Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT

scientifically credible biological principles and information. Moreover, in theircomments on other owl conservation proposals, forest preservation advocateshave emphasized the ecological and economic benefits of owl conservation. Onthe other hand, advocates of timber harvesting have expressed concerns aboutthe substantial economic costs of owl conservation and have sought ways ofreducing restrictions on timber harvesting. The Recovery Team needed todevelop an approach that would be responsive to the Secretary's directive whilealso addressing concerns on both sides of the spotted owl controversy.Early in discussions of its task, the Recovery Team developed a conceptualapproach for considering economic effects. The Recovery Team agreed thatconsideration of economic effects would be done in a manner that would notdiminish the primacy of the biological imperative. The Recovery Team woulduse the best available biological information to set recovery objectives and toidentify management actions to achieve recovery for the owl. Because recoveryof the species is the goal of a recovery plan under the Endangered Species Act,the Recovery Team decided not to consider whether, in light of the costs andbenefits of achieving recovery, a less costly goal should be pursued.The Recovery Team recognized, however, that different combinations of managementactions could satisfy the biological imperative to provide for the longtermsurvival and recovery of the owl. Because different management actionshave different costs, it should be possible, at least in principle, to find a combinationof management actions that would satisfy this biological imperative atleast cost. Because of the substantial costs of protecting the owl and theireffects on the well-being of people economically dependent on timber harvestsin the Pacific Northwest, it was appropriate to make a concerted effort toreduce the costs of achieving recovery for the owl.In light of the biological imperative and the desirability of reducing the costs ofrecovery, the Recovery Team sought an approach that would provide a reasonableand appropriate consideration of economic principles and information aswell as the best biological information available. It decided to use biologicalprinciples and information to design management actions that would contributeto achieving recovery while considering economic effects in a manner thatwould focus thinking on ways to achieve recovery at lower costs. This commonsense approach is like the efforts of a family to decide what sorts of productsmeet their needs and then to shop for the least costly source of those products.It is also consistent with generally accepted principles of public policy.The approach used by the Recovery Team also was designed to meet the needsof the biologists on the Recovery Team who were responsible for formulatingthe owl conservation measures in the plan. Decisions regarding owl conservationoptions to be considered and the design criteria for those options werebased on biological considerations. The economic information developed foruse by the biologists and other Recovery Team members was limited to fundamentaleconomic principles and simple indicators of the most importanteconomic effects. This economic information was designed to be understandableto biologists and other Recovery Team members with little or no trainingin economics.532The information summarized in this appendix differs in several ways from acomprehensive, systematic cost-benefit study of options for achieving recovery.First, it was designed primarily to facilitate design of a cost-effective recoveryplan rather than to provide information to be used by decision-makers consideringwhether to implement the resulting plan. Further information collectedduring the period of public review of the draft recovery plan will be used todevelop a more complete assessment of its costs and benefits. This assessmentwill be available for consideration in making final decisions about implementationof the plan.