DOCSLIB.ORG

2014 Incidental Take Plan for Maine's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2014 Incidental Take Plan for Maine's Incidental Take Plan for Maine’s Trapping Program Submitted to U. S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Prepared by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife1 41 SHS, 284 State Street Augusta, ME 04333-0041 October 28, 2014 1 This document was written by Jennifer Vashon, Walter Jakubas, and John DePue, 650 State Street, Bangor, Maine, 04401; James Connolly, 284 State Street, Augusta, Maine, 04333. Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 10 1.0 Introduction and Background ......................................................................... 12 1.1 Permit Coverage ...................................................................................... 12 1.2 Permit Duration ........................................................................................ 12 1.3 Regulatory/Legal Framework for Plan...................................................... 12 1.4 Plan Area ................................................................................................. 13 1.5 Species to be Covered by Permit ............................................................ 15 2.0 Environmental Setting / Biological Resources .............................................. 16 2.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................. 16 2.2 Biological Resources ............................................................................... 20 2.2.1 Canada Lynx ............................................................................................ 20 2.2.2 Wolves (Canis lupus, Canus lupus lycaon) .............................................. 27 2.2.3 Migratory Birds ......................................................................................... 28 2.2.4 Plant Species of Concern ........................................................................ 29 3.0 Project Description / Activities Covered by Permit ....................................... 30 3.1 Project Description ................................................................................... 40 3.2 Incidental Take of Lynx from Furbearer Trapping Program ..................... 49 3.3 How legal and illegal trapping action are covered by the Plan ................. 57 4.0 Potential Biological Impacts / Take Assessment ........................................... 59 4.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts ...................................................................... 60 4.2 Anticipated Incidental Take: Canada Lynx .............................................. 72 5.0 Conservation Program / Measures to Minimize and Mitigate for Impacts .............................................................................................................. 78 5.1 Biological Goals and Objectives .............................................................. 78 5.2 Measures to Minimize Impacts ................................................................ 78 5.2.1 Minimization Measures Commitments, Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting .......................................................................................... 82 5.3 Measure to Mitigate Unavoidable Impacts ............................................. 107 5.4 Changed Circumstances ........................................................................ 122 5.5 Unforeseen Circumstances .................................................................... 132 6.0 Funding ........................................................................................................... 134 6.1 Funding for Plan Measures .................................................................... 134 6.2 Plan Implementation Costs .................................................................... 134 6.2.2 Plan Mitigation Costs ............................................................................. 139 6.3 Plan Monitoring Costs ............................................................................ 139 2 7.0 Measures Considered but Not Implemented ................................................ 140 7.1 Alternative I. Discontinue Trapping Statewide ...................................... 140 7.2 Alternative II. Discontinue Trapping Selectively .................................... 140 7.3 Alternative III. Other Minimization and Mitigation Measures ................. 141 8.0 Future Amendments ....................................................................................... 146 8. 1 Administrative Changes ......................................................................... 146 8.2 Minor Amendments ................................................................................ 146 8.3 Major Amendments ................................................................................ 147 9.0 Literature Cited ............................................................................................... 149 3 List of Figures Figure 1.1 The distribution of Canada lynx in Maine from ecoregional snow track surveys, sightings of lynx (primarily tracks) by IFW biologists, incidental takes, and telemetry data from 2000 until 2011. Points in WMD 17 and 23 are from telemetry over a 26 and 9 day period by two radiocollared lynx that did not remain in the area. Conversely, the single observation in WMD 18 was a lynx caught in a trap that meets the criteria for extending lynx minimization measures. .................. 14 Figure 3.1.1 Maine’s Wildlife Management Districts (WMDs). ..................................... 43 Figure 3.1.2 Diagram of a foothold trap and its various parts (AFWA 2006a). ............. 44 Figure 3.1.3 Diagram of a standard killer-type trap and its various parts (AFWA 2006a). ..................................................................................................... 45 Figure 3.1.4 Diagram of a duffer trap designed for raccoons (AFWA 2006c). ............. 45 Figure 3.1.5 Diagram of a wire box or cage trap (AFWA 2006a). ................................ 45 Figure 3.1.6 Hancock, suitcase type live trap for beaver (AFWA 2007). ...................... 46 Figure 3.1.7 Statewide trapper effort, expressed as the number of traps nights spent to capture the target species. Trap nights are defined as one trap set for a 24-hour period. Data are from the fall trapping season in Maine (mid-October through December 31) in 2010 and 2011. ........... 49 Figure 3.2.1 Locations of 51 radiocollared lynx in northern Maine during the 1999 to 2006 regular trap season when killer-type traps were set for marten and fisher. The area in green was used to estimate exposure of lynx to traps (i.e., number of marten and fisher harvested and number of trappers). ......................................................... 53 Figure 3.2.2 Locations of 23 radiocollared lynx in northern Maine during the 2007 to 2011 regular trap season when killer-type traps were set for marten and fisher. The area in green was used to estimate exposure of lynx to traps (i.e., number of marten and fisher harvested and number of trappers). ......................................................... 54 Figure 5.2.1 An example of a lynx exclusion device for killer-type traps. Note the opening for a fisher or marten to enter the trap is located on the top panel on the far right end. The killer-type trap (shown) is set near the left end of the trap, and the bait would be placed to the left of the trap in the cage. Specifications for a lynx exclusion device are described in Maine's trapping rules. .................................................. 84 Figure 5.3.1 This figure shows how the five groups of radiocollared lynx used the same areas and the appropriateness of IFW estimates of high quality hare habitat (HQHH) as mitigation for lethal take of incidental capture of lynx in Maine’s trapping program. ......................... 111 4 Figure 5.3.2 Provisional map of the proposed 22,046 acre HMA (black dashed line; original 10,411 acre HMA solid black line in IFW’s July 29, 2013 Plan) for Canada Lynx in Maine showing the year in which stands were commercially cut. The harvest treatment for each stand is given in Figure 5.3.3. ................................................................ 114 Figure 5.3.3 Provisional map of the proposed 22,046 acre HMA (black dashed line; original 10,411 acre HMA solid black line in IFW’s July 29, 2013 Plan) for Canada Lynx in Maine showing the harvest treatment each forest stand received. The year in which the stand was cut is given in Figure 5.3.2. ............................................................. 115 Figure 5.3.4. Current forest type map of the 22,046 acre proposed habitat management area (HMA) for lynx on the State of Maine Bureau of Parks and Land’s Seboomook Unit in northern Maine. The dark black line marks the boundaries of the 22,046 acre HMA. ..................... 116 Figure 5.4.1 Decision Tree Changed Circumstance #1: Lynx are being caught in traps at a higher rate than expected. ................................................. 126 Figure 5.4.2 Decision Tree Changed Circumstance #2: Lynx are being injured in traps at a higher rate than expected. ................................................. 128 Figure 5.4.3 Decision Tree Change Circumstance #3: Lynx are being caught in traps at a higher rate than expected. ..................................................... 130 5 List of Tables Table 2.1 Chronology of Canada lynx recovered after being hit by vehicles in northern Maine, from listing (2000) to 2012. ...........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS of MAINE an Analysis Of
    IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS OF MAINE An Analysis of Avian Diversity and Abundance Compiled by: Susan Gallo, Thomas P. Hodgman, and Judy Camuso A Project Supported by the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS OF MAINE An Analysis of Avian Diversity and Abundance February 7, 2008 Compiled by: Susan Gallo, Maine Audubon, 20 Gilsland Farm Rd., Falmouth, ME 04105 Thomas P. Hodgman, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State St., Bangor, ME 04401 Judy Camuso, Maine Audubon, 20 Gilsland Farm Rd., Falmouth, ME 04105 (Present Address: Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 358 Shaker Road, Gray, ME 04039) Recommended citation: Gallo, S., T. P. Hodgman, and J. Camuso, Compilers. 2008. Important Bird Areas Of Maine: an analysis of avian diversity and abundance. Maine Audubon, Falmouth, Maine. 94pp. Cover Photo: Scarborough Marsh at sunrise, by W. G. Shriver ii Table of Contents History ..........................................................................................................................................1 What is an Important Bird Area?.......................................................................................1 Qualifying Criteria...................................................................................................................1 Data Use and Applicability Disclaimer .............................................................................2 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Wildlife Habitat Into Local Planning: a Handbook for Maine Communities
    Integrating Wildlife Habitat into Local Planning: A Handbook for Maine Communities Sharri A. Venno Department of Wildlife and MaineCooperativeFishandWildlifeResearch Unit University of Maine Orono, ME 04469 In cooperation with Maine Audubon Society Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Maine Department of Economic and Community Development Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 5782 Winslow Hall The University of Maine Orono, ME 04469-5782 Miscellaneous Publication 712 May 1991 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This handbook was initially written by Sharri Venno in partial fulfillment of a master’s degree in Wildlife Conservation for the Department of Wildlife, University of Maine, Orono. Members of her gradu- ate committee, also acting as reviewers of this version, included Ray B. Owen Jr., Department of Wildlife; William B. Krohn, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit; Kevin Boyle, Department of Agri- cultural and Resource Economics; Alan Hutchinson, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; and Katherine Weber, College of Forest Ressources. Sally Stockwell and Nancy Papoulias, representa- tives of Maine Audubon Society, provided valuable input during this stage in the development of the handbook as did Josie Quintrell and John Albright, staff members of the Department of Economic and Community Development, and Gary Donovan of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Financial assistance was provided by the Department of Wildlife, University of Maine; the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; and the Maine Audubon Society. Ray B. Owen Jr., William B. Krohn, Sally Stockwell, Gary Donovan and Fred Hurley contributed useful suggestions to the final publication. Special thanks is given to Leslie F. Brown for the sketches used in this publication, and to the Center for Rural Massachusetts, the Environmental Law Foundation, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy for permission to use the drawings of sites under different development schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Goshawk and Its Prey in the Black Hills: Habitat Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Northern Goshawk and Its Prey in the Black Hills: Habitat Assessment Russell T. Graham Shelley Bayard de Volo Richard T. Reynolds Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Service Research Station Report RMRS-GTR-339 August 2015 Graham, Russell T.; Bayard de Volo, Shelley; Reynolds, Richard T. 2015. Northern goshawk and its prey in the Black Hills: Habitat assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-339. Fort Collins, CO: U.S, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 177 p. Abstract The northern goshawk is classified as a Sensitive Species in all USDA Forest Service regions, including on the Black Hills National Forest in western South Dakota and north- eastern Wyoming. An assessment was conducted of the quality of northern goshawk nesting and foraging habitat, along with the habitat quality of 22 of the goshawk’s prey species. A Delphi (expert panel) evaluation of goshawk and prey habitat in 3,414 water- sheds averaging 449 acres (182 ha) in size was completed by wildlife biologists from the Black Hills National Forest. The quality of goshawk nesting and foraging habitat and of prey group habitats was reported individually, then combined for each watershed. The op- timum goshawk and prey habitat, totaling 67 watersheds or 34,427 acres (13,932 ha), was distributed throughout the nearly 1.5 million-acre (about 607,000-ha) Black Hills National Forest. Panel members found that the Bear Lodge Mountains, located in northeastern Wyoming, proportionally had the most optimum, high-, and medium-rated habitat. Wildfire, bark beetles, urban encroachment, and timber harvest can negatively affect northern gos- hawks and their prey’s habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Lynx Species Assessment (PDF)
    Canada Lynx Assessment Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Research and Assessment Section Bangor, ME 04401 Jennifer Vashon, Scott McLellan, Shannon Crowley, Amy Meehan and Ken Laustsen1 July 2012 1Maine Forest Service , Augusta, Maine MDIFW Canada Lynx Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 8 NATURAL HISTORY....................................................................................................... 9 Description............................................................................................................ 9 Distribution.......................................................................................................... 10 Food Habits ........................................................................................................ 11 Population Cycles............................................................................................... 13 Population Densities........................................................................................... 14 Habitat Use......................................................................................................... 15 Home Range ...................................................................................................... 16 Reproduction and Reproductive Behavior .......................................................... 17 Mortality.............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aroostook NWR Brochure
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Northern Maine National Wildlife Refuge Complex Aroostook National Wildlife Refuge 97 Refuge Road Limestone, Maine 04750 Aroostook 207/328 4634 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/aroostook National Wildlife Federal Relay Service for the deaf and hard-of –hearing 1-800/877 8339 Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1/800 344 WILD http://www.fws.gov January 2016 Bull Moose ©Paul Cyr More than 560 National Wildlife Refuges The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service comprising more than 150 million acres is working with others to conserve, protect and stretch across the United States from northern enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats Alaska to the Florida Keys and include small for the continuing benefit of the American islands in the Caribbean and South Pacific. people. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s The character of the refuges are as diverse as first priority on national wildlife refuges is the nation itself. The mission of the National protecting wildlife and its habitat. However, Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a a secondary purpose of refuges is providing national network of lands and waters for opportunities for wildlife-related education and the conservation, management, and where recreation. Aroostook National Wildlife Refuge appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and is part of the Northern Maine National Wildlife plant resources and their habitats within the Refuge Complex and offers numerous public United States for the benefit of the present and use opportunities that are compatible with its future generations of Americans. wildlife management goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of Snowshoe Hares in Southern Boreal and Montane Forests
    Chapter 7 Ecology of Snowshoe Hares in Southern Boreal and Montane Forests Karen E. Hodges, Centre for Biodiversity Research, University of British Columbia 6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Canada Abstract—Snowshoe hares occur in many of the montane and sub-boreal forests of the continental United States, as well as throughout the boreal forests of Canada and Alaska. Population dynamics in their southern range were previously thought to be noncyclic, in contrast to the strong 10-year fluctuation that typifies boreal populations of snowshoe hares. Time series data and studies of hare demography indicate that northern and southern populations of hares may instead have similar population dynamics. Hares in southern areas appear to experience two- to 25-fold fluctuations in numbers with peaks eight to 11 years apart. Peak and low densities may be lower in southern areas than in northern ones; in the south, peak densities are commonly one to two hares/ha, whereas northern hare populations commonly have peak densities up to four to six hares/ha. Demographically, survival estimates (30-day) range from approximately 0.65-0.95 in Wisconsin, with lowest survival occurring as populations decline; these values parallel those of cyclic hares in Yukon. Annual reproductive output may vary regionally, but interpretation of this pattern is hindered by noncomparable methodologies. 163 Chapter 7—Hodges The southern range of snowshoe hares is roughly delineated by the range of suitable forested habitats. Along the eastern seaboard, hares use spruce/fir and deciduous forests as far south as Tennessee and the Virginias. Around the Great Lakes, hares occur throughout the sub-boreal coniferous forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Snowshoe Hare (Lepus Americanus): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project July 19, 2006 Ethan Ellsworth1 and Timothy D. Reynolds, Ph.D.2 1Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844 2TREC, Inc., 4276 E 300 North, Rigby, ID 83442 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Ellsworth, E. and T.D. Reynolds. (2006, July 19). Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/snowshoehare.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are indebted to Dennis Murray for providing a wealth of information and to Patricia A. Isaeff for assembling the Envirogram into a crisp display. Gary Patton made a series of important recommendations that significantly improved this manuscript. Oz Garton helped us with our discussion of sensitivity and elasticity, and we are grateful for the encouragement and assistance offered by Steve Abele, Janet Rachlow, Kerry Reese, and Kathy Strickler. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Ethan Ellsworth is a PhD. candidate in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources at the University of Idaho. For his dissertation research he spent three years in the wilds of northern Idaho near Priest Lake studying snowshoe hare. He has coauthored two hare papers related to using fecal pellets to estimate hare population density, and he has more in the works on hare winter nutrition, food limitation, and energy use. Prior to his study of snowshoe hares, his primary research interests were in avian studies and biogeography.
    [Show full text]
  • Focus Species Forestry
    Focus Species Forestry A Guide to Integrating Timber and Biodiversity Management in Maine Robert R. Bryan Forest Ecologist and Licensed Forester Maine Audubon Third Edition—March 2007 Published by Maine Audubon in cooperation with: Maine Department of Conservation Professional Logging Contractors of Maine, Master Logger Program Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine First Edition: April 2004 Second Edition: September 2004 Third Edition: March 2007. The third edition includes some higher quality images and updates to the vernal pool, riparian, and northern goshawk guidelines. Contact information for Focus Species Forestry partners: Maine Audubon 20 Gilsland Farm Road Falmouth, ME 04105 (207) 781-2330 x222 http://www.maineaudubon.org Maine Department of Conservation 22 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 (207) 287-2211 http://www.state.me.us/doc/index.shtml Professional Logging Contractors of Maine P.O. Box 400 Fort Kent, ME 04743 (207) 834-3835 Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine 153 Hospital Street P.O. Box 836 Augusta, ME 04332 (207) 626-0005 (877) 467-9626 http://www.swoam.com/ Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................iii 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF FOCUS SPECIES...................................................................................... 3 3. STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO FOCUS SPECIES
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Division Research and Management Report, 2008
    Maine Department of Inland Fisheries And Wildlife Roland D. Martin, Commissioner Wildlife Division Research & Management Report 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS steward of maine’s wildlife resources ........................................................................................................ 3 FUNDING WILDLIFE AND HABITAT STEWARDSHIP .................................................................................................. 4 IMPLEMENTING SUCCESSFUL HABITAT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT ........................................................ 6 COLLABORATION WITH PARTNERS ................................................................................................................................ 6 Maine’s Wildlife Action Plan: From Vision to On-the-Ground Action ................................................................. 6 Working with Partners to Bring Back Wildlife and Natural Areas - Restoring Seabirds to Eastern Brothers Island ................................................................................................................................... 6 BEGINNING WITH HABITAT ............................................................................................................................................ 6 LANDOWNER IN C ENTIVE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 7 HABITAT MA pp ING AND ANALYSES ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Snowshoe Hare Management Goals and Objectives
    FEASIBILITY STATEMENTS FOR SNOWSHOE HARE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Prepared by: Walter Jakubas November 6, 2002 This document is an analysis of the of Snowshoe Hare goals and objectives proposed June 26, 2002 by the Woodcock, Grouse, and Snowshoe Hare Working Group. The analyses consist of determining the 1) desirability, 2) feasibility, and 3) possible consequences of implementing the proposed goal and objectives. Separate objectives were set for the Industrial Forest1 (IFR) and the Forest / Agriculture / Residential2 (FARR) regions of Maine. A separate discussion on the capability of the habitat for meeting the goal's objectives, which is normally included as part of this review, was not included. Because the objectives were given as either habitat or outreach objectives, information that would have been presented in the "capability of habitat section" is presented in the feasibility statement or was considered not applicable (i.e., for outreach objective). Goal: Increase the quality and quantity of snowshoe hare habitat and increase the awareness and understanding of snowshoe hare, its habitat requirements, and its importance as a prey species in Maine. Overview: An increase in the quality and quantity of snowshoe hare habitat should increase the state's overall carrying capacity for hare. This may translate into higher hare populations or hare populations that experience less severe fluctuations in hare numbers over time. Snowshoe hare are a major food item for many carnivores including marten, fisher, great horned owls, barred owls, coyote, lynx, and bobcat. Higher or more stable hare populations will provide a prey base that may allow higher densities of predators to persist.
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote and Bobcat Food Habits and the Effects of an Intensive
    COYOTE AND BOBCAT FOOD HABITS AND THE EFFECTS OF AN INTENSIVE PREDATOR REMOVAL ON WHITE-TAILED DEER RECRUITMENT IN NORTHEASTERN ALABAMA by CORY L. VANGILDER (Under the Direction of Karl V. Miller) ABSTRACT This project was designed to investigate the seasonal diets of potential white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) predators and quantify their impact on deer recruitment in northeastern Alabama. I inferred predation impacts by comparing recruitment data before and after an intensive predator removal on a 2,000-acre study site. After predator abundance (as shown by scat deposition rates and a scent station index) on the site was reduced by intensive removal, fawn-to-doe ratios (as indicated by camera surveys, hunter observations, and web camera observations) increased on average 189%. Seasonal diets of coyotes (Canis latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufus) indicated that coyotes consumed deer significantly more than bobcats, particularly during the fawning season. Overall, bobcats primarily consumed rodents, whereas the coyote diet was more diverse and varied temporally as seasonally abundant food items, including fawns, insects, and soft mast became available. Our results suggest predation, particularly by coyotes, on fawns may reduce recruitment in some areas of the Southeast. Intensive predator removals prior to fawning may be effective at increasing recruitment in some areas where herd productivity does not meet management objectives. INDEX WORDS: Bobcat food habits, coyote food habits, Canis latrans, Lynx rufus, Odocoileus virginianus, predation, predator removal, white-tailed deer COYOTE AND BOBCAT FOOD HABITS AND THE EFFECTS OF AN INTENSIVE PREDATOR REMOVAL ON WHITE-TAILED DEER RECRUITMENT IN NORTHEASTERN ALABAMA by CORY L.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Habitat Associations in Eastern Hemlock - Birds, Smaller Mammals, and Forest Carnivores Mariko Yamasakil, Richard M
    Wildlife Habitat Associations in Eastern Hemlock - Birds, Smaller Mammals, and Forest Carnivores Mariko Yamasakil, Richard M. DeGraaf2,and John W Lanier3 Abstract Landscape Level Habitat Elements Ninety-six bird and forty-seven mammal species are Eastern hemlock occurs from the Maritime Provinces in associated with the hemlock type in the northeastern United eastern Canada to northern Georgia and west into States. Of these species eight bird and ten mammal species northeastern Minnesota (Godman and Lancaster 1990). are strongly associated with the hemlock type though none Average annual precipitation in New England ranges from of these species are limited to it. Hemlock species richness 30-50 inches compared to 21-36 inches in the upper Lakes appears to be lower than in other conifer or hardwood types. States (McNab and Avers 1994). Average annual snowfall in Avian habitat considerations include the distribution and New England ranges from 40 to 160 inches compared to 40 variety of structural habitat features throughout managed to 70 inches and in some sections upwards of 250 to 400 and unmanaged stands in sustainable patterns. Sawtimber inches along the Lake Superior shoreline (McNab and Avers hemlock stands support significantly higher bird 1994). This has tended to generally produce abundant communities than young stands. Smaller mammal habitat hemlock regeneration on coniferous sites in New England in considerations include dense patches of coniferous contrast to the difficulties faced by forest managers in the regeneration, hard mast-producing inclusions, cavity trees, upper Lakes States to regenerate hemlock in the face of coarse woody debris, and wetland seeps and inclusions. significant deer densities (Anderson and Loucks 1979; Forest carnivore habitat considerations include the Alverson et al.
    [Show full text]