 |
Tongass
Conservation Society
|
 |
Tuesday - 4.11.06
9:30AM
Several of us are sitting here this morning listening to a discussion
about Old Growth Reserves (OGRs). It is quite interesting because the
Forest Supervisor Mr. Cole is raising and re raising the issue of roading
possibilities through designated Old Growth Reserves (a currently accepted
practice). A biologist talked about the benefits of placing OGRs strictly
based on biological standards. Mr. Cole explained repeatedly the necessity
to account for roads in the decision making process to access timber that
may lie inland and behind OGRs; he contends access may consistently trump
protection where access to timber is hindered economically by OGRs, and
transfer of logs to waterways is necessary.
Some hedging now on the part of the presenter (Bill Hanson) with
regards to biological standards. A number of panelists are raising
good questions regarding the issue described above. Gene DeGayner
explains that the honus is on the biologist to speak with road engineers
prior to small OGR designation.
Forrest Cole explains how the most efficient roading considerations take high priority with regards to sale, and implies that they will continue in the new TLMP. Nothing unexpected there...
9:52AM
We are on break and I am quite pleased to discover the wireless
connection up here at Ted Ferry so we can report semi-live. Dave
Sherman of SEACC has had entirely too much sugar this morning.
The rest of the morning session will be dedicated to Marten and assessing new info since 1997.
The summary below covers the morning thus far pretty well, without commentary. More extensive notes will come later.
Greetings from sunny Ketchikan!
10:30AM
Discussion is targeting the American Marten, not both species found
on the Tongass National Forest.
Standards and guidelines should be crafted for two distinct species of Marten, according to Rod Flynn. Special considerations for populations on Admiralty and other specific locations are applicable.
Habitats being discussed for Marten relate to interaction of food, cover, climate, and predation. There are findings associated with marten that suggest they select the largest structures available in closed-canopy forest. LANDSAT data shows that increasing structure in the Tongass increases Marten numbers. Canopy cover at 80% is prime for Marten.
Studies show that marten are sensitive to habitat fragmentation. In particular, roading effects marten population. Forest Service data from Chichagof displays this vulnerability.
Based on meta population theory, specific size, habitat type, and connectivity are essential considerations.
Cheers!
10:55AM
Marten density is best predicted by long tailed vole and Keen's mice.
Red backed voles are not significant factors. Indices of fragmentation
correlated with marten density.
High value marten habitat consistent with assumptions in TLMP and conservation strategy. Marten population numbers vary greatly spacially, are affected by food abundance (longtailed voles), are higher in less fragmented areas, and marten switch to salmon when vole numbers are low. OGR's are an appropriate model for marten conservation. Management should be tailored to specific populations by island. OGRs may not provide enough habitat by themselves to maintain healthy populations. Additional lands must be managed as productive habitat. Consideration should be given to partial cutting especially adjacent to OGRs.
Rod Flynn raised the following considerations: Is 25 females per large OGR the appropriate number for all populations? Food dynamics should be monitored. There needs to be additional studies on dispersal in a fragmented landscape, and dynamics of long tailed vole population should be understood further.
From Mitkof Island studies, it has been determined that each island should be treated as a meta population unless evidence that parts of the island are clearly isolated with respect to marten movements. There are concerns about the effects of trapping on Mitkof, as the population is highly vulnerable to the practice. Difference between Kuiu and Admiralty islands displays the fact that standards and guidelines should be associated with two distinct species.
There is no ecological basis for distributing forest structure in a uniform fashion across a clear cut. The Forest Service should consider eliminating the requirement to distribute the anticipated benefit of such a standard and guideline and revise the standard and guideline to explicitly describe the anticipated benefit of this standard and guideline.
How much legacy should be left in a harvested landscape? Above 50% canopy covered for good habitat should be the standard, but this standard is based on evidence that comes from studies conducted at broader spatial scales than the standard and guideline prescription applies.
The best data may come from studies that describe marten behavior. Some studies suggest marten will not cross openings greater than some minimum distance. There have been discoveries of several dead marten killed while crossing clear cuts. This is a high priority need with regards to new data.
USFS staff find it difficult to understand or maintain marten management practices under current standards and guidelines. More cooperation is needed with State Fish and Game.
There needs to be a completed a rigorous population estimate on the Tongass National Forest, and specific protocols for monitoring need to be determined - this is Rod Flynn's final relevant consideration.
11:21AM
(Tuesday continued)
There is no current monitoring in second growth, especially important
on Chichagof Island, and there is supreme concern there on the part of
the presenters. Forrest Cole believes that measurements at 45-60 years
of re growth will provide substantial data regarding marten population.
Rod Flynn raises the legacy structure questions again and mentions that
there were no stands in that condition in their study area. He further
explains that there will not be good habitat in these areas due to little
to no lower "canopy". Lots of mice, no voles...Clearly harvest
of marten would be low in these areas because harvesters know that modified
landscapes effect the populations of marten detrimentally.
Gene DeGayner asks about the barrier (for marten) related to clear cuts and what happens in, say, 70 years. Not much of study on the actual barriers created by clear cut, but it is implied due to range configuration. What is the width of an area of a clear cut that might effect marten population? No data at this time to estimate, it seems.
Concerns are now being raised about genetic isolation and gene flow differences between northern Tongass and southern Tongass. There is no consensus about how much the matrix of habitat is effecting marten, based on comparisons between Chichagof and Prince of Wales Islands.
Rod Flynn returns to the connectivity issue and Gene DeGayner wonders whether modified landscape actually effects home ranges of marten. The presenter does state that stands between 26-40 years old function more as a forest and are not a barrier in that sense. I did not catch where this study took place.
100 year old second growth study on squirrel, and another presenter states how difficult it is to move through this age stand. No significant under story. Presenter was surprised by this. Presenter is Merav Ben-David.
Indexing populations requires a commitment, but can be done relatively cheaply according to the panelists. Population estimates should, at the least, be done initially, if not perennially.
Does marten warrant species reform under the Endangered Species Act? No, according to the panel, but marten does have some levels of sensitivity. No one is sure about where Marten are trapped in the lower 48. Apparently it is highly regulated in the midwest, according to Gene DeGayner.
High Noon
Forrest Cole says that he is confused about where marten are and where
they aren't and is often asked the question about why there are considerations
for marten. Merav Ben-David states that it is an important resource for
communities, and is a baseline species for management of forest health.
Gregory has trouble differentiating between the female and male species, which makes monitoring difficult. (Clearly Dave Sherman of SEACC is reporting this.)
How does commercial and pre-commercial thinning impact habitat for marten?
They need all the ingredients for life in a small area (food, shelter, etc). In a treated stand, there is good under story for a while, but as the stand progresses, it is difficult to determine how they will do without large trees for denning.
Day One ~ Day Two ~ Day Three ~ Day Four
Home range for female marten is defined by a polygon associated with 1.8 mile radius.
From a marten point of view, according to another presenter, the critter would prefer that no road be built in a high value habitat area, as opposed to 'dispersing'. It is believed this is, in part, due to trapping.
Merav Ben-David reiterates that marten are hard to manage because of the extreme variability.
In designing OGRs, a panelist believes it is important to consider the roading factor associated with the effect on marten, due to trapper access, and other considerations (i.e. the use associated with the road, not so much habitat loss due to the road). He believes roads through OGRs detrimentally effect marten population because of this.
Natalie Dawson, another presenter for this section, states that endemic populations on the Tongass are a concern, making specific standards and guidelines associated with isolated and/or ignored populations vitally important.
Joe Cook says that marten distribution in Southeast Alaska is not well documented and proper documentation should be a high priority. He believes we have a potential Endangered Species Act (ESA) candidate.
All data suggest that we need to leave more old growth in large blocks for maintaining a viable population; little blocks may not do the job, according to Merav Ben-David. (This made me smile a bit.)
Merav Ben-David is now reiterating that marten change to salmon, and not deer mice, when vole numbers are low. She did not expect this when hypothesizing.
Steve McDonald mentions that there is a subspecies relation between Kuiu and Queen Charlotte, perhaps due to intertidal feeding. He believes this should be noted due to adaptation patterns.
Perhaps a consideration should be to define home ranges on most of the Tongass, complete proper comparisons, and this would lead to better monitoring and cumulative effect studies. A concern was stated that this would be incredibly complex to perform.
I'm hungrier than a marten stuck in a clear cut. We will return this afternoon. Ciao Chow.
1:37PM
Goshawks are on the agenda this afternoon, and essentially the discussion
is covering what threatened and endangered means. The presenter,
Steve Brockmann, is bringing up the point of question: Do the problems
of the species on Vancouver Island affect endangered or threatened
status of the Goshawk....
The 12 month study will be based upon conservation measures in place when the finding is released.
....changes in forest plan protections could require a new review.
That's it. Questions are now starting. And by the way, the halibut at lunch was tasty.
2:00PM
Steve Brockmann wonders if the listing for the Goshawk would be
range-wide or region specific. It is not incompatible to list in
Canada and to not list in the United States (Alaska). He is unsure,
however, what the implications would be.
Gene DeGayner asks how standards and guidelines may or may not effect the listing. Considering how the goshawk hunts, perches found in canopy or legacy forests are important to its viability, says Steve Brockmann.
Modification of standards and guidelines could impact status of the Goshawk; however, according to Brockmann, decisions must be made based upon what the situation is on the ground by the end of this summer with the conservation strategies that are in place currently.
Does the Forest Service consider seriously the geographic distribution of subspecies with regards to the Goshawk, and would this consideration potentially effect a listing? According to Steve Brockmann, the short answer to both is yes. Will the Forest Service analyze how many goshawks we could lose or how much habitat we could lose that would threaten an extinction? This review shows that we do not know how many goshawks there are at this time. Using habitat (old growth) is not a good surrogate for predicting population according to Steve Brockmann. He is not sure what the Forest Service can use to do such an analysis and says they are open to suggestions.
Range of the goshawk runs from Vancouver Island to Icy Straits and includes mainland for analysis (at least in the 1997 TLMP). A decision has not been made for including mainland in the revision. All this according to presenter Brockmann.
Does the analysis consider mature second growth as viable habitat? No final decision on this factor, for now. Steve Brockmann says there are 80 year old stands on Vancouver Island where goshawks live, perch, etc, so this may count as habitat.
Sandy Talbot (sp) of USGS (Anchorage) is performing some sort of peer review study, but I missed its relevance.
2:37PM
Kim Titus is presenting now regarding information of spatial ecology,
habitat analysis, diet and prey, and movements and efficacy of nest
surveys, all historical and collected between 1990 and 2001 or so.
70 or so known nests, averaging a dozen or so active nests over years of study.... Not a conclusion that empty nests are not active..not all nests are checked annually, about 80% checked last year, but no definition for how intensely each is checked...
Nest tree characteristics are now being provided, and I suspect from statements none of the characteristics are exceptional.
Radio telemetry shows that adult females primarily nest in the sum category of productive old growth (POG). Adult males in all seasons use dominantly POG (more that 60%). Analysis for goshawks with beach in home range shows that there is a high frequency of use near the beach. Beyond the 1000 foot buffer, use trails off.
The data analysis is quite overwhelming right now due to how the information is organized. It will be important to analyze the full slides that will be made available to the public soon (if they are not already). Kim Titus' presentation is worth anyone's time who appreciates data relative to the goshawk.
3:05PM
Key presenter observations (before break):
1. Goshawk nests are found across all LUDs.
2. Number of new nests is not increasing.
3. There is no apparent bias in how nests are found.
4. Goshawks use and select POGs
5. Radio telemetry suggest high use of POG in home range
6. Large home ranges
7. This is clearly a Landscape species
8. Diet dominated by few key prey: grouse, medium birds, red squirrels.
9. Knowledge of prey/habitat/predator relationships is poor.
10. Prey easier to monitor than goshawks
11. 35% of female goshawks cheat on their male counterparts the
next year.
12. Current standard and guidelines approach will not ensure conservation
of the species in the absence of a landscape approach
13. Specific standards and guidelines may be need specifically to
further address nesting protection (i.e. is 100 acres enough protection?)
(should all nests, occupied or not, be buffered/protected? Kim Titus
says yes.)
14. Evaluate standard and guidelines to 'conduct inventories to
determine the presence of nesting goshawks...'
15. Food is the primary limiting factor for goshawks.
End of day
Take home messages put forth by panel members:
1. research affirms CS assumptions re: OGRs benefit goshawks
2. there is not enough data on current standards and guidelines
about how effective they are
3. future data may or should focus on prey
4. what are the objectives that demonstrate effectiveness?
5. viability of the population is the key component; are the old
growth blocks truly sufficient?
The Tongass Conservation Society take home message with regards to Goshawks: Expect a very aggressive effort on the part of congregate TLMP decision makers to reduce or remove protections around nest sites for goshawks.
Me duele la cabeza. Kim Titus believes that the
100 acre number around nests must be evaluated. This has just been
reiterated.
It is unlikely that we will report on goings on during the barbeque
dinner.
Know that at some point soon you will hear stories about a suggestion related to the benefits of chicken coops for the goshawk population. ;-)
See Comments at the Cyber Cafe
|
| News | Gravina | shop tcs |
Chopping Block |
Cyber Cafe |
Get
Involved |
Alaska Organizations |
Contact | Home |
 |
Tongass
Conservation Society - P.O. Box 23377 - Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 -
Phone/Fax: (907)225-3275 Email Us |
 |