II. Question 2A--Is the current strategy (surveying for great gray owls and protection of nest sites) appropriate? B. What suggestions do you have to improve the current approach? C. Should the current strategy in the ROD be implemented as is, including any minor adjustments suggested by the panel, or should one of the suggested alternative strategies (described later) be selected and developed further, or should a different strategy bedeveloped? If a different strategy is recommended, describe the strategy and explain the reasoning behind it.

A. Is the current strategy (surveying for great gray owls and protection of nest sites) appropriate?

The purpose of the great gray owl direction in the ROD was to provide habitat to assure the viability of this species on Federal lands while implementing the Standards and Guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan. The expert panel commented that the great gray owl is a highly adaptable species; meaning that it occurs in a wide range of habitats, that individuals continue to inhabit particular areas after dramatic habitat alteration, and owls can potentially benefit from some moderate levels of timber harvesting. The current strategy of surveys directed at nest protection driven by ground-disturbing management activities, however, may not provide for the long-term persistence of the great gray owl within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. During the scientific presentations and expert panel process, the point was made repeatedly that the current approach was only suitable as an interim strategy and that a long-term conservation strategy needs to be developed. The next section will explain the rationale behind this viewpoint.

1. Protection of nest sites

The panel debated whether specific site-protection measures were appropriate for the short- and long-term management of the great gray owl. The panel agreed that protecting known nest-tree sites in the short term, especially where available nesting habitat could be a limiting factor, may enable local populations to persist (while more information is collected on the biology of this species in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan). In the long term, however, a strategy that directs management of this species based primarily on the location of nest sites from a 2-year survey of areas scheduled for timber harvest could have detrimental consequences to maintaining owl populations. They reasoned that focusing the management strategy on particular nest sites for a species with relatively low nest-tree tenacity may not add much to maintaining viable populations, particularly considering the natural disturbance dynamics of these forest systems. (Two panelists believed that great gray owls have high nest-tree tenacity based on their experience; one panelist stated that great gray owls have low nest-tree tenacity, but relatively high nest-area tenacity). Suitable nesting and foraging habitat are most likely shifting spatially for this species as a consequence of vegetation succession. Meanwhile over the last 100 years, management activities, including fire suppression, may be positively (the increase in forest openings from harvesting) or negatively (the loss of natural meadows from tree invasion) affecting the population dynamics of the owl in certain areas of the Northwest Forest Plan.

The panelists did not support a management strategy for the great gray owl that focused primarily on human-created openings (for example, clearcuts). Alternatively, they suggested that the emphasis should be on managing for all types of openings in areas suitable for the owl, with the primary focus of management activities on maintaining historic levels of natural openings.

2. Surveying nest sites

The panelists concluded that the current survey protocol was not effective, nor designed, for general population monitoring purposes. In regards to detecting the great gray owl before initiating ground-disturbing activities, as described in the ROD, most panelists thought that implementing the current survey protocol would potentially miss many birds. They noted that a survey protocol for this species was problematic, and ultimately would have some limitations. For example, in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan, the great gray owl is on the edge of its distribution and exists at relatively low densities. Subpopulations are widely distributed, so at the local level, the birds may not be very territorial (more than 400 meters from an active nest site) and may be difficult to detect by using the survey protocol methods such as simulated calls. Birds that respond to calls may be dispersing, not breeding. Because of the cyclical trends in the prey base of the owl and its critical role in determining if the owl will nest, it was suggested that surveys may have to be done for up to 5 years (instead of 2 years in the current protocol) to infer that a nest site is unoccupied. With regards to logistics, nocturnal surveys because of offroad worker safety issues and access because of lingering snowpack on road segments limit where surveys can be done. Most panelists concurred that to survey and locate great gray owl nest sites as part of harvest activities as prescribed in the ROD would be both costly and hard to carry out, and because of the low nest-site tenacity (applicability to great gray owls disputed by some panelists), the current direction will not be effective in long-term conservation.