Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT

This option would provide the opportunity for timber management on privatelands that includes clusters or support DCAs and reserved pair areas whilemeeting standards for suitable habitat quality and quantity. Managing tomaintain dispersal habitat is recommended for private lands among DCAs andowl clusters on private lands. In northern Marin, northeastern Sonoma, andLake Counties, concerns about low population and connectivity to the adjacentprovince would preclude timber harvest of suitable owl habitat.Habitat requirements for individual sites could be identified by implementingminimum stand structure provisions for each habitat type within this province.On private lands, owners could manage owl habitat if safeguards ensured themaintenance of local owl populations. Safeguards could take the form ofperformance bonds, mitigation banks, or dedicated areas such as easements.Implementation and monitoring under this option would require substantialowl surveys. Consequently, this option, compared to other options, may beharder to establish because of management on a site-by-site basis. This optionwould provide landowners with the least amount of management flexibility atthe site level and may raise equity issues among ownerships. Private landownerswho have conducted owl surveys on their lands may have a disadvantageover those who have not surveyed for owls when known owl sites are used toestablish clusters.This option, compared to the other two options, may be easier to monitor forcompliance, and would allow site-specific management practices tailored tosite-specific conditions. The site-by-site application may make it easier toreview the impact of management practices. Protecting known nest siteswithin a larger landscape strategy of clusters and dispersal habitat maypresent lower risk to owl populations over the short term.Option 2: Management of clusters:flxed boundariesThis option would allow for management at the 20-pair cluster level, in lieu ofthe individual site level. Clusters would be located with fixed boundaries, andhabitat quality and quantity within the cluster would be managed to support aspecified number of owls. Other standards (e.g., minimum habitat block size,spacing of habitat blocks) would be provided. Location of owl sites within thecluster may be more variable over time than in option 1. The cumulativeimpact of timber harvesting and other forest management activities on owlhabitat within the cluster would be evaluated, and mitigation measures couldbe proposed to offset the impacts. Owl clusters in the southern extreme of theprovince would be managed to retain all suitable habitat.Habitat standards and safeguards would be similar to those in option 1. Sincefixed boundaries for supporting DCAs and clusters on private lands are recommended,implementation could rely on known existing owl sites or additionalowl survey work. Once cluster areas are established, monitoring habitatconditions over time would be more important than individual owl surveys.This option would provide greater flexibility to landowners than does option 1and allow for local management options.This option also would require a higher level of habitat monitoring and perhapsgreater amounts of habitat than would option 1, because the status of owlpairs is not stressed. If long-term monitoring determines that forest managementachieves expected results in owl populations, a longer time or greaterconservation action may be required to correct the strategy.185