Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Woodrats.-The dusky-footed woodrat (N.Jfiscipes) is limited in distribution toparts of western Oregon and most of western California (Figure D.5.b), whilethe bushy-tailed woodrat (N. cinerea) is found throughout Washington andOregon, and in parts of northern California (Figure D.5.c). Woodrats areassociated with seral stages that have abundant understory vegetation andcoarse woody debris, such as early successional stages (recent clear-cuts) andolder seral stages (Thomas et al. 1990); bushy-tailed woodrats also are associatedwith rocky areas, such as talus slopes (Thomas et al. 1990).Deer mice.-The deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) is one of the mostwidely distributed mammal species in North America and is found throughoutOregon, Washington, and California. Such a wide-ranging species would beexpected to be a habitat generalist, and data from the Pacific Northwest supportthis contention. Deer mice do not show consistent preferences for particularstand ages (Thomas et al. 1990). The forest deer mouse (P. oreas)inhabits older forests in western Washington and southern British Columbia(Figure D.5.c). Because of its extensive use of tree canopies, it is probably animportant prey species for owls in Washington (West 1991).Red tree vole.-The red tree voles (Phenacomys ssp.) have the most restricteddistribution of all the species preyed upon by spotted owls. Before the Californiapopulation (P. pomo) was recognized to be a species separate from theOregon (P. longicaudus) species (Johnson and George 1991), the range of thered tree vole included parts of western Oregon and northwest California (FigureD.2). The California population now is considered a separate species based onmorphometric and genetic data. Habitat associations of these species arebased on relatively small sample sizes, but there is a trend of greater relativeabundance with increasing stand age, with the highest densities in old-growthforests (Corn and Bury 1991, Ruggiero et al. 199 lb).Rabbits and Hares.-Brush rabbits occur in most of western Oregon andCalifornia, and appear to be absent from Washington (Figure D.5.A. Snowshoehares are found in western Oregon and Washington, and into north-centralCalifornia (Figure D.5.e). No research has been conducted to specifically studyhabitat associations of lagomorphs in relationship to spotted owl habitat. Ingeneral, these species occupy brushy, densely vegetated habitats (Thomas etal. 1990) and are not more abundant in older forests. It is primarily young ofthe year that are preyed upon by spotted owls (Forsman et al. 1984:41), sodispersal habitat may be most important when considering these species asspotted owl prey.Red-backed voles.-Westem red-backed voles occur throughout westernOregon and northwest California, and the southern red-backed vole (C.gapperO occurs in western Washington (Figure D.5.1). Western red-backedvoles live in a variety of forested habitats, but densities are low in recentlyburned clear-cuts and their occurrence may be positively associated withwoody debris (reviewed by Alexander and Verts, In press). No differences inabundance of Cleithrionomys spp. were found in unmanaged young (30 to 70years) Douglas-fir stands compared to older seral stages (Corn and Bury 1991,Gilbert and Allwine 1991, West 1991), but abundance was much lower inmanaged young stands than in old-growth stands (Rosenberg and Anthony1990).Managing prey for the northern spotted owl.-Recent research on preyspecies was motivated, in part, by an interest in increasing prey abundancethrough silvicultural prescriptions. The results to date do not show consistentpatterns that would allow this to be achieved. This, combined with the difficultyin assessing the relationship between prey abundance and availability,makes the feasibility of manipulating prey densities to increase owl use of368
forests questionable. Experimental manipulations of habitat and assessmentsof prey response (as well as owl response) are needed to test the effectiveness ofmanagement techniques. Failure of habitat models to predict animal responsein locations and years other than the ones from which the data originally werecollected is a common problem (Noon 1986). This probably results from thenumerous factors besides habitat that affect animal populations (Noon 1986).The ability to manipulate habitat to increase prey availability is difficult becauseof the complex interaction of predator and prey.Ecology of Riparian Ecosystems and Native FishesThe committee's list includes approximately 132 species of animals that arefederally listed as threatened or endangered, candidates for federal listing,species of special concern, or older-forest associates and are associated withriparian areas. This list of species is diverse and includes three birds, fourmammals, 12 amphibians, 45 molluscs, and 34 arthropods as well as 28 fish.Riparian associates comprise approximately one third of the other speciesconsidered as a result of Secretary of the Interior Lujan's request. The associationto riparian areas by these species indicates the importance of riparianareas in the recovery plan for the spotted owl.Riparian ecosystems represent a small proportion of the land base (generallyless than 5 percent), but they provide habitat for a rich and diverse group ofplants and animals. A large number of fish stocks has been identified as beingat risk (Nehlsen et al. 1991, Moyle et al. 1989, Williams et al. 1989), in partbecause of intensive timber harvest along streams in many areas (see sectionon Native Fishes). The importance of riparian ecosystems, their roles inconiferous forests, and their potential importance as ecological corridorsamong DCAs is discussed next.Riparian EcosystemsRecently ecologists and land managers have recognized the importance ofstructure and function of riparian zones for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems(Gregory et al. 1988, Knight and Bottorf 1984, Meehan et al. 1977, Beschta1989). These functions include stream shading, bank stabilization, nutrientuptake, input of leaves and needles into streams, sediment filtering, bankbuilding, and the contribution of large wood (Elmore and Beschta 1987,Gregory et al. 1988). The contrast in communities and physical environmentcreates rich patterns of processes and structure that are the basis for the highbiotic diversity found in riparian zones (Gregory et al. 1988).Management.-The segregation of riparian areas from other ecosystems bystate and federal agencies is a common management approach. The resultpredominately has been the development of federal policies and state forestpractices that allow varying intensities of forest activities. The states of California,Washington, and Oregon have addressed riparian ecosystems in theirforest practices rules. The states also are involved in an extensive monitoringprogram to evaluate the effectiveness of these rules.In general, federal agencies are consistent in their approach to the classificationof streams. Streams are segregated into four classes based on the presenceor absence of fishes, the uses of the water (e.g., domestic use by cities,recreation), and whether the stream is a significant contributor to a higherclassstream. The states use predominately the same process but have delineatedtheir streams by consolidating the categories into as few as two or asmany as four classes. Timber harvest regulations, however, vary among states369
- 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 354 and 355: The ApproachA committee of the Reco
- 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 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
- Page 404 and 405: Fisher (Martes penncmti)Distributio
- Page 406 and 407: at one time supported marten popula
- Page 408 and 409: each population of these animals is
- Page 410 and 411: species also is found under the bar
- Page 412 and 413: few meters from water after heavy r
- Page 414 and 415: In considering the needs of other s
- Page 416 and 417: Barrows, C. W. 1981. Roost selectio
- Page 418 and 419: Clark, T. W., E. Anderson, C. Dougl
- Page 420 and 421: Hamer, T. E. 1991. Habitat relation
- Page 422 and 423: Mannan, R. W., E. C. Meslow, and H.
- Page 424 and 425: Oakley, A. L., Collins, J. A., Ever
- Page 426 and 427: Solis, D. M. 1983. Summer habitat e
- Page 428 and 429: Washington Natural Heritage Program
- Page 430 and 431: 414
- Page 432 and 433: f. Wilderness.g. Livestock grazing.
Woodrats.-The dusky-footed woodrat (N.Jfiscipes) is limited in distribution toparts of western Oregon and most of western Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Figure D.5.b), while<strong>the</strong> bushy-tailed woodrat (N. cinerea) is found throughout Washington andOregon, and in parts of nor<strong>the</strong>rn Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Figure D.5.c). Woodrats areassociated with seral stages that have abundant understory vegetation andcoarse woody debris, such as early successional stages (recent clear-cuts) andolder seral stages (Thomas et al. 1990); bushy-tailed woodrats also are associatedwith rocky areas, such as talus slopes (Thomas et al. 1990).Deer mice.-The deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) is one of <strong>the</strong> mostwidely distributed mammal species in North America and is found throughoutOregon, Washington, and Cali<strong>for</strong>nia. Such a wide-ranging species would beexpected to be a habitat generalist, and data from <strong>the</strong> Pacific Northwest supportthis contention. Deer mice do not show consistent preferences <strong>for</strong> particularstand ages (Thomas et al. 1990). The <strong>for</strong>est deer mouse (P. oreas)inhabits older <strong>for</strong>ests in western Washington and sou<strong>the</strong>rn British Columbia(Figure D.5.c). Because of its extensive use of tree canopies, it is probably animportant prey species <strong>for</strong> owls in Washington (West 1991).Red tree vole.-The red tree voles (Phenacomys ssp.) have <strong>the</strong> most restricteddistribution of all <strong>the</strong> species preyed upon by spotted owls. Be<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong> Cali<strong>for</strong>niapopulation (P. pomo) was recognized to be a species separate from <strong>the</strong>Oregon (P. longicaudus) species (Johnson and George 1991), <strong>the</strong> range of <strong>the</strong>red tree vole included parts of western Oregon and northwest Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (FigureD.2). The Cali<strong>for</strong>nia population now is considered a separate species based onmorphometric and genetic data. Habitat associations of <strong>the</strong>se species arebased on relatively small sample sizes, but <strong>the</strong>re is a trend of greater relativeabundance with increasing stand age, with <strong>the</strong> highest densities in old-growth<strong>for</strong>ests (Corn and Bury 1991, Ruggiero et al. 199 lb).Rabbits and Hares.-Brush rabbits occur in most of western Oregon andCali<strong>for</strong>nia, and appear to be absent from Washington (Figure D.5.A. Snowshoehares are found in western Oregon and Washington, and into north-centralCali<strong>for</strong>nia (Figure D.5.e). No research has been conducted to specifically studyhabitat associations of lagomorphs in relationship to spotted owl habitat. Ingeneral, <strong>the</strong>se species occupy brushy, densely vegetated habitats (Thomas etal. 1990) and are not more abundant in older <strong>for</strong>ests. It is primarily young of<strong>the</strong> year that are preyed upon by spotted owls (Forsman et al. 1984:41), sodispersal habitat may be most important when considering <strong>the</strong>se species asspotted owl prey.Red-backed voles.-Westem red-backed voles occur throughout westernOregon and northwest Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, and <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn red-backed vole (C.gapperO occurs in western Washington (Figure D.5.1). Western red-backedvoles live in a variety of <strong>for</strong>ested habitats, but densities are low in recentlyburned clear-cuts and <strong>the</strong>ir occurrence may be positively associated withwoody debris (reviewed by Alexander and Verts, In press). No differences inabundance of Cleithrionomys spp. were found in unmanaged young (30 to 70years) Douglas-fir stands compared to older seral stages (Corn and Bury 1991,Gilbert and Allwine 1991, West 1991), but abundance was much lower inmanaged young stands than in old-growth stands (Rosenberg and Anthony1990).Managing prey <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn spotted owl.-Recent research on preyspecies was motivated, in part, by an interest in increasing prey abundancethrough silvicultural prescriptions. The results to date do not show consistentpatterns that would allow this to be achieved. This, combined with <strong>the</strong> difficultyin assessing <strong>the</strong> relationship between prey abundance and availability,makes <strong>the</strong> feasibility of manipulating prey densities to increase owl use of368