Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT

nesting and roosting habitat until monitoring and research indicate that thethreat of local extirpation has been diminished substantially.Implementation options on nonfederal landsSeveral options are available for achieving recovery goals on nonfederal landsin the California Coast province. There are a number of existing reserves,including federal lands and state parks. Most of the state land in the provinceis in two parks and can be expected to provide owl habitat over the long term.Managed forests on private lands also can provide for nesting, roosting, foraging,and dispersal habitat. The potential for finding additional owls throughsurveys is high, and may create an incentive for private landowners to developlandscape management approaches for owl conservation. At least one largeindustrial landowner is developing a habitat conservation plan (HCP), andother landowners have expressed interest in developing an HCP or otherhabitat conservation measures.State forest practices rules and the state-sponsored HCP process provide otheravenues for landscape management. Current take prohibitions do not providedirectly for adequate clustering of owl pairs or spacing of owl clusters, becausethe state forest practices rules place constraints on cumulative impacts,activity in riparian zones, and the size and spacing of clear-cuts. Amendmentsto the forest practices rules would be needed to require specific habitat retentionstandards, different "zonal" practices, and long-term plans. The forestpractices rules currently provide for long-term plans only on nonindustrialownership. The state-sponsored HCP program is addressing these issues andis expected to be completed in early 1993.Land acquisition opportunities are expected to be limited because of the lack offederal lands available for exchange, lack of funding for purchase, and concernsregarding removing land from private ownership.There are potential implementation difficulties in northern Marin, northeasternSonoma, and Lake Counties because of habitat and ownership patterns. Owlconservation in this area may have to rely on take prohibitions on a case-bycasebasis. The ability to maintain owl populations is limited by poor suitabilityand distribution of habitat, numerous small ownerships, and the inabilityto manage landscapes collectively. Existing local land trusts and open-spacedistricts may provide funds for land acquisition but probably will require activeparticipation of county government through local land-use regulation.Implementation of recovery goals would be expedited if landowners were givenflexibility in the placement of clusters, although this approach may requiregreater monitoring efforts and conservative targets.Three options are presented for achieving recovery goals, however, otheroptions may be appropriate if they achieve equivalent or better protection forthe owl. Given the variation in land ownership and specific conservation needsthroughout the province, a combination of options is likely to be implementedeventually. Each option must be evaluated by its ability to achieve recoverygoals if fully implemented.Option 1: Management of individual owl sitesThis option would build clusters of owls based on current knowledge of owlsites. Clusters would be identified in a specific location, quantity, and qualityof habitat.184