Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT
to evaluate options. Information in this base included acres of nesting, roostingand foraging habitat data for most federal lands (see Appendix J); knownlocations for owl pairs verified during the period 1986 through 1990: landssuitable for timber production for all national forests and BLM districts; landsthat have been reserved from timber harvest by Congressional authority; landownership data; and locations of other old forest-associated species (seeAppendix D).The evaluations are presented in Tables 1.1 to 1. 11. Tables 1.1 through 1.4present summary information for each strategy. This includes: 1) total federalacres included in the strategy; 2) the number of those acres that are reservedfrom timber harvest by Congressional action; 3) the number of acres, otherwisesuitable for timber production, that are included in conservation areas; 4) thenumber of acres of spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat; 5)the percent of the conservation areas composed of NRF habitat; and 6) thenumber of spotted owl pair locations confirmed inside the boundaries of theareas between 1986 and 1990. These data are divided by state and individualfederal agency.Tables 1.5 through 1.7 present information on the size of conservation areasincluded in each of the options. Numbers shown are the numbers of areasthat fall into each of a series of size class categories. Again, only federal landsare tallied in these tables. Tables 1.8 through 1.10 show a frequency distributionof conservation areas for each strategy based on the number of spotted owlpair locations. Table I. 11 shows the number of sites of other old forest-associatedspecies included in conservation areas for each of the strategies.Tables 1. 1 through 1.4 show that DCAs contain approximately 275,000 moreacres of NRF habitat than do the HCAs. Approximately 120 more owl pairshave been located in the DCAs than in the HCAs. Approximately 80,000 moreacres suitable for timber production are contained in DCAs than in HCAs. Themost significant late successional/old-growth (LSOG) areas contain about 100and 200 fewer known pair locations than do the HCAs and DCAs respectively.However, this figure is somewhat misleading since reserved lands were notmapped into these units. If known pair locations in reserved lands were addedto the tally for the LSOG units, the total would be very close to that observedfor the HCAs. However, under the LSOG strategy, fewer of these owls would becontained in large, contiguous conservation areas. NRF habitat acres in theLSOGs are fewer than in the HCA or DCA mapping. Again, this figure ismisleading because reserves were not mapped into the LSOGs. The addition ofNRF habitat acres from reserves would increase the tally for LSOGs, but few ofthese acres would be present within large, contiguous conservation areas. Themost significant late successional/old-growth with owl additions (LSOG + owladditions) contains more pair locations, more NRF habitat, and more acressuitable for timber production than the other three options. Thus, it is moreeffective for owls but is also a more costly option.The data in Tables 1.5 through 1.7 can be used to determine the approximatenumber of areas that might have the capability to support at least 20 pairs ofowls if habitat recovered in these areas. Data from tables in Appendix Jsuggest that areas of approximately 40,000 to 50,000 acres in Oregon andCalifornia may develop the capability to support 20 pairs of owls. Areas of70,000 to 80,000 acres in Washington may develop this capability. Based onthese criteria, approximately 60 conservation areas would be capable of supportingat least 20 pairs of owls on federal lands in the future under both theHCA and DCA strategies. Approximately 50 such areas would be provided inthe LSOG + owl additions strategy, and 40 areas in the LSOG strategy.590
Tables 1.8 through I. 10 clearly demonstrate the difficulty of finding areas thatcurrently support at least 20 pairs of owls on federal lands. This reflects thefragmented condition of owl populations and owl habitat in the landscape.Based on current owl locations in the GIS, 1 1 such areas are included in theDCA network; 9 in the HCA network; 18 in the LSOG + owl addition strategy;and 11 in the LSOG strategy. Again, it should be noted that these numbersare based solely on GIS analysis and do not include updates that were made totables in Appendix J or tables presented in Thomas et al. (1990). Numberswere used straight from the GIS to provide the most valid basis for comparisonacross options.Table I. 11 presents information on other species locations within each of theconservation area networks. The numbers of locations (nest sites, areas ofobservation) for bald eagles, marten, and fisher did not vary much among thedifferent options. The number of goshawk nest sites varied from 82 to 122,and the largest number of these sites was in the DCAs of the recovery plan.The number of occupied murrelet sites varied from 155 to 227, and the largestnumber of these sites was in the DCAs of the recovery plan. The lowestnumber of occupied sites for murrelets was in the HCAs. Most of the additionalbenefits to murrelets occur on the Oregon coast where 60 murrelet siteswere in one DCA. The number of miles of streams with fish stocks at riskvaried from 1,189 for the late successional old-growth option to 2,118 for theHCAs. The DCAs of the recovery plan included 2,047 miles of stream with fishstocks at risk. Most of the stream reaches included in the options were in theupper parts of the drainages, and many of these streams will likely requireadditional attention in the future.591
- 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 604 and 605: Most significant late successionall
- 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
- Page 654 and 655: Perry, D. 1991. The ecology of coar
to evaluate options. In<strong>for</strong>mation in this base included acres of nesting, roostingand <strong>for</strong>aging habitat data <strong>for</strong> most federal lands (see Appendix J); knownlocations <strong>for</strong> owl pairs verified during <strong>the</strong> period 1986 through 1990: landssuitable <strong>for</strong> timber production <strong>for</strong> all national <strong>for</strong>ests and BLM districts; landsthat have been reserved from timber harvest by Congressional authority; landownership data; and locations of o<strong>the</strong>r old <strong>for</strong>est-associated species (seeAppendix D).The evaluations are presented in Tables 1.1 to 1. 11. Tables 1.1 through 1.4present summary in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> each strategy. This includes: 1) total federalacres included in <strong>the</strong> strategy; 2) <strong>the</strong> number of those acres that are reservedfrom timber harvest by Congressional action; 3) <strong>the</strong> number of acres, o<strong>the</strong>rwisesuitable <strong>for</strong> timber production, that are included in conservation areas; 4) <strong>the</strong>number of acres of spotted owl nesting, roosting, and <strong>for</strong>aging (NRF) habitat; 5)<strong>the</strong> percent of <strong>the</strong> conservation areas composed of NRF habitat; and 6) <strong>the</strong>number of spotted owl pair locations confirmed inside <strong>the</strong> boundaries of <strong>the</strong>areas between 1986 and 1990. These data are divided by state and individualfederal agency.Tables 1.5 through 1.7 present in<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong> size of conservation areasincluded in each of <strong>the</strong> options. Numbers shown are <strong>the</strong> numbers of areasthat fall into each of a series of size class categories. Again, only federal landsare tallied in <strong>the</strong>se tables. Tables 1.8 through 1.10 show a frequency distributionof conservation areas <strong>for</strong> each strategy based on <strong>the</strong> number of spotted owlpair locations. Table I. 11 shows <strong>the</strong> number of sites of o<strong>the</strong>r old <strong>for</strong>est-associatedspecies included in conservation areas <strong>for</strong> each of <strong>the</strong> strategies.Tables 1. 1 through 1.4 show that DCAs contain approximately 275,000 moreacres of NRF habitat than do <strong>the</strong> HCAs. Approximately 120 more owl pairshave been located in <strong>the</strong> DCAs than in <strong>the</strong> HCAs. Approximately 80,000 moreacres suitable <strong>for</strong> timber production are contained in DCAs than in HCAs. Themost significant late successional/old-growth (LSOG) areas contain about 100and 200 fewer known pair locations than do <strong>the</strong> HCAs and DCAs respectively.However, this figure is somewhat misleading since reserved lands were notmapped into <strong>the</strong>se units. If known pair locations in reserved lands were addedto <strong>the</strong> tally <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> LSOG units, <strong>the</strong> total would be very close to that observed<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> HCAs. However, under <strong>the</strong> LSOG strategy, fewer of <strong>the</strong>se owls would becontained in large, contiguous conservation areas. NRF habitat acres in <strong>the</strong>LSOGs are fewer than in <strong>the</strong> HCA or DCA mapping. Again, this figure ismisleading because reserves were not mapped into <strong>the</strong> LSOGs. The addition ofNRF habitat acres from reserves would increase <strong>the</strong> tally <strong>for</strong> LSOGs, but few of<strong>the</strong>se acres would be present within large, contiguous conservation areas. Themost significant late successional/old-growth with owl additions (LSOG + owladditions) contains more pair locations, more NRF habitat, and more acressuitable <strong>for</strong> timber production than <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r three options. Thus, it is moreeffective <strong>for</strong> owls but is also a more costly option.The data in Tables 1.5 through 1.7 can be used to determine <strong>the</strong> approximatenumber of areas that might have <strong>the</strong> capability to support at least 20 pairs ofowls if habitat recovered in <strong>the</strong>se areas. Data from tables in Appendix Jsuggest that areas of approximately 40,000 to 50,000 acres in Oregon andCali<strong>for</strong>nia may develop <strong>the</strong> capability to support 20 pairs of owls. Areas of70,000 to 80,000 acres in Washington may develop this capability. Based on<strong>the</strong>se criteria, approximately 60 conservation areas would be capable of supportingat least 20 pairs of owls on federal lands in <strong>the</strong> future under both <strong>the</strong>HCA and DCA strategies. Approximately 50 such areas would be provided in<strong>the</strong> LSOG + owl additions strategy, and 40 areas in <strong>the</strong> LSOG strategy.590