Back to UPDATES ON KEY POLICY AREAS FROM SCB'S POLICY TEAM

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2009 ANNUAL MEETING: 11-16 JULY, BEIJING, CHINA

SCB AND PARTNERS INFORM RECOVERY PLANNING FOR NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

For more than two years, SCB has taken a leadership role in reviewing government policies through the lens of conservation science. Perhaps no policy issue illustrates this commitment more than SCB's recent peer review of the federal recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina).

The spotted owl is a flagship species for mature and old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. In 1990, the owl was listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) because (1) logging had eliminated all but 15-20% of the older forests on which the owl depends and (2) federal laws and regulations were deemed inadequate to prevent the owl's extinction at the time. The listing, along with a determination that federal agencies were not maintaining viable owl populations, led to enactment of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) in 1994 as a de facto recovery plan for the owl and hundreds of other species reliant on older forests. Roughly one-third of more than 10 million ha of federal lands were set aside in reserves.

For more than a decade, the NWFP has served as the minimum needed to maintain viable populations of the owl. A series of lawsuits in 2001 by the timber industry and in 2003 by conservation groups upset that balance with the industry pushing for reductions in old forest protections and conservation groups for a more definitive owl recovery plan. Consequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was ordered to produce a recovery plan for the owl. The ESA and supporting regulations require that recovery plans be based on the "best available science." Notably, USFWS must consult with scientific societies whenever possible in determining if the best science was used in recovery plans and related ESA decisions.

Scientific Peer Review

In April 2007, USFWS released a draft recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. To determine whether the plan was based on best available science, USFWS commissioned a blind peer review from SCB and the American Ornithologists' Union. A separate blind review also was conducted by The Wildlife Society. In general, all three societies concluded that the draft recovery plan was not based on the best available science, primarily because it would reduce protections for older forest well below the bare minimums of the NWFP. The peer reviews, along with congressional testimony from conservation scientists that the plan was subjected to political interference, triggered public outcry and congressional pressure for USFWS to respond.

In May 2008, USFWS released a final recovery plan for the owl. Although USFWS refused requests by all three societies and members of Congress to conduct additional peer review, the societies went ahead with a review of the final plan.

On 4 August, the three societies released their peer reviews of the final recovery plan (available on the Web sites of SCB and The Wilderness Society). The societies reached a scientific consensus, which concluded that, despite addressing some of the shortcomings identified in the draft plan, the final plan was still fundamentally flawed. The final plan was criticized because it (1) would reduce by up to 56% the currently protected area of old forests, (2) did not make use of the latest models on owl viability, (3) relied on unenforceable delisting criteria and conservation actions, (4) contained insufficient safeguards for habitat protection on non-federal lands and following post-disturbance logging, and (5) proposed substantial thinning across one-third of the owl's geographic range with no studies on how owls might respond to such habitat manipulations. The societies' peer review received considerable media attention with stories in the Associated Press, Business Week, and on television and radio.

What's Next?

Following release of the peer review, congressional leaders asked USFWS to provide a written response to the peer review. It is unclear whether USFWS will make the changes recommended by peer reviewers. It is more likely that conservation groups will sue over the plan's deficiencies.

SCB's ongoing role in this process has been to work with other professional societies in coordinating the results of peer review. The recovery plan for the owl illustrates the process by which SCB evaluated a major federal policy action affecting the fate of an imperiled species. SCB has conducted similar scientific evaluations regarding proposed delisting of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. In each case, SCB's use of its scientific membership, and its partnerships with other leading scientific societies, have been the foundation on which SCB has addressed issues of scientific integrity and public policy.

John Fitzgerald and Dominick DellaSala

At press time, USFWS issued a separate but linked decision on critical habitat for the spotted owl, releasing an additional 640,000 ha from protections afforded the owl under the ESA.

Back to UPDATES ON KEY POLICY AREAS FROM SCB'S POLICY TEAM

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2009 ANNUAL MEETING: 11-16 JULY, BEIJING, CHINA