* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download American Marten Conservation Strategy for the Huron
Survey
Document related concepts
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Conservation psychology wikipedia , lookup
Wildlife crossing wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Wildlife corridor wikipedia , lookup
Old-growth forest wikipedia , lookup
Source–sink dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Tropical Africa wikipedia , lookup
Reforestation wikipedia , lookup
Private landowner assistance program wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Habitat destruction wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
American Marten Conservation Strategy for the Huron-Manistee National Forests REVISION 1 HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS LOWER PENINSULA - MICHIGAN JANUARY 1996 MARTEN CONSERVATION STRATEGY HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS LOWER PENINSULA – MICHIGAN Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 4 PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 6 1 Life History..................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Continental Range .................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Reproduction ........................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Food Habits ........................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Migration................................................................................................................ 10 1.6 Habitat Ecology ..................................................................................................... 10 1.7 Population Ecology ............................................................................................... 12 1.8 Survey Methods .................................................................................................... 15 2 Conservation Strategy Background........................................................................................ 16 2.1 Status and Distribution .......................................................................................... 16 2.2 Reintroductions in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan............................................ 16 2.3 Huron-Manistee National Forests' LRMP: Direction for Marten Management ..... 17 3 Conservation Strategy ............................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Existing Population ............................................................................................... 18 3.2 Existing and Potential Habitat ............................................................................... 18 3.3 Recovery Strategy ................................................................................................. 20 3.3.1 Recovery Objective ................................................................................... 20 3.3.2 Recovery Outline ....................................................................................... 21 3.4 Management Guidelines ....................................................................................... 23 3.5 Recovery Time Line .............................................................................................. 24 References Cited ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix 1: List of Opportunity Analysis Areas ................................................................................ 31 Appendix 2: Marten Habitat Areas - Primary and Secondary .......................................................... 33 Appendix 3: Management Guideline References .............................................................................. 34 Appendix 4: Maps of Release Areas .................................................................................................... 36 2 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 List of Tables Table 1. Amounts of primary and secondary marten habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. .......................................................................................................................... 20 Table 2. Stand Management Guidelines. ..................................................................................... 23 Table 3. Management Area Guidelines. ....................................................................................... 24 List of Figures Figure 1. Historical range of marten in North America (Hagmeier 1956) ....................................... 9 Figure 2. Past marten release areas in northern lower Michigan. ................................................ 17 Figure 3. Major barriers to marten dispersal in northern lower Michigan. .................................... 19 3 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Huron-Manistee National Forests' Conservation Strategy describes the management actions recommended to contribute to the recovery and long term survival of the marten (Martes americana). The primary goal is to reestablish a viable population on National Forest system lands in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The secondary goal is to assist in the recovery of the species throughout suitable habitats within its former range in Michigan. A viable population of 400 animals on the Huron-Manistee National Forests is the goal. The logging boom and uncontrolled trapping during the 19th and 20th centuries combined to lead to the extirpation of the marten from the Lower Peninsula of Michigan in 1911. After reintroduction attempts between 1985-1986, there is an estimated population of 180 animals in the Lower Peninsula. The Conservation Strategy document is divided into three parts: 1. Life History. Includes physical description, distribution, and ecology of the marten. 2. Background of the Conservation Strategy. Describes the historical and current events and status of the marten in the Great Lakes area. Reflects the management direction in the Huron-Manistee Land and Resource Management Plan. 3. Conservation Strategy. Details information on existing population, existing and potential habitat, objectives, recovery and reintroduction efforts, management recommendations and guidelines, and time line of events. Evaluation of the marten's status will be ongoing. "The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: 'what good is it?' If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of eons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering." - Aldo Leopold 4 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 PREFACE This Conservation Strategy was prepared by the biological staff of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The strategy will be revised as necessary to incorporate new techniques and facts. Goals and objectives will be modified as tasks are completed or as priorities and budgetary constraints require. We wish to thank the Huron-Manistee National Forests' staff and Richard Earle, furbearer biologist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, who commented on the earlier draft of this document. Additional copies may be obtained from: Huron-Manistee National Forests 1755 S. Mitchell Street Cadillac, MI 49601 (231) 775-2421 5 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Introduction Before the European settlement of Michigan in the early 1800's, marten (Martes americana) existed throughout the state (Baker 1983). With the rapid increase in human population, and the resulting timber harvest and wildfires, much of the state was deforested by the early 1900's (Brewer 1991). Human population increased from 8,765 in 1820 to 398,000 in 1850. Timber harvest peaked in 1890 and by 1897 over 162 billion board feet of timber had been cut, which amounted to about 29,100 square miles or about half the state being impacted. Forest fires swept through large areas of Michigan, fueled by drought conditions and the accumulation of slash from the logged-over lands. For example, in 1871 over 4,000 square miles were burned and in 1881 over 1,500 square miles were burned. The extirpation of the marten in Michigan began with the earliest, uncontrolled fur harvest for export to Europe and eastern United States, and ended with the virtual deforestation of Michigan by the early 1900's. The last marten documented from the Lower Peninsula (LP) of Michigan was from Montmorency County in 1911 (Baker 1983). Martens were reintroduced to the LP, after an absence of about 75 years, with releases in the Pigeon River State Forest (PRSF) in 1985 and the Huron-Manistee National Forests (HMNF) and Pere Marquette State Forest (PMSF) in 1986. This cooperative effort between the HMNF, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources was initiated with the objective of reestablishing the marten to suitable habitat in portions of its former range in the northern LP (Irvine 1989). Reintroductions of this species to former habitats in North America have been extensive and largely successful (Slough 1994). Public support for these efforts was usually present, ranging from interests in future trapping to restoration of a wilderness component. During the planning process for the HMNFs’ Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), public participation stressed that the reintroduction of species that were once native to this National Forest was a high priority (USDA 1986b). The LRMP was required by federal regulations in the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The National Forest Management Act specifies that the Forest Service manages for a diversity of plant and animal communities and maintain viable populations of all native and desired nonnative vertebrates. The LRMP furthers this mandate by listing the marten as a HMNFs' sensitive species, specifying research needs in monitoring and habitat requirements, establishing areas for habitat improvement, and recommending areas for future introductions. Resource managers with the HMNF have followed this direction by monitoring the population status of the marten, monitoring impacts from management activities, and maintaining or improving habitat since their reintroduction. The Huron-Manistee National Forests are generally comprised of a maturing forest ecosystem(s) in the process of restoration from the catastrophic events (extensive deforestation and wildfire) of the past. It is a forested system that is moving through successional forces to achieve diversity and complexity (maturity). It is also a dynamically changing system because of disturbances such as fire, insects, disease, and human activity that are occurring constantly in varying magnitudes. Natural disturbances (fire for example) are beneficial to biodiversity and ecosystem functions, while artificial disturbances (human activities) can have the most devastating effects (Nigh et al. 1992, Hansen et al. 1991). Forest fragmentation, the patchwork conversion and development of forests 6 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 that leaves the remaining forest in varying sizes and degrees of isolation (Harris 1984), is a major concern in ecosystem management and biodiversity. The ever increasing human population and corresponding development pressures (expanding residential areas, golf courses, roads, etc.) are the major causes of fragmentation. These artificial developments have drastic effects to forest systems because they act much more rapidly and more radically than most natural processes (Nigh et al. 1992). Properly planned management activities can allow specific communities and attributes to be arranged spatially on a shifting mosaic, compensating for a variety of disturbances (Harris 1984, Bissonette et al. 1989, Hunter 1990). Activities such as timber harvest, designation of future old growth areas, wildlife and fisheries habitat improvement, land acquisition, and the protection/management of endangered, threatened, and sensitive (ETS) species are being used in the ecological restoration of the HMNF. Simultaneously, wood products, recreational areas, aesthetics, etc. can be provided for human needs. However, management for wildlife species that have large home ranges and utilize large landscapes will always be challenging. The marten fits this description as does the black bear (Ursus americanus) (Rogers 1987), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Bowerman and Giesy 1991), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) (Reynolds et al. 1991), among others. The marten reintroduction success and future restoration of the species into other suitable habitats in the LP can be an indicator of the success of ecosystem management and philosophy. This marten conservation strategy was developed to consolidate information on the marten that would be useful to resource managers on the HMNF. The information will be of benefit in planning, biological evaluations, environmental assessments, management decisions, etc. It documents the marten's life history, historical status and distribution, current status and distribution in the LP, potential habitat and release areas, a recovery objective, management recommendations, and references. It is hoped these recommendations will guide the future restoration activities and management actions affecting the marten in Michigan. 7 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 1 Life History 1.1 Description The marten is a carnivorous mammal, a member of the weasel family (Mustelidae), and one of seven species in the genus Martes (Buskirk 1994). Its coloration varies from individual to individual, but its coat is generally characterized by a rich golden brown, darkening to black on the extremities of the tail and legs, and fading to gray around the face. A patch of creamy-orange blaze is found about the throat and chest. The marten has a broad, triangular-shaped head ending in a small black, pointed nose with black eyes and rounded ears. The size of the marten is similar to that of a slender, small house cat or a full-bodied mink. The total length of the marten is between 500 and 680 mm (19.6-26.8 inches) and weighs 500 -1400 g (1.1-3.1 lbs) as an adult, depending on sex and geographic location. The male is 20-40% larger than the female. The long, bushy, cylindrical tail is about one-third of the animal's length. The closest relative of the marten in North America is the fisher (M. pennanti). General descriptions of marten characteristics and biology can be found in Allen (1982), Strickland et al. (1982), Baker (1983), Earle (1983), Strickland and Douglas (1983), Buskirk and Ruggiero (1994), and Poole et al. (1994). 1.2 Continental Range The marten is primarily an inhabitant in boreal coniferous forests of North America in a belt from Newfoundland to New England on the east, westward to Alaska and south to northern California (Hagmeier 1956, Strickland et. al. 1982, Baker 1983, Gibilisco 1994) (Figure 1). 8 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Figure 1. Historical range of marten in North America (Hagmeier 1956) 1.3 Reproduction Courtship and mating take place in late summer during July and August (Strickland et al. 1982). Both sexes are polygamous. The actual copulation act may last up to 75-90 minutes, and resembles a wrestling bout with purring, growling, or chuckling noises being emitted from the participants. The young are born 220-275 days after mating. Delayed implantation of blastocysts occupies most of this time, with the period of active pregnancy lasting about 28 days (Baker 1983). In late March or April, 1-5 young (average litter size 2.85) are born weighing about 1 ounce. Sex ratios at birth are generally 1:1 (Strickland et al. 1982). The young disperse to find their own home ranges at the end of the summer, but do not reach sexual maturity until their second or third summer. The mean dispersal distance for juveniles in Maine was 12 km (7.5 miles) (Phillips 1994). The average natural life span of a marten is about 5-6 years (maximum reported 14.5 years) in the wild. 9 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 1.4 Food Habits Martens consume a variety of food items throughout the year (Strickland et al. 1982, Martin 1994). The most important food items across their range consisted of voles (Microtus spp. and Clethrionomys spp.). Vegetation (fruit, berries, nuts, fungi, grass, etc.) was also an important diet item. Birds, insects, shrews, mice, eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus), red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), flying squirrels (Glaucomys spp.), snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), fish, and carrion are all locally common choices. In Michigan, winter food habits consisted of largely small mammals (shrews, mice, voles, and squirrels) (Schumaker 1993). Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), and snowshoe hares were eaten only occasionally. Most marten hunting takes place on the ground, but the semi-retractable claws makes pursuit of prey in trees possible. Food caching has been documented (Henry et al. 1990). Economic losses due to martens are extremely rare (Buskirk 1994). 1.5 Migration Martens do not migrate (Giek 1986). They stay in their home ranges throughout the year, with seasonal variations common (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Incidents of home range abandonment have been noted in females during times of stress from high populations (Phillips 1994) and during periods of low prey numbers (Fredrickson 1990). Juveniles disperse from their mothers in the fall to establish their own territories (Strickland et al. 1982). Recently documented occurrences from the HMNF reintroduction reflect an individual dispersal distance of up to 35.4 km (22 miles) from the release point (Irvine 1994). 1.6 Habitat Ecology The marten, along with its close relative the fisher, appears to be among the most habitatspecialized mammals in North America (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Many biologists consider the marten to be an old growth obligatory species (Allen 1982, Bissonette et al. 1989, Buskirk et al. 1989, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Thompson 1994, Thompson and Harestad 1994). While martens prefer old growth forests or old growth dominated forest mosaics, they are adaptable to a variety of forest habitats (Souitere 1979, Strickland et al. 1982, Irvine 1994). Population densities and production are generally higher within old growth forests (Thompson 1994, Thompson and Colgan 1994). The reasons for the marten's preference for old growth forests probably are related to predator avoidance, special habitat features, and prey abundance (Steventon and Major 1982, Hargis and McCullough 1984, Bissonette et al. 1989, Thompson 1994, Thompson and Colgan 1994, Thompson and Harestad 1994). Martens may prefer to inhabit forests with mature canopies that provide protection from avian predators. Mature forests are used less frequently by predators such as the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) (Baker 1983, Carpenter 1991). Old forests provide coarse woody debris (CWD) and large diameter trees needed for winter resting, natal and maternal denning, and subnivean access for hunting small mammals. Foraging success for marten is 21-119% greater in old growth stands compared to a successional forest. Martens are associated most often with dense, multi-storied, multi-species, mature, conifer dominated forests with considerable woody debris and den tree components (Allen 1982, Freel 1991, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Thompson and Harestad 1994). In the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest, martens are closely associated with high elevation spruce-fir forests (Picea and 10 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Abies) (Allen 1982, Buskirk and Powell 1994). In Minnesota, the conifer dominated or mixed forests were preferred, with the most common conifer species being balsam fir (Abies balsamea) (Allen 1982, Berg and Kuehn 1994). Martens in Maine prefer conifer dominated mixed stands with red spruce (Picea rubens) and balsam fir (Souitere 1979). And while martens in Ontario utilize spruce-fir forests, they also prefer forests with a high proportion of hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) (Strickland et al. 1982). Martens prefer dense canopied stands with complex vertical diversity. Optimal conditions for canopy closure are 50% or greater (Allen 1982, Buskirk and Powell 1994). Stands with canopies of <30% are likely not to support marten populations (Thompson and Harestad 1994, Spencer et al. 1983). Vertical diversity should approach the maximum for the geographic area. Three or four layers plus a shrub layer are ideal (Freel 1991, Thompson 1994, Thompson and Harestad 1994). Large quantities of CWD, snags, and den trees are important components of marten habitat. A ground surface covered by CWD ranging from 20-50% is assumed to be optimal (Allen 1982). Freel (1991) recommends a minimum of four downed trees or logs per ha (10 per acre) with the optimal conditions being >8 per ha (20 per acre), >38 cm (15 inches) dbh and 4.6 m (15 feet) long. Allen (1982) stated that ground surface coverage by downfall probably has the least influence in winter marten habitat selection, but it does influence optimal conditions. Excessive amounts of downfall (>50%) are assumed to decrease availability of prey. Thompson and Colgan (1994) also stated that CWD may not be a limiting factor for marten hunting in boreal forests. Other authors have disparate views, contending that CWD is a limiting factor (Steventon and Major 1982, Corn and Raphael 1992, Sherburne and Bissonette 1994). CWD is the preferred source of subnivean resting sites for martens, particularly in the coldest weather as it provides greater thermal protection than sites above the snow surface (Buskirk et al. 1989). Bateman (1986) states that CWD is important habitat for marten prey species. Snags and den trees are important for marten prey habitat, natal and maternal denning, and future CWD. Freel (1991) recommends snag densities of >2.4/ha (six per acre) with >1.2/ha (three per acre) greater than 61 cm (24 inches) dbh and den tree densities of >6 per ha (15 per acre) with >2.4/ha (6/acre) over 61 cm (24 inches) dbh. Snag and den trees over 61 cm (24 inches) dbh are required for natal denning. Fragmentation of mature or old growth forest habitat can have serious implications for the marten. Timber harvest, particularly clearcutting, is the major factor affecting marten habitat across its range. Martens avoid recent clearcuts (Soutiere 1979, Steventon and Major 1982, Fredrickson 1990). Regenerating clearcuts up to 45 years of age supported 0-33% of the population levels of an uncut forest (Soutiere 1979). The only consistent use of martens in 10-40 year old forests were by younger animals, but no reproduction was noted due to the high predation and trapping rates (Thompson 1994). Martens may use small clearcuts or the edges of larger clearcuts in the summer while foraging for raspberries (Rubus spp.)(Steventon and Major 1982). Clearcutting large areas of habitat will reduce marten populations. Soutiere (1979) found a 67% reduction in marten populations with a 60% removal of timber by clearcuts in Maine. Thompson (1994) discovered a 90% reduction of martens with a 90% removal of timber in Ontario. Thompson and Harestad (1994) state that a 20-30% removal or more of the timber by clearcuts causes a rapid decline in marten populations and at the 50% removal level, a minimum viable population (MVP) may not remain. Clearcutting in boreal forests also causes a future reduction in marten habitat by converting conifer forest to deciduous forest types, which will not support as many martens (Thompson and Harestad 1994). If clearcutting will be used in areas of marten habitat, it is recommended to cut in small blocks at reduced scale, leave uncut islands of conifers, and retain large amounts of CWD (Soutiere 1979, Steventon and Major 1982, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Thompson and Harestad 1994). Clearcuts should be avoided in areas essential to threatened populations of the marten (Soutiere 1979). Selective logging or thinning appears to have little or no effects on marten populations 11 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 (Soutiere 1979, Steventon and Major 1982). Soutiere (1979) recommends leaving at least a residual stand of 20-25 square meters/ha (87-109 square feet/acre) basal area (BA) in larger trees to provide suitable habitat. Thompson and Harestad (1994) recommend a removal of <30% of the BA every 50 years in order maintain habitat. Large openings, open burned areas, or non-forested areas will restrict or serve as barriers to marten movement and dispersal (Koehler and Hornocker 1977, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). These include clearcuts, wildlife openings, grasslands, agricultural areas, residential and urban areas, expressways, and bare ground or rock. Over 5 km (3.1 miles) of treeless land acts as a complete barrier to marten dispersal (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Martens have been noted to avoid openings primarily in the winter. Observations of one marten crossing a 300-meter (984 ft) opening in the winter has been noted (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Summer use of openings occurs more often and at longer distances. Martens have been noted to travel up to 3 km (1.9 miles) across talus fields in the summer in search of prey (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Open areas with structure, particularly CWD or rocks, will be used as this material seems to substitute partially for overhead forest canopy. However, some individual marten will not cross or use open areas at all, so this use is not standard across the range (Spencer et al. 1983). Travel corridors of forested habitat are important for marten population dynamics (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Travel corridors maintain the connectivity between habitat areas, counter fragmentation effects, and allow dispersal (McEuen 1993, Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Documented use of corridors by dispersing juvenile cougars has occurred in fragmented habitats in California (Beier 1995). Buskirk and Powell (1994) state that martens will travel through forested corridors, even ones that are not the preferred forest type. Riparian areas or corridors are important marten travel ways (Freel 1991, Buskirk and Powell 1994). Freel (1991) suggests that the optimum corridor width should be >183 meters (600 ft) with the minimum width acceptable as >61 meters (200 ft). 1.7 Population Ecology Population densities of the marten are generally low across their range compared to other similar sized mammals (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Martens have their highest population densities in the late successional contiguous forests. Populations are the most threatened in disjunct areas, particularly on the southern fringe of its range. Isolated populations are the result of islands, mountains, and human caused fragmentation of formerly contiguous habitat. Martens on Cape Briton Island, Nova Scotia, are considered extinct, and in Newfoundland they are officially threatened. Marten populations have been lost in the Tobacco Root Mountains of Montana. Major losses have occurred in the coastal range forests of Washington, Oregon, and northern California, including the possible extinction of the subspecies M. a. humboldtensis. Stable marten densities have been observed across its range of 0.4-1.2 animals/km2 (1-3.1 animals/square mile) (Strickland et al. 1982, Hargis and McCullough 1984, Thompson 1994). Freel (1991) and Powell (1994) summarized marten home range data as reported in various studies. A summary of 13 studies showed that males have home ranges that varying from 1.7-15.0 km2 (4223706 acres) with a mean of 5.3 km2 (1312 acres) and females from 0.7-8.3 km2 (173-2048 acres) with a mean of 3.3 km2 (808 acres). Soutier (1979) found home ranges of martens in Maine as 4.4 km2 (1088 acres; n=81) for males and 2.3 km2 (576 acres; n=42) for females. This study has the largest sample size. In Minnesota, Mech and Rogers (1977) found home ranges of males to be 15.6 km2 (3853 acres) and females 4.3 km2 (1062 acres). Martens consistently exhibit intra-sexual 12 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 territoriality, where individuals maintain territories only with respect to others of the same sex. Male territories may overlap one or more females. Marten home ranges vary greatly in part due to study methods and true variation. There appears to be no geographic pattern or correlation with latitude (Buskirk and McDonald 1989). However, Thompson and Colgan (1994) reported that unharvested populations fluctuated greatly in response to prey availability; home ranges were smallest in old forests with high prey populations and greatest in recently logged forests when prey populations were low. Allen (1982) and Strickland et al. (1982) also felt that food availability is probably the most important factor affecting the distribution and density of martens. 13 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 MVP and the necessary suitable habitat to support a MVP are important considerations in the management of the marten, in particular where a limited amount of suitable habitat exists. A MVP means the smallest isolated population that will exist over a designated period of time. Current literature reflects that 50 pairs of a species are needed to establish a short-term (50 years) MVP and 500 pairs to establish a long-term (1,000 years) MVP (Franklin 1980, Wilcox et al. 1986, Soule 1987). Thompson and Harestad (1994) calculated a MVP for marten over the short-term of 237 individuals. This estimate was based on a minimum effective population size of 50, adjusting for reproductive capabilities and population fluctuation. Lacy and Clark (1993) showed that marten populations of 100 animals or less, with no immigration, whether timber harvest or trapping was present or not, had a high probability of extinction in 100 years. Recovery of diminished or threatened populations of martens or movement into new or extirpated habitat occurs slowly. This is largely due to the reproductive capabilities (prolonged period to sexual maturity and low yearly reproductive output) (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994), high juvenile mortality rates (Phillips 1994), and dispersal of juveniles. Trapping can greatly affect marten populations. Historically, trapping contributed to the decline or extirpation of the marten, especially in the north-central United States and eastern Canada. Current legal trapping efforts are largely guided by the goal of sustained yields (Strickland 1994), but can reduce population densities, cause a loss of genetic variation, and alter age/sex ratios (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, Strickland 1994). Conservative trapping regulations are recommended for this species as they may be easily over-harvested (Hodgman et al. 1994). Forestry practices may compound this problem by reducing habitat quality and increasing accessibility of trappers via forest roads. They are also easy to trap and have high pelt values. Regulation of current harvests is controlled by licensing of trappers, designation of specific trapping seasons, harvest limits, selective trapping, and refuges (Strickland 1994). Indirectly, trapping pressure is also influenced by fur popularity. Economic return from recreational trapping activity and pelt prices may be an important value in the conservation of marten habitat, as these values may approach or exceed timber values in certain locations (Adamowicz and Condon 1995). Biological information can be gathered from harvests, such as distribution, diets, and population demographics (Strickland 1994). Martens are currently legally trapped in ten Canadian provinces and 11 states. The mean annual harvest of martens in North America in the 1980's was 192,000 (Strickland 1994). Other concerns related to trapping include: accidental trapping of martens while targeting other species, wounding losses estimated to be 12% of the legal harvest in Ontario (Strickland 1994), and illegal harvest estimated to be 22% of the legal harvest in Minnesota (Strickland 1994). Other sources of mortality include predation, disease, starvation, and accidental deaths (Strickland et al. 1982, Strickland and Douglas 1983, Fredrickson 1990, Phillips 1994, Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). The marten has few natural enemies, besides people. Scattered reports of predation are documented by coyote (Canis latrans), fisher, red fox, lynx (Lynx canadensis), cougar (Felis concolor), bald eagle, golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetus), and great horned owl. Disease and parasites have not been significant mortality factors. Incidents of toxoplasmosis, Aleutian disease, and canine distemper have been noted. Starvation can be a significant factor with the marten since this occurs more often in females. Accidental deaths, particularly highway deaths, could be a major factor in some populations. Marten populations that occur in fragmented landscapes, with increasing human populations, would be more susceptible to predation, disease, and accidental deaths. Reintroductions of martens to former habitats and new range have been conducted since about 1934 (Slough 1994). Slough (1994) summarizes the results of 38 reintroductions and nine introductions in North America. At least 27 marten populations have established self-sustaining 14 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 numbers, and six of these have been harvested. The factors most clearly identified with the success of these translocations were habitat qualities of release areas and the number of martens released. Slough (1989, 1994) recommends translocations of no fewer than 50 martens of an even sex ratio and suitable habitat available to support a population of 500 animals for long-term success. 1.8 Survey Methods Techniques for monitoring marten habitat and populations are discussed in Raphael (1993, 1994) and Jones and Raphael (1993). Habitat suitability index (HSI) models have been developed by Allen (1982). Population indexes have been conducted using harvest records, live-trapping, snow track transects, sooted track plates, hair snares, and cameras. 15 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 2 Conservation Strategy Background 2.1 Status and Distribution The North American marten population reached its lowest level in the early 1940's, and then began a slow recovery process as reforestation, forest fire control, and better fish and game law protection improved forest conditions. Many reintroductions and a judicious regulation of trapping have enabled marten populations to recover in many parts of their historical range. Martens were formerly found throughout most of the Great Lakes region, including all of Ontario; nearly all of Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York; about half of Ohio, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania; and the northern tips of Illinois and Indiana (Gibilisco 1994). Martens are currently extirpated from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Martens were probably extirpated from Minnesota in the late-1920's but movement of martens from adjacent native populations in Canada helped recover the population (Berg and Kuehn 1994). Marten trapping resumed in Minnesota in 1985. In Wisconsin, martens were extirpated in 1925 and returned to the state by restocking from 1975 to 1983 (Gieck 1986). They are currently listed as an endangered species in Wisconsin (Gieck 1986). In Michigan, martens were historically found throughout both peninsulas. Baker (1983) cites counties throughout Michigan where specific accounts of individuals have been recorded. The statewide logging boom of the nineteenth century, agriculture and uncontrolled trapping during the 19th and early 20th centuries combined to eliminate the marten from its former range in Michigan. The last known sightings were in 1911 in Montmorency County in the LP and 1939 in Marquette County in the Upper Peninsula. Reintroductions were made in the UP in 1955-1957 (unsuccessful), 1968-1970, 1979-1980, and 1989 (Deblaay 1980, Slough 1995). In the LP, reintroductions occurred in 1985-1986. The marten is currently classified as "threatened" by the State of Michigan under the Endangered Species Act of 1974. In Michigan, martens are currently protected by state law from harvest. Current populations within the Upper Peninsula of Michigan may be nearing levels in which limited harvest may occur. The marten is not currently listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. Within the National Forest System, Regions 2 and 5 have placed the marten on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species lists (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). National Forests in Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 have listed the marten as Forest Sensitive Species and all Regions have National Forests within them listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS). Within the State of Michigan, the HMNF lists the marten as a Forests' Sensitive Species, the Hiawatha National Forest's ranking is a MIS and a Sensitive Species, and the Ottawa National Forest is a Sensitive Species. 2.2 Reintroductions in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan Martens were reintroduced to the northern lower peninsula of Michigan in 1985-1986 when the MDNR and the HMNF cooperated to release 85 martens at three locations. Forty-nine martens were released in Pigeon River State Forest during the fall of 1985. Thirty-six martens were released on the Manistee National Forest and the adjacent Pere Marquette State Forest (PMSF) during the winter of 1986 (Figure 2). These animals were obtained from the Chapleau Game Preserve in Ontario, Canada, under permit from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 16 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Figure 2. Past marten release areas in northern lower Michigan. 2.3 Huron-Manistee National Forests' LRMP: Direction for Marten Management The HMNFs' LRMP guides all natural resource management activities (USDA 1986b). The purpose of the plan is to provide direction for multiple use management and the sustained yield of goods and services. Emphasis on the wildlife resource is one of the LRMP's major objectives. Public participation into the planning process confirmed that wildlife issues were important. The reintroduction of extirpated species to the HMNF was identified as an opportunity, particularly for the marten. The LRMP specifically lists areas of marten habitat, areas for future reintroductions, research needs in monitoring and habitat requirements, and that the marten is a sensitive species. Opportunity Area (OA) analysis is the means that more specific management recommendations are developed for smaller areas of the HMNF, guided by the LRMP. Management of marten habitat and the future reintroduction of this species have been addressed in thirteen Opportunity Area plans on the Cadillac, Manistee, Mio, and Huron Shores Ranger Districts on the HMNF. These OA's are listed in Appendix 1 and identify whether they contain existing populations, potential habitat, and/or potential release sites. Management direction is also discussed. 17 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 3 Conservation Strategy 3.1 Existing Population There are currently two known reproducing populations of martens in the lower peninsula of Michigan, approximately 129 km (80 miles) apart. There has been no known interbreeding between these populations, but records of dispersing individuals would suggest the likelihood of that occurring. Monitoring efforts have shown the populations to be progressing favorably. G. William Irvine, an independent wildlife biologist and retired Forests' biologist for the HMNF, has collected data from the Cadillac Ranger District (HMNF) and the PMSF, indicating that there are 100 martens in or adjacent to the original release area (Irvine 1990). Richard Earle, MDNR biologist, estimates the Pigeon River State Forest population to be at approximately 40-80 animals (Earle 1992). Monitoring efforts since the 1986 release on the Manistee National Forest have included: bait station track survey (1987), track survey routes (1989-1994), trapping with mark/recapture (1989-1990), and habitat data collection (1991-1992) (Irvine 1989, 1994 and Ekstrum 1991, 1994). The surveys have shown that: 1) a population estimated to be approximately 100 animals exists within and adjacent to the initial release area, 2) martens are reproducing, 3) until 1989, some original release animals survived and remained in the release sites, 4) existing populations are expanding, in general, to fill the size of the habitat found at the initial release sites, and 5) preliminary habitat requirements have been discussed. 3.2 Existing and Potential Habitat Habitat for the marten in Michigan has changed significantly since presettlement times. Marten habitat currently occurs in the large blocks of continuous forest found in the northern half of the LP. This habitat is isolated from other known marten populations, such as those in Michigan's UP, Wisconsin, and Ontario, by the Great Lakes, and the extensive areas of human development in the southern LP. Within the northern LP, areas of existing or potential habitat may be isolated by large rivers, major transportation systems, extensive areas of farmland, residential and commercial developments, and areas of regenerating forest (Figure 3). The opportunity for successful reintroduction of marten and utilization of the majority of existing habitat in the LP is more likely to develop from areas like the HMNF where there are fewer barriers and natural dispersal to other suitable habitats can occur. For this to occur, a healthy population needs to be established on the HMNF. 18 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Figure 3. Major barriers to marten dispersal in northern lower Michigan. The existing condition of the HMNF shows a total national forest ownership of 390,707 ha (964,709 acres) (USDA 1986b). The total gross acreage of the HMNF is 820,436 ha (2,025,769 acres) (lands within the boundary), of which 48% is in National Forest ownership. The fragmentation of ownership, particularly in the southern Manistee National Forest, is an important concern for wildlife species that require large landscapes such as the marten. About 162,000 ha (400,000 acres) (41%) of the total National Forest lands are over age fifty years of age considered as maturing to mature types or potentially suitable habitat. Only a small percentage of the total is over 100 years old which means there is little old growth existing on National Forest lands. As of 1993, the HMNF has designated approximately 74,925 ha (185,000 acres) as candidate old growth forest (HMNF 1993). Management Areas (MA) 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 8.1 are likely to have suitable habitat, as these MA's tend to be larger areas of contiguous forest. These MA's amount to a total of 320,801 ha (792,101) acres or 82% of the total National Forest lands. Like most other lands in the LP, the HMNF is recovering from the era of extensive deforestation and wild fire that occurred in the late 1800's and early 1900's and it is considered a fairly "young" forest. Currently the conifer and hardwood stands on the HMNF that are suitable habitat for the marten are 50-100 years old. The LRMP predicts that by the year 2035 approximately 143,370 ha (354,000 acres) will be designated as old growth or candidate old growth. Marten habitat should substantially improve across the HMNF as future growth, maturation of forest stands, and coordinated management enhances the structural characteristics of the stands. Land acquisition that solidifies large contiguous blocks of habitat and travel corridors may occur over time and will be a major factor in establishing the marten in the LP. 19 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 3.3 Recovery Strategy 3.3.1 Recovery Objective The primary goal is to reestablish the marten as a self-sustaining species throughout suitable habitats on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The secondary goal is to assist in the recovery of the species throughout suitable habitats within its former range. To meet the goals of this plan, it is essential to establish a viable population that will sustain itself over time on the HMNF. The Huron-Manistee National Forests has set a viability goal of 400 martens, 200 on each forest. This goal is similar to that in the Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin of 300 animals (Gieck 1986). A population of approximately 100 martens currently exists on the Manistee National Forest and the adjacent PMSF. Martens are presumed not to be present in viable numbers on the Huron National Forest. Extensive suitable habitat is available on the HMNF that could support a new or expanding population. The wildlife staff on the HMNF has identified key habitat areas for martens that will maintain existing populations, provide for future release sites, and provide for expansion populations. These are primary and secondary habitat areas (Table 1). See Appendix 2 for vicinity map of these areas. These habitat areas may be adjusted through further analysis (such as Opportunity Area analysis) to consider management objectives and ecosystems. Table 1. Amounts of primary and secondary marten habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Ranger District Cadillac Manistee Baldwin/WC Huron Shores Mio Total: Primary Secondary 11,484 8,807 6,491 30,649 4,099 61,530 8,165 10,182 41,047 2,869 16,020 78,283 Total 19,649 18,989 47,538 33,518 20,119 139,813 Implementation of all elements of this recovery strategy will be based upon prioritization as identified in the Recovery Outline and with available funding of each item. 20 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 3.3.2 Recovery Outline 1) Protect, enhance, and increase marten populations and habitats. 1.1 Manage populations. Management recommendations should be provided by OA or by habitat area. 1.11 Protect and enhance existing pine marten populations. 1.111 Continue vegetative management according to the LRMP. Modify within an interdisciplinary framework to include recommendations in this strategy. 1.112 Work with MDNR, conservation organizations, and trappers to provide continued protection of martens. 1.113 Promote research projects on marten ecology. 1.12 Release /establish populations on the HMNF to utilize existing habitat and provide genetic variability. 1.121 Inform interested and concerned publics of the release efforts and the reasons for this effort. Determine attitudes in the selected release areas. 1.122 Obtain martens from nearby viable populations. Sources will be varied, if possible, insure genetic diversity. Agencies will be contacted in this state, nearby states, and/or provinces to determine the availability of animals. 1.123 Deliver martens to specific release sites. The shortest and most direct route and method of transportation will be arranged. The animals will be marked either through ear tags or tattoos - before they are transported to the release site(s). Radio collars can be placed on some animals to determine movements and home range sizes. 1.124 Use non-traumatic release technique when feasible. Gentle-release was determined to be the most efficient method of release. Supplying one to two day food sources also allows the marten to become accustomed to its new surroundings. An attempt will be made to release the animals in October January. 1.2 Protect and manage habitats. 1.21 Encourage habitat management compatible with marten ecology (see section on Management Recommendations and Guidelines, pg. 12) 1.22 Promote silvicultural practices that provide adequate distribution and age classes of conifer and hardwood. 21 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 1.23 Discourage development and destruction, disturbance, or modification of habitat that might reduce marten populations. 1.24 Develop and implement management plans for potential or degraded habitats. 1.25 Acquire lands that provide for the future of marten habitat. 2) Monitor current population and habitat status. 2.1 Monitor population trend, distribution, and dynamics on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Monitoring has already been initiated on the Manistee National Forest to estimate population size and preferred habitat locations. Further monitoring is needed to update population trend information, home range sizes, and evaluate the success of future releases in this area. This monitoring would also solidify current habitat preference opinions and provide additional insights. 2.11 Annually map and inventory the location of martens. This survey provides an important index into the size and distribution of the population. Winter track counts, live trapping, and direct observations are current methods of inventory. Track counts should be conducted annually, mark and recapture every three years, and direct observations annually. In addition, radio telemetry and incidental mortality information from road kills, trappers, etc. should be collected. 2.12 Monitor prey population trends. The population fluctuations of small mammals generally affect the productivity and survival of their predators. A distribution and movement of martens will be determined by changes in the marten's food resource. Live trapping of small rodents will be the technique used to determine trends in these species. This should be initially done within five years. 2.2 Identify essential marten habitat. Coordinate with other government agencies and institutions to develop a habitat suitability index for the marten in the LP of Michigan. 2.21 Assess attributes of occupied habitat, including prey resources. In addition to the data collected on population size and distribution, inventories will be done on occupied habitat to assess important characteristics. This information will continue to be gathered throughout the recovery process. Items to consider include denning sites, canopy closure, down woody material, prey habitat, and vegetative preferences. 2.22 Identify and evaluate unoccupied habitat that appears suitable. Features of historic and potential sites should be compared with characteristics of occupied habitats to determine the presence/absence of key features. Providing missing elements may be feasible in some situations. 2.23 Develop a habitat suitability index module (HSI). Plans are currently underway to work together with Michigan Department of Natural Resources to develop a HSI for the marten for Michigan. 3) Establish and maintain communication to coordinate and conduct recovery efforts. 3.1 Establish and implement a coordination system for information and communication. 22 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 3.2 Develop and conduct information and education programs within and adjacent to the National Forests. 3.21 Work cooperatively with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 3.22 Work in coordination with trapping organizations to inform their members and associated publics of conservation strategy. 3.23 Publish technical data available on martens. 3.24 Develop press release kits for media. 3.25 Participate with the Martes Working Group. 3.4 Management Guidelines The following management guidelines are based on research, observations, and habitat inventory. These guidelines will need to be flexible throughout time to adjust for fluctuations in marten population trends, prey population trends, habitat, and increased data collection and research updates. The guidelines below provide a framework for managing primary and secondary habitat areas, and the stands within them. Primary habitats are habitats that best ensure the establishment and survival of viable populations of the marten. These areas are classified as release site areas (historical and future) or are currently occupied habitats. Habitats that are designated as secondary habitats are large contiguous blocks of long-rotation forest types that are not currently occupied nor selected for future releases but may provide adequate habitat to support future populations through dispersal from primary habitat areas. Secondary habitats may provide corridors for the marten to disperse adequately between areas of occupied habitat and/or other potential habitats. These primary and secondary habitat areas are key habitats. They will provide core areas of desired marten habitat on the HMNF, protecting the investment in this species, and providing for a short term viable population that will be buffered from catastrophic events. They alone will not meet the marten population goals for the HMNF over time, but they will provide the foundation. Table 2. Stand Management Guidelines. Age Component Primary Habitat Guidelines > 50 years Secondary Habitat Guidelines > 50 years Canopy Closure 70-100 % 60-100% 70% Oak/Hardwood/Aspen 30% Conifer 10% Oak 10% Hardwood/Aspen 40% Red Pine/White Pine 40% Other Conifer 90% Oak/Hardwood/Aspen 10% Conifer 10% Oak 10% Hardwood/Aspen 60% Red Pine/White Pine 20% Other Conifer Stand Composition Upland Hardwood Upland Conifer 23 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Component Primary Habitat Guidelines Secondary Habitat Guidelines Snags ≥ 8 trees, ≥ 6” DBH/acre (2 trees ≥ 20” DBH) ≥ 6 trees, ≥ 6” DBH/acre (1 trees ≥ 20” DBH) Den Trees ≥ 6 trees/acre (2 trees ≥ 20” DBH) ≥ 4 trees/acre (1 trees ≥ 20” DBH) Dead/Down (CWD) 10 trees ≥ 8” DBH/acre 6 trees ≥ 8” DBH/acre Table 3. Management Area Guidelines. Component Permanent Openings Temporary Openings Regeneration Harvests Primary Habitat Guidelines 3-5%, < 5 acres in size Secondary Habitat Guidelines 3-5% or Maintain > 30% canopy closure; maintain 30% short rotation species > 50 years old; maintain 50% long rotation species > 50 years old. Maintain 10-20% canopy closure; maintain 20% short rotation species > 50 years old; maintain 50% long rotation species > 50 years old. Intermediate Harvests < 30% of upland stands in a 10 year period. < 50% of upland stands in a 10 year period. Travel Corridors Minimum width of 0.30 mile Minimum width of 0.25 mile (Corridors should be designated as primarily old growth or managed to specifications consistent with primary management areas). Road Densities < 2 miles/square mile < 3 miles/square mile Old Growth > 10% > 5% Extended Rotations (Long rotation species at 150 years). 15% 10% 3.5 Recovery Time Line The schedule for implementing the future release of martens is as follows (See appendix for maps of the release areas): (1) Supplement existing marten populations on the Manistee National Forest by releasing an additional: a. 40 animals to the Red Bridge Release Area in 1997, and b. 40 animals in Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area in 2001. 24 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 (2) Reintroduce martens to the Huron National Forest by releasing: a. 40 animals to the Au Sable Valley Release Area in 1998, b. 40 animals to the South Branch/Foley Swamp Release Area in 1999, c. 40 animals to the Reid/Hoist Lakes Release Area in 2000. 25 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 References Cited Adamowicz, V. and B. Condon. 1995. Socio-economic aspects of marten management. Second International Martes Symposium. Edmonton Alberta. Allen, A. W. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Marten. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.11. 9pp. Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan Mammals. Mich. State Univ. Press . Detroit, MI . 642 pp. Bateman, M.C. 1986. Winter habitat use, food habits, and home range size of marten, Martes americana, in western Newfoundland. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100:58-62. Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management. 59(2):228-237. Berg, W.E. and D.W. Kuehn. 1994. Demography and range of fishers and American marten in a changing Minnesota landscape. Pages 262-271 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. Bissonette, J.A., R.J. Fredrickson, and B.J. Tucker. 1989. American marten: a case for landscape-level management. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 54:89-101. Bowerman, W.W. and J.P. Giesy. 1991. Ecology of bald eagles on the Au Sable, Manistee and Muskegon Rivers. Final report to Consumers Power Company under Hydroelectric Project Environmental Studies: Bald Eagle Studies (WP No. 412E322), unpublished report, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI. Brewer R. 1991. Original avifauna and postsettlement changes. Pages 33-58 in R. Brewer, G.A. McPeek, and R.J. Adams. The atlas of breeding birds of Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Press. East Lansing. Buskirk, S.W. 1994. Introduction to the genus Martes. Pages 1-10 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. Buskirk, S.W., S.C. Forrest, M.G. Raphael, and H.J. Harlow. 1989. Winter resting site ecology of marten in the central Rocky Mountains. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(1):191-196. Buskirk, S.W. and L.L. McDonald. 1989. Analysis of variability in home-range size of the American marten. J.Wildl. Manage. 53(4):997-1004. Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283-296 in S.W.Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. 26 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. Pages 7-37 in Ruggiero et al., eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Carpenter, T.W. 1991. Great horned owl. Page 240 in R. Brewer, G.A. McPeek, and R.J. Adams. The atlas of breeding birds of Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Press. East Lansing. 594 pp. Corn, J.G. and M.G. Raphael. 1992. Habitat characteristics at marten subnivean access sites. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(3):442-448. DeBlaay, T.J. 1980. A survey of marten (Martes americana) habitat and prey availability in Michigan's upper peninsula. M.S. thesis. Mich. Tech. Univ. 84pp. Earle, R. 1983. Pine marten. Mich. Dept. Nat. Res. Earle, R. 1992. Personal Communications (letter from October 15, 1992). Ekstrum, J. K. 1991. Personal Communications (memo from October 1991). Ekstrum, J.K. 1994. 1994 pine marten observations. Huron-Manistee National Forests memo. Franklin, I. A. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. Pages 135-149 in M.E. Soule and B.A Wilcox, eds. Conservation biology: An ecological-evolutionary perspective. Fredrickson, R. J. 1990. The effects of disease, prey fluctuation, and clear-cutting on american marten in Newfoundland, Canada. M.S. thesis. Utah State University. 86pp. Freel, M. 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on national forests in California. USDA-Forest Service. Pacific SW. 22pp. Gibilisco, C.J. 1994. Distributional dynamics of modern Martes in North America. Pages 59-71 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens,sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. Gieck, E.M. 1986. Wisconsin pine marten recovery plan. Endangered Resour. Rep. 22. 24 pp. Wis. Dept. Nat. Resour., Wis. Hagmeier, E. M. 1956. Distribution of marten and fisher in North America. Can. Field-Nat. 70(4):149-168. Hansen, A.J., T.A. Spies, F.J. Swanson, and J.L. Ohmann. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. Bioscience 41 (6): 382-392. Hargis, C.D. and D.R. McCullough. 1984. Winter diet and habitat selection of marten in Yosemite National Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(1):140-146. Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest. Univ. of Chicago Press. Chicago. Henry, S.E., M.G. Raphael, and L.F. Ruggiero. 1990. Food caching and handling by marten. Great Basin Naturalist 50(4):381-383. 27 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Hodgman, T.P., D.J. Harrison, D.D. Katnik, and K.D. Elowe. 1994. Survival in an intensively trapped marten population in Maine. J.Wildl.Manage. 58(4):593-600. Holthausen, R. 1991. Personal communication (panel discussion 30 May 1991). USDA Region 6 management guides for marten. Symposium on the biology and management of martens and fishers. Laramie, WY. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Huron-Manistee National Forests. 1993. Annual monitoring and evaluation report for fiscal year 1993. Unpublished report. 82 pp. Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry: principles of managing forests for biological diversity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ. Irvine, G. W. 1989. Evaluation of marten translocations on the Manistee National Forest and Pere Marquette State Forest. 21 pp. Irvine, G.W. 1990. Personal communication. Irvine, G. W. 1994. Evaluation of marten translocations on the Manistee National Forest and Pere Marquette State Forest. 22 pp. Jones, L.L.C. and M.G. Raphael. 1993. Inexpensive camera systems for detecting martens, fishers, and other animals: guidelines for use and standardization. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-306. Koehler, G.M. and M.G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. J. Wildl. Manage. 41(3):500-505. Lacy, R. and T.W. Clark. 1991. Simulation modelling of marten population vulnerability. Page 49 in Abstracts of presentations: Symposium on the biology and management of martens and fishers. Laramie, WY. Martin, S.K. 1994. Feeding ecology of American martens and fishers. Pages 297-315 in S.W.Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. McCarthy, B.B. Distribution and abundance of coarse woody debris in a managed forest landscape of the central Appalachians. Can. J. For. 24:1317-1329. McEuen, A. 1993. The wildlife corridor controversy: a review. Endangered Species Update Vol. 10 Nos. 11-12. Mech, L.D. and L.L. Rogers. 1977. Status, distribution, and movements of martens in northeastern Minnesota. USDA Forest Service Res. Papers NC-143. Nigh, T.A., W.L. Pflieger, P.L. Redfearn, W.A. Schroeder, A.R. Templeton, and F.R. Thompson. 1992. The biodiversity of Missouri: definition, status, and recommendations for its conservation. Consevation Commission of the State of Missouri. 53 pp. Phillips, D.M. 1994. Social and spatial characteristics, and dispersal of marten in a forest preserve and industrial forest. M.S. Thesis, University of Maine. 92 pp. 28 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Poole, K.G., G.M. Matson, M.A. Strickland, A.J. Magoun, R.P. Graf, and L.M. Dix. 1994. Age and sex determination for American martens and fishers. Pages 204-223 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. Powell, R.A. 1994. Structure and spacing of Martes populations. Pages 101-121 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. Raphael, M.G. 1993. Detection devices for surveys of martens and fishers. Martes Working Group Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 1: 20-22. Raphael, M.G. 1994. Techniques for monitoring populations of fishers and American martens. Pages 224-240 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1991. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 184 pp. Rogers, L.L. 1987. Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements, and population growth of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs No.97. Schumaker, G.S. 1993. Analysis of marten winter food habits. Unpublished report. MDNR. 6 pp. Sherburne, S.S. and J.A. Bissonette. 1994. Marten subnivean access point use: response to subnivean prey levels. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(3):400-405. Slough, B.G. 1989. Movements and habitat use by transplanted marten in the Yukon Territory. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(4):991-997. Slough, B.G. 1994. Translocations of American martens: an evaluation of factors in success. Pages 165-178 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press Ithaca. Soule, M.E. 1987. Where do we go from here? Pages 175-183 in M.E. Soule, ed. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press. Soutiere, E.C. 1979. Effects of timber harvesting on marten in Maine. J. Wildl. Manage. 43(4):850-860. Spencer, W.D., R.H. Barrett, and W.J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in the northern Sierra Nevada. J.Wildl. Manage. 47(4):1181-1186. Steventon, J.D. and J.T. Major. 1982. Marten use of habitat in a commercially clear-cut forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(1):175-182. Strickland, M.A. 1994. Harvest management of fishers and American marten. Pages 149-164 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press Ithaca. 29 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Strickland, M.A., C.W. Douglas, M. Novak, and N.P. Hunzinger. 1982. Marten. Pages 599-612 in Wild mammals of North America. University Press. Strickland, M.A., C.W. Douglas. 1983. The marten. Unpublished report. Ministry of Resources, Ontario, Canada. 14pp. Thomas, J. W. 1979. Wildlife habitats in Managed forest. USDA-Forest Service Handbook. Agr. Handbook No. 553. 511pp. Thompson, I.A. 1994. Marten populations in uncut and logged boreal forests in Ontario. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(2):272-280. Thompson, I.A. and P.W. Colgan. 1994. Marten activity in uncut and logged boreal forests in Ontario. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(2):280-288. Thompson, I.D. and A.S. Harestad. 1994. Effects of logging on American marten, and models for habitat management. Pages 355-367 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. Wilcox, B.A., P.F. Brussard, and B.G. Marcot. 1986. The management of viable populations: theory, applications, and case studies. Center for Conserv. Biol. Stanford U. CA. 43pp. United States Department of Agriculture. 1986a. Land and resource management plan. Hiawatha National Forest. Escanaba, MI. United States Department of Agriculture. 1986b. Huron-Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, MI. Land and resource management plan. 30 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Appendix 1: List of Opportunity Analysis Areas 31 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 List of Opportunity Area Analysis Plans that identify marten habitat, existing populations, or potential release site areas. OA Plans Completed as of FY 1995 1. Kellogg OA (Manistee NF): existing habitat 2. Olga Lake OA (Manistee NF): existing habitat 3. Red Bridge OA (Manistee NF): potential release site 4. Maltby Hills OA (Huron NF): potential habitat 5. Dutch Lake OA (Huron NF): potential habitat 6. Au Sable Valley OA (Huron NF): potential release site 7. Au Sable OA (Huron NF): potential release site 8. H & R Block OA (Huron NF): potential habitat 9. Bamfield OA (Huron NF): potential habitat 10. Scenic Au Sable OA (Huron NF): potential release site 11. Udell Hills OA (Manistee NF): potential habitat 12. Double Nickel OA (Manistee NF): potential habitat 13. Bear Swamp OA (Manistee NF): potential habitat OA Plans To Be Completed in FY 1996+ 1. Foley Swamp OA (Huron NF): potential habitat 2. South Branch OA (Huron NF): potential release site 32 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Appendix 2: Marten Habitat Areas - Primary and Secondary 33 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Appendix 3: Management Guideline References 34 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Management Guideline References Component Citation Age Allen (1982), USDA (1986b), Freel (1991), Thompson and Harestad (1994) Canopy Closure Allen (1982), Irvine (1989, 1994), Freel (1991), Ekstrum (1991) Species Eveness Deblaay (1980), Allen (1982), USDA (1986a), Irvine (1989, 1994), Ekstrum (1991) Snags Thomas (1979), Freel (1991), USDA (1986a), McCarthy and Bailey (1994) Dens USDA (1986a), Freel (1991) Dead and Down Thomas (1979), Allen (1982), USDA (1986), Freel (1991), Holthausen (1991) Openings Irvine (1989, 1994), Freel (1991) Temporary Openings Strickland and Douglas (1983), USDA (1986a), Freel (1991) Intermediate Harvest Irvine (1989, 1994), Travel Corridors USDA (1986a), Freel (1991), Ekstrum (1994) Road Densities Freel (1991) Old Growth Irvine (1994) Extended Rotations Irvine (1994) 35 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996 Appendix 4: Maps of Release Areas 36 Marten Conservation Strategy - January 1996