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 provided be selected and developed further, or should a different strategy be developed? If a different strategy is recommended, describe the strategy and explain the reasoning behind it.

The panelists were asked to comment on four broad alternatives prescribed for the conservation of the great gray owl: (1) survey and protect nest sites (current ROD with minor modifications),(2) no species-specific habitat protection, (3) intensive research, and (4) manage for great gray owl habitat.

1. Alternative 1 -Survey and protect nest sites (current ROD with minor modifications)

a. Alternative description--This alternative assumes that the current strategy for the great gray owl together with all other Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan is an appropriate strategy to maintain habitat to assure viable populations of the great gray owl on Federal lands in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. The current strategy includes (1) a 2-year survey period before to ground-disturbing activities to determine the presence of great gray owl nesting activity, (2) the protection of nest sites with buffers as they are found, and (3) the placement of protection zones around meadows and natural openings to provide foraging habitat. Modifications to this alternative would focus upon improvements in the implementation of the survey protocol. For example, surveying at different times, or recommendations to refine the techniques for tape playback of simulated calls and type of calls used.

b. General panel comments--The panel concluded that this alternative may not effectively manage for the long-term persistence of the great gray owl within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan. Some of these reasons were (1) simply managing nest sites for a species with low tree-nest tenacity was not effective (some panelists thought that the great gray owl has relatively high nest-tree tenacity), (2) the geographic variation in the conservation of this species was not considered in the current approach, and (3) the limiting factors relative to variation in forest dynamics within and outside the area of the Northwest Forest Plan were also not considered. Additional comments on this strategy can be found in the panel’s response to questions 2A and 2B.

2. Alternative 2 - No specific protection targeted for great gray owls

a. Alternative description--This alternative removes the special conservation measures developed for the great gray owl within the Northwest Forest Plan. All other conservation measures (for example, Late-Successional Reserves) of Option 9 of the Northwest Forest Plan are retained.

b. General panel comments--The panel concluded that this was an unreliable approach because information about the current status is still being collected from surveys in areas such as the Winema and Willamette National Forests and Medford BLM. Removal of the special conservation measures for the owl seemed premature until additional data are available. In addition, foraging habitat is likely to be a limiting factor for the owl in some areas (for example, Willamette NF). It is already known that conservation measures to provide foraging habitat in these areas are needed.

3. Alternative 3--Intensive research

a. Alternative description--This alternative develops a research program to advance our understanding of habitat-based conservation planning for the great gray owl. Research would concentrate on expanding the current understanding of the biology of this species to develop a conservation strategy that had a stronger scientific basis than the current one by building on and testing the current habitat conservation strategies recommended by SAT and FEMAT. The research alternative would be implemented without any changes to the current Standards and Guidelines in the ROD. The research program would take a long-term approach to improving knowledge on this species. The program would be linked to national efforts to ensure that research information gathered within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan provides results that advance knowledge here, and through the strong linkages better contribute to the overall understanding of the biology of this species throughout its distribution. The research program should emphasize the following: (1) the study of the species’ distribution patterns and seasonal movements; (2) the ecology of meadow systems in suitable great gray owl habitat, particularly the disturbance regimes and other factors that maintain meadows naturally, including small-mammal responses to treatments to maintain meadow systems; and (3) the identification of the critical habitat needs over the broad variety of vegetation communities used by this species. The research program should have stable long-term funding at an adequate level to achieve the objectives.

b. General panel comments--The panel believed that a strong research program was critical to maintaining viable populations of the great gray owl; however, they remarked that any research program for this species had to be implemented in conjunction with other conservation measures. A strategy based solely on research using the current Standards and Guidelines in the ROD was unacceptable to the panel, primarily because changes to the current Standards and Guidelines were needed.

The panel commented that the research program should be done in three to four primary study areas, including parts of Willamette and Winema National Forests and the Ashland Resource Area of the Medford BLM District. They also stated that a research program should be developed to facilitate adaptive-management practices, especially habitat-driven guidelines. A demographic research program was noted as being unfeasible because of low-population densities and difficulties finding the owl.

4. Alternative #4 - Manage for great gray owl habitat

a. Alternative description--This alternative actively manages forest stand structures and landscape patterns to ensure that suitable great gray owl habitat is maintained over time. In this approach, before any ground-disturbing activities are allowed, local managers are required to assess the current status of great gray owl habitat within management units such as delineated watersheds. From this assessment, managers would use the current knowledge on the species to provide suitable habitat and structural attributes that would maintain and enhance owlpopulations within their management unit. For example, nesting habitat could be enhanced through stand manipulations or artificially created nests, meadow systems and natural openings could be restored and maintained, new openings adjacent to suitable nesting habitat could be regularly created, and foraging habitat that is dispersed within the managed landscape could be created in suitable locations.

In this alternative, local managers ultimately are responsible to ensure that sufficient great gray owl nesting and foraging habitat are provided over time, which is similar to alternative 2. This alternative differs from alternative 2 because it makes specific recommendations on general habitat criteria for the owl from a landscape perspective (for example, the connection between suitable nesting and foraging habitat and composition and distribution of forest successional stages) and on analytical procedures to accomplish it. Analytical tools are available to achieve a landscape-based habitat assessment, and general habitat recommendations can be made for the owl based on current knowledge, which can be improved as new information becomes available. Yet, involvement with local biologists and technical experts would have to be done to determine which tools and recommendations best suit this management situation (local and regional), if this alternative were to be developed fully.

b. General panel comments--Of the four alternatives, this one was preferred by the panelists; however, given the current lack of understanding of great gray owl habitat needs, this alternative was not sufficient. They recommended using parts of this alternative to develop a more comprehensive approach, as described below.

5. Other alternatives

As the panel met and discussed the four alternatives, they concluded that the current strategy should not be implemented and that a new strategy should be developed. There was insufficient time, however, to develop a new alternative during the panel meeting. Given these circumstances, the panel agreed that a new alternative should be developed by us based on their comments during the panel session and supplemented with conference calls, written comments, and phone conversations with individual panel members. At first, two panel alternatives were developed to cover the broad ideas expressed by the panel throughout this process. Then, the panel’s comments were developed into a single final panel alternative by working with a subgroup of panel members who expressed interest in providing further input. It was not possible to reach consensus among panel members on the procedures that should be included in their alternative. We believe, however, that the viewpoints of the alternative presented below are supported by most panel members. To be expedient and bring closure to this document, panel members were requested to send comments on the final panel alternative directly to the Pacific Northwest Station Director, RMC, and REIC subsequent to issuing this document.

Great Gray Owl Panel’s Alternative

The panel’s alternative was developed on the premise that not enough was known about the population dynamics, movement patterns, and reproductive requirements of the great gray owl within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. It was determined, therefore, that more data were needed before broad habitat recommendations could be developed that would positively influence owl populations. The panel recommended that the best long-term strategy for the management of the great gray owl was a landscape approach, wherein habitat for the great gray owl would be managed as part of the forest mosaic that would provide both potential foraging and nesting habitat over time. Ultimately, a network of suitable great gray owl habitat in those areas where the owl is known to be a regular resident will be developed and maintained by using this approach. They noted that geographic variation and related forest dynamics that could limit the viability of the owl must be considered in further development and implementation of this approach. 

The panel acknowledged that to develop and implement such an approach would require a significant amount of new work. Although this alternative does not require long-term monitoring, surveys for 5 or more years will be needed to better explain the distribution and habitat associations of this species. These data would provide the needed information to make landscape-level management recommendations. An example of the habitat-composition data by structural stage from the Willamette NF that can be extracted from such surveys and is needed to begin landscape-level management planning is shown in table 1. In addition, coordinated watershed-, basin-, province- and regional-level analyses and planning will need to be done. Currently, data available on the owl are too scanty to undertake analyses at these scales within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Table 1--Habitat composition at great gray owl nest and pair sites (n = 13), Willamette National Forest^a

^aThe unpublished data were provided by J. Thrailkill.
^bAt 0.25-mile radius, significantly more early seral habitat at owl sites versus random points (p = 0.04) and significantly less late-seral habitat at owl sites versus random points (p = 0.02).
^cAt 1.0 mile radius, significantly less late-seral habitat at owl sites versus random points (p = 0.04).

First, the panel recommended that all known great gray owl nest sites within the last 10 years be protected with a 1/4-mile no-harvest buffer. Further surveys of these nest sites would be optional, but suggested. Activities at these sites, however, such as aerial fertilizing within 1.0miles and selective tree harvesting near the edge of the buffer, should be restricted seasonally from April 15 to July 15. If the nest-site location changes within this buffered area, reconfiguration of the buffer is also optional; however, boundaries should be moved to enhance the protection of nesting habitat. Because the nest-site protection buffers could be a moving target over time, the panel acknowledged that this issue needs to be addressed for future specific-area landscape management plans.

The panel recommended two types of interim surveys: preharvest (before ground-disturbing activities) and habitat-occupancy (presence-absence of great gray owls), areas of no required surveys, and research on factors that influence the reproductive success of the species (preharvest surveys were not recommended by one expert panelist, and two others were undecided). The panel noted that known great gray owl subpopulations within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan were too small to warrant meaningful long-term population monitoring or demographic studies (research that would be helpful to validate future management recommendations for this species). After sufficient information is collected on the distribution and habitat relationships of the great gray owl for a given area (reviewed by an oversight board), then area-specific landscape management plans (for example, a watershed, district, or forest) are developed by using this information. Although the owl may need to be surveyed for 5 or more years to accumulate enough information to develop an area-specific plan, some areas presently may have enough information to develop such plans and would not need additional surveys. The panel did not recommend any areas where information was sufficient to produce area-specific plans. They stated that the process of developing and implementing a landscape-management strategy should proceed with local biologists, researchers, and an oversight board working in cooperation.

1. Preharvest Surveys--The panel considered the removal of trees where great gray owls were nesting as a high risk to maintaining viable populations of the owl and recommended that preharvest surveys be done before ground-disturbing activities. Preharvest surveys are similar to the protocol surveys in the current strategy. Objectives of these surveys are to: (1) document presence and nesting status of great gray owls, (2) infer absence of great gray owls in the area, and (3) collect information that will contribute to our understanding of great gray owl habitat associations.

To do preharvest surveys, the panel defined nesting habitat in a general way at stands >60 years old having a mix of tree size classes (specific details on nesting habitat including elevation range will be described in later questions). Forest characteristics typical of mid-to older-aged forests, such as natural depressions on broken-topped snags or stick nest of other raptors, enhanced the likelihood that a location would be suitable for nesting. The panel also remarked that nest-site selection was most likely linked to the proximity of available foraging habitat of forest openings that support suitable prey populations. The panel reasoned based on results of recent great gray owl surveys, the owl’s occurrence and distribution was seemingly sparse in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. They concluded, therefore, that preharvest surveys should be done within a limited geographic area predefined as probable nesting areas. The panel’s list of recommended locations of probable nesting areas for preharvest surveys are shown in table 2. They commentedthat these recommended locations covered a substantially smaller area of the Northwest Forest Plan than the total area where current surveys are done before ground-disturbing activities. Surveys were not recommended before activities such as the removal of hazard trees along highways, other primary roads or campgrounds, and thinning of stands outside the 1/4-mile-perimeter protection buffer.

The panel recommended the following additional conditions for doing preharvest surveys. First, surveys should be done throughout a 1/4-mile radius delineated from the perimeter of planned ground-disturbing activities if the intended activities harvest great gray owl nesting habitat. Second, because great gray owls tend to forage in natural and human-caused openings and nest near these type of openings, the panel recommended that the surveys include forest-opening interfaces as suitable nesting habitat. Third, if the proposed ground-disturbing activity is within a 1/4-mile distance of a natural meadow or natural opening larger than 10 acres, the survey should be done throughout a 1/4-mile radius delineated from the perimeter of the planned ground-disturbing activity. Ultimately, this extended search should lead to better habitat relations data. Last, if multiple ground-disturbing activities are scheduled in a given area near to one another, then a broad survey of the affected area should be done 1/4-mile from the general perimeter for the purposes of efficiency. They noted that this would be particularly useful for surveys that have to begin before the exact boundaries of sale units are known.

2. Habitat-Occupancy Surveys--The panel defined habitat-occupancy surveys as focused searches for the presence of great gray owls in specified areas to better elucidate their distribution and habitat within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. They are done in areas where great gray owls have been observed either historically or recently (protected nest sites are optional) and where habitat is suitable. Suggested locations for the habitat-detection surveys are shown in table 2. These habitat surveys serve as general indicators of the presence of great gray owls throughout its range in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. The techniques, once designed, would be more flexible than preharvest surveys. The objectives are to detect the presence of great gray owls or to infer their absence, not necessarily to find owl nest sites. The habitat-occupancy surveys should be focused primarily on natural meadow systems interspersed with trees and along margins of recent fires. Other areas to survey are recent regeneration harvest units that have suitable conditions for the owl adjacent to the units (one panelist objected to surveying these locations). Nest sites located during habitat-occupancy surveys are protected similarly to those found during preharvest surveys.

3. No Required Surveys--Surveys throughout the range of the great gray owl within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan would be limited to areas where there are known populations and where there was suitable habitat. The panel recommended many areas within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan where detection surveys should not be required. They are shown in table 2.

4. Research --The panel recommended that all surveying of the great gray owl be supplemented with a small number of specific studies. Panelists identified the primary knowledge gaps to maintaining habitat to support populations of the owl. Research to fill these gaps would be designed to (1) identify the constraints of reproductive success and critical habitat needs in different vegetation types, landscape settings, and physiographic provinces; (2) provide a greater understanding of possible management treatments for maintaining meadows and natural openings and their effect on prey populations; (3) determine the extent and effect of fire exclusion on great gray owl foraging and nesting habitat and determine what needs to be done to restore and maintain their habitat by approximating natural disturbances from a stand structure and landscape perspective; and (4) test ways to enhance the detection efficiency for survey protocols. Panelists commented that great gray owl populations within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan were probably too small and isolated to conduct a meaningful demographic study of the species, and that stable funding to study the identified knowledge gaps was problematic. They also commented that research and surveys should be done concurrently for an adaptive-management strategy to be effective at maintaining populations of this species.