Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
2. The population has been stable or increasing duringat least the last 8 years, as indicated by both densityestimates and demographic analyses, in all parts of thearea that would be considered significant under theEndangered Species Act.Delisting a threatened population while it is declining would be difficult tojustify. This is particularly true with northern spotted owls because evidencethat populations were declining was one of the major reasons for listing thesubspecies. These statements apply to the total population in the area beingconsidered for delisting, or to any subpopulation that would be considered''significant," and thus would qualify for protection under the EndangeredSpecies Act. The Recovery Team recognizes, however, that suitable habitat inthe matrix-and owl populations-are likely to decline, and several decadesmay be required before populations stabilize completely, even if recovery isproceeding as anticipated. The Recovery Team believes that delisting eventuallymight be appropriate if the populations in protected areas were stable orincreasing, even if the overall population still was declining slightly. Thecriteria for delisting under these conditions are difficult to specify precisely atthis time, and doing so may be unnecessary if habitat protection in the matrixis integrated successfully with other forest activities (section III.B.2.). For thesereasons, the Recovery Team has not attempted to specify the exact criteria fordelisting while the population still is declining at a small rate.State-of-the-art methods should be used to estimate population trends. Methodsthat would be appropriate at present are described in Appendices A and C.3. Regulatory mechanisms or land management commitmentshave been implemented that provide for adequatelong-term protection of breeding, foraging, anddispersal habitat, as described in section III.C.4., recoverygoals and strategies for each province.Delisting would be followed by loss of protection under the Endangered SpeciesAct. Adequate protection through alternate means is essential before delisting.For example, management plans for federal land should provide adequateassurances of habitat protection prior to consideration of delisting. The form ofthese regulations and commitments should be determined during the comingyears and will vary across the range. The Recovery Team therefore has notattempted to specify the form of the protection precisely. Reasonable assurancemust exist that the conditions which have brought about populationstability will be maintained, or, if necessary, improved during the foreseeablefuture.96
4. The population is unlikely to need protection underthe Endangered Species Act during the foreseeable future.Populations that are temporarily stable but likely to decline again in theforeseeable future cannot be considered recovered and should not be delisted.Detailed analyses of the likelihood that the population will remain stable orincrease must be carried out before delisting. The analyses should includeobserved and anticipated effects of a) fluctuations in abundance, fecundity,and survivorship; b) movements by birds within the area and to or fromsurrounding areas; c) changes in habitat including ones due to catastrophicevents: d) loss of genetic diversity; and e) any other threats to the populationwhose effects might be significant. These analyses are particularly importantfor small populations.97
- Page 62 and 63: Distribution of Habitat and Populat
- Page 64 and 65: Province Isolation. The eastern Was
- Page 66 and 67: were in suitable habitat condition.
- Page 68 and 69: Estimated acres of forest landbase:
- Page 70 and 71: owned and contain little suitable h
- Page 72 and 73: Vulnerability to Natural Disturbanc
- Page 74 and 75: Douglas-fir/hardwood types, the lat
- Page 76 and 77: miles from the contiguous populatio
- Page 78 and 79: In comparison, the southern part of
- Page 80 and 81: Sacramento River Canyon now provide
- Page 82 and 83: On January 11, 1980, there was an a
- Page 84 and 85: vation Strategy for the Northern Sp
- Page 86 and 87: transfer of one area to the Grand R
- Page 88 and 89: The BLM Spokane (Washington) Distri
- Page 90 and 91: 3. National Park ServiceThe followi
- Page 92 and 93: The results of a consultation are s
- Page 94 and 95: - Since landowners already face cut
- Page 96 and 97: 4. Cumulative Effects AssessmentThe
- Page 98 and 99: Assessment, Planning, and Monitorin
- Page 100 and 101: Spotted owl nesting sites and activ
- Page 102 and 103: Coastal Oregon Productivity Enhance
- Page 104 and 105: including wildlife. In other cases,
- Page 106 and 107: Currently, the Yakima Indian Nation
- Page 108 and 109: where timber harvest is limited to
- Page 111: III.A. Recovery Objective and Delis
- Page 116 and 117: Needs of other species should be co
- Page 118 and 119: years. The strategy of managing for
- Page 120 and 121: 't0
- Page 122 and 123: Finally, the plan recommends mainta
- Page 124 and 125: A total of 1,181 pairs of owls has
- Page 126 and 127: DKnown owlsin the OregonprovincesKn
- Page 128 and 129: mologists, and representatives of o
- Page 130 and 131: this prey species is an appropriate
- Page 132 and 133: After 100 years residual snags will
- Page 134 and 135: 2. Fuelwood Gathering. If allowed,
- Page 136 and 137: The application of prescriptions A,
- Page 138 and 139: owls. (Refer to tables in section I
- Page 140 and 141: PRESCRIPTION D -RETAIN OWLS IN MANA
- Page 142 and 143: 126
- Page 144 and 145: DCA Management Plans.The recovery p
- Page 146 and 147: Endangered Species Act) or through
- Page 148 and 149: 6. Costs to landowners should be re
- Page 150 and 151: The real or perceived disincentives
- Page 152 and 153: authority of the public body to ent
- Page 154 and 155: * Use the recovery plan's recommend
- Page 156 and 157: 140
- Page 158 and 159: Supplemental pair areas - Habitat d
- Page 160 and 161: Numbers of owls currently are estim
4. The population is unlikely to need protection under<strong>the</strong> Endangered Species Act during <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>eseeable future.Populations that are temporarily stable but likely to decline again in <strong>the</strong><strong>for</strong>eseeable future cannot be considered recovered and should not be delisted.Detailed analyses of <strong>the</strong> likelihood that <strong>the</strong> population will remain stable orincrease must be carried out be<strong>for</strong>e delisting. The analyses should includeobserved and anticipated effects of a) fluctuations in abundance, fecundity,and survivorship; b) movements by birds within <strong>the</strong> area and to or fromsurrounding areas; c) changes in habitat including ones due to catastrophicevents: d) loss of genetic diversity; and e) any o<strong>the</strong>r threats to <strong>the</strong> populationwhose effects might be significant. These analyses are particularly important<strong>for</strong> small populations.97