Common use of Northern Spotted Owl Clause in Contracts

Northern Spotted Owl. Status - The owl was federally listed as threatened under the ESA on June 26, 1990 (USFWS 1990a). Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, ecology, reproductive characteristics, and status and trends of the spotted owl are found in numerous federal documents (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2004, USFWS 2008, USFWS 2011, Xxxxx et al. 2011). On May 16, 2008, the FWS announced the release of the Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008). Of note are five main elements of the recovery plan, one of which was to create incentives to non-federal landowners to contribute to owl recovery through land management. On June 28, 2011, the FWS released the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, wherein FWS reiterated the important role that State and private lands can play toward implementing a coordinated and cooperative effort to recover the spotted owl (USFWS 2011). The FWS stated they will continue to work with these landowners to use a variety of voluntary incentives and approaches that will help contribute to spotted owl recovery through protection and development of unoccupied, high-quality habitat. Lands covered under section 10 of the ESA provide for the conservation of key habitat areas and occupied sites. The net conservation benefits of SHAs are often direct contributions to recovery, even if of a limited temporal nature. Specifically, Recovery Action 14 encourages applicants to develop Habitat Conservation Plans and Safe Harbor Agreements that are consistent with the recovery objectives. The FWS’ Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl was intended to inform the FWS’ revision of the designation of critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. In 1992, FWS designated critical habitat for the owl within 190 Critical Habitat Units, which in Washington encompassed 2.2 million acres (USFWS 1992). At that time, only federal lands were designated as critical habitat in the final rule. On March 8, 2012, FWS released its proposed rule to revise the designated critical habitat for the spotted owl, which would include State and private lands in the designation (USFWS 2012). However, FWS proposes to exclude certain areas from the final designation after taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. One of these exclusions includes approximately 936,816 acres of State and private lands that have a Habitat Conservation Plan, Safe Harbor Agreement, conservation easement, or similar conservation protection. In particular, in its proposed rule the FWS stated that it was in the process of negotiating a conservation plan with the Applicants. The FWS further identified the Applicants’ SHA in Table 5 – Private Lands Proposed or that May be Considered for Exclusion from the Final Rule. Id. at 14133. The Secretary may exclude areas from critical habitat if the Secretary determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including those areas as part of the critical habitat. Consistent with the FWS’ Safe Harbor Policy, the FWS recognizes the importance of creating incentives for private landowners to provide conservation measures for listed species and the need for partnerships with private landowners to provide conservation for listed species. The Applicants and FWS share the goal of having the SHA completed and the permit issued in time for the FWS to consider the provisions of the SHA in its final critical habitat rulemaking.

Northern Spotted Owl. Status - – The northern spotted owl was federally federally-listed as threatened under the ESA on June 26, 1990 (USFWS 1990a). Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, ecology, reproductive characteristics, and status and trends of the spotted owl are found in numerous federal documents (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2004, USFWS 2008, USFWS 2011, Xxxxx et al. 2011). The USFWS originally listed the spotted owl primarily because of widespread loss of suitable habitat across the spotted owl’s range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve the spotted owl. Past habitat loss and current habitat loss continue to threaten the spotted owl, though loss of habitat due to timber harvest has been greatly reduced on Federal lands for the past 2 decades. Some populations of spotted owls continue to decline even with extensive maintenance and restoration of suitable habitat in recent years, especially in the northern parts of the subspecies’ range. The spotted owl has become rare in British Columbia, much of Washington, and the northern coastal ranges of Oregon. Managing sufficient habitat for the spotted owl now and into the future is still considered essential for its recovery (USFWS 2011). However, securing habitat alone may not recover the spotted owl. Based on recent scientific information, competition from the barred owl poses a significant and complex threat to the spotted owl that will need to be further investigated. On May 16, 2008, the FWS USFWS announced the release of the Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008, entire). Of note are five main elements of the recovery plan, one of which The Recovery Plan was to create incentives to non-federal landowners to contribute to owl recovery through land managementrevised in 2011. On June 28, 2011, the FWS released the The Revised Recovery Plan for (USFWS 2011, entire) identified past habitat loss, current habitat loss, and competition from the Northern Spotted Owl, wherein FWS reiterated recently arrived barred owl as the important role that State and private lands can play toward implementing a coordinated and cooperative effort most pressing threats to recover the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011, p. I-6.). The FWS stated they will continue Concern for the effects of competition from barred owls resulted in 10 recovery actions in the Revised Recovery Plan, including Recovery Action 29 – Design and implement large-scale control [removal] experiments to work with these landowners to use a variety assess the effects of voluntary incentives and approaches that will help contribute to barred owl removal on spotted owl recovery through protection site occupancy, reproduction, and development survival and Recovery Action 30 – Manage to reduce the negative effects of unoccupied, high-quality habitat. Lands covered under section 10 of the ESA provide for the conservation of key habitat areas and occupied sitesbarred owls on spotted owls. The net conservation benefits of SHAs are often direct contributions to recovery, even if of a limited temporal nature. Specifically, Recovery Action 14 encourages applicants to develop Habitat Conservation Plans and Safe Harbor Agreements that are consistent with the recovery objectives. The FWS’ Revised Recovery Plan states, “Barred owls reportedly have reduced spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival. Limited experimental evidence, correlational studies, and copious anecdotal information all strongly suggest barred owls compete with spotted owls for nesting sites, roosting sites, and food, and possibly predate spotted owls…. Because the Northern Spotted Owl was intended abundance of barred owls continues to inform increase, the FWS’ revision effectiveness in addressing this threat depends on action as soon as possible” (USFWS 2011, p. III-62). Given the continuing range expansion and population growth of barred owl populations in the designation western United States and concurrent decline in northern spotted owl populations, information on the effectiveness of critical habitat a removal program is urgently needed. Recovery Action 29 focuses on acquiring the information necessary to help identify potential effective management approaches and contribute to future decisions on the implementation of appropriate management strategies for barred owls. It proposes experimental removal of barred owls on a scale sufficient to determine if the Northern Spotted Owlremoval would increase spotted owl site occupancy and improve population trends (USFWS 2011, pp. In 1992III-62, FWS designated critical habitat for the owl within 190 Critical Habitat UnitsIII-65) , which in Washington encompassed 2.2 million acres turn would contribute toward recovery of the species. Results from these experiments would be used to inform future decisions on potential long-term management strategies for barred owls. Ecology – The current range of the spotted owl extends from southwest British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains, coastal ranges, and intervening forested lands in Washington, Oregon, and California, as far south as Marin County (USFWS 1992USDI FWS 1990a, p. 26115). At that timeNorthern spotted owls generally rely on structurally complex forest habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, only federal lands were designated as critical habitat in the final rule. On March 8roosting, 2012, FWS released its proposed rule to revise the designated critical habitat for the spotted owl, which would include State and private lands in the designation (USFWS 2012). However, FWS proposes to exclude certain areas from the final designation after taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national securityforaging, and any dispersal. These characteristics include the following: (1) a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; (2) moderate to high canopy closure; (3) a high incidence of trees with large cavities and other relevant impacts types of specifying any particular area as critical habitatdeformities; (4) numerous large snags; (5) an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and (6) open space within and below the upper canopy for flight (Xxxxxx et al. One of these exclusions includes approximately 936,816 acres of State and private lands that have a Habitat Conservation Plan, Safe Harbor Agreement, conservation easement, or similar conservation protection. In particular, in its proposed rule the FWS stated that it was in the process of negotiating a conservation plan with the Applicants. The FWS further identified the Applicants’ SHA in Table 5 – Private Lands Proposed or that May be Considered for Exclusion from the Final Rule. Id. at 14133. The Secretary may exclude areas from critical habitat if the Secretary determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including those areas as part of the critical habitat. Consistent with the FWS’ Safe Harbor Policy, the FWS recognizes the importance of creating incentives for private landowners to provide conservation measures for listed species and the need for partnerships with private landowners to provide conservation for listed species. The Applicants and FWS share the goal of having the SHA completed and the permit issued in time for the FWS to consider the provisions of the SHA in its final critical habitat rulemaking1990; USFWS 1990b).

Northern Spotted Owl. Status - – The northern spotted owl was federally federally-listed as threatened under the ESA on June 26, 1990 (USFWS 1990a). Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, ecology, reproductive characteristics, and status and trends of the spotted owl are found in numerous federal documents (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2004, USFWS 2008, USFWS 2011, Xxxxx et al. 2011). The USFWS originally listed the spotted owl primarily because of widespread loss of suitable habitat across the spotted owl’s range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve the spotted owl. Past habitat loss and current habitat loss continue to threaten the spotted owl, though loss of habitat due to timber harvest has been greatly reduced on Federal lands for the past 2 decades. Some populations of spotted owls continue to decline even with extensive maintenance and restoration of suitable habitat in recent years, especially in the northern parts of the subspecies’ range. The spotted owl has become rare in British Columbia, much of Washington, and the northern coastal ranges of Oregon. Managing sufficient habitat for the spotted owl now and into the future is still considered essential for its recovery (USFWS 2011). However, securing habitat alone may not recover the spotted owl. Based on recent scientific information, competition from the barred owl poses a significant and complex threat to the spotted owl that will need to be further investigated. On May 16, 2008, the FWS announced the release of the Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008, entire). Of note are five main elements of the recovery plan, one of which The Plan was to create incentives to non-federal landowners to contribute to owl recovery through land managementrevised in 2011. On June 28, 2011, the FWS released the The Revised Recovery Plan for (USFWS 2011, entire) identified past habitat loss, current habitat loss, and competition from the Northern Spotted Owl, wherein FWS reiterated recently arrived barred owl as the important role that State and private lands can play toward implementing a coordinated and cooperative effort most pressing threats to recover the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011, p. I-6.). The FWS stated they will continue Concern for the effects of competition from barred owls resulted in 10 recovery actions in the Revised Recovery Plan, including Recovery Action 29 – Design and implement large-scale control [removal] experiments to work with these landowners to use a variety assess the effects of voluntary incentives and approaches that will help contribute to barred owl removal on spotted owl recovery through protection site occupancy, reproduction, and development survival and Recovery Action 30 – Manage to reduce the negative effects of unoccupied, high-quality habitat. Lands covered under section 10 of the ESA provide for the conservation of key habitat areas and occupied sitesbarred owls on spotted owls. The net conservation benefits of SHAs are often direct contributions to recovery, even if of a limited temporal nature. Specifically, Recovery Action 14 encourages applicants to develop Habitat Conservation Plans and Safe Harbor Agreements that are consistent with the recovery objectives. The FWS’ Revised Recovery Plan states, “Barred owls reportedly have reduced spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival. Limited experimental evidence, correlational studies, and copious anecdotal information all strongly suggest barred owls compete with spotted owls for nesting sites, roosting sites, and food, and possibly predate spotted owls…. Because the Northern Spotted Owl was intended abundance of barred owls continues to inform increase, the FWS’ revision effectiveness in addressing this threat depends on action as soon as possible” (USFWS 2011, p. III-62). Given the continuing range expansion and population growth of barred owl populations in the designation western United States and concurrent decline in northern spotted owl populations, information on the effectiveness of critical habitat a removal program is urgently needed. Recovery Action 29 focuses on acquiring the information necessary to help identify potential effective management approaches and contribute to future decisions on the implementation of appropriate management strategies for barred owls. It proposes experimental removal of barred owls on a scale sufficient to determine if the Northern Spotted Owlremoval would increase spotted owl site occupancy and improve population trends (USFWS 2011, pp. In 1992III-62, FWS designated critical habitat for the owl within 190 Critical Habitat UnitsIII-65) , which in Washington encompassed 2.2 million acres turn would contribute toward recovery of the species. Results from these experiments would be used to inform future decisions on potential long-term management strategies for barred owls. Ecology – The current range of the spotted owl extends from southwest British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains, coastal ranges, and intervening forested lands in Washington, Oregon, and California, as far south as Marin County (USFWS 1992USDI FWS 1990a, p. 26115). At that timeNorthern spotted owls generally rely on structurally complex forest habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, only federal lands were designated as critical habitat in the final rule. On March 8roosting, 2012, FWS released its proposed rule to revise the designated critical habitat for the spotted owl, which would include State and private lands in the designation (USFWS 2012). However, FWS proposes to exclude certain areas from the final designation after taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national securityforaging, and any dispersal. These characteristics include the following: (1) a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; (2) moderate to high canopy closure; (3) a high incidence of trees with large cavities and other relevant impacts types of specifying any particular area as critical habitatdeformities; (4) numerous large snags; (5) an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and (6) open space within and below the upper canopy for flight (Xxxxxx et al. One of these exclusions includes approximately 936,816 acres of State and private lands that have a Habitat Conservation Plan, Safe Harbor Agreement, conservation easement, or similar conservation protection. In particular, in its proposed rule the FWS stated that it was in the process of negotiating a conservation plan with the Applicants. The FWS further identified the Applicants’ SHA in Table 5 – Private Lands Proposed or that May be Considered for Exclusion from the Final Rule. Id. at 14133. The Secretary may exclude areas from critical habitat if the Secretary determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including those areas as part of the critical habitat. Consistent with the FWS’ Safe Harbor Policy, the FWS recognizes the importance of creating incentives for private landowners to provide conservation measures for listed species and the need for partnerships with private landowners to provide conservation for listed species. The Applicants and FWS share the goal of having the SHA completed and the permit issued in time for the FWS to consider the provisions of the SHA in its final critical habitat rulemaking1990; USFWS 1990b).

Northern Spotted Owl. Status - – The spotted owl was federally federally-listed as threatened under the ESA on June 26, 1990 (USFWS 1990a). Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, ecology, reproductive characteristics, and status and trends of the spotted owl are found in numerous federal documents (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2004, USFWS 2008, USFWS 2011, Xxxxx et al. 2011). The USFWS originally listed the spotted owl primarily because of widespread loss of suitable habitat across the spotted owl’s range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve the spotted owl. Past habitat loss and current habitat loss continue to threaten the spotted owl, though loss of habitat due to timber harvest has been greatly reduced on federal lands for the past two decades. Some populations of spotted owls continue to decline even with extensive maintenance and restoration of suitable habitat in recent years, especially in the northern parts of the subspecies’ range. The spotted owl has become rare in British Columbia, much of Washington, and the northern coastal ranges of Oregon. Managing sufficient habitat for the spotted owl now and into the future is still considered essential for its recovery (USFWS 2011). However, securing habitat alone may not recover the spotted owl. Based on recent scientific information, competition from the barred owl poses a significant and complex threat to the spotted owl that will need to be further investigated. On May 16, 2008, the FWS announced the release of the Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008, entire). Of note are five main elements of the recovery plan, one of which The Plan was to create incentives to non-federal landowners to contribute to owl recovery through land managementrevised in 2011. On June 28, 2011, the FWS released the The Revised Recovery Plan for (USFWS 2011, entire) identified past habitat loss, current habitat loss, and competition from the Northern Spotted Owl, wherein FWS reiterated recently arrived barred owl as the important role that State and private lands can play toward implementing a coordinated and cooperative effort most pressing threats to recover the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011, p. I-6.). The FWS stated they will continue Concern for the effects of competition from barred owls resulted in 10 recovery actions in the Revised Recovery Plan, including Recovery Action 29 – Design and implement large-scale control [removal] experiments to work with these landowners to use a variety assess the effects of voluntary incentives and approaches that will help contribute to barred owl removal on spotted owl recovery through protection site occupancy, reproduction, and development survival and Recovery Action 30 – Manage to reduce the negative effects of unoccupied, high-quality habitat. Lands covered under section 10 of the ESA provide for the conservation of key habitat areas and occupied sitesbarred owls on spotted owls. The net conservation benefits of SHAs are often direct contributions to recovery, even if of a limited temporal nature. Specifically, Recovery Action 14 encourages applicants to develop Habitat Conservation Plans and Safe Harbor Agreements that are consistent with the recovery objectives. The FWS’ Revised Recovery Plan states, “Barred owls reportedly have reduced spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival. Limited experimental evidence, correlational studies, and copious anecdotal information all strongly suggest barred owls compete with spotted owls for nesting sites, roosting sites, and food, and possibly predate spotted owls…. Because the Northern Spotted Owl was intended abundance of barred owls continues to inform increase, the FWS’ revision effectiveness in addressing this threat depends on action as soon as possible” (USFWS 2011, p. III-62). Given the continuing range expansion and population growth of barred owl populations in the designation western United States and concurrent decline in northern spotted owl populations, information on the effectiveness of critical habitat a removal program is urgently needed. Recovery Action 29 focuses on acquiring the information necessary to help identify potential effective management approaches and contribute to future decisions on the implementation of appropriate management strategies for barred owls. It proposes experimental removal of barred owls on a scale sufficient to determine if the Northern Spotted Owlremoval would increase spotted owl site occupancy and improve population trends (USFWS 2011, pp. In 1992III-62, FWS designated critical habitat for the owl within 190 Critical Habitat UnitsIII-65), which in Washington encompassed 2.2 million acres turn would contribute toward recovery of the species. Results from these experiments would be used to inform future decisions on potential long-term management strategies for barred owls. Ecology – The current range of the spotted owl extends from southwest British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains, coastal ranges, and intervening forested lands in Washington, Oregon, and California, as far south as Marin County (USFWS 1992USDI FWS 1990a, p. 26115). At that timeNorthern spotted owls generally rely on structurally complex forest habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, only federal lands were designated as critical habitat in the final rule. On March 8roosting, 2012, FWS released its proposed rule to revise the designated critical habitat for the spotted owl, which would include State and private lands in the designation (USFWS 2012). However, FWS proposes to exclude certain areas from the final designation after taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national securityforaging, and any dispersal. These characteristics include the following: (1) a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; (2) moderate to high canopy closure; (3) a high incidence of trees with large cavities and other relevant impacts types of specifying any particular area as critical habitatdeformities; (4) numerous large snags; (5) an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and (6) open space within and below the upper canopy for flight (Xxxxxx et al. One of these exclusions includes approximately 936,816 acres of State and private lands that have a Habitat Conservation Plan, Safe Harbor Agreement, conservation easement, or similar conservation protection. In particular, in its proposed rule the FWS stated that it was in the process of negotiating a conservation plan with the Applicants. The FWS further identified the Applicants’ SHA in Table 5 – Private Lands Proposed or that May be Considered for Exclusion from the Final Rule. Id. at 14133. The Secretary may exclude areas from critical habitat if the Secretary determines that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including those areas as part of the critical habitat. Consistent with the FWS’ Safe Harbor Policy, the FWS recognizes the importance of creating incentives for private landowners to provide conservation measures for listed species and the need for partnerships with private landowners to provide conservation for listed species. The Applicants and FWS share the goal of having the SHA completed and the permit issued in time for the FWS to consider the provisions of the SHA in its final critical habitat rulemaking1990; USFWS 1990b).