United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Tongass National Forest
Forest Plan Interdisciplinary Team
8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
( 9 0 7 )586-8700
Reply To: RS-G-10-b Date: May 19, 1997
Subject: Summary of the 1997 Other Terrestrial Mammals Assessment Panel
To: Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) Revision Planning File
From: Chris Iverson, TLMP IDT, Panel Facilitator
I. INTRODUCTION
A panel of mammal experts met in Juneau, Alaska on April 7 and 8, 1997 to evaluate the likelihood that various TLMP Revision alternatives would provide sufficient habitat to support persistent and well distributed populations of terrestrial mammals across their historical range on the Tongass National Forest. The panel was reconvened primarily to examine Alternatives
10 (RSDEIS Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 11 (FEIS Preferred Alternative) that were not previously subjected to panel assessments.
All four wildlife scientists that participated in the first Other Terrestrial Mammal Panel
Assessment in November, 1995 participated in this effort. Panel evaluators offered their professional judgments regarding the likely effects of implementing proposed TLMP alternatives on selected terrestrial mammals of Southeast Alaska. They were instructed to base likelihood outcomes on the anticipated effect that implementation for 100 years of alternatives 1, 2, 5, 9,
9’, 10, or 11 would have on the remaining abundance and distribution of habitats to support well distributed and viable populations of selected terrestrial mammals across their historic ranges on Tongass National Forest.
This summary provides a discussion of factors that emerged as major concepts considered and debated by panel evaluators that influenced their assignment of likelihood points to outcomes.
An analysis and comparison of ratings among alternatives is presented as well as a comparison between the 1995 and 1997 panels for alternative common to both efforts. Finally, panel evaluators were asked to complete an “Appraisal of Contribution of Alternative Features to
Maintaining Wildlife Habitat” to assess features of alternatives (e.g. reserves, beach buffers, rotation age, etc.) as to their contribution to maintaining habitat to support mammal populations.
Results of this appraisal also were considered in interpreting panel results.
Detailed notes were recorded by a scribe during the two day session. These notes include all presentations, rating procedures, and discussion, as well as the names and roles of all persons who participated in the panel. This information is generally not repeated in this summary as the notes are included in the TLMP planning record. A list of panel evaluators, materials provided to evaluators, and individuals involved in the panel process appear in Appendix 1. Panel evaluators’ assignment of likelihood points to five outcomes and their appraisals of alternative features are attached in Appendix 2.

_. .
. . -.
II. IMPORTANT DISCUSSION FACTORS
The first Other Terrestrial Mammal Panel, conducted in November 1995, initially considered a total of 81 described mammal taxa that exist in Southeast Alaska. They reduced this total into two groups for evaluation: (1) widely distributed taxa associated with productive old-growth forests (Widely Distributed Group), and (2) endemic taxa associated with productive old-growth forests (Endemic Group). They provided likelihood outcome ratings for both groups. For purposes of continuity, this second panel adopted the two groups they established during the first panel. These include:
The Widely Distributed group is comprised of the following:
1. black bear (Ursus americanus pugnax Swarth)
2. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis canadensis Kerr)
3. wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus Linnaeus)
4. fisher (Martes pennanti [Rhoads] Miller)
5. northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys [Osgood] A.H. Howell)
6. river otter (Lutra canadensis mira Goldman)
7. mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus columbiae Hollister)
8. silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans [LeConte] Peters)
9. California Myotis (Myotis californicus Miller)
10. Keen’s Myotis (Myotis keenii keenii [Merriam] Miller and G.M. Allen)
11. little brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus alascensis Miller)
12. long-legged Myotis (Myotis volans longicrus [True] Miller and G.M. Allen).
The Endemic Group is comprised of the following:
1. Prince of Wales Island flying squirrel (Glaucomys A.H. Howell)
2. beaver (Castor canadensis phaeus Heller)
3. Keen’s mouse (Peromyscus keeni sitkensis Hogan et al. 1993)
4. southern red-backed vole (CIethrionomys gapperi stikinensis Hall and Cockrum)
5. southern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi solus Hall and Cockrum)
6. southern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi wrangeli [V.Bailey] Hall and Cockrum)
7. southern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi phaeus Swarth)
8. Admiralty Island meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus admiraltiae Heller)
9. Sitka meadow vole (Microtus oeconomus sifkensis Merriam)
10. ermine (Mustela erminea alascensis Hall)
11. ermine (Mustela enninea initis Hall) )
12. ermine (Mustela erminea celenda Hall)
13. Admiralty Island ermine (Mustela erminea salva Hall)
14. Suemez Island ermine (Mustela erminea seclusa Hall).
The second panel used the same approach as the first for assigning likelihood scores for each group. Assignment of likelihood points was based on the evaluator’s view of the most vulnerable or sensitive taxa within a group. However, by applying scores to the most sensitive taxa without identifying which species was largely responsible for the assignment of likelihood points, interpreting the results relative to risk imposed by a proposed alternative became difficult. In addition, efforts to identify causal factors (e.g. alternative features) for ratings that suggested higher levels of risk was difficult with these grouped ratings.
To deal with this difficulty, an attempt was made in this second panel to further refine and
reduce the above lists to identify the most sensitive species or ‘weakest link’ within each group.
Several alternative methods were explored, but in every case panel evaluators were not
2
-.

comfortable pursuing the process, primarily due to the considerable uncertainty and a belief that they had already narrowed the list as much as possible. Available information is very limited with surveys having been conducted on only 28 of the thousands of islands. They suggested that certain endemics may yet be discovered while other endemics may be more common than originally thought.
The following grouping concepts were pursued but rejected by panel evaluators: species that occur largely in legislatively protected areas (Wilderness); known island endemics (Suemez
Island ermine); extremely peripheral species (e.g. fisher and lynx); bats based upon similar life history and about which very little is known; natural risk (isolated to single small islands) and additive risk due to management activity; known or suspected strength of association with oldgrowth forests (e.g. flying squirrel strongly associated with old growth).
Viability and Well Distributed Populations
Panel evaluators were specifically asked to consider the concepts of gaps, well distributed populations, and viability. They had some difficulty separating the concepts of well distributed and viable. Spatial scale and time frame were important factors in their discussion. They suggested that within the relatively short 100-year time frame, a population may remain viable but, depending upon the species, management actions during that time period may set up longer term conditions leading toward eventual extinction. Somewhat different conclusions were clearly developed for each of the two groups considered.
For the Widely Distributed Group, viability was in question within Outcome ill. The concept of a gap in distribution was dependent upon scale and species life history, since panel evaluators were dealing with a variety of species within the group. However, they generally concluded that in most cases Outcome III - existence of some significant gaps in distribution with some limitation to interaction, usually meant a population was no longer well distributed. The significance of gaps depended upon the species life history and the size, number, and type of gap. A gap at the scale of an individual home range may not allow for a well distributed population, but it may continue to be viable if the populations continue to interact. However, if the gap was large enough to represent the loss of a subpopulation, then the population was no longer well distributed and also likely not viable in Outcome III. Most agreed that Outcome IV populations existing only in refugia - was clearly not well distributed and likely not viable.
For the Endemic Group, panel evaluators adopted a more conservative view of well distributed populations due to the naturally higher risks inherent with endemic taxa. They concluded that only Outcome I and II described a situation that was well distributed for endemic species.
Permanent gaps in distribution (Outcome Ill) represented a condition where endemic species were likely not well distributed.
The first panel generally concluded that a viability concern existed somewhere between
Outcomes II and III, though they did not distinguish between the two groups during their discussions. Outcome III represented a condition where a taxa was no longer well distributed.
Thus, conclusions from the second panel do not appear to differ significantly from the earlier panel.
The interpretation of extirpation in Outcome V was clarified during discussion between the
‘before’ and ‘after’ ratings. The point was clarified that extirpation was considered very literally, the species no longer existed within 100 years on National Forest lands. Several evaluators stated that in conducting their ‘before’ ratings they inferred that Outcome V would lead to eventual extirpation, but not necessarily within the 100 year time period. This clarification resulted in a minor shift of scores from Outcome V to IV among certain evaluators.

Endemic Species
There was significant discussion about the concern for endemic species because these species have restricted ranges and are naturally at greater risk of extinction. Simply being an endemic species equated to increased risk by panel evaluators.
l
Panel evaluators did not see significant value to mammals in the removal of all islands less than 1000 acres from the timber base to reduce risk to small island endemics. They suggested that this island size was too small and questioned where this size came from.
l
Specific management direction was needed for endemics because of inherent risks of being endemic.
l
The provision to consider some endemic species as Regional Sensitive Species that would trigger a project level Biological Evaluation to identify risks to the species was not considered a strong enough approach to minimize risk. Several panel evaluators did not believe that this process would fundamentally change on-the-ground management.
However, panel evaluators made several recommendations regarding designation of sensitive species, including the Prince of Wales flying squirrel and Keen’s myotis that were repeatedly mentioned as old-growth associates of particular concern during several discussions.
l
There is considerable uncertainty related to endemic species, particularly in the island archipelago of Southeast Alaska, and this uncertainty was factored into the panel evaluators assignment of likelihood points to outcomes.
l
Because of considerable uncertainty about endemic species and the effects of management, additional research, monitoring, and adaptive management could be used as tools to address uncertainty. In this recommendation, they desired scientifically valid sampling procedures with a high likelihood of detecting species present.
ating Individual Species in the 1995 panel, panel evaluators attempted to examine risks to individual species by assigning the most likely single outcome, of the five possible outcomes, to that species under that alternative. Those summary tables are included in Appendix 3. The first panel left many blanks in the table, suggesting that there was no concern with that species in that alternative.
As one of the efforts to partition species into finer groups and further identify, if possible, taxa of disproportionate risk or concern, panel evaluators attempted to reexamine the table and re-rate species relative to the alternatives evaluated by this panel. After several attempts and modifications in the process, it was clear that the considerable uncertainty left the panel evaluators uncomfortable with this outcome assignment process for individual species.
II. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
The ‘after’ likelihood outcome ratings are used to compare among alternatives since these second ratings benefit from professional interaction and a likely greater understanding of differences among features in alternatives. The ‘before’ ratings occurred following presentations on alternatives and discussion about mammal distribution and ecology in southeast Alaska, but before the merits of individuals alternatives were discussed among panel evaluators in relation to mammal habitat relationships. Both sets of scores are appended to the notes.
The average rating for all panelists also is used, rather than focusing on differences among individual evaluators. Furthermore, when considering the likelihood of maintaining habitat sufficient to support viable and well distributed populations within both mammals group, a range of two scores is provided: the sum of mean scores for Outcome I and II and the sum of mean scores for Outcome I + II + III. Data are presented in this manner because panel
4

evaluators generally concluded that well distributed mammal populations occur along a continuum from Outcome II to III and that viable populations occurred somewhere within
Outcome III. Expression of data as a range also illustrates the uncertainty in the process and the variability in the professional judgments regarding the concepts of viable and well distributed populations. Use of a range also avoids presenting a single absolute value that might suggest a level of precision that does not exist in this assessment process.
Comparison Between 1995 and 1997 Panels
Direct comparisons with the first panel process held in November, 1995 can be made by looking at results from Alternatives 1 and 9’ that were identical between the two panels.
Indirect comparisons also can be made by using Alternatives 2 and 5 - the features of which remained identical, but the acres of Productive Old Growth (POG) scheduled for harvest was reduced by 253,000 and 109,000, respectively. The ‘historical’ condition also was rated to examine both the effect of 40 years of forest management as well as the residual or natural risk to endemic and widely distributed mammals. Summary results are provided in Table 1 and 2.
Widely Distributed Group
Panel evaluators expressed greater confidence that Alternative 1 would maintain habitat sufficient to maintain viable and well distributed populations of the Widely Distributed Group with combined scores for Outcomes I + II and I + II + III that increased significantly by 36 to 45 points between the 1995 (range 33 to 51) and 1997 (range 69 to 96) panels (Table 1). Scores also increased significantly from 16 to 53 points in Alternative 5. The likelihood scores assigned to Outcomes I, II and III decreased slightly for Alternative 9’ from 3 to 12 in 1995 to 0 to 4 in 1997, or a decline of from 3 to 8 points. Scores for Alternative 2 were nearly identical, varying by only 2 points within each range despite a reduction of 253,000 acres of old growth planned for harvest. Thus, one might consider a range of variability of up to 43 (2 to 45) likelihood points as inherent variability in the process. Thus, scores between panels generally increased significantly for lower risk alternatives (1 and 5) and declined for higher risk alternatives (2 and 9’) and had a range of variability of up to 45 points.
demic Group
A similar, but less significant and consistent pattern of scores existed between the 1995 and
1997 panels for the Endemic Group. Alternative 1 scores increased 7 to 20 likelihood outcome points (I + II to I + II + III combined) and decreased 13 points for Outcomes I + II but increased 16 points for I + II + III in Alternative 5 - despite a reduction of 109,000 acres harvested in the 1997 panel (Table 2). There were slight decreases for Alternative 2 (5 to 8 points) and Alternative 9’ (3 to 8 points). Thus the range of variability inherent in the Endemic
Group was up to 33 points (-13 to 20).
Comparison Among 1997 Alternatives
Widelv Distributed Group
Panel evaluators’ scores can be separated into three general groups based upon the likelihood of populations resulting in either refugia or total extirpation (Outcomes IV and V); conditions that panel evaluators clearly concluded would not be well distributed or viable, after 100 years of full alternative implementation. The Historical Condition and Alternative 1 essentially have no chance of resulting in refugia or being extirpated (IV + V scores of l-4). Because they lack an extended rotation or a forestwide system of habitat reserves, Alternatives 2, 9, and 9’ have a very high likelihood of resulting is conditions of either refugia or extirpation in 100 years (not
5

viable) with combined Outcome IV and V scores 83 to 96. Conversely all other action alternatives have a reserve system or an extended rotation and have a relatively high likelihood of not resulting in conditions of refugia or extirpation in 100 years; combined likelihood scores of
9, 19, and 23 for Alternatives 5, 11, and 10, respectively.
Alternatives 10 and 11 (forestwide reserve system) and 5 (extended rotations) have fundamentally difference landscape management strategies. However, despite these differences in strategies, all 3 alternatives were rated similarly with combined scores of 26-79,
38-82 and 39-92, respectively relative to the likelihood of maintaining habitat sufficient to maintain viable and well distributed populations of Widely Distributed mammals. This similarly may indicate that panel evaluators were markedly influenced by the total number of acres planned for harvest as there is similarity in acres harvested under all 3 alternatives. Panel evaluators were not, however, apparently influenced by a large difference of 350,000 acres planned for harvest between Alternatives 9 and 9’ scores for these two alternatives were very similar. Perhaps the large acreage harvested in both of these alternatives (> 1 ,000,000) overshadowed the difference.
The likely impacts of 40 years of management activity on the Widely Distributed group can also be evaluated by considering the likelihood scores applied to the Historical Condition and
Alternative 1. These alternatives are nearly identical in having from 97-99 likelihood outcome points assigned to Outcomes I, II, and III - outcomes considered viable and possibly well distributed by panel evaluators. More points (21) were allocated to Outcome III in Alternative
1 suggesting that some gaps had been created due to past timber harvest.
demic Group
Likelihood outcome scores for the Endemic Group were comparatively low, indicating a relatively high level of risk associated with management of species within this group. As noted above, panel evaluators concluded that just being an endemic species represented naturally elevated risk. This fact is clearly illustrated in rating scores for the Historical condition where panel evaluators allocated an average of 41 points to conditions of ephemeral gaps (Outcome II), permanent gaps (Outcome Ill) or refugia (Outcome IV), suggesting that naturally or historically these species were, by definition as endemics never very well distributed.
One needs to consider two important points when interpreting these scores. First, the process of rating the lowest common denominator or weakest link among a group will tend to result in conservative or low scores; thus, these scores are not necessarily comparable to other single species panel assessment scores. More importantly, the ratings may be based largely upon uncertainty because so little is known about the distribution, life history, or uniqueness of these taxa. Panel discussion indicated that species may exist that have yet to be described, a consideration that may have influenced panel evaluators’ ratings. That extent of uncertainty was revealed in the panel evaluators’ discomfort, inability, and eventually unwillingness to assign likelihood outcome scores to individual species -- a process that they completed in the 1995 panel (see Appendix 3).
Forty years of timber harvest have apparently had a relatively significant effect on endemic species because panel evaluators significantly reduced likelihood scores for viable and well distributed populations (Outcomes I + II + Ill) from the Historical condition (98 points) to
Alternative 1 (71 points). The likelihood that some taxa will be restricted to refugia or be extirpated in 100 years as a result of the past 40 years of timber harvest increased from 2 to
29 for outcome IV and V scores.
6

As with the Widely Distributed group, alternatives can be divided into three general groups with similar 100-year likelihood outcome ratings. Alternatives 2, 9, and 9’ are very similar with
Outcome IV and V scores of 93, 92, and 97, respectively, suggesting a very high likelihood that some endemic mammal will either exist in refugia or be extirpated in 100 years of implementing these alternatives. Alternatives 5, 11, and 10 are generally intermediate in likelihood outcome rating for IV and V with scores of 45, 45, and 52, respectively. Alternative
1 and the Historical condition have the lowest combined IV and V scores of 29 and 2.
As noted above and similar to the Widely Distributed Group, there was a consistent shift in outcome ratings for Outcome V (points shifted to higher outcomes, generally IV), due to a clarification of the interpretation of extirpation within the 100-year evaluation period (Table 2).
IV. Alternative Features
The appraisal of the contribution of features rating form (see Appendix 2) indicates that panel evaluator’s ratings were very similar for each feature for both the Widely Distributed and
Endemic groups, so they are discussed together.
There was relatively little discussion of specific features during panel deliberations, primarily because so many species were being considered and evaluated. From the appraisal of features form, panel evaluators rated any type of reserve as an important feature and the large and medium old-growth habitat reserves were rated as critically important by most evaluators. Consistent with the panel discussions, the removal of islands less than 1000 acres from the suitable timber base did not factor as an important element because panel evaluators concluded that this island size is too small to effectively contribute to reducing risk to island endemics.
Ratings for the Matrix Management Strategy revealed that acres of old growth harvested was a very detrimental feature and is generally supported by overall outcome ratings among alternatives. Similarly, the acres of old growth retained in the matrix was a critically important feature. Panel evaluators rated Biological Evaluations as important or critically important.
This feature was specifically designed to address endemic mammals and the significant uncertainty though a process to conduct site specific analyses. Panel evaluators viewed the concept favorably, but questioned its ultimate effectiveness and implementation. Roads were rated as an important feature but panel discussion revealed relatively little concern about roads except for a few specific taxa such as mountain goats and wolverine.

Appendix 1. List of panel evaluators as well as the facilitator, resource specialists, scribe, and silent observer and affiliation. Also listed are materials provided to panel evaluators for use in panel deliberations.
Panel evaluators:
Lowell Suring, Forest Service
Bill Block, Forest Service
Joe Cook, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Howard Sakai, National Park Service
Facilitator: Chris Iverson, TLMP IDT, Forest Service
Mammal Resource Specialist: Rod Flynn, Alaska Department of
Fish and
Game
Scribe: Scott Posner, Forest Service
Silent Observer: Annette Untalasco, Forest Service
Panel evaluators were presented the following information: l
Overview video of forest planning: Bruce Rene’, TLMP.
l
Overview presentation of alternatives; Chris Iverson: TLMP (including the handout copy of overheads used “Tongass Land Management Plan Framework for Alternative, Panel
Assessments, Spring, 1997”).
l
Tongass maps illustrating 7 alternatives and land use designations (I, 2, 5, 9, IDT,9', 10 and
11); 1954 productive old growth; 1995 productive old growth abundance and distribution and second growth; anticipated old growth condition in 2095 for all alternatives.
l
Copies of the following materials were also provided:
I . Scientific information and the Tongass Land Management Plan: Key Findings
From the Scientific Literature, Species Assessments, Resource Analyses,
Workshops, and Risk Assessment Panels. PNW GTR # 386.
2. Summary of the Revised Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
3. National Forest Management Act regulations concerning wildlife viability.
4. Interagency Viable Population Committee (VPOP) report (Suring et al. 1993)
Executive Summary.
5. Summary of PNW Review of the VPOP Report by Kiester and Eckhardt (I 994).
6. Extinction Rates in Archipelagos: Implications for Populations in Fragmented
Habitats (Burkey 1995).
7. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan - goals and objectives, wildlife related standards and guidelines, information needs, and riparian information.
8. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Tongass National Forest Land
Management Plan Revision; wildlife related components of the effects analysis.
9. Controlling Stability Characteristics of Steep Terrain with Discussion of Needed
Standardization of Mass Movement Hazard Indexing: A Resource Assessment of
Land Use Impacts on Channel Condition. Publication in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms by Woodsmith.
10. Old-growth Forest Habitat Conservation Strategy, Alexander Archipelago Wolf and Queen Charlotte Goshawk Analyses. (Iverson and DeGayner, 1997)
11. Evaluation of the Use of Scientific Information in Developing the Final Alternative for the Tongass Land management Plan (Everest et al. 1997)
12. Conceptual Approaches for Maintaining Well-Distributed, Viable Wildlife
Populations: A Resource Assessment (Iverson and Rene 1997 in GTR # 392).
13. Dynamics of understory biomass in Stika spruce-western hemlock forests of southeast Alaska (Alaback 1982)
14. Risk Assessment Panels as a component of the TLMP Revision Process: information on the process.
10

15. Planned
of productive old growth harvested by alternative by 2095.
16. Five tables summary data by biogeographic province.
17. Mammalian Biodiversity and island Management, TLMP Revision Issue Analysis.
(Iverson, 1997). (With accompanying map of islands in southeast Alaska).
18. An analysis for each of the alternatives, the number of islands with suitable timber available for harvest in the following island size ranges:1 -1000, 1000-10,000,
10,000-l00,000, and over 100,000
.-.
- .- .- . . .a -
- +.
,. .
-, .
_
11

Appendix 2. Individual panel evaluators assignment of likelihood outcome scores and appraisal of contribution to alternative features to maintaining habitat sufficient to support wide ranging and endemic mammals.