Forest

Service

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

PNW-GTR-541

July 2002

Montague Island Marmot:

A Conservation Assessment

Ellen Weintraub Lance
Ellen Weintraub Lance was a wildlife biologist, Tongass National Forest, Thorne Bay Ranger District, P.O. Box

19001, Thorne Bay, AK 99919. She is now with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 605 W. 4th

Avenue, Room G61, Anchorage, AK 99501.

Author
Abstract

Lance, Ellen Weintraub. 2002. Montague Island marmot: a conservation assessment. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-541. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 12 p.

The hoary marmot, from Montague Island, south-central Alaska, was classified as a distinct subspecies

based on smaller size and skull characteristics relative to other island and mainland populations. The

taxonomic validity of the Montague Island marmot (Marmota caligata sheldoni) is questionable, as

conclusions were based on the analysis of no more than eight specimens. With the exception of one

relatively recent sight record, Montague Island marmots have not been reported or collected since the

early 1900s. A conservation concern exists, particularly owing to the unknown population status and

questionable taxonomy of this island endemic subspecies that may be negatively affected by land

management practices.

Keywords: Hoary marmots, island endemics, Marmota caligata sheldoni, Montague Island, Montague

Island marmot, taxonomy.

Montague Island Marmot
Contents

1 Background

1 Purpose and Need

1 A Brief Description of Montague Island

2 A Brief History of Human Use of Montague

Island

3 Current Status of the Montague Island

Marmot

4 Review of Technical Knowledge

4 Distribution

4 Systematics

4 Breeding Biology and Demography

4 Movements

5 Habitat Use

5 Food Habits

5 Effects of Land Management and Other

Human Activities

6 Conservation Concerns

6 Demographics

6 Survival

6 Proportional Use of Habitat

7 Management Issues

7 Montague Island Marmot Response to

Management Actions

7 Risk Assessment

7 Approaches to Montague Island Marmot

Conservation

7 Information Needs

8 Conclusion

8 English Equivalents

9 References
1

Background

Purpose and Need

Montague Island marmots (Marmota caligata

sheldoni Howell) were first described during the

early 1900s (Howell 1914), and have not been

confirmed since. Because of their subspecific

status based on their small size compared to the

mainland subspecies, Montague Island marmots

may require future attention. Among the main

questions that need to be addressed are (1) Do

marmots still live on Montague Island? (2) If

marmots do occur on Montague Island, are they

taxonomically distinct? (3) If there is a taxonomically

distinct population of marmots on Montague

Island, is there a management concern?

A Brief Description of Montague

Island

Montague Island has been shaped by periods of

glaciation and tectonic activity resulting from the

collision of the Pacific and North American plates

(Gehrels and Saleeby 1987, Lahr and Plafker 1980).

Deep ocean channels, created by past glacial

retreats, surround and isolate the island. It is the

largest island (850 km2

) in Prince William Sound

(fig. 1) (USDA Forest Service 1993). A long

mountain range, extending north to south, divides

the island, which ranges in elevation from sea

level to more than 1000 m at its highest peak. The

eastern coast is exposed to the Gulf of Alaska and is

characterized by steep cliffs that abut the

shoreline. One large drainage, the Nellie Martin

River, flows to the east. The western coast has

many rivers and bays, which are protected from

the violent storms and southeasterly winds from

the Gulf of Alaska.

Current evidence suggests the climate of the

region has remained relatively constant during the

last 5,000 years (Heusser 1985). Anticyclone

storms circulate over the Pacific Ocean most of

the year. Cyclonic storms affect the Alaska

coastline in autumn and winter producing semipermanent, low-pressure systems characterized

by strong southerly or southeasterly winds and

heavy precipitation (Mobley and others 1990).

Figure 1—Montague Island is a large island, isolated by the deep, saltwater channels

of Prince William Sound, south-central Alaska.
2

The Prince William Sound region has generally

heavy annual precipitation and cool mean annual

temperatures. During a year of extremely high

rainfall, 840 cm of precipitation was recorded

from southeastern Montague Island, and mean

annual precipitation in the Montague Island vicinity

ranged from 236 cm at Latouche Island to 216 cm

at Hinchinbrook Island (Brower and others 1988).

In addition, mean annual maximum temperatures

ranged from 7.3 o

C at Latouche Island to 9.6 oC

at Hinchinbrook Island, and mean annual minimum

temperatures ranged from 3.1 o

C at Latouche

Island to 4.1 o

C at Hinchinbrook Island (Brower

and others 1988).

Vegetation was described following Viereck and

others (1992), and varies by altitude (Lance and

Cook 1995, Weintraub and Cook 1991). Beachrye (Elymus arenarius Linnaeus) dominates the

shorelines and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis

(Bongard) Carriere) and alder (Alnus spp. Mill)

on alluvial deposits; sedge-moss bog meadows,

sweetgale (Myrica gale Linnaeus)-graminoid

bogs, and willow (Salix spp. Linnaeus)-graminoid

shrub bogs are interspersed among Sitka spruce

and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla

(Rafinesque-Schmaltz) Sargent) forests at midelevation; and mountain hemlock (Tsuga

Mertensiana (Bongard) Sargent) and mountainheath (Phyllodoce aleutica (Sprengel) Heller)

tundra dominates high-elevation community types.

(Species names are according to Hulten 1968.)

Where previous timber harvest has occurred,

forest stands regenerate naturally and currently

contain even-aged stands of western hemlock and

Sitka spruce (USDA Forest Service 1989,

Weintraub and Cook 1991).

A Brief History of Human Use of

Montague Island

Historically, Montague Island supported small populations of humans from as early as 2000 years

BP (Yarborough 1999). Local Eskimos used

Montague Island’s southeastern coast as a hunting

ground for sea otters. The Eskimos referred to

Montague Island as Sukluk, which translates to

the terrible island (Johnson 1999), presumably

because of its violent eastern shoreline. Although,

a village at Zaikof Bay persisted for some unknown

length of time (Johnson 1984), currently, there are

no human inhabitants on Montague Island.

Montague Island is largely federally owned (787

km2

) (USDA Forest Service 1993); however, 63

km2

 were conveyed to the Chugach Alaska

Corporation, under the authority of the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA 1971). A

56-km-long road, constructed in 1993, which

linked the deep-water port at McLeod Harbor to

Chugach Alaska Corporation land at Patton Bay

(USDA Forest Service 1989), was obliterated in

1997. Public lands on Montague Island are

managed by the USDA Forest Service, Chugach

National Forest, Cordova Ranger District. Private

lands are managed by the Chugach Alaska

Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska.

Between 1947 and 1973 about 12 km2

 of highvolume timber was harvested along the western

coast of Montague Island (USDA Forest Service

1989). Those stands regenerated naturally and

currently contain uniform stands of western hemlock

and Sitka spruce that are densely vegetated by

salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis Pursh) (USDA

Forest Service 1989, Weintraub and Cook 1991).

In 1992, 55.5 km of road was constructed across

public land to access about 48.5 km2

 of privately

owned forest near Patton Bay. Within the 48.5

km2

, about 16 km2 of merchantable timber was

clearcut during a 6-year period. Additionally, 3

million board feet of timber was harvested from

the McLeod Harbor area in 1998 (Jandro 1999).

Recreational cabins, maintained by the USDA

Forest Service, are located at Port Chalmers, San

Juan Bay, and Nellie Martin River.

Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus

Rafinesque), introduced to Prince William Sound

in the early 1950s (Burris and McKnight 1973),

and brown bear (Ursus arctos Linnaeus) have

been heavily hunted on Montague Island. As a

result, bear populations were seriously depleted.

In 1990, the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game closed the fall bear hunting season (Alaska

Board of Game 1990) and in 1994 completely

closed Montague Island to bear hunting by

emergency order followed by an Alaska Board of

Game ruling (Alaska Board of Game 1994). Bear
3

hunting on Montague Island remains closed at this

writing (Crowley 1999). Additionally, mink

(Mustela vison Schreber) were introduced to

Montague Island in the early 1950s and are present

today at an unknown density (Burris and McKnight

1973).

Current Status of the Montague

Island Marmot

Population status—Specimens of Montague

Island marmot have not been collected since 1905

and 1908 (Cook 1998). One adult male, collected

in May 1905, is housed at the U.S. National

Museum, District of Columbia (Howell 1914).

Five adult males and two adult females collected

in summer 1908 by Heller (1910) are housed at

the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley,

California (Howell 1915).

During the early zoological expedition in southcentral Alaska, hoary marmots (M. caligata

Eschscholtz) were reportedly “everywhere on

the mainland along the shores of Prince William

Sound” and less abundant on the islands (Heller

1910). Heller (1910) reports no marmots were

present on Hawkins Island; however, the subspecies M. c. caligota (Eschscholtz) later was

reported there (Klein 1965), and marmot bones

have been found in 2,000-year-old middens at

an archaeological site on Hawkins Island

(Yarborough 1999).

On Vancouver Island, endemic marmots (M.

vancouverensis Swarth) are endangered and

typically are found at elevations above 1000 m

(Bryant and Janz 1996). Searches for marmots in

subalpine and alpine habitats of Montague Island

within the last decade have been unsuccessful

(Cook 1999, Fay and Sease 1985, Youkey 1999).

The recent sight records of four vocalizing

Montague Island marmots were made in May

1978 along the northwestern coast near sea level

(Holbrook 1999). Moreover, it is not uncommon to

see hoary marmots on the beach on Hinchinbrook

Island in Prince William Sound (Lance 1991).

Currently, the Montague Island marmot is not

provided any protective status. It has been assigned

the threat category data deficient by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature

(Cook 1998) and classified s2s3 by the National

Heritage Program because it occurs only on one

island, its population size and trends are unknown,

and there is a potential threat of habitat loss from

logging (NatureServe 2000).

Figure 2—Distribution of hoary marmots in North America (insert), with subspecies

locations identified.
4

Population concerns—Based on their limited,

known distribution and questionable taxonomic

status, Montague Island marmots are a population

of concern. It is unknown how development will

affect the population, because there are no recent

data to support a decision.

Review of Technical

Knowledge

Distribution

Hoary marmots occur throughout much of Alaska,

and south along the coast through western Canada

and into high elevations of the Northwestern United

States, including western Montana (fig. 2) (Cook

1998, Nowak 1991). Isolated populations of hoary

marmots are known from two islands in Prince

William Sound, Alaska: Hinchinbrook Island (M. c.

caligata) and Montague Island (M. c. sheldoni).

The endemic Montague Island marmot was

reported in July of 1908 in alpine habitat, near

timberline (approximately 300 m), at Hanning and

Zaikoff bays (Heller 1910). Since those first

records, the Montague Island marmot has not

been reported, except by Holbrook (1999) along

the northeastern coastline, on talus slopes.

Systematics

Marmots are the largest of the ground squirrels

(subfamily Scuirinae), and in North America they

are separated into six distinct species. Hoary

marmots are thought to have originated in North

America (Kruckenhauser and others 1999,

Steppan and others 1999), but are allied closely

with the Old World alpine marmots (M. marmota

Linnaeus) (Steppan and others 1999); in fact,

Rausch and Rausch (1971) described hoary

marmots as a subspecies of Eurasian alpine

marmots. Hoffman and others (1979) placed

hoary marmots within the amphiberingian group,

closely related to M. camtschatica (Pallas) of

northeastern Eurasia, based on cranial characteristics (Lee and Funderburg 1982); however,

this hypothesis recently has been rejected

(Steppan and others 1999). Eight subspecies of

hoary marmots are recognized, with Montague

Island marmots occurring only on Montague

Island in Prince William Sound, south-central

Alaska (Lee and Funderburg 1982). The extensive

distribution of the mainland form (M. c. caligata)

includes other Prince William Sound islands and

the surrounding mainland (Howell 1915).

The smaller size of the Montague Island marmots

is the basis for their separate subspecies designation. Skull character differences included more

narrow premaxillae and shorter nasals than those

of mainland subspecies of hoary marmot (Cook

1998, Howell 1914). Moreover, Hoffmann and

others (1979) concurred with Howell (1914) that

Montague Island marmots were a smaller

subspecies than the mainland population.

Breeding Biology and Demography

Marmots are sexually dimorphic; adult males are

larger than females (Godin 1977, Jackson 1961).

Periods of mating, gestation, parturition, appearance

of young from the burrow, and litter size differ as

a result of latitude and altitude (Lee and Funderburg

1982). In south-central Alaska, hoary marmots

are monogamous and breed biennially or triennially

(Holmes 1979,1984). Young are born in burrows

under rock jumbles or talus slopes in late June to

mid-July (Holmes 1979).

Movements

Hoary marmots are highly social (Barash 1974a).

Colonies of hoary marmots in south-central Alaska

are composed of a single adult male-female pair

and their two to five young (Holmes 1979). Old

World marmot males allow females and yearlings

to enter their territory but are agonistic toward

other adult males (Barash 1976). Hoary marmots

in Alaska, however, do not appear agonistic toward

any colony resident, but intercolonial encounters

may be aggressive (Holmes 1979). In general,

young marmots disperse sometime between the

first and fifth year (Arnold 1990, Lee and

Funderburg 1982), but hoary marmots have not

been reported in their natal colony past year three

(Holmes 1984). Dispersal in Olympic marmots

(M. olympus Merriam) is gradual and initiated by

the young (Barash 1973). A dispersal distance of

7.4 km has been reported for Vancouver Island

marmots (Bryant 1996).
5

Habitat Use

Marmots generally occupy open habitats, such as

alpine meadows and forest edge. Hoary marmots

occur at high elevations, near timberline, on talus

slopes and alpine meadows (Lee and Funderburg

1982). Vancouver Island marmots typically are

found above 1000 m (Bryant and Janz 1996), and

Old World alpine marmots inhabit elevations from

800 to 3200 m, possibly because of thermoregulatory constraints (Turk and Arnold 1988).

Montague Island marmots have been observed at

much lower elevations (Heller 1910, Holbrook

1999). The northern latitude and maritime climate

of Montague Island may temper thermoregulatory

constraints and allow Montague Island marmots

to avoid overheating.

Marmots excavate burrows with several entrances

in well-drained soil. Burrows are usually more

than 1 m deep, but hibernation burrows may be 5

to 7 m deep (Nowak 1991). Burrows may be

located on open, grassy slopes (Svendsen 1974),

in a wooded area in winter and open less sloped

area in summer (Godin 1977), or under the border

of a rock slide (Banfield 1974).

Information collected about habitat preference of

marmots is varied. Hoary marmots dwell in alpine

tundra, open-rolling meadows, rocky talus, and

cliffs (Banfield 1974). In south-central Alaska,

hoary marmots were studied in flat meadows

about 300 m above tree line (Holmes 1984).

Vancouver Island marmots prefer subalpine

meadows but also have been found occupying

steep cliffs, talus, open meadows with southern

exposure, and logging-slash areas (Bryant and

Janz 1996, Dearden 1986, Heard 1977).

Food Habits

Marmots feed mainly on green vegetation,

especially grasses and forbs. Hoary marmots

from the Kenai Peninsula, south-central Alaska,

commonly eat legumes (Oxytropis Candolle,

Astragalus Linnaeus), sedges, fleabane (Erigeron

Linnaeus), and fescues (Festuca Linnaeus)

(Barash 1989). Other genera, such as Dryas

Linnaeus, Salix, and Vaccinium Linnaeus, are

avoided (Hansen 1975). Dietary studies of

Vancouver Island marmots indicate that as

summer progresses, the proportion of grasses

eaten declines and forb consumption increases

(Martell and Milko 1986).

The areas surrounding their dens often are heavily

grazed (Banfield 1974). During summer, marmots

accumulate fat reserves, and weight loss during

hibernation can be as much as 37 percent of total

body weight (Lee and Funderburg 1982).

Effects of Land Management and

Other Human Activities

Some marmot species, such as the woodchuck

(M. monax Linnaeus), are considered pests

because of depredations on crops and hazards

posed by burrows to farm machinery and

livestock (Nowak 1991). Furthermore, population

numbers of woodchucks may have been reduced

locally in Wisconsin through shooting during a pest

eradication effort (Jackson 1961). Woodchucks

are important game animals in some areas; in

Kentucky, about 267,500 were taken from 1964 to

1971 (Barbour and Davis 1974).

Some marmot populations seem to benefit from

deforestation (Barash 1989), maintenance of

pastures, and elimination of large predators

(Banfield 1974). Other species of marmots, such

as Vancouver Island marmots, however, have

suffered drastic population declines, possibly

owing to environmental disruption (Dearden 1986,

Thornback and Jenkins 1982). Since the late

1980s, Vancouver Island marmot populations have

undergone a documented population decline of 60

to 70 percent (Bryant 1998). Bryant (1996) found

reduced persistence of Vancouver Island marmots

occupying clearcuts, and survival rates were

significantly lower in second-growth stands more

than 11 years old (Bryant 1998). Moreover, the

population “sink” phenomenon exhibited in clearcuts limited sources for recolonization of natural

habitats. Vancouver Island marmot populations

became concentrated, further reducing the

probability of survival by making colonies more

susceptible to predators and disease (Bryant 1998).
6

Conservation Concerns

Demographics

Reproductive potential—Marmots are generally

sexually mature at 2 to 4 years old (Banfield

1974; Barash 1973, 1974b; Bryant 1996; Dearden

and Hall 1983; Lee and Funderburg 1982), but

Bryant (1996) reports sexual maturity in Vancouver

Island marmot ranges from 3 to 5 years old.

Marmots are monestrous, having one estrous

cycle per year (Lee and Funderburg 1982), and

hoary marmots in Alaska are reported to breed

every 2 to 3 years (Holmes 1984). Mating typically

occurs within the first 2 weeks of emergence

from hibernation (Holmes 1984). Gestation lasts

25 to 30 days. Litter size averages four to five in

hoary marmots (Banfield 1974), but Holmes (1979,

1984) found litter size of hoary marmots in southeast Alaska averaging two to five.

Population density—Population density is

difficult to measure and is variable among

marmots, ranging from 2 to 15 animals per km2

(Jackson 1961, Nowak 1991).

Survival

Natural mortality—Marmots are relatively long

lived. The average lifespan is 3 to 5 years in Old

World marmots (Nowak 1991), and 3 to 6 years in

woodchucks (Godin 1977, Lee and Funderburg

1982). Vancouver Island marmots also have been

documented to have a relatively long lifespan, the

oldest being 9 years (Bryant 1996).

Naturally occurring predators on Montague Island

may include raptors and brown bears. Mink were

introduced to Montague Island in the early 1950s

(Burris and McKnight 1973) and are present

today at an unknown density. River otters (Lontra

canadensis Schreber) also occur on Montague

Island, but there is probably little habitat overlap

with marmots.

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus Linnaeus)

are common on Montague Island, and are probably

the marmot’s main predator (Banfield 1974). In

1991, I observed great horned owls (Bubo virginianus Gmelin) on the island. Even though there

are only a few hours of darkness during summer

at northern latitudes, there may be little overlap

between diurnal marmots and nocturnal owls.

Brown bears are known to feed on marmots,

putting out great efforts digging them out at their

dens (Banfield 1974). Because coastal Alaska

brown bears feed heavily on the salmon (Oncorhynchus spp. Walbaum) that return to their natal

freshwater streams, it is not known how much

predation pressure might be placed on the marmot.

However, predation on marmots may occur in

spring before the first salmon runs. This protein

source may be vital to bear survival after winter

denning.

Fleas, mites, ticks, and nematodes parasitize

marmots (Godin 1977); however, there are no

data addressing the extent or implications of

parasitism on Montague Island marmots. Marmots

infested with ticks carrying spotted fever have

been isolated (Eadie 1954). Rausch and Rausch

(1971) identified fleas (Thrassis pristinus Stark)

and cestodes (Diandrya composita Darrah and

Catenotaenia reggiae Rausch) occurring on

hoary marmots.

Direct human-related mortality—Hunting,

trapping, and domestic dogs (Canus familiaris)

contribute to marmot mortality in areas populated

by humans (Jackson 1961). In the northern reaches

of the continent, Indians and Eskimos used hoary

marmots for food and to make fur garments

(Banfield 1974).

Seasonal survival rates—The rate at which

stored fat is used dictates survival during months

of hibernation (Lee and Funderburg 1982). The

earlier young marmots are weaned, and the more

they weigh at hibernation, the more likely they are

to survive their first winter (Anderson and others

1976). Mortality during hibernation is probably an

important factor for adults as well (Lee and

Funderburg 1982).

Proportional Use of Habitat

Home ranges—Home ranges of woodchucks are

reportedly 0.004 to 0.03 km2

 (Hayes 1977) and

about 0.02 km2

 for Olympic marmots. Home range

size is affected by food availability, population

density, and habitat availability. Reportedly, the
7

size and shape of home ranges depend on the

terrain and location of feeding areas relative to

the burrow (Lee and Funderburg 1982).

Seasonal differences—Marmots may hibernate

up to 8 or 9 months per year (Banfield 1974,

Nowak 1991, Zimina and Gerasmov 1973),

beginning in September and emerging in early

May in Alaska (Holmes 1979, Howell 1915).

Movement patterns—Marmots may travel

hundreds of meters to feed (Banfield 1974);

however, unless they are dispersing, they appear

to maintain distinct colonial territories (Nowak

1991). Even during peak activity season, marmots

spend a large part of their day resting or sleeping

(Lee and Funderburg 1982). Marmots are good

swimmers, crossing rivers 1 km wide (Barbour

and Davis 1974).

Relation to food sources—Marmots can

overgraze vegetation surrounding their dens

(Banfield 1974). In south-central Alaska, the

female-to-male breeding ratio of hoary marmots

may be directly related to vegetation biomass

within a colony’s home range (Holmes 1984).

Marmots are not known to cache food, but

voraciously eat succulent plants in summer and

accumulate fat (Godin 1977).

Relation to human activities and management

actions—Hoary marmots are managed by the

Alaska Department of Fish and Game as a

furbearer (Alaska Board of Game 1998-99).

There is no closed season or bag limit. Marmots

may act as reservoirs for diseases, such as

tularemia and sylvatic plague, and may harbor the

tick vectors of other diseases, such as Lyme

disease and babesiosis (Eadie 1954).

Relation to landscape—Believed to be restricted

to timberline regions of Montague Island

(NatureServe 2000), Montague Island marmots

also may use talus slopes at lower elevations

(Holbrook 1999). Alpine habitat is widely available,

but availability of talus slopes on the exposed

coast of Montague Island has not been assessed.

Management Issues

Montague Island Marmot Response

to Management Actions

Montague Island marmots may be subject to habitat

loss and fragmentation by clearcut logging and

road building. Population numbers of Vancouver

Island marmots have declined in direct temporal

and spatial association with large-scale clearcutting

(Bryant 1996,1998).

Risk Assessment

Because there is no current information regarding

population levels, or even persistence of this

endemic population, the level of concern is high.

Alpine habitats on Montague Island, however,

have been unaffected by recent logging or road

building, and marmot habitat may be untouched.

Approaches to Montague Island

Marmot Conservation

Documentation of recovery efforts for Vancouver

Island marmots indicate that great effort is required

for an accurate count of marmot numbers (Dearden

1986). Counts of Vancouver Island marmots at

known colonies repeated two, three, and four

times successfully counted 66, 73, and 78 percent

of known animals, respectively (Bryant and Janz

1996). Moreover, count success was higher in

May, June, and July than in August.

Information Needs

Clarification of taxonomic status, using increased

sample sizes, molecular data, and intensive

morphometric analysis, will provide a basis for

further concern. A survey of Montague Island to

determine the distribution and relative abundance

of marmots would provide a baseline from which

management alternatives can be generated.

Mapping marmot colony occurrence on Montague

Island would provide information regarding

preferred habitats. Analysis of the effects of

human disturbance (that is, timber harvest, road

building) on marmot viability should be conducted.
8

Conclusion

Based on the current understanding of the taxonomy

and distribution of Montague Island marmots, it is

clear that more information must be gathered.

Because only a small number of specimens have

been collected and examined, and because

marmots have been sighted once on Montague

Island since the early 1900s, effort should be

made to identify marmot colonies on Montague

Island and collect samples for genetic analyses.

Once it is established that marmots still occur on

Montague Island, and that they are taxonomically

distinct, the question then can be asked: Do land

management activities affect the population?

It has been established in other island endemic

marmot populations that clearcut logging has a

detrimental effect on population numbers. Population

numbers of the endangered Vancouver Island

marmot have declined dramatically, probably as a

result of population “sinks” caused by clearcut

logging. Clearcut logging practices have occurred

on Montague Island in the past, both on federal

and private lands, and it remains unknown if there

were similar detrimental effects to the marmot

population there.

When you

know: Multiply by: To find:

Centimeters (cm) 0.39 Inches

Meters (m) 3.28 Feet

Kilometers (km) 0.62 Miles

Square

 kilometers (km2

) 0.38 Square miles

Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres

Square

 meters (m2

) 10.76 Square feet

Celsius (o

C) 1.8 and

 add 32 Fahrenheit

English Equivalents
9

References

Alaska Board of Game. 1990. Alaska State hunting regulations No. 31. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 47 p.

Alaska Board of Game. 1994. Alaska State hunting regulations No. 35. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 112 p.

Alaska Board of Game. 1998-1999. Alaska trapping regulations. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of

Fish and Game. 48 p.

Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act [ANCSA] of 1971; 85 Stat. 688; U.S.C. 1601 et seq.

Anderson, D.C.; Armitage, K.B.; Hoffman, R.S. 1976. Socioecology of marmots: female reproductive strategies. Ecology. 57: 552-560.

Arnold, W. 1990. The evolution of marmot sociality: I. Why disperse late? Behavioral Ecology and

Sociobiology. 27: 229-237.

Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Toronto, Canada: University Toronto Press. 438 p.

Barash, D.P. 1973. The social biology of the Olympic marmot. Animal Behavior Monographs. 6: 173-244.

Barash, D.P. 1974a. The social behavior of the hoary marmot. Animal Behavior. 22: 256-261.

Barash, D.P. 1974b. Mother-infant relations in captive woodchucks. Animal Behavior. 22: 446-448.

Barash, D.P. 1976. Social behavior and individual differences in free-living alpine marmots. Animal

Behavior. 24: 27-35.

Barash, D.P. 1989. Marmots, social behavior and ecology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

360 p.

Barbour, R.W.; Davis, W.H. 1974. Mammals of Kentucky. Lexington, KY: University Press of

Kentucky. 322 p.

Brower, W.A.; Baldwin, R.G.; Williams, C.N. [and others]. 1988. Climatic atlas of the outer

continental shelf waters and coastal regions of Alaska. Gulf of Alaska. Revision. Anchorage, AK:

University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 544 p. Vol. 1.

Bryant, A.A. 1996. Reproduction and persistence of Vancouver Island marmots (Marmota

vancouverensis) in natural and logged habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 74: 678-687.

Bryant, A.A. 1998. Metapopulation ecology of Vancouver Island marmots (Marmota vancouverensis)

(endangered species) [Abstract]. Canada: University of Victoria. 125 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Bryant, A.A.; Janz, D.W. 1996. Distribution and abundance of Vancouver Island marmots (Marmota

vancouverensis). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 74: 667-677.

Burris, O.E.; McKnight, D.E. 1973. Game transplants in Alaska. Tech. Bull. No. 4. Juneau, AK:

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 57 p.

Cook, J.A. 1998. Marmota caligata (Eschscholtz 1829) Hoary marmot. In: Hafner, D.; Yensen, E.;

Kirkland, G.L., Jr., eds. North American rodents. Status survey and conservation action plan. Gland,

Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: 39-41.

Cook, J.A. 1999. Personal communication. Chair, Department of Biological Science, Idaho State

University, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007.
10

Crowley, D. 1999. Personal communication. Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box

669, Cordova, AK 99664.

Dearden, P. 1986. Status of the Vancouver Island marmot—an update. Environmental Conservation.

13: 168.

Dearden, P.; Hall, C. 1983. Non-consumptive recreation pressures and the case of the Vancouver

Island marmot. Environmental Conservation. 10: 63-66.

Eadie, W.R. 1954. Animal control in field, farm, and forest. New York: Macmillan Co. 257 p.

Fay, F.H.; Sease, J.L. 1985. Preliminary status survey of selected small mammals. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Report on file with: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science, Fairbanks, AK.

53 p.

Gehrels, G.E.; Saleeby, J.B. 1987. Geologic framework, tectonic evolution, and displacement history

of the Alexander terrane. Tectonics. 6: 151-173.

Godin, A.J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 304 p.

Hansen, R.M. 1975. Foods of the hoary marmot on Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy.

94: 348-353.

Hayes, S.R. 1977. Home range of Marmota monax in Arkansas. Southwestern Naturalist. 22: 547-550.

Heard, D.C. 1977. The behavior of Vancouver Island marmots Marmota vancouverensis. Vancouver:

University of British Columbia. 129 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Heller, E. 1910. Mammals of the 1908 Alexander expedition, with descriptions of the localities visited

and notes on the flora of the Prince William Sound region. University of California Publications in

Zoology. 5(11): 321-360.

Heusser, C.J. 1985. Quaternary pollen records from the Pacific Northwest coast: Aleutians to the

Oregon-California boundary. In: Bryan, V.M., Jr.; Holloway, R.G., eds. Pollen records of LateQuaternary North American sediments. Dallas, TX: American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists: 141-165.

Hoffmann, R.S.; Koeppl, J.W.; Nadler, C.F. 1979. The relationship of the amphiberingian marmots.

Occas. Pap. No 83. Lawrence, KS: Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. 56 p.

Holbrook, K. 1999. Personal communication. Oil spill liaison, Chugach National Forest, 3301 “C”

Street, Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503.

Holmes, W.G. 1979. Social behavior and foraging strategies of hoary marmots (Marmota caligata) in

Alaska. Seattle: University of Washington. 130 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Holmes, W.G. 1984. The ecological basis for monogamy in Alaskan hoary marmots. In: Murie, J.O.;

Michener, G.R., eds. The biology of ground-dwelling squirrels. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press:

250-274.

Howell, A.H. 1914. Ten new marmots from North America. Proceedings of the Biological Society of

Washington. 27: 13-18.

Howell, A.H. 1915. Revision of the American marmots. North American Fauna. 37: 1-80.

Hulten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[Pages unknown].

Jackson, H.H.T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 504 p.
11

Johnson, J. 1999. Personal communication. Chugach Alaska Corporation, 560 East 34th St., Suite 300,

Anchorage, AK 99503.

Johnson, J.F.C. 1984. Chugach legends: stories and photographs of the Chugach region. Anchorage:

Chugach Alaska Corporation. [Pages unknown].

Jandro, R. 1999. Personal communication. Concor Forest Products, 3501 Denali Street, Suite 202,

Anchorage, AK 99503.

Klein, D.R. 1965. Postglacial distribution patterns of mammals in the southern coastal regions of

Alaska. Journal of the Arctic Institute of North America. 18: 7-19.

Kruckenhauser, L.; Pinsker, W.; Arnold, W. 1999. Marmot phylogeny revisited: molecular

evidence for a diphyletic origin of sociality. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary

Research. 37: 49-56.

Lahr, J.C.; Plafker, G. 1980. Holocene Pacific-North American plate interaction in southern Alaska:

implications for the Yakataga seismic gap. Geology. 8: 483-486.

Lance, E.W.; Cook, J.A. 1995. Status report on the Montague Island tundra vole (Microtus

oeconomus elymocetes), a Category II species. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services. [Pages unknown].

Lee, D.S.; Funderburg, J.B. 1982. Marmots. In: Chapman, J.A.; Feldhamer, G.A., eds. Wild mammals of North America; biology, management, economics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press: 176-191.

Martell, A.M.; Milko, R.J. 1986. Seasonal diets of Vancouver Island marmots, Marmota

vancouverensis. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 100: 241-245.

Mobley, C.M.; Haggarty, J.C.; Utermohle, C.J. [and others]. 1990. The 1989 Exxon Valdez

cultural resource program. Anchorage, AK: Exxon Shipping Co. and Exxon Co. U.S.A. 300 p.

NatureServe. 2000. NatureServe: an online encyclopedia of life [Web application]. Version 1.0. Arlington,

VA: Association for Biodiversity Information. http://www.natureserve.org/. (November 21, 2000).

Nowack, R.M. 1991. Walker’s mammals of the world. 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. [Pages unknown]. Vol. 1.

Rausch, R.L.; Rausch, V.R. 1971. The sometic chromosomes of some North American marmots

(Sciuridae), with remarks on the relationships of Marmota broweri Hall and Gilmore. Mammalia.

35: 85-101.

Steppan, S.J.; Akhverdyan, M.R.; Lyapunova, E.A. [and others]. 1999. Molecular phylogeny of

the marmots (Rodentia: Sciuridae): test of evolutionary and biogeographic hypotheses. Systematic

Biology. 48: 715-734.

Svendsen, G.E. 1974. Behavioral and environmental factors in the spatial distribution and population

dynamics of a yellow bellied marmot population. Ecology. 55: 760-771.

Thornback, J.; Jenkins, M. 1982. The IUCN mammal red data book, Part 1: Threatened mammalian taxa of the Americas and the Australasian zoogeographic region (excluding Cetacea). Gland,

Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 516 p.

Turk, A.; Arnold, W. 1988. Thermoregulation as a limit to habitat use in alpine marmots (Marmota

marmota). Oecologia. 76: 544-548.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. Big Island Management Area, final environmental impact statement. R10-MB-76. [Place of publication unknown]: [Pages unknown].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Unpublished data. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Management of Resource Information Group, 3301 “C” St., Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503-3998.

Viereck, L.A.; Dyrness, C.T.; Batten, A.R.; Wenzlick, K.J. 1992. The Alaskan vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 278 p.

Weintraub, E.; Cook, J.A. 1991. Taxonomic status and ecology of the Montague Island tundra vole

(Microtus oeconomus elymocetes). Report on file with: Chugach National Forest, Cordova Ranger

District, Cordova, AK 99574.

Yarborough, L.F. 1999. Personal communication. Anthropologist, Chugach National Forest, 3301 “C”

Street, Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503-3998.

Youkey, D.E. 1999. Personal communication. Wildlife biologist, Juneau Ranger District, 8465 Old Dairy

Rd., Juneau, AK 99801-8041.

Zimina, R.P.; Gerasmov, I.P. 1973. The periglacial expansion of marmots in middle Europe during late

Pleistocene. Journal of Mammology. 54: 327-340.

12
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300