Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT

Most significant late successionallold-grwthforestsThe Scientific Panel on Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems (Johnson et al.1991) proposed a series of alternatives for managing late successional forestsin the Pacific Northwest. One of these (identified as alternative 5) wouldprotect the most ecologically significant blocks of old-growth forest remainingon federal lands. In developing this option, the panel simply mapped theexisting units of old forests with no attempt to provide a specific distribution ofthose blocks.Most signrficant late successional/old-growth forests withowl additionsOnce the most significant old-growth acres had been mapped, the panelworked with members of the ISC to make additions that then would meet theguidelines used in the HCA network. The resulting network contained all ofthe most significant old-growth areas with additional acres of spotted owlnesting, roosting, and foraging habitat that met the sizing and spacing criteriaused in the ISC report.Recovery team map (designated conservation areas)The Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Team delineated a system of designatedconservation areas (DCAs) that were modifications of the habitat conservationareas (HCAs). The overall objective of remapping was to provide a level ofprotection in DCAs at least as high as that provided by ISC mapping whileincreasing the biological and economic efficiency of the network and effectivelyproviding for other species. Attempts were made to strengthen the DCAnetwork in areas where deficiencies were identified in the HCA network. Thefundamental sizing and spacing criteria from the ISC report were appliedduring mapping of the DCAs. Additional criteria used during this effort follow.1. Areas were mapped to include as much superior habitat and as many owllocations as possible to achieve a highly effective and efficient network.Where more effective (i.e., more owl locations or better habitat) acres wereadded to DCAs, opportunities were sought to drop less effective areas sototal area did not increase.2. DCA boundaries were adjusted to accommodate other species' sites wherethis adjustment could be made without significantly increasing theeconomic impact of the DCA or significantly decreasing its effectiveness inowl conservation.3. Areas were mapped to include as high a proportion of reserved land andother land unsuited for timber production as possible where consistentwith mapping criteria from the ISC report.4. Where possible, DCA boundaries were modified to place acres capable offull timber yield back into the timber base and replace them in the DCAwith acres from which only partial yields were expected because of forestplan allocations.5. In areas where the existing network was deficient, attempts were made toprovide for new owl clusters and populations with the least possibleeconomic impact.5886. Where possible, boundaries were refined to avoid conflict with othereconomic development proposals.