{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01646843549862763, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036596523330283625, 'mean_word_length': 4.819148936170213, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Projected trends in owl habitat

Here we attempt to synthesize many of the analyses presented in other chapters in this document, and to look ahead to the future. As such, this chapter is necessarily more speculative and conclusions expressed here should not be viewed as hard and prescriptive. We hope, however, to highlight areas of concern for future owl habitat, and for the health of the forest ecosystem more generally. Finally, we propose alternate forest management methods that we believe have merit. We do not consider the management methods described here to be an exclusive set to be prescribed forestwide. Rather we view them as potential experiments which, if effective, will alleviate many of the shortcomings that we perceive in current management systems as they relate to owl habitat. This report covers a wide range of forest types and topographic regions. We will focus almost exclusively on the Sierran mixed-conifer forest type, as it contains an estimated 82 percent of the spotted owl sites in the Sierra Nevada and 62 percent of all known California spotted owl sites.