Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT

and to within 0.5 miles of the activity center), and rules that would ensure thatthe appropriate quantity and quality of habitat be maintained. Dispersalhabitat also would be designated throughout the province. A 20-pair cluster ineastern Trinity County would be managed with fixed boundaries and locationsof sites.Extensive surveying for owls would be necessary to implement this option andmonitor it over time. Fixed boundaries and site locations increase the certaintyduring the short term that owls will be found, but may raise issues of equitybetween landowners. Unless the area has been extensively surveyed, the useof existing known sites as the basis for restricting management may effectivelypenalize those owners who have conducted surveys and are engaged in activeresearch. This option limits the flexibility of landowners with the responsibilityof providing for owl sites.Option 2: Management of owl sites at the watershed levelThis option would provide a management strategy to maintain dispersalhabitat on private inholdings within federal DCAs in the western zone, butwould create incentives for consolidating the inholdings with DCA management.It would provide nonfederal support for category 2 DCAs and reservedpair areas in the eastern and southern zone, using lands within the generalwatershed areas containing the DCA. Sites would be distributed based onknown owl occurrence. Owl sites within the major watersheds currentlyencompassed by the DCA would be recommended to provide support for theDCA. These sites would be managed to ensure that the appropriate quantityand quality of suitable habitat would be maintained and that the locationwould be maintained (e.g., similar to current state forest practices rulesregarding take, and confine the site activity center to a 3,000-acre area withina specific drainage). Dispersal habitat would be maintained throughout theprovince. A cluster of 10 pairs is an objective for eastern Trinity County.This option provides somewhat more flexibility to private landowners. It is stillbased on managing for individual activity centers, so extensive owl surveyswould be required. The location of sites is more flexible than under option 1,and fewer sites are likely to be required throughout the province. Higher risksmay be associated with maintaining only dispersal habitat on inholdingswithin DCAs in the western zone. Implementing this option, which is based oncurrently known activity centers, may effectively penalize landowners who havesurveyed extensively for owls, unless the area has been extensively surveyed.Option 3: Management of all known owl sitesThis option would maintain dispersal habitat on private inholdings withinDCAs in the western zone, but would create incentives for consolidating theinholdings with DCA management. Nonfederal land would support category 2DCAs and reserved pair areas in the eastern and southern zone, using allknown sites. Habitat requirements for individual activity centers could beidentified and managed by implementing minimum stand structure provisionsfor each habitat type within province. Additionally, guidelines would beprovided at the cluster level to maintain such characteristics as the percentageof suitable habitat in the cluster, the minimum stand size and distribution ofthat suitable habitat, and the presence of high-value habitat at the activitycenter. Dispersal habitat would be designated throughout the province.This option also would include establishing a new cluster on state, private, andBLM lands in northeastern Trinity County. This cluster has the potential for20 activity centers. Habitat would be provided by prescriptive managementrules controlling the quantity and quality of habitat to be maintained. It would192