Download American Marten Conservation Strategy for the Huron

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