Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
The ApproachA committee of the Recovery Team was formed to address concerns for otherspecies and older forest ecosystems. The committee was composed of thefollowing Recovery Team members and staff:Robert Anthony (Chairman)-U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceJonathan Bart-U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceCharlie Bruce-Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeWayne Elmore-U.S. Bureau of Land ManagementJohn Fay-U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRichard Holthausen-U.S. Forest ServiceDonald Knowles-U.S. Department of InteriorEdward Starkey-National Park ServiceLater in the process, Kathryn Boula, Thomas Williams, Betty Rodrick, andRosemary Stussy were hired to help with various aspects of the informationgathering and writing of this section of the recovery plan. The group alsocontracted responsibilities for parts of the biota to outside scientists, includingthe Washington Department of Wildlife (marbled murrelets): Joseph Beatty,Oregon State University (salamanders); Andrew Blaustein, Oregon StateUniversity (toads and frogs); Terrence Frest, Deixis Consultants (molluscs):Jack Lattin, Oregon State University (invertebrates); Andrew Moldenke, OregonState University (invertebrates): Daniel Rosenburg, Redwood Sciences Lab(spotted owl prey): and Robert Storm, Oregon State University (salamanders).Developing the List of Other SpeciesThe committee's first decision was to consider all components of the biotaassociated with older forests and spotted owl habitat. However, the scope ofthis effort later was focused on species that were listed federally as threatenedor endangered, candidates for federal or state listing, state sensitive andspecies of special concern. We also included species that have been shown tobe associated with older coniferous forests within the range of the owl. Thegeneral approach consisted of the following:1) Delineate the area of focus (i.e., the range of the northern spotted owl).2) Compile a list of threatened and endangered, candidate, sensitive, andolder-forest associated species.3) Develop a short list of priority species by determining which species:a) occur within the range of the northern spotted owlb) are more abundant in older forestsc) are in most need of conservation measures4) Acquire definitions and maps of important habitat for the list of priorityspecies.5) Develop a geographic information system (GIS) mapping scheme tooverlay important areas of habitat for the priority species with potentialconservation areas for the spotted owl.6) Identify areas of high species richness.338
The list of species was developed in a series of meetings with more than 60biologists, other scientists, and managers from the Pacific Northwest who hada wide array of expertise. The committee also reviewed lists of threatened andendangered, candidate, and sensitive species from the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Washington Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife, and California Department of Fish and Game. To identify speciesassociated with older forests, the committee reviewed the results of the ForestService's Old-Growth Wildlife Habitat Research Program (Ruggiero et al. 1991 a).A series of meetings on other species and ecosystem concerns was conductedby members of the committee from May through August 1991. The committeemet seven times, and members of the committee conducted more than 25meetings with outside biologists, other scientists, and managers in the threestates. Records of the committee's consultation with other individuals areincluded in the administrative record of the recovery plan.Identification of Priority Species and AssemblagesThe short list of priority species represents a consensus of the committeemembers. Highest priorities were assigned to threatened or endangeredspecies or those that are candidates for listing in at least parts of their geographicrange. Attention also was given to species that have restricted geographicranges or are endemic to the Pacific Northwest; species that have beendesignated as management indicator species of older forests by the ForestService (i.e., pileated woodpecker, goshawk, fisher, marten); and spotted owlprey species (woodrats, flying squirrel, red tree vole, red-backed vole).In developing the list of species, it became apparent that riparian ecosystemsin older coniferous forests were of particular importance and concern. Theimportance of these ecosystems is demonstrated by the numerous species andstocks of native fishes, amphibians, molluscs, aquatic insects, small mammals,and birds that are associated with them. In addition, spotted owls often areassociated with riparian areas.A short list of priority species was developed and concerns related to riparianecosystems were identified. Committee members reviewed numerous publications,geographic ranges, status of populations, natural history, habitat associations,and factors affecting populations and habitat. In addition, the committeesponsored a 2-day workshop on priority species and riparianecosystems to which scientists were invited to present information on priorityspecies. The workshop included opportunities for questions and answers atthe end of each presentation. In all, 16 speakers presented information on themarbled murrelet, goshawk, bald eagle, marten, fisher, riparian ecology, nativefish, amphibians, spotted owl prey, vascular plants, fungi, and ecologicalcorridors. The entire workshop was transcribed by a court reporter for thecommittee. Initially, there was a manual mapping exercise that designatedland ownerships, habitat conservation areas for the owl from the InteragencyScientific Committee (Thomas et al. 1990), critical habitat areas as proposed bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and significant old-growth areas as designatedby a congressional scientific panel (Johnson et al. 1991). Later, thiseffort was incorporated into a GIS mapping procedure that allowed moreefficient evaluation of options (see Appendix I for a description of GIS mappingmethods).339
- Page 304 and 305: Use of the informationAssessments a
- Page 306 and 307: Recent LiteratureWe might begin by
- Page 308 and 309: Kerms (1989) measured habitat struc
- Page 310 and 311: Hamer (pers. comm.) described 11 ne
- Page 312 and 313: Table B.3. Percent hardwoods in the
- Page 314 and 315: Table B.5. Comparison of habitats u
- Page 316 and 317: Table B.8. Tree density (number of
- Page 318 and 319: and numbers of trees, and percent o
- Page 320 and 321: Under this hypothesis, owl fitness
- Page 322 and 323: suitable habitat for that region (m
- Page 324 and 325: ResultsDiscussionspotted owl habita
- Page 326 and 327: __Discussiondata from 41 sites in t
- Page 328 and 329: Recommendations for Future Research
- Page 330 and 331: 314
- Page 332 and 333: Hamer, T. 1988. Home range size of
- Page 334 and 335: 318
- Page 336 and 337: 320
- Page 338 and 339: Parameter Estimatesfor Individual S
- Page 340 and 341: provided in Table C. 5. Study of th
- Page 342 and 343: Table C.6. Summary of statistics re
- Page 344 and 345: 3. ConclusionsThis source of bias i
- Page 346 and 347: 330
- Page 348 and 349: Gray Wolf .........................
- Page 350 and 351: formed during the initial meeting t
- Page 352 and 353: provide habitat for the numerous sp
- Page 356 and 357: The List of Threatened and Endanger
- Page 358 and 359: Mammalsoldest trees in a stand. Eig
- Page 360 and 361: ABBFigure D. 1. Distribution of: a)
- Page 362 and 363: KTable D.3. A list of threatened an
- Page 364 and 365: Fishestheir dispersal capabilities
- Page 366 and 367: OlympicNorthcoastalRockyMountainSou
- Page 368 and 369: continued-StatusabState Considered
- Page 370 and 371: continued-SpeciesColumbia sidebandM
- Page 372 and 373: endemic to the Pacific Northwest).
- Page 374 and 375: ------continued-SpeciesRhyacophila
- Page 376 and 377: continued-SpeciesFed3tatusa bStateW
- Page 378 and 379: StatusasbOld ForestState Associatio
- Page 380 and 381: Summaryspores (Maser et al. 1978b).
- Page 382 and 383: Biology of Owl Prey, Older Forest A
- Page 384 and 385: Woodrats.-The dusky-footed woodrat
- Page 386 and 387: and are less restrictive under stat
- Page 388 and 389: Stock concept.-The term "stock" was
- Page 390 and 391: Table D.10. List of fish stocks of
- Page 392 and 393: continued-Steelhead-owipu Sea-runTr
- Page 394 and 395: continued-BasinHoodWillametteRogueS
- Page 396 and 397: Table D.13. Washington streams (or
- Page 398 and 399: inland distribution currently decre
- Page 400 and 401: nesting territories in the three st
- Page 402 and 403: However, little is known about the
The list of species was developed in a series of meetings with more than 60biologists, o<strong>the</strong>r scientists, and managers from <strong>the</strong> Pacific Northwest who hada wide array of expertise. The committee also reviewed lists of threatened andendangered, candidate, and sensitive species from <strong>the</strong> U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Washington Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife, and Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Department of Fish and Game. To identify speciesassociated with older <strong>for</strong>ests, <strong>the</strong> committee reviewed <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> ForestService's Old-Growth Wildlife Habitat Research Program (Ruggiero et al. 1991 a).A series of meetings on o<strong>the</strong>r species and ecosystem concerns was conductedby members of <strong>the</strong> committee from May through August 1991. The committeemet seven times, and members of <strong>the</strong> committee conducted more than 25meetings with outside biologists, o<strong>the</strong>r scientists, and managers in <strong>the</strong> threestates. Records of <strong>the</strong> committee's consultation with o<strong>the</strong>r individuals areincluded in <strong>the</strong> administrative record of <strong>the</strong> recovery plan.Identification of Priority Species and AssemblagesThe short list of priority species represents a consensus of <strong>the</strong> committeemembers. Highest priorities were assigned to threatened or endangeredspecies or those that are candidates <strong>for</strong> listing in at least parts of <strong>the</strong>ir geographicrange. Attention also was given to species that have restricted geographicranges or are endemic to <strong>the</strong> Pacific Northwest; species that have beendesignated as management indicator species of older <strong>for</strong>ests by <strong>the</strong> ForestService (i.e., pileated woodpecker, goshawk, fisher, marten); and spotted owlprey species (woodrats, flying squirrel, red tree vole, red-backed vole).In developing <strong>the</strong> list of species, it became apparent that riparian ecosystemsin older coniferous <strong>for</strong>ests were of particular importance and concern. Theimportance of <strong>the</strong>se ecosystems is demonstrated by <strong>the</strong> numerous species andstocks of native fishes, amphibians, molluscs, aquatic insects, small mammals,and birds that are associated with <strong>the</strong>m. In addition, spotted owls often areassociated with riparian areas.A short list of priority species was developed and concerns related to riparianecosystems were identified. Committee members reviewed numerous publications,geographic ranges, status of populations, natural history, habitat associations,and factors affecting populations and habitat. In addition, <strong>the</strong> committeesponsored a 2-day workshop on priority species and riparianecosystems to which scientists were invited to present in<strong>for</strong>mation on priorityspecies. The workshop included opportunities <strong>for</strong> questions and answers at<strong>the</strong> end of each presentation. In all, 16 speakers presented in<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong>marbled murrelet, goshawk, bald eagle, marten, fisher, riparian ecology, nativefish, amphibians, spotted owl prey, vascular plants, fungi, and ecologicalcorridors. The entire workshop was transcribed by a court reporter <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>committee. Initially, <strong>the</strong>re was a manual mapping exercise that designatedland ownerships, habitat conservation areas <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> owl from <strong>the</strong> InteragencyScientific Committee (Thomas et al. 1990), critical habitat areas as proposed by<strong>the</strong> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and significant old-growth areas as designatedby a congressional scientific panel (Johnson et al. 1991). Later, thisef<strong>for</strong>t was incorporated into a GIS mapping procedure that allowed moreefficient evaluation of options (see Appendix I <strong>for</strong> a description of GIS mappingmethods).339