| |
|
| Research and Monitoring Committee |
Regional Ecosystem Office |
333 SW 1st |
| MEMORANDUM |
|
| DATE: | April 24, 1997 |
| TO: | Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) John D. Buffington, Western Regional Chief Biologist, USGS Biological Resources Division Ken Feigner, Director, Forest & Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency Thomas Mills, Station Director, Pacific Northwest Station, Forest Service Thomas Murphy, Director, Environmental Research Lab, Environmental Protection Agency Stan M. Speaks, Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs Michael J. Spear, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service William Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service William C. Walters, Deputy Regional Director, National Park Service Robert W. Williams, Regional Forester, R-6, Forest Service Elaine Y. Zielinski, State Director, Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management California Federal Executives Ed Hastey, State Director, California, Bureau of Land Management G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, R-5, Forest Service |
| FROM: | Dan McKenzie, Research and Monitoring Committee |
| SUBJECT: | Great Gray Owl Science Panel Report and Recommendations for FY 1997 Field Season and for Resolution of Remaining Issues |
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 1995, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee sent a memo to the Pacific Northwest Station (PNW), Pacific Southwest Station (PSW), and USGS Biological Resources Division (USGS) directors requesting their assistance in assessing a Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) survey and protection protocol for the great gray owl (GGO). This effort was to focus on: (1) short-term requirements for establishing a standard protocol for GGO; (2) GGO status; and (3) GGO survey, conservation, and protection requirements. In addition, the letter asked that the Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) coordinate the initial protocol review and development of a plan for addressing the GGO issues. On October 4, 1996, PNW provided the RMC with the report, "Great Gray Owl Survey Status and Evaluation of Guidelines for the Northwest Forest Plan" (GGO Report), the results of the science panel convened to address this task. Recently a management policy task group, with representatives from FS, BLM, FWS, RMC, and a member of the Great Gray Owl (GGO) science panel, met to evaluate recommendations found in the GGO Report and determine which elements to recommend for implementation in the 1997 surveys. This memo transmits the GGO Report, recommends some changes in the GGO survey protocol for the 1997 survey season, discusses the need for further analysis before implementing additional changes in the survey protocol, and proposes an effort to develop a longer term strategy to address remaining GGO issues.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Recommendations for the 1997 Survey Season
The GGO report suggests improvements to the current survey protocol and procedures in the GGO Panel's Alternative and Appendix C (page 36-40). We recommend that the following six changes be incorporated in the current GGO survey protocol and procedures to be implemented for the 1997 field season because they should improve the efficiency of the protocol:
| 1. | Time of day to survey: Survey work should be conducted starting just before dark as the optimal time, with the realization that safety and logistical aspects of conducting work at this time need to be considered. |
| 2. | The start of the survey season could begin at snowmelt in the GGO foraging area. We recognize that the flexibility indicated in the above recommendation may not allow four visits to be completed by the end of the normal nesting period. There should be a good faith effort to get all the visitations completed, even if they go past the normal visitation time period. |
| 3. | Follow-up surveys. The minimum time should be changed from four hours to two hours, but don't limit the survey time, that is, do surveys until surveyor is satisfied. |
| 4. | Listening duration should be a minimum of 5 minutes. |
| 5. | Time of Day: In general, daylight surveys should be combined with nighttime visits to effectively detect the GGO. Daylight surveys only are not advisable. |
| 6. | Because the criteria for assigning field units to a particular survey strategy are not clear and the process for conducting "habitat occupancy surveys" has not been developed, we recommend that two categories of surveys should be used for the 1997 field season instead of the three categories in Table 2 of GGO Report, (pages 20-22). |
There remains some confusion about how field units were assigned to a particular survey strategy in Table 2. We feel that clear criteria needs to be established defining why some areas no longer require survey work, followed by phone verification with the field units (Forests and BLM Districts). Table 2 should be revised after the FY 1997 field season, based on the follow-up information from field units.
For FY 1997 field season use, we therefore recommend using two categories of surveys: pre-harvest surveys (required), and habitat-occupancy surveys (recommended), as opposed to the three categories proposed in the GGO report. The GGO report suggested: (a) pre-harvest protocol survey, (b) habitat-occupancy surveys, and (c) areas where no survey required. For FY 1997 protocol use, we recommend that the field units specified for pre-harvest protocol survey and habitat-occupancy surveys, in the GGO report, continue to require pre-harvest protocol surveys until clear criteria are defined and the above-mentioned field verification is completed. The field units designated in Table 2 as requiring no survey would be changed to habitat-occupancy surveys Recommended. Field units choosing to conduct habitat-occupancy surveys should rely on professional judgment in selecting areas and methods to conduct these surveys for the 1997 field season. The revised Table 2 is enclosed to this letter.
II. Recommendations for Further Analysis
The following items are recommended for further study and actions by the management and research agencies prior to implementation of additional changes to the survey protocol. The agencies should convene a group of field biologists and managers, former GGO panel scientists, and REO/RMC representatives to begin addressing these unresolved issues.
| 1. | In addition to the principal goal and purpose of surveying for GGO, additional information is necessary to: (a) assess the status of GGO and it's habitat in the NFP area; and (b) if necessary, describe any adjustments in the NFP to address GGO. |
| 2. | The GGO Science Panel report provides a variety of suggestions for changes to the existing protocol, different survey strategies, and research, but does not present a cohesive strategy for assessing the status of the GGO or its habitat. The suggestions in the GGO report may provide a starting point for addressing issue #1 above, but further work is necessary (see Section III). There needs to be a strong management-science interface so protocols and management recommendations are developed that are consistent with the current state of knowledge for this species. A joint team composed of GGO science panel representatives and several land management agency representatives may be a useful approach to accomplish this. This joint team could also help determine interim work necessary to complete this task. |
There were several other specific items that were not clear in the GGO report, and we feel an expert panel should be formed (with several members of the GGO panel and with field and management participation) in the next 1-8 months to clarify some points in the report and conduct any analysis necessary to support recommendations to implement changes.
| 1. | Revisit designations of Table 2 from report (pages 20-22):
|
||||||
| 2. | Define and write up the Habitat Occupancy Survey Protocol. |
||||||
| 3. | Clarify the need to extend the period of pre-harvest survey from 2 to 3 years and how this task relates to assessing the status of GGO. |
||||||
| 4. | Clarify the GGO Panel intent regarding the call for the ¼-mile no-harvest protection buffer zone (was this intended for nests or for GGO pairs?) (page 18). |
||||||
| 5. | Clarify the intent of the GGO Panel regarding the 4/15 to 7/15 seasonal restriction of disturbance activities around nesting sites. The language in the report talks about restriction of some activities; e.g., aerial spraying, selective logging during the nesting season, but also talks about reconfiguring the buffer zone if the nesting site changes. This reconfiguration principle requires further discussion and a firm declaration of rationale by the panel members. |
||||||
| 6. | Clarify with the GGO panel the reason for the 10-year waiting period for no harvest activities in the buffer zone around meadows and natural openings. Trees will encroach into meadows and openings under normal meadow succession which may result in reduction of foraging habitat for GGO. The waiting period time or types of activities allowed in the buffer zone around meadows may need to be reexamined. |
||||||
| 7. | More clarification and better definition is needed to describe what is meant by light versus heavy thinning treatments in the buffer zone around meadows. Does light treatment mean pre-commercial thinning but heavy thinning mean commercial thinning, selective logging? - more detail is needed here to understand the intent. |
||||||
| 8. | Further address the need to change the minimum elevation for surveys to 1700 feet (from 3,000 feet minimum) for pre-harvest surveys. |
III. Recommendations for Longer Term Resolution of the Status of the GGO
There is a need to assess the status of the great gray owl within the framework of the Northwest Forest Plan and the need for continued additional protection as a buffer species. The GGO report does not re-assess whether GGO habitat is adequately provided by NFP S&Gs, either with or without the specific GGO S&Gs (ROD, page C-21). Additionally, the GGO report does not provide a recommendation for how management and research agencies might evaluate the GGO status and protection requirements in the future. Development of this information is key to the adaptive management principles of the NFP and decisions regarding the GGO. The GGO report does suggest a number of possible changes to the existing protocol and a variety of approaches to addressing the GGO issues, but falls short of providing a clear course of action which would lead to a future assessment and resolution. During the coming months a small group should be assembled to complete the work begun in the GGO Report by developing a cohesive proposal to: (1) gather information necessary to update the status of the GGO; (2) describe any additional tasks, costs, and resources necessary to implement the proposal; and (3) address the need for continuing or changing the GGO survey protocol and management measures to provide the necessary information. Potentially this group should include a scientist(s) from the GGO Science Panel, Forest biologists, field biologists, and management representatives.
SUMMARY
We recommend that the initial six items be incorporated into the current GGO survey protocol and the field be directed to utilize these modifications for the 1997 field season. We further recommend that actions begin shortly to address the items requiring further study, so any action items to be addressed by the management agencies and the GGO Expert Panel can be completed and incorporated for implementation by the 1998 field season. Finally, we strongly recommend that a plan be developed that will provide for future assessments of GGO status and evaluation of the NFP survey and protection requirements. These three recommendations lead to a framework for management decisions as envisioned within the NFP adaptive management processes.
cc:
RIEC, REO Reps, RMC, Survey and Manage Core Team
922/ly
