Using Ecological Forestry to Reconcile Spotted Owl Conservation and Forest Management

I n their opinion article, DellaSala et al. (2013) identify the potential shortcomings of Franklin and Johnson’s (2012) ecological forestry (EF) management principles. DellaSala et al. also criticize the incorporation of some of these principles into the recently completed northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (NSO) revised recovery plan (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 2011) and revised critical habitat (CH) designation (50 CFR 17; 77 FR 71875). Although we agree with several of their points, we think components of their criticisms and recommendations mischaracterize our application of EF principles. DellaSala et al. also understate the risk of climate change and associated disruptions in forest ecosystem disturbance processes, whereas they overstate the potential impacts of certain EF management prescriptions on those same ecosystems. We focus below on their comments concerning NSO conservation and its relationship to climate change, active forest management, and the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA Forest Service/US Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management 1994). Many of the recommendations made by DellaSala et al. (2013) are sound and were originally included in the NSO recovery plan and CH. The recovery plan takes an ecosystem approach. It encourages managers to (1) conserve older forests and manage them for resilience, (2) restore fire and other natural disturbance processes where they have been suppressed or altered, (3) conserve legacy habitat elements in postfire landscapes, (4) design and implement restoration treatments at the landscape scale, and (5) reconcile any short-term impacts of this management with long-term NSO conservation. Areas of disagreement with DellaSala et al. are mostly a matter of degree and risk tolerance: What are the risks of taking management action versus inaction? And what are the respective tradeoffs between near-term impacts to NSO for longer-term gains for forest health, other wildlife species, and other societal values (Ager et al. 2007, Gaines et al. 2010a)? DellaSala et al. (2013) seem to question most active management within NSO habitat because they believe that (1) current and projected patterns of wildfire occurrence in much of the NSO range are acceptable and within historical bounds, (2) the related California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) evolved with fire and use burned areas (therefore, fire may have a mostly positive impact on the NSO), (3) management is risky or counterproductive and should not be taken until some (unspecified) level of certainty or risk tolerance is reached, and (4) political and economic interests, rather than science, are driving EF management recommendations. Each of these positions deserves careful consideration. We believe the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that climate change and past management practices are intensifying disturbances in western forest ecosystems, including wildfire, disease, and insect outbreaks. Wildfire size and total burn area have been increasing in the dry, fire-prone forests of the western United States (Westerling et al. 2006, Littell et al. 2009, Chmura et al. 2011) and are projected to increase significantly during the next century (Marlon et al. 2012, Vose et al. 2012, Yue et al. 2013). Larger wildfires west of the Cascade Mountains are also more likely (Littell et al. 2010, Rogers et al. 2011), including all major forest types in Oregon (Shafer et al. 2010) and in northwestern California (Miller et al. 2012). Davis et al. (2011) found a marked increase in large wildfires in the NSO range in the last 30 years. The overriding management issues are the following: how “departed” are these disturbance processes and vegetation patterns from both retrospective baselines and reasonable estimates of likely future conditions, and what, if anything, should land managers do to influence these patterns in the face of climate change? DellaSala et al. (2013) generally downplay the challenges that climate change has brought to forest management decisions, suggesting that ecological departure in northwest forests is low and uncertainty in localized predictions means that managers should defer taking most management action if there are short-term adverse effects of NSO or associated wildlife species. We disagree with both their interpretation of climate science and their advocacy of a passive approach. Rather, we believe it is necessary to weigh the relative risks of action and inaction and make timely management decisions that take into account broader, longer-term goals for wildlife and ecosystem conservation (Agee 2002, Carey 2006, North et al. 2010). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 directs us to “conserve the ecosystems” on which listed species depend (Endangered Species Act, Section 2), and NSO conservation is consistent with and, in fact, relies on these broader ecosystem conservation objectives. Our perspectives also diverge from those of DellaSala et al. (2013) regarding the relative risks to the NSO from wildfire, and their conclusions discounting the potential impacts of fire on spotted owl populations and habitat rangewide are premature (Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, Halofsky et al. 2013). Wildfire is now the leading cause of NSO habitat loss on federal lands (Davis et al. 2011), and Clark et al. (2013) found that NSO site occupancy of nesting territories declined after wildfire. The NSO recovery plan describes how individual spotted owls use burned areas to varying