Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl.

We estimated diet composition of sympatric Mexican spotted (Strix occidentalis lucida, n = 7 pairs of owls) and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus, n = 4 pairs) in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) - Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) forest, northern Arizona. Both species preyed on mammals, birds, and insects; great horned owls also ate lizards. Mammals dominated the diet of both species. Mammals comprised 63 and 62% of all prey items identified in diets of spotted and great horned owls, respectively, and 94 and 95% of prey biomass. Both species primarily preyed on a few groups of small mammals. Observed overlap in diet composition between species (0.95) was greater than expected based on null models of diet overlap, and the size range of prey taken overlapped entirely. Mean prey mass was similar for both species (great horned owl, 47.0 ± 7.4 g [SE], n = 94 items; spotted owl, 40.1 ± 1.8 g, n = 1,125 items). Great horned owls consumed larger proportions of diurnally active prey than spotted owls, which primarily consumed nocturnally active mammals. Our results, coupled with a previous analysis showing that these owls foraged in the same general areas (Ganey and others 1997), suggests that they could compete for food resources, which are assumed to be limiting in at least some years. They may minimize the potential for resource competition, however, by concentrating foraging activities in different habitats (Ganey and others 1997) and by foraging at different times, when different suites of prey species are active.

Management of the federally threatened Mexican spotted owl (MSO; Strix occidentalis lucida) has been a major concern, both technical and political, for forest managers in the southwestern United States. So has the need to reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire in the regions ponderosa pine forests.Managers have generally shied away from linking these two concerns, fearing that the consultation required under the federal Endangered Species Act makes forest restoration treatments in or adjacent to MSO habitat too cumbersome. Yet carefully planned and implemented restoration treatments either around or in MSO habitat are crucial to the species future survival, and can be accomplished. They can be designed to maximize benefits to forest health while minimizing negative impacts toand in some cases actively benefitingthe MSO and/or its habitat. There will never be 100 percent agreement between reducing fire risk and maintaining or enhancing MSO habitat needs, but the goal of this public...