 Interagency Scientific Committee

to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl (ISC). The ISC report and subsequent plans

sparked many economic analyses, appeals, lawsuits, forest management plans, and counterplans.

Federal assessments and planning efforts eventually led to the current Northwest Forest Plan which

considers owls in the context of ecological and human communities under the rubric of ecosystem

management.

Keywords: Spotted owl, old growth, Interagency Scientific Committee, threatened species, Northwest

Forest Plan, forest policy, Endangered Species Act.

Introduction

Recent years have seen vast changes in approaches to and content of public forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Many of the forest

issues and controversies that have spun new

management plans over the past two decades

have revolved around northern spotted owls

(Strix occidentalis caurina), old-growth forests,

and policy for management of Federal public

lands. This report summarizes the recent history

of technical assessments, public polemics, and

agency planning on northern spotted owls and

their habitats.1

Life After the Interagency Scientific

Committee Report

The clamorous owl, that nightly hoots,

 and wonders

At our quaint spirits.

 William Shakespeare,

 “A Midsummer-Night’s Dream”

 [1595-1596], act: 2, scene: 2, line: 6

The report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern

Spotted Owl (ISC) (Thomas and others 1990)

presented a landmark monograph on a species

only relatively recently known to science and the

lay public. The work of the ISC had been one of

the most complete assessments of a species to

date, particularly as applying modern concepts

and methods of demographic modeling and

conservation biology.

Concerns for one species—the northern spotted

owl—have stimulated a focus on the ecosystem

itself. Debates fueled by the ISC report have

addressed the role of public forest lands in

species and biodiversity conservation, the fate of

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the

roles of litigation and the judicial system in public

timber management. Even the President of the

United States and his White House staff have

become involved. In this report—hardly the

ending of the story—we trace the sundry events

in Federal land management and planning that

have unfolded since the ISC was convened in

1989 and their report was first published in 1990.

The earlier history of spotted owl management

has been recounted by Bainbridge (1993),

Meslow (1992, 1993), Meslow and others (1992),

and Thomas and others (1993, summary chapter), and in the ISC report itself (Thomas and

others 1990). More recently, Yaffee’s (1994) book

traces the history of spotted owl management in

the USDA Forest Service (FS) during the mid to

late 1980s. We begin mostly where the ISC ended.

The Owl Sparks a Land Planning

Revolution

Andras: Grand marquis of Hell. He

appears to have the body of an angel

and the head of a wood owl, and to be

riding a black wolf and carrying in his

hand a pointed saber. He teaches

those whom he favors to kill their

enemies, masters and servants. He

stirs up trouble and dissension. He

commands thirty legions.

de Plancy 1965:10

Few issues in the history of land management

planning of public forests in the United States

have been as long-lived and intense as that over

the fate of old forests in the West. Few issues

have had as much to teach in terms of forest

management and public involvement. Little did

the pioneers in northern spotted owl research in

the 1960s and early 1970s—Eric Forsman,

Gordon Gould, E. Charles Meslow, Howard

Wight, and a few others—then realize that their

work would contribute to an ongoing revolution

in public forest land management with national

and even international policy implications. After

decades of obscurity even in the ornithological

literature, S. occidentalis was quickly to become

the focus of leading-edge research, a host of

technical analyses, and a shelf full of management strategies.

1 In this report, we discuss events listed more by project

or agency than by strict chronological sequence (but see

table 1 for a time-line summary). This is because so many

activities have occurred concurrently, that a strict chronological listing would not help clarify individual goals, assignments, and motivations.

1
Interagency Scientific Committee Spurs

Debate and a Market for Secondary Literature

(1990-94)

Initial publication in 1990 (Thomas and others

1990) of the ISC report and the accompanying

maps of northern spotted owl habitat conservation areas (HCAs) spurred a wave of response

from scientists and managers alike, and propelled

the conservation strategy and its senior author

into the harsh light of critical examination. Response was at once divided. Environmental

nongovernment organizations denounced the

strategy as too reckless for not recommending

that all old-growth forests be placed in protected

status. Timber industries and their consortia

decried the strategy as far too conservative, that

the old-growth needs of the spotted owl had been

greatly exaggerated, and that the strategy would

spell social and economic chaos for the U.S.

Pacific Northwest (Beuter 1990).

In short order, a broad secondary literature

appeared in response to the ISC report. Lee

(1990), for example, warned of great social and

cultural changes that would result from implementing the ISC strategy. The Northwest Timber

Association, a consortium of timber industries in

the Pacific Northwest, published their harsh

critique of the ISC report (Northwest Timber

Association 1990). Conversely, at the same time,

scientists involved in the ISC were recognized in

awards made by scientific associations, including

The Wildlife Society and Society for Conservation

Biology, for the excellence of their work.

The ISC published a summary of their report in

the February 1991 issue of Journal of Forestry

(ISC 1991), which also contained a counterpoint

article by Wood (1991) explaining why the owl

conservation strategy is “flawed.” Later, Watson

and Muraoka (1992), Bainbridge (1993), and

Yaffee (1994) reviewed some of the intricate links

among the timber industries, owl habitat management, and the growing economic instability of

timber-dependent communities of the Northwest.

Debate on the issue made for good press. The

general media, environmental groups, and timber

interests continued to focus on the issue as owls

versus jobs (Satchell 1990). In 1990, a Time

magazine cover story posed the controversy as

“owls vs. man” (Gup 1990). Divisiveness continued to be orchestrated both by interest groups

and, as reported by some authors, by the administration of the time (Pytte 1990, Yaffee 1994). For

others, however, the issues focused on whether

timber should be harvested at all, and what should

be the fate of old-growth forests, on Federal

public lands (e.g., Chasan 1990, Wilcove 1993,

Wilcove and Murphy 1991).

Many Economic Analyses Emerge,

Few Converge (1990-92)

During the early 1990s, many economic analyses

were conducted. Most focused on the effects on

timber-dependent industries and communities

from implementing the ISC’s proposed spotted

owl habitat management strategy, viewing forest

production and protection as incommensurate

goals. The analyses largely centered on the

effects of reducing timber harvest levels (ASQ or

allowable sale quantity) on Federal public forest

lands because of protection of mature and oldgrowth forests within spotted owl HCAs.

In 1990 alone, at least seven such economic

analyses were presented (Beuter 1990, Gorte

1990, Greber and others 1990, Hamilton and

others 1990, Lee 1990, Olson 1990, Satchell

1990), with three more in 1991 (Maki and Olson

1991, Rubin and others 1991, U.S. Department of

the Interior 1991a) and three in 1992 (Montgomery and others ca. 1992, Sample and Le Master

1992, Thomas and Verner 1992), not counting

other economic assessments presented in

various Federal land management planning

documents.

Conclusions of these sundry assessments did not

always converge. Estimates of economic costs to

timber-dependent communities and industries

from implementing the ISC strategy ranged

widely, from several thousand jobs to many tens

of thousands of jobs. Many of these assessments

did not deal with pecuniary or secondary effects

(either costs or benefits). Most did not deal with

positive aspects of changing economies, such as

enhancements to secondary recreational industries, or the eventual hiring of hundreds of biologists and other resource specialists to inventory

owls and study habitats and forestry effects.

Rather, short-term, adverse effects on existing

economic institutions seemed to be the prime

interest and focus. And the outlook was typically

painted as grim.

2
3

The Interagency Scientific Committee

Responds (1991-92)

The ISC core team with its extended set of

technical participants was disbanded after initial

publication of their report. They convened once

more, however, in 1991 to write a set of “Questions and Answers” (USDA 1991) in response to

what they perceived as growing misconceptions

and misrepresentations of the strategy and

analyses. This government publication was

distributed to State and Federal public officials

who, at that time, were deliberating on at least

three major conservation issues: (1) the fate of

ESA, (2) drastic simplification or elimination of the

regulations in the National Forest Management

Act (NFMA) that pertain to management of viable

populations and diversity, and (3) the potential

Federal listing of the northern spotted owl subspecies as “threatened” under ESA by the U.S.

Department of the Interior (USDI).

In 1992, Thomas and Verner (1992) presented a

paper tracing the considerations for economic

and social impacts in spotted owl management.

They concluded that political, economic, social,

and litigative forces always had shaped spotted

owl habitat management plans on Federal public

land. They noted that the owl habitat conservation

strategy offered by the ISC had not been immune

to such considerations, and that special interest

groups’ increasingly acrimonious calls for “balance”

in forest resource management had already been

addressed in the strategy.

“Section 318” is Advanced as an Interim

Strategy for Old-Growth Harvesting and

Conservation (1989-90)

By 1989 and before the ISC report was issued,

environmental groups had procured a court

injunction against the sale of old-growth timber on

USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands

near spotted owl sites. A “Northwest Compromise,” also known as the Hatfield-Adams amendment of 1989, was developed by Senators

Hatfield of Oregon and Adams of Washington,

to sidestep the ongoing litigation and avoid what

was perceived as a growing crisis in timber availability and in the viability of timber communities

and companies. The amendment entailed Congress attaching a rider (Section 318 of Public Law

101-121) to the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Bill for 1990 that funded FS and

BLM. Officially, the rider named as sufficient for

preparing timber sales for fiscal year 1990 (1) the

then-existing FS Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) and BLM’s supplemental management

plans for spotted owls and (2) expansion of

designated Spotted Owl Habitat Areas as set out

in the rider. The rider also called for the creation

of the ISC (Thomas and others 1993).

The rider called for FS and BLM (not ISC) to

delineate “ecologically significant” old-growth

timber stands for interim protection while the

Regional (Pacific Northwest Region) EIS at the

time was being written (Baldwin 1990). In 1989-

90, while the ISC was writing its report, National

Forests of the Pacific Northwest responded to the

Section 318 rider mandates with an “incident

command team” structure akin to the paramilitary

organization successfully used to fight major

forest wildfires. The Section 318 incident command teams quickly produced analyses and

maps of old-growth forest stands and engaged

citizens’ advisory boards, as instructed in the

rider, to delineate and modify the 1990 timber

sales (USDA 1990). The teams identified selected

old-growth forest stands that are small, highly

fragmented, and heavily affected by early successional species invasions as the first to be planned

for harvest.2

The Lineage of Spotted Owl EISs Grows

(1991-92)

On 23 May 1991, U.S. District Judge William L.

Dwyer of Federal District Court issued an injunction against the FS disallowing timber sales in

spotted owl habitat (Dwyer 1991). This was in

response to a directive issued by the FS to

operate “in a manner not inconsistent with” the

2 Later, the Scientific Analysis Team (Thomas and others

1993) and the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment

Team (FEMAT 1993) would revisit the rather hasty assumption that smaller and more fragmented old-growth forest

patches have lower ecological significance. Both teams

concluded that, where larger patches of old growth no longer

exist, small, fragmented, and isolated old-growth forest

patches actually are valuable sources of fungi, lichens,

bryophytes, invertebrates, and small mammals that are

closely associated with old-growth forests. Such species are

important for nutrient cycling and for maintaining other forest

ecosystem functions affecting diversity, productivity, and

sustainability of both young and old forests throughout a

heavily managed landscape.
4

ISC guidelines rather than to adopt the ISC

guidelines per se. The FS was ordered by the

Court to produce an EIS following the guidelines

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

to legally adopt a conservation management plan.

The plan also had to adhere to the guidelines of

ESA. The EIS and conservation plan would then

replace the guidelines in the existing 1984

Regional Guide (USDA 1984), and in the subsequent Record of Decision (USDA 1988b) resulting

from the regional spotted owl habitat management EIS (USDA 1988a) produced before the ISC

report. The court injunction eventually led to a

second, new regional EIS on spotted owl habitat

management (USDA 1992a) and even to a third

regional EIS dealing with the entire old-forest

ecosystem (USDA and USDI 1994).3

Meanwhile, BLM had chosen to ignore the ISC

guidelines and soon was entertaining its own

appeals and lawsuits. On 19 February 1992,

Portland Audubon Society and others brought suit

against BLM on the basis of a lack of an acceptable conservation strategy that complied with

Federal laws and regulations (Frye 1992). Eventually, the FS and BLM would join forces and

produce a joint EIS and conservation strategy

(USDA and USDI 1994).

Appeals and Litigation Remain Part of the

Process (1991)

Legal challenges to existing and proposed Federal

forest management plans continued (see summaries in Grubbs 1990; also see Rowland 1993;

Thomas and others 1993). In fall 1991, the Seattle

Audubon Society and others filed suit over the

Pacific Northwest Region plan of the FS in Federal District Court, on the grounds that existing

guidelines failed to provide an acceptable conservation strategy that would meet the mandates of

NFMA and NEPA. They cited the ISC report as

evidence of potential viability concerns. During

the court hearings, analyses of potential economic effects were presented by all parties,

including intervenors from timber industry. The

basis of the arguments from environmental

groups and timber industry would later completely

reverse during the proceedings of the Endangered Species Committee for considering exemption for timber sales on BLM lands (Thomas and

others 1993).

The Gang of Four Finds No Silver Bullet

(1991)

In May 1991, the Agriculture Committee and the

Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee of the

U.S. House of Representatives chartered a group

of experts as a “Scientific Panel on Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems.” Four experts in forest

ecology or management were chosen to lead the

task of analyzing and reporting on conditions and

management of late-successional and old-growth

(LSOG) forests on Federal lands of the Pacific

Northwest within the range of the northern spotted

owl. The four chosen were Jerry Franklin, forest

ecologist, University of Washington; John Gordon,

dean, School of Forestry, Yale University; K.

Norman Johnson, economist, Oregon State University; and Jack Ward Thomas, research wildlife

biologist (later, Chief), FS. The charter directed

the panel (pejoratively called the “Gang of Four”

by a timber industry spokesperson) to assess the

viability of all vertebrate species closely associated with late-successional forests, at-risk fish

stocks, and the integrity of late-successional

forests, at-risk fish stocks, and the integrity of

late-succesional forest ecosystems within the

owl’s range. Species viability was a focus of the

effort because the regulations implementing

NFMA (36 CFR 219.19) specify that the FS shall

provide for viable populations of all native and

desired nonnative vertebrate species within the

planning area. For the panel’s work, the viability

standard would be extended to BLM as well. And

for what would prove to be a major turning point

in focus for planning assessments in the region,

this charter expanded the officially recognized

scope of the issue beyond spotted owls to include

viability of all associated species and the integrity

of the LSOG forest ecosystem (Thomas and

others 1993).

3 As of this writing, since 1985, the Pacific Northwest Region

of the FS will have produced four regional EISs, each having

a record of decision (e.g., USDA 1988b, Mosley 1992) and a

proposed conservation strategy for spotted owl habitat

management. One EIS accompanied the 1984 Pacific

Northwest Regional Guide and three others followed (USDA

1988a, USDA 1992a, USDA and USDI 1994). Each EIS

included a draft as well as a final version, so the number of

regional EIS documents on owl habitat management actually

totaled eight. As will be discussed below, the number of

alternative, proposed conservation strategies also more than

kept pace with this production.
5

The panel’s final report of 8 October 1991 (Gordon

and others 1991) concluded that the distribution

and amount of LSOG forests on Federal public

lands were insufficient for supporting both high

species viability and existing timber harvest rates;

and that the best way to ensure long-term persistence of viable old-growth ecosystems and their

component species including northern spotted

owls, marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and at-risk anadromous fish, is to

establish LSOG reserves. The LSOG reserves

also should be supplemented with (1) “owl

addition areas” to ensure correct sizing and

spacing of habitats for maintaining northern

spotted owls as per ISC guidelines, and (2) “key

watersheds” for protecting critical anadromous

fish spawning habitat.

Producing the “Gang of Four” report entailed

gathering from Federal agencies several hundred

of the best experts to map LSOG forests and

species. The report presented 14 management

alternatives ranging from current National Forest

and BLM plans, through extensive protection of

all remaining LSOG forests, spotted owl habitats,

and key watersheds for fish. Most alternatives also

had three variations that specified levels of retention of old-forest habitat patches and components

(large trees, large snags, and down logs, etc.) to

be provided on general-management “matrix”

lands in between the LSOG reserves, owl addition areas, and key watersheds. The panel also

presented potential levels of timber harvest and

many timber-related jobs expected under each

alternative but deliberately made no recommendation for which alternative should be selected.

During this time, the U.S. Congress also had held

hearings on management of old-growth forests

(e.g., see report by Henderson 1990 which

chronicled the recent rapid declines in amounts of

old-growth forests as the basis for management

controversies and, ultimately, the hearings).

Although various House and Senate Committees

considered several of the panel’s alternatives in

deliberations and pending bills, none made it to

member vote or into legislation. Their failure to

act threw the controversy back into the Federal

Court’s arena. The controversy over the fate of

LSOG forests in the Pacific Northwest continued

and intensified.

The Owl is Listed in a Storm of Polemics

(1990-92)

Publication of the ISC report eventually lent

weight to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS)

status assessments and listing procedures for the

northern spotted owl, although initially these were

two independent efforts. In 1990, Anderson and

others (1990) produced a (fourth) status review of

the northern spotted owl and concluded that its

viability was being imperiled by continued cutting

of older forests. By June 1990, FWS officially

listed the northern spotted owl as threatened

throughout its range (USDI FWS 1990). (This was

4 years after the Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada declared the bird

an endangered species in 1986.) With the FWS

Federal listing, implications for forest management in the Pacific Northwest were profound

(Franzreb 1993).

Next, in 1991, after a period of inaction, the FWS

was ordered by the Court to propose critical

habitat for the subspecies (USDI 1991b). After

much public debate over criteria for identifying

and delineating critical spotted owl habitat (e.g.,

see Bart and Holthausen 1993), FWS decreased

the total area of critical habitat and issued the

final designation in 1992 (USDI FWS 1992a).

Designation of critical habitat for the northern

spotted owl carried legal mandates that Federal

agencies must seek consultation for proposed,

potentially habitat-disturbing activities under particular conditions. There were no state or private

lands included in the designation of critical

habitat. Still, there was increasing concern that

state and private lands would be subject to

Federal control, and that the outfall of the listing

decision, critical habitat designation, and the

subsequent recovery plan would interact, be

thrust upon state and private lands, and contribute to economic chaos.

The FWS produced a draft economic analysis of

the effects of designating critical habitat for the

owl, but that was just the beginning of further

economic assessments and polemics. In December 1992, a Federal District Court ruled in favor

of Douglas County, Oregon, which asserted that

FWS must prepare an EIS on designation of

critical habitat under ESA. The EIS would continue
6

to consider economic and social ramifications of

the designation, as also had been considered as

part of the critical habitat rule.

Concurrent to the initial critical habitat designation,

USDI chartered a Northern Spotted Owl Recovery

Team, the first FWS recovery team to consist of

more nonbiologists than biologists. Included in

the recovery team’s deliberations were recovery

goals for population performance and appropriate

forest management activities that would be

commensurate with protection of the owl and its

habitat (e.g., Agee and Edmonds 1991). After

many delays, the recovery team’s report (USDI

FWS 1992c), which essentially was only a slight

modification of the ISC report, was finally issued

by USDI in draft form but, as of this writing, has

not been signed and finalized.

The recovery plan also was one of the first FWS

recovery plans to recommend as a recovery objective for a threatened taxon an overall population size smaller than the existing one. As many

scientists and technical assessment teams (including ISC) previously concluded, however, the nearterm problem with spotted owl habitat was deemed

to be more one of increasing fragmentation of

habitat and isolation of pairs and populations than

one of low total population size per se. The recovery team concluded that—following the ISC

strategy—if appropriately linked and secured from

further loss from timber cutting, a smaller owl

population could still reach recovery objectives.

The recovery plan also suggested, as was further

developed by the Scientific Panel on Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems, that a broader

ecosystem perspective should be applied to

management of northern spotted owls and their

habitats (Anthony 1992). It would take at least

two more technical team charters (Thomas and

others 1993, and FEMAT 1993, listed here in

order of publication) with the continuing contributions of some of the recovery team biologists (including Robert Anthony and Richard Holthausen)

to more fully achieve this synthesis in 1994.

The ESA also provided that habitat conservation

plans (HCPs) be written for management of

threatened species and their habitats on state

and private land (ESA, Section 4(D)). Indeed,

several northern spotted owl HCPs have been

drafted, reviewed by FWS, and even instituted on

some private timber industry lands (e.g., Diller

1993, Hanson and others 1993, Nelson and

others 1991, PLC 1992).

As well, ESA mandated that formal “consultation”

ensue between Federal agencies and FWS

before management actions can begin that could

potentially harm the species or its habitat (ESA,

Section 7). In response to this, the FS and BLM

formalized a biological evaluation (BE) process of

determining the conditions and potential risks to

spotted owls or their habitats from proposed

management activities. The BE process included

a standard survey protocol for locating spotted

owls (USDI FWS 1992b). The consultation process, however, also had its detractors, including

the World Wildlife Fund (Barry and others 1992).

The “God Squad” Deliberates on Owls Versus

Timber Sales (1991)

In June 1991, as a result of BLM failing to adopt

the ISC guidelines, FWS assigned “jeopardy

opinions” on 44 of 175 timber sales proposed for

1991 in Oregon on BLM land. The FWS concluded that the timber sales would lead to irretrievable harm to viability of the northern spotted

owl, particularly in terms of loss of crucial dispersal habitat on BLM land that links the spotted

owl populations of the Oregon Coast Range with

that in the Cascade Range in Oregon. The BLM

requested an exemption from Section 7 of ESA

which would then allow them to sell the timber

and cut the trees. On 1 October 1991, Interior

Secretary Manual Lujan determined that BLM’s

application was sufficient to convene the Endangered Species Committee (the so-called “God

Squad”) for the third time in U.S. history. The

Committee consisted of six Cabinet level appointees and one nominee from the involved state (in

this case, Oregon) (Thomas and others 1993).

A month of evidentiary hearings in Portland

during January 1992 included testimony from 97

witnesses. As Thomas and others (1993) summarized, in the adversarial proceedings, the BLM

and intervenors from timber industry and affected

Oregon counties put the science of the ISC on

trial. Among the reports presented were results

from a post-ISC workshop of spotted owl scientists held in Fort Collins, Colorado (later published

as Forsman and others 1996). The workshop

scientists had concluded that demographic
7

studies of five northern spotted owl populations

showed that the populations were declining at a

combined rate of 7.5 percent per year, and that

this rate was increasing over time (Thomas and

others 1993).

A public hearing was held February 1992, and on

14 May 1992, the committee voted five to two to

exempt 13 of the 44 BLM timber sales from the

provisions of ESA (U.S. Government 1990). As a

quid pro quo, however, the committee directed

BLM to immediately implement the still-draft

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and to use

the recovery plan to produce their new 10-year

management plans. In essence, the committee

gave both sides a victory by exempting a relatively insignificant number of acres to be logged

and telling BLM to cease delay and adopt the

recovery plan, which was a close facsimile of the

ISC strategy that BLM had previously abandoned.

Congress Entertains Intervention (1989-93)

From 1989 to 1993, U.S. Senate and House

committees had considered legislation to quell

further litigation and solve the forest management

crisis of the Northwest. Proposed, but never

voted on, were many riders and bills that would

variously eliminate or strengthen ESA, NEPA,

and NFMA, and their implementing regulations.

By June 1992, shortly after the Scientific Panel

on Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems issued

their report, no less than nine individual bills were

being discussed or introduced in committees. At

that time, timber sales in northern spotted owl

habitat on FS and BLM lands had been enjoined

and both House Agriculture and House Interior

Committees offered solutions based on the

scientific panel’s alternatives. Most of the focus

was on options offering protection to the spotted

owl similar to that prescribed in USDI’s Northern

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan that had been

patterned on the ISC strategy. But no legislation

was brought forward to the full House (Thomas

and others 1993).

BLM and USDI Devise New Plans (1990-92)

Between 1990 and 1992, the BLM produced at

least three sets of resource and spotted owl

management plans. To avoid what was likely

perceived as unnecessary and, certainly, politically unacceptable management constraints in

the ISC guidelines, the Bush administration

appointed a task force of political appointees

headed by Assistant Secretary of Agriculture

James Moseley to examine the ISC report and

find lower cost alternatives. Deadline after

deadline passed, and on 21 September 1990, the

task force produced not a report but a press

release stating that FS would operate in a “manner not inconsistent with” the ISC’s conservation

strategy. It also stated, however, that the BLM

would provide timber sales consistent with the socalled Jamison strategy (USDI BLM ca. 1990),

named after Cy Jamison, Director of BLM.

The press release stated that the new Jamison

strategy for BLM would provide the same level of

protection as intended in the ISC conservation

strategy, but that it would not impose as severe

a restriction on timber harvesting in suitable

spotted owl habitat on BLM lands in Oregon. It

did not explain how this would be accomplished,

however. The new Jamison strategy was never

provided in detail, never peer reviewed, and

never presented as other than a press release.

No EIS or record of decision in the Federal

Register accompanied the announcement

(Thomas and others 1993).

By late 1990, BLM had next produced a set of

management guidelines for the northern spotted

owl for fiscal years 1991 and 1992 (USDI BLM

1990). These guidelines aimed at protection of

options for future management of spotted owl

habitat in Oregon, and roughly followed the ISC

conservation strategy. Then, by 1992, BLM had

revised their district resource management plans

and issued a series of drafts (e.g., USDI BLM

1992), which more faithfully followed the ISC

strategy and used new technologies to model

potential spotted owl response to habitat distribution (McKelvey 1992, McKelvey and others 1993).

Yet also in 1992, and concurrent with the release

of USDI’s unsigned draft Northern Spotted Owl

Recovery Plan, USDI Secretary Manuel Lujan Jr.

released an administration-sponsored “Owl

Preservation Plan” drafted by five assistant and

deputy assistant secretaries of Agriculture and

the Interior (Lujan and others 1992). The Owl

Preservation Plan (also called at the time the

Lujan plan) followed some aspects of the Draft

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan but called for protection of only half of the old-forest habitat in the

range of the northern spotted owl. The plan was
8

drafted with full knowledge that its implementation

would necessitate amending ESA and NFMA.

Government scientists who assembled to review

the plan projected a 50-percent likelihood of

extinction of the northern spotted owl under this

plan, and Cooper Ornithological Society issued a

statement denouncing the Owl Preservation Plan

as a formula for extinction (Cooper Ornithological

Society 1992). Congress decided not to act or

hold hearings on this suggested plan (Thomas

and others 1993), possibly because of ongoing

litigation between National Audubon Society and

others, and Lujan (Frye 1992).

Timber Industry Advances a Plan of Their

Own (1991)

In 1991, in response to the EIS on northern

spotted owls being prepared by the FS, timber

industries of the Pacific Northwest prepared their

own conservation strategy for owl habitat management on Federal public lands. They dubbed it

a Multi-Resource Strategy and it was used as a

basis for one of the alternatives in the FS draft

EIS. In the draft and final EISs (USDA 1992a), the

Multi-Resource Strategy did not receive high

marks for viability protection of the owl, and this

alternative was not selected in the record of

decision. External peer reviews (e.g., Pimm 1991)

also found it less conservatory than ISC or other

conservation strategies.

Habitat Conservation Plans and the “4(D)

Rule” Sprout in Washington and California

(1994-96)

In late 1994, the State of Washington announced

its intent to develop and implement an HCP for

the northern spotted owl on State trust lands. The

overall aim of such an HCP is to allow timber harvesting and other management activities under a

framework of managing the land for species

conservation and ecosystem health.4 The HCP

covered state forest lands managed by Washington Department of Natural Resources totaling 1.6

million acres and focused on riparian zones,

including conservation of salmon habitat; northern

spotted owl habitat; marbled murrelet habitat;

conservation assessments for additional candidate species, endemics, and other species likely

to be listed; and forest health. The goals of the

HCP were to comply with ESA while continuing a

timber sales program; reduce costs for projectspecific surveys of northern spotted owls; allow

more predictable levels of timber sales; consider

unlisted species; and ensure forest productivity

and growth. If successful, the HCP may help set

a precedent of proactive management of a threatened species and its habitat by State landholders

in the Pacific Northwest.

Still, fears grew that FWS would assert restrictive

spotted owl habitat planning guidelines on nonFederal lands, particularly on private lands. Between 1994 and 1996, FWS engaged in a major

and controversial project designed to answer the

question of how to evaluate the effects of projects

on northern spotted owl habitat on non-Federal

lands under ESA, Section 4(D). The answer came

in the form of the so-called 4(D) Rule which is a

broad-based regulatory vehicle that allows for the

“take” of a significant portion of the owl population

on non-Federal lands. The 4(D) Rule—still in draft

as of this writing—has been written only for

Washington and California, as the State of Oregon

has asked to be excluded.

The draft 4(D) Rule stipulates that locations of

northern spotted owls on non-Federal lands

would be identified based on their need to contribute to overall owl population recovery at least on

Federal lands. On a site-specific basis, it is still to

be assumed that owl recovery takes precedence.

But land owners are given the choice of either

protecting specific owl sites under the ESA

Section 4(D) “take” guidelines, or under an HCP.

The FWS acknowledged that the draft 4(D) Rule

would lead to the extirpation of northern spotted

owls in southwest Washington. The FWS found

this acceptable based on recent field research

and modeling suggesting that spotted owls on the

Olympic Peninsula—long suspected of being

demographically isolated from populations in the

Cascade Range in Washington—may be able to

hold their own over time5 (also see Holthausen

and others 1995).

4 Section 10 of ESA allows landowners to negotiate with the

Secretary of the Interior on a conservation plan to mitigate

and minimize impacts on threatened or endangered species,

while conducting lawful activities such as timber harvesting

and forest management. An HCA can allow incidental take of

listed species within the plan guidelines. 5 Personal communication. 1997. C. Ogden, wildlife biologist,

Regional Ecosystem Office, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland,

OR 97224.
9

Over 1993-96, the FWS aggressively worked with

non-Federal land owners in developing HCPs for

owl management issues. Significant advances in

this area were made in the development of HCPs

by several private corporations. These HCPs

currently stipulate that the land holders would be

able to negotiate for providing spotted owl dispersal habitat across a broad area, in lieu of

providing nesting, resting, and foraging (NRF)

spotted owl habitat. Typically, dispersal habitat

includes forests substantially younger in age and

often less dense than NRF habitat; NRF habitat is

mature or late-successional forest that is usually

more valuable economically. Thus, owl habitat on

non-Federal lands, under these HCPs, would likely

trend toward providing for spotted owl dispersal

rather than for reproduction.

Also, under the draft 4(D) Rule, the FWS would

defer to individual American Indian tribes the

management of spotted owl habitat on those lands.

Each tribe would provide their own management

guidelines, in the spirit of FWS honoring their selfgovernment. This applies to tribes in Washington

and California but not Oregon; Oregon tribes

would be managed under the more traditional

approach via the ESA Section 7 consultation

process for each timber sale and forest management activity potentially disturbing spotted owl

habitat. The FWS excluded tribes in Oregon from

this approach because the State of Oregon so

requested; however, as of this writing, the question of how the State of Oregon can essentially

direct the activities of sovereign tribes has not yet

been resolved.

Interest Grows in the Other Two

Subspecies

After the ISC report, much interest was raised as

to the fate and management of the California

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) and

its habitat. Appointed by a Steering Committee of

State (California) and Federal agency representatives, plus representatives of timber industry,

environmental groups, and county officials, in 1992

a committee of scientists produced the California

Spotted Owl (CASPO) report (Verner and others

1992b). This technical evaluation addresses

historic, current, and potential changes in California spotted owl populations and their habitats

(e.g., Beck and Gould 1992, Verner and others

1992a, Verner and Taylor 1992). Field studies on

spotted owl demography and habitats also

continued in southern California, where massive

urbanization, recreation, air quality, and isolation

of owls were but some of the many potential

threats to maintaining viable owl populations.

It was not long after publication of the ISC report,

too, that the FWS published a status review on

the Mexican subspecies of the spotted owl (S. o.

lucida) (USDI FWS 1991c) and soon thereafter

listed it as a threatened subspecies (USDI FWS

1991d) with a recovery plan underway. Subsequent studies (e.g., Seamans and Gutierrez 1995)

have added to our understanding of that subspecies.

Toward Ecosystem Management

There is a reason and a purpose why

the northern spotted owl is being more

noticeable today. I for one believe that

one out of many reasons is the type of

forestry practices we allow today,

allowing overharvesting of our timber

resources and entry into natural “old

growth” settings. One recommen-dation

to consider is to analyze and restructure

more carefully our Old Growth Management Plan. ...Furthermore, all measures

shall be taken to assist in preserving,

protecting, and enhancing the Northern

Spotted Owl’s existence.

Lonnie Selam, Chair, Fish and

Wildlife Committee, Yakama Nation

Tribal Council, In Culture Committee

Official Action #040-8990, Sept. 20,

1990; Yakama Indian Nation, Washington.

The Owl Becomes an “Unintended” Catalyst

for Ecosystem Management (1992-93)

Both management polemics and scientific studies

of spotted owls often have emphasized the

importance of maintaining the general forest

ecosystem in which the birds (and people) reside.

Original studies were aimed at better understanding the autecology of the species, but soon the

owl would be seen as an unintended catalyst for

furthering a more holistic approach to forest

ecosystem planning (Meslow 1993). The ISC had

pointed out that the preservation of the spotted

owl was the wrong question and pointed to the
10

more critical question of ecosystem conservation

and function. Such a general ecosystem context

for owl management and forest planning was

advanced by Anthony (1992), among others, and

was formally institutionalized by the FS with the

commissioning of the Scientific Analysis Team

(SAT) in 1992.

In 1992, the FS submitted its Final EIS on Management for the Northern Spotted Owl in the

National Forests (USDA 1992a) in response to

U.S. District Court Judge Dwyer’s order of 1991.

On 3 March 1992, Assistant Secretary James

Mosely issued a record of decision adopting the

FS’s preferred alternative, which was the equivalent of the ISC conservation strategy (Thomas

and others 1993). The BLM still insisted on following

an independent course and did not do likewise.

Then, on 25 March 1992, Seattle Audubon Society

filed a new challenge to the legality of the EIS

and record of decision on the basis that the EIS

violated NEPA by failing to consider new information on environmental effects of logging in spotted

owl habitat, and that the EIS did not prescribe

measures to protect critical habitat or assess

the viability of other species closely associated

with old-growth forests and northern spotted owl

habitat. Judge Dwyer held a hearing on the case

on 22 May 1992 and ruled on 28 May that the FS

had not fully complied with NEPA. Shortly thereafter, he enjoined FS timber sales in northern

spotted owl habitat.

On 30 July 1992, stirred by this court injunction,

the FS Chief commissioned a technical SAT to

provide the assessments ordered by Judge

Dwyer. The Court had rejected the government’s

contention that once a species was listed as

threatened, the requirements of ESA negated the

requirement in regulations issued pursuant to

NFMA to ensure viability of all native and desired

nonnative vertebrate species by FS planning

area. Judge Dwyer rejected this argument and

said both applied.

The SAT was comprised of FS and FWS scientists and technical experts. The team was to

evaluate all vertebrate species that may be

associated with late-successional forests and to

suggest mitigations to assure high viability for

those species, which were to include at-risk fish

stocks. The report of the SAT (Thomas and

others 1993) provided an analysis of the FS’s

EIS alternatives, recommended changes to the

selected alternative to better account for all

species, identified key areas of scientific uncertainty and unknowns, and recommended substantial inventory and monitoring efforts to reduce

the high-priority unknowns.

Anticipating that circumstances were likely to lead

eventually to a demand to examine life forms other

than vertebrates, the SAT asked for and received

permission to extend the assessment to all life

forms of macroorganisms. This was a significant

step toward a broader ecological basis for evaluating ecosystems.

The SAT report published the first catalogue of all

species and species groups closely associated

with late-successional forests and northern spotted

owl habitats, and an evaluation of their environmental requirements and their individual potential

viability effects under each planning alternative.

Some 667 species were listed as closely associated. The species evaluated included fungi, lichens,

bryophytes and other nonvascular plants, as well

as vascular plants, invertebrates (particularly

mollusks and arthropods), fish, amphibians, reptiles,

birds, and mammals. The report was a significant

step toward an ecological approach to forest

ecosystem management but still, by necessity of

its charter, tiered off the existing management

guidelines for northern spotted owls. The evolution toward recognition of the value of biodiversity

and ecosystem management took yet another

significant step.

The President Launches an Ecosystem Plan

(1993)

Issuance of the SAT report spurred yet another

round of regional and forest plan modifications,

and the controversies continued. The Presidential

campaign of 1991 between George Bush and Bill

Clinton saw both candidates visiting the Northwest and speaking out on the spotted owl issue.

Present George Bush attacked the situation that

had developed. Candidate Bill Clinton promised

that, upon assuming the Presidency, he would

convene a “forest summit” to address the issue.

The Presidential election and subsequent

changes in the Administration quickly led to new

interest in resolving the timber and forest management crises of the Northwest.
11

In April 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore held a televised, landmark Forest

Conference in Portland, Oregon. They ordered a

scientific and technical team to be formed that

would provide a new evaluation and set of

recommendations for forest ecosystem management on Federal public lands within the range of

the northern spotted owl with a 60-day time line

for accomplishment of their task.

The technical team, called the Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT),

consisted of Federal, State, private, and university specialists in many fields including ecology,

biology, economics, sociology, forestry, silviculture, fire ecology, and other areas. Over 600

persons were ultimately involved. As with the

previous SAT effort, the entirety of all life forms

and ecosystem processes would be addressed.

In 1993, the FEMAT team issued its thousandpage report (with summary—FEMAT 1993),

which was prepared in 90 days, with a set of 10

alternatives for management.

The FEMAT report was viewed by many as a

hallmark effort to view forest management from a

broad ecological perspective, putting meat on the

skeletal dicta of the FS for beginning a new era of

ecosystem management. In the FEMAT report,

the spotted owl was assessed along with many

other species closely associated with old-growth

forest habitats within the range of the northern

spotted owl subspecies. Among other advances,

the FEMAT work forced more clearly the issue of

using new, uncertain, and disparate sources of

information in evaluating large-area effects on

ecosystems and species (Lattin 1993).

Concomitant with the production of the FEMAT

report was an interagency (FS and BLM) EIS

team engaged in applying the new evaluations

and management recommendations. A technical

team modeled the viability of northern spotted owl

populations (Raphael and others 1994). The

modeling results were presented as graphs

depicting mean owl population size over 100

years by management alternative and physiographic province (owl population) and under

three different “rule sets” of modeling assumptions; maps of the owl’s range showing predicted

mean occupancy, by owl pairs and by 20-percent

occupancy classes, over 50 years; and maps

showing “strongholds” of locations occupied at

rates of 70 percent or greater, over 100 years.

The modeling results were used by the EIS team

to select and defend a management alternative.

By 1993, a new EIS had been produced, based

on the FEMAT report, that identified the President’s choice of option 9 as the proposed action.

Option 9 called for designation of late-successional forest reserves for preserving LSOG

forests and riparian environments, forest matrix

lands for timber production, and adaptive management areas for testing new silvicultural

techniques. Critics from environmental groups

viewed option 9 as far too lenient and too illspecified for adequate management and protection for old-growth forests. Eventually, on 13 April

1994, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture issued a record of decision (USDA and USDI

1994) that selected a slightly amended option 9

whose additions addressed some of these

concerns. The record amended the planning

documents of two Forest Service regions, 19

National Forests, and 7 BLM districts. It called for

conservation of much of the northern spotted owl

habitat on FS and BLM lands, which hold 90

percent of the Federal land area within the range

of the northern spotted owl (Dwyer 1994). Of this

Federal land area, 77 percent would now occur

as various reserves, with the remainder available

for active forest management or timber harvesting

under other existing environmental and procedural guidelines (fig. 1).6

The record of decision (USDA and USDI 1994)

provided additional guidelines for legally providing

for spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat, and

incorporated an aquatic conservation strategy to

protect at-risk species and stocks of anadromous

fish and to conduct watershed analysis as a basis

for monitoring. It also offered a substantial set of

management guidelines coined “survey and

manage,” which dealt explicitly with inventory

surveys and monitoring studies needed to supply

information on the lesser known and potentially

vulnerable species of fungi, lichens, plants, and

animals. In this new framework, the northern

spotted owl was addressed as but one of many

6 As a result of these new land allocations, the FS and BLM

estimated that the plan would yield about 1 billion board feet

of timber per year, representing a 73-percent reduction from

the “unsustainable” average timber sale levels of the 1980s

(Dwyer 1994).
12

species and ecosystem components to be dealt

with in forest ecosystem management. The

record of decision also called for watershed

analyses at the Forest level (USDA and USDI

1994:B-20ff.) to evaluate and adjust specific

guidelines for ecosystem management.

The FEMAT report sparked new controversy and

media coverage, and by 1994, new legal challenges would be leveled that the team effort

violated the guidelines of the until-then-obscure

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The

FACA was intended to ensure that Federal

agencies treat equally all non-Federal and

nongovernment interests, and not establish

advisory committees consisting of preferential

membership. As of this writing, the challenges

have not been resolved. The government lost the

FACA case in a Washington, DC, court, but the

judge, basing the decision on the “separation of

powers doctrine,” refused to order an injunction.

A New East-Side Team Revisits the Eastern

Border (1993-96)

In late 1993, the FS and BLM established a new

interagency science team of Federal employees

to assess (initally due by July 1995, although

deadlines extended into 1996) conditions of, and

to suggest ecosystem management guidelines

for, forests and grasslands in the interior Columbia River basin and adjacent areas. The study

area addressed was that east of the crest of the

Cascade Range in Washington and Oregon, and

south of Canada. The overall project was called

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) and consisted of a

science team and two EIS teams. The Science

Integration Team (SIT), in turn, had as one part

of its charge to reassess forest management

guidelines in the northern spotted owl’s range

along the east slope of the Cascade Range

and, if warranted, to provide new management

Figure 1—The current distribution of land area allocations for USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, within

the range of the northern spotted owl, resulting from the Northwest Forest Plan of 1994. Matrix lands, managed late-successional

areas, and adaptive management areas (shown in hatching) constitute 23 percent of the total area of about 9,896,900 ha

(24,455,300 acres), and are each available for timber harvesting and other resource management activities under appropriate

environmental and procedural regulations.

Matrix (1,608,782)

Managed late-successional areas (41,360)

Adaptive management areas (615,864)

Riparian reserves (1,063,335)

Administratively withdrawn areas (597,774)

Congressionally reserved areas (2,962,606)

Late-successional reserves (3,007,204)
13

recommendations. This reassessment was

spurred by ongoing research suggesting that

northern spotted owl populations and habitats

may be very different in this geographic area than

on the west side of the Cascade Range.

Under ICBEMP, two EIS teams were created, one

for eastern Washington and eastern Oregon, and

another for Idaho and Montana. As of this writing,

a draft EIS is pending that will use the selected

results of the SIT’s findings in a set of management alternatives for FS and BLM lands in the

interior Columbia River basin.7 The findings include

evaluating any new evidence on northern spotted

owl population or habitat ecology along the eastern side of the Cascade Range, that may call for

changes in the existing planning guidelines there.

Federal Agencies Form a New Coalition for

Ecosystem Management (1994-96)

In the rapidly changing times of the mid-1990s,

along with other agencies, the Pacific Northwest

Region of the FS reorganized its traditional

resource-specific management offices into a

broader Regional Ecosystem Office (REO)

located in Portland, Oregon. The REO serves as

a coordination focus for FS, BLM, FWS, USDI

National Park Service (NPS), National Biological

Survey, and other organizations.

As of 1996, REO has conducted a round of

“implementation monitoring” (an assessment of

how well agency guidelines are being followed)

on FS and BLM lands, for northern spotted owl

habitat management under the Northwest Forest

Plan (previously, also called the “President’s

Forest Plan”). This monitoring focused on inviting

public groups to inspect timber sales on the

ground to determine how well the agencies have

followed the owl guidelines. Although initial

response to the monitoring process itself has

been favorable, implementation monitoring

results on agency compliance with management

guidelines are yet forthcoming. The REO also

expects to continue to conduct “effectiveness

monitoring” studies to determine how well the owl

guidelines under the Northwest Forest Plan

provide for northern spotted owl populations (also

see below under “Scientific Studies Continue”).

The Northwest Forest Plan also directed that FS

and BLM prepare an assessment of each latesuccessional reserve. The REO also is charged

with reviewing the assessments as well as all

proposed silvicultural and timber management

activities within each late-successional reserve.

Scientific Studies Continue

Habitat Studies Improve Our Understanding

But Still Spark Discussion

Since the release of the ISC report, many studies

on habitat of northern spotted owls have helped

improve our scientific understanding of the

subspecies and its habitat. The ISC report itself

presented summaries of research that provided

strong evidence that northern spotted owls select

mature and old-growth forests at equal or greater

frequencies than the forests’ availability within owl

home range areas, and that the owls use younger

forests in much lower frequencies. Such patterns

were apparent and striking in landscapes consisting of even-aged stands of vegetation but were

less clear in landscapes where forests consisted

of uneven mixes of ages and sizes of trees. Among

other locations, uneven age mixes are found in

the redwood (Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don)

Endl.) forests of northwestern California, which

occur mostly on private timber company land.

It was soon made clear that the simple terminology of “young-growth” (or “second-growth”) and

“old-growth” forests could mean different things to

different people. Specific forest stand structures

and composition, and the degree of heterogeneity

of stands across a landscape, needed to be

precisely described when assessing use and

selection patterns by spotted owls and especially

when using the term young-growth forest. In the

1990s, industry conducted a series of studies to

demonstrate abundance and productivity of

northern spotted owls in second-growth forests

(Folliard and Reese 1991, Kerns 1991), which

were typically managed forest landscapes with

mature or old-growth forest inclusions to which

the owls oriented.

7 The SIT, along with the EIS team biologists, assessed

evidence of spotted owl biology and habitat use along the

eastern slope of the Cascade Range. To date, the assessment and its potential use in the EIS are still underway.
14

In 1990, the California Department of Forestry

issued a set of definitions of spotted owl habitat

on state and private lands in California (California

Department of Forestry 1990). Habitat studies

continued in Washington, Oregon, and California

on private and FS lands alike (e.g., Hessburg

1992, Irwin 1992). And during the legal and

administrative fracas of northern spotted owl

habitat planning on Federal public lands, some

individual National Forests produced their own

Forest-level plans (e.g., Wenatchee National

Forest; USDA 1992b), drawing in large part on

habitat evaluations in “young growth” forests or in

the differently structured forests on the east slope

of the Cascade Range. The National Forest-level

spotted owl habitat plans would eventually be

replaced by the broader regional spotted owl

habitat plans.

Demography Analyses and Population Modeling

Proclaim Declining Owl Populations (1993-96)

In December 1993, at the request of the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, a major scientific workshop was held at Fort Collins, Colorado,

to analyze all available demographic data on

northern spotted owls. The workshop focused on

mark-recapture studies, was led by K.P. Burnham,

D.R. Anderson, and G.C. White, and was attended by many spotted owl scientists with 3 or

more years of demographic data on spotted owl

populations. Results of the workshop were

published by the Cooper Ornithological Society

(Forsman and others 1996). Results suggested

broad-scale demographic declines in northern

spotted owl populations.

The workshop was convened as part of the EIS

analysis supporting what was to become the

Northwest Forest Plan. The most comprehensive

analysis emerging from the workshop was a new

“meta-analysis” conducted by Burnham and

others (1996) that merged the demographic

studies of individual northern spotted owl populations. This was done to determine the overall

trend of the subspecies throughout all geographic

study areas combined. Results indicated that the

overall subspecies is declining demographically

(lambda, the parameter representing the annual

rate of change in population size, was estimated

as 0.9548, SE = 0.017, where a lambda value of

1 implies stability, <1 a decline, and >1 an increase). The major culprit contributing to this

decline is an accelerating decline in adult female

survival, a situation not anticipated by ISC or by

other groups analyzing the status of the subspecies. The finding of an accelerating decline in

adult female survival has sparked recent major

concern over the future of the subspecies, and

has underscored a call to continue population

monitoring (Raphael and others 1996). Whether,

and how, existing northern spotted owl management guidelines will be amended to account for

these findings remains to be seen.

The EIS analysis (Raphael and others 1994) also

included use of a spatially explicit demography

model which helped highlight geographic areas of

potential strength and weakness in maintaining

spotted owl populations. Weak areas included the

Oregon Coast Range and southwest Washington.

This modeling provided useful, location-specific

information on which validation studies might be

focused. It also provided a good example of using

such models for broad-based conservation

assessment, particularly in providing an easy to

understand map showing areas of expected

population change. The map proved particularly

helpful in discussions with nonbiologists.

Silviculture Studies Challenge the

Preservation Paradigm for Spotted Owl

Habitat (1991-94)

In the early 1990s, a series of studies also began

that focused on the potential use of silviculture for

restoring or maintaining suitable spotted owl

habitat. Irwin and colleagues (e.g., Irwin and

Wigley 1993), Oliver and others (1994), and other

researchers, promoted an experimental basis for

habitat management and use of silviculture. An

experimental approach also was suggested in the

Draft Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 1992c) and in

many other planning documents under the

umbrella of adaptive forest management.

Silviculture studies were particularly sought by FS

and timber companies interested in reducing fire

hazard in the drier forests of the east slope of the

Cascade Range (Irwin 1992). Similar concerns

were being expressed for maintaining spotted owl

habitat in the increasingly fire-prone forests in the

Sierra Nevada (Weatherspoon and others 1992).

West-side research on silviculture, forest vegetation response, and habitat of the northern flying

squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) and spotted owl
15

habitat began in the low-elevation Douglas-fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) forests of

Fort Lewis, Washington, with the work of Carey

and Miller (1991) and others (Curtis 1991; also

see Carey 1994, Kerschke and Carey 1992,

Thomas and Carey 1992). Other studies in

managed BLM forests began in southern Oregon

(e.g., Meslow and others 1991).

These lastly mentioned studies begin to address

the real issue. Studies of using silviculture for

maintaining or restoring spotted owl habitat do

not address the need for the multitude of other

species thought to be closely associated with

late-successional or old-growth forests. As ISC

itself insisted, the question is one of ecosystem

complexity and biodiversity and not just one of owls.

Researchers Continue to Model Owl

Populations (1994-96)

The plight of the northern spotted owl has helped

to spur new scientific research on modeling

effects of forest and habitat fragmentation on

viability of wildlife populations. Recent studies on

demographic models and reserve design (Anderson and Mahato 1995, Lamberson and others 1994,

Murphy and Noon 1992), demographic viability of

spotted owl populations (Bart 1995, papers in

Forsman and others 1996), effect of habitat pattern

on owl population persistence (Holthausen and

others 1995), and use of habitat conditions to

infer population viability (Boyce and others 1994)

have continued to explore the modeling paradigm.

Inventory and Monitoring Studies Help to

Track Owl Populations (1989-96)

Meanwhile, spotted owl scientists were continuing

to monitor owl populations in selected ecological

provinces (papers in Forsman and others 1996).

Funding for such studies often seemed to allow

the creation of many new demographic studies

but not their continuance, which has proven to be

a point of difficulty in evaluating short-term data

on this long-lived species (Burnham and others

1996). Studies of this type typically need to

continue for at least 8 years and ideally at least a

decade, before the annual variation in demographic factors (survival, reproduction, and

dispersal rates and patterns) can be correctly

attributed to chance or to longer term innate trends.

Funding for few studies on northern spotted owl

demography have continued for this length.

Between 1989 and 1993, the management arms

of the FS and BLM conducted inventory and

monitoring of northern spotted owl habitats and

populations. The surveys were conducted in both

designated spotted owl habitat conservation

areas and in randomly selected sites, to compare

differences in abundance, occupation rates, and

trends over time (Crites and O’Halloran 1991).

Also during this time, research on monitoring

design (Azuma and others 1990, Max and others

1990, Ward and others 1991) and on field methods

(Ganey 1990, Guetterman and others 1991)

continued. The FS, BLM, and FWS developed

standardized protocols for field monitoring of

northern spotted owls (USDI FWS 1992b).

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the FS and

BLM employed many field biologists to locate and

count owls, and map owl habitat areas, in Washington and Oregon. Parallel efforts were pursued

in California (Robinson 1992a, 1992b). The

science of inventory and monitoring had progressed far from the early days of opportunistic

sightings and rigorously planned but largely

cursory surveys conducted by lone biologists

(e.g., Marcot and Gardetto 1980).

From 1991 to 1994, part of the Federal agencies’

survey direction had entailed inventory of spotted

owls in HCAs (and in analogous designated

habitats derived from the Draft Northern Spotted

Owl Recovery Plan and later the Northwest

Forest Plan resulting from the FEMAT effort). As

of this writing, the FS in Washington and Oregon

intends to continue owl monitoring in at least the

Bull Run Watershed of the northern Oregon

Cascade Range, and monitoring in California will

continue under separate administration. By 1994,

FS administrations in Washington, Oregon, and

California had adopted a common computer

database structure for tracking spotted owl

sightings from inventory and monitoring efforts.

The continuing demographic studies, however,

provide by far the most scientifically reliable

estimates of population status and trend throughout the range of the subspecies.

Monitoring of owls had continued during this

period also on BLM lands in Oregon (Lint 1992),

providing the best and longest term data on site

occupancy and breeding success. The NPS, too,

had funded some owl monitoring efforts (e.g.,

Fredrickson and others 1990, Snetsinger and
16

others 1991). Habitats for owls have been characterized in the Olympic Mountains of northwestern Washington (Holthausen and others 1995),

the eastern slope of the Cascade Range in

Washington (Buchanan and others 1995), and

northern California (Hunter and others 1995), as

new observations of spotted owl demography

continue to be made (Forsman and others 1995,

1996; Sovern and others 1994).

By 1996, the FS did not require inventories or

surveys for northern spotted owls per se in socalled matrix lands (Federal lands outside latesuccessional reserves designated through the

Northwest Forest Plan) but instead requires local

project work to base evaluations on at least

existing owl inventory data and occurrence of

spotted owl habitat. Local FS projects in owl

habitat are subject to seasonal activity restrictions

(FS field offices have the option to conduct

surveys for spotted owls per se to avoid seasonal

restrictions). Northern spotted owl inventories to

date provide a reasonably broad coverage of FS

and BLM lands. Use of such data in coordination

with FWS on Section 7 consultation under ESA

provides an efficient and economical means of

evaluating site-specific effects of proposed

management activities.8

By 1996, a Spotted Owl Monitoring Committee

has been formed under direction of BLM and in

coordination with the Pacific Northwest Research

Station of the FS and the REO in Portland,

Oregon. This Committee oversees and coordinates the regional monitoring of selected northern

spotted owl populations, particularly through owl

demographic studies. Selected owl demography

monitoring studies are continuing in northwestern

California (Willow Creek), the Olympic Peninsula

of northwestern Washington, and elsewhere.

The Spotted Owl Monitoring Committee is developing a master, recommended monitoring plan

for the northern spotted owl. As of this writing,

this committee has developed a set of draft

recommendations that call for continuance of

existing demographic studies for at least 5 years,

after which it might be possible to drop some

studies depending on findings. The committee

also is recommending that an independent

monitoring approach, using a randomized owl

calling survey, be implemented as a check on the

demographic studies.

Much of the spotted owl inventory effort has

wound down as of this writing, in response to a

rapidly declining workforce and resources in

Federal conservation agencies, and to increases

in demands elsewhere. Most northern spotted owl

demographic monitoring studies are continuing,

however, to help answer persistent, scientific

questions. Among the questions still not fully

resolved are (1) What is the true, long-term

demographic trend of the subspecies? (2) What is

the relative contribution to this trend from management on Federal, State, private, and other

forest lands? (3) What is the population response

by owls to new forest management objectives

(e.g., to maintain long-term resource sustainability under Ecosystem Management) and new

silvicultural approaches (e.g., small canopy-gap

openings), particularly on Federal public lands?

(4) What is the long-term effect of the continued

invasion of the spotted owl’s range by its prime

avian competitor, the barred owl (Strix varia)?

(5) How will the distribution and size of habitats

called for in the new forest management plans

specifically provide for interacting populations of

spotted owls over time? (6) How will new fire and

fuels management guidelines, and recent standreplacing fire events, affect spotted owl populations, particularly in the drier or easterly portions

of the Olympic Peninsula, Cascade Range, and

interior northern California? Research on these

and other questions can continue to provide

empirical understanding (Verner 1992).

Conclusions and Lessons

A few conclusions and lessons may be drawn

from this review of the recent history of spotted

owl planning and management.

The Court Sets a Viability Standard

Since the ISC report, the dissension among

Federal congressional, executive, departmental,

and agency directives, policies, laws, regulations,

and management decisions have served only to

stall efficient conservation action and to prolong

environmental concerns and problems. This

8 Personal communication. 1997. G. Gunderson, wildlife

biologist, Natural Resources Unit, Forest Service, 333 SW

First Avenue, Portland, OR 97224.
17

“period of dissension” has called into serious

question the future of autonomous decisionmaking in some of the Federal land management

agencies, particularly FS and BLM. Short-term

congressional directives, such as the Section 318

timber sales, and foot-dragging by agencies, at

best merely postponed tough resource decisions

and essentially made long-term, professional,

sound resource stewardship on the ground all the

harder to assert and implement. It was the judicial

cases and decisions that broke the major stalemates.

Perhaps the most important outcome of recent

litigation on spotted owl management was the

ruling made by Judge Dwyer on 21 December

1994 upholding the FS approach to assessing

population viability of vertebrate species. Among

his ruling points, Dwyer (1994) concluded that the

viability regulation (36 CFR 219.19 regulation

implementing NFMA) is consistent in all respects

with NFMA and multiple-use management; the

Secretary of the Interior was not incorrect in

deciding to manage the BLM forests so as to

preserve viable populations of vertebrate species;

that the use of an 80-percent or better likelihood

of providing habitat supporting viable populations

of vertebrate species was appropriate; and that

the additional focus on maintaining viability of

invertebrates as well as vertebrates, even though

the NFMA regulations specifically mention only

vertebrates with regard to maintaining viable populations, is supported by law and was within the

legitimate scope of departmental discretion. The

1994 Dwyer ruling also resolved simultaneously

four ongoing litigations variously held against the

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior.

Successful legal challenge to the viability analysis

approach used in the EIS based on the FEMAT

report would have meant the undoing of the Northwest Forest Plan and a plunge into yet another

round of analysis and planning. The many previous rounds (see table 1)—in part fired by the

public review process and fueled by administrative, congressional, departmental, and agency

inaction—had consumed a great deal of taxpayer

money and experts’ energy. Yet from this tension

has at least sprung progress in the technical

arenas of ecosystem assessment, biodiversity

evaluation, and species modeling, including

population viability analysis. And the Dwyer

decision, for the first time, described the standard

of adequate adherence to the NFMA regulations,

as well as for BLM forest management, pertaining

to evaluating and managing for viable populations

of native and desired nonnative vertebrate

species and invertebrates on these public forest

lands. It marked the first time for several years

that the owl habitat forests were to be managed

by the FS and BLM under a common ecosystem

management plan found lawful by the courts.

The Species and the System Are Both Key

It is evident that recent trends in assessment and

planning have focused on two concurrent fronts:

(1) intensive, species-specific research and modeling of spotted owl demography and habitat patterns;

and (2) extensive evaluations of biodiversity of

old-forest ecological communities, with the owl as

but one component. It is equally evident that these

are not competing approaches, and that both are

useful in aiding understanding of the effects of

management on owls and their communities.

For example, it was one of the prime conclusions

of the SAT report (Thomas and others 1993) that

the needs of one old-forest indicator taxon, the

northern spotted owl, do not fully reflect habitat

conditions of all other species closely associated

with old forests within the owl’s range. Although

this outcome was anticipated by some (namely,

the senior author), the degree to which and the

species for which this is true could not have been

explicitly determined except by taking a broad,

biodiversity approach to assessing environments

used by, and management effects on, all species

closely associated with spotted owl habitat (Marcot

1997). At the same time, to determine what is

needed to additionally provide for other old-forest

species necessitates knowing their specific habitat

and ecological requirements. Like overlapping

circles, the needs of many old-forest species

coincide but only partially. It is the full extent of all

circles together that describes the collective

needs of all species in the old-forest ecosystem.

This has become evident, too, in recent evaluations of marbled murrelets and lynx (Lynx lynx).

For example, the kinds and geographic locations

of habitats of northern spotted owls and marbled

murrelets overlap, but only partially. As of this

writing, a draft recovery plan for marbled murrelets is out for review, and FWS has finalized critical

habitat for the species in the Western States

(except Alaska). Critical habitat for the marbled
18

murrelet was identified as all late-successional

reserves as mapped in the Northwest Forest Plan

within the range of the marbled murrelet, with the

addition of some non-Federal lands with marbled

murrelet habitat. In this way, much of the critical

habitat for marbled murrelets overlaps critical

NRF (but not dispersal) habitat for northern spotted owls, although, to be expected, the overlap is

not perfect.

In another example, the main overlap between

northern spotted owl and lynx habitat, in the

geographic area of sympatry (coincidence of the

species’ distributional ranges), seems to be in

denning habitat for lynx. Lynx den under “jackstraw” logs in mature to old-growth forest, such

as along the eastern slope of the Cascade Range

of northern Washington. Lynx, however, are

sensitive to factors that affect spotted owls far

less, or not at all, such as road density, elevation,

and occurrence of early successional forests. It

was the aim of the SAT and FEMAT analyses to

combine such species-specific requirements,

along with habitat analyses, field studies, and

ecological modeling, among all old-forest species

of conservation concern, in a joint and comprehensive approach to assessing and ultimately

managing old-forest wildlife communities.

In a similar way, fish habitat conservation overlaps partially with that of spotted owl habitat. Thus

far, the 1990s have seen increasing conservation

concerns over coho salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch) in coastal Oregon and California, particularly in the Umpqua basin which has several atrisk fish species, as well as for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and many other fish species and

stocks within the owl’s range. The overlap, however, between fish habitat and owl habitat is not

very complete, as the SAT report, ISC report, and

draft Spotted Owl Recovery Plan all acknowledge. One aspect of this is that habitat for these

at-risk fish species and stocks is of course more

oriented around stream conditions (but influence

of upslope disturbances also affect in-stream

conditions). The locations of key watersheds

(sensu FEMAT 1993, Gordon and others 1991)

for these at-risk fish, however, often overlap the

general distribution of northern spotted owls (ISC

report) and the late-successional reserves

(Northwest Forest Plan). Thus, it may be more

efficient to continue to coordinate habitat conservation assessments and measures among

individual species such as murrelets, lynx, fish,

and owls, where possible.

The REO (discussed above) also has as its charge

the development of survey and manage guidelines to ensure timely and efficient inventories and

surveys for a long list of plant and animal species

not well known but likely closely associated with

northern spotted owl habitat. The efficiency of

current “survey and manage” activities is not

clear. Species currently are treated mostly

individually with only a small effort to combine

surveys among species. The REO, however, has

created a single database on all known sites of

the survey and manage species, and is currently

developing new and more multifunctional approaches and databases for addressing survey

and manage species (see footnotes 3 and 5).

Much greater efficiencies in managing for spotted

owls and their associates can be expected from

such integrated efforts. Beyond this is the opportunity for conservation to do more with less under

the rubric of ecosystem management, by combining

conservation goals, by overlapping critical habitat

and other old-forest designations where ecologically appropriate, and by merging survey and

inventory activities across species and agencies.

Of Coarse Filters and Efficient Management

Another conclusion from the recent spotted owl

history is that a simple, so-called coarse-filter

approach does not suffice for ensuring that all

needs of spotted owls and old-growth forest

communities are met. In this context, coarse-filter

management refers to specifying macrohabitat

conditions (vegetation cover types and their

successional or structural stages)—namely, latesuccessional and old-growth NRF habitat for

northern spotted owls—and assuming that

management of such forests adequately meets

the biological requirements of all associated plant

and animal species.

But the obverse side of the coarse-filter management coin is not necessarily a species-by-species

approach, which has proven to be a costly and

data-hungry (but much more reliable) tactic to

meet mandates for conserving biodiversity and

maintaining demographic viability of wildlife

populations. A less intensive approach, as used in
19

the FEMAT analyses and the ongoing interior

Columbia basin EIS assessments, is to specify

species’ requirements in terms of microhabitat

conditions—namely, substrates, dominant plant

species (such as dominant tree species), and

other key environmental correlates that influence

species abundance. This approach still requires

species-specific or at least species group-specific

information on selected habitats and environments. But it does not demand intensive demographic research and analyses on each species

before assessments can be made and management guidelines crafted. To us, this approach

seems to better meet the needs of adaptive

management: posing management guidelines as

hypotheses that are tested (and amended, as

appropriate) by field trials and monitoring research. It seems to us that much good scientific

and technical effort has been wasted in arguing

differences between species and community

approaches, and between coarse and fine-filter

approaches, when we have had the need and

capability to dine at all tables.

Nothing Substitutes for Monitoring Studies

At the same time, as evidenced by recent research findings on spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and other species, efficiencies provided by

broad-scale and coarse-filter management cannot

substitute for species-specific effectiveness

monitoring studies. For example, conducting

implementation monitoring—itself a worthy

activity that determines if administrative units are

correctly carrying out management guidelines—

cannot tell us about the demographic trend of

populations of spotted owls or other old-forest

species. It is clear that difficult choices will need

to be made to appropriately allocate increasingly

finite funds between broad-based inventories and

species-specific studies. The lessons of the spotted

owl tell us that some balance of the two—that is,

both—are essential.

Another lesson to learn from this recent spotted

owl history is the value of continued, long-term

population demography studies. No short-term

inventory or computer model can provide the kind

of basic, empirical understanding derived from

such studies, particularly if populations are on an

accelerating decline not anticipated from ISC or

other previous analyses.

Demographic analysis based on field work has

reinforced the message that the conservation

measures initially provided in the ISC report in

fact may not be stringent enough to ensure a high

probability of continued existence of well-distributed northern spotted owl populations throughout

their range. The Northwest Forest Plan EIS team

had used this demographic analysis as support for

the conservatory nature of the plan, in response

to criticisms that the plan was too stringent in

providing for spotted owls and LSOG forests.

A lesson can be drawn as well on the value of

population and habitat modeling in general for

species such as the spotted owl. The EIS team

made what we consider to be appropriate use of

the spotted owl demography and habitat model

results. They used the results to help corroborate

confidence in the Northwest Forest Plan guidelines, not to “prove” that the guidelines are “right”

or to determine the “real” trends of spotted owl

populations. They used the models not to formulate management guidelines and decisions but

more to validate the relatively conservatory nature

of the decision, and to identify geographic areas

potentially needing additional study.

Models Are Tools, Not the House

Much of the litigation against the Federal agencies in the name of spotted owl conservation has

focused on agency process, including the use of

models in crafting management guidelines and

planning alternatives. Over the past half-decade,

many case hearings, depositions, and affidavits,

and many spotted owl plans used models of

spotted owl populations and habitats. Models have

been variously touted as the only true answer and

thus the savior of management polemics, or as

fatally flawed and thus the prevaricator of tooconservative (or too-liberal) conclusions.

In our estimate, models are merely tools—in the

case of spotted owl monitoring and management,

increasingly sophisticated and often recondite

tools, such as with metaanalysis of demographic

monitoring or spatially explicit population dynamics analyses—but they are tools nonetheless. As

such, to date, the spotted owl models were probably

used most correctly and effectively in the Northwest Forest Plan EIS; that is, to help test and

corroborate confidence in the plan’s approach,

not to “compute” new land use allocations or to
20

make allocation decisions per se. The models

can be used to validate the nature of a potential

decision, to identify additional geographic areas

for further management focus, and to identify

topics needing additional research, such as adult

female survivorship or the role of suboptimal

habitat. But it should be remembered by scientists and managers alike that models are merely

tools; they help build and test the strength of the

house, but they are not the house itself.

To Arrive Where We Started

Stolas: Grand prince of hell. He appears in the shape of an owl. When he

assumes the shape of a man and

appears before exorcists, he teaches

astronomy, prophecy based on the

study of plants, and the value of precious stones. Twenty-six legions look

upon him as their general.

 de Plancy 1965:162.

In the 138 years since Xantus (1859) first described Syrnium occidentale (later renamed Strix

occidentalis), much of the landscape of North

America has undergone rather startling change.

In the West, as the early national parks were

being designated, railroads were being laid and

old-growth forests of the lowlands were being

cleared for settlement. Around the end of the

19th century, forest reserves, later redesignated

as National Forests, were established to protect

conifer woodlands as sources of public timber.

And from the beginning, management of the

spotted owl and its old-forest allies was to be

inextricably tied both with the fate of those

forest ecosystems and with the well-being of

human communities.

We have arrived to where we started in another

way, too. It seems a remarkable irony that the

spotted owl came to be federally listed in the

United States as a threatened species—twice.

The 1990 listing of the northern spotted owl by

FWS is well known. But few might remember

that the spotted owl was briefly included in the

FWS’s 1973 Red Book as a threatened species,

just before ESA was instituted. After the Act, the

Red Book listings did not apply and for the next

17 years the owl was no longer considered

federally threatened.9

Ironically, too, it is ESA itself that specifies its

primary purpose as providing “...a means

whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered

species and threatened species depend may be

conserved ... “ (ESA, Sec. 2(b)). Only until

recently, the management controversy has

focused mainly on the species-specific issues.

Although hindsight is seldom myopic, it still may

be helpful to remember when prescient foresight

had warned of impending conflicts in spotted owl

planning. In the 1974 North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference, long before the

controversies of owls and old growth had sprouted,

Overton and Hunt (1974: 334) anticipated by two

decades our “new” era of ecosystem management:

 The concern of the future of the spotted owl

resolves into a concern about the future of old

growth forest. ... Isolated into one-on-one

conflict with timber needs, the spotted owl

cannot be expected to fare well, and anyway

this just isn’t the right way to go about the

problem. The spotted owl, timber production

and old growth should, along with many other

elements, be considered part of the total forest

system, and management questions directed

to the forest as a whole, rather than to the

individual parts.

Overton and Hunt (1974) continued by proposing

that forest biological and sociological diversity

become the context within which individual

management actions are assessed and overall

planning goals are developed:

The management unit is thus a sociologicalecological entity, with a sustained yield of

forest products and a sustained spectrum of

ecological diversity which have been chosen

by the society in forming the unit (p. 347,

emphasis in original).

9 To this catalog we might also add the current listings of the

northern spotted owl in British Columbia as federally threatened

in Canada (listed by the national government of Canada), and of

the Mexican spotted owl as federally threatened in the United

States (listed by USDI under ESA). To date, the California

spotted owl has remained federally unlisted. At the State level,

Washington, Oregon, and California have each listed the

northern subspecies as threatened or an equivalent status.
21

Since cultural values can be expected to

change, the only feasible conservation policy

is one that conserves options. ... [A] strategy

of preserved diversity appears to be the only

device which will yield a high chance of

adaptability to unforseen eventuality (p. 349,

emphasis in original).

Overton and Hunt proposed that a planning

approach to spotted owl habitat, old-growth

forests, and other forest resources should be

based on intergenerational equity for maintaining

forest resource use options and forest diversity

for future generations. They concluded that:

The longer we wait before accepting this

position, the more difficult it will be both to

save some old growth in reserve and to

achieve a smooth transition. We are rapidly

spending options which we will need in 20

years – and which future generations are

going to need even more than we do. (p. 352,

emphasis in original )

Current agency directives, including the Northwest Forest Plan, lack explicit goals for maintaining intergenerational equity for forest resource

use options and forest diversity. Will this too

become a point of explicit contention in public

forest management?

Remembering, too, the prescient 1978 writings of

Hamilton Tyler (Tyler and Phillips 1978:188), “It

may yet come about that a little known species of

owl [the spotted owl] will be the means of saving

not only its own kind, but also the parklike owl

groves for future generations of owls and humans

to enjoy together. If so, it will be a very wise move

in owl history.”

There was an old owl lived in an oak,

The more he heard, the less he spoke;

The less he spoke, the more he heard,

O, if men were all like that wise bird!

 Punch, Vol. LXVIII, p. 155 [1875]

Acknowledgments

Our appreciation to Eric Forsman, Grant Gunderson, Cay Ogden, Martin Raphael, and Elaine

Rybak for helping to track the recent history of

owl management in Washington and Oregon.

Thanks to Val Black, Richard Holthausen, Martin

Raphael, and Jerry Verner for technical reviews,

and to Hermann Gucinski for a policy review of

the manuscript.
22

References

Agee, J.K.; Edmonds, R.L. 1991. Forest protection issues for the northern spotted owl. Review draft.

Submitted to the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Team, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 90 p.

Anderson, D.R.; Bart, J.; Edwards, T.C. [and others]. 1990. 1990 status review—northern spotted

owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. 93 p.

Anderson, M.C.; Mahato, D. 1995. Demographic models and reserve designs for the California

spotted owl. Ecological Applications. 5(3): 639-647.

Anthony, R. 1992. Ecosystem vs. single-species management: lessons for the future. [Abstract only].

In: A symposium on the biology, conservation, and management of the northern spotted owl:

Raptor Research Foundation Conference; [Dates of meeting unknown]; Bellevue, WA. [Place of

publication unknown]: Raptor Research Foundation.

Azuma, D.L.; Baldwin, J.A.; Noon, B.R. 1990. Estimating the occupancy of spotted owl habitat areas

by sampling and adjusting for bias. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-124. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 9 p.

Bainbridge, C. 1993. Timber, owls, and communities: the history of a Pacific Northwest controversy.

Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 250 p.

Baldwin, P. 1990. Summary of Section 318 of P.L. 101-121, the FY 1990 Appropriations for Interior and

Related Agencies Memo. Washington, DC: U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research

Service. 4 p.

Barry, D.; Harroun, L.; Havvarson, C. 1992. For conserving listed species, talk is cheaper than we

think: the consultation process under the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: World Wildlife

Fund. 33 p.

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation Biology.

9(4): 943-946.

Bart, J.; Holthausen, R. 1993. Listing critical habitat designation and development of the northern

spotted owl recovery plan. Journal of Raptor Research. 27(1): 53.

Beck, T.W.; Gould, G.I., Jr. 1992. Background and the current management situation for the California

spotted owl. In: Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R. [and others], eds. The California spotted owl:

a technical assessment of its current status. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 37-54.

Beuter, J.H. 1990. Social and economic impacts of the spotted owl conservation strategy. Tech. Bull.

9003. Washington, DC: American Forest Resource Alliance. 36 p.

Boyce, M.S.; Meyer, J.S.; Irwin, L. 1994. Habitat-based PVA for the northern spotted owl. In: Fletcher,

D.J.; Manly, B.J.F., eds. Otago Conf. Ser. 2. statistics in ecology and environmental monitoring.

Dunedid, New Zealand: University of Otago Press: 63-85.

Buchanan, J.B.; Irwin, L.L.; McCutchen, E.L. 1995. Within-stand nest site selection by spotted owls

in the eastern Washington Cascades. Journal of Wildlife Management. 59(2): 301-310.

Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R.; White, G.C. 1996. Meta-analysis of vital rates of the northern spotted

owl. Studies in Avian Biology. 17: 92-101.

California Department of Forestry. 1990. Rule package (adopted 28 Nov. 1990; definitions of spotted

owl habitat). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry.
23

Carey, A.B. 1994. The forest ecosystem study: experimental manipulation of managed stands to

provide habitat for spotted owls and to enhance plant and animal diversity: a summary and background for the interagency experiment on Fort Lewis, Washington. 17 p. (plus appendix). Unpublished report. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625

93d Avenue, S.W., Olympia, WA 98502.

Carey, A.B.; Miller, R.E. 1991. Experimental manipulation of managed stands to provide habitat for

spotted owls and to enhance plant and animal diversity. Study proposal November 8, 1991. 49 p.

Unpublished report. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,

3625 93d Avenue, S.W., Olympia, WA 98502.

Chasan, D.J. 1990. Whose ancient forest? Defenders September/October: 15-35.

Cooper Ornithological Society. 1992. Resolution denouncing the preservation plan for the northern

spotted owl. Condor. 94: 1038.

Crites, M.J.; O’Halloran, K. 1991. USFS Pacific Northwest Region spotted owl inventory and monitoring FY 1990 annual report. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Region.

Curtis, R.O. 1991. Stand development patterns in relation to treatment and harvest age, with implications for timber management policies and accelerated development of wildlife habitat. Study plan.

15 p. Unpublished report. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences

Laboratory, 3625 93d Avenue, S.W., Olympia, WA 98502.

de Plancy, C. 1965. Dictionary of demonology. In: Baskin, W., ed. and transl. (Originally published

1819-25 as three volumes). New York: Philosophical Library. 177 p.

Diller, L.V. 1993. A private landowner’s habitat conservation plan, the Simpson Timber Company HCP.

Journal of Raptor Research. 27(1): 54.

Dwyer, W.L. 1991. Order on motions for summary judgment and for dismissal. Seattle Audubon Society

et al., plaintiffs, v. F. Dale Robertson et al., defendants. No. 89099 (t)WD. Seattle, WA: U.S. District

Court, Western District of Washington. 28 p.

Dwyer, W.L. 1994. Order on motions for summary judgment re 1994 Forest Plan. Seattle Audubon

Society and others, et al., plantiffs, v. James Lyons et al., defendants, No. C92-479WD; Save The

West, plaintiff, v. James Lyons et al., defendants, No. C94-758WD; Native Forest Council, plaintiff, v.

Bruce Babbitt et al., defendants, No. C94-803WD; and The Sierra Club, plaintiff, v. Michael Espy

et al., defendants, No. C94-820WD. Seattle, WA: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington

at Seattle, WA. 69 p. (plus two pages of illustrations).

Folliard, L.B.; Reese, K.P. 1991. Nest site characteristics of northern spotted owls in second growth

forests of northwest California: annual report for 1990. Moscow ID: University of Idaho, Department

of Fish and Wildlife Resources, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences; Simpson Timber

Company, California. [Irregular pagination].

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management:

an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S.

Department of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Forsman, E.D.; Destefano, S.; Raphael, M.G.; Gutierrez, R.J., eds. 1996. Demography of the northern spotted owl. Studies in Avian Biology No. 17. 122 p.

Forsman, E.D.; Giese, A.; Manson, D.; Sovern, S. 1995. Renesting by spotted owls. Condor. 97:

1078-1080.

Franzreb, K.E. 1993. Perspectives on the landmark decision designating the northern spotted owl Strix

occidentalis caurina as a threatened species. Environmental Management. 17(4): 445-452.
24

Fredrickson, R.J.; English, A.K.; Moorhead, B.B. 1990. Spotted owl inventory and monitoring

Olympic National Park 1990. Port Angeles, WA: National Park Service, Olympic National Park. 40 p.

Frye, H. 1992. U.S. district court record for the case of Audubon and others vs. Lujan and others, Civil

Case no. 87-1160-FR, dated 19 February 1992. Portland, OR: U.S. District Court.

Ganey, J.L. 1990. Calling behavior of spotted owls in northern Arizona. Condor. 92: 485-490.

Gordon, J.; Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, K.N.; Thomas, J.W. 1991. Alternatives for management of late

successional forests of the Pacific Northwest. A report to the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: [Publisher unknown]: [Irregular pagination].

Gorte, R.W. 1990. Economic impacts of protecting the northern spotted owl. CRS report for Congress.

90-74 ENR. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. 48 p.

Greber, B.J.; Johnson, K.N.; Lettman, G. 1990. Conservation plans for the northern spotted owl and

other forest management proposals in Oregon: the economics of changing timber availability.

Papers in Forest Policy 1. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of Forestry, Forest

Research Laboratory. 50 p.

Grubbs, D.R. 1990. Of spotted owls and bald eagles: raptor conservation soars into the 90s. Capital

University Law Review. 19(2): 451-488.

Guetterman, J.H.; Burns, J.A.; Reid, J.A. [and others].1991. Radio telemetry methods for studying

spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-272. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p.

Gup, T. 1990. Owl vs. man. Time. 135(26): 56-63.

Hamilton, T. [and others]. 1990. Economic effects of implementing a conservation strategy for the

northern spotted owl. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 65 p.

Hanson, E.; Hays, D.; Hicks, L.; Young, L.; Buchanan, J. 1993. Spotted owl habitat in Washington: a

report to the Washington Forest Practices Board. Washington Forest Practices Board, Spotted Owl

Scientific Advisory Group; final report. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 116 p.

Henderson, J.A. 1990. Trends in amount of old-growth forest for the last 1000 years in western Oregon

and Washington. 7 p. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 21905 64th Avenue West, Mountlake Terrace,

WA 98043.

Hessburg, P.F. 1992. A summary of insect and disease risk factors associated with the taking of

spotted owl habitat. Prepared for the Wenatchee National Forest Spotted Owl Management Plan,

March 10, 1992, Wenatchee WA. [pages unknown]. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 301 Yakima St., P.O. Box 811,

Wenatchee, WA 98807.

Holthausen, R.S.; Raphael, M.G.; McKelvey, K.S. [and others]. 1995. The contribution of Federal

and non-Federal habitat to persistence of the northern spotted owl on the Olympic Peninsula,

Washington: report of the reanalysis team. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-352. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

Hunter, J.E.; Gutierrez, R.J.; Franklin, A.B. 1995. Habitat configuration around spotted owl sites in

northwestern California. Condor. 97: 684-693.

Interagency Scientific Committee [ISC]. 1991. An owl conservation strategy that works. Journal of

Forestry. 89(8): 23-26.
25

Irwin, L. 1992. Relations among suitable habitat, fire management analysis zones, and demographic

patterns of northern spotted owls on the east slope of the Cascade mountains, Washington.

Corvallis, OR: National Council on Air and Stream Improvement. 11 p.

Irwin, L.L.; Wigley, T.B. 1993. Toward an experimental basis for protecting forest wildlife. Ecological

Applications. 3(2): 213-217.

Kerns, S.J. 1991. Wildlife observations on the lands of The Pacific Lumber Company: 1990 spotted

owl summary report. Scotia, CA: The Pacific Lumber Company. 15 p. (plus figures).

Kerschke, W.L.; Carey, A.B. 1992. Experimental manipulation of managed stands to provide habitat for

spotted owl and to enhance plant and animal diversity. [Abstract only]. Northwest Science. 66(2): 128.

Lamberson, R.H.; Noon, B.R.; Voss, C.; McKelvey, K.S. 1994. Reserve design for territorial species:

the effects of patch size and spacing on the viability of the northern spotted owl. Conservation

Biology. 8(1): 185-195.

Lattin, J.D. 1993. Lessons from the spotted owl: the utility of non-traditional data. BioScience. 43(10): 666.

Lee, R.G. 1990. Social and cultural implications of implementing “a conservation strategy for the

northern spotted owl.” Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 42 p.

Lint, J. 1992. Inventory and monitoring programs for northern spotted owls. In: A symposium on the

biology, conservation, and management of the northern spotted owl. [Abstract only]. In: A symposium on the biology, conservation, and management of the northern spotted owl: Raptor Research

Foundation Conference; [Dates of meeting unknown]; Bellevue, WA. [Place of publication unknown]:

Raptor Research Foundation

Lujan, M., Jr.; Beuter, J.H.; Cassidy, E. [and others]. 1992. Preservation plan for the northern spotted

owl - draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Maki, W.R.; Olson, D.C. 1991. Economic and social impacts of preserving current forests in the Pacific

Northwest. Tech. Bull. 91-07. Washington, DC: American Forest Resource Alliance. 19 p.

Marcot, B.G. 1997. Biodiversity of old forests of the west: a lesson from our elders. In: Kohm, K.A.;

Franklin, J.F., eds. Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of ecosystem management.

Washington, DC: Island Press: 88-105.

Marcot, B.G.; Gardetto, J. 1980. Status of the spotted owl in Six Rivers National Forest, California.

Western Birds. 11: 79-87.

Max, T.A.; Souter, R.A.; O’Halloran, K.A. 1990. Statistical estimators for monitoring spotted owls in

Oregon and Washington in 1987. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-420. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p.

McKelvey, K. 1992. A spatially explicit life-history simulator for the northern spotted owl. In: Draft

Eugene District resource management plan and environmental impact statement, Volume II. Eugene,

OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Appendix 4-P: 4-113 - 4-145.

McKelvey, K.; Noon, B.R.; Lamberson, R.H. 1993. Conservation planning for species occupying

fragmented landscapes: the case of the northern spotted owl. In: Kareiva, P.M.; Kingslover, J.G.;

Huey, R.B., eds. Biotic interactions and global change. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc. Inc.: 424-452.

Meslow, E.C. 1992. Northern spotted owl management. [Abstract only]. In: Proceedings, 62d annual

meeting at the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1992 June 22-28; Seattle WA. [Place of publication

unknown]: Cooper Ornithological Society.

Meslow, E.C. 1993. Spotted owl protection: unintentional evolution toward ecosystem management.

Endangered Species Update. 10(3-4): 34-38.
26

Meslow, E.C.; Bruce, C.; Marcot, B.G. 1992. Historical perspective on the development of conservation plans for the northern spotted owl (1975-present). [Abstract only]. In: A symposium on the

biology, conservation, and management of the northern spotted owl: Raptor Research Foundation

Conference; [Dates of meeting unknown]; Bellevue, Wash. [Place of publication unknown]: Raptor

Research Foundation.

Meslow, E.C.; Wagner, F.F.; Hann, D.W.; Tappeiner, J.C. 1991. Identification and evaluation of

northern spotted owl habitat in managed forests of southwest Oregon and the development of

silvicultural systems for managing such habitat. Study plan submitted to BLM, Sept. 9, 1991. 25 p.

Unpublished report. On file with: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University,

Corvallis, OR 97331.

Montgomery, C.A.; Brown, G.M., Jr.; Adams, D.M. [n.d.] (ca. 1992). The marginal cost of species

preservation: the northern spotted owl. Missoula, MT: School of Forestry, University of Montana.

Moseley, J.R. 1992. Record of decision - final environmental impact statement on management of the

northern spotted owl in the National Forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, National Forest System. 22 p.

Murphy, D.D.; Noon, B.R. 1992. Integrating scientific methods with habitat conservation planning:

reserve design for northern spotted owls. Ecological Applications. 2(1): 3-17.

Nelson, T.C.; Murphy, E.C.; Self, S. 1991. Spotted owl management plan; final report, February 8,

1991. [Place of publication unknown]: Sierra Pacific Industries Timberlands Division.

Northwest Timber Association. 1990. Summary and critique of the spotted owl conservation strategy

proposed by the Interagency Spotted Owl Scientific Committee final report issued May 1990: “An

industry review of the Thomas report.” [Place of publication unknown]: Northwest Timber Association. 21 p.

Oliver, C.D.; Harrington, C.; Bickford, M. [and others]. 1994. Maintaining and creating old growth

structural features in previously disturbed stands typical of the eastern Washington Cascades. In:

Sampson, R.N.; Adams, D.L.; Enzer, M.J., eds. Assessing forest ecosystem health in the inland

West. New York: Haworth Press: 353-387.

Olson, D.C. 1990. Economic impacts of the ISC northern spotted owl conservation strategy for Washington, Oregon, and northern California. Portland, OR: Mason, Bruce, and Girard. 37 p.

Overton, W.S.; Hunt, L.M. 1974. A view of current forest policy, with questions regarding the future

state of forests and criteria for management. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 39: 334-353.

Pacific Lumber Company [PLC]. 1992. The Pacific Lumber Company spotted owl management plan.

[Place of publication unknown]: Wildland Resource Managers in cooperation with The Pacific

Lumber Company. 30 p.

Pimm, S.L. 1991. The multi-resource strategy for conservation of the northern spotted owl. A critique of

the first revision draft (December 1991) of the Spotted Owl Subgroup. Knoxville, TN: University of

Tennessee. 9 p.

Pytte, A. 1990. Timber, spotted owl interests find middle ground elusive. Congressional Quarterly.

48(39): 3104-3107.

Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G.; DeStefano, S. [and others]. 1996. Use, interpretation, and implications

of demographic analyses of northern spotted owl populations. Studies in Avian Biology. 17: 102-112.

Raphael, M.G.; Young, J.A.; McKelvey, K. [and others]. 1994. A simulation analysis of population

dynamics of the northern spotted owl in relation to forest management alternatives. Final environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest
27

related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Volume II, Appendix J-3. Portland,

Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (Plus addendum dated March 31, 1994)

[Irregular pagination].

Robinson, J.C. 1992a. 1991 annual report, spotted owl inventory and monitoring program. San

Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Robinson, J.C. 1992b. 1992 annual report, spotted owl inventory and monitoring program. San

Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 18 p.

(plus illustrations).

Rowland, M.J. 1993. Northern spotted owl litigation review. Journal of Raptor Research. 27(1): 57.

Rubin, J.; Helfand, G.; Loomis, J. 1991. A benefit-cost analysis of the northern spotted owl. Journal of

Forestry. December: 25-30.

Sample, V.A.; Le Master, D.C. 1992. Economic effects of northern spotted owl protection: an examination of four studies. Journal of Forestry. 90(8): 31-35.

Satchell, M. 1990. The endangered logger: big business and a little bird threaten a northwest way of

life. U.S. News and World Report. 108(25): 27-29.

Seamans, M.E.; Gutierrez, R.J. 1995. Breeding habitat of the Mexican spotted owl in the Tularosa

Mountains, New Mexico. Condor. 97: 944-952.

Snetsinger, S.D.; Moorhead, B.B.; Farris, A. 1991. Spotted owl inventory-monitoring Olympic National

Park progress report March-May 1991. Port Angeles, WA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, Olympic National Park. 7 p.

Sovern, S.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Biswell, B.L. [and others]. 1994. Diurnal behavior of the spotted owl in

Washington. Condor. 96: 200-202.

Thomas, J.W.; Forsman, E.D.; Lint, J.B. [and others]. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern

spotted owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the

northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. 427 p.

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G. [and others]. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the

Pacific Northwest. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 530 p.

Thomas, J.W.; Verner, J. 1992. Accommodation with socio-economic factors under the Endangered

Species Act—more than meets the eye. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.

57: 627-641.

Thomas, T.B.; Carey, A.B. 1992. Enhancing vegetation and structural diversity by manipulating forest

stands. [Abstract only]. Northwest Science. 66(2): 142.

Tyler, H.A.; Phillips, D. 1978. Owls by day and night. Happy Camp, CA: Naturegraph Pub., Inc. 208 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1984. Regional guide for the Pacific Northwest

Region. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988a. Final supplement to the environmental

impact statement for an amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide. Spotted owl guidelines. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

[Irregular pagination]. 2 vols.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988b. Record of decision. Amendment to the Pacific

Northwest Regional Guide. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Signed

by the Chief of the Forest Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
28

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990. Implementation of Section 318 of the Interior and Related

Agencies Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1990. Forest Service report to the Congress. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Questions and answers on a conservation

strategy for the northern spotted owl. Misc. Publ. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 63 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992a. Final environmental impact statement on

management for the northern spotted owl in the National Forests. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forest System. 2 vols.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992b. Spotted owl management plan (draft).

Wenatchee, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Standards and

guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species

within the range of the northern spotted owl. Washington, DC: [Sections numbered separately].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Management guidelines for the

management of the northern spotted owl FY 1991 through FY 1992. Portland, OR: Oregon State

Office. 21 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. ca 1990. Northern spotted owl: the

Jamison plan detailed management strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Draft Eugene District Resource

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II. Eugene, OR.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife

and plants: determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. U.S. Federal Register.

55: 26114-26194.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991a. Economic analysis of designation

of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Draft rep. Washington, DC: 49 p. (plus appendix).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991b. Endangered and threatened

wildlife and plants; revised proposed determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl;

proposed rule. 50 CFR Part 17. U.S. Federal Register. 56: 40001-40143.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991c. Mexican spotted owl Strix

occidentalis lucida status review. Endangered Species Report 20. Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991d. Proposed rule to list the Mexican

spotted owl as threatened. U.S. Federal Register. 56-213: 56344-56355.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Endangered and threatened

wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. U.S. Federal Register.

57(10): 1796-1838.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Protocol for surveying proposed

management activities that may impact northern spotted owls. Endorsed by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 7 March 1991, Revised March 17, 1992. Portland, OR. 17 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992c. Recovery plan for the northern

spotted owl: draft. Portland, OR. 662 p.
29

U.S. Government. 1990. The northern spotted owl and the endangered species act. U.S. Congress

House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife

Conservation and the Environment. (Hearings on Bush administration’s plan on ESA). Washington,

DC. 143 p.

Verner, J. 1992. Data needs for avian conservation biology: have we avoided critical research? Condor.

94: 301-303.

Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R. [and others]. 1992a. Assessment of the current status of the

California spotted owl, with recommendations for management. In: Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.;

Noon, B.R. [and others], eds. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current

status. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. 3-26.

Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R. [and others]. 1992b. The California spotted owl: a technical

assessment of its current status. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 285 p.

Verner, J.; Taylor, R.J. 1992. Future directions for the California spotted owl effort. In: Verner, J.;

McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R. [and others], eds. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of

its current status. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Research Station: 27-36.

Ward, J.P.; Franklin, A.B.; Gutierrez, R.J. 1991. Using search time and regression to estimate abundance of territorial spotted owls. Ecological Applications. 1(2): 207-214.

Watson, R.B.; Muraoka, D.D. 1992. The northern spotted owl controversy. Society of Natural Resources. 5(1): 85-90.

Weatherspoon, C.P.; Husari, S.J.; van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1992. Fire and fuels management in

relation to owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and southern California. In: Verner, J.;

McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R. [and others], eds. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of

its current status. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Research Station: 247-260.

Wilcove, D.; Murphy, D. 1991. The spotted owl controversy and conservation biology. Conservation

Biology. 5(3): 261-262.

Wilcove, D.S. 1993. Turning conservation goals into tangible results: the case of the spotted owl and

old-growth forests. In: Annual symposium of the British Ecological Society; [Dates of meeting

unknown]; [Location of meeting unknown]. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund. 26 p.

(plus illustrations).

Wood, G.W. 1991. Owl conservation strategy flawed. Journal of Forestry. February: 39-41.

Xantus, J. 1859. Catalogue of birds collected in the vicinity of Fort Tejon, California, with a description

of a new species of Syrnium. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. 1 p.

Yaffee, S.L. 1994. The wisdom of the spotted owl. Covelo CA: Island Press. 350 p.
30

Acronyms, Selected Terms, and Nicknames Used in the Text

(See table 1 caption for additional acronyms)

4(D) Rule—FWS’s regulatory vehicle to clarify

take of spotted owls on non-Federal lands.

ASQ—Allowable sale quantity.

BE—Biological evaluation.

BLM—USDI Bureau of Land Management.

CASPO Report—California Spotted Owl report.

coarse filter—The identification of a macrohabitat (usually, vegetation cover types and their

successional or structural stages), sometimes for

a specific species such as an indicator species

(for example, the northern spotted owl), for

simplifying multispecies wildlife management. It is

assumed under the coarse filter approach that the

ecological requirements of all species closely

associated with the same macrohabitat will be met.

Conservation Strategy—The approach to

management of northern spotted owl habitat as

presented in the ISC report.

EIS—Environmental impact statement.

ESA—Endangered Species Act.

FACA—Federal Advisory Committee Act.

FEMAT—Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, convened and completed in

1993, to present and analyze alternatives for

ecosystem management of old forests of the

Pacific Northwest within the range of the northern

spotted owl.

Forest Summit—Conference convened in

Portland, Oregon, by President Clinton in 1993, to

hear controversies over forest land management.

FS—USDA Forest Service.

FWS—USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

Gang of Four—Pejorative name given to the

congressionally mandated Scientific Panel on

Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems.

God Squad—Pejorative name given to the

Endangered Species Committee, a Cabinet-level

group convened to review case-specific merits of

adhering to the Endangered Species Act and to

provide a solution to management controversies

and stalemates deemed intractable at agency or

Departmental levels.

HCP—Habitat Conservation Plan, part of the

regulatory mechanisms provided by the Endangered Species Act.

ICBEMP—Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, established in 1993.

ISC—Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted

Owl, convened and final report published in 1989.

Jamison Strategy—A supposed plan for managing northern spotted owl habitat on BLM lands

that would produce the same level of protection

as the ISC Conservation Strategy but have less

constraints on timber harvesting. Issued only as a

press release in 1990 by a task force appointed

by Assistant Secretary of Agriculture James

Moseley.

Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs)—Land

allocations containing much of the late-successional and old-growth forests and northern

spotted owl nesting, resting, and feeding habitat

on FS and BLM lands in the Pacific Northwest, as

designated through the Northwest Forest Plan.

LSOG—Late-successional and old-growth

forests, as mapped by the Scientific Panel on

Late-Successional Forests (or “Gang of Four”).

Matrix lands—Federal lands outside late-successional reserves described in the Northwest

Forest Plan.

Multi-Resource Strategy—Timber industry’s

northern spotted owl conservation plan, ca. 1991.

Northwest Forest Plan—The final selected

course of action resulting from the EIS based on

the FEMAT report and Option 9. Also initially

called the “President’s Forest Plan.”

NPS—USDI National Park Service.

NRF habitat—Northern spotted owl nesting,

resting, and foraging habitat, usually described in

terms of LSOG forests.
31

Option 9—The alternative, out of 10 presented,

in the final FEMAT report that was selected by

President Clinton as the selected course of action

for management.

Owl Preservation Plan—A northern spotted owl

conservation strategy released in 1992 by USDI

Secretary Lujan that would protect half of the oldforest habitat in the range of the northern spotted

owl as called for in the USDI Draft Spotted Owl

Recovery Plan.

President’s Forest Plan—See Northwest Forest

Plan.

REO—Regional Ecosystem Office, an interagency unit headquartered in Portland, Oregon,

with responsibilites including overseeing spotted

owl monitoring and studies on “survey and

manage species.”

SAT—Scientific Analysis Team, commissioned by

FS Chief in 1992, to assess viability of all species

closely associated with northern spotted owl

habitat.

Section 318—Also called Northwest Compromise, the Hatfield-Adams amendment of 1989

consisting of a rider to the Interior and Related

Agencies Appropriations Bill for 1990.

SIT—Science Integration Team (one facet of

ICBEMP, the other facet being two EIS teams).

Spotted Owl Monitoring Committee—A team

convened under REO to develop and oversee

compliance with a northern spotted owl monitoring plan on Federal lands.

Survey and Manage Species—The name given

to the list of old-forest species identified in the

FEMAT report that require additional inventory,

monitoring, or basic scientific study.

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDI—U.S. Department of the Interior.
32

Table 1—A chronology of northern spotted owl management since convening of the Interagency

Scientific Committee (ISC) on the Northern Spotted Owl in 1989a

Year Agency and related activities

1989 FS—Institutes several-year program to inventory and monitor spotted owls.

 Environmentalists and timber industry both file suits.

 Judge Dwyer issues an injunction against timber sales, citing NFMA and NEPA violations.

BLM—Continues long-term spotted owl monitoring program.

FWS—GAO criticizes the decision on the listing petition.

Congress/Administration—Congress adapts Section 318 of Interior Appropriations Act to prohibit review

 of timber sales (ISC established).

1990 FS—ISC conservation report is released and presented to Congress.

 Proposes to manage in a manner “not inconsistent with” ISC plan.

BLM—ISC conservation report is released and presented to Congress.

 Announces alternative to ISC plan that provides less protection.

FWS—Fourth northern spotted owl status report is issued, concludes viability is imperiled by continued

 forest management.

 Owl formally listed as threatened under the ESA.

 Environmentalists ask for the designation of critical habitat.

Other agencies and groups—NPS continues its monitoring of spotted owls.

 ISC plan denounced by timber industry as too conservative; at least seven analyses of ISC plan are

 released portending economic chaos.

 FS, timber industries, and others engage in experimental silvicultural studies of spotted owl habitat.

Congress/Administration—Bush administration fails to endorse ISC report.

 Bush administration convenes a new interagency committee to develop an alternative approach.

 Committee concludes the FS and BLM should be exempt from key forest management laws and BLM

 should follow the “Jamison strategy.”

1991 FS—Audubon and others file suit against FS citing unacceptable owl conservation plan and violation of

 Federal laws and regulations, citing ISC report.

 Judge Dwyer rules that NFMA was violated by not fully adopting the ISC plan.

 Judge Dwyer issues an injunction barring timber sales on 17 National Forests in WA, OR, and CA, and

 orders FS to produce new EIS.

 FS proposes to implement the ISC plan as ordered by Judge Dwyer.

 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Dwyer’s ruling against the FS.

BLM—Environmentalists file suit over failure to follow ESA requirements.

 Judge Jones rules that BLM violated the ESA.

 BLM asks for “God Squad” to be convened to exempt 44 timber sales.

FWS—FWS proposes critical habitat for northern spotted owl.

 Recovery team convened.

 Judge Zilly rules ESA was violated because critical habitat was not designated.

 FWS issues status review of Mexican spotted owl, lists it as threatened subspecies, begins recovery

 planning.

Other agencies and groups—EPA declares that the BLM has failed to comply with NEPA regulations.

 Three more economic analyses of ISC plan are released.

 Timber industry proposed their own “Multi-Resource Strategy.”

Congress/Administration—Agriculture Secretary Madigan urges Congress to limit the court’s control over

 timber harvest.

 U.S. House of Representatives charters Scientific Panel on Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems

 (“Gang of Four”) to produce assessment and plan for Pacific Northwest old growth.

 Gang of Four presents report with 14 management alternatives to Congress; some alternatives consid-

 ered in pending bills and in deliberations; none makes it to vote or into legislation.

 U.S. Congress holds hearings on management of old-growth forests.
33

1992 FS—FS presents its second regional EIS on spotted owl habitat management to Judge Dwyer.

BLM—Issues third set of resource and spotted owl management plans since 1990.

 Audubon and others bring suit against BLM citing violation of Federal laws and regulations on spotted

 owl habitat management and planning.

 Judge Frye issues an injunction barring timber sales because of NEPA violations.

 God Squad is convened and hearings are held.

FWS—Critical habitat for northern spotted owl revised, decreased in area, and issued as final designation.

 Federal Court rules in favor of Douglas County, Oregon, mandating that FWS must prepare an EIS on

 designation of critical habitat under ESA.

 Draft Recovery Plan is submitted to Interior Secretary Lujan.

Other agencies and groups—USDI issues standardized protocol for surveying spotted owls.

 EPA withdraws claim against BLM in opening day of God Squad hearings.

 Three more economic analyses of ISC plan are released.

 USDI Secretary Lujan issues “Owl Preservation Plan;” scientists project 50-percent likelihood of

 extinction of the northern spotted owl under this plan; plan not implemented by Congress.

 Committee of scientists issues technical evaluation of the California spotted owl.

Congress/Administration—Interior Secretary Lujan fails to act to implement recommendations of the Draft

 Recovery Plan.

 “God Squad” exempts 13 of 44 BLM timber sales from ESA provisions, and directs BLM to implement

 Draft Recovery Plan.

 Many draft riders and bills are introduced that would variously eliminate or strengthen ESA, NEPA,

 NFMA; no legislation passed.

1993 FS, BLM—FS issues a third regional EIS on spotted owl habitat management.

 FS publishes Scientific Analysis Team report addressing conservation needs of all old-growth forest

 species.

 FS and BLM produce EIS based on the FEMAT report.

 FS and BLM convene Science Integration Team as part of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

 Management Project to address forest management on eastern slope of the Cascade Range.

Other agencies and groups—FEMAT report issued with 10 management alternatives.

 Multiagency Regional Ecosystem Office convened in Portland, OR, consisting of FS, BLM, FWS, NPS,

 NBS, NMFS, EPA, and BIA.

Congress/Administration—President Clinton, Vice-President Gore, and selected Cabinet members hold a

 Forest Conference in Portland, OR, and commission FEMAT.

1994 FS and BLM—FS and BLM issue joint spotted owl conservation strategy; USDA and USDI issue joint

 Record of Decision based on amended FEMAT Management Option 9.

 FS implements President’s Plan resulting from the Record of Decision, as the Northwest Forest Plan.

Other agencies and groups—Seattle Audubon Society challenges Northwest Forest Plan on adequacy for

 spotted owl conservation and other late-successional forest species; Judge Dwyer eventually rules that

 planning and analysis for owls and other species is adequate.

Table 1—A chronology of northern spotted owl management since convening of the Interagency

Scientific Committee (ISC) on the Northern Spotted Owl in 1989a (continued)

Year Agency and related activities
34

1995 FS—Marbled murrelet habitat management court case (Northwest Forest Resource Council vs. Glickman

 and Babbitt) affects harvest of some old-growth forests, affecting some spotted owl habitat as well;

 litigation and management on murrelet and spotted owl habitat at least partially coincide.

FWS—Site-specific consulation continues pursuant to Section 7 of Endangered Species Act. Northwest

 Forest Plan answers many consultation questions so that broader based programmatic consultation

 addresses wider areas (provinces) and longer time periods more efficiently. Benefits viewing spotted

 owl habitat over a broader area and in landscape or province contexts.

Congress/Administration—Congress passes Recissions Act (PL 104-19) which directs FS and BLM to

 move ahead with Section 318 timber sales, previously suspended; gives Secretaries of USDA and USDI

 discretion to ignore many of the environmental laws and regulations for salvage sales; for the Section

 318 sales, it prohibits FS from meeting specific environmental laws and regulations. Secretaries choose

 to follow the environmental regulations so that salvage sales must meet existing environmental laws

 and regulations, and in the range of the northern spotted owl, they will follow the standards and guide

 lines of the Northwest Forest Plan.

 Congress proposes various amendments to ESA that would reduce its effectiveness.

1996 FS—Northwest Forest Resource Council vs. Glickman and Babbitt ruled by Appeals Court in favor of

 government, whereby murrelet occupancy is defined as known to be nesting; implications for conserva-

 tion of some spotted owl habitat under Northwest Forest Plan.

 Regional Ecosystem Office begins evaluation of effect of Recissions Act on the Northwest Forest Plan,

 relative to the Act’s ability to ensure continued existence of species as required by NFMA, if it would

 provide the Federal contribution to recovery of ESA-listed species, and if the assumptions of the

 Northwest Forest Plan can still be met.

FWS—FWS policy amended to significantly redefine and reduce Candidate Species lists (28 Feb. 1996,

 Federal Register) and to change how species listing petitions would be handled. Ramifications for

 reducing impetus for protection of some late-successional species associated with spotted owl habitat.

a Acronyms are as follows. Agencies and groups: BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs, BLM = USDI Bureau of Land Management,

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency, FEMAT = Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, GAO = General Accounting Office, FS = USDA Forest Service, FWS = USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, NBS = USDI National Biological Survey (now a

Division under US Geological Survey), NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service, NPS = USDI National Park Service. Laws

and related terms: EIS = environmental impact statement, ESA = Endangered Species Act, NEPA = National Environmental

Policy Act, NFMA = National Forest Management Act.

Table 1—A chronology of northern spotted owl management since convening of the Interagency

Scientific Committee (ISC) on the Northern Spotted Owl in 1989a (continued)

Year Agency and related activities
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple

use management of the Nation’s forest resources for

sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and

recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and

management of the National Forests and National

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—

to provide increasingly greater service to a growing

Nation.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis

of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,

disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

20250, or call (800) 245-6340 (voice), or (202)

720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment

opportunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890

Marcot, Bruce G.; Thomas, Jack Ward. 1997. Of spotted owls, old growth, and

new policies: a history since the Interagency Scientific Committee report. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-408. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 34 p.

This paper tracks the recent history of planning, management, and litigation

regarding northern spotted owls and their habitat on Federal public lands since the

1989 Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern

Spotted Owl (ISC). The ISC report and subsequent plans sparked many economic

analyses, appeals, lawsuits, forest management plans, and counterplans. Federal

assessments and planning efforts eventually led to the current Northwest Forest

Plan which considers owls in context of ecological and human communities under

the rubric of ecosystem management.

Keywords: Spotted owl, old growth, Interagency Scientific Committee, threatened

species, Northwest Forest Plan, forest policy, Endangered Species Act.
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

do NOT detach label