B. What suggestions do you have to improve the current approach? 

The panelists responded to this question from two perspectives: (1) changes within the context of the current strategy and (2) recommendations for an alternative approach that includes preharvest and habitat-occupancy surveys, landscape-level habitat management plans, and research. Their recommendations for this alternative approach are presented as part of the next question that covers alternative strategies. The following are recommended changes to improve the current strategy without changing the approach of just surveying and protecting nest sites before ground-disturbing activities.

1. Buffer and meadow succession

Panelists indicated that in the long term (decade), the current strategy of no-cut buffers around meadows and natural openings and the 1/4-mile protection zone around nest sites would allow vegetation development that could negatively affect the owl. Specifically, this direction could inhibit restoration activities needed to maintain openings within the owl’s foraging habitat. Moreover, the current standards for managing Late-Successional Reserves within the habitat of the great gray owl may also reduce natural meadow openings unless direct actions are taken to approximate natural disturbances, such as fire, to maintain these natural openings. It was unclear to the panel if the impending, fire- management plans developed for Late-Successional Reserves would specifically address the habitat issues of the great gray owl. Accordingly, they said that the future plans should address these issues. In addition, they thought management practices, including harvesting to remove trees that were encroaching within natural meadows, should beinitiated to maintain meadow openings. The edges, however, need to be maintained (buffer) as area to be used by the owl.

2. Grazing

Panelists were concerned about the effects of grazing (especially cattle) in natural openings. Their concerns centered on the potential influence of grazing on the owl’s prey, especially pocket gopher and vole populations. Both pocket gophers and voles are herbivores. Abundance of these small mammals depends in part on the quality and biomass of herbaceous vegetation. Information from studies in California suggested that intensive grazing in natural openings and meadows limited foraging habitat available to the owl. One panel member observed extremely low small-mammal capture rates in grazed meadows adjacent to ungrazed meadows that supported a diverse small-mammal fauna. In contrast, one panelist suggested that some sheep grazing in meadows could be beneficial to the owl. Certain levels of grazing could change plant species composition to favor some small mammals and result in vegetation structure that increases prey availability. Unfortunately, impacts of grazing on small-mammal populations are poorly understood. Impacts of grazing likely do not exhibit a linear relation between the percentage of vegetation removed and change in small-mammal populations.

The panelists strongly recommended that grazing permits within suitable great gray owl foraging habitat be administered so that impacts to owl habitat would be minimized. What conditions and how much grazing within great owl foraging habitat are suitable still needs to be determined by research studies.

3. West-side clearcuts and landscape context

Panelists remarked that clearcuts on the west side initiate an early successional stage that can support small-mammal populations likely to be used by the owl up to the first decade or so after cutting. Hence, clearcut areas can provide great gray owl foraging habitat. Climate and timing of reforestation, along with other factors, can influence how long after harvesting a cut-over area could be suitable for the owl. Because the human-made openings are ephemeral, panelists stated that clearcut boundaries do not warrant the same protection guidelines as natural meadow openings.

4. Maintenance of landscape patterns

Panelists recommended that landscape patterns approximating great gray owl habitat of different-aged conifer forests, with some in late-successional forest interspersed with open spaces, needed to be maintained (one panelist strongly objected to this statement). Panelists suggested that some amount of area was always needed in openings or an early seral stage within 1 mile of nest sites, even nest sites in Late-Successional Reserves. Panelists noted that studies were needed to determine the amount and distribution of natural and human-created openings in known great gray owl habitat, the type of forest structures between openings, and the size of buffer widths between harvested areas to positively influence populations of great gray owl within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan.

5. Geographic distribution of natural opening and meadow no-harvest protection buffers

The panelists pointed out that the current direction of the ROD was unclear about the amount of area within the range of the northern spotted owl containing meadows and natural openings that required protection buffers. The current language suggests that every natural opening and meadow (>10 acres) within the entire range of the northern spotted owl should have a 300-foot no-harvest buffer. The panel questioned whether this was the intent of the direction. Before the completion of the Federal Environmental Impact Statement (see appendix A for more information on this process), the Scientific Advisory group was asked to clarify this issue. They recommended that protection buffers should be provided only in areas of known owl occurrences (no size of area was discussed by the panel). This recommendation never appeared in the ROD. The panel agreed and indicated that clarification should be added to the ROD.

6. Size of nest-site protection zone

Panelists concluded that the optimal size for a protection zone around nests needed to be studied further. Although potentially detrimental long-term vegetation changes are possible in the protection zones, the 1/4-mile protection zone seemed reasonable to the panelists in the interim until new findings or recommendations were available. How long a protection zone should remain in this designation was questioned. No recommendation was made, and this point was considered unsettled until more data were available. 

7. Select harvesting

Panelists did not reach a consensus on whether or not (small) selective harvesting could occur in nest protection zones. Known harvesting activities near nest sites have been conducted without disturbing the owl during the non-breeding season (September or October to February). Panelists agreed that if harvesting activities in protection zones were to occur, it only should be to improve or maintain breeding and/or foraging habitat for the owl. Some general approaches were suggested to test, but no agreement was reached on this point. In general, the panelists recommended that no selective harvesting should be done in protection buffers at this time. Additional surveys and studies are needed to better understand the habitat relations of this species before doing tests on different ways to improve the forest structure of nesting habitat. The panel reasoned that if a location had been recently occupied by the great gray owl, then the structural conditions were likely suitable to the owl. It is not clear, until further studies are done, how these nest sites recently occupied by the owl can be improved structurally to maintain or restore breeding pairs through tree harvesting.

8. Limited habitat enhancement around nest sites

Panelists were concerned that the current direction did not allow for the option of enhancing structure in the general area near nest sites once they were found. They recommended that the current strategy be changed to include limited habitat-enhancement activities, such as providing foraging perches and creating nest trees, platforms, and leaning trees (one panelist stated that structural enhancements are not needed in the area of nest-site trees). Although snags used for nesting did not seem to be a limiting factor in old-growth areas of the west-central Oregon Cascade Range, panelists remarked that the availability of suitable snags in other areas, specifically in drier climates, as much more limiting. In addition, these areas might need artificially created snag-nest sites if suitable nest sites near natural openings and meadows were missing or were removed during management actions. Different types of artificially created nests, including nest platforms and creation of broken-topped trees, have been successful management tools in some areas. Panelists recommended that leaning trees, when absent, be maintained or created within 300 feet of a nest trees to help juvenile owls leaving the nest avoid predators. They also recommended that harvest units in areas where great gray owls were found could be enhanced by retaining hunting perches within 300 feet of the edge opening. These perches should consist of stumps a minimum of 3 to 4.5 feet tall, up to 15 feet, and small trees 8 to 12 inches in diameter at breast height.

9. Limitations on surveying ground-disturbing activities

The current Standards and Guidelines indicate that great gray owl habitat occurs above 3,000 feet within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan; however the panelists noted that not all of this broad area is likely great gray owl habitat. They recommended that the protocol be amended to survey only in those areas of the Plan where great gray owls were most likely to be found. The panel’s specific location recommendations are covered in question 2C.