Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
In considering the needs of other species in the recovery plan for the owl, theRecovery Team took advantage of opportunities to benefit other species andecosystem function without increasing the cost of the plan. This was done byaltering the size, shape, and location of DCAs to attain maximum benefit forowls and incorporate other species to the extent possible. Information on otherspecies was used in several ways in the development of the recovery plan.First, in development of the overall strategy for the plan, the team evaluatedthe overlap between possible owl conservation areas and the geographic rangesof the list of priority species. Second, in developing recommendations forspecific management practices in DCAs and the forest matrix surroundingDCAs, the Recovery Team attempted to look beyond the habitat needs ofspotted owls. The Recovery Team used the characteristics of older forests,wherever possible, in developing guidelines for management recommendations.This insured that other species would benefit and not be inadvertently harmed.As a result of these activities, the Recovery Team was able to locate DCAs sothat they include approximately 500 locations (nest or occupied sites) of otherspecies, namely 228 occupied murrelet sites, 120 goshawk nest sites, 56marten locations, 37 fisher locations, and 37 bald eagle nest sites. The greatestbenefits to other species were achieved for marbled murrelets in the OregonCoast Range where 151 occupied sites were included in DCAs. The DCAs alsoinclude 2,047 miles of streams with fish stocks that are considered at risk.The greatest benefits to fish stocks were achieved in the Klamath province andthe Oregon Coast Range where 696 and 314 miles of stream, respectively, wereincluded in DCAs. Inclusion of streams and of other species sites in DCAs,along with the conservation of older forests for owl habitat, will provide significantbenefits to other species within the range of the spotted owl. However, themarbled murrelet and the numerous fish stocks will likely require furtherconservation efforts in the future by another group, as is the case for most ofthe other priority species. The conservation needs of arthropods and molluscsare particularly elusive at the present time, because we do not know enoughabout the geographic distributions or the habitat associations of many of theseorganisms. In addition, there are many species yet to be described and namedwithin these two groups.Management guidelines for DCAs were designed to maintain suitable habitatfor spotted owls and to develop suitable habitat in stands that are currentlyunsuitable (see section III.C.2. on silviculture, salvage, and catastrophic risk).These guidelines are written to conserve owl habitat and the characteristics ofolder forests. As a result, the forests within DCAs will provide habitat for awide array of other species. For example, the guidelines for salvage of treesafter catastrophic events (primarily wind and fire) are designed to providecoarse woody debris (snags and down logs) over a 100-year period. Thismanagement will contribute to the habitat requirements of a number of cavitydwellers including cavity-nesting birds and flying squirrels which make extensiveuse of snags. The recommendations will also promote suitable habitatconditions for marten, salamanders, numerous arthropods, fungi, and smallmammals by providing coarse woody debris on the forest floor. The retentionof coarse woody debris in riparian areas will provide habitat for fish and otheraquatic organisms. In addition, the forest matrix on federal lands will bemanaged to protect residual habitat areas, reserved pair areas, and managedpairareas for owls where the DCA network is deficient or there is a risk ofcatastrophic disturbance. These guidelines will provide habitat for manyspecies that are associated with older forests. Habitat around managed-pairareas will provide habitat for other species if management strategies includelong rotations and uneven-aged management with the goal of providing largetrees, snags, and coarse woody debris.398
Literature CitedLastly, the Other Species and Ecosystems Committee recommends furthersurveys, inventory, and research on other species so that their habitat needscan be identified more accurately in the future (see Chapter V). We provided alist of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fishes that were suggested for furtherreview of the status of their populations, and provided a partial list of researchtopics. Research on arthropods and molluscs is one of the highest priorities.There is a need to understand the responses of all organisms to varioussilvicultural practices other than clear-cut timber harvests. Information on theecological requirements of these species will be needed to develop managementstrategies to sustain populations of all organisms that are well dispersedthroughout their range.Alexander, L., and B. J. Verts. In press. Clethrionomys califomicus. Mammal.Species.Allen, A. W. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: fisher. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService FWS/OBS-82/10.45. l9pp.Almack, J. A. 1985. An evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in the Selkirk Mountainsof north Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 87pp.Anderson, J. D. 1969. Catalogue of American amphibians and reptiles.Dicamptodon and D. ensatus. 76.1-76.2.Anthony, R. G., and F. B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites inOregon. Journal of Wildlife Manage. 53:148-159.Anthony, R. G., R. L. Knight, G. T. Allen, B. R. McClelland, and J. I. Hodges. 1982.Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest.Trans. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:332-342.Arthur, S. M. 1987. Ecology of fishers in south-central Maine. Ph.D. Thesis,University Maine, Orono. Il2pp.Arthur, S. M., W. B. Krohn, and J. R. Gilbert. 1989. Habitat use and diet offishers. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:680-688.Aubry, K. B., M. J. Crites, and S. D. West. 1991. Regional patterns of smallmammal abundance and community composition in Oregon and Washington.Pages 285-294 in Ruggiero et al., eds. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanagedDouglas-fir forests. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,Portland, Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-285. 533p.Aubry, K. B., C. M. Senger, and R. L. Crawford. 1987. Discovery of Larch Mountainsalamanders Plethodon klrseUl in the Central Cascade Range of Washington.Biology Conservation 42:147-152.Austin, K. 1989. Habitat use of nesting goshawk in northern California. M.S.Thesis research proposal, Department Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State University,Corvallis. 23pp.Baker, R. J., and C. M. Shonewald-Cox. 1986. Management strategies for improvingpopulation viability. Pages 73-87 in B.A. Wilcox, P.F. Brussard, and B.G.Marcot, eds. The Management of Viable Populations: Theory, Applications andCase Studies. Center for Conservation Biology. Stanford University, Palo Alto,California399
- 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
- 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 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.
- Page 434 and 435: I. Monitoring.1. Northern spotted o
- Page 436 and 437: 420
- Page 438 and 439: here will reduce some of that habit
- Page 440 and 441: 424
- Page 442 and 443: 426
- Page 444 and 445: Selection of Forest TypesAt the tim
- Page 446 and 447: eceive as little as 25 inches. Disc
- Page 448 and 449: A. FireThe combination and interact
- Page 450 and 451: Table F.4. Important forest insects
- Page 452 and 453: continued-Common Name Causal Agent
- Page 454 and 455: D. DiseasesForest diseases in the P
- Page 456 and 457: continued-Common Name Causal Agent
- Page 458 and 459: continued-Common Name Causal Agent
- Page 460 and 461: III. Forest Protection in theWest C
- Page 462 and 463: 120 100200 500I~~~~.K446Figure F.4.
In considering <strong>the</strong> needs of o<strong>the</strong>r species in <strong>the</strong> recovery plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> owl, <strong>the</strong><strong>Recovery</strong> Team took advantage of opportunities to benefit o<strong>the</strong>r species andecosystem function without increasing <strong>the</strong> cost of <strong>the</strong> plan. This was done byaltering <strong>the</strong> size, shape, and location of DCAs to attain maximum benefit <strong>for</strong>owls and incorporate o<strong>the</strong>r species to <strong>the</strong> extent possible. In<strong>for</strong>mation on o<strong>the</strong>rspecies was used in several ways in <strong>the</strong> development of <strong>the</strong> recovery plan.First, in development of <strong>the</strong> overall strategy <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> plan, <strong>the</strong> team evaluated<strong>the</strong> overlap between possible owl conservation areas and <strong>the</strong> geographic rangesof <strong>the</strong> list of priority species. Second, in developing recommendations <strong>for</strong>specific management practices in DCAs and <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>est matrix surroundingDCAs, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Recovery</strong> Team attempted to look beyond <strong>the</strong> habitat needs ofspotted owls. The <strong>Recovery</strong> Team used <strong>the</strong> characteristics of older <strong>for</strong>ests,wherever possible, in developing guidelines <strong>for</strong> management recommendations.This insured that o<strong>the</strong>r species would benefit and not be inadvertently harmed.As a result of <strong>the</strong>se activities, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Recovery</strong> Team was able to locate DCAs sothat <strong>the</strong>y include approximately 500 locations (nest or occupied sites) of o<strong>the</strong>rspecies, namely 228 occupied murrelet sites, 120 goshawk nest sites, 56marten locations, 37 fisher locations, and 37 bald eagle nest sites. The greatestbenefits to o<strong>the</strong>r species were achieved <strong>for</strong> marbled murrelets in <strong>the</strong> OregonCoast Range where 151 occupied sites were included in DCAs. The DCAs alsoinclude 2,047 miles of streams with fish stocks that are considered at risk.The greatest benefits to fish stocks were achieved in <strong>the</strong> Klamath province and<strong>the</strong> Oregon Coast Range where 696 and 314 miles of stream, respectively, wereincluded in DCAs. Inclusion of streams and of o<strong>the</strong>r species sites in DCAs,along with <strong>the</strong> conservation of older <strong>for</strong>ests <strong>for</strong> owl habitat, will provide significantbenefits to o<strong>the</strong>r species within <strong>the</strong> range of <strong>the</strong> spotted owl. However, <strong>the</strong>marbled murrelet and <strong>the</strong> numerous fish stocks will likely require fur<strong>the</strong>rconservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts in <strong>the</strong> future by ano<strong>the</strong>r group, as is <strong>the</strong> case <strong>for</strong> most of<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r priority species. The conservation needs of arthropods and molluscsare particularly elusive at <strong>the</strong> present time, because we do not know enoughabout <strong>the</strong> geographic distributions or <strong>the</strong> habitat associations of many of <strong>the</strong>seorganisms. In addition, <strong>the</strong>re are many species yet to be described and namedwithin <strong>the</strong>se two groups.Management guidelines <strong>for</strong> DCAs were designed to maintain suitable habitat<strong>for</strong> spotted owls and to develop suitable habitat in stands that are currentlyunsuitable (see section III.C.2. on silviculture, salvage, and catastrophic risk).These guidelines are written to conserve owl habitat and <strong>the</strong> characteristics ofolder <strong>for</strong>ests. As a result, <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>ests within DCAs will provide habitat <strong>for</strong> awide array of o<strong>the</strong>r species. For example, <strong>the</strong> guidelines <strong>for</strong> salvage of treesafter catastrophic events (primarily wind and fire) are designed to providecoarse woody debris (snags and down logs) over a 100-year period. Thismanagement will contribute to <strong>the</strong> habitat requirements of a number of cavitydwellers including cavity-nesting birds and flying squirrels which make extensiveuse of snags. The recommendations will also promote suitable habitatconditions <strong>for</strong> marten, salamanders, numerous arthropods, fungi, and smallmammals by providing coarse woody debris on <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>est floor. The retentionof coarse woody debris in riparian areas will provide habitat <strong>for</strong> fish and o<strong>the</strong>raquatic organisms. In addition, <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>est matrix on federal lands will bemanaged to protect residual habitat areas, reserved pair areas, and managedpairareas <strong>for</strong> owls where <strong>the</strong> DCA network is deficient or <strong>the</strong>re is a risk ofcatastrophic disturbance. These guidelines will provide habitat <strong>for</strong> manyspecies that are associated with older <strong>for</strong>ests. Habitat around managed-pairareas will provide habitat <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r species if management strategies includelong rotations and uneven-aged management with <strong>the</strong> goal of providing largetrees, snags, and coarse woody debris.398