Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Endangered Species Act) or through regulations adopted in compliance withsection 4(d) of the act.Several measures are available to achieve recovery through alternatives thatwould be more effective than maintenance of the current take circles (see toolsfor implementing recovery on nonfederal lands in this section). Recovery goalimplementation likely will differ by state due to the variations in the degree offederal ownership by province, states' authorities, and availability of informationabout the owls. Protective management, which encourages creativeapproaches to recovery goal implementation, is a likely alternative to maintenanceof take circles. States, landowners, the FWS would negotiate with statewildlife agencies and other interested parties to develop a plan to improvespecies protection and landowners' ability to manage their land. The EndangeredSpecies Act allows protective management to serve as the basis for eitherconservation plans (section 10 of the Endangered Species Act) or special rules(section 4(d)).Incentives to Participate in Protective Management.Biologists, landowners, communities, and government agencies share severalincentives to participate in protective management:1. Managementflexibilityfor owl protection and timber harvest planning.A plan could tailor protection to fit the owl population's long-term habitatrequirements, with less emphasis on short-term protection of individualsand pairs. Long-term protection could be adjusted across the landscape toimprove the configuration of owl habitat blocks and to complement reserveson federal lands more effectively. The FWS could authorize anincreased level of take if assurances were provided by landowners thatlong-term, effective mitigation efforts would be implemented providing theneeded level of support for recovery. Measures such as designatingcertain areas to be protected or instituting FWS-approved habitat managementplans might be more attractive to landowners than continuing takecircles and annual surveys.2. Certainty of owl protection and timber harvest planning.Landowners would manage for long-term owl habitat needs, providing abetter guarantee of habitat than the transient and potentially vulnerablecircles (see section II.C.). Landowners then could plan timber harvestbased on the certainty of knowing which areas would be affected by owlprotection.3. Cost reduction of owl protection.Perhaps the most compelling incentive for landowners to participate in analternative conservation program is a significant reduction of the costs ofowl protection they now incur including: a) maintenance of habitat withincurrent take circles; b) conducting annual owl surveys; and c) administrativecosts associated with compliance with state forest practices regulationsprotecting listed species (see section II.C. for description of each state'sregulations).4. Authorizing incidental take in exchange for implementing conservationmeasures identified in the recovery plan.Consistent with the Endangered Species Act, landowners could be authorizeda level of incidental take through the HCP or 4(d) process if they are130
found to exceed protection called for in the conservation objectives, allowingthem to plan future timber harvests (see section II.C.).5. Relaxation of owl conservation requirements on federal lands in response toincreased efforts on nonfederal lands.Some nonfederal landowners are more willing to contribute to owl recoveryif they see that their efforts can lead to a reduction of conservation requiredon federal lands.Guidelinesfor protective management.1. Protective management should provide for the identified recovery objectivesfor nonfederal lands while placing the minimum burden on landownersnecessary to achieve those conservation objectives.2. Explicit goals for nonfederal lands should describe when recovery would bereached and how a landowner's efforts would contribute to overall recovery.Protective management should be based on the recovery plan's identificationof the amount, spatial and temporal configuration, and function of thenecessary habitat; and the target number of individuals and populationtrends required to meet delisting goals. The protective management planshould describe the specific implementation actions needed to implementthe recovery plan's provincial goals.3. Incentives, rather than disincentives, should be provided for finding owls,when consistent with the Endangered Species Act. Possible incentivesinclude: a) landowner flexibility in where they protect habitat, b) reductionof total area required for protection, c) off-site mitigation for owl protection,or d) relaxation of restrictions on adjacent federal lands. Based on therecovery plan's description of contribution from nonfederal lands, landownerscould be authorized some amount of incidental take where conservationmeasures had been implemented.4. A protective management plan should explain the variation in owl protectionrequirements based on biological and physiographic distinctions andthe degree of federal conservation by province, so that the public willunderstand the basis for differences in federal and state owl protectionregulations.5. Protective management plans should start with the recovery plan's assessmentof the take prohibition.The protective management plan should be based on the recovery plan'sgeneral assessment of the amount and rate of incidental take that can beallowed on nonfederal lands where conservation mechanisms are being putinto place to accomplish recovery goals for a province. The protectivemanagement plan should identify where implementation of provincerecovery objectives cannot allow incidental take. Where possible, theallowable amount and rate should be identified. The form and pattern oflandowner contribution to recovery can be negotiated. If areas are identifiedwhere protection of individual owls is not essential for conservation,incidental take could be permitted with minimal mitigation required. Theprotection of owls beyond the level needed could be considered as mitigationfor impacts on owls in other nearby areas.Land purchase and exchange should be considered for nonfederal areasessential to recovery that do not have take prohibitions to serve as anincentive to negotiate conservation with landowners.131
- 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 and 112: III.A. Recovery Objective and Delis
- Page 113: 4. The population is unlikely to ne
- 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 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
- Page 162 and 163: Biological goals and implementation
- Page 164 and 165: ning. Also, several unsurveyed area
- Page 166 and 167: Owl pairsKnown owlsin the province3
- Page 168 and 169: - Initiate long-range planning effo
- Page 170 and 171: Table 3.8. Summary comments on the
- Page 172 and 173: from nonfederal lands are needed to
- Page 174 and 175: Eastern Washington Cascades Provinc
- Page 176 and 177: (Owl pairs140 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- Page 178 and 179: habitat in DCA WD- 16. Approximatel
- Page 180 and 181: Table 3.12. Summary comments on the
- Page 182 and 183: Ttllwrnook/Astoria area. Provide su
- Page 184 and 185: connectivity between key DCAs. This
- Page 186 and 187: ITable 3.14. Summary comments on th
- Page 188 and 189: crest of the Cascade Mountains. The
- Page 190 and 191: ITable 3.16. Summary comments on th
- Page 192 and 193: sites on federal lands (figure 3.21
- Page 194 and 195: Owl pairsL I 350- _ _ . ...........
found to exceed protection called <strong>for</strong> in <strong>the</strong> conservation objectives, allowing<strong>the</strong>m to plan future timber harvests (see section II.C.).5. Relaxation of owl conservation requirements on federal lands in response toincreased ef<strong>for</strong>ts on nonfederal lands.Some nonfederal landowners are more willing to contribute to owl recoveryif <strong>the</strong>y see that <strong>the</strong>ir ef<strong>for</strong>ts can lead to a reduction of conservation requiredon federal lands.Guidelines<strong>for</strong> protective management.1. Protective management should provide <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> identified recovery objectives<strong>for</strong> nonfederal lands while placing <strong>the</strong> minimum burden on landownersnecessary to achieve those conservation objectives.2. Explicit goals <strong>for</strong> nonfederal lands should describe when recovery would bereached and how a landowner's ef<strong>for</strong>ts would contribute to overall recovery.Protective management should be based on <strong>the</strong> recovery plan's identificationof <strong>the</strong> amount, spatial and temporal configuration, and function of <strong>the</strong>necessary habitat; and <strong>the</strong> target number of individuals and populationtrends required to meet delisting goals. The protective management planshould describe <strong>the</strong> specific implementation actions needed to implement<strong>the</strong> recovery plan's provincial goals.3. Incentives, ra<strong>the</strong>r than disincentives, should be provided <strong>for</strong> finding owls,when consistent with <strong>the</strong> Endangered Species Act. Possible incentivesinclude: a) landowner flexibility in where <strong>the</strong>y protect habitat, b) reductionof total area required <strong>for</strong> protection, c) off-site mitigation <strong>for</strong> owl protection,or d) relaxation of restrictions on adjacent federal lands. Based on <strong>the</strong>recovery plan's description of contribution from nonfederal lands, landownerscould be authorized some amount of incidental take where conservationmeasures had been implemented.4. A protective management plan should explain <strong>the</strong> variation in owl protectionrequirements based on biological and physiographic distinctions and<strong>the</strong> degree of federal conservation by province, so that <strong>the</strong> public willunderstand <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>for</strong> differences in federal and state owl protectionregulations.5. Protective management plans should start with <strong>the</strong> recovery plan's assessmentof <strong>the</strong> take prohibition.The protective management plan should be based on <strong>the</strong> recovery plan'sgeneral assessment of <strong>the</strong> amount and rate of incidental take that can beallowed on nonfederal lands where conservation mechanisms are being putinto place to accomplish recovery goals <strong>for</strong> a province. The protectivemanagement plan should identify where implementation of provincerecovery objectives cannot allow incidental take. Where possible, <strong>the</strong>allowable amount and rate should be identified. The <strong>for</strong>m and pattern oflandowner contribution to recovery can be negotiated. If areas are identifiedwhere protection of individual owls is not essential <strong>for</strong> conservation,incidental take could be permitted with minimal mitigation required. Theprotection of owls beyond <strong>the</strong> level needed could be considered as mitigation<strong>for</strong> impacts on owls in o<strong>the</strong>r nearby areas.Land purchase and exchange should be considered <strong>for</strong> nonfederal areasessential to recovery that do not have take prohibitions to serve as anincentive to negotiate conservation with landowners.131