Download Management Indicator Species

Management Indicator Species
I.
II.
Introduction - Relevance of MIS
Focal Species
A. Indicator species
B. Keystone species
C. Ecological engineers
D. Umbrella species
E. Species of high interest
Management Indicator Species
III. Indicator Species
B. Potential problems with use of
indicator species
IV. Forest Service Use of MIS
A. Background and regulatory language
B. Legal Arena
Management Indicator Species
III. Indicator Species
A. Ecological Uses of Indicator Species
1. Indicators of environmental
contaminants
2. Indicators of population trends
of other species
3. Indicators of habitat quality
Relevance of MIS
• Key issue behind MIS is monitoring.
• Plant and animal species are being
extirpated at an alarming rate worldwide.
We cannot monitor populations of all
species. How do we decide what and how
to monitor to help us reduce the rate of
biodiversity loss.
1
Focal Species
Categories of Focal Species
• MIS are a category of “focal species.”
Focal species include a variety of species
categories, the key characteristic of which is
that their status and time trend provide
insights to the integrity of the larger
ecological system (Committee of Scientists
1999).
• Indicator species (e.g., MIS)
• Species of concern: Species that may not
necessarily provide information on the
larger ecosystem, but because of their rarity
or population threats, will be monitored and
assessed for viability. Examples: greater
sage-grouse, peregrine falcon, coho salmon
populations, grizzly bear, pygmy rabbit.
Categories of Focal Species
Categories of Focal Species
• Keystone species: Species whose effects on
other species or ecosystem structure or
function are much greater than would be
predicted based simply upon their
abundance or biomass. Examples: beaver,
certain woodpeckers such as red-cockaded
woodpecker, pocket gophers, etc.
• Ecological engineers: Species that
substantially alter their habitat thus altering
the habitat for many other species.
Examples: beaver, pocket gophers, others?.
2
Categories of Focal Species
• Umbrella species: Species that because of
their large area requirements or use of
multiple habitats, encompass the habitat
requirements of many other species.
Examples: grizzly bear, African elephant,
tiger, etc.
Categories of Focal Species
• Species of High Interest: Species for which
there is great public interest, even though
their population status is not at risk.
Example: Mule deer, elk, other game
species.
Categories of Focal Species
Definition of Indicator Species
• These species categories are not mutually
exclusive. For example, beavers and pocket
gophers can be considered both ecological
engineers and keystone species. Gray wolf
could be considered a species of concern, a
keystone species, and an umbrella species.
Example: Yellowstone wolf reintroduction.
• “…an organism whose characteristics (e.g.,
presence or absence, population density,
dispersion, reproductive success) are used
as an index of attributes too difficult,
inconvenient, or expensive to measure for
other species or environmental conditions of
interest.” (Landres et al. 1988).
3
Ecological Uses of Indicator
Species
Ecological Uses of Indicator
Species
• Indicators of Environmental Contaminants:
Species whose status is believed to reflect
the effects of environmental contaminants
or other environmental perturbations.
Examples: Lichen communities/effects of
air pollution; aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities/effects of stream pollution,
etc.
• Indicators of Population Trends of Other
Species: Species whose status is believed to
be indicative of the status of some other
harder-to-measure species or of a larger
functional group of species (“guilds”).
Example: Monitoring the status of greater
sage-grouse to make inferences about the
status of all sagebrush-nesting bird species
in a particular area.
Ecological Uses of Indicator
Species
Potential Problems With Use of
Indicator Species
• Indicators of Habitat Quality: Species
whose status is believed to be reflective of
the condition of a particular habitat type or
ecosystem. Example: Monitoring
population abundance of Brewer’s sparrows
to make inferences about the status of
sagebrush communities in a particular area.
• Assumption: Population status of one
species is indicative of the population status
of other functionally related species.
Problem: Ecological literature provides
little support for this assumption. Each
species possesses a unique array of life
history characteristics and thus responds to
its environment in a unique way.
4
Potential Problems With Use of
Indicator Species
• Assumption: Population abundance/density of an
indicator species has a positive (and linear)
correlation with habitat quality. Problem: Density
is probably seldom linearly correlated with habitat
quality, and sometimes may not even be positively
correlated with habitat quality (read Van Horne
1983). Examples: “population sinks” and species
whose social status influence habitat use; species
whose populations go through periodic
fluctuations (Microtus example); species that use
different habitats seasonally, etc.
Potential Problems With Use of
Indicator Species
• Assumption: Status of an indicator species
serves as an index of the status of an entire
plant or animal community or ecosystem.
Problem: This is an unrealistic assumption
given the extreme complexity of natural
ecosystems.
Potential Problems With Use of
Indicator Species
Potential Problems With Use of
Indicator Species
• A practical problem with the use of indicator
species is that criteria for selecting indicator
species are often confounded. Example: Many
national forests selected MIS because they were
species the high public interest (e.g., mule deer,
elk, wild turkey, etc.). However, are population
changes of game species like these likely to
accurately reflect the effects of Forest Service land
management practices (“Management” Indicator
Species)?
• Another practical problem with use of Indicator
Species is the high financial costs of obtaining
accurate measures of abundance or other
population characteristics. Even if an Indicator
Species can be selected whose abundance is
strongly correlated with the environmental
criterion of interest, how practical is it to expect a
government agency with limited budgets and
multiple mandates to be able to measure that
species’ abundance with sufficient accuracy?
5
Forest Service Use of MIS
Forest Service Use of MIS
• Forest Service MIS concept is closely
associated with the agency’s regulatory
requirement under the 1976 National Forest
Management Act to “…provide for
diversity of plant and animal
communities…”
• “In order to estimate the effects of each
alternative on fish and wildlife populations,
certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate
species present in the area shall be
identified and selected as management
indicator species ... These species shall be
selected because their population changes
are believed to indicate the effects of
management activities.”
Forest Service Use of MIS
Forest Service Use of MIS
• “Select management indicators … that best
represent the issues, concerns, and
opportunities to support recovery of
Federally-listed species, provide continued
viability of sensitive species, and enhance
management of wildlife and fish for
commercial, recreational, scientific,
subsistence, or aesthetic values or uses.”
• “Population trends of the management
indicator species will be monitored and
relationships to habitat changes
determined.”
6
Forest Service Use of MIS
• “The use of management indicator species
is intended to allow the [Forest] Service to
thoroughly evaluate the effects of the [forest
management] alternatives on fish and
wildlife populations by using a ‘class
representative,’ without having to evaluate
each species individually.” Inland Empire,
88 F.3d at 762.
MIS Legal Arena
• The Uinta NF’s 2003 Revised Forest Plan was
appealed by Utah Environmental Congress (UEC)
on the following points:
– Forest violated NEPA by not varying MIS by
alternative.
– Forest violated NFMA by failing to select MIS for
certain major vegetation types on the Forest.
– Forest violated NFMA by selecting an insufficient
number of MIS to provide the needed information on
management impacts to biodiversity and viability.
MIS Legal Arena
• In its original 1985 Forest Plan the Uinta
NF had 22 MIS.
• In its 2003 Revised Forest Plan the Uinta
NF dropped down to 5 species: northern
goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, beaver,
Colorado River cutthroat trout, and
Bonneville cutthroat trout.
MIS Legal Arena
• Decision by FS Appeal Reviewing Officer:
– “I find the record provides sufficient documentation of
a deliberative process for selecting MIS, …, and
linkage to probable management activities. Contrary to
the contentions raised by the appellant, there are no
legal requirements to select MIS to represent every
major habitat type…The Forest has provided a
reasonable approach with sufficient information for
selecting MIS and therefore, I find no violation of law,
regulation, or policy.”
7
MIS Legal Arena
MIS Legal Arena
• Monroe Mountain Ecosystem Restoration Project,
Fishlake NF, Richfield, Utah.
• Project description: 1) restore 2500 of aspen
forest, 2) treat 2645 acres of mixed conifer/aspen
stands to reduce fuels, 3) reduce density of 248
acres of spruce/fir stands, thus reducing risk of
spruce beetle infestation; 4) convert 1300 acres of
sagebrush into grass/forb areas, thus creating more
habitat for livestock and wildlife; 5) provide 8.7
million board feet of timber, thus supporting the
local economy.
• Project appealed by Utah Environmental Congress
(UEC) based on lack of MIS population
monitoring data.
• FS decision on Monroe Project affirmed by FS
Regional Forester in Ogden.
• UEC sues FS in U.S. District Court of Utah.
• District Court judge rules in favor of FS.
• UEC appeals District Court decision in the U.S.
10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
MIS Legal Arena
MIS Legal Arena
• “At issue is the extent of the United States Forest
Service’s obligations under its regulations to
monitor management indicator species before
approving forest management activities. Finding
the Forest Service’s monitoring efforts sufficient,
the district court affirmed the Record of Decision
authorizing the …project. Exercising jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we REVERSE and
REMAND.”
• “UEC argued that the Forest Service authorized
the Monroe Project without the relevant MIS
population data…in violation of the APA, the
NFMA, the NFMA’s implementing regulations,
and the Fishlake Forest Plan. In support of this
argument, UEC claimed that the MIS population
data was deficient because the Forest Service used
habitat trend modeling as a proxy for actual
population surveys, rather than actual quantitative
data, which they argue is required by 36 C.F.R. §
219.19.”
8
MIS Legal Arena
MIS Legal Arena
• “Relying on the plain language of the
regulation, the Forest Service claims that §
219.19 requires only that it monitor
population trends of MIS, leaving the
method of monitoring – whether habitat
information, actual population data, or some
combination of the two – to the discretion
of the Forest Service.”
• “Having determined that § 219.19 applies to
project level activities and requires that the Forest
Service gather quantitative data on specific MIS
populations, we turn to UEC’s specific objections
to the Forest Service’s approval of the Monroe
Project. In particular, UEC challenges the Forest
Service’s monitoring of the goshawk, Bonneville
cutthroat trout, southwestern willow flycatcher,
sage grouse and sage nesters, and cavity nesters.”
MIS Legal Arena
MIS Legal Arena
• Data on MIS populations presented by the
Fishlake NF in the project record:
– Northern goshawk: helicopter survey of nesting and
foraging habitat in project area; goshawk territory
surveys in all proposed timber sale areas.
– Bonneville cutthroat trout: “…cursory check…” in
1999 of Bonneville cutthroat trout that were
reintroduced into Manning Creek in 1996 and annual
monitoring of trout in Manning Meadow Reservoir.
– Southwestern willow flycatcher: No data presented.
• Data on MIS populations presented by the
Fishlake NF in the project record:
– Sage grouse and sage nesters: “…unconfirmed
sightings…” of sage grouse in project area. No
data presented.
– Cavity nesters: No data presented.
9
MIS Legal Arena
MIS Legal Arena
• “…the district court determined that because there
‘have been no known sightings of …Sage Nesters
on Monroe Mountain,’ the Forest Service could
not collect hard population data, …the court
refused to interpret the language of the NFMA to
require the impossible.”
• “The district court stated that there ‘have been no
sightings of Cavity nesters…on Monroe
Mountain.”
• “Because we conclude that the Forest Service has
not complied with its duties under Forest Service
regulations to monitor several of the relevant
management indicator species, we conclude that
the Forest Service’s authorization of the Monroe
Project was arbitrary and capricious. We
REVERSE the district court’s order affirming the
Forest Service … Decision and REMAND for
further proceedings in compliance with this
ruling.”
10