Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT 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.
The process of mapping DCAs was organized by Recovery Team members andinvolved biologists from the state wildlife management agencies; biologists andtimber managers from each of the affected national forests; and biologists andtimber managers from each of the affected BLM districts. Maps used in thisprocess included most or all of the following for each national forest and BLMdistrict:* Spotted owl location maps,* Spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat maps,* Maps of lands suitable for timber harvest,* National forest land management plan allocation maps,* BLM timber production capability maps,* Sensitive soils maps,* ISC habitat conservation area maps,* Maps of other old forest-associated species and streams with fish at risk(see Appendix D),* Base maps at a scale of 1/2-inch to the mile.Documentation was developed to explain why changes were or were not madeto HCA boundaries in the process of developing the DCAs. This documentationincluded additions and deletions of acres of suitable nesting, roosting, andforaging habitat; acres of land suitable for timber production: known spottedowl sites: sites of other old forest-associated species; and acres of various landallocations.Evaluation of the OptionsThe options described earlier were evaluated by the Recovery Team to assesstheir relative biological efficiency. Economic efficiency also was assessed forthe DCA and HCA networks as described in Appendix H. Evaluations onlyassess effects that can be judged from federal lands. A detailed evaluation ofnonfederal lands was not done because there was no overall mapping done forrecovery options on nonfederal lands.Biological efficiency of the options was evaluated based on their success inmeeting the mapping criteria specified earlier and the biological principlesdiscussed in section III.B. Specific criteria for judging the options were:1. The number of designated areas that currently contain at least 20 knownpairs of owls, and thus have high likelihood of persisting for at least 100years.2. The number of designated areas that contain sufficient potential habitatto be able to support 20 pairs of owls in the future.3. The total number of acres of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitatincluded in designated areas.4. The total number of known pairs of owls included in designated areas.5. Nearest-neighbor distances of the designated areas. Complete informationon nearest-neighbor distances is not available at this time so is notincluded.6. The number of sites for other old forest-associated species and miles ofstreams included in designated areas.Information from the geographic information system (GIS) data base was used589
- Page 554 and 555: practices may be able to show how s
- Page 556 and 557: Economic patterns show the efficien
- Page 558 and 559: The sustainable yield concept that
- Page 560 and 561: A. Previously Estimated Economic Co
- Page 562 and 563: County receipts were estimated to d
- Page 564 and 565: B. Potential Social Costs of Owl Co
- Page 566 and 567: The contrast between the behavior d
- Page 568 and 569: 0U1 n1nDTable H.2. Economic depende
- Page 570 and 571: cḻlTable H.4. Economic characteri
- Page 572 and 573: An analysis completed by the State
- Page 574 and 575: V. Preliminary Evaluation of the Ec
- Page 576 and 577: 25-° 20/0M 15-a)CLU)0 10-0CL 5 -0)
- Page 578 and 579: 25 -- 20-0co/o 15--Da)a0a)10m~ C) 5
- Page 580 and 581: forestlands. The costs of productio
- Page 582 and 583: In Figure H.8, the equilibrium betw
- Page 584 and 585: foregone and the way they will save
- Page 586 and 587: The income created by the purchase
- Page 588 and 589: Two concepts are useful for underst
- Page 590 and 591: y an estimate of the price that wou
- Page 592 and 593: Table H.10. Comparison of timber em
- Page 594 and 595: of the second year. The same assump
- Page 596 and 597: are generally much lower than for c
- Page 598 and 599: 582
- Page 600 and 601: studies at University of Washington
- Page 602 and 603: 586
- Page 606 and 607: to evaluate options. Information in
- Page 608 and 609: Q0Table 1.1. Estimated acres and ow
- Page 610 and 611: soTable 1.3. Estimated acres and ow
- Page 612 and 613: 01CDarTable 1.5. Size class distrib
- Page 614 and 615: Table 1.8. Frequency distribution o
- Page 616 and 617: Literature CitedThomas, J.W., E.D.
- Page 618 and 619: 602
- Page 620 and 621: - The overlap of home ranges among
- Page 622 and 623: Table J.2. Acreage and owl numbers
- Page 624 and 625: continuedDCA Land AcreageIdent. Sta
- Page 626 and 627: Table J.4. Acreage and owl numbers
- Page 628 and 629: Table J.5. Acreage and owl numbers
- Page 630 and 631: Table J.6. Acreage and owl numbers
- Page 632 and 633: Table J.7. Acreage and owl numbers
- Page 634 and 635: Table J.9. Acrea ?e and owl numbers
- Page 636 and 637: Table J.10. Acreage and owl numbers
- Page 638 and 639: continued-DCA LandIdent. StatusAcre
- Page 640 and 641: -DCAIdent.LandStatusAcreageNRF Tota
- Page 642 and 643: 626
- Page 644 and 645: Experience Includes: Assistant Dire
- Page 646 and 647: Education: B.S. in forestry from Or
- Page 648 and 649: Team SupportCharles Bruce, Oregon D
- Page 650 and 651: continued-1 5-24-91 Other SpeciesSu
- Page 652 and 653: continued-9-16 thru9-20-919-19-91Sp
The process of mapping DCAs was organized by <strong>Recovery</strong> Team members andinvolved biologists from <strong>the</strong> state wildlife management agencies; biologists andtimber managers from each of <strong>the</strong> affected national <strong>for</strong>ests; and biologists andtimber managers from each of <strong>the</strong> affected BLM districts. Maps used in thisprocess included most or all of <strong>the</strong> following <strong>for</strong> each national <strong>for</strong>est and BLMdistrict:* <strong>Spotted</strong> owl location maps,* <strong>Spotted</strong> owl nesting, roosting, and <strong>for</strong>aging habitat maps,* Maps of lands suitable <strong>for</strong> timber harvest,* National <strong>for</strong>est land management plan allocation maps,* BLM timber production capability maps,* Sensitive soils maps,* ISC habitat conservation area maps,* Maps of o<strong>the</strong>r old <strong>for</strong>est-associated species and streams with fish at risk(see Appendix D),* Base maps at a scale of 1/2-inch to <strong>the</strong> mile.Documentation was developed to explain why changes were or were not madeto HCA boundaries in <strong>the</strong> process of developing <strong>the</strong> DCAs. This documentationincluded additions and deletions of acres of suitable nesting, roosting, and<strong>for</strong>aging habitat; acres of land suitable <strong>for</strong> timber production: known spottedowl sites: sites of o<strong>the</strong>r old <strong>for</strong>est-associated species; and acres of various landallocations.Evaluation of <strong>the</strong> OptionsThe options described earlier were evaluated by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Recovery</strong> Team to assess<strong>the</strong>ir relative biological efficiency. Economic efficiency also was assessed <strong>for</strong><strong>the</strong> DCA and HCA networks as described in Appendix H. Evaluations onlyassess effects that can be judged from federal lands. A detailed evaluation ofnonfederal lands was not done because <strong>the</strong>re was no overall mapping done <strong>for</strong>recovery options on nonfederal lands.Biological efficiency of <strong>the</strong> options was evaluated based on <strong>the</strong>ir success inmeeting <strong>the</strong> mapping criteria specified earlier and <strong>the</strong> biological principlesdiscussed in section III.B. Specific criteria <strong>for</strong> judging <strong>the</strong> options were:1. The number of designated areas that currently contain at least 20 knownpairs of owls, and thus have high likelihood of persisting <strong>for</strong> at least 100years.2. The number of designated areas that contain sufficient potential habitatto be able to support 20 pairs of owls in <strong>the</strong> future.3. The total number of acres of nesting, roosting, and <strong>for</strong>aging habitatincluded in designated areas.4. The total number of known pairs of owls included in designated areas.5. Nearest-neighbor distances of <strong>the</strong> designated areas. Complete in<strong>for</strong>mationon nearest-neighbor distances is not available at this time so is notincluded.6. The number of sites <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r old <strong>for</strong>est-associated species and miles ofstreams included in designated areas.In<strong>for</strong>mation from <strong>the</strong> geographic in<strong>for</strong>mation system (GIS) data base was used589
Change language