NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14104

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 5.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!ogicse!amb4.ccalmr.ogi.edu!jhurst
From: [e-mail] (James Hurst)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Who ignores science?
Summary: A little on indicator species
Keywords: Stop the Orygun Chainsaw Massacre
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:05:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47823
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Let the Wild Rumpus Begin
Lines: 94

Andrew  writes:

    [regarding wildlife/timber conflicts on the Tongass National Forest]

>This doesn't mean these animals should not be conserved. Indeed, I gather
>from one of Jim Hurst's postings the Forestry Service is required by
>law to do this.

The relevant statute is the National Forest Management, which was hammered out
after a couple of decades of squabbling between environmental interests, back
in 1976.  After the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, two major
systems of wildlife management developed in the FS:  species richness and
featured species.  Both were designed to acheive "habitat diversity."  NFMA
addresses wildlife habitat on several levels, some general, some quite specific.

In particular, NFMA requires that forest planners "provide for diversity of
plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the
specific land area in order to meet overall multiple use objectives."  This
is the "diversity provision."   A committee of scientists met to develop
regulations to implement this.  They translated this into three basic
management directives:  1)  "viable" populations of existing forest vertebrates
must be maintained and "well distributed" in each national forest.  2) Certain
species must be chosen and used as "indicators."  3)  Timber and other
management that adversely impacts fish habitat is constrained.

For the purposes of planning, a viable population is one that has the estimated
numbers and distribution to insure its continued existence.  Hashing out
exactly what this meant took some time, but it turns out (surprise) that
marginally viable populations are not legally supportable.

It would be virtually impossible to satisfy these requirements if each species
must be addressed in detail.  Wild vertebrates are difficult to measure; among
other problems, they tend to hide from humans.  Getting good inventories is
tough enough.  The scientific committe dealt with this by recommending the
use of "management indicator species."  Using MIS doesn't diminish the require-
ment for well distributed populations, but rather, properly used, should help
ensure them.  MIS means planners select from among the hundreds of vertebrates
typical on a forest a few to act as proxies for the rest.  There are several
categories considered in selecting MIS.  Sensitive and threatened species,
determined by other state or federal agencies, is one category.

Dingo asked awhile back how many of the T&E species waiting for listing were
indicator species.  I'm not sure how much the concept of indicator species is
used in ecology thesedays, but since habitat destruction is the major cause
of species decline, IMHO most of these species probably indicate the loss of
some sort of habitat.  MIS is more a management concept than an ecological one.

The spotted owl is one such species used on a regional level in the Pacific
Northwest.  It is a forest interior species, requiring large old trees and
a multilayered canopy.  Apparently, the structural diversity implied by a
multilayered canopy is one of the critical factors.  As Andrew noted in
another thread, it is threatened by human manipulation of the landscape, not
by natural factors.

In this case, the manipulation has been wholesale liquidation of old growth
forests off public lands, at great loss to the taxpayer.  Very little ancient
forest remains in private hands.  So mills that require large logs are totally
dependent, along with the owl, on the remaining forests.  One requires that
the forests be consumed, the other that they be maintained.

With intelligent management, these forests can produce (as is required by laws
little enforced these last twelve years) a sustained flow of saw timber, owls,
clean water, and many other amenities, from cancer drugs to exlax.  Such a
strategy will benefit both the public at large, and local communities with
strong economic interests in the forests.

Lest I sound too moderate, let me relate the latest scam against the taxpayers
in the woods.  A sale is offered of mixed hemlock (moderate value wood) and
douglas fir.  A mill bids very high for the hemlock, and low for the fir.
They get the sale, but then, because they only pay for what the trucks take
out, they take only the fir, which they get for cheap. (~$200/mbf, for
reference, private timber not this good goes for $1250/mbf).  Then, because it
would be to obvious to leave all the hemlocks standing, they cut them down and
leave them on the site.  I've seen this on the ground.  A friend told me he
saw 0.5 million board feet rolled into a gulley for this reason.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!  THEY'RE WASTING OUR LAND AND RIPPING US OFF!  IT MUST END!

Clearly, reform is in order.  The first step is to drop the cut.  No more
welfare logging.

>A report from their own biologists indicating they are
>not doing this is presumably very embarassing.

As I noted in my followup to John McC, the Forest Service has been presented
by Congress with interesting options:  either suffer such embarassment, and
make their budget, or follow the spirit of the law, and suffer budget cuts.
The agency has tended to promote those who made their budget, and to gloss
over infractions of weakly enforced environmental laws.  So, while it should
be and probably is rather embarassing, the agency as a whole is used to it.

                    Cheers,

                    Jim