| |
|
Below we have provided our recommendations on the great gray owl relative to the issues raised by the RIEC and the questions they proposed. These recommendations are based on information gathered during the preparation of this document, input from the great gray owl expert panel, and our insights.
1. Relative to its current status, does this species require an intensive protocol throughout the entire range of the northern spotted owl?
The great gray owl needs to be surveyed by using a standardized protocol for 5 or more years to better understand its distribution and habitat relations throughout the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. The panel concluded that the status of the great gray owl had not changed within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan since the plan was initiated in 1994 because relatively little new information was available. They remarked that the status of this species can be determined only with well-designed long-term data, and currently such data does not exist. They recommended two types of interim surveys: preharvest (before ground-disturbing activities) and habitat-occupancy (presence/absence of great gray owls) surveys. They also defined areas that required no surveys and recommended research on factors that influence the distribution and reproductive success of the species. After sufficient data have been collected, then area-specific plans should be developed for this species from a landscape perspective. As these plans are implemented, the amount and extent of surveys should be reduced accordingly. In addition, for the development and implementation of a landscape-management strategy to proceed, cooperation among local biologists, researchers, and an oversight board is necessary.
After consulting with field biologists throughout the area of the Northwest Forest Plan, the panel recommended certain areas within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan to do surveys before ground-disturbing activities. These surveys would be targeted only for areas where the species is known to nest or where suitable habitat exists, thereby ensuring that these surveys are done most efficiently throughout the area covered by the ROD. Subsequently, the panel determined that less area would be covered than in the current survey protocol, concluding that the great gray owl did not need to be surveyed throughout the entire range of the spotted owl.
2. Is the current survey protocol effective for locating great gray owls, and does it sufficiently address provincial variation in habitat use?
The effectiveness of the protocol was debated among the panelists. Their inability to collaboratively resolve these issues involves several factors, including (1) little is known about the biological requirements of the species in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan; (2) seemingly broad differences in habitat conditions are used by this species among provinces, which may result in some behavioral patterns characteristic of certain provinces; and (3) little has been done to test the effectiveness of different survey techniques. Thus, to determine the effectiveness of the survey protocol, additional data must be gathered to better elucidate the distribution and habitat requirements of this species where it is determined to be a resident. In addition, different survey methods must be tested in different habitat conditions in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. Many recommendations were made in this document to improve the surveys protocol, albeit some recommendations were contradictory. We suggest that field biologists and researchers evaluate this information collaboratively, adapt and experiment for their local area, and refine accordingly after surveys and rigorous testing are completed.
Data from recent surveys indicate that the owl has been detected in several areas below 3,000 feet. Consequently, the panel recommended that elevation guidelines of the current survey protocol be lowered. The panel agreed that the survey elevation guidelines should be amendedfrom 3,000 feet to 1,700-2,000 feet for the Siskiyou Mountains and the central Oregon Cascade Range and that elevation guidelines should be province specific rather than region-wide.
3. Are the specific habitat-protection measures in the Standards and Guidelines needed and appropriate for this species?
Special interim habitat protection measures are essential for maintaining populations of the great gray owl in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. These interim protection measures need to be implemented while information is being collected on the distribution and habitat requirements of this species in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. After sufficient information is collected, area-specific landscape management plans need to be developed. Once implemented, these plans will provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat that maintains populations of the owl over broad areas where it is known to be a resident. At that time, specific nest-site protection guidelines will become unnecessary. Effectiveness monitoring of these plans is essential, however, so that adjustments can be made to the management plans over time (adaptive management).
The ROD specified that sufficient habitat needs to be provided to assure the persistence of the great gray owl, including protecting locations occupied by the owl outside Late-Successional Reserves in the upland forest matrix. Specific protection measures included the establishment of 1/4-mile protection zones around known nest sites, protection of new nest sites as they were discovered, and a 300-foot no-harvest buffer around meadows and natural openings. Panelists concluded that the optimal size for a protection zone around nests needed to be studied further; meanwhile the current 1/4-mile protection zone is recommended as an interim measure until new findings or recommendations become available. As an interim step to protect nesting habitat, the panel recommended that all known great gray owl nest sites within the last 10 years be protected with this 1/4-mile no-harvest buffer. The protection status of these known nest sites would then be reevaluated and integrated into the area-specific landscape management plan as needed. Surveys of these nest sites, however, would be optional. In addition, certain activities at these sites should be restricted seasonally from April 15 to July 15. The panel acknowledged that nest-site protection buffers could be a moving target over time and that this issue needs to be addressed for future protection of nesting habitat.
Panelists were concerned that the potential influence of grazing in natural openings on the owl’s prey, especially pocket gopher and vole populations, had not been included in the habitat-protection measures in the ROD. They stressed that the relations between grazing and the owl’s prey base needs to be studied, and interim guidelines that reduce potential impacts of grazing need to be developed.
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 indicates that every natural opening andmeadow (>10 acres) within the entire range of the northern spotted owl should have a 300-foot no-harvest buffer. This needs to be clarified by including language that indicates that only meadows and natural openings where there are known owl occurrences will have this requirement.
4. In the context of management from an ecosystem perspective, limited resources, and the many survey and management species identified as needing attention in the Northwest Forest Plan, is the overall strategy for this species appropriate and justified?
Some panel members commented that in areas outside the area of the Northwest Forest Plan where the great gray owl has been well studied, it was found that the owl was a highly adaptable species, occurring in a wide range of habitats, and that individuals continued to inhabit particular areas after dramatic habitat alteration. It also was found that owls can potentially benefit from some moderate levels of timber harvesting (from a landscape perspective). From our current understanding of this species, the life-history characteristics of the great gray owl are seemingly suited to planning from a managed-landscape or ecosystem perspective compared to other species that are more sensitive to habitat alterations and have narrow habitat niches. The panel recommended that the best long-term strategy for the management of the great gray owl would be a landscape approach, wherein habitat for the great gray owl would be managed as part of the forest mosaic that provides both potential foraging and nesting habitat over time. Yet, the population dynamics, movement patterns, and reproductive requirements of the great gray owl are currently too poorly understood within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan to develop such plans.
We concur with the panel that more data are needed before broad habitat recommendations can be developed that will positively influence owl populations, and that the strategy for this species should focus on obtaining this data while protecting known nest sites, as described in the panel alternative. We also agree that the process of developing and implementing a landscape management strategy needs to proceed with local biologists, researchers, and an oversight board working in cooperation. While local surveys and planning are ongoing, some large-scale questions on the immigration of owls from other areas needs to be studied and understood because the success of area-specific plans may on depend these movement patterns. Data are needed to determine if populations are dispersing between east and west sides of the Cascade Range and if persistence of the west side population is dependent on birds moving from elsewhere. We recommend that studies be undertaken to better understand the large-scale movement patterns of the great gray owl, even though it may extend beyond the geographic scope of the Northwest Forest Plan.
