Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - DRAFT

- Since landowners already face cutting restrictions within the takecircles, they may hesitate to contribute what they perceive to beadditional habitat toward conservation of the population.- Compliance with surveys and circles is costly and limits landowners'ability to plan timber harvest schedules.- Landowners are skeptical that a negotiated agreement to allow takeunder specified conditions will be as advantageous as simply complyingwith current take guidelines. Landowners also may perceive thatthe basis for a negotiated agreement is their current owl protectioncontribution, which they may perceive as excessive.- Many landowners disagree with the FWS's interpretation of when takeis likely to occur. The recent administrative recision of the take guidelinesfor strictly procedural reasons has further led to the perceptionthat the definition of take is unclear and uncertain. This hamperspredictability of owl protection and land management.- Mechanisms under the Endangered Species Act for authorizing takediffer for federal and nonfederal parties. Nonfederal landowners face amore arduous and lengthy process, which includes formal publicreview, for receiving take authorizations than do federal landowners.Even when spotted owl circles are centered on federal land and thefederal agency is given an incidental take permit for that owl,nonfederal landowners within that circle cannot receive permission toharvest until the landowners write protective management plans(under section 10 of the act) or until the FWS writes "special rules"allowing take under section 4(d).The success of the prohibition against take in contributing to recovery isvariable, and is dependent upon the province and existing conditions withinowl home ranges. It is also dependent upon the application of the take prohibitionguidelines by state regulators and the F'WS. Each state has a differentability and capacity to apply the take guidelines based on differences in theirregulatory frameworks.Habitat Conservation Plans. The Endangered Species Act generally prohibitsthe "taking" of listed species. Take is defined in part as harm, harassment, orkilling individuals of the species. Destruction of the species' habitat whichultimately results in harm or harassment to the species may also constitute ataking under the act. Prior to 1982, the only activities that could be exemptedfrom the prohibition against take were scientific research, captive breeding,and similar conservation actions. In 1982, the act was amended to permittaking "if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying outof an otherwise lawful activity". In permitting such "incidental take," Congresshoped to reduce conflicts between listed species and private development andto encourage "creative partnerships" between the private sector and local,state, and federal agencies in the interest of endangered species and habitatconservation. An applicant for an incidental take permit must agree to instituteappropriate conservation measures for habitat maintenance, enhancement.and protection, described in a habitat conservation plan (HCP). TheFWS reviews the HCP and, before issuing a permit for the incidental take, mustfind that (1) the taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximumextent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3)the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;(4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recoveryof the species in the wild; and (5) other measures that FWS may require will bemet.78