Action Statement FloraFlora and and Fauna Fauna Guarantee Guarantee Act Act 1988 1988 No. No.### 92

Powerful strenua

Description and Distribution The Powerful Owl Ninox strenua (Gould), belongs to the family Strigidae (or Hawk ) which are characterised by bright-yellow, large, forward- directed eyes. It is the largest owl found in , with an overall head-tail length of 60- 65cm. The male is larger than the female. Adults are mottled dark grey-brown above and white below with bold grey-brown chevrons (chest barrings); legs are feathered to the tarsus (shins), with dull yellow feet. Immature (owlets) are whiter, having paler back and wings, a whiter face with dark eye-patches and sparse fine dark streaks and faint barring on the flanks. The Powerful Owl has a characteristic double-note ‘whooooo-hooooo’, occasionally only a single ‘whoooo’, which is used to signal territory, identify its position and to maintain contact with its mate. For a full description refer to Schodde & Mason (1980) and Powerful Owl Ninox strenua Hollands (1991). (from a transparency by Alan Webster)

The Powerful Owl is restricted to mainland Australia, being generally concentrated along the forested coastal ranges of the eastern seaboard between Rockhampton in (Eyre & Schulz 1996) south to the Victorian/South Australian border (Mt Burr area). It also occurs on the western slopes of the and in the drier box-ironbark and woodlands (Blakers et al. 1984, Emison et al. 1987, Hollands 1991, Debus & Chafer 1994). In , the Powerful Owl has been recorded from most of the State with the exception of the drier north-west and most riverine Red Gum forests (NRE 1998a), although recent surveys have Distribution in Victoria + before 1970, „ since 1970 recorded Powerful Owls occurring in Red Gum [Source: Atlas of Victorian Wildlife, NRE 1998a]. plains along the Ovens River (R. Loyn pers. comm.). In the wetter mountain habitats it appears to be replaced by the Sooty Owl (Milledge et al. 1993). Reasons for Dispersing juveniles have been recorded inhabiting Since European settlement, 65% of Victoria's forest woodland plains. There are also records of birds cover has been cleared (Woodgate & Black 1988). roosting in softwood plantations. The Powerful Only 5% of freehold land remains forested. This Owl has re-occupied suburban Brisbane (Pavey past permanent loss of habitat has likely led to an 1993), and resident breeding populations are overall reduction in owl numbers and known in the outer suburbs of Sydney (Debus & fragmentation of the original continuous Chafer 1994) and Melbourne (Webster unpubl. population into a series of small residual data). Throughout its range, the Powerful Owl populations, each of which is at risk of becoming generally favours dense gullies for roosting and locally extinct. breeding sites. It prefers older forests where large tree hollows provide nesting sites and arboreal It is estimated that hollows suitable for owls do prey items are plentiful. not form, even in the fastest-growing eucalypts, until they are at least 150-200 years of age Records from Victoria indicate that nesting takes (Parnaby 1995). Of 21 nest trees observed by place during winter. Usually, two eggs are laid in a McNabb (1996) in southern Victoria, about 50% large hollow lined with wood debris between June were senescent and all ranged between 350-500 and July. The eggs hatch after 35-38 days and the years of age, based on data collected by Ambrose owlets are fledged at approximately 10 weeks of (1982). Over much of its range, the lack of suitably age. The young remain dependent for up to eight large hollows is considered to be a limiting factor months of age. During February and March they to successful breeding and population recruitment. disperse and establish new territories (McNabb The Powerful Owl is, therefore, vulnerable to land 1996). The Powerful Owl reaches sexual maturity management practices that reduce the availability at two years of age. Each pair mates for the life of of these tree hollows now or in the future. The a partner (Schodde & Mason 1980, Debus & Chafer loss of hollow-bearing trees has been listed as a 1994). potentially threatening process under the Flora and The Powerful Owl is an opportunistic, nocturnal Fauna Guarantee Act (SAC 1991). In addition, prey hunter that preys mainly on arboreal or semi- density may be an important determinant in arboreal . Prey items vary from place to territory size and breeding success, particularly place depending on seasonal availability. The considering that only the male hunts during the Pseudocheirus breeding season. Seebeck (1976) estimated that peregrinus and Petaurus breviceps are about 250 possums (or their equivalent) would be the predominant prey items in southern Victoria required per year by a family group and recent (Seebeck 1976, Tilley 1982, Lavazanian et al. 1994) studies have estimated around 300 prey items for whilst Greater Gliders Petauroides volans are a a breeding pair rearing two young (Webster common prey item in wetter forest habitats (James unpubl. data.). Key prey are also dependent on 1980, Kavanagh 1988, Pavey 1992, Debus & Chafer hollow trees. 1994). Birds, and some terrestrial mammals In its final recommendation the Scientific Advisory are also taken opportunistically, with some prey Committee (SAC 1994) has determined that the species being characteristic of open country, Powerful Owl is: indicating that Powerful Owls may forage on forest margins. • significantly prone to future threats which are likely to result in extinction, and Conservation Status • very rare in terms of abundance or distribution.

Current status Major Conservation Objective Garnett (1992a, b)...... ……...... Rare (Aust.) The short-term conservation objective is to prevent NRE (1998b)...... ……...... Endangered (Vic.) further decline by ensuring that good quality SAC (1994)...... …..…...Threatened (Vic.) habitat for at least a population target of 500 breeding pairs of Powerful Owl is maintained on public land in Victoria. The long-term objective is The Powerful Owl has been listed as a threatened to increase population numbers in potentially taxon in Schedule 2 of the Flora and Fauna suitable areas, where owls are now scarce, by Guarantee Act 1988. maintaining and restoring habitat for the species across all land tenures to return it to a secure conservation status in the wild. These objectives will be achieved by:

2 Short-term (<10 years): that period. The protection of known and active nesting areas is considered crucial for recruitment • identifying and protecting sufficient habitat and thus persistence of local populations. on public land in designated Powerful Owl Management Areas (POMAs) for 500 The Powerful Owl occupies a large permanent breeding pairs across the Victorian range. home range. Estimates of home range size have Five hundred breeding pairs is an interim been based largely on the spacing of calling birds target, based on a population size that is (not on radio-telemetry work) and appear to vary in likely to persist in the short to medium term size from 400-1 500ha (Davey 1993). Home range (Shaffer 1981, Soul 1987) and is supported calculations based on estimated dietary by a preliminary Population Viability requirements in western Victoria put this figure at Analysis (PVA); over 1 000ha (Seebeck 1976). Schodde and Mason • improving the estimation of the size and (1980) report that pairs appear to be well spaced, distribution of Victoria's Powerful Owl often at intervals of five to 20km, depending on population, especially the breeding habitat type and availability. Quinn (1993) population, by the year 2000; recorded two breeding pairs in separate gullies about 400m apart. Clearly, home range sizes vary, • implementing management prescriptions being dependent upon density of prey items, for designated habitat areas within State adequate breeding hollows and tolerance to forest and conservation reserves; disturbance. Home range is likely to be smaller in • monitoring population size to determine if forests supporting higher densities of prey. management prescriptions are effective and to assess if viable populations have been Intensive forestry activities leading to a reduction achieved. in the abundance of hollows suitable for nest sites or prey species poses a threat to the Powerful Owl • Long-term (10+ years): over much of its range (Brouwer & Garnett 1990, • generating community awareness and SAC 1994). From studies in promoting restoration of owl habitat on which investigated owl tolerance to disturbance, private land and emphasising the need to the degree of impact may depend on whether protect sites occupied by the Powerful Owl important owl areas are logged and to what extent wherever possible; the logged forest is prime habitat, • determining the effects of habitat this species being the main prey item of the fragmentation on owl populations; Powerful Owl in wetter upland forests. In the drier • review Population Viability Analysis as more lowland forests where the Common Ringtail detailed biological information is obtained Possum is the major prey item, Powerful Owls and parameters can be refined; occur and breed in heavily-logged forests when the important riparian forest area used for nesting and • determining habitat quality indices and roosting are protected in wide streamside Powerful Owl densities in different habitats. corridors (Kavanagh & Peake 1993, Kavanagh & Bamkin 1995, Kavanagh et al. 1995). These studies Management Issues demonstrate that the Powerful Owl will persist in mosaics of logged-unlogged forests in NSW. Ecological issues specific to the taxon The existing parks and reserve system may not Apart from diet, general behaviour, broad habitat provide sufficient suitable habitat to meet the types and general distribution, little is known management objectives of this Action Statement. about the Powerful Owl. It is sedentary and lives Accordingly, management actions within State alone or in pairs which occupy a permanent forest which complement the protection provided territory containing a number of roost sites and by the formal reserve system are required to one or more nesting sites. Tilley (1982) recorded conserve owl populations. 25 roost sites of a non-breeding pair near Healesville over a nine-month period. Although no There are no reliable data on population size or birds have been individually marked, there appears densities of the Powerful Owl in Victoria or to be high fidelity to nesting areas and adult pairs Australia. Expert opinion provided to the Scientific appear to remain within one large home range all Advisory Committee (SAC 1994) considered that their lives (Garnett 1992a, Webster unpubl. data). fewer than 500 pairs may exist throughout Traill (1993) reported one female in Chiltern State Victoria. This estimate may be conservative, Park using the same nest tree for at least three because recent surveys in the forests of south- consecutive years. In contrast, Webster (unpubl. eastern Australia suggest that the apparent data) has observed a breeding pair use three scarcity of owls may reflect lack of survey effort different hollows in consecutive years within the rather than lack of birds (Debus & Chafer 1994). same home range, utilising over 70 roost trees in The majority of Powerful Owl records have come

3 from surveys in areas designated for hardwood Brush-tailed Phascogales have also been recorded production. The status of owls in conservation in the diet of the Powerful Owl near Beaufort by reserves is generally unknown as these areas have Tilley (1982) and at Chiltern State Park by Traill not been systematically assessed to the same (1993). extent as State forest areas. Population modelling work for the East Gippsland Forest Management Social and economic issues Area (FMA), based on known owl records followed Currently about 28% of public native forest is by a stratified habitat survey of likely preferred available for hardwood timber production and habitat, gave an estimate of between 102-182 pairs associated forestry activities (Government of within the one million hectares of forested land in Victoria 1986), subject to the Code of Forest the FMA (McIntyre and Henry in prep.). Practices for Timber Production (NRE 1996a) and The Powerful Owl has been recorded dispersing the approval of annual wood utilisation plans. across open country, suggesting that populations About 0.3% of this area is harvested each year to are unlikely to be genetically isolated (Garnett supply sawlog licence commitments. 1992a, Humphries unpubl. data) although it is not The key socio-economic issue in relation to known what distances birds are capable of protection of the Powerful Owl is that protection of travelling. its habitat will reduce the area of State forest To manage the Powerful Owl effectively, it is available for timber production. However, much of necessary to quantify population size, (especially the area required to satisfy the Action Statement is breeding population size) and understand impacts already protected in steep slopes, stream buffers, of habitat fragmentation/disturbance on breeding old-growth and National Parks and reserves (eg. of success and dispersal capabilities. Detailed the 52 POMAs proposed in the Central Highlands, investigations (e.g. radio-telemetry studies) are 38 are allocated to conservation reserves and 14 needed to determine densities, home range and within State forest). Additionally, the area required dispersal accurately before long-term management for owl conservation is also required to satisfy prescriptions can be prepared. other flora and fauna conservation objectives. Such forest has many values for people - timber Wider conservation issues products, water harvesting, recreation, and also the knowledge that its biodiversity is being Actions implemented to conserve and protect the maintained. These values and how to reconcile Powerful Owl throughout its range will benefit them have been the subject of several enquires and other threatened species that are dependent on much policy debate in recent years. The Timber similar habitat requirements. These include the Industry Inquiry (Ferguson 1985) and the Land FFG-listed Leadbeaters Possum Gymnobelideus Conservation Council (1986) provide detailed leadbeateri and the Sooty Owl Tyto tenebricosa in reports on the social and economic values of the wetter forests, and the Barking Owl Ninox forest industry. At a regional scale, Lugg et al. connivens, Squirrel Glider Petaurus norfolcensis, (1993) discussed the implications for management Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa and of East Gippsland forests, and the presence of Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae in drier forest wood processing industries that require access to habitats. the timber resource combined with the State The loss of hollow-bearing trees has been listed as government's legislative commitment to supply a potentially threatening process under the Flora harvesting quotas to sawmills. and Fauna Guarantee Act (SAC 1991) and an Action The economic value foregone will vary greatly from Statement is in preparation. The development of one POMA to another across the state, depending management actions across both public and on the volumes of timber available, the yield and private land necessary to address ongoing hollow quality, timber harvesting costs, and price. decline will benefit Powerful Owl conservation. Employment and local communities may be Furthermore, actions already being undertaken to affected to varying extents. Although not likely to protect vegetation communities (eg. old-growth be as important as timber harvesting values, the forest) are beneficial to Powerful Owl conservation. value of any changes in recreational opportunities The Powerful Owl also has the potential to affect and water yield are likely to also vary greatly from other threatened species. In some instances this site to site. Where there are choices to be made in may be significant. Traill (1993) reported that regional forest management planning about the Squirrel Gliders, a in Victoria, levels of protection to be given to Powerful Owl represented 30% of the vertebrate prey items in habitat, and local social and economic impacts to regurgitated pellets in north-eastern Victoria. Van consider, economic assessment may give useful Dyck and Gibbons (1980) found that Brush-tailed guidance. Phascogales, a rare species in Victoria, were highly preferred prey at Mt Alexander in central Victoria.

4 The development of a systematic approach to The Plans include conservation guidelines for old- forest owl conservation across Victoria, taking into growth forest and large forest owls within a account local economic factors, forest management network of conservation areas, encompassing practices and owl ecology as developed for the East designated parks and reserves and 1Special Gippsland forest area (CNR 1995a), will provide a Protection Zones (SPZ) and 2Special Management balanced outcome for conservation and timber Zones (SMZ) within State forest. The measures production. The Action Statement acknowledges taken to protect Powerful Owl populations vary that large forest owls may be difficult to conserve between plans according to regional in production forest because they require extensive circumstances: areas of forest supporting hollow trees for nesting • In the East Gippsland FMA (regional target and substantial populations of possums as prey. population 100 pairs), up to 800ha of SPZ or SMZ is established in State forest for each Previous Management Action pair of owls. • In the Midlands FMA (regional target Distribution population 25 pairs), 500ha of SPZ is The Atlas of Victorian Wildlife (NRE 1998a) established in State forest within a radius of currently includes over 800 Powerful Owl records. 3.5km from known records and a further Cautious interpretation of this information is 500ha of forest within the 3.5km radius is necessary to filter out replicate sightings and maintained at greater than 30 years old. anomalies with breeding pairs using different • In the Central Highlands planning area hollows over consecutive seasons. (regional target population 50 pairs), at least Birds Australia Nest Record Scheme information for 500ha of suitable habitat is protected in SPZ Powerful Owls has been reviewed to find additional for each owl, which must comprise patches breeding localities within Victoria. of at least 100ha within a 3km radius. • In the Otway FMA, specific protection is Ballarat, Bendigo, Melbourne and Orbost NRE limited to nest sites and the contribution offices have begun mapping owl records to made by habitat in the existing parks and determine the location of breeding pairs, home reserves network. range size and breeding requirements in relation to land tenure and land-use. • In the North East planning area (regional target population 125 pairs), it is proposed that at least 500ha of suitable habitat is Survey protected in SPZ for each owl, which must The Powerful Owl has been recorded as part of comprise patches of at least 100ha within a general flora and fauna surveys and pre-logging 3.5km radius [NRE (in prep)]. surveys across Victoria.

Surveys for large forest owls have been undertaken Research in East Gippsland, Bendigo FMA (13 records from Monitoring of selected breeding populations north- 150 surveyed sites), North-east Victoria and mid- east of Melbourne has been continuing since 1991, Gippsland Tambo area (95 records from 679 by Port Phillip Region. Recently, similar monitoring surveyed sites);Central Gippsland (25 records from commenced in the Midlands and Bendigo FMAs. 273 surveyed sites) and Midlands (Lerderderg State Banding of owlets under the Australian and Park - 12 records from 46 surveyed sites) Banding Scheme began in 1982. A total of 40 (McIntyre and Bramwell in prep., Gibbons 1995, owlets have been banded, with no returns of bands Loyn pers. comm., Morcom unpubl. data). to date (Ed McNabb pers. comm.).

Habitat protection A preliminary Population Viability Analysis (PVA) (McCarthy et al., in press) based on available Powerful Owl records have been included in Sites quantitative data on the species, revealed that age- of Biological Significance as part of the pre-logging specific mortality of adults may have a major surveys commenced in 1983 (eg. Chesterfield et al. effect on extinction rates and that extinction rates 1983). These sites have now been reviewed and appear relatively insensitive to population density. adopted by the FMA planning process. It showed that the population targets for the State Specific prescriptions and targets to protect the and for individual regions of the State identified in Powerful Owl in State forests have been developed the Intended Management Section of this by McIntyre and Henry (in prep.) and incorporated within the East Gippsland FMA Plan (CNR 1995a), 1 Midlands FMA (NRE 1996b) and in the Central SPZ-areas managed for conservation with timber harvesting being excluded. Highlands Plan (NRE 1998c). 2 SMZ-areas managed to maintain conservation values whilst catering for timber production under certain conditions.

5 document are in the appropriate range for this FMA to meet designated targets is shown in Table species. Another key finding of the analysis was 1. Regional targets will be set in the context of that collection of further ecological data to Geographic Representation Units (GRU) and be improve the reliability of the model would be spread across the state to reflect the distribution prohibitively expensive and that population of suitable habitat. POMA selection criteria will monitoring would be a more realistic method of ensure a mixed allocation of sites across National assessing the population targets. Because of the Parks and State forest, with preference given to the limited data available for the PVA, its findings protection of suitable habitat within the should be interpreted cautiously. conservation reserves. Priority will be given to allocations in large parks where home range is Intended Management Action protected within the conservation reserve. Priority for inclusion in the 500 pair target is as follows (in At the time of listing the Powerful Owl as a descending order):- threatened species under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, the SAC considered that • confirm Identification of owl sites ed nesting because the estimated population was less than tree utilised during the past 5 years. 500 pairs, with no specific habitat protection • confirmed roost tree utilised during the past outside of conservation reserves and threatening five years. processes continuing across most of their range, • repeated sighting or vocalisation during the the species was at risk of extinction. past five years. The following actions are specific to meeting the • incidental sighting or vocalisation during the short-term objective of protecting habitat for at past five years. least 500 Powerful Owl pairs in Victoria on public • historic record not reconfirmed in past five land within designated Powerful Owl Management years. Areas (POMAs). Additional owl breeding areas occurring in forests in excess of the target number • potential habitat area (preferably based on will also be subject to specific management formal analysis and modelling). prescriptions. The strategy is based on the Once regional targets are met, new POMAs will be assumption that owls will continue to successfully established only on the basis of records of a higher utilise forest areas outside of the formally priority. designated POMAs. Whilst the Powerful Owl has been recorded in Red 1. Identification of owl sites Gum habitat along the Ovens River, it is unknown if they occur in the extensive riverine Red Gum Identify at least 500 POMAs on public land across forests along the Murray River. It is uncertain the known Victorian range. The emphasis should whether this forest type is good quality Powerful be on identifying/locating nest sites or probable Owl habitat, and until survey work is undertaken breeding areas based on the occurrence of owlets no POMA target is allocated within the 500 or adult roosting pairs. A notional breakdown of designated as per Table 1. the number of POMAs to be protected within each

Table 1: Target number of Powerful Owl Management Areas (POMAs) by Forest Management Areas.

FMA Potential Habitat Area (ha)* Proportion of State Target (%) Target No. of POMAs Mildura 0 0 0 Horsham 140,258 3 15 Portland 225,717 5 25 Mid-Murray 20,000# 1 3 Bendigo 252,545 6 28 Midlands 264,351 6 25 Otways 138,084 3 15 Central 238,118 5 25 Dandenong 88,402 2 10 Benalla-Mansfield 217,795 5 25 Central-Gippsland 770,117 16 85 Wangaratta 412,460 9 45 Wodonga 474,217 10 52 Tambo 417,918 9 47 East Gippsland 893,251 20 100 TOTAL 4,533,233 100 500 * Potential habitat areas calculated from known area of preferred habitat. # not including 65 000 ha of riverine Red Gum Forest

6 2. Register identified localities. Outside of POMAs, habitat for foraging is provided in areas excluded from timber Develop a Powerful Owl Management Area register harvesting by general prescription including to record the locality and status of all sites in the wildlife corridors, steep areas and unmerchantable target group and additional sites for review as areas and areas protected for other management necessary. The Register will initially include purposes. known owl localities and incorporate POMAs allocated across the FMAs as forest management 4. Protection in Conservation Reserves plans are completed. NRE will maintain the register Locate, monitor and protect all known Powerful through the Forests Service and Flora and Fauna Owl habitat sites within the parks and reserves Program in consultation with Parks Victoria. system as a contribution to regional targets. In 3. Protection in State forest larger Parks and Reserves identify POMAs of at least 500ha of continuous suitable habitat which Protection in State forest will generally follow two can be managed to be free of significant protocols: where clear-fell harvesting is used, areas disturbance factors. In smaller sites, take account of SPZ and/or SMZ will be designated for owl of the provisions applying to State forest owl protection; and where selective harvesting is used protection measures and endeavour to obtain co- areas of SMZ will be designated. In State forests, operative management from adjoining landowners the requirements of this Action Statement will be as appropriate. implemented through the development of forest management plans to ensure effective integration Avoid the development of intensive recreational of owl conservation measures with other forest facilities near known nesting and roosting trees values and uses. The Powerful Owl conservation and discourage access to breeding areas. strategies established in existing plans are 5. Protection on other Crown Land generally consistent with this Action Statement and will be maintained until the plans are Parcels of other Crown land having owl reviewed. conservation values and suitable habitat should be identified as part of the assessment process and Where clear-fell harvesting (NRE 1996a) is used, exempted from disposal, or sold with a caveat that delineate and protect a core area of suitable includes site protection measures equivalent to habitat of at least 500ha (dependent on habitat those in Point 6 above as a minimum, dependent type) as SPZ within a 3.5km radius (approx area of upon land size, location, viability and reservation 3 800ha) for each POMA. Suitable habitat is areas status. Planning permit applications [Native dominated by old trees and areas likely to support Vegetation Retention (NVR) planning amendment high densities of prey species. Where forest stand referrals, mining applications, etc.] will be assessed characteristics may limit the adequacy of the core in line with the major conservation objectives to SPZ, additional habitat of up to 500ha of SPZ protect a target number of sites across the species’ and/or SMZ should be maintained within the same range. This may include areas of Crown Land for 3.5km radius. The size of the core SPZ and any protection and hence withholding approval of additional habitat requirements will be determined some applications. by assessment of the suitability of both existing forest habitat and regrowth forest in relation to 6. Protection on Private Land prey densities. Encourage and assist Municipal Councils to Where selective harvesting (NRE 1996a) is used, develop conservation mapping and GIS overlay POMAs will comprise SMZs of about 1 000 ha systems within planning schemes to improve which will be managed to maintain habitat capable information on owl habitat and breeding sites of supporting adequate populations of arboreal across private land. prey mammals to support breeding owls, allowing Using provisions of local planning schemes, the for modified timber harvesting practices which Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and the retain high levels of habitat trees. The retention Planning and Environment Act 1987, seek to rates will take into account research currently ensure that Municipal Councils meet objectives being conducted for the West Region and obligations to protect owl habitat on private Comprehensive Regional Assessment on home land when considering land-use change. range and habitat characteristics. In some areas, where selective harvesting occurs, the approach Encourage private landowners to enter into described under Action 3 may be used. voluntary agreements (e.g. Trust for Nature covenants, Land for Wildlife Scheme) to protect owl Unless otherwise protected, all confirmed nesting sites on private land across the species known and roosting sites will be protected by a 3ha SPZ range (covenanted private land sites may be used around the site and a 250-300m radius (or to attain the targets specified in Table 1). Planning equivalent linear area) SMZ buffers around permit applications (subdivision, native vegetation

7 clearing, mining) will be assessed in line with the items in each habitat would be used to refine major conservation objectives to protect breeding territory size estimates based on dietary sites on private land (target number of sites across requirements as calculated by Seebeck (1976) and the species range which may include some areas of Kavanagh (1988) in the absence of suitable private land for protection). techniques to calculate territory use by telemetry studies of individual birds. 7. Community involvement and extension Undertake telemetry studies to determine dispersal Prepare and distribute an information pamphlet and recruitment of young birds into the and record card to reach potential observers established population and movements and home through established networks such as Birds range size of breeding adults. Australia, Bird Observers Club of Australia, Field Naturalists Club of Victoria, Land for Wildlife Use economic evaluation, where appropriate, to scheme, Victorian National Parks Association and assist decisions which are likely to have significant the Trust for Nature, to encourage the community effect on Powerful Owl habitat, timber harvesting, to report known nest sites, roosting sites and water yields, and recreational opportunities or general sightings of the Powerful Owl. which may have significant local social and economic impact. 8. Research

Encourage universities, Birds Australia and Legislative Powers Operating research institutes (eg. Arthur Rylah Institute) to conduct research into the density of owl Legislation populations, impacts of current forest management practices on nest site availability, Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 – prey density, recruitment, home range provides for the integrated management and requirements and dispersal capabilities in all protection of catchments and the control of habitat types occupied in Victoria. noxious weeds and pest .

9. Survey and Monitoring Conservation Forests and Lands Act 1987 – provides for the management of public land under Monitor, on a tenure blind basis, at least 10% (i.e. the Act, the co-ordination of legislation 50 sites throughout Victoria) of POMAs regularly to administered by NRE and for the preparation of determine persistence of owls and breeding codes of practice. success. The most efficient means of this monitoring will be determined to provide Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 – provides for statistically valid analysis of management actions reserving areas as public land and for making a and program evaluation and should consider specific reservation status for existing public land. monitoring of unprotected owl sites as a control. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 – provides Undertake owl surveys as part of the West Regional for the protection of flora and fauna in Victoria Forest Agreement to improve estimation of through a range of mechanisms including controls population size and the location of breeding over the handling of protected flora and listed fish. population. Forests Act 1958 – provides for the management of forests, and includes controls over the taking of Other Desirable Management Action forest produce. It is unknown if the Powerful Owl occurs in the Local Government Act 1958 – provides for local extensive riverine Red Gum forests along the council by-laws and conservation regulations (e.g. Murray River. Conduct survey work to determine if permit requirement for land clearing). this forest type is good quality Powerful Owl Mineral Resources Development Act 1990 – habitat. provides for the management of mineral resources Repeat Population Viability Analysis modelling for and includes controls over exploration and mining the Powerful Owl when sufficient new data are activities to minimise impacts on the environment. available. Protection targets may be revised National Parks Act 1975 – provides for the accordingly. preservation, protection and management of Review and apply the results of research findings natural areas and inlcudes controls over taking to management prescriptions determined above native flora and fauna from parks. especially in relation to home range and Planning and Environment Act 1987 – provides population viability. for the protection of native vegetation through the Diet studies should be completed for all major State section, and for regional planning controls in habitat types occupied by the Powerful Owl. all planning schemes. Densities and population dynamics of main prey

8 Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 – provides will be assessed and the Action Statement will be for the establishment of conservation covenants on reviewed five years after publication. land titles.

Wildlife Act 1975 – provides for the management Contacts of wildlife (vertebrate animals other than fish, and Flora and Fauna Guarantee-listed invertebrates) Management and includes controls over the handling of Flora and Fauna Officers, NRE Regions. protected wildlife. The status of the Powerful Owl Wildlife Biologists, Parks Flora and Fauna Division. as protected wildlife makes the taking of it an offence under the Act unless an appropriate Forest Service Officers. permit has been obtained. Environmental Rangers, Parks Victoria.

Licence/permit conditions Biology The Powerful Owl is protected wildlife and can only Steve Craig; NRE Woori Yallock. be held under licence or permit in the case of injured Stephen Henry, NRE Orbost. animals or for rehabilitation and release. currently holds two birds in captivity. Rod Kavanagh (State Forests of NSW). Richard Loyn, NRE Heidelberg. Consultation and Community Ed McNabb (Ninox Pursuits). Participation Paul Peake, NRE East Melbourne. Consultation during public land management John Seebeck, NRE East Melbourne. planning (Catchment Management Authorities, Charlie Silveira, consultant biologist Melbourne. National Parks, Environment and Conservation Barry Traill, consultant biologist Chiltern Victoria. Council, Forest Management) continues to provide for public participation in decisions about Alan Webster, NRE Port Phillip Region. management of Powerful Owl sites. Personal Communications The development of FMA planning proposals is Many staff from Forests Service, Flora and Fauna guided by Forest Management Area Advisory Branch and regional NRE officers have provided Committees, consisting of about 12 members valuable contributions and comments on earlier representing local municipal, commercial, and drafts. community organisations (eg. CNR 1995a). Moreover, upon release for public comment, the Charlie Silveira (consultant biologist). Proposed FMA Plans are accompanied by colour Rod Kavanagh (State Forests of NSW). brochures (eg. CNR 1995b) designed to promote public awareness of the document and to maximise Ed McNabb (Ninox Pursuits) also provided community response. information on aspects of owl ecology and management. Consistent with this approach, wildlife biologists and land-use planners were consulted during the development of the management strategies References identified and used to compile this Action Ambrose, G. J. (1982) An ecological and Statement. The successful implementation of this behavioural study of vertebrates using hollows in Eucalypt branches. Ph.D Thesis, La Trobe Action Statement will rely on the contribution of University, Bundoora: Victoria. reliable records of the Powerful Owl in Victoria and Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. & Reilly, P.N. (1984) The the successful protection of sites to meet specified Atlas Of Australian Birds. RAOU. Melbourne targets. University Press: Melbourne. Brouwer, J. & Garnett, S. (Eds) (1990) Threatened Implementation, Evaluation and Review Birds of Australia-An Annotated List. RAOU Report No. 68. The Regional Managers in all areas where the Chesterfield, E.A., MacFarlane, M.A., Allen, D., Powerful Owl occurs will coordinate the Hutchinson, M.N., Triggs, B.N. & Barley, R. implementation of this action statement. Primary (1983) Flora and Fauna of the Rodger River responsibility for implementation and assessment Block, East Gippsland, Victoria. Ecological of the effectiveness of the management actions lies Survey Report No. 1 Forest Commission: Vic. with the Flora and Fauna Planning Officers and CNR (1995a) East Gippsland Forest Management Forest Officers. Plan. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources: Melbourne. In line with the major conservation objectives, the CNR (1995b) East Gippsland's Forest - Striking a results of attaining and protecting specified targets balance: A Forest Plan. Department of

9 Conservation and Natural Resources: Forest Management Area. Department of Melbourne. Conservation and Natural Resources, Davey, S. (1993) Notes on the habitat of four Melbourne. Australian owl species, In Proceedings of the McCarthy, M., Webster, A., Loyn, R.H. and Lowe, 10th anniversary conference of the Australian K.W. (in press) Uncertainty in assessing the Raptor Association, Canberra, 1993. Olsen, P. viability of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in and Olsen, J. (eds.). ARA Canberra. Victoria, Australia. Pac. Cons. Biol. Debus, S.J.S. & Chafer, C.J (1994) The Powerful Owl McIntyre, A.D. & Bramwell, M. (in prep.) Large forest (Ninox strenua) in New South Wales. Aust. Birds owls in East Gippsland. Department of (supplement) 28: 21-39. Conservation and Natural Resources, Orbost. Emison, W.B., Beardsell, C.M., Norman, F.I., Loyn, R. McIntrye, A.D. & Henry, S.R. (in prep.) Large forest & Bennett, S.C. (1987) Atlas of Victorian Birds. owl conservation in the East Gippsland Forest Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands Management Area, Victoria. Draft Report, and RAOU, Melbourne. Department of Conservation and Natural Eyre, T.J. & Schulz, M. (1996) Northern range of the Resources Orbost. Powerful Owl Ninox strenua. Aust. Bird Watcher McNabb, E.G. (1987) An attempt to rehabilitate an 16: 296-8 "orphaned" Powerful Owl. Aust. Bird Watcher Ferguson, I. (1985) Report of the Timber Industry 12: 22-4. Inquiry. Melbourne University. McNabb, E.G. (1994) The successful rehabilitation Garnett, S. (Ed) (1992a) Threatened and Extinct of two Powerful Owl fledglings. Aust. Bird Birds of Australia. RAOU Report 82. York Press. Watcher 15: 287-97. Garnett, S. (1992b) The Action Plan for Australian McNabb, E.G. (1996) Observations of the biology of Birds. Australian National Parks and Wildlife the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in southern Service, Canberra. Victoria. Aust. Bird Watcher 16: 267-95. Gibbons (1995) Survey of Powerful Owls (Ninox Milledge, D.R., Palmer, C.L. & Nelson, J.L. (1993) A strenua) in Central Victoria. Report to the survey of large forest owls in Mountain Ash Department of Conservation and Natural forests of the Victorian Central Highlands. in Resources, Bendigo. Australian Raptor Studies ed. by P. D. Olsen, Aust. Raptor Assoc., RAOU, Melbourne. pp. 143. Government of Victoria (1986) Timber Industry Strategy. Victorian Government Printing Office, NRE (in prep.) Proposed North-east Forest Melbourne. Management Plan. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. Hollands, D. (1991) Birds of the Night. Reed Books, Sydney. NRE (1996a) Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production. Revision No. 2. Department of James, J.W. (1980) Food of the Powerful Owl (Ninox Natural Resources and Environment: strenua) in south-eastern Queensland. Emu 80: Melbourne. 34-5. NRE (1996b) Midlands Forest Management Plan. Kavanagh, R. P. (1988) The impact of predation by Department of Natural Resources and the powerful owl, Ninox strenua, on a Environment: Melbourne. population of the greater glider, Petauroides volans. Aust. J. Ecol. 13: 445-50. NRE (1998a) Atlas of Victorian Wildlife (electronic fauna database). Parks Flora and Fauna. Department of Natural Kavanagh, R.P. & Bamkin, K.L. (1995) Distribution Resources and Environment, Heidelberg. of nocturnal forest birds and mammals in NRE (1998b) Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria - relation to the logging mosaic in south-eastern 1999. Department of Natural Resources and New South Wales. Biol. Cons. 71: 41-53. Environment, Melbourne (in press). Kavanagh, R. P., Debus, S., Tweedie, T. & Webster, NRE (1998c) Central Highlands Forest Management R. (1995) Distribution of Nocturnal Forest Birds Plan. Department of Natural Resources and and Mammals in North-eastern New South Environment, Melbourne. Wales: Relationships and Environmental variables and management history. Wildl. Res. Parnaby, H. (1995) Hollow Arguments. Nature 22: 359-77. Australia 25 (1): 80. Kavanagh, R.P. & Peake, P. (1993) Distribution and Pavey, C.R. (1992) Comment - Impact of Powerful habitats of nocturnal forest birds in south- Owl predation on a population of the greater eastern New South Wales. In Australian Raptor glider: A response to Kavanagh (1988). Aust. J. Studies by P. Olsen (ed). Australian Raptor Ecol. 17: 463-67. Association and Royal Australasian Pavey, C. (1993) The Distribution and Conservation Ornithologists Union, Melbourne. pp: 101-25. Status of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in Land Conservation Council (1986) East Gippsland: Queensland, In Proceedings of the 10th An Economic/Employment Evaluation of the anniversary conference of the Australian Raptor Land Conservation Council’s Proposed Association, Canberra, 1993. Olsen, P. and Recommendations. Report prepared by National Olsen, J. (eds.). ARA Canberra. pp: 144-54. Institute of Economic and Industry Research. Quinn, D. (1993) Nesting Powerful Owls. Aust. LCC, Melbourne. Raptor Assoc. News 14: 70-1. Lavazanian, E., Wallis, R. & Webster, A. (1994) Diet SAC (1991) Final Recommendation on a of Powerful Owls (Ninox strenua) living near nomination for listing: The loss of hollow Melbourne, Victoria. Wildl. Res. 21: 643-6. bearing trees from Victorian native forests as a Lugg, A., Marsh, P. & Bartlett, A. (1993) Statement potentially threatening process (Nomination No. of Resources, Uses and Values - East Gippsland 100). Scientific Advisory Committee, Flora and

10 Fauna Guarantee. Department of Conservation Compiled by Alan Webster, Robert Humphries and and Natural Resources, Melbourne. Kim Lowe, Department of Sustainability and Environment. SAC (1994) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing: Powerful Owl Ninox strenua (Nomination No. 299). Scientific Further information can be obtained from Advisory Committee, Flora and Fauna Department of Sustainability and Environment Guarantee. Department of Conservation and Customer Service Centre on 136 186. Natural Resources, Melbourne. Schodde, R. & Mason, I. J. (1980) Nocturnal Birds of Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statements are Australia. Lansdowne, Melbourne. available from the Department of Sustainability and Environment website: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au Seebeck, J. H. (1976) The diet of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in western Victoria. Emu 76: 167- This Action Statement was first published in 1999 70. and remains current. This version has been Shaffer, M. L. (1981) Minimum population sizes for prepared for web publication. It retains the original species conservation. Bioscience 31: 131-4. text of the action statement, although contact information, the distribution map and the illustration Soule, M. E. (Ed.) (1987) Viable populations for may have been updated. conservation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. © The State of Victoria, Department of Tilley, S. (1982) The diet of the Powerful Owl Ninox Sustainability and Environment, 2004 strenua, in Victoria. Aust. Wildl. Res. 9: 157-75. Published by the Department Traill, B. J. (1993) The diet and movements of a of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. pair of Powerful Owls Ninox strenua in dry 8 Nicholson Street, eucalypt forest. In Australian Raptor Studies by East Melbourne, P. D. Olsen (ed). Aust. Raptor Assoc., RAOU, Victoria 3002 Australia Melbourne. pp: 155-9. This publication may be of assistance to you but the Van Dyck, S. & Gibbons, D. (1980) Tuan predation State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee by powerful owls. Vic. Nat. 97: 58-63. that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is Woodgate, P. & Black, P. (1988) Forest Cover wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and Changes in Victoria, 1869-1987. Department of therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or Conservation, Forests and Lands: Melbourne. other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

ISSN 1448-9902

11