Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
from nonfederal lands are needed to support these 10 sites becausesufficient habitat does not occur on federal lands. These contributionsare needed until habitat in the DCA recovers. The final recommendationis to provide dispersal habitat on other nonfederal lands between WD-4and WD- 17.In the Interstate 90 corridor area, prohibition of take on nonfederal landscurrently is contributing to recovery. Nonfederal landowners currentlyare affected by prohibitions on take at approximately 20 owl sites in DCAsin the Interstate 90 corridor, and a smaller number of sites to the north.Not all of these restrictions are contributing to the identified recoveryobjective. Protective management, as described in section III.C.3., couldlead to more efficient conservation measures and improve achievement ofrecovery objectives. State forest practices rules also could be used toensure implementation of agreed on protection of known owls. If there isan adequate federal nexus, federal critical habitat designation couldprovide additional protection. The City of Seattle currently is protectingsuitable habitat within its Cedar River watershed (near WD-17). Withinthis watershed the unsuitable habitat is expected to develop into suitablehabitat over time.In this area, as in all other parts of Washington, known owl pairs currentlyare partially protected through federal prohibition on take. However,protection is limited to 40 percent of suitable habitat within a 1.8-mile radius of the site center. Additional habitat protection may beneeded to ensure long term survival of the pair. Additional protectedacreage could be negotiated in exchange for relief from take prohibition onother owls, or a larger area could be managed actively to provide protectionin the long term in exchange for reduced habitat protection in theshort term (see section III.C.3.). Opportunities to negotiate will be reducedto the extent that the recovery objective already requires protectionof most currently known owl pairs. In that case, little incentive exists forlandowners to make additional contributions. Land exchange or purchasemay be necessary in some cases to increase the level of protection.Columbia Gorge. The portion of the Gorge through which spotted owlsmight move between the Washington and Oregon Cascades is generallylocated between DCAs WD- 1 and OD- 1. This includes a portion of theeastern Washington Cascades province. The recommendation for thearea in the western Washington Cascades is to provide protection forcurrently known activity centers on nonfederal land using supplementalpair areas. These owls should be protected within an area equal to themedian home range size within the province. The acreage of habitatprovided should be at least the median amount of habitat used withinhome ranges. Seven pairs and single owl sites currently are located inthe Columbia Gorge.An additional recommendation is to develop strategies for future recruitmentof additional habitat (Appendix G) to provide a density of four owlpairs per township in the Columbia Gorge.Current prohibitions on take are contributing to the accomplishment ofrecovery objectives in the Gorge. However, there is little opportunity tonegotiate additional landowner contribution in exchange for relief fromtake prohibition because there are only a small number of known owlsites: most are clustered near the national forest boundary; and most areneeded to meet the objective for pairs in the area. State forest practicesregulations can help ensure protection of known owls, and, if new regulationswere developed, could provide dispersal habitat among pairs.156
However, state regulatory protection of breeding habitat independent ofknown pairs likely would require legislative action to change the statute.Some state-protected habitat currently exists at Beacon Rock State Parkand the adjacent Natural Resource Conservation Area at Table Mountain.Land exchange or land purchase to bring additional land into publicownership for habitat protection appears necessary to meet the recoveryobjective to establish large areas of new breeding habitat. Some landacquisition is occurring in conjunction with establishment of the ColumbiaGorge National Scenic Area. However, this would be very expensive($10 million to $20 million per owl pair) and would be feasible only withsubstantial federal funding.The Mineral Block. This area is of particular importance for contributionsfrom nonfederal lands. As currently mapped, the DCA on the MineralBlock (WD- 10) has a future capability of supporting 14 pairs of spottedowls, including checkerboard nonfederal lands (Appendix J, Table J.3.).There are presently five known territories on all lands in the DCA. Contributions,in the form of supplemental pair areas, on nonfederal land insideof, and directly adjacent to, WD-10 are recommended to increase thecapability of the DCA so that it will support a minimum of 15 pairs ofspotted owls. It is also recommended that dispersal habitat be providedon nonfederal land between DCA WD- 10 and DCAs W-2N and W-3.Within WD- 10, prohibitions on take currently are contributing to theprovince objective of supplementing the DCA. Approximately 10 knownowl activity centers occur in and near this DCA. Protective management,as described in section III.C.3., could improve achievement of recoveryobjectives. State forest practices rules also could be used to ensureprotection of known owls, where agreed upon. However, if most or allknown owl pairs are needed to meet the DCA objective, opportunities willbe limited to use protective management to achieve other nonfederalcontributions. This also will reduce opportunities to gain contributions ofdispersal habitat among WD- 10 and WD-2N and WD-3. hese contributionsare extremely important to the development of stable owl subpopulationsin the province.Siouxon Creek (northwest of WD- 1). The recommendation is to provide asmall group of spotted owls (three to four pairs) in conjunction withfederal ownership as either a small cluster or as supplemental pair areas.This area is important to maintain distribution within the province andprovides a potential link in establishing a second connection betweenspotted owls in Washington and Oregon across the Columbia River.Prohibition on take will help accomplish this objective. Opportunities tonegotiate more efficient contributions are limited since there are only afew known owl sites in this area and all are needed to accomplish theobjective of providing a cluster. Some voluntary action on state-ownedlands is possible but is not likely to achieve the recovery objective givencurrent management requirements for these lands. Land acquisitionthrough purchase or exchange is possible but would require up to $100million. Less-than-fee acquisitions may have the potential to contributeto the recovery objective in this area. Achievement of the objective in thenear term is feasible to a degree.157
- 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
- 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 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- _ _ . ...........
- Page 196 and 197: DCAs, often combined with adjacent
- Page 198 and 199: Owl pairsLiKnown owlsin the provinc
- Page 200 and 201: nesting and roosting habitat until
- Page 202 and 203: Option 3: Management of clusters: g
- Page 204 and 205: Table 3.21. Summary of acreage and
- Page 206 and 207: Owl pairs -Known owlsin the provinc
- Page 208 and 209: and to within 0.5 miles of the acti
- Page 210 and 211: Spotted owls have been found at 86
- Page 212 and 213: ITable 3.24. Summary comments on th
- Page 214 and 215: their distance from other sites. Ar
- Page 216 and 217: * Recommend population and habitat
- Page 218 and 219: away in some or all of the range. D
- Page 220 and 221: 4. What are the population dynamics
However, state regulatory protection of breeding habitat independent ofknown pairs likely would require legislative action to change <strong>the</strong> statute.Some state-protected habitat currently exists at Beacon Rock State Parkand <strong>the</strong> adjacent Natural Resource Conservation Area at Table Mountain.Land exchange or land purchase to bring additional land into publicownership <strong>for</strong> habitat protection appears necessary to meet <strong>the</strong> recoveryobjective to establish large areas of new breeding habitat. Some landacquisition is occurring in conjunction with establishment of <strong>the</strong> ColumbiaGorge National Scenic Area. However, this would be very expensive($10 million to $20 million per owl pair) and would be feasible only withsubstantial federal funding.The Mineral Block. This area is of particular importance <strong>for</strong> contributionsfrom nonfederal lands. As currently mapped, <strong>the</strong> DCA on <strong>the</strong> MineralBlock (WD- 10) has a future capability of supporting 14 pairs of spottedowls, including checkerboard nonfederal lands (Appendix J, Table J.3.).There are presently five known territories on all lands in <strong>the</strong> DCA. Contributions,in <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>m of supplemental pair areas, on nonfederal land insideof, and directly adjacent to, WD-10 are recommended to increase <strong>the</strong>capability of <strong>the</strong> DCA so that it will support a minimum of 15 pairs ofspotted owls. It is also recommended that dispersal habitat be providedon nonfederal land between DCA WD- 10 and DCAs W-2N and W-3.Within WD- 10, prohibitions on take currently are contributing to <strong>the</strong>province objective of supplementing <strong>the</strong> DCA. Approximately 10 knownowl activity centers occur in and near this DCA. Protective management,as described in section III.C.3., could improve achievement of recoveryobjectives. State <strong>for</strong>est practices rules also could be used to ensureprotection of known owls, where agreed upon. However, if most or allknown owl pairs are needed to meet <strong>the</strong> DCA objective, opportunities willbe limited to use protective management to achieve o<strong>the</strong>r nonfederalcontributions. This also will reduce opportunities to gain contributions ofdispersal habitat among WD- 10 and WD-2N and WD-3. hese contributionsare extremely important to <strong>the</strong> development of stable owl subpopulationsin <strong>the</strong> province.Siouxon Creek (northwest of WD- 1). The recommendation is to provide asmall group of spotted owls (three to four pairs) in conjunction withfederal ownership as ei<strong>the</strong>r a small cluster or as supplemental pair areas.This area is important to maintain distribution within <strong>the</strong> province andprovides a potential link in establishing a second connection betweenspotted owls in Washington and Oregon across <strong>the</strong> Columbia River.Prohibition on take will help accomplish this objective. Opportunities tonegotiate more efficient contributions are limited since <strong>the</strong>re are only afew known owl sites in this area and all are needed to accomplish <strong>the</strong>objective of providing a cluster. Some voluntary action on state-ownedlands is possible but is not likely to achieve <strong>the</strong> recovery objective givencurrent management requirements <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>se lands. Land acquisitionthrough purchase or exchange is possible but would require up to $100million. Less-than-fee acquisitions may have <strong>the</strong> potential to contributeto <strong>the</strong> recovery objective in this area. Achievement of <strong>the</strong> objective in <strong>the</strong>near term is feasible to a degree.157