United States Forest Tongass National Forest
Department of Service Forest ZPlan Interdisciplinary Team
Agriculture 8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 586-8700
Reply To: RG-G10-b Date: January 31, 1996
Subject: American Marten Viability Assessment Panel Summary
To: TLMP Revision Planning File
From: Chris Iverson, TLMP IDT
I. BACKGROUND
A viability assessment panel of American marten experts met in Seattle, Washington on
December 13-14, 1995 to evaluate the relative likelihood that TLMP Revision alternatives would maintain a persistent and well distributed population of marten throughout their range on the Tongass National Forest. Panel members integrated technical information presented on marten ecology in Southeast Alaska and their personnel experience and knowledge of marten ecology with details concerning design elements of forest plan alternatives to develop professional judgments about likely outcomes related to the longterm persistence and distribution of marten on the Tongass National Forest.
The following information was provided to marten panelists to conduct this assessment: l
Overview video of forest planning: Bruce Rene’, TLMP.
l
Overview presentation of alternatives; Chris lverson, TLMP.
l
Presentation on marten ecology and habitat relationships in Southeast Alaska: Rod
Flynn, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
0 Copies of:
Extinction Rates in Archipelagos: Implications for Populations in Fragmented Habitats.
Tongass Land Management Plan Framework for Development of Draft Alternatives;
Resource Assessment Panel Meetings, November 7-8 and 15-16, 1995.
TLMP Panel Assessment Procedures.
Forestwide Standard and Guidelines: Beach and Estuary Fringe; Threatened,
Endangered and Sensitive Species; Riparian.
l Tongass maps illustrating all 9 proposed alternatives; present old growth abundance and distribution by alternative; anticipated old growth condition in 2095 for all alternatives; productive oid growth blocks remaining in 2095 by alternative; current road existing across the Tongass; planned road system for Prince of Wales Island at full implementation of Alternative 9 (current plan); percent of productive old growth harvested between 1954 to 1995 by Value Comparison Unit (VCU).
l
Planned acres of productive old growth harvested by alternative by 2095.
l
Planned miles of road construction by 2095 for each alternative.
This summary provides an analysis of factors that emerged as major concepts considered and debated by panelists that influenced their likelihood outcome ratings. An analysis and comparison of ratings among alternatives is also presented. Panelists were instructed to base likelihood outcomes on the anticipated effect that implementation of each alternatives would
have in 100 years on the remaining abundance and distribution of habitats to support well distributed and persistent marten populations.
A complete set of notes was taken during the 2-day session, including all processes and rating procedures. These notes are available in the TLMP Planning Record and are not repeated here except for important factors affecting likelihood outcomes.
1

II. IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Forest Structure
Forest stnrcture at the stand scale and integrated across the landscape was the most important factor in panel ratings and discussion. Panelists agreed that based upon their personal experience, the scientific literature, and local Southeast Alaska data that marten are clearly associated with late seral and old growth forests and they function ecologically at broad landscape scales.
In their analysis, the panel found that the strong association of marten with the higher volume old growth forest
combined with past timber harvest that was concentrated in these highly productive stands, was cause for significant concern. The added interaction of elevation heightened concern; that is, significantly greater marten habitat use occurred below
1500 feet in elevation where there is also a greater relative proportion of the higher volume strata and past timber harvest has been concentrated. Panelists were told for their analysis that future planned harvest would generally be proportional to its present occurrence (e g.
FORPLAN was modeled with a constraint of 50% harvest from the high, 40% from the mid and 10% from the low volume strata).
As a mid-level predator, habitat to support adequate prey populations of small mammals was considered important. Thus, based upon forest succession in Southeast Alaska and small mammal habitat relationships, panelists concluded that 100 year timber harvest rotations were adverse to providing resilient prey populations for marten. The stem exclusion stage of forest succession persists for at least 70% of the rotation with a greatly simplified overall forest structure and generally devoid of understory vegetation. In addition, large trees and snags and downed logs, features that contribute to enhanced forest structural diversity are not regenerated during these short rotations. These structures provide prey habitat and are used as den sites by marten. Conversely, 200 year rotations increased structural complexity of seral forests to support prey was viewed as a superior landscape management approach.
The concept of two-aged silvicultural management prescriptions to harvest old growth was also believed to significantly contribute to forest stand structural diversity in managed seral forest stands.
Thus, a 100 year timber harvest rotation, when applied across a large portion of the landscape, was viewed as an unsustainable approach to marten habitat management to support persistent, adaptable, and well distributed marten populations across the Tongass.
Outcome ratings by alternative were generally commensurate with this conclusion (Table 1).
Maintaining the old growth forest within the beach and riparian habitat zones was considered important by panelists, particularly for landscape connectivity and prey habitat diversity.
Several panelists would have preferred application of riparian management option 1 (largest stream buffers) to more than just alternative 3. As a landscape corridor, specific widths were not identified, but the general concept was that wider corridors are preferable, especially when the distance between habitat patches is greater. Corridors that are wide enough to also serve as functional habitat to facilitate longterm landscape connectivity were preferable to narrower corridors that only facilitate movement between forest patches. The 1000’ beach zone was specifically considered important because of the dissected nature of Southeast
Alaska islands, and generally more important that altitudinal riparian corridors.
Distribution
Because marten were introduced to some islands, historical distribution was assumed to be after introductions were completed. Much of the panel discussion was devoted to the interpretation of gaps in distribution. By definition, a gap was considered to be a spatial area within which habitat capability was reduced to the point that reproductively successful marten populations may no longer exist or they would exist in such low densities as to significantly
2

increase the probability of local extirpation Individuals may occasionally disperse and move through these landscapes, but interaction among distant populations is minimized.
Roads
There was relatively little discussion devoted to road density and trapping in relation to persistent and well distributed marten populatins, rather they focused on forest structure at the stand and landscape levels and net marten habitat capability. In general, panelists felt that trapping and related mortality could be managed through road management and
seasons and bag limits. This conclusion may have evolved from the example of marten trapping restrictions implemented on Northeast Chichagof Island as a result of decline in harvest in 1988. They did comment, however, that one needed knowledge of the populations to detect such declines. Without the existence of ADF&G marten research project, the documented declines may have never been detected.
Recommendation
Significant discussion was devoted to Alternative 3 since it was an explicit application of the reserve system proposed by the Interagency Viable Population Committee (V-POP) to maintain viable and well distributed populations of old growth associated species. A marten landscape conservation strategy was a significant design component for the overall strategy.
Panelists viewed alternative 3 as just marginally acceptable because the timber harvest rotation was only 100 years and the reserves were too small. Further discussion revealed that the V-POP Committee considered their strategy as minimally acceptable, since it was designed to minimize effects on timber harvest. The Pacific Northwest Research Station peer review of the V-POP strategy had also acknowledged that this approach was minimal and concluded that the V-POP strategy was insufficient to maintain viability of all species.
Panelists concluded that a land management approach that adopted the entire set of habitat reserves coupled with a 200 year management rotation of the matrix provided the highest likelihood of maintaining persistent and well distributed marten populations. Alternative 5 came closest to this optimal design, with a 200 year rotation and partial application of reserves in four biogeographic provinces. The panel believed that the forest plan should be proactive and allocate reserves throughout the forest before area specific needs are triggered to maintain management options or forest structure thresholds were exceeded.
III. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
In the following comparision of alternatives, the second or ‘after’ likelihood outcome ratings are used. There was little change in before and after ratings and the second ratings benefited from professional interaction and a likely greater understanding of both significant and subtle differences among features in alternatives. The average rating for all panelists are also referenced, rather than focusing on individual evaluator differences. The following key features emerged from panelists’ likelihood outcome ratings assuming 100 years of full alternative implementation.
Alternative 1 is an alternative with essentially no additional timber harvest and provided the greatest likelihood of maintaining stable, well distributed populations across their current range on the Tongass. It had a mean likelihood rating of 54 for Outcome I. However, panelists indicated that even with no further timber harvest and road construction, there is still a reasonable likelihood that local populations would be reduced or gaps would be created that limit interation among individuals, as indicated by a combined score of 46 for
Outcomes II and III. Concentration of past timber harvest in specific provinces and past harvest primarily in the higher volume classes which were concentrated at lower elevations contributed to this conclusion.
Panelists concluded that there was little or no likelihood of extirpation of marten from the entire Tongass National Forest under alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6. Alternatives 2, 9, and 7 however, were considered to have some chance of extirpation (likelihood scores of 15-25 for
3

.
Forest
Service
Reply To:
Date: February 6, 1996
Subject: American Marten Panel Assessment, December 13-14,1995
To: TLMP Planning Files
From: Chris Iverson, TLMP IDT
Tongass Land Management Plan Revision
American Marten Panel Assessment
Meeting Notes
December 13-14, 1995
Seattle, WA
Terry Shaw, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, TLMP IDT
Chris Iverson, USDA Forest Service, TLMP IDT
Rod Flynn, Research Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Len Ruggiero, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 800 Block East
Beckwith, Missoula, MT. 59807.
Stephen Henry, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest Range and Experiment
Station, 222 South 22nd, Laramie, WY 82070.
Buddy Johnson, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Koyukuk-Nowitna National Wildlife
Refuge, Box 287. Galena, AK 99741.
Larry Jones,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 93rd
Olympia, WA 98512.
Diane Evens,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station
Mike
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station
Marten panel members convened on December 13 and 14,1995 in Seattle,
Washington to evaluate the relative likelihood that TLMP Revision alternatives would maintain a persistent and well distributed marten population across their range on the Tongass National
Forest after 100 years of full alternative implementation. Panelists were presented the following information: l Video - overview of forest planning: Bruce Rene’:
IDT.
1

l l l l l
Overview of alternatives with handout copies of all visual aid overheads used; Chris
Iverson: TLMP IDT.
Panel evaluation process and likelihood outcomes: Terry Shaw, TLMP IDT.
Presentation on marten ecology in southeast Alaska: Rod Flynn, ADF&G.
Tongass maps illustrating 9 alternatives and land allocations; 1954 and 1995 productive old growth: planned productive old growth condition in 2095 for all alternatives with large and medium old growth block polygons from the old growth inventory; percent
productive old growth harvested by Value Comparison U nit (VCU) from 1954 to present; percent of productive old growth harvested in 2095 by VCU; existing road system on
Prince of Wales Island.
Copies of the following documents
provided: l l l l l l l
Extinction Rates in Archipelagos: Implications for Populations in Fragmented
Habitats.
Rating Mechanism, Alternative Summaries, and Alternative Matrix Table handout.
Tongass administrative area review comments on various assessments and resource analyses.
Draft Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for Beach and Estuary Fringe, Riparian, and Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species.
Total acres of productive old growth harvested assuming full implementation of each alternative.
Total planned miles of road construction assuming full implementation of each alternative.
Tongass Land Management Plan Framework for Development of Draft Alternatives;
Resource Assessment Panel Meetings, November 7-8 and 15-16, 1995.
Summary of Recorder’s Meeting Notes for December 13-14, 1995
Legend:
(Q) = Question
(A) = Answer
(P) = Panelist
(F) = Facilitator
(RS) = Resource Specialist
The session was convened at 015 Wednesday, 13 December 1995 in Seattle, Washington.
Terry Shaw began with introductions and explained the panel process and roles of panelists, scribe, and silent observer, assessment goals, and anticipated schedule. The panel was charged with the task to review features of each TLMP alternative and using their best professional judgment, assess the likelihood that full implementation after 100 years of an alternative would maintain
persistent and well distributed population of marten across their historical range on
Tongass National Forest. Each panel member was instructed to provide an individual and independent outcome rating for each alternative. He emphasized that the panel is Not a consensus building process. The 5 possible ‘outcome’ ratings, described in the Rating
Mechanism handout were fully discussed. The ratings are expressions of certainty of likelihood outcomes and are not probabilities per se.
Terry reviewed the panel process:
1.
Presentation about forest planning (video).
2.
Presentation on 9 TLMP alternatives.
3.
Technical presentation on about marten ecology, habitat relationships and status in
Southeast Alaska.
4.
Discussion between panelists, resource specialist, and facilitator concerning details about marten ecology in Southeast Alaska and the content and details of the proposed
-.--.--e-P ._
J

alternatives. At this point
would be no discussion between panelists to compare or contrast marten in relation to alternatives to ensure panelist independence.
5.
Develop initial ratings for each of
9 alternatives. Panelist anonymity was assured by having no names on the panelists rating form and the scores will be presented directly to the scribe for data entry. Panelist will retain possession of his/her individual rating form.
The goal is to complete this task the first day.
6.
initial ratings will
summarized and provided to each panelist, resource specialist and facilitator. These ratings will be the focal point to initiate discussion about
their relationship to marten ecology and management.
7.
Discussion is designed to explore the individual alternative building block components in order to understand their individual contributions to the panelists’ rating. After ail discussion was completed a second and final rating would be conducted and the assessment would be finished.
Background was provided by a video which reviewed the National Forest Management Act
(NFMA), the history of the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP), and the process of conducting effects analysis.
Q: (P). The law talks about doing a worst-case analysis when data is lacking. Why is that not part of the process? A: (F). Alternatives really do present a worst-case scenario because we assume full implementation of each alternative for 100 years, e.g. harvest the full ASQ every year and decade.
Follow-up Q: Not the worst case on the ground, but worst case for marten. A:
(F). The process will allow this, stay with it and see how it develops.
Chris iverson gave a review of forest dynamics in Southeast Alaska and a comprehensive overview of the nine alternatives. Copies of all presentation overheads were provided
a handout to panelists for notes and
reference. In addition to the information presented in the handout, discussion about specific points in the presentation included:
- Definitions (old growth/second growth) - A basic issue of the Tongass plan is how much additional old growth will be “liquidated” to maintain the timber industry until the significantly more productive second growth forest (l-2 times more net wood fiber per acre than old growth) is again available for harvest at 80-100 years of age. Existing second growth that was harvested beginning in the in 1950’s should start to become available in 4-6 decades.
- Forest dynamics in SE Alaska. Forest regeneration after harvest or disturbance is generally not a problem, in fact overstocking occurs and thinning is necessary. Old growth (OG) structure begins to redevelop at 200-250+ years. Culmination of mean annual increment occurs at 80-100 years and thus current forest management uses a 100 year rotation. Key issue is the 100+ years of the stem exclusion phase of forest development (stand age 30 - 130 years). This period , which corresponds to the most depauperate stage for wildlife negatively affects habitat capability for most species, especially
associated with old growth forests. The principal disturbance regimes are windthrow; largescale catastrophic windthrow and small scale gapphase forest .
processes. Current size scale and intensity of clearcut harvest exceeds these natural residual ecological disturbance regimes.
Q: (P). How do we know that what’s displayed as ‘productive OG” on the maps is really
‘structural OG”? A: (F). All OG meets the ecological definition of old growth, the strata define the relative tree size. High strata generally has the largest trees and often the greatest stand structural complexity; mid strata has same similar structural complexity but intermediate sized trees; and low strata has generally smaller trees and thus less overall stand complexity.
- Alternative development process included
history of previously-developed alternatives (3 fundamental land allocations used to build the current 9 alternatives (old Alt. A, Alt. P, and Alt. D
3

from the 1991 SDEIS). Five 5 issues have evolved since 1991: wildlife viability, fish/riparian habitat, karst/cave resources, alternatives to clearcutting, and socio-economic considerations of these new issues. Four strategies are used to address viability: wilderness, reserves, matrix, and combination of reserves and matrix. This discussion also included an explanation of the longterm timber contracts held w/2 private companies.
Q: (P). How were reserves created initially? A: (F). The Interagency Viable Population
Committee (V-POP) looked at old growth associated species to design a system of large, medium and small Habitat Conservation Areas (HCA). The size, spacing and old growth composition rules were summarized especially retain 25% high strata OG in large and medium
HCAs. HCA’s have been administratively modified consistent with V-POP guidelines.
Q: (P). Clarify ‘minimal timber management” in reserves. A: (F). This means no commercial harvest, but allows some roads and salvage harvest (catastrophic windthrow).
A more detailed description of reserves and matrix themes was presented by the facilitator.
Reserves are essentially the set of HCAs designed by V-POP. integration of the matrix concept, essentially an extended rotation to ‘recreate’ some components of old growth associated structure was conceptually following examples of other landscape planning efforts in the West
(e.g. Reynolds et al. 1992 for the northern goshawk in the Southwest Region and Vemer et al.
For the California Spotted Owl).
Q: (F). Is Alternative 3 the V-f OP Committee’s best shot at meeting the needs of the 5 old growth species considered? A: V-POP established the reserve design in 1992; the scientific peer review conducted by the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) concluded that it was a good start but didn’t go far enough in its design to ensure longterm viability of all species.
Alternative 3 doesn’t include all the elements that V-POP or PNW suggested, but it includes many. There are also some-specific guidelines from V-POP that are included as Standards &
Guides (S&G’s) that have been worked into draft Forest Plan.
Q: (P). If harvest in the matrix is proportional to distribution of stratums on the ground, what is the reliability of identification of strata type? A: (F). The FORPLAN model has been constrained to harvest old growth in proportion to its existence; approximately 50% from the high strata, 40% from the mid strata, and 10% from the low strata. Stand volume was estimated using aerial photo interpretation, not Landsat imagery.
Q: (P). Matrix theme could result in more roads than reserve system because of spreading out harvest activity? A: (F). Yes. Also keep in mind than moving from 100 year to 200 year rotation reduces ASQ (amount harvested per year) by nearly 50%.
(F.) Riparian component in alternatives is based on 8 channel process groups and uneven-aged timber management provided for in these buffers is single tree selection as compared to group selection. The objective of this harvest prescription is to maintain a windfirm buffer to protect the integrity of the direct riparian habitat. This is a different unevenaged management prescription than for the extended beach that seeks to maintain the integrity of the old growth structure within the stand. An alternative may get a variety of riparian options applied across watersheds, depending on the qualities of streams included (e.g. depending upon the Forest Habitat Integrity
Program - FHIP rating for the drainage), but each drainage has only 1 option applied. Fish genetics generally falls through the cracks under this approach to the extent stock genetics are known or recognized in the FHIP rating system.
Q: (P). Still bothered by lack of data on where the high volume OG is located on the ground and its spatial distribution. A: (F). The point was again repeated that acres of old growth planned for harvest in FORPLAN is constrained to harvest strata generally proportional to overall
50% of high strata, 40% of medium strata, and 10% of low strata. This constraint
4

prevents FORPLAN from continually harvesting the High strata until it is liquidated and avoiding the lower volume strata.
Q: (P). Is it reasonable to expect that some habitat is exempt from 50-40-10 safeguards? A:(F).
It’s in the realm of possibility but it is not the intent of the plan. Theoretically harvest would generally follow the application of 50-40-10 to all sales. Use that working assumption to make your professional judgments.
Terry Shaw again reviewed the rating mechanism in
Process handout and reiterated that the panelists should use their best professional judgment in asking “what is the likelihood of getting 1 of the 5 outcomes for marten if this alternative is invoked on the landscape for the next 100 years?” Panelists should distribute 100 point across outcomes for each alternative, and for the first rating round should avoid using any value judgments of Rod, Chris or Terry. Also stressed that the panel was not trying to reach
consensus,
trying to allow expression
(sharing) of thoughts. Discussion following first rating will be as important as the rating.
Rod Flynn presented a summary of marten ecology in Southeast Alaska based mostly on his 5year marten habitat relationships study and other locally important information. Salient points from the presentation and associated discussion:
- Important to note that there are regional differences in marten ecology and habitat use.
- Marten were selected as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) by the Forest Service.
- Distribution of marten prey in varies among island in the archipelago: e.g. Baranof Island has
Peromyscus but no long-tailed voles and very few tundra voles. Marten also scavenge on deer which are more numerous on islands than mainland.
- Historic distribution: the mainland and a few islands very close to mainland. Marten are assumed to be native on Admiralty Island but there is some uncertainty.
- Current distribution - widespread except for a few small islands as a result of 3 conscious introductions by US Fish and Wildlife Service and ADF&G. Apparently absent from Douglas and
Zarem bo Islands.
- High strata forest - use root systems of large old growth trees that develops from seedlings growing on nursery logs. High strata have more downed wood, snags, and large trees.
Q: (P). When trees are harvested, what is cut? A: (F). Generally everything is for safety considerations. Small whips may be left. Unmerchantable material is generally yarded
landing. Snags can be retained if marked and operators can safely harvest and yard the remainder of the harvest unit.
- Low strata - average tree size in the strata is smaller, less large woody debris.
- Muskeg - highly hydric soils form
transition from nonforest to 10% canopy cover (non productive forest with little classic old growth characteristics).
- Timber harvest generally has large clearcuts with few trees left, although on one district
(Hoonah), they are starting to leave small trees in a line along
cable yarding route. Clearcuts are on lower slopes in the high productive sites, with lower quality forest patches between cuts.
- Roads: Until industrial logging began in the 1950’s, Southeast Alaska was unroaded and
was by water only.
- Marten trapping success is related to road miles on northeast Chichagof Island up to a point: trapper success has increased with the number of road miles, then catch plummeted in 1988-89.
Road building has continued
is down now because of harvest restrictions
(season is limited to 30 days and restrictions from trapping off roads on federal lands using motor vehicles).

ADF&G marten study
recapture effort 4 times/year usually recaptures 60-80% of the marked population. Martens are highly vulnerable to trapping and it doesn’t take large area to be open to trapping for large number of individuals to be caught, especially transients.
- Marten recruitment is variable between years but has generally been increasing from 1992-95.
- Pregnancy rates are rising to almost 100% in recent years. Rates in early 1990’s were among lowest recorded in the literature. Rates are likely related to rodent numbers, which were in decline in ‘90-92, then rose substantially in the past few years.
- Survival: low in ‘91-92 related to trapping; natural predation from eagles, and other unknown causes: background natural mortality may be 10-30%.
- Habitat Use - ADF&G Study Findings - preliminary information on habitat use of 175 individual martens on Northeast Chichagof island was presented. The analysis compared habitat use of martens at 3,000 radio-telemetry relocations with the availability of habitats on the Northeast
Chichagof study area. Habitats were described by
new timber strata in the Forest Services timber-type database. All relocations were pooled across seasons and individuals. A selection index was calculated by dividing a habitat’s percent use by its availability. Martens showed the greatest preference for high strata old growth forests. The use of this habitat was 2.1 times its availability. The medium strata was also preferred habitat with its use 1.3 times availability. Low strata forests were not selected with use about equal to availability.
forest and ail nonforest types including
were avoided by martens. Maps of Northeast Chichagof
Island with marten locations plotted on the timber-type strata were shown as examples of how martens were using the landscape. habitat use analysis - based on use from radiomarked marten vs. habitat availability within the study area:
- The ADF&G study was initially started
examine the habitat relationships expressed in the
Marten Habitat Capability Model. In 1988, a habitat capability model was developed by an interagency group of biologists to provide a quantitative procedure for evaluating marten habitat in Southeast Alaska. Recently, this model was modified to incorporate changes in timber-type database. In the model, high strata habitats are rated as the best marten habitat: Habitat
Suitability Index (HSI) = 1.O. Medium strata forests have an HSI = 0.8, low strata HSI = 0.5, scrub HSI = 0.3, clearcuts HSI = 0.2, and nonforest HSI = 0. The model assumes that beach fringe and riparian forests are the highest value habitats, and upland habitats up to 1,500 feet in elevation are reduced by 10%. The scaled selection indices from the marten field study were compared to the habitat model coefficients. The rank order of habitats was similar for the habitat selection indices and habitat model coefficients. High strata forests had the greatest value for both groups.
- Habitat fragmentation generally reduces habitat quality. This spatial feature is not yet incorporated in the habitat model and needs more analysis but is also a concept supported in the scientific
- There are large fluctuations in marten demographics - highly variable fecundity rate with periodic reproductive failures tied to prey and highly variable survival linked to trapping and prey availability.
- Most juveniles are transients and exhibit large movements. Adults become transient during low prey availability. Maximum distance traveled = 57 km; mean = 26 km ; 68% traveled <37 km before transmitter died or were trapped. It is difficult to determine any corridor requirements.
Marten do not cross large bodies of water and metapopulations are created.
Q: (P). What’s up with road closures? What is the likelihood of roads being open again for trapping? A: (RS). Good question, we don’t know.
Subsistence trapping is managed
Federal Subsistence Board. The Forest Service has principal management control over habitat management that is a main factor in considering longterm viability.
Q. (P). Did you trap for prey in clearcuts: A: (RS). Yes, numbers fluctuate from low to high depending upon year. Small mammals were generally absent from closed canopy second
6

growth forests. Based upon the literature, there is little food for small mammals in this stand type.
Q. (P). Did you do any snow tracking? Was there use of clearcuts? A:(RS). We did not specifically conduct snow tracking. Incidental observations indicated very limited use of clearcuts.
Q: (P). Did you see evidence of a reluctance by martens to cross big clearcuts? Could they function as
barrier? A: (RS). We obtained marten relocations around the fringe of dearcuts, but very few within the clearcuts. Perhaps current forest configuration is that clearcuts are not currently extensive enough to restrict movements. However, higher number of marten carcasses are found in cuts, showing mortality in cuts. Comment from an panel member:
Locations in habitats don’t necessarily mean successful use of those habitats - mortality may be high and the two factors need to be related. Ecotypic variation is important.
Q: (P). What was the extent of use of riparian areas? A:(RS). We don’t have much data on use vs. Availability there. Most dens were higher up on slopes and not in riparian areas; female dens were in big hemlocks, at base of large trees or in down logs.
Q: (P). If we are to extrapolate for the whole Tongass and its different ecoregions based on NE
Chichagof Island, how different are these ecoregions and how far should we take your data? A:
(RS). There are some data that show trapping pressure throughout Tongass (almost entire area is being trapped). There are some prey differences on islands but no real numbers to show those differences. There are low deer numbers on some islands (Mitkof Island and others in central Southeast Alaska), no red squirrels on Prince of Wales, but there are northern flying squirrels and spruce grouse.
Q: (P). is there any reason to suspect that habitat relationships you showed would be different anywhere else on the Tongass forest? A:(RS). it would be a surprise if that were the case. (F):
There may be a greater reliance on large-volume stands in Rod’s study area because of greater snow depths in the northern regions of the Tongass. Large trees better intercept snow and reduce snow depths beneath the canopy. Because snow depths decrease farther south in the
Tongass, larger stands may not be as important. Response from (RS): I’m not sure if that would relationship exists.
Q: (P). Is there any reason to believe that different mammal associates on islands would have a bearing on marten ? A: (RS). No. There is generally no difference in large predators but significant differences in small mammal prey diversity.
Each panelist rated alternatives independently, using maps and handouts provided. Scores were entered into summary sheet by scribe. Panelists were kept anonymous.
[Session ended at 1900 hours]
Thursday, 14 December 1995 - Session commenced at 0815 hours.
The facilitator distributed copies of the summary table showing individual panelist scores as well as average scores among ail panelists for each alternative. The group considered approaching the discussion from 2 option; go alternative by alternative or have each panelist review alternative building block factors that were important to their deliberations and ratings. The later option was selected.
Panelist A Summary.

- Fine tuning in S&G’s was irrelevant in terms of what was going to happen.
- Abundance pattern of habitat of varying qualities was a key feature:
- Assumptions of habitat quality were based on data presented by Resource Specialist, which was consistent with the scientific literature.
- Area of habitat was important in relation to isolation, connectivity, and effective population size. Would have preferred to have spatially-explicit information on old growth habitat and site quality of habitat for a better basis for assessment, but since we did not have this information, these assumptions were followed in the rating process:
High strata old growth is necessary for persistence regardless of use in other habitats;
Habitat that was displayed as naturally fragmented on maps was generally low site quality;
Areas of harvest to date left residual old growth of low site quality (no 50-40-10 rule)
Future harvest would be at least 50% high site in choicest low elevation areas;
Riparian buffers not been shown to provide reliable dispersal corridors;
Regulated forest of the future: in 100 yr. rotation will not have 1 acre of suitable habitat except in withdrawals’and preserves, which is inadequate. Thus, you cannot conceptually rate above Outcome 3;
Difficult to discriminate between Outcomes 2 & 3 - breeding population vs. "some” breeding populations; data was not of fine enough detail to be able to distinguish between these 2 outcomes.
Assumed habitat blocks of approximately 400 square kilometers (30 mile marten home range) was an area judged to be a gap and used the "50 individual rule” for minimum viable populations.
Q. (F) queried that even Alternative 3 with full reserves didn’t allow enough potential habitat to allow anything higher than Outcome 3? A: (P). Yes, that’s correct because of significant gaps in habitat distribution.
[This led to discussion on definition of viable population and what is and isn’t in regulations regarding that definition, with reference to Shaffer 1981 e.g. 95% probability of persistence for
100 years].
Panelist B Summary:
- Relied less on the maps but used to select a few sites and comparing the change in those sites across alternatives.
- Relied more on matrix table that summarized alternative features. Features were stratified and weighted by most important features for marten: timberland, roading, areas harvested, rotation length, beach/riparian/estuary.
- The reserve/matrix mix was preferred
we do not yet know which is more important martens key to structure more than dark patches of green on a map. Assumptions used in rating were: ’ l
2-aged stand management is important - forest structure is retained at harvest; without 2 aged management
for marten.
l Uneven-aged timber harvest prescriptions was rated next preferred but there is a problem with blowdown, which
function as well.
l
Marten are adaptable and can disperse great distances to fill gaps in distribution so it is difficult to say with certainty that Outcome 1 won't happen, so can’t rule it out. (Gave industrial forests in Maine and fire
in Alaska as examples.) How long a period needed to show persistence?
Observation from Panelist A.
Assumptions are less conservative, but this doesn’t matter because even if they are correct, because of the 100 year rotation you cannot get above
Outcome 3. Also, because of the great deal of ecotypic variation, local data from the Resource
Specialist should be used because it is most pertinent, not Maine or anywhere else. Response:’
AK data was based on the
quo, which won’t be continued, so must assume some changes.
8

Q: (F). Would the Z-aged stand management prescription that leaves structure within a ciearcut potentially provide marten habitat? A: (RS). Yes, if done correctly, but a 200 year rotation would definitely result in higher quality habitat when compared to the 2-aged stand management.
l
The Riparian habitat is still an important issue, even if local Alaska data didn’t show high use there. None of the alternatives seemed good for riparian habitat and would have liked to
more Riparian Option l’s across alternatives.
(F). Riparian Option 1 was developed within the Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment. Many believe it was too restrictive (PACFISH “lungs of the earth” analogy was provided, with riparian
buffers covering 50-60% of the land base) but it serves to minimize risk to the fishery and
habitat resource. Planners wanted to include it in alternative development matrix somewhere so it could be a basis for comparison and potentially be available at some point in development of a preferred alternative.
Q: (P). When you say that Option 1 was too restrictive, does that mean that there weren’t enough trees to cut? if so, is that a fact or just an assumption? Perhaps it is better to be safe now and set restrictive buffers, if later we determine that more trees can be taken without affecting the resource then return and harvest more at that point. A (F): Even among fish specialists, there was no consensus for need of Option 1 and it may be too conservative. (P).
We shouldn’t be catering to loggers in this assessment. (F): But the Tongass NF does have a long-term logging commitment to one company. However that is not a factor for you to consider, your task is evaluate the alternatives relative to marten viability. it is Forest Service management that integrates multiple considerations in ultimate management decisions such as a preferred alternative and how to address contractual commitments. Further, if riparian is emerging among all panels as an important component, this will come out in the write-ups and could be the basis for a case to include it in building a preferred alternative. Discussion by panelists: if so much landscape and old growth forest is tied up in stream-side habitat (especially
Option 1), then that makes good marten habitat. (P) contrasting point - much of it may be in higher elevation, less suitable marten habitat.
(F) clarification: Riparian buffers constrain standard logging practices in Southeast Alaska and remove more operable timber because the buffers often isolate and effectively make stands inoperable that could otherwise be harvested.
Panelist C Summarv:
- A similar approach to Panelist Bs was used with maps vs. paper data, and middle range alternatives were difficult to separate (e.g. 3,4 and 5).
- The process was difficult because we were asked to make prediction of entire forest in 100 years when there may currently be problems in some areas (e.g. decreased potential for movement) - so it is hard to look at problem areas but extrapolate to entire forest.
- The reserves were weighted more important in ratings. 100 year timber harvest rotations
beneficial; 2-aged stand management is a better option; road systems associated with
potential for trapping losses but assumed trapping wouldn’t continue another 20+ years (either seasons and bag limits would be amended or society would not permit continued trapping).
- Low prey diversity on islands indicates marten are more vulnerable to populations stressors such as trapping and habitat losses - if prey population cycles coincide with heavy trapping
and add reductions in iongten habitat capability - means major problem for marten populations. (Few ‘buffer’ prey species due to low species diversity).
-
difficult to say with any certainty that particular outcome will happen, thus likelihood outcome points were distributed across all outcomes.
Panelist D Summary:
- Overall clearcut logging practices need to be re-examined and change. 2-Aged stand
and uneven-aged prescriptions provide forest structure over time which will benefit
9

marten. It would have helped to see photographs illustrating what these stand management approaches would
Clarification by facilitator regarding Z-aged stand management. Application of the 2-aged management would retain approximately 70% of the 10-20% leave trees in clumps adjacent to cable yarding corridors and v-notches and 30% in a more random distribution of individual trees or small clumps. This is generally due to cable yarding operability constraints and safety.
Panelist Discussion: Size of what’s left in 2-aged management is important and the larger tree component must be retained. Assumptions should be tested and monitored and do not assume everything will be rosy. Multiple entries should be used and the logging industry needs to flex a bit too.
- He agreed with other panelists that marten are adaptable.
- There is a large assumption regarding roads. In spite of increased roading, the 200 year rotation was weighted heavily for stand structure features and development. The assumption was made that trappers wouldn’t have access on roads (assumed successful Forest Service access management) and ADF&G would be monitor trap success and total harvest and could
seasons and bag limits. Trapping pressure was a key component to assess distribution over outcomes 100 years from now.
- Matrix and reserve combination weighted higher and favorably for marten habitat, alternative 5 was viewed as workable.
- Larger riparian zone buffer protection would be better for marten and probably for other large mammals as well.
General Discussion Led by Facilitator (F)
(F). None of panelists has mentioned the beach element explicitly. Expanding beach zone was planning response for larger buffers and was focused particularly at marten.
(P). They agreed that, particularly in island habitat, beach could provide corridors better than high elevation riparian. Lack of a beach component in alternatives 2, 7, and 9 was a factor in lower ratings.
Prey Discussion.
Diversity of prey is low, which potentially makes marten more susceptible to reduction in the few prey species available that may be more vulnerable to logging or loss of habitat. Several elements could add up to make a bad year for martens: low prey, high trapping,
and loss of habitat. A similar situation occurred in Newfoundland. This is what local extinctions are all about - directly linked to prey and available habitat. The missing element is knowing what effects management practices have on prey. The 2-aged management practice may help prey.
Data show wide fluctuations in openings (clearcuts), but does this also happen in closed canopy forests? Data may show variable increases in prey abundance in clearcuts, but those cuts close in rapidly, leaving very short window of when prey is good followed by many years of stem exclusion period, which
desert for prey.
Marten are adaptable
extent,
intensity of change is important and if all old growth is removed, adaptation is harder. Monitoring is needed but difficult. Presence/absence data is misleading, and reiterates that there may already be problems in some areas.
Clarification in Outcomes by the facilitator:
- Extirpation (Outcome 5) - all marten disappear from the entire Tongass National Forest.
Well distributed - means within a planning area - the Tongass National Forest.
- Gaps (temporary - Outcome 2, permanent - Outcome 3) - perceived as a break in the distribution of functional habitat. If marten do not effectively and regularly disperse across an
to get to another refugia, then a gaps exists with some extent of limitation in population interaction. This does not simply mean a physical restriction to movement across a landscape -
10

such as a large body of water is a barrier but a rather a restriction in demographic interchange to maintain population resiliency and adaptability.
- Functional habitat - habitat that is capable of supporting reproductively successful individuals, which may perceived as the diameter of one home range or average female range.
- Refugia (Outcome 4) - means limited longterm genetic interchange.
- Outcome 2 - same geographic distribution as historical but possibly reduced densities and possibly larger home ranges
There was further discussion of the concept of a gaps in distribution.
Q:(P). What is the significance of temporary gaps (Outcome 2)? They exist now.
intent was to show that there may be some effect of an action.
A (F). The
Q: (P). What then constitutes a gap? A: (F) It’s a question of scale. It may be argued by some that a viable population on Admiralty Island meets viability for entire forest. Distribution then must be evaluated both among as well as within provinces and is a critical consideration of the issue of well distributed populations, especially from a longterm evolutionary perspective.
(P) observation: There never really was an Outcome 1 because there were always gaps in distribution since marten were introduced to many islands.
(F): For purposes of evaluation, consider ‘historic” to mean after marten introductions were completed. Consider the effects of alternatives on the amount and distribution of habitat to support marten and the likelihood of changes in resulting distribution.
(P) response: That argument may hold true for abundance, but not distribution and viability.
There is a direct relationship between abundance and viability. The probability of local extirpations increases with reductions in abundance. Viability suggests a distribution similar to historic range and successfully reproducing populations. The problem is that habitats, and thus martens, aren’t evenly distributed across forest. Outcomes may have been rated differently if done on distinct geographic areas rather than entire forest. The question becomes what is similar to historic distribution and thus what is interpretation of wording in outcomes.
(P) rebuttal: The issue goes beyond semantic differences. The bigger problem is: 1) assumptions were made as to what happens on the ground in application of management practices that is not supported by description of alternatives given in Facilitator’s presentation; 2) assumptions were made regarding marten ecology that is not supported by the literature; and 3) there was insufficient attention paid to criteria as written and how they are applied on the ground.
He was disappointed that he was hearing
and assumptions made by other panelists not supported by peer reviewed studies and results.
Q. (F): Considering marten dispersal capability and that wider is better (earlier panelists conclusion) in terms of beach or ripanan zones, are any of the zones adequate in the alternatives given? In other words if you were designing an alternative for marten, would yours be higher?
Alternatively,
Outcome 3 in your opinion meet criteria for viable populations across the forest? (P). That answer needs to come from you, you set the wording for Outcomes.
Q: (F). So Outcomes 1&2 are the only ones that still meet definition of well-distributed across the forest? (P). That is an irrelevant question because right now Outcome 3 is the best that any alternative can provide. (P). Level III is not well distributed.
Q: (P). Why can t the Resource Specialist contribute to the discussion, given that he knows the area best for marten? His lack of input is doing the species an injustice. A: (F) It’s okay
him to enter in discussion, but remember that Resource Specialist’s work was largely the basis for marten models and what is seen on the maps, which is why he doesn’t serve as an Panelist.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
11

one of the
largely responsible
of habitat reserves used in Alternative 3. If the panel concludes that Alternative 3 is not good enough for maintaining viable and well distributed marten populations, that suggests that the conservation model is inadequate and the original Interagency Viable Population Committee Strategy (V-POP) is in question. V-POP did say that the reserves used in Alternative 3 was a minimal approach to maintain viable marten populations. That strategy may be okay for other old growth associated species even if doesn’t meet needs for marten.
(P). If you put Alternative 3 on a forestwide 200 year rotation (e.g. forestwide reserves and 200 year rotation), that might provide the minimum to provide well distributed marten populations across the forest in 100 years. Why put Alternative 3 over Alternative 5
200
rotation and less roads and
ad matrix mix? (F): Point of clarification: Alternative 5 only triggers reserves if extent of past timber harvest exceeds rate of a 200 year rotation and reserves are needed to maintain future management options.
(RS). The PNW Peer Review of 1992 V-POP conservation strategy was important. The original V-POP strategy
minimize impacts
the timber industry and thus accepted greater risks in designing their strategy. Alternative 3 has added components (i.e., beach and riparian buffers for landscape connectivity) that may not be displayed on maps.
In general, the broader
less risky
plan. The weakness of Alternative 5 is that if habitat
are part of a strategy, management should not wait until the land base is so restrictive that you can’t lay out a good strategy (i.e., don t have all the area
from the start to place reserves). Silvicultural practices have promise to mitigate effects, but there is still uncertainty as to whether
end up on the ground as envisioned and exactly how species will respond.
Q: (P). Interpretation of Alaska data was that the highest strata old growth strata was preferred habitat but low strata was
Can marten persist with moderate and low strata? A: (RS). The degree
which they are mixed would be important. Would still have martens but in a lower density and with larger home ranges.
Q: (P). So if a large composition of high volume old growth strata was lost, but a high proportion of moderate volume was maintained, then there is some likelihood that viable population of martens would be maintained, but in lower numbers? A: (RS). Yes, but that scenario would increase the probability of
and gaps may be more frequent and larger with resultant higher risks.
Q: (F) Looking at rating for Alternative 3 (full reserves) and Alternative 4 (full matrix) would martens do better in concentrations of habitat or would they persist equally as well with less intense
more dispersed habitat disturbances?
Responses of Panelists:
- Alternative 3 or 8 with a 200 year rotation would be better.
- Refugia would be better if they were larger
quality habitat and well connected.
- Problem with Alternative 3 is connectivity - beach and riparian
critical and contribute but wider is better. The small
(medium 10,000 reserves) may not be effective.
Even if they only serve as intermediate stepping stones, they
not be effective and then the fewer large areas are not connected.
- Alternative 4 is better because of 200 year rotation. Also, we are not confident in
reserves were selected, especially if they were altered administratively and if they weren’t selected from a big choice of high quality habitat. Therefore, because of selection and parent population problem, a strategy needs more than just reserves. Even the large (40,000 acre) reserves in Alternative 3 are not very big; supporting 20 pairs is not enough especially in a low prey diversity ecosystem.
Q: (F) Is it any concern that there already is a problem on Prince of Wales Island due to past harvest? (P): Yes. This is why levels are already away from historic distribution.
12
. .
.
* --.

Q: (F) A conclusion is emerging that a 200 year rotation is important: would a complete union of
Alternative 3 and 4 be better, and would the structure provided give moderate-to-above-average habitat complexity components? Response from Panelists: Add 2-aged management and this might be
Q: (F). If you consider a 200 year rotation to be superior, is it because of the gain in forest structure or because habitat loss is reduced by approximately 1/2 ?
Discussion of 200 year rotations led to a discussion and general suspicion of
panelists of the possibility of management manipulating harvest schedules and restrictions under a 200 year timber harvest rotation. Q: (P): Is it possible to manipulate FORPLAN runs
show whatever you want, but there is an intent written into the 200 year rotation. A: (F) One could adjust schedules within a decade so long as the decadal Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) was not surpassed. It is possible that a heavier harvest could occur in the early part of the decade, but much less the remainder of the decade to not exceed the decadal ceiling (ASQ), and if regulations changed, could then start with a clean slate. If this happened, the intent of the 200 year rotation would not be met. The 2095 maps were generated assuming the maximum ASQ is cut.
Q: (F) Is there a potential under any alternative that activity over just the next 10 years could affect marten viability? (P): Yes, especially in areas that already have a problem (high historical harvest rates).
[Digression to discussion on abilities of individuals to “interact”: Original design of gap based on juvenile dispersal distance (e.g. marten chapter in V-POP strategy). Facilitator felt that his earlier reference
female home range as a spatial scale upon which to judge a gap in distribution was too small and inappropriate; and was trying to relate to a similar factor used for the wolf panel. Rather, a gap might exist within an area of unsuitable habitat and lack of reproductively successful marten This area might based upon a distance that is greater than 2/3 average juvenile dispersal capability. This was the same approach used in the marten conservation strategy contribution to the V-POP strategy. All panelists agreed that this spatial scale would represent a gap in distribution. Largest lack of knowledge on marten ecology is landscape movements and successful dispersal. There was general agreement that there might be limitations of “No Action” (which really means the 1979 Plan s proposed actions) on smaller islands. This would mean no further reduction in old growth habitat on islands of some size because of risk of local marten extinctions. Suggestions on the appropriate size included 450 sq.
km and 40,000 acres. There was general agreement that this spatial scale represented a gap in distribution although gaps in distribution were one of the most difficult concepts addressed by the panel.
Discussion on size of harvest units:
(P): In l-aged system with 1/3 trees gone (Wyoming), martens remain reproductively successful. But this may be due to the small size of harvest units of approximately 10 acres. If cuts were bigger, marten may not have the same success. So smaller cuts that emulate natural
events are better. This observation may also be a function of scale - it works when only 30% volume removed in small cuts, but if 50% of the volume was removed, much different patterns would result.
Q. (F). Which strategy might be preferable, have an abundance of marginal habitat dispersed across the landscape or
have
of great quality habitat. (P). Again, this would depend on connectivity.
Q: (P). Why does the panel have to choose between Alternative 3 and 4? Why can’t we have both if we’re talking about needs based on the biology of the animal,
and connectivity are necessary? An artificial choice presented by management may not be acceptable to biologists.
13

Q: (F). If there was a complete integration of Alternative 3 and 4 with Riparian Option 1 and 2,
2-aged management, would everyone’s score be Outcome 2 or above? (P): No, there may still be the possibility of Outcome 3. The real concern is how reserves are laid out, as panel has no influence on this on the ground.
Q: (F): Regarding landscape connectivity, is the panel using it as dynamic, that in a general landscape marten could move out in any direction? (RS): Consideration should be given to establish corridors in lower passes where marten could cross mountain ranges. (P) Habitat quality in corridor depends on its length - shorter travel corridors wouldn‘t have to be high quaiity, but longer ones would need prey and protection from predators. 100 year-old stands would serve as travel corridors but unlikely to have habitat structure producing prey. Same corridor with 200 year old stand would provide both travel corridor and productive habitat providing prey species which is why a 200 year management regime is good.
(P). Clarification of term old growth “associate” vs. ‘Dependent”. (P) Use of old growth dependent was a slip (by a Panelist),
tither meant closely associated with old growth forests.
Q. (F). If trapping ended, would that change demands for amount of quality habitat? (P). It would change predictions but not necessarily demands for habitat. Panelists generally assumed that trapping mortality could and would be regulated within sustainable levels and closed altogether for the purposes of conducting ratings. If trapping was not controlled, they suggested that their scores would have been lower.
VIII. SECOND EVALUATION
Panelists rated all alternatives independently and scores were entered into summary sheet.
Panelists kept their original rating sheets.
Panel session ended at 1215 hours, 14 December 1995.
14

- --.- ----. - . ---.
.
Silent Observer Notes
TLMP Assessment- Marten
Airport Plaza- Seattle, WA Dec 13-14, 1995
I was present as the silent observer for the two day Marten Panel Assessment held in Seattle
WA (Dec 13-14,1995). As a whole the process was very objective and went as described in the information packet we received.
Throughout the entire process there was one panel member that was clearly the most active participant. Although none of the panel members appeared meek or silenced by him, it is important to note that his opinions and questions were heard much more than any other panel member. During the discussions following the first rating, he was especially hard on his fellow panel members for how they reached their decisions. He believed that they were not basing their scores on the information presented by the resource specialist but rather on unfounded assumptions. The panel members appeared not to be forced into consensus by his forcefulness but to take his concerns into consideration. Everyone clearly did not have enough information to make the decisions they were being asked to make so some assumptions had to made. It was how these assumptions were made that was being called into question. Each panel member combined their knowledge of the marten with all they had heard to try to fill in the gaps and rate the alternatives to the best of their ability.
Near the end of the discussion the panel did talk about the likelihood of certain alternatives
getting passed. This seemed to lead the discussions away from alternative 1 even though it was clearly the preferred alternative with a majority of the points in outcomes I and II.
Most of the discussion was centered around alternatives 3,4, and 5 and how they could be modified to have more points in outcomes I and II. The facilitator encouraged the group to concentrate on these three alternatives because they were very similar and a high percentage of the likelihood points were already in outcomes II/III. They didn’t do this for any of the other alternatives. This was because a majority of the points were in outcomes III, IV, and V. No attempt was made to improve on these alternatives.
Although one panel member commented that they didn’t have to agree with any of the proposed alternatives just because this was all they were given, this point was not pursued by the other members.
In the initial presentations by the facilitator about the guidelines some areas were visibly glossed over. There was no talk of the effect Karst/caves, minerals or Transportation/Utility corridors would have on forestation or on marten habitat. There was also not a clear presentation about the descriptions of the five outcomes. There was general disagreement and confusion on what terms like gap and similar meant. But this was clarified in the discussions and any effect this had on the original ratings should have been cleared up in the second ratings.
Michael Glos
15
0