A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)
A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)
A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Introduction<br />
A <strong>White</strong> <strong>Paper</strong> <strong>Discussing</strong> <strong>Management</strong> <strong>Indicator</strong>s (MI)<br />
Leading to the Development of a Strategy for Change<br />
for the National Forests & Grasslands in Texas (NFGT)<br />
November 2009<br />
The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) selected <strong>Management</strong> <strong>Indicator</strong>s<br />
(MI) to represent its planning area in the 1996 Revised Forest Land and Resource<br />
<strong>Management</strong> Plan (the Plan.) <strong>Management</strong> <strong>Indicator</strong>s (MI) were selected in compliance<br />
with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time the Plan was developed and are<br />
“used to assess the effects of management on habitats and ecosystems.” 1 The intent is<br />
for selected species and ecological communities to be used as indicators of the impact of<br />
NFGT forest management on overall forest health. Emphasis was placed on selecting<br />
Federally-listed endangered or threatened species, sensitive species, as well as species in<br />
demand for recreational, commercial, or subsistence use. In addition, indicators<br />
representing special habitat, habitat components, or plant and animal communities were<br />
added along with ecological indicators.<br />
Since publishing the 2002-<br />
2003 Monitoring and<br />
Evaluation Report, NFGT<br />
resource specialists have<br />
determined that:<br />
1. Some of the selections<br />
are not serving the<br />
purpose as originally<br />
intended, and<br />
2. Monitoring methods for<br />
some species and<br />
communities are<br />
impractical.<br />
<strong>Species</strong> and communities were chosen because<br />
monitoring and evaluation of the status of each should<br />
indicate the effects of management activities. Using the<br />
MI concept should provide management with the<br />
ability to determine whether the NFGT is maintaining<br />
and conserving biological diversity (as required by the<br />
National Forest <strong>Management</strong> Act of 1976) or whether<br />
activities are causing detrimental effects on plant and<br />
animal species or communities. Since the Plan was<br />
signed in 1996, monitoring and evaluation of adopted<br />
species and communities has proven to be difficult.<br />
When the findings with the 2002-2003 report were<br />
presented to the Forest Leadership Team (FLT) in<br />
2003, a proposal for preparing a Plan Amendment was<br />
recommended. The FLT, however, agreed to postpone<br />
the amendment for MI because of lack of personnel, time, and funding to support the<br />
effort as well as the fact that they expected Plan Revision efforts to begin in 2009. (Plan<br />
revision is now scheduled to begin in 2012).<br />
According to NFGT resource specialists, problems with monitoring the existing MI list<br />
have continued. Since “effective forest monitoring programs should be able to generate<br />
the qualitative and quantitative information needed to evaluate resource management<br />
1 USDA Forest Service-National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. 1996. Final Environmental Impact<br />
Statement, Appendix F. Lufkin, TX.
activities and detect change in the status of forest resources,” 2 changes are still needed.<br />
In order to decide what needs to be done to resolve problems with monitoring the existing<br />
MI, the planning staff has done several things. First, current laws and other direction<br />
were reviewed along with relevant publications and/or research articles. Next, court<br />
rulings where MI were an issue were considered and assessments were made of how<br />
other forests are dealing with this issue – both nationally and in Region 8.<br />
A general recap of the information that was evaluated and recommendations for strategies<br />
for promoting needed changes are provided in the following text.<br />
Laws and Other Direction<br />
The National Forest <strong>Management</strong> Act of 1976 [NFMA at 16 United States Code (U.S.C.)<br />
1604] directed that management of wildlife habitats “maintain viable populations of<br />
existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.” The<br />
NFMA, however, did not specify a method for monitoring Forest Service activity to<br />
determine its performance toward achieving these goals.<br />
A committee of scientists recommended the <strong>Management</strong> <strong>Indicator</strong> <strong>Species</strong> (<strong>MIS</strong>)<br />
approach and Forest Service regulations dated September 30, 1982 (36 CFR 219 – also<br />
known as the 1982 Planning Rule) adopted the committee’s recommendations. Under<br />
this <strong>MIS</strong> approach, forest managers identify and select a limited number of species that<br />
are then tracked as means of making broader assessments of the overall ecological<br />
conditions of the forest’s wildlife habitat and the other species dwelling in the habitat, as<br />
well as the effects of Forest Service management activities. Population changes in the<br />
indicator species being monitored are interpreted as a signal of changes in the health of<br />
the ecosystem.<br />
In a 1991 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report to the Secretary of Agriculture,<br />
the reviewing office determined that, “The Forest Service <strong>MIS</strong> approach to monitoring<br />
appeared to have several practical drawbacks (Table 1).” The report also noted that,<br />
“…substantial additional funds would be needed to support the carefully designed<br />
research essential to help identify and judge the efficacy of <strong>MIS</strong> as ecological<br />
indicators.” 3<br />
Forest Service Washington Office (WO) acknowledged the problems; however, it was<br />
felt “that the difficulties stemmed from the way the <strong>MIS</strong> principles were applied.”<br />
National direction was then revised to a management indicators (MI) concept that would<br />
include not only species, but also special habitats and unique biological communities<br />
identified in the forest planning area. The intent was for monitoring to focus on habitat<br />
capability and to relate changes in habitat capability to associated effects on species<br />
populations.<br />
2<br />
USDA Forest Service-Resource Information Group. 2009. Draft Technical Guide: Developing a<br />
Monitoring Guide. Fort Collins, CO.<br />
3<br />
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1991. Wildlife <strong>Management</strong>: Problems Being Experienced with<br />
Current Monitoring Approach. Washington, D.C.
The NFGT utilized the 1982 Planning Rule during most of the revision process. Direction<br />
for MI (as published in the July 1, 1988 Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR 219.19.)<br />
was also used in the development of the Plan. The NFGT chose to use the broader MI<br />
concept because: (1) staff was advised that newer regulations were expected to be<br />
published soon; and (2) the <strong>Management</strong> <strong>Indicator</strong> (MI) concept included consideration<br />
of ecological communities as well as individual species. In the Plan, the NFGT selected<br />
18 wildlife species, 9 habitat communities, 8 fish, 2 guilds and a habitat constituent as MI<br />
to represent the habitat needs for the fauna and flora present in the planning area. Per<br />
direction in the Plan, the NFGT has been responsible for providing actual population<br />
estimates and, where possible, trends for management indicators.<br />
Many changes to the planning regulations have been proposed by the U.S. Forest Service<br />
(USFS) since 1982, with the latest changes published in 2008. These changes in<br />
regulations provided different methods for monitoring forest health and viability of<br />
species. As a result, Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Forest Service Handbook (FSH)<br />
direction for planning and monitoring has also changed several times. All of these<br />
proposed changes have met strong opposition in courtrooms across the nation. Most<br />
recently, the 2008 Planning Rule was vacated and remanded by the District Court in<br />
California on June 30, 2009. Currently, the NFGT has been directed to follow the 1982<br />
Planning Regulations for proposing any Plan Amendment.<br />
The NFGT should identify available protocols in existing databases as some of the first<br />
steps that need to be taken to solve existing problems and in order to streamline the<br />
monitoring and evaluation process.<br />
Additional information and guidance can be found in an April 2007 Forest Service report<br />
that considered ecological, social and economic attributes of desired conditions.” 4<br />
Publications and Research<br />
A literature review was conducted to determine if relevant publications and research exist<br />
concerning MI. A number of the documents discussed individual management indicator<br />
species, their relationships to habitats, actual monitoring details and findings for the<br />
specific species, while a few discussed the general use of MI as a whole to evaluate the<br />
effects of management activities on ecosystems.<br />
In a critique written by Landres, et al. 5 , the authors determined that, “Plant and animal<br />
species have been used for decades as indicators of air and water quality and agricultural<br />
and range conditions. Increasingly, vertebrates are used to assess population trends and<br />
habitat quality for other species.” The conceptual bases, assumptions, and published<br />
4 USDA-Forest Service. 2007. LMP Monitoring and Evaluation-A Monitoring Framework to Support<br />
Land <strong>Management</strong> Planning. Washington, D.C.<br />
5 Landres, P.B., J. Verner, and J.W. Thomas. 1988. Ecological Uses of Vertebrate <strong>Indicator</strong> <strong>Species</strong>: A<br />
Critique. Conservation Biology, Volume 2, No. 4.
guidelines for selection and use of vertebrates as ecological indicators were analyzed.<br />
The conclusion was, “that an absence of precise definitions and procedures, confounded<br />
criteria used to select species, and discordance with ecological literature severely<br />
weakens the effectiveness and credibility of using vertebrates as ecological indicators. In<br />
many cases, the use of ecological indicator species is inappropriate…” They then<br />
provide eight recommendations to make the use of indicators more rigorous.<br />
1. clearly state assessment goals,<br />
2. use indicators only when other assessment options are unavailable,<br />
3. choose indicator species by explicitly defined criteria that are in accord with<br />
assessment goals,<br />
4. include all species that fulfill stated selection criteria,<br />
5. know the biology of the indicator in detail and treat the indicator as a formal<br />
estimator in conceptual and statistical models,<br />
6. identify and define sources of subjectivity when selecting monitoring and<br />
interpreting indicator species,<br />
7. submit assessment design, methods of data collection and statistical analysis,<br />
interpretations, and recommendations to peer review, and<br />
8. direct research at developing an over-all strategy for monitoring wildlife that<br />
accounts for natural variability in population attributes and incorporates concepts<br />
from landscape ecology.”<br />
Although written several years ago and several of the above criteria are probably more<br />
intense than we would want to implement, some of the recommendations are still<br />
applicable today and are good direction to address the problems the NFGT is<br />
experiencing.<br />
In an article titled “Adaptive Monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and<br />
monitoring.” 6 Lindenmayer and Likens (2009) outlined the current problems with<br />
monitoring programs:<br />
1. Monitoring programs are driven by short-term funding or political directive rather<br />
than carefully posed questions and objectives,<br />
2. Monitoring programs have been poorly designed from the beginning, and<br />
3. Monitoring often includes a large number of species (laundry list), but resource<br />
and time constraints mean that this approach is done badly.<br />
Lindenmayer and Likens contend that asking questions to drive monitoring efforts is the<br />
most efficient and effective strategy to obtain meaningful ecological results.<br />
Dale and Beyeler 7 (2001) listed three concerns that hamper the use of ecological<br />
indicators are a resource management tool:<br />
6 Lindenmayer, D.B. and G.E. Likens. 2009. Adaptive Monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research<br />
and monitoring. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 (9):482-486.<br />
7 Dale, V. H. and S.C. Beyeler. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators.<br />
Published by Elsevier Science ltd.
1. Monitoring programs often depend on a small number of indicators and, as a<br />
consequence, fail to consider the full complexity of the ecological system,<br />
2. Choice of ecological indicators is often confounded in management programs that<br />
have vague long-term goal and objectives,<br />
3. <strong>Management</strong> and monitoring programs often lack scientific rigor because of their<br />
failure to use a defined protocol for identifying ecological indicators.<br />
“The Plan’s monitoring and evaluation is not rigorous scientific research, nor was it<br />
intended to be. The level of research is not necessary for evaluating Plan<br />
implementation.” 8<br />
It would be worthwhile to involve the Research Unit nearby to assist us in developing<br />
some protocols, if not national protocols for maintaining and evaluating monitoring data<br />
for species and ecological communities we might choose are not readily available<br />
elsewhere.<br />
The Case For and Against Monitoring Programs<br />
Table 1. Pros and Cons of Monitoring Programs<br />
Pros 9 Cons 10<br />
Monitoring programs provide a basis for Monitoring programs are prohibitively<br />
learning and understanding<br />
Monitoring program data can resolve<br />
complicated resources issues.<br />
Monitoring programs can provide new and<br />
novel approaches to management<br />
Monitoring programs can help us<br />
understand the loss of ecological resilience.<br />
Monitoring can provide insights into<br />
cause-and-effect relations between<br />
environmental stressors and anticipated<br />
ecosystem responses.<br />
expensive to implement<br />
Relationships between indicator species<br />
and habitat characteristics are often not<br />
known<br />
Changes in the population that are<br />
detected could be due to habitat<br />
changes beyond management control<br />
Monitoring of indicator species may be<br />
impractical because the large numbers<br />
of skilled staff required may not be<br />
available during the critical time<br />
periods.<br />
Selection of species is sometimes based<br />
on factors other than their biological or<br />
ecological representatives<br />
Court Rulings Including Recent Sierra Club Settlement Agreement<br />
8<br />
National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. 1999. The NFGT 1997-1999 Monitoring and Evaluation<br />
Report. Lufkin, Texas.<br />
9<br />
Busch, D. and J. Trexler. 2002. Monitoring Ecosystems. Island Press. 384 pp.<br />
10<br />
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1991. Wildlife <strong>Management</strong>: Problems Being Experienced with<br />
Current Monitoring Approach. Washington, D.C.
On August 17, 1997, Judge Schell issued an order stating that the agency’s actions or<br />
failure to act, have been “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise<br />
not in accordance with law” i.e. the NFMA and regulations, and that the FS has<br />
neither protected the key resources of soil and watershed nor adequately inventoried<br />
and monitored for wildlife and diversity, and whether the FS is meeting objectives and<br />
adhering to standards and guidelines of the regulations.<br />
Cause No. 4:04-CV-00374 - Sierra Club, et al v. Jacobs, et al in the U.S. District<br />
Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division involves four issues. In a partial<br />
ruling, the court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs – and against the Forest Service – on two<br />
counts. The court found that the NFGT was arbitrary and capricious when it issued two<br />
projects and vacated Forest Plan Amendment #4. It also ordered that an evidentiary<br />
hearing be held to consider the additional two counts concerning both <strong>MIS</strong> & PETS<br />
(Protected, Endangered and Threatened <strong>Species</strong>).<br />
MI or <strong>MIS</strong> and Other Forests<br />
The <strong>White</strong> River National Forest (WRNF) in Colorado revised its <strong>MIS</strong> list in 2006 in order to<br />
establish a revised <strong>MIS</strong> list that was better aligned with the applicable regulation, better<br />
served to indicate the effects of management activities on the forest, and ensured monitoring<br />
was conducted on species for which monitoring population trend is most feasible and useful.<br />
The WRNF reduced its <strong>MIS</strong> list from 16 to 10 species as a result of this Forest Plan<br />
Amendment.<br />
The Hoosier National Forest (HNF) in the Revised Land and Resource <strong>Management</strong><br />
Plan, reduced the number of <strong>MIS</strong> to five species in 2006.<br />
The National Forests in North Carolina amended the Land and Resource <strong>Management</strong><br />
Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in 2005. The Nantahala and Pisgah<br />
National Forests reduced their <strong>MIS</strong> list from 63 species down to 18 species.<br />
Conclusion/Strategies for Change<br />
Relevant publications and research are mixed on the use of MI to determine<br />
the effects of management activities on ecosystems. Courts nationally and<br />
locally have varied in their rulings on the MI issue, with some finding the<br />
Forest Service is doing an insufficient job of monitoring as planned and<br />
others stating that the Forest Service is being held to an impossible standard.<br />
It appears that MI are dealt with nationally and in Region 8 in a fairly consistent manner<br />
because species are chosen as a result of their direct links to each forests’ available<br />
habitat. However, many different varieties of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fisheries<br />
and biotic species, as well as biotic communities are chosen because of the differences in<br />
the range for species and differences in ecological conditions available on each national<br />
forest.<br />
Good indicators<br />
must be chosen to<br />
provide beneficial<br />
information.
After evaluating all of the available information, the NFGT FLT approved the<br />
development of a Forest Plan Amendment to revise the NFGT’s current list of MI<br />
(September 2009).<br />
The Plan can be amended (by a Non-Significant Amendment) with a list that contains<br />
more effective MI.<br />
1. Either substitute a new MI species or community for existing MI for those that are<br />
proposed to be dropped and/or look for opportunities to reduce the number of<br />
species or communities where there may be duplications or overlap.<br />
2. Public involvement (early and often) would be a key element to processing a<br />
Non-Significant Amendment. A Public Involvement Plan should be developed<br />
with detailed steps to be taken to involve interested and affected stakeholders.<br />
3. The Non-Significant Amendment would require use of the National<br />
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.<br />
With public involvement, a step-by-step strategy can be developed, documented, and<br />
implemented in order to move the NFGT towards making changes needed to better<br />
monitor its management actions. The strategy will address:<br />
1. Why we are creating a monitoring program.<br />
2. What we are going to measure.<br />
3. Where we are going to put sampling points or where sources of data will be<br />
obtained.<br />
4. How we are going to measure and provide results.<br />
By completing a Forest Plan Amendment, the NFGT can provide a list of MI that would<br />
better assess whether we are sustaining forest health and the viability of species (as<br />
required by NFMA).