United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Tongass National Forest
Forest Plan Interdisciplinary Team
8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 586-8700
Reply To:
RG-G-lO-b
Subject:
Brown Bear Risk Assessment Panel Summary
To:
TLMP Revision Planning File
From:
Chris Meade, TLMP IDT; Panel Facilitator
Date:
May I,1997
1. BACKGROUND
A panel of four brown bear experts met in Juneau, Alaska on March 27-28, 1997, to assess the
likelihood that TLMP Revision alternatives would result in habitat sufficient to support viable and well
distributed brown bear populations across their historic range on the Tongass National Forest. The
brown bear panel was reconvened to examine Alternatives 10 (the RSDEIS Preferred Alternative) and
11 (the FEIS Preferred Alternative), which were not considered by the panel when it first met in
January 1996.
Three of the four evaluators who served on the 1997 brown bear risk assessment panel also
participated in the 1996 brown bear panel. One evaluator from the 1996 panel had retired from the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game and was no longer eligible to participate in the 1997 panel. He
was replaced on the 1997 panel by another brown bear expert from the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
Panel evaluators reviewed technical information on brown bear ecology in southeast Alaska and
relevant design features of TLMP alternatives. They then made informed professional judgements
about the likely outcomes of the various alternatives and about the relative contribution of alternative
features to maintaining brown bear habitat. A complete description of the risk assessment panel
process is available in the TLMP planning record.
Appendix I includes a list of the panel evaluators and other participants in the process, and a list of the
information given to the the panel evaluators. Appendix II includes each panel evaluator’s assignment
of 100 likelihood points among the five possible outcomes for each alternative, and their individual
appraisals of the contribution of alternative features to maintaining brown bear habitat. Meeting notes
as recorded by the scribe and the silent observer’s observations are available in the TLMP planning
record.
II. IMPORTANT ASSESSMENT FACTORS
Discussions among panel evaluators and their appraisal of alternative features indicated that the
following factors were important to their assignment of likelihood points to alternatives.
Acres Harvested
The number of acres harvested by alternative over 100 years had a substantial influence on how panel
evaluators assessed the likelihood of maintaining habitat sufficient to support a viable and well
1
distributed brown bear population across its historic range on the Tongass National Forest.
Specifically, the more acres harvested, the lower the likelihood of maintaining habitat sufficient to
support a viable and well distributed brown bear population. This factor was not explicitly emphasized
during the 1996 panel, but one panel evaluator noted the high correlation between number of acres
harvested by alternative and the 1996 likelihood scores. The same pattern exists in the 1997 panel
results.
This relationship is likely not only due to the direct effects of timber harvest on brown bear habitat.
Although panel evaluators did consider the direct effects of timber harvest (e.g., brown bears tend to
avoid recently clearcut areas resulting in temporary displacement), this was not the driving force
behind their ratings. Rather, panel evaluators used the number of acres harvested as a surrogate for
the cumulative effects (e.g., roads, clearcuts, risk to fish populations, etc. ) of forest management
activities under each alternative.
Roads and Access Management
The number of road miles by alternative (which is closely related to the number of acres harvested)
also had a strong influence on how panel evaluators rated the various alternatives. As was done
during the 1996 panel, a distinction was made between the direct effects of increased human access
and the indirect effects of roads on brown bears.
On human access, panel evaluators reaffirmed their 1996 assessment that without effective access
management, increased roading in brown bear habitat would most likely result in increased brown bear
mortality due to legal hunting, illegal killing, and defense of life and property. Depending on the extent
of additional roading, these actions could increase the number, size or duration of temporary gaps, and
in some cases (e.g., portions of the mainland), cause permanent gaps in distribution of the brown bear
population.
On the indirect effects of roads, panel evaluators relied heavily on results of the 1996 fish and riparian
panel, which identified roads as a high risk factor for anadromous fish1. They also relied on the miles
of road predicted for each alternative, including Alternatives 10 and 11, which were not evaluated by
the 1996 panels. The brown bear experts generally agreed that salmon are a key food source for
brown bears in southeast Alaska. Thus, to the extent that roads pose a risk to salmon habitat and
populations, they also pose an indirect risk to brown bear.
Panel evaluators identified large old-growth habitat reserves and legislated conservation areas as
critical factors in their assignment of likelihood points. The function and value of these areas is not so
much in the contiguous old-growth habitat structure contained within them as it is in providing roadless
refugia from human activities. This result is consistent with the 1996 panel assessment. The
advantages of legislated conservation areas include their large size and their roadlessness. Their
legislated status increased the likelihood that they will persist over time. The primary shortcoming of
legislated conservation areas lies in their spatial distribution. For example, they are notably absent
from northeast Chichagof Island and northern Baranof Island, and, on the mainland, they contain large
quantities of low quality brown bear habitat (i.e., rock and ice).
’ This effect was reconfirmed by the 1997 fish panel, which was held after the brown bear panel.
2
Although the designed large reserves are better distributed across the landscape than legislated
conservation areas, there was some uncertainty as to whether these reserves would remain roadiess
over time. There also was some uncertainty among panel evaluators as to whether the large reserves
were spaced close enough to one another to ensure interaction between reproductive individuals
located in adjacent reserves. Given the respective home ranges of adult males and females, panel
evaluators generally agreed that males are more likely to move between large reserves than females.
They also agreed on the need for information on the dispersal of subadluts (i.e., how far do subadults
disperse from their sow’s territory?).
Small and medium reserves also were considered to be important, but they were not as critical habitat
features as were large reserves and legislated conservation areas.
Riparian Buffers and Brown Bear Feeding Areas
The 1997 panel revisited the issue of riparian habitat management, another major factor in the 1996
panel assessment. As in 1996, two important components of this issue were identified.
First, to the extent that riparian buffers are an important means of sustaining salmon habitat and
populations over the next 100 years, they are equally important to maintaining habitat sufficient to
support a viable and well distributed brown bear population on the Tongass National Forest. Panel
evaluators relied heavily on results of the 1996 fish and riparian panel in assessing this risk factor for
brown bears. They also relied on a summary of the riparian standards and guidelines for each
alternative, including Alternatives 10 and II, which were not evaluated by the 1996 panels.
Second, all four panel evaluators agreed that none of the riparian options under consideration provide
sufficient forest cover to maintain important brown bear feeding and loafing areas. Riparian forests
function as travel corridors to and from streams where brown bears feed on salmon, and as loafing
areas where brown bears can rest nearby between feeding bouts. Forest cover in riparian areas also
may reduce adverse encounters among brown bears, which is especially important for sows with cubs.
Three panel evaluators reiterated their concern for a minimum 500 feet no harvesting road buffer
around brown bear feeding areas. This concern was based largely on available telemetry data. One
panel evaluator strongly recommended a 1000 feet no harvest/no road buffer around brown bear
feeding areas until completion of further telemetry data collection and analysis.
Two panel evaluators expressed concern about the lack of “firmness” in the standard and guideline for
brown bear feeding areas and factored this concern into their ratings.
Subpopulations
Panel evaluators acknowledged and discussed the relative risks to habitat sufficient to support various
subpopulations of brown bear, as they did during the 1996 panel process. However, unlike the 1996
panel, they decided not to assign likelihood scores for these subpopulations provided that the essence
of this discussion was captured in the notes. The three panel evaluators who were on the 1996 panel
felt that their ratings would not differ significantly from their 1996 ratings for each subpopulation.
in general, panel evaluators agreed that the risk would be lowest for the Admiralty island
subpopulation, and that this assesment would not change across alternatives because most of the
island is designated as Wilderness National Monument.
The risk would be highest for the mainland subpopulation, although the degree of risk would vary by
alternative. Presumably, the relative ranking of alternatives would remain the same as the forest-wide
ratings, but the assignment of likelihood points would shift toward higher risk outcomes if habitat
3
supporting this subpopulation was separately evaluated (consistent with the 1996 panel results). Panel
evaluators also noted that brown bears near the Yakutat forelands may be at lower risk than the rest of
the mainland due to the presence of a legislated LUD II, difficult access, and higher brown bear
population densities.
The risk to the Baranof and Chichagof Islands subpopulation would likely be somewhere between that
of the Admiralty Island and mainland subpopulations. Presumably, the relative ranking of alternatives
would remain the same and the assignment of likelihood points would be similar to the forest-wide
ratings if habitat supporting this subpopulation was separately evaluated (consistent with the 1996
results).
Contribution of Alternative Features to Maintaing Brown
Bear Habitat
r
i
Panel evaluators considered and rated specific components of each alternative and discussed how
these influenced their assignment of likelihood points to the five outcomes. They recorded their ratings
on the “Appraisal of the Contribution of Alternative Features to Maintaining Wildlife Habitat” form (see
Appendix II).
Of the old-growth strategy features considered, large reserves and legislated conservation areas were
deemed critical to maintaining brown bear habitat. Other important positive features include medium
and small reserves, other non-development areas and semi-remote recreation areas. Deer winter
range and small island protection were generally considered less important or neutral with respect to
maintaining brown bear habitat.
Of the matrix management strategy features considered, roads and acres harvested were deemed
very detrimental to brown bears. Conversely, brown bear feeding areas, riparian buffers, beach and
estuary buffers, access management, % old growth retained, and rotation length were all considered
critical or important positive features. Panel evaluators were less certain about the contribution of the
remaining matrix management features (primary harvest method, VCU harvest thresholds, and mix of
harvest methods).
The panel evaluators’ appraisals were generally consistent with their discussions of these features and
their assignment of likelihood points to the various outcomes for each alternative.
“Viable” and “Well Distributed”
Panel evaluators discussed differences between the concepts of “viable” and “well distributed.” All four
panel evaluators agreed that Outcomes I, II and III meet their definition of a viable population while
Outcome V does not. Three panel evaluators agreed that Outcome IV also meets their definition of
viable; however, one panel evaluator clearly disagreed.
All four panel evaluators agreed that Outcomes I and II meet their definition of a well distributed
population and that Outcomes IV and V do not. Three panel evaluators agreed that Outcome III does
not meet their definition of well distributed, but one panel evaluator stated that at least part of Outcome
III meets his definition of well distributed and part of Outcome Ill does not (taking into account how
many permanent gaps, how big they are, e t c
2 (Panel evaluators considered the loss of brown bear habitat in Juneau (i.e. approximately 25-50
square miles) as an example of a permanent gap in distribution, although the gap in Juneau is primarily
due to urbanization, not forest management activities.
4
Appendix I:
Brown bear panel participants and a list of information provided to the the panel
evaluators.
Panel evaluators:
Vic Barnes, National Biological Service
Dave Matson, National Biological Service
Sterling Miller, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Chuck Schwartz, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Resource experts:
Kim Titus, ADF&G
Ron Dunlap TLMP IDT
Panel facilitator: Chris Meade, TLMP IDT
Panel scribe:
Ellen Campbell, Forest Service
Silent observer:
Kristi Kantola, Forest Service
The following information was provided to the brown bear panel evaluators to conduct this assessment:
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.
Summary of the Revised Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
National Forest Management Act regulations regarding wildlife viability (36 CFR 219.19).
Five tables of acreage information by biogeographic province.
V-POP Executive Summary.
Summary of Kiester and Eckhardt’s review of the V-POP Report.
Extinction Rates in Archipelagoes: Implications fro Populations in Fragmented Habitats.
Publication in Conservation Biology by Burkey.
Risk Assessment Panels as a Component of the TLMP Revision Process; information on the
process.
Final EIS Alternatives and wildlife related pages from the draft ROD.
Old Growth Forest Habitat Conservation Strategy Analysis for Alexander Archipelago Wolf and
Queen Charlotte Goshawk; a January 1997 review of the strategy by Iverson
Dynamics of understory biomass in Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests of Southeast Alaska.
Publication in Ecology.
Conceptual Approaches for Maintaining Well-Distributed, Viable Wildlife Populations: A
Resource Assessment. Chapter in PNW-GTR-392.
Evaluation of the Use of Scientific in Developing the Final Alternative for the Tongass Land
Management Plan. Draft report by Everest, Swanston, Shaw, Smith, Julin, and Allen.
Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan-goals and objectives, wildlife
related standards and guidelines, information needs, and riparian information.
Final EIS for the TLMP Revision; wildlife related components of the effects analysis.
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.
Map of the Tongass National Forest.
Brown Bear Relocations Relative to Distance to the Nearest Anadromous Fish Stream from
July 15 to August 30; data from ongoing research by ADF&G.
Distance of brown bear telemetry relocations on Northeast Chichagof relative to the fish
stream channel type; data from ongoing research by ADF&G.
Evaluator Form from previous panel.
Summary of 1996 Brown Bear Assessment Panel.
Summary of 1996 Fish and Riparian Panel.
Overview video of forest planning: Bruce Rene’, TLMP
Tongass Land Management Plan Framework for Alternative Development: Chris Iverson,
TLMP
Presentation on brown bear ecology and habitat relationships in Southeast Alaska: Kim Titus,
Research Biologist, ADF&G.
Presentation on TLMP riparian standards and guidelines and key findings of the 1996 Fish and
Riparian Assessment Panel: Ron Dunlap TLMP
Appendix II:
Brown bear panel evaluator’s assignment of 100 likelihood points among the five
possible outcomes for each alternative, and their individual appraisals of the
contribution of alternative features to maintaining brown bear habitat.
9
,
-- . r _,^ . . . .
.
--