Evaluation of the Use of Scientific

Information in Developing the 1997

Forest Plan for the Tongass National

Forest

Fred H. Everest, Douglas N. Swanston, Charles G. Shaw III,

Winston P. Smith, Kent R. Julin, and Stewart D. Allen

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-415

October 1997
Authors FRED H. EVEREST is a research fisheries biologist and research policy coordinator

for the Tongass Land Management Planning Team, DOUGLAS N. SWANSTON is a

research geologist and coleader of the Tongass Land Management Planning Team,

CHARLES G. SHAW III is a research plant pathologist and science manager for the

Tongass Land Management Planning Team, WINSTON P. SMITH is a research

wildlife biologist, KENT R. JULIN is a research forest ecologist, and STEWART D.

ALLEN is a research social scientist for the Tongass Land Management Planning

Team, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A, Juneau, AK

99801-8545.
Conservation and Resource

Assessments for the Tongass

Land Management Plan Revision

Charles G. Shaw III, Technical Coordinator

Evaluation of the Use of Scientific Information in

Developing the 1997 Forest Plan for the Tongass

National Forest

Fred H. Everest, Douglas N. Swanston, Charles G. Shaw III,

Winston P. Smith, Kent R. Julin, and Stewart D. Allen

Published by:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-415

October 1997
Abstract Everest, Fred H.; Swanston, Douglas N.; Shaw, Charles G., III; Smith,

Winston P.; Julin, Kent R.; Allen, Stewart D. 1997. Evaluation of the use of

scientific information in developing the 1997 Forest plan for the Tongass National

Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-415. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 69 p. (Shaw, Charles G.,

III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the Tongass land

management plan revision).

The Tongass National Forest is the largest remaining relatively unaltered coastal

temperate rain forest in the world. The Forest consists of 16.9 million acres of land

distributed across more that 22,000 islands and a narrow strip of mainland in southeast Alaska. The Forest contains abundant timber, wildlife, fisheries, mineral, and

scenic resources.

The authors participated as scientists on the Tongass Land Management Planning

Team from 1995 to 1997. We joined the planning team as full members but maintained separate and distinct roles from National Forest System members. We were

asked to assure that credible, value-neutral, scientific information was developed independently without reference to management decisions. We also displayed the likely

levels of risk to resources and society associated with various management options.

We examined how scientific information was used in making management decisions

and evaluated whether the decisions were consistent with the available information.

We developed and used a set of criteria to evaluate the way in which managers used

scientific information in formulating decisions. This evaluation began while the final alternative was in the formative stages so that managers could alter their management

approach, if they so desired, before the Forest plan was finalized. Many management decisions were altered during this “adaptive decisionmaking process” in which

changes were made concurrent with iterations of this paper. Our conclusion was that

the final management decisions made in developing the 1997 Forest plan achieved

a high degree of consistency with the available scientific information. This paper does

not consider any information gathered after the signing of the record of decision on

May 23, 1997, or deal with subsequent implementation of the 1997 Tongass Forest

plan.

Keywords: Tongass National Forest, forest management, land management planning,

science evaluation, science policy.
Preface Any reasoned decision about the management of natural resources must be based

on a sound foundation of scientific information. The complexity of natural systems

and their importance to people depending on them demand this.

Though an essential consideration, science information alone does not “make” a decision: Decisionmakers make decisions. They make decisions after they complete

what is essentially a value-oriented integration of the good and bad features of the

outcomes of alternative management paths.

Because science information does not make decisions, what part should scientists

play in validating and evaluating a decision? Scientists should not advocate any

particular outcome or decision. They should, however, advocate that the relevant

scientific information be considered when a decision is made. They should determine

whether the decision is consistent with the science information.

The authors of this report charted new ground in the application of scientific information to natural resource decisions. This science consistency check was valuable in

three ways. First, early drafts of this check communicated the science information to

the land management decisionmakers more effectively than separate science reports

would have. Second, the science consistency check helped counteract those who

alleged that science in fact did “make” decisions. Third, it helped the scientists better

clarify and stay within their science role. In the process, the authors helped us all

better craft the proper role of scientific information and of scientists in decisions about

the management of the Nation’s natural resources.

Thomas J. Mills

Station Director

Pacific Northwest

Research Station
Summary The authors participated as scientists on the Tongass Land Management Planning

(TLMP) Team from 1995 to 1997. We joined the planning team as full members but

maintained separate and distinct roles from National Forest System members. We

worked in cooperation with other resource experts from the Forest Service, state and

other Federal agencies, and universities to assemble the most complete base of information ever developed for Forest planning in the Tongass National Forest. We were

asked to assure that credible, value-neutral, scientific information was developed independently without reference to management decisions. Emphasis was placed on

acquisition, assessment, and synthesis of available information. We displayed options

and the likely levels of risk to resources and society associated with various decisions.

The information, with a scientific interpretation of it, was provided to the managers

responsible for deciding the content and direction of the Tongass land management

plan revision. Managers considered this information as they developed an array of

draft alternatives and, subsequently, a draft of the preferred alternative for management of the Tongass. After further analysis and review of public comment, the managers modified the draft of the preferred alternative into the Forest plan.

One of our final responsibilities as members of the TLMP Team was to examine how

the available scientific information was used in making management decisions and to

evaluate whether the decisions were consistent with that information. We developed

and used a specific set of criteria to evaluate consistency of management decisions

with scientific information. The evaluation of how scientific information was used

began while the final alternative was still in the formative stages.

Management decisions were evaluated as they were made in an iterative process that

resulted in more than 20 drafts of this paper, and a like number of changes in management decisions, before the emerging preferred alternative was finalized. In the

final analysis, we consider that this paper, as much as any other aspect of the planning process, helped assure that the Forest plan was scientifically credible, legally defensible, and resource sustainable in the long term.

This evaluation does not consider any information gathered after the signing of the

record of decision on May 23, 1997, or deal with subsequent implementation of the

1997 Tongass Forest plan.

A clear understanding of the different roles that science and management play in natural resource decisionmaking is necessary to establish criteria for assessing the consistency of management decisions relative to available scientific information. Scientists provide managers and policymakers with the foundational information for making

reasoned decisions, but policy issues, not science, dictate the decisions. Scientists

objectively follow rigid scientific protocols in developing new information, integrating

and synthesizing existing and new information, assuring that information is interpreted

correctly, and assessing the probable consequences associated with various proposed management actions.

Managers and policymakers, on the other hand, use scientific information, legal

mandates, societal desires, and other factors to make decisions about, for example,

allocation of natural resources on Federal lands. All policy decisions concerning the

use of natural resources contain some level of risk to resources as a result of longterm implementation. Potential risks associated with decisions can be numerous and

might affect, for example, community stability, wildlife viability, or long-term sustainability of resources. When making decisions, managers strive to balance the array of
risks associated with their decisions with the values of goods and services flowing to

society from National Forest lands. Such management decisions almost always

include compromises for one or more resources.

The appropriate level of risk to accept in management of the National Forests is a

policy decision determined by managers. It is not an issue that can be answered by

the scientific method. If scientists attempt to participate in or personally influence such

decisions, then their objectivity may be compromised as they bring their personal

values regarding levels of acceptable risk to bear on the decision.

To address how scientific information was used by managers making decisions about

revision of the Tongass land management plan, we developed the following criteria:

A. A management decision was considered to be consistent with available scientific

information if the following three conditions were met:

1. All relevant scientific information made available to managers was considered

in the decision.

2. Scientific information was understood and correctly interpreted.

3. Resource risks associated with decisions were acknowledged and documented.

All three criteria had to be met before a decision could receive a summary rating

of being consistent, in our assessment, with available scientific information.

B. A management decision was considered to be inconsistent with available scientific

information if any of the following circumstances occurred:

1. Managers misrepresented or reinterpreted information in ways not supported by

the original information.

2. Managers selectively used information such that a different decision was

reached than would have been made if all available information had been used.

3. Decisions were stated and documented in such a way that implementation

effects could not be predicted.

4. Projected consequences of management actions were not consistent with

scientific information.

Failure to meet any of these criteria resulted in a summary rating of being

inconsistent, in our assessment, with available scientific information.

The following example addressing brown bear habitat illustrates how these criteria

were used to assess consistency of decisions with available scientific information.

Example: Radio-telemetry data from a brown bear study indicate that areas along

principal salmon spawning streams are key brown bear feeding habitat and that bearuse of these zones extends about 500 feet on either side of the streams. The longterm health of bear populations is tied to maintenance of old-growth forest habitat

in these areas, which provides hiding cover from humans and isolates feeding and

resting bears from each other. In this example, we consider three possible approaches for management of brown bear feeding areas along salmon spawning

streams.
1. Managers develop standards and guidelines for managing brown bear feeding

areas along salmon spawning streams that protect about 500-foot widths of forest habitat along each side of the streams. They acknowledge, and risk assessment panels verify, that the risk to bear populations would be low from using

this management approach.

We would consider this decision to be consistent with available scientific

information because managers were provided relevant information, it appears that they understood it by developing management directions that

fully protected this key bear habitat, and they documented the risk to bear

populations.

2. Managers develop no standards and guidelines that specifically protect brown

bear feeding areas along salmon spawning streams. Managers, however,

document in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that research

indicates key brown bear feeding areas extend about 500 feet on each side

of principal salmon spawning streams. They also state that they considered

riparian standards and guidelines prescribed for these streams, which protect

an average 300-foot width along each side and provide an acceptable compromise between maintenance of bear habitat and timber production. They acknowledge that the risk to bear populations could be increased by this decision

and commit to further studies to assess the extent of risk.

We also would consider this decision consistent with available scientific

information. The managers based their decision on a reasonable interpretation of relevant scientific information, with consideration of public desires for

resources and, perhaps, legal mandates. Managers acknowledge and document that some increased risk to brown bear populations will result from

their management direction.

3. Managers develop no standards and guidelines specifically to protect brown

bear feeding areas along salmon spawning streams. They state in the FEIS

that they considered riparian standards and guidelines prescribed for these

streams, which protect an average 300-foot width along each side, adequate

to protect the principal brown bear feeding areas along salmon spawning

streams.

We would consider this decision to be inconsistent with available scientific

information. Even though all relevant scientific information was provided to

managers, they failed to acknowledge its existence or to incorporate it into

their decision, and they also failed to acknowledge and document the increased risk to brown bear feeding areas associated with the decision.

Certain types of decisions cannot be subjected to this type of evaluation.

Any scientific document containing recommendations for managers may

be in this category. Most recommendations are not scientific conclusions

but, rather, a combination of scientific information integrated with professional experience and personal values that embody a level of risk that those

making the recommendations thought appropriate. Recommendations, even

those made by scientists, were not considered in this evaluation of the use

of scientific information.
Using the criteria as defined above, many of the major components of the

emerging final alternative were evaluated for consistency with the available

information base. Results of the evaluation are detailed in table 1 for riparian

and fish sustainability, wildlife viability, karst and caves protection, slope

stability, timber resources, social and economic effects, and monitoring.

Overall, while we remain value-neutral on the Forest plan, our evaluations

indicated that the decisions made in developing the plan achieved a high

degree of consistency with the available scientific information.
Table 1—Summary of whether information on key issues in the Tongass Forest

plan was considered, understood, and risks revealed and documented, and

whether decisions are consistent with available scientific information

Criteria for decision

Was information

Was all understood and Were risks Was

information interpreted revealed and decision

considered? correctly? documented? consistent?

Issue Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Aquatic:

Watershed

analysis X X X X

Cumulative

effects X X X X

Hydrologic

function X X X X

Sediment X X X X

Water quality X X X X

Riparian

vegetation X X X X

Stability of

complex

channels X X X X

Woody debris X X X X

Slope

stability X X X X

Fish access X X X X

Anadromous

fish habitat X X X X

Resident

fish habitat X X X X

Wildlife:

Viability X X X X

Goshawk X X X X

Wolf X X X X

Deer X X X X

Brown bear X X X X

Terrestrial

mammals X X X X

Beach/estuary X X X X

Matrix lands X X X X

Reserves X X X X

Road

management X X X X
Table 1—Summary of whether information on key issues in the Tongass Forest

plan was considered, understood, and risks revealed and documented, and

whether decisions are consistent with available scientific information

(continued)

Criteria for decision

Was information

Was all understood and Were risks Was

information interpreted revealed and decision

considered? correctly? documented? consistent?

Issue Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Karst and

caves X X X X

Slope

stability X X X X

Timber:

Estimation of

old-growth

timber

volume X X X X

Modeling

implementation

reduction

factors

(MIRFS) X X X X

Estimation of

young-growth

timber

volume X X X X

Noninterchangable

components

(NICs) X X X X

Management of

forested

wetlands X X X X

Windthrow X X X X

Socioeconomic

concerns X X X X

Monitoring and

adaptive

management X X X X
Contents 1 Introduction

3 Methods

7 Evaluation of Decisions Related to Specific Resources

7 Aquatic, Riparian, and Fisheries Sustainability

14 Wildlife Viability

27 Karst and Cave Protection

30 Slope Stability

31 Timber Resources

37 Social and Economic Effects

40 Monitoring

42 Review of Overall Consistency

42 Metric Equivalents

43 References

52 Appendix 1

58 Appendix 2

64 Appendix 3
Introduction The Tongass National Forest is the largest remaining relatively unaltered coastal temperate rain forest in the world. The Forest consists of 16.9 million acres of land distributed across more than 22,000 islands and a narrow strip of mainland, which extends

about 540 miles north from the southern end of the Alexander Archipelago (fig. 1

located in inside back cover). Geographic extent and isolation, physiographic variation, and elevational and climatic gradients combine to produce numerous spatially

and temporally heterogeneous environments that support a diverse indigenous biota

including several endemic plants and animals. There are 21 ecological provinces that

stratify the Forest according to various configurations of physical, climatic, and biotic

features. About 10 million acres is timberland; the remainder is fen, sphagnum bogs,

rock, glaciers, ice fields, and water. Before large-scale industrial logging began (ca.

1954), there were about 5.4 million acres of productive old-growth forest1 with nearly

half in high-volume old-growth forest.2 During the last half of the 20th century, about

400,000 acres of primarily high-volume old-growth forest were clearcut logged, which

further fragmented naturally dissected landscapes and forest habitats.

Of the 5 million plus acres of productive old-growth forest that remain in 1997, 4.2

million acres are withdrawn from timber production, including 1.7 million acres of

legislated wilderness areas. The more productive timberlands are in the southern half

of the Forest where a world-class karst and cave resource, sensitive to timber harvest

activities, is prevalent. The lakes, streams, and surrounding marine waters support

one of the most diverse and productive fisheries for wild anadromous salmonids in

the world. Although there are expanding recreational and tourist interests that complement a commercial fishery, mining, and timber based economy, subsistence is still a

significant component of the lifestyle of many residents.

Balancing the levels of protection and use of natural resources across such a vast

and diverse landscape has been an ongoing challenge for USDA Forest Service officials in Alaska. Under the direction of the Alaska Regional Forester and the three

Tongass National Forest Supervisors, the Tongass land management plan revision

was completed on May 23, 1997. A basic principle of National Forest System planning

requires that resources be managed in a sustainable fashion (U.S. Laws, Statutes

1976:sect. 6(e)(1)). Sustained yield is “...the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level of annual or periodic output of the various renewable resources...

without impairment of the productivity of the land” (USDA Forest Service 1982).

In accordance with the principles of National Forest System planning, the authors

participated as scientists and full members of the 1995-97 Tongass Land Management Planning (TLMP) Team but maintained roles distinct from those of the National

Forest System members. We independently developed credible, value-neutral, scientific information without reference to management decisions. Emphasis was placed on

1 Productive old-growth forest is operationally defined as a previously unharvested

forested area of trees more than 150 years old with greater than 10 percent tree cover,

and an accumulated net saw-log volume of more than 8,000 board feet per acre

(mbf/acre) (Julin and Caouette 1997).

2 High-volume old-growth forest in the Tongass averages

34,600 board feet per acre (Julin and Caouette 1997).

1
acquisition, assessment, and synthesis of available information, including new information generated by ongoing studies. We displayed options and the likely levels of

risk to resources and society associated with various decisions. We did not suggest

or concur on what level of risk was acceptable because that is a public policy decision

to be determined by policymakers, not scientists. We also did not make management

decisions.

We collaborated with other resource experts and scientists from the Forest Service,

state and other Federal agencies, and universities to assemble the most complete

information ever developed for forest planning in the Tongass National Forest. The

principle components of the information base included:

• Scientific assessments for Queen Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi)

(Iverson and others 1996), Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni)

(Person and others 1996), marbled murrelet (Brachyrampus marmoratus)

(DeGange 1996), anadromous fish habitat (Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment

[AFHA] Team 1995), karst and cave resources (Baichtal and Swanston 1996),

and socioeconomic effects (Allen and others, in press).

• Resource analyses on forested wetlands (Julin and Meade 1997), slope stability

(Swanston 1997), old-growth timber volume strata (Julin and Caouette 1997),

wind disturbance (Nowacki and Kramer, in prep.), a synthesis of wildlife viability

(Iverson and René 1997), and timber demand (Brooks and Haynes 1997).

• Expert panels commissioned to evaluate the risk to resources from implementation of an array of proposed draft alternatives for managing the Tongass National

Forest. Panels examined potential effects of proposed alternatives on brown bear

(Ursus arctos), Queen Charlotte goshawk, American marten (Martes americana),

marbled murrelet, Alexander Archipelago wolf, Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus

hemionus sitkensis), other terrestrial mammals, fish and riparian conditions, oldgrowth ecosystems, subsistence, and socioeconomic issues (Shaw, in prep.;

Swanston and others 1996). As the emerging final alternative was nearing completion, a second set of risk assessment panels was conducted to evaluate risk to

brown bear, Queen Charlotte goshawk, American marten, Alexander Archipelago

wolf, other terrestrial mammals, and fish and riparian conditions (Shaw, in prep.).

• A document that distilled key findings from the information components listed

above (Swanston and others 1996).

We provided the information listed above, and a scientific interpretation of it, to the

managers responsible for deciding the content and direction of the Tongass land management plan revision. The managers considered this information as they developed

and modified a draft of the preferred alternative for management of the Tongass and,

after further analysis and review of public comment on this draft, modified it into the

Forest plan.

2
“Forest plan” refers to the selected alternative as presented in the final environmental

impact statement (FEIS) (USDA Forest Service 1997b) and documented in the record

of decision (ROD) (USDA Forest Service 1997c). “Emerging final alternative” refers

to the alternative that was being built by the planning team for several months and

was “finalized” into the Forest plan. This term is not to be confused with the “preferred alternative” in the revised supplemental draft environmental impact statement

(RSDEIS) (USDA Forest Service 1996b), which contains some different management

strategies from the final alternative in the FEIS.

One of our final responsibilities as members of the TLMP Team was to examine how

the available scientific information was used in making management decisions and to

evaluate whether the decisions were consistent with that information. We developed

and used a specific set of criteria to evaluate consistency of management decisions

with scientific information. The evaluation of how scientific information was used

began while the final alternative was still in the formative stages.

Management decisions were evaluated as they were made in an iterative process that

resulted in more than 20 drafts of this paper, and a like number of changes in management decisions, before the emerging preferred alternative was finalized. In the

final analysis, we consider that this paper, as much as any other aspect of the planning process, helped produce a Forest plan that was scientifically credible, legally

defensible, and resource sustainable in the long term.

Methods A clear understanding of the different roles that science and management play in natural resource decisionmaking is necessary to establish criteria for assessing the consistency of management decisions relative to available scientific information. Scientists provide managers and policymakers with the foundational information for making

reasoned decisions, but policy issues, not science, dictate the decisions. Scientists

objectively follow rigid scientific protocols in developing new information, integrating

and synthesizing existing and new information, assuring that information is interpreted

correctly, and assessing the probable consequences associated with various proposed management actions.

Managers and policymakers, on the other hand, use scientific information, legal mandates, societal desires, and other factors to make decisions on, for example, allocation of natural resources on Federal lands. All policy decisions concerning the use of

natural resources contain some level of risk to resources as a result of long-term

implementation. Potential risks associated with decisions can be numerous and might

affect, for example, community stability, wildlife viability, or long-term sustainability of

resources. When making decisions, managers strive to balance the array of risks associated with their decisions with the values of goods and services flowing to society

from National Forest lands, while still meeting legal mandates. Such decisionmaking

almost always includes compromises for one or more resources.

The appropriate level of risk to accept is a policy decision determined by managers.

It is not an issue that can be answered by the scientific method. If scientists attempt

to participate in or personally influence such decisions, then their objectivity may be

compromised as they bring their personal values regarding levels of acceptable risk

to bear on the decision.

To address how scientific information was used by managers making decisions about

revision to the Tongass land management plan, we developed the following criteria:

3
A. A management decision was considered to be consistent with available scientific

information if the following three conditions were met:

1. All relevant scientific information made available to managers was considered

in the decision.

2. Scientific information was understood and correctly interpreted.

3. Resource risks associated with decisions were acknowledged and documented.

All three criteria had to be met before a decision could receive a summary rating of

being consistent, in our assessment, with available scientific information.

B. A management decision was considered to be inconsistent with available scientific

information if any of the following circumstances occurred:

1. Managers misrepresented or reinterpreted information in ways not supported by

the original information.

2. Managers selectively used information such that a different decision was

reached than would have been made if all available information had been used.

3. Decisions were stated and documented in such a way that implementation

effects could not be predicted.

4. Projected consequences of management actions were not consistent with

scientific information.

Failure to meet any of these criteria resulted in a summary rating of being

inconsistent, in our assessment, with available scientific information.

Two examples, one related to brown bear habitat and another related to slope

stability, are used to illustrate how the criteria were applied to management decisions.

Example 1: Radio-telemetry data from a brown bear study indicate that areas along

principal salmon spawning streams are key brown bear feeding habitat and that bearuse of these zones extends about 500 feet on either side of the streams. The longterm health of bear populations is tied to maintenance of old-growth forest habitat in

these areas, which provides hiding cover from humans and isolates feeding and resting bears from each other. In this example, we consider three possible approaches

for management of brown bear feeding areas along salmon spawning streams.

1. Managers develop standards and guidelines for managing brown bear feeding

areas along salmon spawning streams that protect about 500-foot widths of forest

habitat along each side of the streams. They acknowledge, and risk assessment

panels verify, that the risk to bear populations would be low from using this management approach.

We would consider this decision to be consistent with available scientific

information because managers were provided relevant information, it appears that they understood it by developing management directions that

fully protected this key bear habitat, and they documented the risk to bear

populations.

4
2. Managers develop no standards and guidelines that specifically protect brown bear

feeding areas along salmon spawning streams. Managers, however, document in the

final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that research indicates key brown bear

feeding areas extend about 500 feet on each side of principal salmon spawning

streams. They also state that they considered riparian standards and guidelines prescribed for these streams, which protect an average 300-foot width along each side

and provide an acceptable compromise between maintenance of bear habitat and timber production. They acknowledge that the risk to bear populations could be increased by this decision and commit to further studies to assess the extent of risk.

We also would consider this decision consistent with available scientific

information. The managers based their decision on a reasonable interpretation of relevant scientific information, with consideration of public desires for

resources and, perhaps, legal mandates. Managers acknowledge and

document that some increased risk to brown bear populations will result

from their management direction.

3. Managers develop no standards and guidelines specifically to protect brown bear

feeding areas along salmon spawning streams. They state in the FEIS that they considered riparian standards and guidelines prescribed for these streams, which protect

an average 300-foot width along each side, adequate to protect the principal brown

bear feeding areas along salmon spawning streams.

We would consider this decision to be inconsistent with available scientific

information. Even though all relevant scientific information was provided to

managers, they failed to acknowledge its existence or to incorporate it into

their decision, and they also failed to acknowledge and document the

increased risk to brown bear feeding areas associated with the decision.

Example 2: Roads and timber harvest directly influence stability of slopes across the

Tongass National Forest through disturbance of the soil mantle and alteration of

natural drainages. The resulting landslides remove soil from forest slopes and are

major contributors of sediment and large woody debris to streams used by anadromous fish. Managers recognized the significance of this relation and developed a

mass failure hazard (landslide) assessment protocol in 1987 based on the information

available at the time. This protocol defined a set of variables controlling stability on

steep forested slopes and identified the critical slope gradient above which no timber

harvesting should occur, because of the high potential for landslides.

Inspection of the 1987 protocol indicated that the data on which the protocol was

based were out of date, and there was a lack of consistency in identification, measurement, and interpretation of variables across Administrative Areas (Ketchikan,

Stikine, and Chatham) of the Forest. A reanalysis and assessment of slope stability

literature and the most current data, including recently developed field information

from southeast Alaska, identified the need to redefine and lower the critical slope

gradient identifying high-hazard soils from 75 percent to 72 percent and revise and

standardize the protocol to provide for consistent measurement and application of

variables across Administrative Areas of the Forest.

In this example, we consider three possible management directions for addressing

slope stability.

5
1. Managers acknowledge and document in the FEIS the new information provided in

the analyses and assessments, adopt the revised mass failure hazard protocol, lower

the critical slope gradient from 75 percent to 72 percent, develop soil and water standards and guidelines for managing potentially unstable terrain that reflect these

changes, and acknowledge that the risk of accelerated mass erosion is reduced when

these changes are applied to timber sales.

We would consider this decision to be consistent with available scientific

information, because managers considered all available information,

understood it, and developed management direction that maximized

protection of high-hazard soils and reduced the potential for accelerated

delivery of sediment and large woody debris to anadromous fish streams.

Managers also acknowledged the risk associated with their decision.

2. Managers do not adopt the revised protocol, do not lower the critical slope gradient

from 75 percent to 72 percent, and do not alter existing standards and guidelines.

Managers, however, do acknowledge and document in the FEIS the new information

provided in the analyses and assessments. They state that even though the new

information is valuable and will be incorporated into the Forest plan where practical,

they consider that the existing standards and guidelines and current high-hazard soil

boundary provide more management flexibility and represent an acceptable compromise between protection of unstable slopes and timber production. They acknowledge

that the risk of accelerated landslides could be increased by this decision and commit

to a monitoring and assessment program to evaluate the protocol and determine the

extent of risk.

This decision is based on correct interpretation of available scientific information, with consideration of public desires and resources. Managers acknowledge and reveal that some increased risk of landslides as the result

of forest management is inherent in the decision. We would consider this

decision to be consistent with available scientific information.

3. Managers do not adopt the revised protocol, do not lower the critical slope gradient

from 75 percent to 72 percent, and do not alter existing standards and guidelines.

They state in the FEIS that they consider that the existing protocol and critical slope

gradient of 75 percent are adequate to protect high-hazard soils and reduce the potential for accelerated delivery of sediment and large woody debris to anadromous

fish streams.

This decision does not consider all available scientific information and fails

to acknowledge and reveal the increased risk of landslides and accelerated

sediment delivery associated with the decision. We would consider this decision to be inconsistent with available scientific information.

Certain types of decisions cannot be subjected to this type of evaluation. Any scientific document containing recommendations for managers may be in this category.

Recommendations are not scientific conclusions but, rather, a combination of scientific

information integrated with professional experience and personal values that embody

a level of risk that those making the recommendations think appropriate. Recommendations, even those made by scientists, were not considered in this science consistency check.

6
Evaluation of

Decisions Related

to Specific

Resources

Decisions related to some resource areas, for example fish and wildlife issues, better

lend themselves to a science consistency check of this type than, for example, socioeconomic and monitoring issues, which may be based on less quantitative science.

In resource areas where information is more qualitative, a greater degree of uncertainty surrounds a science consistency evaluation, and it is thus more difficult to

conduct.

Aquatic, Riparian, and

Fisheries Sustainability

The Tongass National Forest lies in the northern sector of the coastal temperate rain

forest along the west coast of North America. The high annual precipitation along this

coast and fairly even distribution of precipitation in time and space creates and maintains an extensive variety of stream, river, lake, wetland, and riparian habitats across

the Forest. These abundant physical features of the landscape provide essential habitats for a wide variety of fish and wildlife species of special interest to sport, commercial, and subsistence users.

Protection of aquatic and riparian habitats was identified as one of the key issues in

the 1995-97 revision of the Tongass land management plan. The focus on aquatic

and riparian habitats was related largely to the importance of anadromous salmonids

(primarily Pacific salmon and steelhead [Oncorhynchus mykiss] produced annually in

these habitats, although resident fish and other species also are of interest and concern to managers. The management standard for anadromous fish in the current Forest plan is maintenance of current habitat productivity sufficient to provide for

undiminished future harvestable populations.

The stream and lake habitats of the Tongass National Forest are unique in their complexity and productivity. Islands of the Alexander Archipelago and the narrow strip of

mainland southeast Alaska contain:

• Numerous small creeks and streams on islands

• Some large streams and rivers on islands

• Some large transboundary mainland rivers

• Numerous small coastal mainland rivers

• Numerous stream and lake complexes in all types of systems

All these aquatic systems are subjected to variable climatic conditions that result in

streams dominated by glaciers, interior continental climate, coastal maritime climate,

climate of the transition snow zone, and local orographic effects.

The aquatic and fisheries resources of the Tongass are adapted to this diversity

of habitats and climatic conditions. Consequently, numerous species and discrete

spawning populations of anadromous and resident salmonids exist in the region.

Mixed assemblages of wild salmonids occur in nearly all the different habitat types.

Most watersheds of the Tongass contain five or more species of salmonids—a common mix includes coho salmon (O. kisutch), chum salmon (O. keta), and pink salmon

(O. gorbuscha), steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout (O. clarki), and Dolly Varden char

(Salvelinus malma). These species may all reside together in the same watershed

and share the same stream reaches, but each uses available habitat in a slightly

different way. Although all species and age classes in fresh water are vulnerable to

habitat disturbances, the most vulnerable are those whose juveniles reside in fresh

7
water the longest before migrating to sea (e.g., steelhead and cutthroat trout; Reeves

and others 1993). Any major changes in these habitats can have immediate effects

on the productivity and community structure of salmonids (Reeves and others 1995)

and other aquatic species.

Anadromous salmonids represent one of the preeminent natural resources in southeast Alaska. The Alexander Archipelago and the mainland of southeast Alaska support one of the most productive and highly valued fisheries for wild salmon in the

world. Commercial salmon fisheries yield 160 million pounds (average annual production from the Tongass) worth about $250 million annually and provide more than

5,000 direct jobs (AFHA 1995). The sport fishing industry is smaller in economic and

employment effects but is growing at an average of 10 percent per year (AFHA 1995).

Sport fishing now provides more than 1,200 direct, full-time job equivalents with over

$28 million in earnings and 250,000 angler days. Sport fishers spend more than $90

for each salmon caught. The annual subsistence harvest of salmon is in excess of

1.2 million pounds. Harvesting salmon in traditional areas is important to sustaining

the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian cultures. Activities associated with salmon annually

support the highest number of natural resource-related jobs in southeast Alaska

(Allen and others, in press).

The variety of freshwater habitats where anadromous fish breed and reside for variable periods before entering the marine phase of their life cycles are essential to the

long-term sustainability of their populations. The same is true for resident fish and

other aquatic species.

Factors influencing aquatic, riparian, and fish habitats—Salmonids have exacting

freshwater habitat requirements and are sensitive to habitat disturbances (Everest

and others 1985). All salmonids require relatively pristine freshwater habitats during

all or part of their life cycles (Meehan 1991). Consequently, salmonids can be used

as effective indicators of the health of aquatic systems (Sonstegard and Leatherland

1984). If salmonid populations are healthy in watersheds, then populations of other

aquatic species generally are healthy as well.

Salmonids in fresh water are vulnerable to natural and human-caused changes in

habitat quality. The quality of habitat for fish or other aquatic species in any stream

depends on the condition of the area that it drains. Thus, watersheds are the basic

unit of forested landscapes, controlling the quality of aquatic habitats and to a large

extent the populations of fish and other aquatic species present, as well as the

numbers of fish that can be sustainably harvested (AFHA 1995).

Watersheds in southeast Alaska are disturbed by both natural events and human

activities, but the effects of these disturbances on fish habitat are generally different.

The primary differences are related to the frequency and extent of disturbances

across forested landscapes and the potential for recovery of disturbed landscapes

and fish habitats.

Natural disturbances (e.g., floods, landslides, windthrow of trees, insect outbreaks,

and earthquakes) that create spatial and temporal variability in aquatic habitats across

forested landscapes can negatively affect fish and other aquatic species. These disturbances, however, are infrequent and sporadic in time and space, such that entire

watersheds rarely are affected by a single event (Reeves and others 1995). The recurrence interval for large natural disturbances, such as earthquakes and major landslides, is often in the range of centuries to millennia for any given site. Because only

8
a small component of the landscape usually is affected at any one time, and disturbances are infrequent, refugia usually are available to provide for survival of aquatic

species until the disturbed area recovers naturally, which might take a century or

more. Salmonids and other aquatic species have adaptive strategies for natural disturbances and, consequently, are rarely placed at risk of extinction from natural

events.

Human disturbances typically are more frequent and widespread than natural disturbances. The most common forms of human disturbances in forested watersheds are

logging, often in relatively large blocks, and the associated construction and maintenance of roads. There is no natural analog to either type of disturbance in southeast

Alaska. Aquatic species in the region may not be able to adapt to the intensities of

these disturbances before irrevocable population changes occur. Logging affects

water quality, hydrologic function, and other characteristics of aquatic habitats in

watersheds. Disturbance from logging is relatively frequent in both time and space

across watersheds subjected to timber harvest. Roads, even where not associated

with timber management, create major watershed disturbances with perennial effects

on aquatic resources and watershed function (Furniss and others 1991). Roads interrupt natural hydrologic function in watersheds and generally increase both suspended

and bedload sediments in streams. Clearly, widespread and frequent human disturbances, such as logging and road construction, increase the risk to aquatic ecosystems

and associated species in southeast Alaska. Management actions can be applied to

reduce risk, however (AFHA 1995).

Critical features of aquatic systems for salmonid and other species—Salmonids

and other aquatic species have developed within a natural range of habitat variability

in watersheds of southeast Alaska. Because of the economic and social importance

of salmonids and their role as management indicator species, the critical features that

combine to form and maintain productive salmonid habitat also are assumed to provide productive habitat for other aquatic species. Salmonid habitats have been intensively studied for decades, and a large body of information exists on their habitat

needs and preferences. Several excellent synthesis papers have been prepared on

the subject over the past few years. The following summary of critical features of

salmonid habitat was derived primarily from Stouder and others (1997), Meehan

(1991), Salo and Cundy (1987), and Everest and others (1985).

If the natural range of variability in critical habitat features can be maintained in the

watersheds of southeast Alaska, then aquatic habitats for salmonids and other aquatic

species generally will be at lower risk from human disturbance (AFHA 1995). The

natural range of these features can be determined from inventory and monitoring of

largely undisturbed watersheds.

Key features of aquatic habitats include:

• Hydrologic function (in time, space, and amplitude), including stream flow, ground

water, and hyporheic flow (Gregory and Bisson 1997)

• Sediment supply and routing (Everest and others 1987)

• Water quality, including temperature (Beschta and others 1987), dissolved oxygen

(Bjornn and Reiser 1991), and nutrients (Murphy and Meehan 1991)

• Riparian vegetation, including intact old-growth forests (Gregory and Bisson 1997)

• Relatively stable, complex stream channels (Sullivan and others 1987)

9
• Side-channel and off-channel habitats in flood plains (Gregory and Bisson 1997)

• Large woody debris in stream channels (Bisson and others 1987)

• Upstream access (Bjornn and Reiser 1991) and downstream access (Everest and

others 1985) for migratory salmonids

Current condition of watersheds in the Tongass National Forest—The general

condition of watersheds in the Tongass was assessed in 1992 by National Forest

System personnel. Their findings were reported in AFHA (1995:15) as follows:

Information from the 11 Ranger Districts of the Tongass was summarized

by using four general types of land allocation: wilderness, roadless, variety

of uses and outputs, and commodity emphasis. Each type was assigned

into two categories: watershed condition currently healthy (conditions and

functions generally in balance) or watershed condition not healthy. The biologists and hydrologists working on the assessment based their determinations on information about the natural conditions of the watershed, known

changes in riparian conditions or stream habitat, and professional observations and experience (J. Christner, data on file at Tongass National Forest,

Chatham Area, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835). Stream class, channel

type, management influences (for example, riparian area harvested, minerals

activity, or roads), soil hazard rating, and results from a riparian harvesteffects model for coho salmon also influenced their assessments.

For lands within the Tongass National Forest boundary, including all ownerships,

77 percent of the watersheds were considered to have a healthy watershed function

and condition and 23 percent had a reduced condition. In the categories “variety of

uses and outputs” and “commodity emphasis,” 72 percent of these watersheds were

classified as healthy, and 28 percent had conditions with reduced condition.

Most watersheds with reduced function and conditions were affected by commercial

timber harvest operations during the 1950s to 1970s when Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service 1993) were not used. Watersheds managed during the

1980s and 1990s were subject to Best Management Practices. In some places, the

watersheds have become wilderness or legislated roadless [areas] since the logging

or other activity occurred. What are currently considered Best Management Practices

were not in use during the earlier periods when activities such as clearcutting to all

channel banks, salvage and removal of natural large woody debris from streams,

yarding logs across or through stream channels, extensive road construction in flood

plains, inadequate road drainage structure designs, and limited erosion control measures were common.

Results of the watershed assessment indicated that most aquatic habitats in the

Tongass remain in relatively undisturbed states, with exceptions in some areas

heavily logged two to three decades ago. The strategy developed by managers during

the 1995-97 TLMP revision was designed to reduce risk of any further degradation of

watershed function in the Forest.

An overview of aquatic and riparian components in the Forest plan—The Forest

plan (USDA Forest Service 1997a) draws heavily from scientific information in AFHA

(1995), and other sources to develop a strategy for maintaining the productivity and

integrity of aquatic, riparian, and fish habitats. A number of management actions are

included that reduce risk to aquatic resources from human disturbances. Further

10
actions could have been taken and were not, presumably for other resource considerations. Whether the final risk to fish habitats, as estimated by expert opinion

(Shaw, in prep.; table 2) is acceptable is a policy question and not a question that can

be answered by science. In the Forest plan, key components of the strategy to protect

aquatic, riparian, and fish habitat include:

1. The following land use designations (LUDs) that protect old-growth forest habitat

and reduce the effects of human disturbance on watersheds, riparian areas, and

streams:

• An array of lands totaling about 4.2 million acres that are legislatively withdrawn

from timber production (USDA Forest Service 1997b:table 3-77).

• An old-growth forest conservation strategy that includes a network of large,

medium, and small old-growth reserves, which in combination with various other

LUDS protect an additional 3.5 million acres of old-growth habitat (Iverson 1997).

• The spatial distribution of at least one very large old-growth reserve in each of the

21 biogeographic provinces of the Tongass, and a small reserve in each of 237

large watersheds (USDA Forest Service 1997c).

• A 1,000-foot beach and estuary buffer that provides an additional 140,000 acres

of protected old-growth habitat within timber production LUDs (Iverson 1997).

Table 2—Likelihood scores (100 points

possible) for fish from 2d set of risk assessment panels, Tongass Forest plana

Species Scores

Chinook salmon 100

Coho salmon 87

Sockeye salmon 93

Chum salmon 94

Pink salmon 93

Steelhead 88

Cutthroat trout:

Resident 84

Anadromous 85

Dolly Varden:

Resident 84

Anadromous 89

a Panelists evaluated whether salmonid habitats suitable

for maintenance of current levels of fish production would

be met throughout most of the Tongass National Forest,

and if little or no additional habitat degradation would occur,

following 100 years of implementation of the emerging final

alternative.

Source: Shaw, in prep.

11
• Riparian buffers along class I, class II, and most class III streams that protect

approximately 224,000 additional acres of productive old-growth habitat within

timber production LUDs (Iverson 1997).

• Approximately 500-foot buffers to protect principal brown bear feeding areas along

salmon streams and also protect riparian and salmon habitat along those streams.

2. Standards and guidelines and other features of the Forest plan that contribute to

protection of aquatic, riparian, and fish habitat:

• Direction to buffer all class I, class II, and most class III streams with appropriate

widths of existing vegetation, which in most cases is old-growth forest (USDA

Forest Service 1997b:4-53, 4-56 to 4-69).

• Direction to conduct watershed analysis (watershed-scale planning) before

changing buffer widths designated by standards and guidelines for class I, II, and

III streams (USDA Forest Service 1997b:4-51, app. J).

• Direction to implement Best Management Practices to protect beneficial uses of

water (USDA Forest Service 1997b:4-53, app. C).

• Riparian management areas (those areas of particular value to watershed and

stream system integrity) must be defined for all class I, II, and III streams before

timber harvest begins (USDA Forest Service 1997b:4-51).

• Special protection is given to off-channel fish habitats of flood plain, glacial

outwash, and alluvial fan process groups (for description of process groups see

Paustian 1992; USDA Forest Service 1997b:4-53, 4-56 to 4-59).

• Special emphasis is given to design of windfirm buffers (USDA Forest Service

1997b:4-58 to 4-68).

• New definitions of class III and IV streams are developed (USDA Forest Service

1997b:4-7 to 4-8).

• Operating rules for mass erosion hazard areas are clarified and revised (USDA

Forest Service 1997b:4-82).

• Quantitative objectives for fish habitat management are required (USDA Forest

Service 1997b:4-8 to 4-9).

• Specific rules for salvage of timber from riparian areas, (USDA Forest Service

1997b:4-54).

• Specific rules for road design, layout, construction, and maintenance (USDA

Forest Service 1997b:4-53, 4-57 to 4-71, 4-107).

• Maintain migratory access for anadromous salmonids (USDA Forest Service

1997b:4-57 to 4-69).

Habitat features absent from the Forest plan—The following additions to actions,

prescriptions, and standards and guidelines in the Forest plan would likely provide

incremental and cumulative benefits toward maintaining aquatic and riparian habitats

and sustainability of fisheries in the Tongass. Absence of these features, however, is

not an indication that the Forest plan is deficient, and including these or any other features does not ensure that a Forest plan meets acceptable levels of risk for maintaining sustainability of aquatic, riparian, and fishery resources as indicated previously.

12
1. Increased width of buffer strips along all class I, II, and III streams. Such action

would further reduce the risk of windthrow in the core area of buffer strips and increase the likelihood that old-growth timber would remain standing near streams

where it contributes incrementally to further gains in:

• Long-term recruitment of large woody debris to stream channels

• Stable and complex stream banks

• Stable summer and winter microhabitat conditions within buffer strips

• Natural summer and winter water temperature regimes

• Natural water quality and nutrient levels

• Stable habitats for anadromous and resident fish

2. Increased protection of class IV headwater streams. Vegetative buffer strips along

class IV stream channels, or other measures such as directional timber felling and

yarding used to reduce the risk of major disturbances to these channels, would likely

reduce the risk of:

• Loss of habitat for old-growth-associated, riparian amphibians

• Acute and chronic mass erosion from headwater channels

• Long-term cumulative effects of sedimentation on water quality and fish habitat in

downstream waters

3. More conservative engineering of road drainage structures (e.g., for 100-year

storm events) to reduce the risk of road cut and fill failures during exceptional storm

events. Drainage structures designed to accommodate larger storm events would

reduce the risk of catastrophic sedimentation of fish habitats.

4. Longer timber rotation age in the matrix lands. This addition, coupled with a correspondingly reduced allowable sale quantity, would reduce watershed disturbance in

time and space and reduce the risk of both accelerated stream sedimentation and

buffer strip blowdown.

5. More comprehensive and intensive watershed analysis. A more comprehensive and

detailed level of watershed analysis likely would reduce management-related risks to

all resources in a watershed, including aquatic, riparian, and fishery resources.

Consistency in the use of aquatic- and riparian-related information—Sustainability of aquatic, riparian, and fishery resources was identified as a major focal issue

to be addressed during the revision of the Tongass land management plan. Protection

of fishery resources in particular has been a long-standing controversial issue for the

Tongass as evidenced by the debate over passage of the Tongass Timber Reform

Act (U.S. Public Laws, Statutes 1990), and the subsequent debate over AFHA (1995).

Consequently, how information on aquatic, riparian, and fishery resources was used

in the Forest plan is important. Relevant information in several publications synthesizing literature on salmonid habitats, and the anadromous fish habitat assessment

report (AFHA 1995), was used in developing the strategy and standards and guidelines for protecting aquatic habitats in the Forest plan. A summary of how scientific

13
information on key issues related to sustainability of aquatic, riparian, and fishery resources was used in the Forest plan and how risks were acknowledged is provided in

table 1 (see “Summary”). The actual risk ratings (likelihood scores), as estimated by

expert opinion, for implementation of the emerging final alternative for 100 years, are

explained by Shaw (in prep.) and summarized in table 2.

The Forest plan makes consistent use of available scientific information and provides

a strong relation between key features of salmonid habitat (see p. 9-10) and Forest

plan LUDs and standards and guidelines (see p. 10-12) to produce a strategy with a

high likelihood of maintaining sustainable levels of aquatic, riparian, and fish habitats.

Overall, the consistency criteria of using all available information, interpreting and considering the information correctly, and acknowledging and documenting risks associated with management decisions were met to a high degree.

A science consistency check on recommendations within the AFHA report (1995) is

not appropriate, but a general comparison between AFHA recommendations and the

Forest plan is made in appendix 1. The AFHA recommendations are a combination

of scientific information, professional experience, and the personal values of those

making the recommendations and therefore are not suitable for a science consistency

check.

Wildlife Viability The Tongass represents habitat for numerous indigenous vertebrates: 53 mammals,

231 birds, and 5 amphibians and reptiles (USDA Forest Service 1996a). The Forest

encompasses the largest remaining largely unaltered block of coastal temperate rain

forest in the world (Lawford and others 1996). It is comprised of the Alexander Archipelago and a narrow strip of North American mainland. Like the more than 22,000

islands of the archipelago, the mainland is largely isolated from other large, contiguous land masses because of mountains, glaciers, and icefields immediately to the

east that create a significant barrier to movement by vertebrates. A few east-west

river valleys dissect an otherwise snow-, ice-, or rock-covered mountainous landscape, each river valley providing only a constricted corridor for dispersal of wildlife.

Because of these features, southeast Alaska supports a rich and varied flora and

fauna including many unique organisms. Indeed, mammals alone are represented by

27 recognized endemic taxa (MacDonald and Cook 1996).

There are several uses and values associated with the indigenous fauna of the Forest, including commercial and noncommercial commodity values, subsistence use,

maintaining Native cultural traditions, sport hunting, wildlife viewing, recreation and

tourism, and ecosystem integrity. Thus, maintaining the diversity and viability of fauna

within the Tongass meets many needs.

National Forest Management Act regulations state that “wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native vertebrate species” (USDA Forest Service 1982:19). Unfortunately, there currently is not a clear definition in the scientific literature of what viability represents among all wildlife species.

The National Forest Management Act regulations define a viable population for planning purposes as “one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning

area.” Furthermore, “habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number

of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that individuals

can interact with others in the planning area.”

14
Concerns about long-term viability of wildlife in the Tongass led the leader of the

TLMP Team to establish an interagency viable population committee (V-POP) in

1990. The committee’s draft report (Suring and others 1993) provides recommendations for old-growth forest retention designed to protect long-term wildlife viability in

the Tongass. The committee also made recommendations designed to maintain the

viability of individual wildlife species. The committee’s report was subsequently subjected to review (here called the peer review), at the request of the Regional Forester,

by scientists affiliated with the Pacific Northwest Research Station (Kiester and

Eckhardt 1994).

An attempt was made to reconcile differing recommendations made in the original

V-POP report and the peer review to provide a consistent set of recommendations for

an old-growth retention strategy to provide habitat sufficient to meet viability needs for

all wildlife species in the Tongass. Preliminary recommendations for reconciliation

were made (Suring and others 1994) but they were never subjected to scientific analysis or further review because the V-POP committee was disbanded by the Regional

Forester.These documents articulated the need for a strategy to maintain habitat for

old-growth-associated wildlife in the Tongass and made recommendations for ways

to achieve that goal. The V-POP documents, and many others pertaining to wildlife

viability, were provided to forest managers for consideration in revision of the Tongass

land management plan.

The V-POP reports contained detailed recommendations on how, in the opinion of the

authors, to achieve wildlife viability in the Tongass National Forest. The recommendations, however, are not science but rather a combination of scientific information integrated with professional experience and personal values embodying a level of risk the

authors thought appropriate. Recommendations of this type cannot be subjected to a

science consistency evaluation using the criteria defined in this paper. Because of

interagency interest in the V-POP documents, however, recommendations in those

documents are compared to the Forest plan in appendix 2. This exercise is simply a

comparison of one possible strategy with another for managing wildlife habitat in the

Tongass.

In general, any major disturbance to the landscape, especially in highly fragmented

archipelago systems, poses some increased level of risk of local extripation to the

resident biota (Burkey 1995). Generally, the more the disturbance processes deviate

from the natural disturbance regime, the greater the likelihood of an increased risk to

the viability of the resident biotic communities. When the areal extent, distribution, or

frequency of a disturbance becomes great enough, and fragmentation of habitat extensive enough, then the ability of a species to persist across the landscape may be

compromised. An estimate of temporal and spatial disturbance to habitat resulting

from implementation of the Forest plan therefore is assessed in terms of risk to the

viability of wildlife species of the Tongass and the probability of populations remaining

well distributed across the planning area.

Factors influencing wildlife viability—Although population viability is difficult to define for many wildlife species, wildlife biologists clearly recognize the primary factors

influencing viability (Soulé and Wilcox 1980). Numerous factors contribute to the viability of wildlife populations, not the least of which are the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitat, in both time and space. Habitat provides necessary resources such

as shelter, food, and water, and habitat quality significantly influences susceptibility to

15
predation, disease, and severe climate. Ultimately, habitat determines reproductive

success, recruitment, and demography, all important parameters influencing viability

(Soulé and Wilcox 1980).

In addition to habitat, environmental features such as geologic history and natural

processes, which affect regeneration and development of natural communities, establish the ecological and evolutionary context within which organisms must respond and

ultimately adapt. More specifically, how the environment influences a species will differ and depends on several factors: trophic position (e.g., primary consumers like

herbivores versus top level carnivores); dispersal ability; and any one of numerous life

history traits including whether a species is migratory, whether a species is monogamous, generation time, age at first reproduction, number of litters or broods of young

produced per year, and ecological affinities or interspecific relations.

Numerous species have very narrow habitat niches (specialists), or they may be involved in obligate relations with other species (e.g., predator-prey relations). For habitat specialists, the range of tolerance to habitat disturbance is narrow; for species dependent on others for food, viability is linked not only to its own habitat requirements

but also to those of its prey. Also, whereas species occupying early forest successional seres (or other ephemeral habitats) have evolved dispersal ability and other

traits that facilitate colonizing new habitat that becomes available, old-growthassociated species have instead evolved keen competitive abilities (Pianka 1988).

The consequence is that old-growth-associated vertebrate species are typically poor

dispersers and do not fare well at reoccupying disturbed habitat following extirpation

(MacArthur 1972:87; MacArthur and Wilson 1967:81), even though the habitat may

recover in 200 to 300 years.

This life history attribute is especially problematic in archipelago systems where

habitat is already naturally fragmented and “source” populations are already isolated

(Burkey 1995). Management activities that fragment habitats within existing land

masses and contiguous forest habitat will further increase the likelihood that populations may not only become locally extirpated but also that fewer source populations

may exist, and opportunities for colonizing any suitable second-growth forest habitat

may be diminished because habitat connectivity has been interrupted.

For endemic vertebrates with restricted ranges (i.e., one or a few islands), the risk to

viability, indeed extinction, is greater than for widely distributed species (Burkey 1995,

Soulé and Wilcox 1980). Habitat requirements of many old-growth associates not only

include microhabitat and macrohabitat dimensions but also are spatially explicit within

a broader landscape context; that is, some endemic species have specific stand-level

(and even finer scale) habitat requirements and are also “area-sensitive” (Soulé and

Wilcox 1980). Thus, landscape context is as important as overall habitat quantity or

quality. Small carnivores like marten, for example, have some of the largest massspecific home ranges and need fairly large, contiguous, tracts of habitat (Chapman

and Feldhamer 1982, Harlow 1994).

Land management planning for the Tongass National Forest occurs at the scale of

millions of acres (USDA Forest Service 1996a), which is a broader scale than that

used by wildlife populations that rely on habitat distributed at a spatial scale an order

or more in magnitude finer than the Forest, or even an Administrative Area. Indeed,

16
many rare and endemic mammals have entire distributional ranges representing only

thousands of acres. For example, the entire known geographic range of the Suemez

Island ermine (Mustela erminea seclusa) is Suemez Island (MacDonald and Cook

1996), which is less than 40,000 acres.

Elements of Forest planning that affect the viability of old-growth-associated wildlife

species are (1) total amount of habitat, habitat type representation, and habitat patch

size; (2) extent of additional fragmentation of productive old-growth habitat; (3) connectivity of old-growth habitat; (4) extent, frequency, and intensity of disturbance

within the matrix (e.g., rotation length, regeneration method, distribution in time and

space); and (5) amount, distribution, and duration of roads and road access.

The draft alternatives and the emerging final alternative used different combinations

of the above elements to address the issue of wildlife viability. The basic premise of

this approach was that similar levels of protection can be achieved through wildlife

management strategies employing different combinations of the elements. For example, similar levels of risk for a certain species may be achieved by using either a

strategy emphasizing well-connected reserves, or one with no specific reserve strategy that uses a 300-year rotation across all lands scheduled for timber harvest, especially if harvest occurs in small blocks emulating natural disturbances.

An overview of wildlife components in the Forest plan—The Forest plan includes

an array of components derived from available scientific information that managers

have used to protect wildlife viability across the Tongass. These management actions

reduce the risk to wildlife viability; additional actions could have been taken to further

reduce risk and were not, presumably to gain other benefits. Whether the risk in the

Forest plan is acceptable is a policy question, not one of science. The TLMP scientists evaluated the risk posed to maintaining habitat for well-distributed wildlife populations in the Tongass across the entire array of alternatives so that managers could

see how the emerging final alternative compared to the draft alternatives (see

appendix 3). The key components of the viability strategy in the Forest plan include:

• An array of lands totaling 4.2 million acres that is legislatively withdrawn from

timber production (USDA Forest Service 1997b:table 3-77).

• An old-growth habitat conservation strategy that includes a network of large,

medium, and small reserves, which in combination with various other LUDs

protect an additional 3.5 million acres of old-growth forest habitat (Iverson 1997).

• Strategic location of reserves across the 21 biogeographic provinces of the

Tongass to enhance their connectivity to other reserves or protected habitat; the

system includes at least one very large old-growth reserve per ecological province

and a small reserve in each of 237 large watersheds (USDA Forest Service

1997c).

• A mechanism for controlling human access to roads across the entire Forest, as

necessary, to protect wolves and brown bears.

• A 1,000-foot beach and estuary buffer that provides an additional 140,000 acres

of protected productive old-growth habitat within timber production LUDs (Iverson

1997) and connectivity among some reserves.

17
• Riparian buffers that protect an additional 223,800 acres of productive old-growth

habitat within timber production LUDs (Iverson 1997) and provide connectivity

among some reserves while providing protection for fish habitat.

• Approximately 500-foot buffers to protect principal brown bear feeding areas along

salmon streams and provide connectivity with other old-growth habitats.

• Removal of all forested islands ≤1,000 acres (n=461) from the timber base to

protect about 43,000 acres of productive old-growth habitat (Iverson 1997).

• A reevaluation of candidate species to include on the Regional Forester’s

sensitive species list.

• Strengthening the rigor of procedures and standardizing protocols to conduct

biological evaluations for taxa on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list.

• Establishment of a “survey before management” approach for endemic mammals

before beginning projects that substantially alter vegetation on islands ≤50,000

acres in size. Similar surveys on larger islands may be conducted if an initial assessment indicates a high likelihood that endemic mammals are present. Survey

results will be used as necessary to modify project design to provide for the continued persistence of endemic taxa identified during surveys.

• Accelerated research on endemic mammal taxa in the Forest.

• A timber harvesting plan that schedules <43 percent of the acres of old-growth

timber in the lands available for timber harvest between reserves (timber-emphasis

LUDs, also called matrix lands) for harvest in a rotation, leaving after 100 years of

implementation about 1 million acres (i.e., 57 percent) of the productive old growth

in the matrix (Iverson 1997) and 84 percent of the Forest-wide productive oldgrowth habitat that was present in 1954 (USDA Forest Service 1997c).

After a full rotation of implementation (100 years), the Forest plan leaves about 57

percent of the old-growth forest within the portions of the Tongass National Forest

designated for timber emphasis which are either protected by standards and

guidelines or will be classified as too isolated or difficult to use for timber production.

Scheduled timber harvests, however, contribute to additional fragmentation of forest

habitat for old-growth-associated wildlife species.

Management actions that reduce risk to viability—The Forest plan includes several standards and guidelines that reduce risk to the viability of all wildlife species,

including a subgroup called other terrestrial mammals.3 Reduction in risk is measured

from that associated with current practices in use on the Tongass; i.e., before the

1995-97 planning effort. These actions include many fundamental elements used in

developing the array of Forest plan alternatives. These elements and their likely effect

on each wildlife species are summarized in table 3.

3 The classification “other terrestrial mammals” includes a

group designated as “wide ranging” and an endemic group.

Several species are contained in each group (Shaw, in prep.).

18
Table 3—Synthesis derived from the 1st set of risk assessment panels on how various elements of the

draft alternatives contribute to maintaining wildlife viability in the Tongass National Foresta b

Alternative features

Rotation VCUd

length in Harvest harveste Old-growth Riparian

Panels Reserves years method c thresholds retentionf options

Wolf + 200>100 ul>2>es + + 1>2

Bear + 0/-(differs 0 - ++1>2

by situation)

Murrelet ++ 200>100 ul>2>es ++ + 0 or -

Northern goshawk + 200>100 ul>2>es ++ 0/+ 1>2

American marten ++e.g. 200>100 ul>2>es + + 1>2

Alternative 3 to clearcut

Other terrestrial mammals ++ 200>100 ul>2>es + + 1>2

to clearcut

Subsistence deer harvest + 200>100 ul>2>es + ++ 1>2

(community

specific)g

Old growth:

Abundance and diversity ++ 200>100 ul>2>es ++ 1>2

Connectivity ++ 200>100 ul>2>es + 1>2

Process, structure,

and function + 200>100 ul>2>es + 1>2

Fisheries and riparian +

19
Table 3—Synthesis derived from the 1st set of risk assessment panels on how various elements of the

draft alternatives contribute to maintaining wildlife viability in the Tongass National Foresta b (continued)

Alternative features

Beach Beach Mixed Wild

fringe fringe Deer matrix Matrix and

0-500 0-1000 Estuary winter managed and scenic

feet feet fringe range lands reserveh Roads rivers

Wolf + + + + -

Bear + 0 ++ 0 - ++ - 0

Murrelet + + + + 0 +

Northern goshawk + ++ ++ ++ - 0

American marten + ++ ++ + 0

Other terrestrial mammals + + + + - -

Subsistence

deer harvest + ++ ++ ++ 0 0 - 0

Old growth:

Abundance and diversity + + 0

Connectivity + + -

Process, structure,

and function + + -

Fisheries and riparian - +

a Panel evaluation symbols:

0 neutral or benign

+ important positive feature

++ critical positive feature

- detriment

> better than

= comparable

No mark in a column indicates that panels made no comment.

b Swanston and others 1996.

c Harvest method: ul = uneven aged-management,rotation (≤200 yr); es = even-aged management, short rotation

(100 yr); 2 = 2-aged management.

d VCU=value comparison unit, equivalent to an individual watershed.

e Refers to threshold to trigger “no further management” when VCU has experienced a predetermined percentage of harvesting (USDA Forest

Service 1996a).

f Size and distribution of old-growth blocks was initially consistent across alternatives as determined by a 1995 GIS (geographic information

system) inventory (USDA Forest Service 1995).

g Benefits derived for deer and other subsistence resources differ among communities.

h Refers to a management approach that uses a combination of alternatives to clearcutting in the matrix and a configuration of habitat reserves

to achieve a desired condition for wildlife and other nontimber values (USDA Forest Service 1996a).

20
All wildlife species—Standards and guidelines and habitat elements designed to

address all wildlife species excluding “other terrestrial mammals” include:

1. The identification and mapping of large, medium, and small old-growth reserves

across the Tongass National Forest with consideration for historical distribution of

habitat and connectivity among reserves. Reserves contain productive old-growth forest habitat types strategically distributed for wildlife purposes. After 100 years of implementing the Forest plan, about 3.5 million acres of the estimated 5.4 million acres

of productive old growth present in 1954 will be retained through this old-growth habitat conservation strategy. There will be at least one large reserve (≥40,000 acres) in

each of the 21 biogeographical provinces and one small reserve (≥1,600 acres) present in each of 237 large (>10,000 acres) watersheds. An additional 360,000 acres of

productive old-growth habitat within timber production LUDs is protected by beach,

estuary, and riparian buffers, and also contributes to landscape connectivity among

reserves and other protected habitat (Iverson 1997).

2. A 1,000-foot, largely undisturbed beach fringe buffer, of which 60 percent is productive old-growth forest. Historically, limited partial logging and some clearcut logging

occurred in the beach buffer; however, 93 percent of its total acreage and the productive old growth remain largely unaltered. Below are examples of wildlife species benefiting from this component.

a. Queen Charlotte goshawks benefit because the beach fringe is highly

utilized and preferred old-growth habitat (Iverson and others 1996).

b. American marten benefit from the additional connectivity across lowland

old-growth habitat provided by undisturbed beach fringe buffers as well as

an addition of high-quality habitat.

c. Marbled murrelets benefit from an increase in interior-forest nesting

habitat across the landscape by adding undisturbed old-growth forest habitat

near existing, contiguous old-growth habitat; murrelets also may nest within

the beach fringe buffer.

d. Beach fringe represents important winter range habitat for Sitka blacktailed deer, the predominant prey of the Alexander Archipelago wolf.

Undisturbed beach fringe increases connectivity across lowland productive

old-growth habitat.

e. Breeding density of bald eagles (Haliaeetus Ieucocephaius) is reduced

when nests are within about 1,000 feet of clearcuts; within the 1,000-foot

proximity, some benefit is afforded to eagles that nest further from clearcuts

(Gende and others, in press).

3. A 1,000-foot undisturbed estuary buffer benefits all old-growth-associated wildlife

species. Below are some examples of wildlife species that would particularly benefit

from this action.

a. Queen Charlotte goshawks, because the estuary fringe is highly used and

a preferred old-growth habitat (Iverson and others 1996).

b. American marten, from the additional connectivity across lowland oldgrowth habitat provided by an undisturbed estuary fringe buffer as well as an

addition of high-quality habitat.

21
c. Marbled murrelets, from an increase in interior-forest nesting habitat

across the landscape by adding undisturbed old-growth forest habitat near

existing, contiguous old-growth habitat; murrelets also may nest within the

estuary fringe buffer.

d. Alexander Archipelago wolves because the estuary fringe represents

important winter range habitat for Sitka black-tailed deer, the predominant

prey of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Undisturbed estuary fringe increases

connectivity across lowland productive old-growth habitat and to upland

habitat, which serves as summer or winter range, and lowland winter range.

e. Breeding density of bald eagles in southeast Alaska is reduced when

nests are within about 1,000 feet of clearcuts; a 1,000-foot estuary buffer

reduces the likelihood of some bald eagles nesting within 1,000 feet of a

clearcut (Gende and others, in press).

4. Brown bears benefit from provisions to provide about 500-foot undisturbed buffers

as needed along salmon streams, which function as principal feeding areas, and from

protected estuary fringes, especially those associated with class I anadromous fish

streams, which serve as principal feeding areas. These buffers also are potential

corridors for wildlife movement among designated reserves.

5. Brown bears and wolves benefit from the interagency process to determine

whether road access markedly contributes to mortality and from implementing an

effective road management plan where necessary (USDA Forest Service 1997c).

6. The Forest plan protects 86 percent of the highest quality deer winter range in

the Tongass National Forest, which is more than all draft alternatives except alternative 1—the no-additional-management alternative (USDA Forest Service 1997b:table

3-111). Winter range is included within the 1,000-foot beach fringe, riparian buffers,

large, medium, and small old-growth habitat reserves, legislated reserves, and other

large reserved areas such as south Cleveland Peninsula and South Kuiu Island that

result in scheduling a relatively small proportion of old growth for timber harvest

(474,000 acres of old-growth forest over the next 100 years).

7. Applying riparian standards and guidelines as consistent with the AFHA report

(1995) provides some reduction of risk to wildlife viability. The benefits accrue

primarily as corridors for movement because the buffers do not represent “habitat” for

most old-growth-associated wildlife species, particularly area-sensitive species (e.g.,

hairy woodpecker [Picoides villosus], marbled murrelet). Species that would perhaps

benefit from riparian movement corridors include American marten, brown bear, Sitka

black-tailed deer, and the Alexander Archipelago wolf.

8. Several standards and guidelines under Wildlife and Threatened, Endangered, and

Sensitive Species (USDA Forest Service 1997a: chapter 4) were added to strengthen

the emerging final alternative in response to the 1997 risk assessment panel results

and other comments. In general, these additions were made to improve habitat conditions for the northern goshawk and the American marten in programmed harvest

units within high-priority habitat areas for each species. Guidelines detail various actions to maintain more old-growth character deemed important to these species in

cutting units. Additional measures were included to further evaluate any increases in

American marten mortality (e.g., as may occur from hunting and trapping) where such

22
mortality is identified as posing a serious threat to marten populations. Another addition is intended to provide additional assurance of maintaining connections among

habitat blocks throughout the Tongass. Where existing conditions (e.g., riparian and

beach buffers) are determined to not provide for adequate connectivity, additional

habitat will be allocated to provide for connectivity of old-growth habitats. It is unclear

how determinations will be made as to the sufficiency of existing conditions to provide

adequate connectivity.

Wildlife habitat elements noted below likely would provide increased incremental and

cumulative benefits toward maintaining wildlife viability but are absent from the Forest

plan. The benefits afforded each species probably differ and are difficult to quantify.

Absence of these elements is not an indication that the Forest plan is deficient, and

the inclusion of these or any other elements does not ensure that a Forest plan meets

acceptable levels of risk for maintaining wildlife viability. That is a policy decision.

Appendix 3 includes an evaluation of the risks to wildlife viability of implementing the

emerging final alternative for 100 years. The wildlife habitat elements are as follows:

1. Application of all riparian prescriptions from draft alternative 3, which included increased protection of specific, high-value watersheds identified by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (option 1), as well as application of AFHA (1995) recommendations (option 2).

2. Riparian buffers and movement corridors that are wide enough (e.g., some biologists suggest corridors of 600 feet or more) to allow unrestricted movement of marten

and other far-ranging wildlife species among old-growth forest blocks and provide sufficient forest-interior habitat to support breeding of area-sensitive species (e.g., hairy

woodpecker). Buffers for protection of streams and riparian zones, as proposed, are

generally too narrow to provide any substantial interior habitat on class I streams.

Although additional measures to enhance connectivity for wildlife, particularly small

mammals (USDA Forest Service 1997b:app. N, p. 10) and marten (USDA Forest Service 1997b:app. N, p. 14) seek to minimize edge and include interior-forest habitat,

these measures lack clarity as to how the connectivity corridors will be designed to

contain sufficient interior habitat to support successful reproduction of area-sensitive

species. Broader corridors also would likely benefit wolves by increasing Sitka blacktailed deer winter range and by reducing human-caused mortality of wolves through

an increase in escape cover along roadway buffers.

3. More productive riparian old-growth forest habitat than proposed in the Forest plan,

a highly used, preferred habitat of goshawks. Riparian-associated forests are equally

or more productive in supporting bird and mammal populations, which are important

prey species for goshawks.

4. Broader riparian buffers than proposed in the Forest plan, along streams associated with estuaries near marine foraging habitat important for marbled murrelets.

This would contribute important interior-forest habitat for nesting murrelets, which

are vulnerable to increased nest predators associated with forest edge habitat.

5. Retention of all deer winter range in watersheds where deer harvest exceeds

20 percent of deer habitat capability (applying deer standard and guides from draft

alternative 3; USDA Forst Service 1996a), and retention of important winter range

where deer harvest is between 10 and 20 percent of deer habitat capability. This

action would be particularly important in portions of the forest with wolves, where

both wolf viability and human subsistence use of deer are focal issues.

23
6. Protection of more highly preferred lowland productive old-growth habitat than

offered in the Forest plan, for American marten and goshawk nesting and foraging.

7. Retention of all deer winter range (e.g., productive old-growth forest) below 800

feet in elevation. Besides benefiting deer, this measure also would contribute to available interior-forest habitat for nesting murrelets and other area-sensitive species,

which are vulnerable to increased nest predators associated with forest edge habitat.

8. Applying a greater proportion of longer rotation and uneven-age management

within the forest matrix among reserves than that in the Forest plan would be especially beneficial to the old-growth-associated species noted in items a and b, below.

a. Applying long rotations and additional uneven-age management in all

matrix lands rather than only those in certain locations (USDA Forest Service 1997a, 1997b:app. N, p. 15) would more closely approach a dynamic

landscape circumstance than current practices and thus likely reduce the

viability risk to goshawks (Iverson and others 1996).

b. Applying long rotations and additional uneven-age management in all

matrix lands rather than only those in certain locations (USDA Forest Service 1997a,1997b:app. N, p. 15) would increase potential nesting habitat for

marbled murrelets because it will allow for the development of a more contiguous, mature forest habitat with stems that are old and large enough to

possess the features typical of marbled murrelet nest trees (Ralph and

others 1995).

Other terrestrial mammals—There are 27 currently recognized “unique” taxa of

mammals that occur in southeast Alaska, all of which are known from the Tongass

National Forest (MacDonald and Cook 1996). The taxonomic diversity of terrestrial

mammals (and presumably other faunal elements) mainly results from the high degree

of naturally fragmented landscapes in the Tongass. Indeed, across the Alexander

Archipelago, isolated habitat types historically existed within oceanic islands because

of topography, geology, climate, and other environmental features. Because of this

situation, both spatial and temporal heterogeneity occur in a manner rarely found elsewhere. A consequence of this environmental context is isolation of vertebrate populations, reduced gene flow, and ultimately through time, separate and distinct breeding

populations that are genetically isolated and become recognized as unique taxa.

Many distinct taxa (e.g., Prince of Wales flying squirrel [Glaucomys sabrinus

griseifrons]) have restricted geographic distributions; including one (Suemez Island

ermine) known from only a single island. The smaller a population is, the more likely

it will be negatively impacted by habitat disturbance and possibly become extirpated;

the fewer the populations, the more likely a taxon will become extinct. Clearly, extinction rates are higher in archipelago systems (Burkey 1995).

Habitat disturbances like timber harvest, particularly clearcutting, can further fragment wildlife populations, which can reduce the size of contiguous populations and

the number and distribution of larger populations, increase sensitivity to stochastic

perturbations, and increase the likelihood that more isolated and smaller populations may become extirpated (Soulé and Wilcox 1980). What may represent a

small proportional reduction in old-growth habitat across the Forest could represent a substantial portion, indeed perhaps the entire known habitat, of an endemic

mammal’s range.

24
Both risk assessment panels for “other terrestrial mammals” (Shaw, in prep.;

Swanston and others 1996) recognized the potential negative impacts of forest management on the viability of both “wide ranging” and “endemic” mammals in the Forest.

Indeed, recognition by the first panel that some appreciable risk to viability already existed because of past management is reflected in the relatively high likelihood (67 percent) of at least one taxon “not being well distributed” in the alternative with essentially no further management (alternative 1). For that reason, the panel provided

options for reducing risk to taxa already impacted by past management (e.g., Prince

of Wales flying squirrel) and suggestions for reducing the risk to viability from future

management actions in the Forest.

The habitat elements noted above under “All Wildlife Species” also benefit “Other

Terrestrial Mammals” as a group, including endemic terrestrial mammals. Additional

measures specific to endemic mammals were provided by the panel and an analysis

of available science information. The following three items are included in the Forest

plan.

1. Protection of all islands ≤1,000 acres (USDA Forest Service 1997c) will reduce

risks to viability of some small endemic mammals (see Lidicker 1994) such as voles

(Clethrionomys and Microtus), mice (Peromyscus), and shrews (Sorex). But a conservation strategy for maintaining these species should not rely just on protection of

these small islands (Burkey 1995).

2. Evaluation and designation of rare and endemic vertebrates as sensitive species

where appropriate. To reduce risk, designated sensitive species require a biological

evaluation (USDA Forest Service 1997c) as part of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process before any project implementation. Such biological evaluations (USDA Forest Service 1997c) will include an on-the-ground survey conducted

according to acceptable protocols. Additional taxa could be included as Alaska

Region sensitive species.

3. Commitment to further research on the distribution, abundance, detectability and

genotypic variability of small endemic mammals in the Tongass (see USDA Forest

Service 1997c).

Results of the 1997 risk assessment panels indicated concern for small, endemic, and

widely distributed mammals (Shaw, in prep.). The following additional conservation

measures that reduce viability risk to small, endemic, and widely distributed mammals

were added to the emerging final alternative to form the Forest plan:

a. Surveys for endemic mammals are to be completed before projects are

begun that would substantially alter vegetation on islands of ≤50,000 acres.

Surveys will be conducted on larger islands if initial assessment indicates

high likelihood that endemic mammals occur there.

b. Where endemic taxa are detected by surveys, projects will be designed to

provide for continued persistence of these taxa.

c. Ongoing research of endemic taxa within the Tongass will be accelerated.

d. Endemic and widely distributed small mammals benefit from conservation

measures to maintain connectivity of large and small reserves and other

nondevelopment LUDs.

e. Endemic and widely distributed small mammals benefit from guidelines to

increase old-growth character for marten and goshawk habitat.

25
The following habitat elements likely would provide incremental and cumulative benefits toward maintaining viability of other terrestrial mammals but are absent from the

Forest plan. These elements were identified in the viability panel assessments and by

analysis of available science information. The benefits afforded each species in this

group probably differ and are difficult to quantify. The absence of these elements is

not an indication that the Forest plan is deficient, or does including these or other elements ensure that a Forest plan meets acceptable levels of risk for maintaining wildlife viability. That is a policy decision. Appendix 3 includes an evaluation of the risks

to wildlife viability of implementing the emerging final alternative for 100 years. These

elements include:

1. For endemic and rare taxa with restricted ranges, application of an old-growthretention prescription across the entire range, rather than a survey and manage approach on islands ≤50,000 acres, until additional study concludes that the geographic

distributions or habitat requirements do not warrant this degree of protection.

2. Restoration of habitat further fragmented because of management actions within

the existing range of certain endemics (e.g., the Prince of Wales Island flying squirrel

on northern Prince of Wales Island).

Restoration could include delaying, preventing, or possibly improving habitat through

subsequent entries into clearcuts. Or it could limit future harvest to small group selections so that older (i.e., ≥250 years) forest habitat would be preferentially retained in

landscapes where it currently coexists in a highly fragmented matrix of recent clearcuts, seedlings, young growth, or young sawtimber stands. This action would reduce

the risk to maintaining well-distributed populations by increasing connectivity as well

as by increasing the total amount of mature forest habitat (i.e., well beyond the understory reinitiation phase; Lawford and others 1996) within the range of the species.

Consistency in use of wildlife-related information—Wildlife viability was identified

as a major focal issue to be addressed during revision of the Tongass land management plan. Consequently, the manner in which wildlife information was used in developing the emerging final alternative is critically important. New assessments completed for anadromous fish (AFHA 1995), marbled murrelet (DeGange 1996), Queen

Charlotte goshawk (Iverson and others 1996), and Alexander Archipelago wolf

(Person and others 1996), the existing V-POP documents (Kiester and Eckhardt

1994; Suring and others 1993, 1994) , and other documents (Iverson and René 1997)

were used in developing the wildlife viability strategy in the Forest plan. A summary

of how scientific information on key wildlife viability issues was used in the Forest plan

and how risks were acknowledged and documented is provided in table 1 (see

“Summary”).

Overall, the consistency criteria were met. The Forest plan makes consistent use of

available scientific information and provides a strategy that reduces the risk of not

maintaining well-distributed wildlife populations across the planning area to a level

lower than any of the original draft alternatives, except draft alternatives 1 or 5,

depending on the species.

26
A science consistency check of recommendations within V-POP documents

(Kiester and Eckhardt 1994; Suring and others 1993, 1994) is not appropriate, but

a general comparison between V-POP recommendations and the Forest plan is made

in appendix 1. Recommendations from the V-POP reports were designed to produce

a wildlife viability strategy with a reasonable probability of maintaining well-distributed,

viable populations of all wildlife species across the planning area. These recommendations, as previously noted, are not science but a combination of scientific information, professional experience, and the personal values of those making the recommendations and therefore are not suitable for a science consistency check.

The Forest plan, which seeks to maintain wildlife viability through a somewhat different strategy than that recommended by the V-POP report (Suring and others 1993)

and the peer review (Kiester and Eckhardt 1994), differs in many respects from

the detailed species-specific recommendations of these V-POP documents (see

appendix 1). The levels of risk to maintaining habitat for well-distributed populations

of wildlife across the planning area, therefore, might be different. But whether the level

of risk embodied in the Forest plan is acceptable is not an issue for science. It is a

public policy decision, the making of which should benefit from available scientific

information.

Karst and Cave

Protection

Introduction—The Tongass National Forest contains the largest concentration of dissolution caves known in Alaska. The Forest also contains unique karst landform features, particularly epikarst (surface karst), concentrated primarily in the alpine and

subalpine zones. The caves and the karst landform features are intimately related and

a direct manifestation of chemical weathering of limestone and marble bedrock underlying approximately 437,400 acres of the Tongass in a northwest trending band extending across the Forest. These karst and cave resources are a newly discovered

and recognized attribute of the Tongass National Forest. They are of national and

international significance for many reasons, including their intensity and diversity of

development; biological, mineralogical, cultural, and paleontological components; and

recreational values (Aley and others 1993, Baichtal and Swanston 1996).

Karst landforms—The basic principles of karst development and cave formation are

known internationally and are well documented (Ford and Williams 1994, White 1988,

White and White 1989). The interactions of the variables controlling the rate and extent of karst landscape and cave development, however, are not fully understood,

particularly as they relate to development of these features under the cool, moist,

heavily forested conditions along the north Pacific coast. In southeast Alaska, karst

landforms comprise a geologic terrain developed atop and within carbonate bedrock

in which unique caverns, tunnels, and surface features have developed as the result

of differential solution by acid surface waters and ground waters (Baichtal and

Swanston 1996). The surface of the terrain is characterized by distinct erosional features such as deep shafts, crevasslike dissolved fissures, erosion or dissolution rills,

and spikes and spires of nearly pure limestone and marble. Surface drainage in such

terrain is infrequent, with surface water moving rapidly underground and into complex

subsurface drainage networks associated with extensive cave and underground tunnel

systems. Once the water and any associated sediment enters the underground drainage system, the breadth of distribution and points of discharge are unpredictable and

may extend far beyond surface watershed boundaries.

Significant features—Field observations indicate a definite direct association

between presence of karst terrain and the productivity of the western hemlock-Sitka

spruce (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.-Picea stichensis (Bong.) Carr.) forests found

27
in the Tongass (Baichtal and Swanston 1996). The controlling variables seem to be

the nutrient richness of soils on the valley floors and along slopes below 400 feet in

elevaton, well-developed subsurface drainage, and dissected bedrock surfaces that

allow tree roots to hold fast and become windfirm. Exceptionally dense stands of very

large-diameter western hemlock and Sitka spruce are characteristic of these lowelevation sites, and the old-growth forest cover provides a well-structured, multilayered canopy important as winter habitat for Sitka black-tailed deer and other

mammals.

Streams draining these karst areas support extremely productive aquatic communities.

The geochemistry associated with karst development contributes to productivity of

aquatic environments through its carbonate buffering capacity and carbon input dissolved from the limestone bedrock (Wissmar and others 1997). This action has significant downstream effects on the aquatic food chain and biotic community. Preliminary

studies suggest that aquatic habitats associated with karst landscapes may be 8 to

10 times more productive than adjacent, nonkarst-dominated aquatic habitats (Bryant

and others, in prep.). The karst-dominated aquatic habitats also appear to support a

higher biodiversity than the noncarbonate-based systems, have higher growth rates

for salmon smolts and resident fish, reflect less variable water temperatures and flow

regimes, and contain unique habitats affecting species distribution, abundance, and

adaptations.

Many wildlife species find the epikarst features, the stable environment, and the shelter provided within associated caves to be suitable habitat. Caves have been used as

natal denning sites by northern river otter (Lutra canadensis) and as resting and denning sites for Sitka black-tailed deer, bear, wolf, and small furbearers (Baichtal 1993b,

Baichtal and Swanston 1996). Sitka black-tailed deer are known to rest around cave

entrances in summer, when the air coming from the caves is cooler, and in winter,

when the cave entrance environment is warmer than surrounding terrain. Cave systems are known to provide critical roosting and hibernating habitat for bats (Baichtal

1993b, Baichtal and Swanston 1996, Parker 1996). Several birds such as the water

ouzel (Cinclus mexicanus), thrush (Turdidae), and swallow (Hirundinidae) use cave

entrances for nesting and feeding. Rookeries for sea birds, including cormorants

(Phalacrocoracidae) and pigeon guillemots (Cepphus coluba), occur in some littoral

caves (Baichtal 1993a, 1993b; Baichtal and Swanston 1996).

The potential cultural and paleontological significance of the karst landscapes also is

high. The Pleistocene paleontology and late Pleistocene and Holocene history of the

area associated with carbonate terrain in southeast Alaska is primarily known from

cave and rock shelter deposits, which often are intimately related to significant archeological sites. The cool, stable, basic environmental conditions in the caves result in

exceptionally good preservation of bone and organic materials (Aley and others 1993).

Recent work on Prince of Wales and surrounding islands on the extensive karst resources, combined with botanical surveys of alpine areas and genetic studies on

chum salmon populations (Kondzela and others 1994), strengthen the argument for a

well-developed coastal refugium along the west coast of the southern end of southeast Alaska. The evidence sheds new light on our understanding of glacial chronology, climatic change, biogeography, and archeology along the western margin of North

America (Autrey and Baichtal 1992, Dixon and others 1992, Heaton and Grady 1992).

The functions and biological and cultural significance of karst landscapes are only just

beginning to be understood. Preliminary investigations suggest an increased productivity for plant, animal, and aquatic communities that develop on top of or otherwise

28
benefit from karst landscapes. Developing paleontological and archeological information, derived from bones, cultural artifacts, and sediment layers in caves and rock

shelters, is providing growing evidence of a coastal refugium through which Pleistocene mammals and humans may have migrated south from the Bering Sea landbridge. Based on these preliminary findings alone, the significance of the karst and

cave resources in the Tongass, and the importance of careful forest management on

this fragile ecosystem, is apparent.

Quantitative information on the effects of forest harvest on karst ecosystems in southeast Alaska is limited. Recent sediment deposits and waterline marks in caves and

underground systems suggest that timber harvesting has increased sediment and

debris transport and flooding of underground passages that had not been flooded for

centuries. Many cave entrances are filled or blocked by logging slash, sediment, and

debris. Field observations and aerial-photo interpretation also show strong evidence

of greatly increased surface runoff on karst landforms and adjacent surfaces after harvest, which increases sediment, nutrient, and debris transport capability of associated

drainage networks. The vulnerability of a particular karst system to harvest activity is

related to the openness of the system. The many solution-widened fissures, sinkholes,

and cave entrances become deposition areas for slash, sediment, and debris and injection points into the complex subsurface drainage system. These fissures rapidly

move water, sediment, and debris vertically downward into the underground lateral

systems. Material transported from roads and disturbed lands may emerge unexpectedly at one or more distant springs or resurgence channels, altering the chemical,

nutrient, and sediment loads of the receiving streams.

We and other Tongass land management planning team members analyzed and assessed the available literature and the most up-to-date technical information on karst

development and solution cave formation, as well as current thinking on karst management. An independent assessment of karst and cave resource significance for the

Ketchikan Area (Aley and others 1993) provided additional quantitative information on

processes and controlling variables operating in the area of maximum karst development in the Tongass. Information from active research and monitoring programs designed to measure and analyze biological and cultural interactions with karst terrain

and ongoing Alaska Region inventories of karst landscapes provided information used

for defining important karst terrain characteristics and significant areas of management concern Forest-wide.

Results of these analyses and assessments and the emerging field information were

used by managers to develop a detailed karst and cave management strategy for the

Tongass that incorporates methodologies to identify sensitive terrain and assess risk

from forest harvest activities. The methodology also provides standards and guidelines for overall management of karst landscapes.

Managers gave full consideration to the scientific information in developing the Forest plan. The entire management strategy developed by the team, with input from the

PNW scientists, has been incorporated into the final plan (USDA Forest Service

1997a:4-17 to 4-19 and app. I; 1997b: 3-82 to 3-86). Incorporation of this strategy

into the plan and subsequent discussions with managers and field personnel on application have demonstrated that the information is understood and correctly interpreted. Resource risks are acknowledged and accounted for in the application of the

strategy. Overall, the three consistency criteria were met (table 1).

29
Slope Stability The Tongass National Forest is characterized by steep slopes, shallow, permeable

soils, and exceptionally high rainfall—factors contributing significantly to unstable conditions in this mountainous terrain. Because of high soil permeabilities, slope drainage

is primarily by subsurface flow with little or no surface flow outside established channels. When surface flow does occur, the thick mat of forest humus and plant cover is

adequate to protect the mineral soil from surface erosion. During major storms, high

soil moisture levels, local areas of saturation, and temporary water table development

are produced on the slope, greatly increasing the unstable character of the soils. This

combination of events can cause mass erosion events (landslides) to occur.

Landslides, involving the downslope movement of soil, primarily under the force of

gravity, are the principal processes of hillslope erosion and sediment transport to

channel systems, and constitute a major management concern for the Tongass National Forest. A critical balance exists between slope stability and slope failure on

these unstable lands. The anchoring effect of root growth through the thin soil and

into joints and fractures in the bedrock probably increases the stability of these soils

somewhat, as does the cohesion provided by organic colloids. The effectiveness of

these stabilizing factors, however, may be reduced during periods of high rainfall by

development of seepage and pore-water pressures associated with rising soil-water

levels. Under these conditions, the soils are in their least stable condition, and only a

small triggering force is required to cause total failure and rapid downslope movement

of the soil mass. Such a force can be produced by sharp increases in soil-water content, rapid increase in soil mass, and direct destruction of stabilizing root masses.

Landslides are a natural disturbance process in southeast Alaska, but human activities can affect the rate, size, and location of landslide events. Roads and timber management directly influence stability of slopes across the Tongass National Forest

through disturbance of the soil mantle. The result is an increase in soil mass movement or landslides, which remove productive soil layers on slopes and transport large

quantities of sediment and large woody debris into anadromous fish streams.

Forest managers recognized the significance of this relation and developed a mass

failure hazard indexing methodology in 1987 (Alexander 1987). The methodology was

developed at two scales. At the larger scale, the index is used to assess risks related

to the amount and methods of timber harvest and extent of road construction at the

Area and project levels. At this scale, the methodology is primarily field oriented and

is based on physical characteristics of soil units and on measured or estimated slope,

drainage, and landform characteristics that control the stability of soils. At the smaller

scale, the landscape or Forest planning level, index values based on geographic information system (GIS) soil mapping units and slope gradient values developed from

digital elevation models (DEM) were used to identify lands with a potentially high hazard for landslide development. These lands were then removed from the “tentatively

suitable” timber base.

Initial inspection of the 1987 methodology indicated that although the methodology is

sound, the database from which the indexing values were derived was out of date

and there was a lack of consistency in identification, measurement, and interpretation

30
of variables across Administrative Areas of the Forest. A careful reanalysis and assessment of slope stability literature and the most current data, as well as recently

developed field information from southeast Alaska, have resulted in a revision of the

methodology to provide a current and standardized base for Forest-wide stability hazard evaluation (Swanston 1997). The approach directly addresses a concern and recommendation of AFHA (1995). The analyses also have provided a reliable and defensible slope gradient boundary for defining highly unstable terrain.

Managers and resource specialists in the field have been closely involved with development of this revised methodology. The critical field gradient for soil stability has

been redefined at 72 percent, based on these analyses. Slopes greater than this gradient are not suitable for timber harvest because of the high potential for landslides

after harvest.

Digital elevation models analyzed with GIS can markedly underestimate actual slope

steepness. At the Forest planning level, lands above this gradient (as defined by the

DEM) therefore are removed from the tentatively suitable timber base with the caveat

that withdrawal of these lands should be verified at the Area and project level by suitable field analysis. This criterion is in close agreement with the recommendations of

AFHA (1995). Managers have used this information in developing the Forest plan.

The redefinition of the high-hazard boundary as a 72-percent slope has been incorporated into the latest GIS analyses and has resulted in improved accuracy for delineation of tentatively suitable forest lands in the Tongass. The new information and revised methodology is understood and has been correctly interpreted in final plan development (USDA Forest Service 1997a:4-81 to 4-84; 1997b:3-197 to 3-201). The revised methodology clearly defines resource risk. Overall, the three consistency criteria

were met (table 1).

Timber Resources For purposes of the Forest plan, productive old growth within the Tongass National

Forest is defined as a previously unharvested forested area of trees more than 150

years old with greater than 10 percent tree cover, and an accumulated net saw-log

volume of more than 8,000 board feet per acre (bf/acre; Julin and Caouette 1997).

The term “productive” refers to the utility of this forested area to provide wood products, although timber volume has been used in Forest planning as a surrogate for

wildlife habitat capability. Many of the stands designated as productive old growth in

the Tongass GIS database may be relatively young (i.e., 150 to 200 years old) as a

result of natural windthrow cycles that prevent development of recognized old-growth

attributes (Nowacki and Kramer, in prep.).

Within the boundaries of the 16.9-million-acre Tongass National Forest, there are

about 10 million acres of forest land (>10 percent tree cover) and about 6.9 million

acres of ice, rock, water, alpine meadow, fen, and sphagnum bog (USDA Forest Service 1997b). Forest conditions range from fens with scattered trees, to heavily timbered stands with volumes that sometimes exceed 70,000 bf/acre. An estimated 5

million acres of this forest is coniferous old-growth forest supporting accumulated

levels of wood volume considered to be economical for harvest. About 580,000 acres

of the National Forest supports young-growth stands regenerated after logging (69

percent) and natural disturbance (31 percent) (USDA Forest Service 1997b).

The species composition and spatial distribution of forested lands varies in a complex

mosaic over the fragmented Alexander Archipelago landscape with changes in elevation, aspect, soil drainage, and patterns of disturbance. Western hemlock, Sitka

spruce, Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D.Don) Spach), western redcedar

31
(Thuja plicata Donn ex D.Don), and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.)

Carr.) are harvested for a variety of traditional (Native and non-Native) and commercial uses. Western hemlock and Sitka spruce are the most abundant tree species,

comprising 64 percent and 28 percent of the total growing stock, respectively (Harris

and Farr 1974). Alaska-cedar is the most economically valuable, however, particularly

in the export market.

Tlingit and Haida people have long used this timber for building houses, canoes,

totem poles, and creating ceremonial, household, and personal objects. Non-Native

timber use began with Russian colonization in the 1790s and was continued by the

United States on a limited scale until the mid-1950s. Development of the Ketchikan

Pulp Mill (1954), the Sitka Pulp Mill (1959), and their affiliated saw mills significantly

increased timber harvest levels. From 1954 through 1995, we estimate that 17.2 billion board feet were harvested from the Tongass—an average of about 41.5 thousand

board feet per acre (mbf/acre). The closure of the Sitka Pulp Mill and Wrangell saw

mill in 1993 and the closure of the Ketchikan Pulp Mill in 1997 have markedly reduced

capacity to locally process Tongass timber. Currently there are several saw mills and

individuals operating in southeast Alaska producing dimension lumber, cedar shingles,

specialty products (e.g., guitar faces and piano sounding boards), and cants for export

to Pacific Rim markets.

The Forest plan schedules 676,000 acres of old- and young-growth timber for harvest

over the next 100 years (USDA Forest Service 1997a). Young-growth stands are not

programmed for harvest for another 50 to 60 years—coincident with the projected

95-percent culmination of maximum annual average stand growth rate. This schedule

is a key factor controlling the rate at which remaining old growth is harvested. Under

this management regime, the future commercial forest, if harvested as planned, may

consist of relatively small-diameter trees more suited by current standards for fiber

(e.g., pulp, fiber board) or laminated products than for dimension lumber.

A basic principle of National Forest System planning is that resources are to be managed in a sustainable fashion (U.S. Public Laws, Statutes 1960). Sustained yield is

“the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level of annual or periodic

output of the various renewable resources...without impairment of the productivity of

the land” (USDA Forest Service 1982). At its most general level, timber sustainability

is determined by the availability of commercial timber and the rate of its use through

time. Commercial timberland in the Tongass is first defined in terms of suitability for

timber production. Once the extent of the timber base is defined, and the amount of

available timber in young and old growth is estimated, harvest rate is defined in terms

of allowable sale quantity, which must be below the long-term sustainability of the Forest. The actual rate of harvest is determined by numerous factors including but not

limited to economics (timber value and operability), appropriated funds, and litigation.

The managers made many decisions concerning the availability, growth, and use of

the timber resource in the Forest Plan. Below we discuss six important decisions concerning timber resources. These decisions include how (1) old-growth timber volume

was estimated, (2) young-growth timber volume was estimated, (3) uncertainty in the

size of the suitable land base was recognized, (4) allowable sale quantity was

partitioned to promote economic sustainability (5) certain forested wetlands will be

managed, and (6) effects of windthrow will be mitigated.

32
Decisions regarding the application of each feature of the linear programming model

(FORPLAN; Johnson 1986) used in estimating Forest outputs are not fully explored

here. Two reviews conducted at the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station raised various questions about the application of FORPLAN in the estimation

of Forest plan outputs.4 Some of these questions were addressed in appendix B of

the FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997b); other questions may warrant further attention.

The managers recognized the uncertainty associated with FORPLAN estimates by

prescribing a monitoring activity to review modeling assumptions used in FORPLAN

every 5 years or whenever major changes in the assumptions occur.

Estimation of old-growth timber volume—The managers used a three-strata approach (low, medium, and high volume) to estimate the abundance of productive oldgrowth timber in the Forest (USDA Forest Service 1997b). In addition, they assumed

that net growth over time in the old-growth component is equal to zero.

Brickell (1989) evaluated the spatial accuracy of the Tongass interpreted timber type

data layer (TIMTYP map). This data layer contains mapped information about volume

levels within the forested landscape. Using forest inventory data for validation, Brickell

found no statistical basis for maintaining separate strata for the higher volume classes

(volume classes 5, 6, and 7) on the TIMTYP map.

Julin and Caouette (1997) describe five options for estimating net saw-log old-growth

volume in the Tongass. These options define mean timber volume strata by using the

volume class item (volume classes 4-7) from the TIMTYP map alone and in combination with the forest type item from the TIMTYP map, and several items from the common land unit database (slope, hydric and nonhydric soils, and site index). Managers

modified the low-, medium-, and high-volume strata developed by Julin and Caouette

(1997) from a 16-foot net saw-log basis to a 32-foot net saw-log plus utility basis by

applying their estimates for breakage, standing merchantable dead volume, and

Tongass cut and sold reports (see footnote 4).

The managers seem to have correctly interpreted the available scientific information.

The managers abandoned the use of the four original volume classes based on work

by Brickell (1989) as confirmed by Julin and Caouette (1997). Instead, they used an

approach providing differences among volume strata (low, medium, and high) that are

statistically significant for each Administrative Area. The assumption regarding net

growth equaling zero cannot be substantiated but seems to be reasonable.

Modeling implementation reduction factors (MIRFs)—Managers recognized limitations in their ability to accurately estimate timber output levels based on existing inventories and unforeseen circumstances encountered during project implementation.

“Fall down” occurs when the number of acres actually harvested is less than the number of acres planned for harvest. Unmapped stream buffers, new eagle nests, and

misclassified karst vulnerability lands, for example, result in fall down. To anticipate

fall down, managers applied MIRFs to reduce the area of land suitable for timber

production.

The methodologies used to define MIRFs are documented in appendix B of the FEIS

(USDA Forest Service 1997b) and in the planning record (see footnote 4). These factors are based on professional judgment and some limited project experience. Discrepancies between the coefficients in the MIRF documentation and those in FORPLAN

4 Planning record. On file with: Tongass Land Management Planning Office, 8465 Old

Dairy Road, Juneau, AK 99801.

33
are noted in the planning record. These discrepancies are generally 1 to 2 percent,

and planning team analysts predict that such differences will not noticeably alter

model results. The application of these factors can markedly affect calculated levels

of sustainable timber production. An estimated 731,000 acres are designated as suitable for timber harvest in the Forest plan.

Managers acknowledge the risk of overestimating the available timber resource by applying MIRFs. The accuracy of these estimates will be determined through monitoring

and evaluation during project implementation.

Estimation of young-growth timber volume—Young-forest volume is estimated in

the Forest plan from the SEAPROG model (Dixon and others 1992), which is the best

model available for estimating tree growth in the Tongass. It was constructed from

more than 11,000 tree records5 from (1) the Tongass timber inventory (1982-84), (2)

the PNW and Alaska Region stand density study, (3) Administrative Area stand data

(stand exams, young-growth surveys, growing stock studies), (4) Makah Indian Reservation inventory data, and (5) Queen Charlotte Island forest inventory data. Tongass

land management plan analysts assessed the relation of young-forest yield projections

generated by using the SEAPROG model to yields from three normal yield tables for

stand ages 30 to 150 years (Barnes 1962, Meyer 1937, Taylor 1934). A test for differences among regression coefficients (slope) revealed no significant differences

between the yield table estimates and the SEAPROG projection. The data used to

construct the SEAPROG model may not represent the range of stand conditions now

subject to timber harvest—namely higher elevation and other poor quality sites (e.g.,

forested wetlands). An overestimation of the availability of the timber resource (where

timber harvest levels may not be sustainable) could result from using a model derived

generally from higher quality sites. With information lacking, sensitivity analyses could

be beneficially used to examine this issue.

Noninterchangable components (NICs)—The managers partitioned the annual

allowable sale quantity of 267 million board feet into two components to promote economic sustainability of the timber resource. This approach distinguishes portions of

the timber supply at lower risk of attainment from those portions at higher risk of attainment owing to marginal economic conditions and possible changes in future demand. Volumes associated with each component are to be identified separately in

annual harvest plans for the Forest and are not to be substituted (i.e., noninterchangeable) for volume from the other component to determine the allowable sale

quantity.

The managers used logging operability maps to identify three logging feasibility categories: (1) normal operability—areas that are expected to be logged economically by

using standard logging systems (e.g., tractor, standard cable, and short-distance helicopter); (2) difficult operability—areas that could be logged, but at significantly higher

costs, by using long-span cable systems and medium-distance helicopter yarding; and

(3) isolated operability—areas that would be extremely costly to log with long-distance

helicopter yarding. These categories were developed in the late 1980s by logging

engineers and timber planners at each Administrative Area and were based on

existing and proposed roads, types of terrain, and professional judgment.

5 Data on file with: USDA Forest Service WO-TM Service

Center, 3825 E. Mulberry St., Fort Collins, CO 80524.

34
The managers assigned low-volume stands of difficult operability and low- and

medium-volume stands of isolated operability to a nonharvest prescription. The managers then created two noninterchangeable components based on operability: land of

normal operability was designated NIC I (220 million board feet per year); all other

land was designated as NIC II (47 million board feet per year).

Although this approach is intended to discourage harvest that is not economically

sustainable, there is some uncertainty about the proportions of the allowable sale

quantity that fall within each component. One analysis of the operability layer, that

was considered by managers, indicated that the NIC I component may be overestimated by about 12 percent (USDA Forest Service 1997d). The operability layer was

not modified on the basis of this analysis. Instead, managers acknowledged uncertainty of this data layer through their plans to “review the accuracy of the planning

information used to allocate ASQ between the two NICs during the first year of Plan

implementation” (USDA Forest Service 1997c). Using our criteria, the decision is thus

consistent with the available information.

Forested wetlands—Managers decided to minimize timber harvest on certain forested wetlands (Kaikli, Kitkun, Karheen, and Maybeso Series) until more information

related to the effects of timber harvesting in such locations is developed (USDA Forest Service 1997c).

Brock and Kissinger (1995) questioned the suitability of these forested wetlands for

timber production, about 40,000 acres of which are designated as suitable for timber

production in the Forest Plan. Brock and Kissinger’s concern for harvesting timber on

these soils is based on the following: (1) the few records available to categorize timber productivity following harvest—the four, 50-year site index records they cited

ranged from 38 to 48 feet (Babik 1983, Farr 1984, Stephens and others 1968a); (2)

Kissinger and others (1979) observed stunted, chlorotic forested wetlands on south

Kupreanof Island; (3) the British Columbia Ministry of Forests recognizes forested wetland sites as “marginally merchantable” owing to drainage and aeration problems

(Banner and others 1993); (4) Weetman and others (1989) report stunted forested

wetland plantations in British Columbia; and (5) Moore (1982) reports that some forested wetlands in Europe have been converted to bogs following timber harvest, fire,

and grazing.

Zaborske (1995) polled Alaska Region soil scientists and silviculturists about their

concerns over harvesting timber from forested wetlands. Based on their work experience, most of these professionals (9 of 11) were not concerned about the effects of

harvesting trees from these forested wetlands in terms of regeneration and growth response. The levels of experience with these particular forested wetlands (i.e., harvested acreage, field observations following harvest) are not documented.

Julin and Meade (1997) reviewed relevant background information—literature, plot records, and professional experience—concerning these forested wetlands. They found

no information concerning damage resulting from timber harvest on these forested

wetlands in southeast Alaska or coastal British Columbia; they found seven, 50-year

site index records for these forested wetlands that project a range of heights from 38

to 65 feet (Babik 1983; Farr 1984; Stephens and others 1968a, 1968b). This overall

lack of information can be attributed to our limited experience harvesting and studying

growth and yield in low-volume stands.

35
It appears that the managers correctly interpreted the available scientific information

on the forested wetlands in question. For example, when modeling growth and yield,

they used 50-year site indexes ranging from 40 to 50 feet. These values are within

the range known for forested wetlands in the Tongass.

The managers acknowledged the risk to forested wetlands by providing direction in

the record of decision (USDA Forest Service, 1997c) to “...avoid harvesting on these

four forested wetland soils.” They also recognized that small inclusions (less than 2

acres) of these forested wetlands would be incidentally harvested owing to practical

considerations. About 2,500 acres of these forested wetlands are scheduled for harvest in the next 60 years. They also commissioned a study to further clarify the status

of young-growth stands on these soil types (Julin and McClellan 1996). Thus, using

our criteria, the forested wetlands decision is consistent with the available information

(table 1).

Windthrow—Managers applied standards and guidelines to reduce the risk of windthrow associated with timber harvest activities. This decision is based on the recognition that windthrow is a common form of disturbance in southeast Alaska (Harris

1989, Harris and Farr 1974) that can be exacerbated by timber harvest activities. Although catastrophic windstorms may be viewed as devastating to the timber resource,

wind is considered an important ecological driver in that it creates tree canopy gaps

that promote understory development (Alaback and Tappeiner 1991; Nowacki and

Kramer, in prep.), and maintains soil productivity by uprooting trees that mix soil

layers (Bormann and others 1995).

Harris (1989) describes physiographic circumstances where windthrow commonly

occurs and provides guidelines for reducing windthrow damage. Nowacki and Kramer

(in prep.) summarize several unpublished studies on wind disturbance at both small

and large scales. They also present a model developed for Kuiu Island that predicts

the probability of windthrow at a landscape level.

The managers seem to have correctly interpreted the available scientific literature and

acknowledged risks by incorporating the following directions in to the Forest plan

(USDA Forest Service 1997a):

• Riparian standards and guidelines: “Manage an appropriate distance beyond the

no-harvest zone to provide a reasonable assurance of windfirmness of the

Riparian Management Area.”

• Timber standards and guidelines: “Where the chance of windthrow in adjacent

stands is increased by timber harvest, measures should be taken to contain the

windthrow within Land Use Designations where timber harvest is allowed.”

• Modified landscape and timber production management prescriptions: “Seek to

provide for a reasonable assurance of windfirm boundaries. To design for windfirmness, consider conditions such as soils, local wind patterns, tree height and

size, and other site factors.”

The managers also committed to using guidelines for reducing windthrow damage developed by Harris (1989) and other appropriate information to anticipate and mitigate

windthrow damage described in the record of decision (USDA Forest Service 1997c).

Timber harvest prescribed in the Forest plan will vary temporally and spatially over the

landscape, and associated windthrow will be dispersed in time and space; it also will

mimic (at a higher intensity) natural windthrow, which is considered an important disturbance agent in the Forest.

36
Summary of information related to timber issues—The use of information in the

decisions considered here and whether risks were documented in development of the

Forest plan are summarized in table 1. Overall, the timber-related decisions were

consistent with the available information.

Social and Economic

Effects

The Tongass National Forest, which comprises 85 percent of the land base of southeast Alaska, has profound effects on the quality of life for the nearly 75,000 residents.

Management of the Tongass has provided or contributed to many types of employment in southeast Alaska. The Tongass historically has contributed nearly half of the

timber harvested annually in southeast Alaska and, thus provided a substantial portion of the approximately 2,000 direct jobs in the industry. The industry, however, has

experienced a decline of over 1,500 jobs since 1990. The Tongass provides habitat

that supports the fishing and seafood processing industries, which together formed the

region’s largest private industry with an estimated 3,500 employees in 1994. The Forest also directly or indirectly contributes to the tourism and recreation industry, the

fastest growing of the resource-dependent sectors, providing nearly 3,000 direct jobs

in the region.

In addition to these employment opportunities and the related benefits that flow to

local communities, the Forest provides habitat for many fish and wildlife species used

for subsistence, a critical component of the lifestyles of Native and non-Native residents. Subsistence activities perpetuate cultural customs and traditions, supplement

personal income, provide a major source of unprocessed food, and serve many other

social, cultural, spiritual, and economic needs. In 1987, 85 percent of rural southeast

Alaska households harvested subsistence food, and half of those reported harvesting

more than 80 pounds of edible product per person. The Alaska Department of Fish

and Game currently is updating subsistence-use information for southeast Alaska,

which will result in a better understanding of current harvest levels.

The Tongass also provides opportunities for recreation for both residents and nonresidents. The unique wildlife-related opportunities and vast amount of scenic resources that are increasingly in demand are reflected in a steady increase in visits

to the Tongass, which have more than doubled in the last 10 years.

The communities of southeast Alaska are affected in diverse ways by management of

the Tongass. Many types of effects cannot be generalized from community to community, because the communities are unique in population size, access, economic structure and diversity, visions of the future, and local uses of the Tongass. Trends present

at the regional or borough level manifest themselves in different ways in the communities, so data cannot be extrapolated to broader geographic areas or political boundaries. Analyses at multiple scales are necessary to understand social and economic

conditions and trends in southeast Alaska.

The Tongass also has value to the entire Nation. As the largest National Forest in

the United States and a key component of the largest remaining relatively unaltered

coastal temperate rain forest on Earth, it has unique biodiversity values of concern to

an increasing number of Americans. The tremendous increase in cruise ship visits

also reflects the national and global interest in viewing and experiencing southeast

Alaska’s unique environment and culture. Alaska is typically used as an example of a

place having high values apart from direct use, often referred to as “existence” or

“preservation” values: people value just knowing it is there. These national values are

37
reflected by the number of comments about the Tongass Forest plan that came from

outside Alaska—nearly two-thirds of the 21,000 responses received. Although the

dollar value of nonmarket resources and opportunities in the Tongass was not estimated, there is little question that the amount is significant.

A substantial body of social and economic information is available to help decisionmakers identify effects of the Forest plan on residents of southeast Alaska and others

who have an interest in management of the Tongass. An assessment of socioeconomic conditions and trends will be published soon (Allen and others, in press). Most

of the data are regularly collected and compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor,

the Alaska Department of Community Affairs, the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game, and other agencies. These data include recreational opportunities and uses,

subsistence use of wildlife and plants, structure and diversity of local, subregional,

and regional economies, areas used by local residents, Federal revenue sharing payments, and socioeconomic panel ratings of the original RSDEIS alternatives

(Swanston and others 1996).

Given the available information,6 the following four questions can be used to gauge

the consistency of decisions leading to the Forest plan:

1. Does the decision consider effects on the quality of life of southeast Alaska

residents?

The socioeconomic panel addressed potential effects on quality of life as

one of nine indicators in its evaluation of the nine RSDEIS (USDA Forest

Service 1996b) draft alternatives. Further analysis of panel ratings suggest

that draft alternative 5 would provide overall the most beneficial effects on

quality of life; panelists estimated that 15 communities would be beneficially

affected, 4 negatively affected, and 9 unaffected (they disagreed on effects

in 4 communities). Of lesser, but still positive benefit were draft alternatives

1, 4, and 6. Of these three alternatives, however, draft alternative 1 was

predicted to have negative effects in twice as many communities as 4 and

6. Draft alternative 1 was anticipated to be either positive or negative for all

but 4 communities, and draft alternative 4 was expected to have little effect

in 16 communities. In contrast, draft alternative 7 was expected to have

negative effects on quality of life in 24 communities, compared to positive

effects in 3, and few effects either way in just 2 communities. The panel did

not evaluate the emerging final alternative, which required the

decisionmakers to extrapolate from the original judgments.

Based on language contained in the ROD (USDA Forest Service 1997c),

it seems that decisionmakers considered effects of the Forest plan on quality of life, including such components as opportunities for employment in

Tongass-related industries, the availability of and access to resources used

for subsistence, recreational opportunities, environmental quality, payments

to local governments, and related aspects of quality of life that are directly

affected by management of the Tongass.

6 For purposes of our analysis, we assumed that

socioeconomic information and analyses contained in the

FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997b) were incorporated into

the decision.

38
2. Does the decision consider the diversity of southeast Alaska communities in terms

of their economic diversity and structure, population size, subsistence use,

community use areas, and other social and economic characteristics that could be

affected by changes in management of the Tongass?

The FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997b) contains detailed information on

32 southeast Alaska communities. Based on language in the ROD (USDA

Forest Service 1997c), it seems that decisionmakers considered the differential effects of the Forest plan on southeast Alaska communities. Documentation could be improved, however, by including more of their reasoning

in the ROD, along with discussion of differential risk carried by the final plan.

The decision did not appear to misrepresent or incorrectly interpret the

scientific information available. At the broad scale, the apparent focus of the

decision on timber industry employment seems to be consistent with the

data available. The alternatives were projected to differ little in their shortterm effects on employment in other resource-dependent industries, such as

recreation and tourism, mining, and seafood processing, leaving timber

industry employment as the key employment variable. Consistent with the

science information available in the FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997b), the

ROD (USDA Forest Service 1997c) acknowledges uncertainty regarding

long-term effects on employment in the fishing and seafood processing

industries and the possible long-term risk to recreation and tourism

employment. The ROD also explicitly acknowledges anticipated declines in

employment in the timber industry, while still providing sustainable levels of

annual timber harvest.

3. Does the decision consider effects on others who have a stake or concern in

management of the Tongass?

Based on language in the ROD (USDA Forest Service 1997c), it seems that

decisionmakers considered broader social and economic concerns extending

beyond southeast Alaska communities, including the 65 percent of the

21,000 RSDEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996b) comments that came from

nonresidents. Such concerns, apart from those discussed above, include

ecosystem conditions and functioning, roadless areas, wild and scenic rivers,

and the preservation of values providing benefits aside from actual use of

Tongass resources. The discussion in the ROD incorporates both market

and nonmarket benefits. The ROD also considers consistency of the Forest

plan with national policy, such as the Forest Service long-term, national

strategic plan, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Protection

Act (RPA) (U.S. Public Laws, Statutes 1974), and the National Forest

Management Act (U.S. Public Laws, Statutes 1976).

4. Does the decision contain a mechanism for addressing ongoing concerns about

effects of Tongass management on the communities of southeast Alaska?

Whether impacts associated with risks actually occur depends on many

variables—some within Forest Service control, such as where and how

timber harvest and other activities occur, and some outside Forest Service

control, such as what companies bid for contracts, where wood processing

39
occurs, and what happens to timber prices. Such uncertainties are one

reason why it is difficult to predict the effects of a programmatic plan on

individual communities.

In this situation, monitoring, mitigation, and an effective means for involving local residents in ongoing Forest Service activities becomes critical.

Monitoring that includes tracking social and economic indicators at the

community group scale would strengthen the plan. The spotted owl (Strix

occidentails) decision in the Pacific Northwest, for example, lists a number

of items to be monitored to assess the effects of the plan on rural economics and communities: demographics, employment in relevant sectors,

government revenues, facilities and infrastructure, social service burden,

Federal assistance programs, business trends, and taxes. Including quality

of life and community resiliency information (how well communities are

equipped to deal with change) as part of the monitoring plan would help to

mitigate lack of quantitative prediction of socioeconomic impacts.

The ROD (USDA Forest Service 1997c) acknowledges the room for

improvement in the plan’s monitoring provisions, which could include

emphasis on social and economic variables. Mitigation, which includes

working with communities likely to be negatively affected (or simply with

all communities), would help to identify ways of addressing impacts. The

Forest plan contains an objective calling for such efforts, which presumably

includes efforts such as the collaborative stewardship strategy currently

being planned. Forest-wide standards and guidelines in the Forest plan call

for consideration of local community needs in project plans, and for working

with communities to jointly identify and develop natural resource opportunities. Finally, the “Information Needs” section of the Forest plan identifies

social and economic research as a high priority, with the results inserted

into the adaptive management feedback loop of the plan. This should help

to ensure that additional scientific information on social and economic

conditions will be collected and applied.

Table 1 summarizes how information on social and economic issues was used and

how risks were documented in developing the Forest plan.

Monitoring The Tongass land management plan identifies management direction for the Forest

in terms of goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines. Within a logical planning

framework, these elements are linked hierarchically and have specific roles. Goals

describe desired conditions to be achieved some time in the future and are normally

expressed in broad general terms. Objectives form the basis for further planning to

define the precise steps to be taken and resources used in achieving identified goals

(USDA Forest Service 1982). Objectives are concise, time-specific statements of

measurable planned results that respond to goals. A standard is a limitation on management activities and a guideline is a description of a preferred or advisable course

of action—both of which respond to objectives.

The Forest plan fits well within the planning framework outlined above. As a result,

the monitoring plan will be effective as an adaptive management tool. Several of the

key elements follow:

• Forest plan objectives are representative of Forest plan goals. For each of the 18

resource goals there is a corresponding objective (table 4).

40
Table 4—Status of objectives and monitoring plan items for

each resource goal in the Tongass Forest Plan

Stated Measurable Monitoring

Goals objectives objectives plan items

Air 1 1 1

Biodiversity 2 2 4

Fish 2 2 3

Heritage resources 1 0 2

Karst and caves 2 2 2

Local and regional

economies 2 2 2

Minerals and geology 1 0 1

Recreation and tourism 3 2 2

Research 1 1 1

Scenery 4 4 1

Soil and water 4 4 4

Subsistence 1 1 1

Timber 4 4 6

Transportation 3 3 1

Wetlands 2 2 2

Wild and scenic rivers 3 3 2

Wilderness 1 1 2

Wildlife 2 2 1

Total 39 36 38

41
• Most of the objectives are measurable. Of the 39 resource objectives identified,

36 are measurable (i.e., clear and quantifiable). Application of standards and

guidelines was not considered to be a measurable objective.

• Monitoring items are representative of goals. All the resource goals have at least

one monitoring item.

The Regional Forester recognized some limitations of the current monitoring plan and

included language in the ROD (USDA Forest Service 1997c) to facilitate its

improvement. The statement in the ROD is (p. 52):

The monitoring plan does not specify the protocols to be used in gathering

monitoring information. I would like to see these protocols developed, and

monitoring accomplished, through a cooperative effort with our federal

partners (i.e., the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], Fish and Wildlife

Service [FWS], and National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) and the

State of Alaska. Accordingly, I am directing the Forest Supervisors to

convene an interagency group within 60 days to develop recommended

monitoring protocols for the monitoring questions specified in chapter 6 of

the Forest plan [USDA Forest Service 1997a]. I have requested the participation of the Pacific Northwest Research Station to assist in these efforts.

I would also like private organizations, recognized tribes, and interested

individuals to have an opportunity to participate in monitoring activities.

Table 1 summarizes how information on monitoring issues was used and how risks

were documented in developing the Forest Plan.

Review of Overall

Consistency

While we remain value-neutral on the Tongass Forest plan, our evalutions indicated

that the plan achieved a high degree of overall consistency with the available

scientific information. The major decisions related to management of riparian habitat,

beach fringe habitat, and estuarine areas are consistent with the information base.

Decisions on management of steep slopes and karst and cave resources also are

consistent with available information. Decisions on development of an old-growth

forest reserve strategy to provide habitat for well-distributed wildlife populations across

the Tongass are consistent with available information. Treatment of timber resources

and socioeconomic issues is consistent with available information, although decisions

on these issues, especially socioeconomics, are subject to more uncertainty than the

foregoing issues. And finally, the process now in place to monitor various issues, and

accelerate research in high priority areas, helps assure that any remaining areas of

uncertainty are subjected to ongoing reevaluation.

Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To find:

feet 0.31 meters

miles 1.61 kilometers

acres 0.40 hectares

board feet per acre 0.017 cubic meters per hectare

42
References Alaback, P.B.; Tappeiner, J.C. 1991. Response of western hemlock (Tsuga

heterophylla) and early huckleberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium) seedlings to forest

windthrow. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 534-539.

Alexander, E.B. 1987. Mass failure hazard rating, Tongass National Forest. Document dated June 23, 1987. 5 p. On file with: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite

2A, AK 99801-8545.

Aley, T.; Aley, C; Elliot, W.; Huntoon, P. 1993. Karst and cave resource significance

assessment. Draft report. 76 p. On file with: USDA, Forest Service, Ketchikan

Area, Ketchikan, AK 99901.

Allen, S.D.; Robertson, G.; Schaefers, J. [In press]. Economics in transition: an

assessment of trends relevant to management of the Tongass National Forest.

Gen. Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment Team [AFHA]. 1995. Report to Congress:

anadromous fish habitat assessment. R10-MB-279. Juneau, AK: U. S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Alaska Region.

[Irregular pagination].

Autrey, J.T.; Baichtal, J.F. 1992. Evidence suggesting coastal refugia in southern

southeast Alaska during the height of the late Wisconsin glaciation [Abstract]. In:

Proceedings, Alaska Anthropological Association: 19th annual meeting; 1992

March 27-29; Fairbanks, AK. [Place of publication unknown]: Alaska

Anthropological Association.

Babik, N. 1983. Soil-woodland correlation field data sheet, small island south of

Brownson Island. On file with: Alaska Region, Box 21628, Juneau AK 99802-1628.

Baichtal, J.F. 1993a. An update on the exploration and resource evaluation of the

cave resources on the Ketchikan Area of the Tongass National Forest, southern

southeast Alaska [Abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting of the

Alaska Anthropological Association; 1993 April 8-10; Anchorage, AK. [Place of

publication unknown]: Alaska Anthropological Association.

Baichtal, J.F. 1993b. Karst and cave resources. In: Central Prince of Wales Island

final environmental impact statement. R10-NM-229A. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest: 179-200.

Baichtal, J.F.; Swanston, D.N. 1996. Karst landscapes and associated resources: a

resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-383. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p.

(Shaw, Charles G., III; Julin, Kent R., tech. coords.; Conservation and resource

assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision).

Banner, A.; MacKenzie, W.; Haeussler, S.[and others]. 1993. A field guide to site

identification and interpretation for the Prince Rupert Forest Region. Part 2: Ministry

of Forests research program. Prince Rupert, BC: [Publisher unknown].

Barnes, G.H. 1962. Yield of even-aged stands of western hemlock. Tech. Bull. 1273.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 52 p.

43
Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W. [and others]. 1987. Stream temperature

and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W.,

eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contrib. 57.

[Seattle, WA]: College of Forest Resources, University of Washington: 191-232.

Bisson, P.A.; Bilby, R.E.; Bryant, M.D. [and others]. 1987. Large woody debris in

forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. In: Salo, E.O.;

Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions.

Contrib. 57. [Seattle, WA]: College of Forest Resources, University of Washington:

143-190.

Bjornn, T.C.; Reiser, D.W. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In:

Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid

fishes and their habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries

Society: 83-138.

Bormann, B.T.; Spaltenstein, H.; McClellan, M.H. [and others]. 1995. Rapid soil

development after windthrow disturbance in pristine forests. Journal of Ecology.

83: 747-757.

Brickell, J.E. 1989. Review of forest inventory methodology and results. Tongass

National Forest Unpublished report. 28 p. On file with: USDA Forest Service,

Alaska Region, 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99801.

Brock, T.; Kissinger, E. 1995. Questioning the suitability of volume class 4 forests

that occur on organic soils. Posit. pap. On file with: USDA Forest Service,

Tongass Land Management Planing Office, 8465 Old Dairy Road, Juneau, AK

99801.

Brooks, D.J; Haynes, R.W. 1997. Timber products output and timber harvests in

Alaska: projections for 1997-2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-409. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 17 p. (Shaw, Charles G., III, tech. Coord.; Conservation and resource

assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision).

Bryant, M.D.; Swanston, D.N.; Wissmar, R.C.; Wright, B.E. [In prep.]. Salmonid

populations in the karst landscape of north Prince of Wales Island, southeast

Alaska.

Burkey, T.V. 1995. Extinction rates in archipelagos: implications for populations in

fragmented habitats. Conservation Biology. 9: 527-541.

Chapman, J.A.; Feldhamer, G.A., eds. 1982. Wild mammals of North America.

Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1147 p.

DeGange, A.R. 1996. A conservation assessment of the marbled murrelet in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-388. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p. (Shaw,

Charles G., III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the

Tongass land management plan revision).

Dixon, E.J.; Mann, D.H.; Edwards, M. [and others]. 1992. Prehistory and

paleoecology of southeastern Alaska karst: a prospectus for interdisciplinary

research submitted to the National Science Foundation. 23 p. On file with: USDA,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,

2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A, Juneau, AK 99801-8545.

44
Everest, F.H.; Armantrout, N.B.; Keller, S.M. [and others]. 1985. Chapter 10,

salmonids. In: Brown, E.R., tech ed. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish

habitats in the forests of western Oregon and Washington. Part 1: Chapter

narratives. R6-F&WL-192-1985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region: 199-230.

Everest, F.H.; Beschta, R.L.; Schrivener, J.C. [and others]. 1987. Fine sediment

and salmonid production: a paradox. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside

management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contrib. 57. [Seattle, WA]: College

of Forest Resources, University of Washington: 191-232.

Farr, W.A. 1984. Site index and height curves for unmanaged even-aged stands of

western hemlock and Sitka spruce in southeast Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-326.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.

Ford, D.C.; Williams, P.W. 1994. Karst geomorphology and hydrology. London:

Chapman and Hall. 601 p.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest

ecosystem management: an ecological, social, and economic assessment.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and

others]. [Irregular pagination].

Furniss, M.J; Roelofs, T.D.; Yee, C.S. 1991. Road construction and maintenance.

In: Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on

salmonid fishes and their habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American

Fisheries Society: 297-324.

Gende, S.M.; Willson, M.F.; Marston, B.H. [and others]. [In press]. Bald eagle

nesting in relation to clearcut logging in southeast Alaska. Biological Conservation.

Gregory, S.V.; Bisson, P.A. 1997. Degradation and loss of anadromous salmonid

habitat in the Pacific Northwest. In: Stouder, D.J.; Bisson, P.A.; Naiman, R.J., eds.

Pacific salmon and their ecosystems, status and future options. New York:

Chapman and Hall: 277-314.

Gregory, S.V.; Swanson, F.J.; McKee, W.A.; Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem

perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between land and water. BioScience.

41(8): 540-551.

Harlow, H.J. 1994. Trade-offs associated with the size and shape of martens. In:

Baskirk, S.W.; Harestad, A.S.; Raphael, M.G.; Powell, R.A., eds. Martens, sables,

and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press:

391-403.

Harris, A.S. 1989. Wind in the forests of southeast Alaska and guides for reducing

damage. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-244. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 63 p.

Harris, A.S.; W.A. Farr. 1974. The forest ecosystem of southeast Alaska. 7: Forest

eocolgy and timber management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-25. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 109 p.

45
Hartman, G.F.; Brown, T.G. 1987. Use of small, temporary, floodplain tributaries by

juvenile salmonids in a west coast rain forest drainage basin, Carnation Creek,

British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 44:

262-270.

Heaton, T.H.; Grady, F. 1992. Preliminary report on the fossil bears of El Capitan

Cave, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Current Research in the Pleistocene. 9:

97-99.

Hicks, B.J.; Hall, J.D.; Bisson, P.A.; Sedell, J.R. 1991. Responses of salmonids to

habitat changes. In: Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of forest and rangeland

management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD:

American Fisheries Society: 483-518.

Iverson, G.C. 1997. Old-growth forest habitat conservation strategy: Alexander

Archipelago wolf and Queen Charlotte goshawk. In: Tongass land management

planning record. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Tongass Land Management

Office, 8465 Old Dairy Road, Juneau, AK 99801. 30 p. [plus appendices].

Iverson, G.C.; Hayward, G.D.; Titus, K. [and others]. 1996. Conservation

assessment for the northern goshawk in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-387. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 p. (Shaw, Charles G., III, tech. coord.;

Conservation and resource assessments for the Tongass land management plan

revision).

Iverson, G.C.; Renè, B. 1997. Conceptual approaches for maintaining welldistributed, viable wildlife populations: a resource assessment. In: Julin, K.R.,

comp. Assessments of wildlife viability, old-growth timber volume estimates,

forested wetlands, and slope stability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-392. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station:1-23. (Shaw, Charles G., III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource

assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision).

Janik, P. 1994. Personal communication, Dec. 29, 1994. Regional Forester, Alaska

Region, Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628.

Janik, P. 1995. Instructions to field units. Letter dated Aug. 25, 1995, from the

Regional Forester, Alaska Region. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Alaska

Region, Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628.

Johnson, N.K. 1986. FORPLAN version 1: structures and options guide.

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Julin, K.R.; Caouette, J.P. 1997. Options for defining old-growth timber volume

strata: a resource assessment. In: Julin, K.R., comp. Assessments of wildlife

viability, old-growth timber volume estimates, forested wetlands, and slope

stability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-392. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 24-37. (Shaw,

Charles G., III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the

Tongass land management plan revision).

46
Julin, K.R.; McClellan, M.H. 1996. Forest growth of wetland soils in southeast

Alaska. Unpublished study plan. 55 p. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane,

Suite 2a, Juneau, AK 99801.

Julin, K.R.; Meade, C.T. 1997. Tentative suitability of forested wetlands for timber

production: a resource assessment. In: Julin, K.R., comp. Assessments of wildlife

viability, old-growth timber volume estimates, forested wetlands, and slope stability.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-392. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 38-43. (Shaw, Charles G., III,

tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision).

Kiester, A.R.; Eckhardt, C., eds. 1994. Review of wildlife management and conservation biology on the Tongass National Forest: a synthesis with recommendations. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 282 p.

Kissinger, E.; Kaija, K.; Skrine, G. 1979. Preliminary report, investigation of stunted

second growth stands, south Kupreanof area. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. 11 p.

Kondzela, C.M.; Guthrie, C.M.; Hawkins, S.L. [and others]. 1994. Genetic relationships among chum salmon populations in southeast Alaska and northern British

Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 51(1): 50-64.

Lawford, R.; Alaback, P.B.; Fuentes, E.R., eds. 1996. High latitude rainforests of

the west coast of the Americas: climate, hydrology, ecology, and conservation.

New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. 1994. Tongass land management plan scientific review. In:

Kiester, A.R.; Eckhardt, C., eds. Review of wildlife management and conservation

biology on the Tongass National Forest: a synthesis with recommendations.

Corvallis, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station: 84-93.

Linstone, H.A.; Turoff, M., ed. 1975. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 620 p.

MacArthur, R.H. 1972. Geographical ecology. New York: Harper and Row.

MacArthur, R.H.; Wilson, E.O. 1967. The theory of island biogeography.

Monographs in Population Biology 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

MacDonald, S.O.; Cook, J.A. 1996. The mammals of southeast Alaska: a distribution and taxonomic update. Fairbanks, AK: The University of Alaska Museum.

Meehan, W.R., ed. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on

salmonid fishes and their habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American

Fisheries Society. 751 p.

Meyer, W.H. 1937. Yield of even-aged stands of Sitka spruce and western hemlock.

Tech. Bull. 544. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

86 p.

Moore, P.D. 1982. Beneath the blanket bogs of Britian. Natural History. November:

49-54.

47
Murphy, M.L.; Meehan, W.R. 1991. Stream ecosystems. In: Meehan, W.R., ed.

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their

habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 417-46.

Nowacki, G.J.; Kramer, M.G. [In prep.]. The natural disturbance regime with

emphasis on wind disturbance. In: Shaw, Charles G., III, tech. coord. Conservation

and resource assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision.

Parker, D.I. 1996. Forest ecology and distribution of bats in Alaska. Fairbanks:

University of Alaska Fairbanks. 72 p. M.S. thesis.

Paustian, S.J., ed. 1992. A channel type users guide for the Tongass National

Forest, southeast Alaska. R10-TP-26. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Alaska Region. 179 p.

Person, D.K.; Kirchoff, M.; Van Ballenberghe, V. [and others]. 1996. The

Alexander Archipelago wolf: a conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-384. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 42 p. (Shaw, Charles G., III, tech. coord.;

Conservation and resource assessments for the Tongass land management plan

revision).

Pianka, E.R. 1988. Evolutionary ecology. 4th ed. New York: Harper and Row.

Ralph, C.J.; Hunt, G.L.; Raphael, M.G.; Piatt, J.F. 1995. Ecology and conservation

of marbled murrelets in North America: an overview. In: Ralph, C.J.; Hunt, G.L.;

Raphael, M.G.; Piatt, J.F., eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 3-22.

Reeves, G.H.; Benda, L.E.; Burnette, K.M. [and others]. 1995. A disturbancebased ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of

evolutionarily significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest.

In: Proceedings of a symposium on evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation; 1994 [day and month unknown];

Monterey, CA. Symp. 17. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 334-349.

Reeves, G.H.; Everest, F.H.; Sedell, J.R. 1993. Diversity of juvenile salmonid

communities in basins in coastal Oregon, U.S.A., with different levels of timber

harvest activity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 122(3): 309-317.

Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery

interactions. Contrib. 57. [Seattle, WA]: College of Forest Resources, University of

Washington. 471 p.

Shaw, C.G., III. [In prep.]. Use of risk assessment panels during revision of the

Tongass land management plan. In: Shaw, Charles G., III, tech. coord.

Conservation and resource assessments for the Tongass land management plan

revision.

Sonstegard, R.A.; Leatherland, J.F. 1984. Great Lakes coho salmon as an indicator

organism for ecosystem health. Marine Environment Research. 14: 480.

Soulé, M.E.; Wilcox, B.A. 1980. Conservation biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer

Associates, Inc.

48
Stephens, F.R.; Gass, C.R.; Billings, R.F.F. 1968a. Provisional site index curves

based on tallest Sitka spruce and bh age. Rep. 1, R-10 Soil-Site Index Administrative Study. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska

Region. 11 p.

Stephens, F.R.; Gass, C.R.; Billings, R.F.F. 1968b. Soils and site index curves

based on tallest Sitka spruce and bh age. Rep. 2, R-10 Soil-Site Index Administrative Study. Juneau, Ak: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska

Region. 17 p.

Stouder, D.J., Bisson, P.A.; Naiman, R.J., eds. 1997. Pacific salmon and their

ecosystems, status and future options. New York: Chapman and Hall. 685 p.

Sullivan, K.; Lisle, T.E.; Dolloff, C.S. [and others]. 1987. Stream channels: the link

between forests and fishes. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contrib. 57. [Seattle, WA]: College of Forest Resources, University of Washington: 39-97.

Suring, L.H.; Crocker-Bedford, D.C.; Flynn, R.W. [and others]. 1993. A proposed

strategy for maintaining well-distributed, viable populations of wildlife associated

with old-growth forests in southeast Alaska. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Alaska Region; report of the interagency committee, Tongass Land Management Planning Team. 278 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass Land Management Planning Office, 8465 Old Dairy Road,

Juneau, AK 99801.

Suring, L.H.; Crocker-Bedford, D.C.; Flynn, R.W. [and others]. 1994. Response to

the peer review of: a proposed strategy for maintaining well-distributed, viable

populations of wildlife associated with old-growth forests in southeast Alaska. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region; response of the

interagency committee, Tongass Land Management Planning Team. 11 p. [plus

appendices]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass

Land Management Planning Office, 8465 Old Dairy Road, Juneau, AK 99801.

Swanston, D.N. 1997. Controlling stability characteristics of steep terrain with

discussion of needed standardization for mass movement hazard indexing: a

resource assessment. In: Julin, K.R., comp. Assessments of wildlife viability,

old-growth timber volume estimates, forested wetlands, and slope stability. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-392. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 44-58 (Shaw, Charles G., III, tech.

coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the Tongass land

management plan revision).

Swanston, D.N.; Shaw, C.G., III; Smith, W.P. [and others]. 1996. Scientific information and the Tongass land management plan: key findings derived from the

scientific literature, species assessments, resources analyses, workshops, and risk

assessment panels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-386. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 p.

(Shaw, Charles G., III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for

the Tongass land management plan revision).

Taylor, R.F. 1934. Yield of second-growth western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in

southeastern Alaska. Tech. Bull. 412. Washington DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service.

49
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1979. Tongass land and resource

management plan. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982. 36 CFR Part 219, National

Forest System Land and Resource Planning. Federal Register, 47(190):

43026-43052

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. FSH 2509.22, Soil and

water conservation handbook. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. A Federal agency guide for

pilot watershed analysis, Version 1.2. Portland, OR. 202 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. GIS inventory of remaining

old-growth blocks on the Tongass National Forest. On file with: USDA Forest

Service, Tongass Land Management Planning Office, 8465 Old Dairy Road,

Juneau, AK 99801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996a. Tongass National Forest

land and resource management plan revision. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996b. Tongass land

management plan revision: revised supplement to the draft environmental impact

statement (RSDEIS)— Chapter 3. Environment and effects. R10-MB-314A.

Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997a. Land and resource management plan: Tongass National Forest. R10-MB-338dd [Juneau, AK]: Alaska

Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997b. Tongass land

management plan revision: final environmental impact statement [FEIS].Part 1:

Summary, chapters 1 and 2 and chapter 3 (physical and biological environment).

R10-MB-338b. Juneau, AK]: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1997c. Tongass land management

plan revision: record of decision [ROD]. R10-MB-338a. [Juneau, AK]: Alaska

Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997d. Tongass National Forest

land and resources planning record. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Tongass

Land Management Planning Office, 8465 Old Dairy Road, Juneau, AK 99801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Draft environmental assessment for

implementation of interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing

watersheds in eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and portions of California.

Washington, DC. 68 p.

U.S. Public Laws, Statutes, etc. 1960. Public Law 74-215. Multiple-use Sustained

Yield Act of 1960. 16 U.S.C. 528-531.

U.S. Public Laws, Statutes, etc. 1974. Public Law 93-378. Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. 16 U.S.C. 1601(1974).

U.S. Public Laws, Statutes, etc. 1976. Public Law 94-588. National Forest

Management Act of 1976. 16 U.S.C. 1604, section 6 (e)(1).

50
U.S. Public Laws, Statutes, etc. 1990. Public Law 101-626. Tongass Timber

Reform Act of 1990. 16 U.S.C. 539d(1990).

U.S. Public Laws, Statutes, etc. 1994. FY 1994 Appropriations Act for Interior and

related agencies.

Weetman, G.F.; Fournier, R.; Baker, J. [and others]. 1989. Foliar analysis and

response of fertilized chlorotic Sitka spruce plantations on salal-dominated cedarhemlock cutovers on Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

19: 1501-1511.

White, W.B. 1988. Geomorphology and hydrology of karst terrains. New York:

Oxford University Press. 464 p.

White, W.B.; White, E.L., eds. 1989. Karst hydrology: concepts from the Mammoth

Cave area. New York: Van Nostrand and Reinhold. 346 p.

Wissmar, R.C.; Swanston, D.N.; Bryant, M.D.; McGee, K. 1997. Factors

influencing stream chemistry in catchments on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska.

Freshwater Biology. 38: 101-114.Alaska.

Zaborske, R. 1995. Personal communication. Regional silviculturist, Alaska Region,

Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628.

51
Appendix 1 This appendix is a comparison of the recommendations in AFHA (1995) with standards and guidelines, elements, and features in the Forest plan for protection of

anadromous fish habitats in the Tongass National Forest.

Authors of the AFHA report (1995), in response to congressional directives, made

numerous recommendations for management of aquatic and riparian habitats. These

recommendations were a combination of scientific information and the professional

experience and personal values of those making the recommendations. Correspondence from Regional Forester, Phil Janik, clearly states that he believed the AFHA

recommendations, and their associated risk levels, were well founded and warranted

careful consideration in the TLMP revision (Janik 1994). He suggested that AFHA

(1995) should be the benchmark against which aquatic and riparian management decisions in the final TLMP alternative are compared and evaluated. We followed this

suggestion and make that comparison here.

The AFHA is currently the definitive assessment for anadromous fish in the Tongass.

The document was prepared in response to directives in the 1994 Congressional

Appropriations Act Conference Committee Report (U.S. Public Laws, Statutes, 1994).

The Alaska Region of the Forest Service was directed to:

• Proceed with stream analyses and studies and review procedures related to the

PACFISH strategy in 1994 in order to study the effectiveness of current

procedures (for protecting the habitat of anadromous salmonids).

• Determine if any additional protection (for anadromous fish habitat) is needed.

The AFHA report concluded that current procedures (those used in timber harvest

activities after passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990) were not fully

effective in protecting anadromous fish habitat in the long term and made recommendations for improved protection.

Some of the AFHA recommendations could be accomplished by strengthening current direction for management of fish habitat and riparian zones on the Forest. The

Regional Forester (Janik 1995) subsequently issued instructions to field units to accomplish the things necessary to comply with those specific recommendations from

the AFHA report.

A second set of AFHA recommendations required new management direction, or

changes in Forest policy, for implementation. Those recommendations were referred

to TLMP by the Regional Forester for study and consideration in the current revision

of the Tongass land management plan. The planning team addressed each of the

recommendations, and the results were incorporated in the plan RSDEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996b), subsequently modified, and then included in the FEIS for the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1997b).

The AFHA recommendations examined in the TLMP process were:

• To increase protection of headwater areas: steep slopes, high-hazard soils, and

class III and IV streams.

• To modify streamside buffers on flood plains, alluvial fans, and confined alluvial

channels.

52
• To clarify the current Tongass plan direction to “...preserve the biological

productivity of all fish streams on the Tongass.”

• To establish quantitative objectives for fish habitat capability.

Many AFHA recommendations on these issues were general. For example, recommendations in the fish habitat assessment team report from the expert field review

(AFHA 1995:24) state:

Stream Buffers: Buffer design should consider fish habitat, and water and

sediment routing, rather than just the presence or absence of fish species.

Buffers should also match the site topography, and those associated with

flood plains managed to at least the borders of the active flood plain. Buffers

should be designed to remain windfirm. Generally 100-foot buffers are not

sufficient on larger, unconfined class I and II streams to meet these needs.

Numerous suggestions were made on how to size the width of buffers to

retain the buffer function, considering the amount of windthrow in southeast

Alaska. Recommendations ranged from maintaining an additional 25% width

of the needed “functional” buffer size, to incorporating entire flood plains plus

100 additional feet. Recommendations were also made that no harvest occur

in areas of extreme windthrow hazard. Salvage of windthrow timber in buffers

should not be allowed because the windthrown trees function to break-up

the force of wind as it approaches the remaining standing timber and provide

nurse logs for tree regeneration.

Other summary AFHA recommendations (AFHA 1995:38-43) were more specific:

Additional protection of fish habitat requires two parallel efforts: the first is an

ecosystem approach for evaluating and protecting watershed processes and

functions at the landscape scale, and the second is the full implementation of Best Management Practices in planning and implementing activities

that could affect aquatic ecosystems [p. 38].

We recommend implementing watershed analysis using concepts presented

in A Federal Agency Guide for Pilot Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1994) as a precursor to timber sales and other management activities

that could significantly influence fish habitat [p. 39].

We recommend as part of watershed analysis, that Riparian Management

Areas be defined and the area within them managed to fully protect fish

habitat in the long-term [p. 39].

Because watershed analysis on all Tongass watersheds will not be implemented immediately, we propose the following interim recommendations:

We recommend that riparian zones adjacent to unconfined alluvial flood

plain channels, alluvial fan channels, and glacial outwash channels (Paustian

1992) should not be subject to timber harvest unless they are fully evaluated. The entire flood plain should be considered as the interim Riparian

Management Area. In these channel types, riparian zones may extend beyond the minimum width specified under current procedures because the

53
stream is often dissected into a main low-flow channel with several side

channels. These side channels are important fish habitat (Hartman and

Brown 1987). Ecosystem-scale analysis should consider the whole riparian

area, as defined by riparian soils and vegetation. Site specific harvest is

only allowable when these riparian areas are fully evaluated and the purpose is consistent with the goal of full riparian protection [p. 39].

We recommend using a distance equivalent to the height of a site-potential

tree to determine the Riparian Management Area width (assuming it is

greater than 100 feet) for confined alluvial channel types of class I and II

streams. In no case would Riparian Management Areas be less than 100

feet wide. Again, proposed harvest in these areas should fully protect

riparian values. We had similar concerns about confined alluvial channel

types that are class I and II streams. In these channels, debris recruitment may come from beyond a fixed distance, depending on bank slope,

topography, and tree height of the dominant debris-producing trees [p. 39].

We recommend minimum 100-foot buffers on each side of class III streams

until individual needs are identified during watershed analysis. Class III

streams have important water quality values. These streams also are

sources for woody debris recruitment and litter, and they deliver nutrient

and sediment inputs into larger streams (FEMAT 1993:app. C.2; Gregory

and others 1991; Hicks and others 1991). These streams are typically highgradient streams often associated with steep, unstable terrain. Timber management opportunities within the buffers are evaluated case by case, considering mass movement hazards as debris, litter, nutrient, and sediment

input [p. 39-43].

We recommend defining a new category, class IV streams for the intermittent or ephemeral colluvial channels and small, perennial spring-fed rill

channels that are not dominant sediment transport channels. Streams that

are currently unclassified and class III streams that are misclassified cause

some confusion. They should be managed primarily to protect water quality.

These streams are typically very small, high-gradient streams draining

mountain slopes. They rarely need buffer strips, but often require special

provisions for felling, yarding, and determining where to place landings and

roads [p. 40].

We recommend that consistent Forest-wide definitions, inventory standards,

and interpretations of mass-movement-hazard areas be developed, and that

a full inventory and analysis of high-and very high-hazard soils be conducted

[p. 40].

We recommend adopting the following additional management measures

where steep slopes, high-hazard soil conditions, or both threaten fish habitat:

High-hazard soils should not be clearcut or roaded before their massmovement potential is assessed on site.

No slopes greater than 84% should be clearcut.

No coluvial hollows or highly dissected mountain slopes greater than

70% should be clearcut [p. 40].

54
The AFHA (1995:45) also states the following in regard to riparian management

objectives:

We recommend fish habitat objectives for large woody debris, width/depth

ratio, and pool frequency based on currently undisturbed conditions. We also

recommend further analysis and inventory to establish additional fish habitat

objectives.

In regard to upslope stability:

Areas of very high mass-movement hazard are removed from the timber

base.

In regard to watershed analysis:

Watershed analysis is recommended before timber harvest and other major

land-disturbing activities. This recommendation is similar to the PACFISH

(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994) strategy.

The foregoing recommendations indicate that the intent of AFHA (1995) is to increase

protection of class I and II flood-plain systems, alluvial fan channels, and confined alluvial channels, provide buffer protection to class III streams, reduce the risk to fish

habitat from mass erosion, and develop quantitative management objectives for aquatic systems. It is recommended that watershed analyses be conducted to ascertain

the site-specific prescriptions needed to protect riparian and fish habitats before major

human disturbances are conducted. The AFHA (1995:16) also states that without first

conducting watershed and project analyses, the default buffer along class I and II

flood-plain channels, alluvial fan channels, and glacial outwash channels is the entire

flood plain; along class I and II confined alluvial channels, the buffer is the height of

one site-potential tree; and along class III streams, the buffer is 100 feet of limited

harvest.

These recommendations were forwarded to the TLMP team for further study, analysis,

and modification as necessary to clarify and meet the intent of the AFHA (1995) report, and finally, incorporation into the TLMP revision process. In accordance with the

AFHA recommendations, management of aquatic and riparian habitat in the Tongass

has two goals: (1) the stated goal in the Tongass land management plan RSDEIS

(USDA Forest Service 1996b) is to “maintain and restore the natural range and frequency of aquatic habitat conditions Forest-wide to sustain the diversity and production of fish and other freshwater organisms”; and, (2) it is the policy of the Alaska

Region of the Forest Service to manage the Forest to avoid listing of fish stocks under

the Endangered Species Act. These goals are clearly aimed at maintaining the biological productivity of the Forest’s fisheries and preventing any management that might

lead eventually to the nonviability of fish stocks.

An interdisciplinary and interagency group of specialists took the AFHA (1995) recommendations and crafted a set of standards and guidelines (riparian option 2) to meet

the intent of AFHA (USDA Forest Service 1996a:sec. 2.9). At the same time, two

other sets of standards and guides were crafted. Riparian option 1, more restrictive

than AFHA, is similar to the PACFISH (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of

Land Management 1994) strategy of the Pacific Northwest. Riparian option 3 is

similar to procedures currently used in the Tongass to manage fish and riparian

habitats. The standards and guides for these three riparian management options were

differentially applied to the array of alternatives described in the Tongass RSDEIS

(USDA Forest Service 1996b).

55
The riparian standards and guides in the Forest plan are not identical to riparian

standards and guides in any of the draft alternatives described in the RSDEIS, although they contain elements from several of the draft alternatives. The Forest-wide

riparian standards and guides for the final TLMP alternative are subdivided into general standards and guides, and those for each stream process group. In general, the

standards and guides are written as direction for management of riparian habitat in

the Tongass. The direction can be changed after watershed analysis, if the objectives

established for each process group can be met. The guidelines provide well-defined

defaults that will be used for riparian buffers and other management practices in the

absence of watershed analysis. The riparian standards and guides developed for the

Forest plan in the TLMP FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997a) and key recommendations from the AFHA (1995) report are compared for consistency in table 5. With

minor exceptions noted in the table, the riparian standards and guides of the Forest

plan are consistent with the recommendations and intent of the AFHA (1995) report.

56
Table 5—Comparison of some key AFHAa recommendations with standards

and guidelines in the Tongass Forest plan for management of riparian areas.

Are final TLMP standards and guides

consistent with AFHA?

AFHA recommendation Yes No Unknown

Use ecosystem approach for protecting

watershed processes and functions X

Implement existing best management

practices X

Implement watershed analysis Xb

Define riparian management areas and

manage to fully protect fish habitat in

the long term X

No timber harvest in flood plains of

glacial outwash, alluvial fanc

, and

flood-plain process groups before

watershed analysis X

Any timber harvest in flood plains of

glacial outwash, alluvial fan, and floodplain process (postwatershed analysis)

must meet riparian protection goals X

Use distance equal to height of 1

site-potential tree to define

riparian management areas along

confined alluvial channels of class I

and II streams X

Use minimum 100-foot buffers on each

side of class III streams until

individual needs are determined during

watershed analysis X

Design buffers to remain windfirm X

Develop a new stream class (IV) X

Manage class IV streams to protect water

quality X

Control timber harvest of steep and

unstable slopes X

Develop consistent definitions,

inventory standards, and interpretations

of mass-movement hazard areas X

Develop objectives for fish habitat

management X

No timber salvage in riparian areas

unless approved by line officer in

consultation with fisheries biologist

or other resource experts X

a Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment (1995).

b There are minor differences in use of watershed analysis but overall level of protection meets AFHA.

c Some unprogrammed timber harvest could be allowed in the alluvial fan process group before watershed

analysis if objectives of the process group are met.

57
Appendix 2 This appendix is a comparison of the viable population committee reports and the

final TLMP alternative.

Concerns about long-term viability of wildlife on the Tongass caused the leader of the

Tongass land management planning team to establish an interagency viable population committee (V-POP) in 1990. The committee’s report (Suring and others 1993)

provided recommendations for an old-growth forest retention strategy designed to protect long-term wildlife viability in the Tongass. The committee also made recommendations designed to maintain the viability of individual wildlife species. The committee’s report was subsequently subjected to peer review (referred to here as the “peer

review”) by a team of scientists commissioned by PNW (Kiester and Eckhardt 1994).

An attempt was made to reconcile differing recommendations made in the original

V-POP report and the peer review to provide a consistent set of recommendations for

an old-growth-retention strategy to provide habitat sufficient to meet viability needs for

all wildlife species in the Tongass. Preliminary recommendations for reconciliation

were made in a report (Suring and others 1994) but were never subjected to scientific

analysis or review. These documents articulate the need for a strategy to maintain

habitat for old-growth-associated wildlife in the Tongass and make recommendations

for one or more ways to achieve that goal.

The V-POP report and the peer review contain detailed recommendations on how to

achieve wildlife viability on the Tongass National Forest. The recommendations, however, are not science but rather a combination of scientific information and interpretation, integrated with professional experience and personal values embodying a level

of risk the authors thought appropriate. Recommendations of this type cannot be subjected to a science consistency check by using the criteria defined in this paper.

Because of the interagency interest in the V-POP report and peer review, the recommendations are compared to the Forest plan in tables 6, 7, and 8. Remember, when

reviewing the tables, that they do not represent a science consistency check but a

comparison of one possible strategy for managing wildlife habitat in the Tongass with

another.

Tables 6, 7, and 8 summarize, respectively, the degree of consistency between the

Forest plan and the recommendations of the V-POP committee, the peer review, and

the attempted reconciliation between the latter two.

58
Table 6—Comparison of V-POPa committee recommendations for wildlife

viability and standards and guidelines for implementing the Tongass Forest

plan

Forest plan

Meets Addresses Fails to

or needs with address

exceeds another species

V-POP recommendations V-POP strategyb needs

Old-growth habitat: Size, quality and

distribution of large, medium, and small

habitat conservation areas X

Matrix: Management of forested lands subject to

timber harvest between reserves X

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias): Within 2 yr

after nesting, no development within 1/8 mile

of nest, or flights within 660 feet elevation

(1/4 mile) of active nest, March 1-July 31. X

Goshawk: Inventory timber sales for active

nests; estimate breeding pair home range and

male core area; no disturbance in core,

< 5% in home range X

Wolf and roads: Maintain open road density

≤1 mi/mi2 including shorelines) in any 3

contiguous Alaska Department of Fish and Game

wildlife analysis areas (WAAs) where wolves

occur and roads are accessible to communities

≥1,000 people (≤1.25 mi/mi2 in WAAs next to

roadless or wilderness areas) X

Wolf and prey: Maintain habitat for

≥5 deer/mi2 where deer are primary prey X

Brown bear: Locate human facilities ≥1 mile

from seasonal brown bear concentrations;

protect habitat and reduce human-bear

conflicts; close roads in habitat conservation

areas (HCAs) except during resource

extraction; maintain 300-foot buffer along

salmon streams that are important bear feeding

areas; no roads within 300 feet of

these streams X

River otter: 500-foot old-growth buffers

along marine coastline and 1,000-foot

buffers along estuaries X

Goats: Maintain 100% of potential winter

habitat capability for populations of

≤50 goats as determined by models; protect

kidding areas May 1-Aug. 1; keep development

≥1 mile from winter habitat and kidding

areas; reduce human-goat conflicts via

seasonal restrictions X

59
Table 6—Comparison of V-POPa committee recommendations for wildlife

viability and standards and guidelines for implementing the Tongass Forest

plan (continued)

Forest plan

Meets Addresses Fails to

or needs with address

exceeds another species

V-POP recommendations V-POP strategyb needs

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus): Provide HCAs

≥5,000 acres ≤10 miles apart; protect nests

outside HCAs with 0.5-mile buffer X

Flying squirrel: Maintain ≥1 patch of 1,000

acres of productive old growth (POG) per

watershed; maintain corridors of POG between

POG patches; corridor interruptions ≤65 feet;

other details, see Suring and others (1993:255) X

Marten: Large, medium, and small HCAs

recommended; consider connectivity among

HCAs; minimize roads, HCAs, and corridors;

employ effective road management techniques X

a Suring and others (1993).

b Level of risk likely differs from that embodied (but undefined) within V-POP recommendation.

60
Table 7Comparison of peer reviewa recommendations for wildlife viability

and standards and guidelines for implementing the Tongass Forest plan

Forest plan

Meets Addresses Fails to

or needs with address

exceeds another species

Peer review recommendations V-POPb peer strategyc needs

Vancouver Canada goose (Branta canadensis):

Broaden the array of habitat features to

evaluate habitat capability; include as a

management indicator species X

Bald eagle: Standards and guidelines should

be based on field information as well as

habitat capability estimates X

Hairy woodpecker: Maintain specific microhabitat features or mitigate for continued

persistence across the forest, especially

patches of recently dead trees; include as

management indicator species X

Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varis):

Develop habitat standards, especially for

winter; include as management indicator

species X

Brown creeper (Certhia familiaris): Use

existing habitat capability index model to

evaluate habitat; include as management

indicator species X

Wolf: Needs more protected habitat than

available in the Tongass National Forest,

cooperate with other agencies and Canada

to maintain habitat; provide effective road

management X

Black bear (Ursus americanus): Require suitable

matrix management with small clearcuts and

alternative methods of harvesting; distribution

and quality of habitat conservation areas (HCAs)

reflect naturally fragmented nature of Tongass

National Forest; emphasize HCAs and connectivity

where needed most X

Brown bear: Preferred standards and guides

meet V-POP and peer recommendations X

Marten: Need HCA strategy with different

spacing than proposed by V-POP; matrix

management better solution than in preferred

alternative (P) X

River otter: No specific management recommendations beyond V-POP X

Deer: No additional specific guidelines

related to management of this species X

61
Table 7Comparison of peer reviewa recommendations for wildlife viability and

standards and guidelines for implementing the Tongass Forest plan (continued)

Forest plan

Meets Addresses Fails to

or needs with address

exceeds another species

Peer review recommendations V-POP peerb strategyc needs

Mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus): Do not

focus just on habitat for ≤50 animals;

evaluate existing and additional

fragmentation for this species X

Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus): Not

included in V-POP species list; ensure

availability of spruce cones and other habitat

features at a spatial scale to maintain breeding

populations and interactions among populations X

Great blue heron: Recommendations similar

to those in V-POP report X

Goshawk: proposed under V-POP likely not

adequate; matrix management likely critical to

maintaining habitat capability Xd

Boreal owl: Management of second growth

next to HCAs critical in maintaining populations of this species X

Northern flying squirrel: No new management

considerations; maintain corridors to

facilitate movement X

Blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus): No evidence

that this species should be considered as

a management indicator species X

a Keister and Eckhardt (1994).

b Suring and others (1993).

c Level of risk likely differs from that embodied (but undefined) within V-POP and peer review

recommendations.

d See Iverson and others (1996).

62
Table 8—Comparison of reconciliation between V-POPa and peer reviewb recommendations for wildlife viability and standards and guidelines for implementing the Tongass Forest plan

Forest plan

Meets

or Addresses Fails to

exceeds needs with address

V-POP and peer review reconciliation V-POP another species

reconciliation strategyc needs

Restrict logging and road building to areas

other than volume classes 6 and 7 old-growth

forest below 800 feet elevation X

Restrict logging, road building, and

salvage sales to areas other than large and

medium habitat conservation areas (HCAs) X

Restrict logging and road building to areas

outside 3 largest old-growth forest patches

within each ecological province X

Establish a 0.5- to 1-mile buffer around all

large and medium HCAs as a special

management zone in which road building

and clearcutting are prohibited Xd

Connect large and medium

HCAs with corridors where logging is

not allowed (1,600+feet wide between large

HCAs; 1,000+feet wide between medium HCAs):

keep corridors below 800 feet elevation. Place

a 3,300-foot-wide “special management zone”

along the coastline Xd

Maintain old-growth forests that have been

identified as important wildlife habitat

through local knowledge or field experience

(e.g., wildlife habitat retention areas

mapped in the current plane

) X

a Suring and others (1993).

b Keister and Eckhardt (1994).

c Level of risk likely differs from that embodied (but undefined) within V-POP and peer review

recommendations.

d See Iverson and others 1996.

e USDA Forest Service 1979.

63
Appendix 3 Scientists on the TLMP team used panels of subject matter experts, somewhat similar

to the “Delphi method” (Linstone and Turoff 1975), to independently evaluate each of

the original nine draft Forest plan alternatives for likely effects on wildlife populations

(Shaw, in prep.; Swanston and others 1996). A second set of risk assessment panels

was held early in 1997 to similarly evaluate the emerging final alternative (Shaw in

prep.; USDA Forest Service 1997b:app. N). Members of each panel independently

evaluated a selected species (or group) for the likelihood of obtaining specific outcomes regarding its status and distribution following implementation for 100 years of

each draft Forest plan alternative. Each wildlife species (or group) was selected according to specific life history characteristics and habitat needs. Our intent was to

select an array of old-growth associates whose individual life histories were dissimilar;

yet, collectively their ecologies incorporated the breadth of forest habitat features and

other environmental variation represented across the Tongass National Forest.

Six wildlife panels were conducted in the first set of panels: brown bear, marbled murrelet, Queen Charlotte goshawk, Alexander Archipelago wolf, American marten, and

“other terrestrial mammals,” which comprised a group of more wide ranging mammals

and a group of endemic small mammals, some with known distributions in southeast

Alaska that are restricted to a few islands or isolated portions of the mainland

(MacDonald and Cook 1996). Except for marbled murrelet, the second set of panels

considered the same species.

Each panel was comprised of subject matter experts who independently evaluated

each draft Forest plan alternative (Shaw, in prep.; Swanston and others 1996). Each

evaluator served on only one panel in each set, but most evaluators served on that

species’ panel in both sets. With one exception, none of the evaluators had previous

involvement with the TLMP process. During the panel, each evaluator independently

assigned 100 “likelihood” points across five outcomes for each alternative. Likelihood

points assigned to each outcome were not probabilities in the empirical sense of frequencies; rather, they reflected extent of conviction, or uncertainty, according to available information and sound professional judgment in expected outcomes and were expressed through a probability-like scale. Individual ratings remained anonymous. A

scribe recorded scores, computed a mean score for each alternative, and provided

all results to each panel member for further discussion.

The “other terrestrial mammals” panel followed this general procedure with one notable exception: evaluators examined 14 species, most of them old-growth associates,

but selected what they considered to be the most sensitive species or group of species to evaluate the effect of each alternative on the guild. For some alternatives, this

group was comprised of a few or even one species. This, in part, reflected differences

in geographic distribution of many island endemics and the variation in human-caused

disturbance represented among alternatives. In many circumstances, however, several species were viewed as responding similarly to a selected alternative. Regardless, this guild was treated similarly to the single species in that 100 points were assigned for each alternative (Shaw, in prep.; Swanston and others 1996).

Outcomes reflected the expected population distribution and abundance of wildlife

species relative to current condition of habitat in the Tongass, and to the projected

condition of habitat following implementation of each draft alternative for 100 years

(Shaw, in prep.; Swanston and others 1996).

Evaluation of Wildlife

Viability in the Forest

Plan Through Risk

Assessment Panels

64
The five outcomes were:

I Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species to

maintain well-distributed breeding populations across the Tongass National Forest.

The concept of well distributed must be based on knowledge of the distributional

range of the species and its life history.

II Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species to

maintain breeding populations across the Tongass National Forest. Some local

populations, however, are more ephemeral because of reduced population levels

and increased susceptibility to environmental extremes and stochastic events associated with reduced habitat abundance and distribution. Vacated habitats may

become recolonized in the future.

III Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species to

maintain some breeding populations, but with significant gaps in the historic distribution on the Forest. These gaps likely are permanent and will result in some limitation of interaction among local populations. Significance of gaps must be judged

relative to the distributional range of the species and its life history.

IV Habitat allows continued species existence only in refugia, with substantial limitations on interactions among local populations. Significance of extirpations across

islands or regional landscapes must be evaluated relative to the distributional range

of the species and its life history.

V Habitat conditions result in species extirpation from Federal land.

Limited discussions by the evaluators in the first set of panels (along with our appraisal of the notes from these sessions) related to outcomes meeting the condition of

maintaining well-distributed populations across the planning area led us to derive two

new outcomes from the original five: (1) populations likely will be well distributed—

thus, mean likelihood scores from outcomes that likely will maintain well distributed

populations (i.e., outcomes I and II in the previous list) for each species (or group)

were summed to represent outcome I; and (2) populations likely will not be well distributed relative to their historic range—mean likelihood scores from the remaining

outcomes (i.e., outcomes III, IV, and V) were summed to represent outcome II (Shaw,

in prep.; Swanston and others 1996).

Each of the second set of panels had considerable, indepth discussion on this issue

and on the differences, if any, between “viable” and “well-distributed” populations.

Results of these discussions indicated that the panelists’ concepts of habitat conditions sufficient to support viable and well-distributed populations differed but, generally, fell within outcome III with well distributed being the more stringent criterion to

meet.1 Because of the indepth discussion of these topics in the second set of panels,

we place more emphasis on their evaluation of where within the five habitat outcomes

the concepts of habitat sufficient to support viable and well-distributed populations are

described. As such, the boundaries of the two new outcomes changed such that only

outcomes IV and V clearly represent (except for brown bear viability, which may be

only outcome V; Shaw, in prep.) habitat conditions where populations likely will not

be well distributed relative to their historic range.

1 Evaluators indicated that well distributed equaled the sum of outcomes I and II for

endemic mammals.

65
Mean likelihood scores among the five initial outcomes for the wildlife species common to both sets of panels appear in appendix N of the FEIS (USDA Forest Service

1997b). The means are presented with an understanding that there is a variance,

often large, around these values (Swanston and others 1996). These tables also present the scores as summed for outcomes I and II combined, and outcomes I, II, and

III combined to help evaluate the concept of habitat sufficient to support viable and

well-distributed populations. Results of the first set of panels, including those for

marbled murrelet, also appear in the wildlife section of chapter 3 of the FEIS (USDA

Forest Service 1997b:351-430).

Evaluation of Wildlife

Viability in the Forest

Plan

Assessment—Before the second set of risk assessment panels occurred, the emerging final alternative had not been subjected to risk assessment panels. Because of the

high interest in the likely risk to wildlife viability posed by the then-emerging final alternative, we reviewed the issue by examining substantive changes from draft alternative 3, the base from which the emerging final alternative was developed, and evaluated the direction (i.e., increase or decrease) of changes in risk to wildlife species.

Particular emphasis on risk to Alexander Archipelago wolf and Queen Charlotte

goshawk was evaluated because those species were being considered for listing

under the Endangered Species Act.

To evaluate risk associated with the emerging final alternative, we examined the likelihood scores from the first set of panels for draft alternative 3, the draft alternative on

which the final was based, and assessed effects of the departure of each design element from draft alternative 3.

The substantive departures from alternative 3 in the RSDEIS (USDA Forest Service

1996b) included:

1. Departures that decrease risk:

• A reduction in projected cut of old-growth acreage from about 571,000 to 474,000

acres over a 100-year timber rotation, with an associated reduction in building of

roads.

• A mechanism for controlling road access when necessary to protect wolves and

brown bears.

• An increase in spatially explicit reserves and the connectivity among reserves.

• More old-growth retention in timber LUDs.

• An increase in protected beach fringe from 500 to 1,000 feet.

• The removal of islands ≤1,000 acres from the timber base to increase protection

of small endemic mammals.

• A survey and manage standard that requires biological evaluations for “sensitive”

small mammals before timber harvest on islands ≤ 50,000 acres.

• An increase in protection of principal brown bear feeding areas along salmon

streams.

• An increase in the number of wild and scenic rivers.

• Increased “firmness” in the language of standards and guidelines.

66
2. Departures that increase risk:

• A reduction in protection of riparian systems (i.e., from riparian options 1 and 2

applied to Forest Habitat Integrity Program1 1 and 2 watersheds, respectively, to

a revised and improved option 2 Forest-wide).

• A reduction in the amount of timber harvested with prescriptions other then clearcutting from matrix lands between reserves (i.e., from 100 percent to an unknown

percentage in areas designated in green, yellow, and brown on the Forest plan

map; fig. 1, inside back cover).

• A decrease in protection levels for specific deer winter ranges.

The risk to wildlife viability from implementing draft alternative 3 was represented by

the sum of likelihood scores assigned to outcomes III, IV, and V combined in the first

set of panels (Swanston and others 1996). Conceptually, this sum represented the

view of the first set of panels that “not meeting well distributed” described populations

across the Forest of each of the six species or groups evaluated. Expected effects on

wildlife viability of implementing draft alternative 3 for 100 years differed among wildlife species but can be characterized through three discernible groups, based on the

first set of risk assessment panel likelihood scores: the marbled murrelet and the

Alexander Archipelago wolf, which each had >80-percent likelihood of maintaining

well-distributed populations across the planning area; the brown bear, American

marten, and northern goshawk, which had roughly a 50-50 distribution of mean likelihood scores; and endemic mammals, where at least one species had less than a

25-percent likelihood of maintaining well-distributed populations across the Tongass

National Forest (Swanston and others 1996).

Each of the significant changes (made to draft alternative 3 to develop the emerging

final alternative) independently affected risk to wildlife viability. How much each design

element influences wildlife viability, or more importantly, the cumulative effect of these

changes, is difficult to quantify.

Each projected departure in alternative elements differs in the manner and the extent

of its influence on the risk to viability of individual species. Each projected departure

also differs in its effect among different species. The change in riparian protection, for

example, primarily reduces the number of headwater buffers for class III streams; narrow strips of riparian timber associated with this change are of limited value to oldgrowth-associated wildlife species. The change from two-age timber management in

the matrix lands between reserves to primarily clearcutting may have some negative

affect on overall biodiversity, but the isolated clumps of old growth left by two-age

management likely would provide limited habitat features for some old-growthassociated species in the original alternative 3.

Although the TLMP scientists cannot ascribe numerical changes in risk (i.e., specific

likelihood scores) to wildlife viability associated with each change, the direction of

these changes in the emerging final alternative appeared to present an increase from

draft alternative 3 in the likelihood of wildlife populations meeting criteria for being

well-distributed. The reduction in total acres of old-growth forest scheduled to be cut

in the next 100 years and the associated reduction in new roads, increased oldgrowth forest area dedicated to reserves, increased protection of brown bear feeding

1 Forest Habitat Integrity Program (FHIP) defines highest quality watersheds for sport and

commercial fish.

67
areas, increased protection for small endemic mammals, and firmer standards and

guidelines are important factors that decrease risk to wildlife viability. For example,

reduction in total acres of productive old-growth scheduled to be harvested appeared

to correspond with increases in assigned likelihood scores of maintaining welldistributed populations among the species reviewed by the first set of panels (fig. 2),

probably because panelists used acres harvested as a surrogate for habitat loss

during the evaluation process.

The lines in figure 2 are a regression plot of mean, first-set panel scores for each

draft alternative. Without subjecting figure 2 to more analysis than is appropriate, and

assuming that panelists would have applied the same criteria in evaluating the emerging final alternative as they did in evaluating draft alternatives, it is reasonable to assume that had panelists rated the emerging final alternative, their mean scores would

have fallen between those assigned to draft alternatives 1 and 5. Following this logic,

combined mean scores for outcomes I and II (i.e., meeting the concept of welldistributed as distilled from the first set of panels) likely would fall between 81 and 94

Figure 2—Analysis of mean scores from the first set of risk assessment panels indicated a negative correlation between acres

of old-growth forest scheduled for harvest over the next 100 years in each draft alternative and the correspondingly assigned

likelihood scores for maintaining habitat sufficient to support well-distributed populations of selected wildlife species across the

Tongass. Partially from this relation, we estimated that the emerging final alternative, with 474,000 acres of productive

old-growth scheduled for harvest over the next 100 years, would fall between draft alternatives 1 and 5 in its likeilhood of

maintaining habitat sufficient to support well-distributed populations of various wildlife species.

68
for the Alexander Archipelago wolf, and between 74 and 98 for the Queen Charlotte

goshawk. Accordingly, we estimated that the emerging final alternative would have a

lower risk to wildlife viability than all draft alternatives except draft alternative 1; i.e.,

risk would fall between alternatives 1 and 5.

The original nine draft alternatives were consistently discernible as three groups relative to their likelihood of “meeting well-distributed” criteria for each wildlife species or

group (USDA Forest Service 1996b). Draft alternatives 1, 4, and 5 represented a

group that generally had the greatest likelihood of meeting criteria for well distributed,

whereas draft alternatives 2, 7, and 9 had the least likelihood of meeting these criteria. Draft alternative 3 was among a group, including alternatives 6 and 8, intermediate in their likelihood of meeting for criteria well distributed (USDA Forest Service

1996b). The emerging final alternative appears to fall within the first group that generally had the greatest likelihood of meeting well-distributed criteria.

Corroboration—Conducting the second set of risk assessment panels provided us

with an unexpected opportunity to examine further our evaluation of the risk level associated with the emerging final alternative. Considering that the second set of panels

further clarified their concepts of where within the outcomes habitat sufficient to support well-distributed populations is represented (generally within outcome III), our

estimated range of scores within which the emerging final alternative would fall was

similar to the results from the second set of risk assessment panels—the comparable

panel scores for well-distributed populations would be between 83 and 97 for the

Alexander Archipelago wolf and between 71 and 97 for the Queen Charlotte goshawk.

Our evaluation that the risk posed by the emerging final alternative to wildlife viability

would be lower than all draft alternatives except alternative 1 was only partially corroborated by results from the second set of panels. This evaluation was consistent

with panel scores for most species of fish, wolf, and endemic mammals—but not the

other species paneled. Rather, the panel results more closely paralleled our third generalization; namely that the emerging final alternative fell within a group with original

draft alternatives 1, 4, and 5—a group that had the greatest likelihood of meeting

criteria for well distributed.

Additional measures were added to the Forest plan after the second set of panel

evaluations. These measures were designed to further reduce the risk posed by the

Forest plan to wildlife viability, most specifically for the northern (Queen Charlotte)

goshawk and the American marten. Actions designed to improve connectivity among

blocks of old-growth forest, where needed, also were included. These measures are

discussed in the wildlife section in the body of this document, in the wildlife standards

and guidelines for the Forest plan (USDA Forest Service 1997a), and in appendix N

of the FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997b).

69
Everest, Fred H.; Swanston, Douglas N.; Shaw, Charles G., III; Smith,

Winston P.; Julin, Kent R.; Allen, Stewart D. 1997. Evaluation of the use

of scientific information in developing the 1997 Forest plan for the Tongass

National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-415. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 69 p.

(Shaw, Charles G., III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for

the Tongass land management plan revision).

How scientific information was used in making management decisions relative to

the Tongass land management plan was examined and evaluated on whether the

decisions were consistent with the available information. The final conclusion was

that the management decisions made in developing the final alternative achieved a

relatively high degree of consistency with the available scientific information.

Keywords: Tongass National Forest, forest management, land management planning,

science evaluation, science policy

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 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis

of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250,

or call (800) 245-6340 (voice), or (202) 720-1127 (TDD).

USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

do NOT detach label