Tongass National Forest

The marten and goshawk standards and guidelines are complex. An interagency group, the Tongass Plan Implementation Team (TPIT), provided clarification of how to consistently implement the standards and guidelines in March 1998, which were accepted by the Forest Supervisor. Even with the clarifications, the complexity is still leading to inconsistent applications across the Forest. Inconsistencies in application of the standards and guidelines appear to be related to interpretations of parts of the standards and guidelines without full consideration of the whole standards and guidelines and/or the TPIT Clarifications. Some of the language and terms used in the standards and guidelines and TPIT Clarifications contribute to the inconsistent interpretations or applications. There appear to be inconsistencies in the measurement of how much forest structure to retain within harvest units; there are inconsistent applications of which areas can, or can not, contribute to meeting the forest structure retention requirements for individual harvest units; there may be inconsistent measurement in determining if 33% of the old growth in a given VCU has been harvested when non-National Forest System lands are included in the VCU; there are inconsistencies in how the retained structure is dispersed throughout a harvest unit, especially the ‘...retain 10% or more of the original stand structure in the openings between clumps..’ language; and there may be some inconsistency in the identification of high value marten habitat in which the standards and guidelines apply. In addition, there is inconsistency in how logging system operational needs are considered which can have direct consequences on timber harvest economics, timber yields, and worker safety. (See also the concern related to potential effects of marten and goshawk standards and guidelines on the ASQ.[04-8])

The overriding intent of the marten and goshawk standards and guidelines is to retain large forest structure in timber harvest units to provide large tree structure and related diversity in future second growth forests. This may have more to do with future ecological value than with future marten or goshawk habitat needs. (See also the concern about the marten and goshawk standard and guideline structural requirements, which may not be consistent with current science. [04-9]) To be most effective, it is reasonable to assume relative distribution and representation in these future stands is desirable. The standards and guidelines also provide for logical timber harvest operational considerations in order to meet the intent of the standards and guidelines in a safe and reasonably economic manner. The standards and guidelines are designed to be applied in ‘high risk provinces’ where more extensive timber harvest has been concentrated in the past. Calculations of how much old growth timber has been harvested in the past for a given VCU, is intended to be on NFS lands only. Another way to look at the standards and guidelines is how they are a mitigation measure for potential cumulative affects in those high risk provinces because we now have relatively large second growth areas with little old or large tree structure representation in them. Some speculate that having representative old or large structure in second growth stands will provide more usable habitats at an earlier age for species that need or prefer such large structure.

Another key consideration related to the intent of the standards and guidelines is also the intent of the Land Use Designations (LUDs) where they apply and are being considered. The standards and guidelines are primarily applied in the Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. The Forest Plan goals for suitable timber lands in these LUDs are to maintain and support industrial wood production on a sustained basis while meeting other resource objectives, especially scenic resources.

The TPIT Clarifications are a very thorough set of guides and considerations for application of the standards and guidelines. It is imperative that Forest personnel give full consideration to all aspects/categories of the Clarification. Otherwise, interpretation is likely to be applied improperly or inconsistently. For example, Section A of the Clarification addresses areas not contributing to retention state in part, “...Minimum no harvest buffers as required by TLMP Riparian standards and guidelines on streams outside of or adjacent to timber harvest units.” Section B addresses areas that can contribute to retention and include extended buffers on streams adjacent to a harvest unit, all buffers on Class III and IV streams in the harvest unit, and all Riparian S&G buffers that protrude into the harvest unit. Some current interpretations/applications by Forest personnel have been based the Section A partial statement that ‘...Minimum no harvest buffers as required by the…Riparian standards and guidelines…’ do not contribute to the retention target. Such out of context applications do not meet the multiple intents of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines and LUDs.

Interchangeable use of terms like ‘original stand structure’, ‘existing canopy closure’, ‘basal area’, and ‘trees per acre’ to describe portions of harvest units to be retained readily lead to multiple interpretations of what or how much to retain. Because the primary intent of the standards and guidelines is to retain portions of the harvest unit for representation in future second growth stands, it seems reasonable to simplify what is targeted for retention. For example, if the target is to leave 30% of the harvest unit unharvested, establish the target acres by calculating how many acres this represents, and retain this many forested acres within the harvest unit. Applying the target acres only to the forested acres within the harvest unit should easily account for lighter forest canopy areas and non-forest inclusions within the harvest unit. Applying complex or more sophisticated calculations seem to be counter productive because end results are most likely very similar.

In addition to the riparian related buffers that can count toward the retention target, the TPIT Clarification provides a good list of areas normally excluded from a potential harvest unit (very high MMI soils, high vulnerability karst, wildlife buffers, etc.). To properly consider the areas normally excluded, they need to be done relative to the originally planned harvest unit. As described in the Clarification, “…’Originally planned as part of the harvest unit’ is defined as the combination of logical settings developed in the Logging System Transportation Analysis (LSTA) performed during initial stages of project planning (Gate 1 – Forest Service Manual 2400).” Applying the calculated retention to the final harvest unit design often will not account for all areas that are available and expected to contribute to the retention goals.

Inconsistencies related to how structure is retained throughout a harvest unit are interconnected with those already described and how structure retention is designed relative to the timber harvest operational considerations prescribed for the final timber harvest unit. Taking into account all of the TPIT Clarifications along with the marten and goshawk standards and guidelines, structure to be retained can be strategically located that meets the overall intents of the Forest Plan.

The standards and guidelines and the TPIT Clarifications discuss many considerations of how to accomplish the retention of structure in harvest units. Much discussion is given to operational concerns, and it is reasonable to assume operational concerns need to be an integral part of implementing the standards and guidelines and meeting all of the intents of the Forest Plan. As discussed above, strategically locating reserves to meet representation throughout the harvest unit is important. One also has to be strategic in how reserves and individual trees (or clumps of trees) are located to best meet operational needs for harvesting the unit.

A logical harvest unit is made up of logging system settings. Because different timber yarding systems have different logistical requirements, it is essential that structure retention is an essential part of the logging system design to assure the retention is safe for the workers, reasonably economic, and feasible for the logging system being used. Helicopters obviously are the most flexible in leaving structure, but use of helicopter was not anticipated to be required to meet marten and goshawk standards and guidelines. There nearly always needs to be other resource objectives that would require helicopter logging. Note that helicopter yarding is usually the most expensive and careful considerations for worker safety (especially related to rotor downwash and long cable in partial cuts) is essential. Cable yarding systems that are capable of yarding through standing trees (laterally yarding) are basically limited to areas below roads and where good deflection allows this system to be feasible. Shovel logging provides fairly good flexibility and is often least expensive, but the amount of ground that is available for use of this logging system is quite limited by the terrain available for timber harvest. Most of the timber harvesting expected to be used for timber management by the Forest Plan is by normal cable systems. Prescriptions should provide for the best mix of yarding systems within basic economic feasibility to meet the Forest Plan objectives of where the harvest unit is located, including retention of structure for future diversity representation.

Cable logging system design is based on logical settings, or the area that is feasible to yard to a given yarder landing location. Structure that is retained in these areas should nearly always be located relative to the external boundaries of the settings, which are usually located relative to the topographical breaks within or adjacent to the final harvest unit. Designing logical retention areas (patches and clumps) from the external setting boundaries often can be characterized as triangles based on the setting boundary and pointed toward the yarder/landing. Individual trees should then be designed to be left generally within 50 to 100 feet of the external boundaries, including feasible edges of the retention triangles. Designing structure retention in this manner addresses the intents of the Forest Plan on cable yarded areas and the operational requirements of the logging system most anticipated to be used.

(See also concern related to the cost and operability of non-clearcut harvest prescriptions. 04-42)

Share this worksheet widely and through other efforts share the information to reiterate what the current policy is on the Tongass. Reinforce the policy by discussing in Forest Plan implementation refresher training. Develop a set of questions and answers specific to implementing the marten and goshawk standards and guidelines (look at TPIT).

• Forest Planner
• Wildlife Biologist
• Silviculturist
• Logging Systems Specialist

• Set of Questions and Answers
• Implementation Guide