Common use of Baseline Clause in Contracts

Baseline. For the purposes of this Safe Harbor Agreement, the baseline condition is defined as spotted owl sites delineated using Xxxxxxxx polygons supporting current resident spotted owls prior to any barred owl removal actions. This determination was based on annual spotted owl surveys. For unsurveyed areas outside of the Xxxxxxxx polygons, we used habitat data from the Northwest Forest Plan monitoring according to the following process. Because of continued monitoring of spotted owls as part of the ongoing spotted owl surveys conducted under the Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring program and by Roseburg BLM in cooperation with RRC, we have strong annual survey data for most of the area that may be included in the Safe Harbor Agreement, and can establish a baseline based on the estimated occupancy status of each spotted owl site. Approach to defining baseline: All protocol surveys to date include at least two years of survey data to make a firm determination of current spotted owl presence. Multiple years of data are even more important now as the spotted owl’s response to the presence of barred owls may have reduced their propensity to respond to call surveys further. For the purposes of this Safe Harbor Agreement, spotted owl sites on which annual surveys detected the presence of at least one resident spotted owl over the last three year period from 2014 through the survey season in 2016 will be considered to support current spotted owls in the Study Area. This represents the minimum baseline sites for the Safe Harbor Agreement. Spotted owl sites listed in Table 3 did not have resident spotted owl responses during the 2014 and 2015survey seasons. If no resident spotted owls respond during the 2016 survey season, these sites will not be included in the baseline. Any of these sites with a resident spotted owl response in 2016 will be added to Table 2 or 3 as baseline spotted owl sites. Both currently occupied and historic spotted owl territories are delineated by Xxxxxxxx polygons. We used these polygons to define spotted owl sites and adjacencies to other well surveyed sites. To delineate the Xxxxxxxx polygons, biologists defined annual site centers (i.e. the most biologically important location from each year based on the following hierarchical ranking: 1) active nest, 2) fledged young, 3) primary roost location, 4) diurnal location, and 5) nocturnal detection) for each site. They used the Euclidean Allocation Distance tool in ArcGIS (ESRI 2011) to delineate a Xxxxxxxx polygon around all the annual center locations for each territory. Thus, the Xxxxxxxx polygon does not incorporate or calculate total habitat within the territory, it only represents the hypothetical cumulative area of use by a single or pair of spotted owls during the survey period (March to August). The Xxxxxxxx polygon encompasses all the annual territory center locations, and extends outward to a maximum of one half the median nearest neighbor distance, or midway between the annual territory center locations of spotted owls occupying adjacent territories, whichever distance is shorter and regardless of ownership. Xxxxxxxx polygons are solely based on the spatial orientation of locations, and do not incorporate any habitat information. The location of any particular land in a Xxxxxxxx polygon does not indicate that the land is suitable habitat for spotted owls. For RRC lands that lie outside of any Xxxxxxxx polygon, we examined habitat maps and forest inventory information, as well as general survey information, to determine if the area might be capable of supporting an undetected resident spotted owl. We examined the condition of the forest lands, the amount and location of any potential habitat, the size of the area not already included in a Xxxxxxxx polygon, and the proximity to existing known spotted owl sites. Many of these areas were deemed too small to support resident spotted owls, and most contained no, or very little, spotted owl habitat.

Baseline. For the purposes of this This Safe Harbor Agreement, Agreement defines the baseline condition is defined as spotted owl sites delineated using Xxxxxxxx polygons supporting current resident spotted owls condition, prior to any barred owl removal actions, as habitat that currently supports resident spotted owls. This determination was Conversely, the term “non-baseline” is used in the Agreement to describe areas that have not been occupied for at least three years. The USFWS has determined the baseline spotted owl territories for this Agreement based on annual spotted owl surveys. For unsurveyed areas outside of the Xxxxxxxx polygons, we used survey data and forest stand/habitat data from the Northwest Forest Plan monitoring information according to the following processprocess in the discussion that follows. Because of Thanks to continued monitoring of spotted owls on Weyerhaeuser lands as part of the ongoing spotted owl surveys conducted under the Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring program and by Roseburg BLM in cooperation with RRCprogram, we have strong annual survey data for most of the area that may would be included in the Safe Harbor Agreement, and can establish a baseline based on the estimated current occupancy status of each spotted owl site. Approach to defining baseline: All protocol surveys to date include at least two years of survey data to make support a firm determination of current spotted owl presence. Multiple years of data are even more important now preferred as the spotted owl’s response to the presence of barred owls may have further reduced their propensity to respond to call surveys furthersurveys. For Therefore, for the purposes of this Safe Harbor Agreement, spotted owl sites on which annual surveys detected the presence of at least one resident spotted owl over the last three year period from 2014 2013 through the survey season in 2016 2015 will be considered to support current spotted owls in the Study Area. This represents the minimum baseline sites for the Safe Harbor Agreement. Spotted owl sites listed in Table 3 did not have resident spotted owl responses during the 2014 Area and 2015survey seasons. If no resident spotted owls respond during the 2016 survey season, these sites will not be included in the baseline. Any of these sites with a resident spotted owl response in 2016 will be added to Table 2 or 3 are considered as baseline spotted owl sites. Both USFWS biologists delineated both currently occupied and historic spotted owl territories are delineated by using Xxxxxxxx polygons. We USFWS used these polygons territories to define spotted owl sites and adjacencies to other well surveyed siteswithin the treatment area (Map 3). To delineate the Xxxxxxxx polygons, USFWS biologists defined located annual site centers (i.e. the most biologically important location from each year based on the following hierarchical ranking: 1) active nest, 2) fledged young, 3) primary roost location, 4) diurnal location, and 5) nocturnal detection) for each spotted owl site. They then used the Euclidean Allocation Distance tool in ArcGIS (ESRI 2011) to delineate a Xxxxxxxx polygon around all the annual center locations for each spotted owl territory. Thus, the Xxxxxxxx polygon does not incorporate or calculate total habitat within the territory, it only represents the hypothetical estimated cumulative area of use by a single or pair of spotted owls during the survey period (March to August). The Xxxxxxxx polygon encompasses all the annual territory center locations, and extends outward to a maximum of one half the median nearest neighbor distance, or midway between the annual territory center locations of spotted owls occupying adjacent territories, whichever distance is shorter and regardless of ownership. Xxxxxxxx polygons are solely based on the spatial orientation of locations, and do not incorporate any habitat information. The location of any particular land in a Xxxxxxxx polygon does not indicate that the land is suitable habitat for spotted owlsshorter. For RRC Weyerhaeuser lands that lie outside of any Xxxxxxxx polygon, we the USFWS examined habitat maps and forest inventory information, as well as general survey information, and has determined these lands are not likely to determine if the area might be capable of supporting an support undetected resident spotted owlowls. We examined Baseline: USFWS analyzed data for all spotted owl sites within the condition treatment portion of the forest Study Area. The determination of baseline status for each site applies to all areas within the Xxxxxxxx polygon delineated for that site. The spotted owl sites listed in Table 2 are the baseline sites for this Safe Harbor Agreement. These sites all have a response from at least one resident spotted owl between 2013 and 2015 and are located on or near (e.g. within 1.5 mi provincial home range radius) Weyerhaeuser lands. Table 2. Baseline spotted owl sites (9) for the Safe Harbor Agreement. BASELINE SPOTTED OWL SITES Master Site # Spotted Owl Site Name 0765 Cleveland Indian 0000 Xxxx Xxxx 0000 Xxxxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx 0000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 4474 Upper XxXxx Creek Non-Baseline: The spotted owl sites on Table 3 have been well surveyed, and no resident spotted owls have been found between 2013 and 2015. Accordingly, these sites would not be in the amount baseline for this Agreement. That is, if any of these territories are re-occupied by spotted owls during the term of the Permit (at either the historic nest site, historic activity center or elsewhere within the Xxxxxxxx polygon), Weyerhaeuser will be permitted to take any such spotted owls under the terms of this Agreement and location the Permit. In addition, Weyerhaeuser lands in Table 4 that lie outside of any potential habitat, the size of the area Xxxxxxxx polygon are not already included in a Xxxxxxxx polygon, and the proximity to existing known spotted owl sites. Many of these areas were deemed too small likely to support undetected resident spotted owls, and most contained noare therefore, or very littlenot considered part of the occupied baseline for this Safe Harbor Agreement. If they become occupied by spotted owls during the term of the Permit, Weyerhaeuser will be permitted to take any such spotted owls under the terms of this Agreement and the Permit. Table 3. Spotted owl habitat.sites (16) that are not baseline sites, in which territories Weyerhaeuser owns lands. NON-BASELINE SPOTTED OWL SITES Master Site # Spotted Owl Site Name Last Year With Spotted Owl Response 4491 Chicken Creek 2010 0087 Deadwood Trib 2010 2543 Druggs Creek 2008 0183 East Fork Lobster 2012 0524 Elk Mountain 2011 2549 January Creek 2012 2552 Little Lake Creek 2007 2313 Lower Xxxxxxxxx 2010 4492 Lower Xxxxxx 2011 4651 Major Tieko 2008 4088 XxXxx Creek 2012 3554 Xxxxxx Creek 2003 0814 Old Man Rock Canyon 2009 0188 Prairie Creek 2002 0086 Upper Elk 2010 2722 Xxxxxxx Creek 2011 Table 4. List of Sections containing Weyerhaeuser lands located outside of Xxxxxxxx polygons that USFWS has determined are not likely to support current spotted owls, and that are therefore, not considered baseline for this Safe Harbor Agreement. Location Township Range Sections 15S 7W 30 15S 8W 8 16S 7W 6,7 16S 8W 2 17S 7W 10,14

Baseline. For the purposes of this Safe Harbor Agreement, the baseline condition is defined as spotted owl sites delineated using Xxxxxxxx polygons habitat that is supporting current resident spotted owls (as defined below) prior to any barred owl removal actions. This determination was actions based on annual spotted owl surveys. For unsurveyed areas outside of the Xxxxxxxx polygons, we used surveys and forest stand/habitat data from the Northwest Forest Plan monitoring information according to the following process. Because of Thanks to continued monitoring of spotted owls on ODF lands as part of the ongoing spotted owl surveys conducted under the Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring program and as well as surveys conducted directly by Roseburg BLM in cooperation with RRCODF, we have strong annual survey data for most of the area that may be included in the Safe Harbor Agreement, and can establish a baseline based on the estimated occupancy status of each spotted owl site. Approach to defining baseline: All protocol surveys survey protocols to date include at least two years of survey data to make a firm determination of current spotted owl presence. Multiple years of data are even more important now as the spotted owl’s response to the presence of barred owls may have reduced their propensity to respond to call surveys further. For Therefore, for the purposes of this Safe Harbor Agreement, spotted owl sites on which annual surveys detected the presence of at least one resident spotted owl over the last three year period from 2014 2013 through the survey season in 2016 2015 will be considered to support current spotted owls in the Oregon Coast Range Study Area. This represents the minimum Area and are identified as baseline sites for the Safe Harbor Agreementsites. Spotted owl sites listed on which annual surveys detected the presence of at least one resident spotted owl in Table 3 2011 or 2012 but did not have resident a response in 2013 through 2015 are considered to be recently-occupied sites that have high value for species’ recovery and are identified as elevated baseline sites. This elevated baseline is a commitment to spotted owl responses during conservation by ODF and is intended to be a valuable component of the 2014 and 2015survey seasons. If no resident spotted owls respond during the 2016 survey season, these net conservation benefit provided under Safe Harbor Agreement by conserving sites will that would not otherwise be included in the baseline. Any of these Both baseline and elevated baseline sites with a resident spotted owl response in 2016 will are considered to be added to Table 2 or 3 as baseline spotted owl sitessites under this agreement. Both currently occupied Currently occupied, recently occupied, and historic spotted owl territories are delineated by Xxxxxxxx polygonspolygons (Map 3). We used these polygons territories to define spotted owl sites and adjacencies to other well surveyed siteswithin the treatment area. To delineate the Xxxxxxxx polygons, biologists defined annual site centers (i.e. the most biologically important location from each year based on the following hierarchical ranking: 1) active nest, 2) fledged young, 3) primary roost location, 4) diurnal location, and 5) nocturnal detection) for each site. They used the Euclidean Allocation Distance tool in ArcGIS (ESRI 2011) to delineate a Xxxxxxxx polygon around all the annual center locations for each territory. Thus, the Xxxxxxxx polygon does not incorporate or calculate total habitat within the territory, it only represents the hypothetical cumulative area of use by a single or pair of spotted owls during the survey period (March to August). The Xxxxxxxx polygon encompasses all the annual territory center locations, and extends outward to a maximum of one half the median nearest neighbor distance, or midway between the annual territory center locations of spotted owls occupying adjacent territories, whichever distance is shorter and regardless of ownership. Xxxxxxxx polygons are solely based on the spatial orientation of locations, and do not incorporate any habitat information. The location of any particular land in a Xxxxxxxx polygon does not indicate that the land is suitable habitat for spotted owlsshorter. For RRC ODF lands that lie outside of any Xxxxxxxx polygon, we examined habitat maps and forest inventory information, as well as general survey information, to determine if the area might be capable of supporting an undetected resident spotted owl. Baseline: We examined analyzed data for all spotted owl sites on the condition treatment portion of the forest Oregon Coast Ranges Study Area. The determination of baseline status for the site applies to all areas within the established Xxxxxxxx polygon for that site. Spotted owl sites listed in Table 2 are baseline sites for the ODF Safe Harbor Agreement. These sites all have a response from at least one resident spotted owl between 2013 and 2015 and are located on or near (e.g. within 1.5 mi provincial home range radius) ODF lands, the amount and location of any potential habitat, the size . Elevated Baseline: Sites in Table 3 have a response from at least one resident spotted owl in 2011 or2012. These sites are considered elevated baseline sites. These recently- occupied sites are an important component of the area not already included in a Xxxxxxxx polygonnet conservation benefit under this SHA. Table 2. Baseline spotted owl sites for the ODF Safe Harbor Agreement. BASELINE SPOTTED OWL SITES Master Site # Spotted Owl Site Name 000 Xxxxxx Xxxxx 000 Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx 000 Xxxxxx Xxxxx 000 Xxxxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 0000 Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx 000 Xxxxxx Xxxxx West Table 3. Elevated Baseline spotted owl sites for the ODF Safe Harbor Agreement. ELEVATED BASELINE SPOTTED OWL SITES Master Site Number Spotted Owl Site Name Last Year With Spotted Owl Response 2137 Bear Creek West 2012 0773 Cape Horn 2012 0524 Elk Mountain 2011 2549 January Creek 2012 2546 Xxxxx Creek 2011 2313 Lower Xxxxxxxxx 2010 4088 XxXxx Creek 2012 0000 Xxxxxx Xxxxx 0000 2722 Xxxxxxx Creek 2011 Spotted owl sites on Table 4 have been well surveyed, and have not had any resident spotted owls found between 2011 and 2015. These sites would not be in the proximity to existing known spotted baseline for this safe harbor agreement. Table 4. Spotted owl sites that are not baseline sites, with Xxxxxxxx polygons that affect ODF lands. Many NON-BASELINE SPOTTED OWL SITES Master Site Number Spotted Owl Site Name Last year With Spotted Owl Response 0779 Brush Creek 2008 2545 Chickahominy Creek 2010 4491 Chicken Creek 2010 2543 Druggs Creek 2009 0000 Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx 2006 4688 Iron Mountain 2007 0000 Xxxx Xxxxx 0000 0000 Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx 0000 3126 Lower Deadwood 2009 0000 Xxxxx Xxxxxx Creek 2011 2489 Misery Creek 2009 3554 Xxxxxx Creek 2003 0814 Old Man Rock Canyon 2009 3362 Pat Creek 2007 0086 Upper Elk 2010 4686 Upper Hula 2006 4600 Upper San Xxxxxx 2008 0764 Velvet Creek 2008 Table 5. List of these areas were deemed too small ODF lands outside of Xxxxxxxx polygons that USFWS has determined are not likely to support resident current spotted owls, and most contained nothat are therefore, or very littlenot considered baseline for the ODF Safe Harbor Agreement (non-baseline areas). This applies to all ODF lands outside of Xxxxxxxx polygons in the following sections. Location Township Range Sections 16S 8W 10, spotted owl habitat.12, 14, and 24 16S 9W 16, 25, and 36 17S 7W 4, 6, 8, 10, 18, and 32 17S 8W 1, 6 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19,26, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 17S 9W 13, 14, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, and 33 18S 7W 5 18S 8W 5, 6, and 11 18S 9W 4, 5, 9, and 10

Baseline. For the purposes of this Safe Harbor Agreement, the baseline condition is defined as spotted owl sites delineated using Xxxxxxxx polygons habitat that is supporting current resident spotted owls prior to any barred owl removal actions. This determination was actions based on annual spotted owl surveys. For unsurveyed areas outside of the Xxxxxxxx polygons, we used surveys and forest stand/habitat data from the Northwest Forest Plan monitoring information according to the following process. Because of Thanks to continued monitoring of spotted owls on RRC and Oxbow lands as part of the ongoing spotted owl surveys conducted under the Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring program and by Roseburg BLM in cooperation with RRCprogram, we have strong annual survey data for most of the area that may be included in the Safe Harbor Agreement, and can establish a baseline based on the estimated occupancy status of each spotted owl site. Approach to defining baseline: All protocol surveys to date include at least two years of survey data to make a firm determination of current spotted owl presence. Multiple years of data are even more important now as the spotted owl’s response to the presence of barred owls may have reduced their propensity to respond to call surveys further. For Therefore, for the purposes of this Safe Harbor Agreement, spotted owl sites on which annual surveys detected the presence of at least one resident spotted owl over the last three year period from 2014 2013 through the survey season in 2016 2015 will be considered to support current spotted owls in the Coast Range Study Area. This represents the minimum baseline sites for the Safe Harbor Agreement. Spotted owl sites listed in Table 3 did not have resident spotted owl responses during the 2014 and 2015survey seasons. If no resident spotted owls respond during the 2016 survey season, these sites will not be included in the baseline. Any of these sites with a resident spotted owl response in 2016 will be added to Table 2 or 3 as baseline spotted owl sites. Both currently occupied and historic spotted owl territories are delineated by Xxxxxxxx polygons. We used these polygons territories to define spotted owl sites and adjacencies to other well surveyed sites. To delineate the Xxxxxxxx polygons, biologists defined annual site centers (i.e. the most biologically important location from each year based on the following hierarchical ranking: 1) active nest, 2) fledged young, 3) primary roost location, 4) diurnal location, and 5) nocturnal detection) for each site. They used the Euclidean Allocation Distance tool in ArcGIS (ESRI 2011) to delineate a Xxxxxxxx polygon around all the annual center locations for each territory. Thus, the Xxxxxxxx polygon does not incorporate or calculate total habitat within the territory, it only represents the hypothetical cumulative area of use by a single or pair of spotted owls during the survey period (March to August). The Xxxxxxxx polygon encompasses all the annual territory center locations, and extends outward to a maximum of one half the median nearest neighbor distance, or midway between the annual territory center locations of spotted owls occupying adjacent territories, whichever distance is shorter and regardless of ownership. Xxxxxxxx polygons are solely based on the spatial orientation of locations, and do not incorporate any habitat information. The location of any particular land in a Xxxxxxxx polygon does not indicate that the land is suitable habitat for spotted owlsshorter. For RRC and Oxbow lands that lie outside of any Xxxxxxxx polygon, we examined habitat maps and forest inventory information, as well as general survey information, to determine if the area might be capable of supporting an undetected resident spotted owl. Baseline: We examined analyzed data for all spotted owl sites on the condition treatment portion of the forest Oregon Coast Ranges Study Area. The determination of baseline status for the site applies to all areas with the Xxxxxxxx polygon for that site. Spotted owl sites listed in Table 2 are baseline sites for the RRC and Oxbow Safe Harbor Agreement. These sites all have a response from at least one resident spotted owl between 2013 and 2015. Table 2. Baseline spotted owl sites for the RRC and Oxbow Safe Harbor Agreement. BASELINE SPOTTED OWL SITES Master Site # Spotted Owl Site Name 0812 Xxxxxx Creek 0000 Xxxxxx Xxxxx 0160 Xxxxxx Creek 3553 Raleigh Creek 0000 Xxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxx XxXxx Xxxxx 0159 Xxxxxx Creek West 4559 West Fork Deadwood Spotted owl sites on Tables 3 and 4 have been well surveyed, and have not had any resident spotted owls found between 2013 and 2015. These sites would not be in the baseline for this safe harbor agreement. Table 3. Spotted owl sites that are not baseline sites, in which RRC or Oxbow owned lands. NON-BASELINE SPOTTED OWL SITES Master Site # Spotted Owl Site Name Last Year With Spotted Owl Response 0526 Xxxxx Creek 2012 0779 Brush Creek 2008 2545 Chickahominy Creek 2010 4491 Chicken Creek 2010 0524 Elk Mountain 2011 2549 January Creek 2012 2546 Xxxxx Creek 2008 4088 XxXxx Creek 2012 0000 Xxxxxx Xxxxx 0000 0000 Xxxxxx Xxxxx 2003 4600 North San Xxxxxx 2008 3362 Xxx Creek 2007 2722 Xxxxxxx Creek 2011 Table 4. Spotted owl sites that are not baseline sites, the amount in which RRC or Oxbow has easements and location agreements. NON-BASELINE SPOTTED OWL SITES Master Site # Spotted Owl Site Name Last Year With Spotted Owl Response 2637 Buck Creek 2008 3251 Lake Creek 2010 3126 Lower Deadwood 2009 2313 Lower Xxxxxxxxx 2010 4686 Upper Hula 2006 0764 Velvet Creek 2008 We analyzed data for RRC and Oxbow lands outside of any potential habitat, Xxxxxxxx polygon on the size treatment portion of the area Oregon Coast Ranges Study Area. All of the RRC and Oxbow lands outside of the Xxxxxxxx polygons on the Study Area are not already included in a Xxxxxxxx polygon, and the proximity to existing known spotted owl sites. Many of these areas were deemed too small likely to support undetected resident spotted owls and are not part of the baseline (Table 5). Table 5. List of lands outside of Xxxxxxxx polygons that USFWS has determined are not likely to support current spotted owls, and most contained nothat are therefore, or very littlenot considered baseline for the RRC and Oxbow Safe Harbor Agreement. This applies to all lands outside of Xxxxxxxx polygons in the following sections. Location Township Range Sections 16S 8W 36 17S 7W 19, spotted owl habitat.20, 22, 28, 30 17S 8W 14, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36 17S 9W 2, 9, 10 18S 7W 6 18S 8W 1,2,7,8,10, 16, 17 18S 9W