Spotted owls get a hand from Obama, but is it enough?

The Obama administration has pushed aside a weak Bush-era protection plan. But the owl is in precarious condition.

Northern Spotted Owl

Northern Spotted Owl U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Is the Obama administration taking a step forward, merely sideways, or — as some environmentalists hope — back to the future on the Northern Spotted Owl? On Sept. 8, the administration issued a brand new draft recovery plan for the owl. While Obama's minions have clung doggedly to Bush "science" on Columbia River salmon, they moved quickly to distance themselves from their predecessors' 2008 owl recovery plan.

The Bush science on owls may have been questionable. The Bush manipulation of science for political ends was probably too blatant to slip past a judge.

Last year, the Obama administration asked a federal court to remand the Bush owl plan back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for another try. It also asked the court to vacate the critical habitat designation based on the Bush recovery plan. On Sept. 1, the court remanded the plan. Seven days later, the Fish and Wildlife Service plugged in the facts of the court decision and issued the new draft, which had obviously been all ready to go. The court let the critical habitat designation stand, for now.

The new draft plan is "better than Bush," says Dominick DellaSala of the Ashland-based National Center for Conservation Science & Policy — "but not quite enough to recover the owl."

The federal government has been running spotted owl plans up the flagpole for nearly 20 years. The bird was listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act — after federal courts gave the first Bush administration little choice — in 1990. Two years later, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a draft recovery plan, and designted critical habitat. In 1994 to protect the owl and stop the litigation that had brought timber sales in the Northwest's federal forests to a grinding halt, the Clinton administration created the Northwest Forest Plan.

The forest plan was designed to protect the owl, the old growth forest for which it had become a symbol and legal surrogate, the old-growth-nesting marbled murrelet, wild salmon runs that spawned in forest streams, and hundreds of other old-growth-associated plants and critters. The Clinton administration never issued a final owl recovery plan, because the Interior Department assumed the Northwest Forest Plan would accomplish the same thing.

Nevertheless, a 2004 status review undertaken by the Bush administration to settle an industry lawsuit found that the trend lines all pointed down. A drop in owl numbers shouldn't have come as a surprise. "Back in the '90s," recalls Todd True, the managing attorney of Earthjustice's Northwest office and who was involved in the key owl litigation of the time, "everyone knew and understood that the spotted owl population wasn't going to turn around on a dime."

Things were going to get worse before they got better — if they got better. "The real question," True recalls, "was whether the popuation could get through a bottleneck before habitat protection measures kicked in." Now, he says, one can also ask "do we need to be doing even more?"

We probably do. No one expected the owl population to crash as rapidly as it has. "Populations of northern spotted owls continue to decline across the range of the species," the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in its 2004 status review, undertaken to settle an industry suit, "with the most severe declines occurring in the northern portion of the range (Washington and British Columbia)." The Forest Plan scientists had foreseen a decline of 1 percent a year as the worst case. Across the owl's full range, the actual rate was more like 3.7 percent. In Washington, it was 7.3 percent — and in parts of Washington, it was been even higher.

The status review pointed to competition from the barred owl as one explanation for the declines. Those who opposed restrictions on logging promptly cited this as evidence that the logging industry in the Northwest had been severely curtailed because of bad science — in effect the culprit had been another owl, not the loss of old growth habitat. But the status review also pointed to the lingering effects of past habitat loss as another cause.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Sep 20, 9:23 a.m. Inappropriate

According to my local "owl guy" the barred owls are inter-breeding with the spotted which causes him to fear for the spotted owl's future.

Posted Tue, Sep 21, 5:31 p.m. Inappropriate

Call me a sceptic, but I've often wondered if the diminutive spotted owl was nothing more than a fall guy for corporate downsizing and outsourcing, justified or no.

Posted Wed, Sep 22, 11:26 p.m. Inappropriate

I'm glad to hear that some are finally questioning the "thinning" dogma. Thinning to "reduce fire danger" has been going on for nearly two decades now. The Forest Service loves to show the "before and after" shots of "overgrown, fire-prone thickets" converted into clean, tidy, open forests of well spaced trees. Well, maybe it makes a difference for a while, but from what I can see, the thickets start growing back the minute the thinning is finished. Ten or more years later it's all grown back, often worse than ever. Unless one is willing and able to mow it down every few years, which will never happen, mechanical removel of brush just doesn't work. Regular fire is what's needed.

Regarding spotted owls, of course they are important, but they are but one of many reasons to leave alone the little old growth that remains. Maybe the collapse in demand for wood combined with the decreasing ability of the Forest Service to subsidize timber sales will be the salvation of the National Forests. I hope so.

Posted Fri, Sep 24, 5:13 a.m. Inappropriate

So Snoqualman, you continue to think that our present management of National forests is good policy?

What about the bug kill so prevalent in so many forests?

What about the dramatic loss of forestry infrastructure in so many regions?

I'd get deeper into this but it's like beating a dead horse.

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »