A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

activities and detect change in the status of forest resources,” 2 changes are still needed. In order to decide what needs to be done to resolve problems with monitoring the existing MI, the planning staff has done several things. First, current laws and other direction were reviewed along with relevant publications and/or research articles. Next, court rulings where MI were an issue were considered and assessments were made of how other forests are dealing with this issue – both nationally and in Region 8. A general recap of the information that was evaluated and recommendations for strategies for promoting needed changes are provided in the following text. Laws and Other Direction The National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA at 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1604] directed that management of wildlife habitats “maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.” The NFMA, however, did not specify a method for monitoring Forest Service activity to determine its performance toward achieving these goals. A committee of scientists recommended the Management Indicator Species (MIS) approach and Forest Service regulations dated September 30, 1982 (36 CFR 219 – also known as the 1982 Planning Rule) adopted the committee’s recommendations. Under this MIS approach, forest managers identify and select a limited number of species that are then tracked as means of making broader assessments of the overall ecological conditions of the forest’s wildlife habitat and the other species dwelling in the habitat, as well as the effects of Forest Service management activities. Population changes in the indicator species being monitored are interpreted as a signal of changes in the health of the ecosystem. In a 1991 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report to the Secretary of Agriculture, the reviewing office determined that, “The Forest Service MIS approach to monitoring appeared to have several practical drawbacks (Table 1).” The report also noted that, “…substantial additional funds would be needed to support the carefully designed research essential to help identify and judge the efficacy of MIS as ecological indicators.” 3 Forest Service Washington Office (WO) acknowledged the problems; however, it was felt “that the difficulties stemmed from the way the MIS principles were applied.” National direction was then revised to a management indicators (MI) concept that would include not only species, but also special habitats and unique biological communities identified in the forest planning area. The intent was for monitoring to focus on habitat capability and to relate changes in habitat capability to associated effects on species populations. 2 USDA Forest Service-Resource Information Group. 2009. Draft Technical Guide: Developing a Monitoring Guide. Fort Collins, CO. 3 General Accounting Office (GAO). 1991. Wildlife Management: Problems Being Experienced with Current Monitoring Approach. Washington, D.C.
The NFGT utilized the 1982 Planning Rule during most of the revision process. Direction for MI (as published in the July 1, 1988 Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR 219.19.) was also used in the development of the Plan. The NFGT chose to use the broader MI concept because: (1) staff was advised that newer regulations were expected to be published soon; and (2) the Management Indicator (MI) concept included consideration of ecological communities as well as individual species. In the Plan, the NFGT selected 18 wildlife species, 9 habitat communities, 8 fish, 2 guilds and a habitat constituent as MI to represent the habitat needs for the fauna and flora present in the planning area. Per direction in the Plan, the NFGT has been responsible for providing actual population estimates and, where possible, trends for management indicators. Many changes to the planning regulations have been proposed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) since 1982, with the latest changes published in 2008. These changes in regulations provided different methods for monitoring forest health and viability of species. As a result, Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) direction for planning and monitoring has also changed several times. All of these proposed changes have met strong opposition in courtrooms across the nation. Most recently, the 2008 Planning Rule was vacated and remanded by the District Court in California on June 30, 2009. Currently, the NFGT has been directed to follow the 1982 Planning Regulations for proposing any Plan Amendment. The NFGT should identify available protocols in existing databases as some of the first steps that need to be taken to solve existing problems and in order to streamline the monitoring and evaluation process. Additional information and guidance can be found in an April 2007 Forest Service report that considered ecological, social and economic attributes of desired conditions.” 4 Publications and Research A literature review was conducted to determine if relevant publications and research exist concerning MI. A number of the documents discussed individual management indicator species, their relationships to habitats, actual monitoring details and findings for the specific species, while a few discussed the general use of MI as a whole to evaluate the effects of management activities on ecosystems. In a critique written by Landres, et al. 5 , the authors determined that, “Plant and animal species have been used for decades as indicators of air and water quality and agricultural and range conditions. Increasingly, vertebrates are used to assess population trends and habitat quality for other species.” The conceptual bases, assumptions, and published 4 USDA-Forest Service. 2007. LMP Monitoring and Evaluation-A Monitoring Framework to Support Land Management Planning. Washington, D.C. 5 Landres, P.B., J. Verner, and J.W. Thomas. 1988. Ecological Uses of Vertebrate Indicator Species: A Critique. Conservation Biology, Volume 2, No. 4.
Page 1: Introduction A White Paper Discussi
Page 5 and 6: 1. Monitoring programs often depend
Page 7: After evaluating all of the availab

A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?