Tongass Conservation Society                 


 Home >> TLMP >> Day Three - Forest Service Strategy Review

Wednesday - 4.12.06

8:30AM
Good morning! This morning begins with discussion related to implementation challenges associated with goshawk and marten standards and guidelines. Gene DeGayner is the main presenter.

Reserve trees are being focused on now. They are beneficial for all the standard reasons, from nesting to denning to foraging. There is high correlation between legacy stands and species richness. 13 bird species on the Tongass are found in higher abundance in managed stands with more trees. Stepping stones apparently provide for connectivity in managed areas (not sure I buy into that, but I digress).

There are problems with applying the standards and guidelines for goshawks, especially on Prince of Wales, perhaps because of the variety of exceptions allowed.

For marten, applying current standards and guidelines is also problematic.

There are multiple benefits from leaving a structural legacy in managed areas: perches, microhabitat, foraging advantages, escape cover, climate protection, etc.

There is no clear scientific foundation for limiting goshawk standards and guidelines to POW, nor for the attributes of structural legacy for goshawk. The following are not supported by science, according to the presenter: uniform distribution of legacy, protection of individual nests, and the old growth reserve strategy. !!! !!! !!!

DeGayner states as well that it is misleading to label reserve trees within units as marten and goshawk measures. Create, instead, a Forest Legacy Standards and Guidelines.

In light of the ecology of legacy trees and implementation challenges related, review the high value marten habitat standard and goshawk guidelines. This is a suggestion from Gene DeGayner. The rest of the panel is currently....silent.

9:00AM
Clarification of certain tree types in remaining stands may be necessary. They are discussing the merits of clumping, even distribution, and edge management as it relates to the standards and guidelines for goshawk and marten. Clumping seems to be favored, somewhat. There is a continued claim that this is difficult to implement. There needs to be clear flexibility, according to a panelist (employee of the Forest Service).

Kim Titus does not believe this discussion regarding implementation is testable even 50 years in the future and believes getting away from a goshawk standard is the way to go because they are such an uncommon feature in the Tongass National Forest. Focus on a Legacy standard instead, says Kim Titus.

Others are echoing this point, currently.

Another scientist states that if it is marten habitat we are looking at, then it is marten habitat we should have the standard and guideline for...

There will be an interagency review beyond this session to determine a Forest Legacy view as opposed to current specific species standards and guidelines, mostly due to implementation problems. The feeling is that this would be a good way to proceed.

Surrounding area habitat should be considered when it comes to application of these standards and guidelines.

9:30AM
What is the science behind the standard of 33% of old growth harvested? This is in question, with no response.

Why does the marten standard and guide apply to certain bio geographic provinces, and not others, like Dall? Joe Cook asks this. Gene DeGayner says the standard is listed as such because the risk is highest in these areas. Why is Zarembo excluded when marten are present there?

Why does every unit have to include habitat for marten and goshawk?

Do things on a watershed basis, on the whole, rather than species specific. Look at the legacy conditions for an entire watershed. Another Forest Service employee suggestion...

A two week analysis of this standard focusing on landscape or watershed proportionality rather than species-specific is discussed now. Forest Service is seeking agreement to do this. Folks are agreeing to this type of paradigm shift.

By the way, notes on the Brown Bear discussion to take place during the latter part of the morning will be delayed.

Not a pleasant morning.

10:00AM
At VCU/watershed scale, what is the distribution of size/density? What are the objectives for POGs? Within watersheds, what are the objectives? Is there no need for POG-dependent species habitat? Likely not, according to this discussion. There should be large scale analysis, medium scale analysis, and watershed/VCU analysis. All this coming from the panel...

Gene Degayner says considerations for operations come into play at the VCU level, not the regional.

Clear documentation of any analysis tailor-made is essential! History shows poor documentation practices.

"We are going from a species approach to an ecological approach, and rather than looking tree by tree we will look at groupings. This is a repackaging of the old guidelines to make it more operational; focus is on processes rather than species." - Gene DeGayner

 Continued on top^

 

 


Day One ~ Day Two ~ Day Three ~ Day Four

10:05AM
Define measurable response variables, strengthen scientific basis for legacy guides, improve operations: these three goals will likely be the focus of the group going forward.

Break time.

11:48AM
As I noted earlier, Brown Bear notes will be posted later, probably late this evening once I glance at the notes of others.

TCS extends a big welcome to all those following along, and a special hello to all the Forest Service employees visiting our site! Wow! You all have been all over this site these last few days! If you are in town for these proceedings, please come to our deer modeling slide show tonight (wednesday) at 6:30pm at First Lutheran Church. We would love your input; comment forms for non-panel members will be made available ;-) .

1:10PM
I just spoke with Orville Daniels and Dennis Neill and they explained to me that I had incorrectly referenced their conversation with regards to a message I posted this morning. They were not speaking about these proceedings. The error was mine.

1:52PM
Joe Cook is now presenting on other mammals - including endemics.

There is a good discussion occurring now about newly identified and confirmed endemics. Some of the focus is on the Archipelago Wolf and the Ermine, with sampling taken from island environments and continental references. Mitochondrial data and nuclear data support species distinction for the Ermine. A similar analysis is provided for Marten. The data represented on the slides will require further study, but it is quite comprehensive.

Sub regions and linkages data are represented and these connections may be emphasized. Linkages between islands, corridors within islands, and corridors within OGRs should be kept in line.

What is being advocated for is a shift in management emphasis: an island centered approach with interagency collaboration. Increased divergence, centers of endemism, and increased probability should be included. Introduction of exotics and invasive species is a concern. Raccoons are an example. Emerging pathogens and disease is mentioned (canine distemper). Magnified effects of habitat modification, wildlife consumption, mining, human encroachment and tourism, and climate change are all considerable factors.

Red backed vole have 4 subspecies in Southeast Alaska, two of which are known only from 1 or 2 islands. 4 different habitats on Wrangell Island were the focus of studies. There were marked annual fluctuations, few captures in peatland mixed conifer, etc. Conversion of watersheds to managed habitats leads to more Keen's mice and may be detrimental to voles.

We should identify Meaningful Management Units, centers of endemism, isolation and linkages, and consider long term impacts on islands ie roads and higher human densities. Establish a precautionary principle is a consideration also stated in this presentation.

Also there should be consideration to fully develop baselines for Tongass biological diversity. This could include full biotic surveys, surveys of gaps, interagency coordination with respect to carnivores, and TLMP surveys (planned timber sales).

A very intriguing discussion!

2:52PM
Dave Person just spoke to the misleading nature of numbers that state that only 5% or 10% or whatever of the Tongass is affected by logging, and felt that the way these numbers are calculated and utilized should be reconsidered. He discusses Prince of Wales as an area where what is affected is disproportionately large. Larry Lunde explains that the 19 or so bio regions and relationships with surrounding bio regions are considered in the conservation strategy. Steve MacDonald is now discussing that Mike Sallee confirms the presence of flying squirrels on Gravina, and the discovery (not by Mike Sallee) of Ermine on Annette, and that the hypotheses associated with connectivity (sub regions and linkages) are relevant. Pinch points are important.

Should elk be a part of the conservation strategy for TLMP? Not sure who raised this question.

Steve MacDonald is discussing again the problems of the raccoon on the Tongass and how it should be considered in the scheme of things.

Are surveys being done on endemics as outlined by TLMP? What are urgent considerations for the Plan? Natalie Dawson raises these questions. Kuiu Island Marten is urgent, according to Joe Cook. Planned actions on POW complex of islands is important as well (connectivity and fragmentation). It is urgent that we start doing a survey to fill gaps, and collection of samples does not have to be overly expensive. Steve MacDonald raises Dall Island and Suemez Island as curious places. Etolin and Zarembo as well...Larry Lunde discusses when the Forest Service does a project on an island that is 50,000 acres or smaller, the standards and guidelines perform surveys. That information is available at the district level. Gene DeGayner want to establish how priority arrangements will be made (via interagency cooperation), possibly on an annual basis.

4:00PM
Good evening from sunny Ketchikan!

Read the next day>

See Comments at the Cyber Cafe

 

Tongass Conservation Society - P.O. Box 23377 - Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 - Phone/Fax: (907)225-3275
Email Us