This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH NEEDS
IN WESTERN FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS
FOR NONGAME BIRDS
John W. Mumma
Director
Wildlife Management Staff
Forest Service
USDA
Ogden, Utah
ABSTRACT
The indicator species concept needs considerable attention both by
research and management, as implied in the National Forest
Management Act of 1976.
A national policy dealing with nongame
birds is sorely needed; economic values, as they pertain to nongame
birds, must be addressed in the 1980's.
Intensified interagency
cooperative relations is required for synchronization of data storage
and retrieval efforts to help reduce the amount of duplication in
these efforts.
We also need stepped-up information and education
efforts to highlight success stories
and a definition of what the
essential habitat components actually are-- either by life form
groups and/or by species of birds.
A hardback-bound book containing
the findings expressed in the first symposium and the four national
nongame bird workshops would be very useful to managers.
KEYWORDS:
research needs, economic values, indicator species,
habitat components, data storage and retrieval.
524
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to be here to share the next
few minutes with you covering some aspects of management and research needs for
nongame wildlife habitat.
Before delving into the subject at hand, I would like to take this opportunity
to compliment the other speakers on the program. They certainly represent a very
distinguished group of experts in the Western United States dealing with nongame
birds. My compliments also to Dick DeGraaf for his efforts in organizing the
previous workshops in his capacity as Chairman of the Nongame Steering Committee.
In preparation for this discussion, many individuals were contacted, representing both management and research, to capture their thoughts on what the needs
are for nongame birds. Interestingly enough, the one common denominator they all
expressed was dollars. There is no doubt that additional funds are an essential
part of any continuing program. I think the subject of funds would form the basis
of an interesting panel in itself. Be that as it may, the attendance at this
meeting is indicative of the fact that priorities are changing and that when you
have to operate within existing budgets, there are ways and means in which jobs
can be accomplished.
And while we are on the subject of economics, one area of need concerns the
economic values of nongame animals. Many projects and plans utilize various
approaches to economics, whether it is benefit/cost ratios, cost effectiveness,
or other methods. One of the problems that biologists and managers are often
confronted with is expressing wildlife values. Whether we like it or not, in
this day and age, it is necessary to address the economics of various proposals.
Probably the other most consistent item mentioned dealt with the requirements
contained in the National Forest Management Act of 1976. In some respects, the
requirements are almost terrifying when one looks at the final Regulations
published in the Federal Register of September 1979. For the first time, Forest
land managers must look at the relationship of animals to their vegetative
communities and indicate changes that will take place over time. Herein lies the
biggest management need and, hence, a major research topic and this deals with
the indicator species concept. A part and parcel of this is the diversity
questions that must be dealt with.
The efforts that Jack Thomas and his co-workers made into the development of
the managed forests in the Blue Mountains is one of the highlights of the 70's.
It has certainly illustrated the knowledge to date of the relationships of many
animals and furthered the concept of life forms. Much of the philosophies and
postulated relationships need additional research for many habitats throughout
the Western United States. Management is now asking for, and it behooves research
to provide, the answers to questions being raised about - What if this type of
vegetation is treated and what can be the expected animal response 20, 40, 100,
and even 200 years from the present?
One question that needs to be answered is how we can actually improve habitat
for various species. Interestingly enough, we recently contacted some people to
request information on designing an ideal habitat mosaic or complex for certain
species. We were informed that this information is not really known. Rather,
what is known is that they occur in certain types. But how much, where, and in
what arrangement is largely unknown. One exception that comes to mind is Ohmart
and Anderson's work, largely in Arizona, in creating both vertical and horizontal
mosaics. Efforts of the type of work they have done on the Colorado River is
needed for the ponderosa pine type.
525
Dave Winn's work here in the Intermountain Region is certainly noteworthy.
Projects underway on the North Slope Uinta Mountains, Sawtooth National Forest,
Curlew National Grassland, and on the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming
will help in our understanding complexities of the relationships between "critters"
and their habitats. The results will be available in the near future. The program
will be contained in WILD RAM (Wildlife Resources Analysis Model).
An additional component of this question concerns the m1n1mum size of habitat
essential to support a viable population of a species. This is necessary if we are
to adequately address the indicator species concept. We suspect that true indicator
species need additional study for various habitats in the country. Monitoring, as
required by the National Forest Management Act, is needed. What type of monitoring,
how and what frequency is needed? Is monitoring of vegetation in itself adequate?
If not, what other avenues are there?
Another management need deals with the impacts associated with increased energy
utilization. I am referring here to the dramatic, almost staggering increases in
fuelwood utilization throughout the West as a supplement to heating fuels. What
impact will this have on the cavity nesting birds and other species that utilize
snags as an important component of their habitat?
I recently saw the figures relating to an estimate that 3.3 million cords of
firewood were removed from the National Forests in fiscal year 1979. This is
through free-use permits only and does not include commercial firewood utilization.
This is roughly equal to seven million barrels of oil, or about a 12-hour supply of
oil for the entire nation. Nearly one-half million free permits were issued and
the Forest Service has noticed a dramatic increase the past several years in firewood consumption.
Quite naturally, the most accessible areas are the ones utilized the most.
Certainly, we cannot advocate that all of the snag-dependent species must be
relegated to inaccessible areas only. We may be forced to adopt some of the
European practices on a major scale such as installation of nesting boxes. While
this is not the most appealing to certain people, it may be the only recourse in
those areas adjacent to urban areas heavily utilizing firewood. What the overall
effects of moving toward more artificial nesting structures are is certainly
deserving of research when one begins to wonder about the ramifications in terms
of dependent species, i.e., kestrels, bats, etc.
One of the charges for managers is to integrate intensive snag management
on at least the same scale as timber management. You have already heard that
more intensive timber management is going to happen. It then behooves us to get
on with the job of actually managing for snags. And, as much as I enjoy a fireplace, can we afford the true costs of this energy source? We are reminded of
the statement that there is no free lunch!
Related to this is the fact that substantial efforts must be made on a
national basis to inform the general public about the value of nongame birds
as a part of the total ecosystem. I would suggest that more public information
documents such as the publication, "Birds of the Upper Wind River Valley," are
needed. The value of this type of a document is twofold:
(1) It exemplifies
cooperative efforts between the Audubon Society, university system, and National
Forest managers; (2) It relates bird species to certain habitats and identifies
locales within the area of where birders can go to see species at what time of year.
We are looking forward to developing more of these. Major interpretive efforts
on a national scale could be developed.
526
Other important components that need to be addressed are the use of a central
computer storage file or data bank that contains up-to-date information on various
studies and surveys completed. Many agencies currently have programs underway, but
a better effort needs to be made nationally or regionally for coordination so that
information is available to managers.
A national policy for federal agencies for nongame birds is sorely needed.
How does this nation feel about nongame birds and, more specifically, what are the
broad, long-range goals? I understand that an overall wildlife policy will be
proposed by both the Agriculture and Interior Departments in March at the North
American Wildlife Conference. While this is certainly applaudable, the Congress of
the United States should enact legislation designed to enhance the recognition of
nongame species. National nongame legislation has not been passed. However, I
do believe it is forthcoming. Yet, all in all, the many agencies need to reach
agreement on a basic policy dealing with nongame animala.
More positive information and education efforts need to be placed on habitat
improvement programs designed for nongame birds.
Interestingly enough, some progress is being made at the state level to improve
nongame programs. The Colorado program is definitely a model in this respect,
much like Senate Bill No. 15 just passed in this session of the Utah Legislature.
Th;lsBill provides for an income tax checkoff and donation for a nongame program
whichshould help provide additional impetus to the nongame program here in Utah.
Most of us are familiar with the Kirtland warbler-jack pine burning program.
This is a good, positive nongame habitat management effort and, as additional ones
are developed, we need to get the information out to the public. If we can develop
an appreciation and understanding of the contribution these small critters play
in the ecosystem and, at the same time, what we are doing about it, much support
will follow. Management indicator species need to be identified and their population needs determined.
Lastly, a publication that would summarize the first symposium and subsequent
four workshops is one of the biggest current needs. Some people have heard of one
of the workshops or perhaps another one, but unless you were associated with the
other workshops, you are probably not aware of them. For this session, we in the
Intermountain Region prepared a resume' of the previous sessions. I would suggest
that a hard-bound book compiling the information contained in the previous proceedings would be a tremendous asset, not only for the profession, but would be
a welcome addition to the wildlife management curriculum at the college and
university level. This, then, could form the basis for a course dealing with
nongame birds.
Much of the discussion so far has centered on nongame birds, and I am
reminded of a recent publication dealing with voles and their role in the management
of coniferous forests. You probably have seen this or other ones talking about
the functions that small mammals contribute to the functioning of an ecosystem.
I think this just touches the tip of the iceberg and would suggest that a
followup conference to this workshop be held that would deal with small mammal
habitat relationships.
As you can detect from the previous discussion, much work remains to be done
in both management and research.
527
In closing, I am reminded of these words of Aldo Leopold:
"Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. By land is meant
all of the things on, over, or in the earth. Harmony with land is like
harmony with a friend: You cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his
left.
That is to say, you cannot love game and hate predators: You
cannot conserve the waters and waste the ranges: You cannot build the
Forest and mine the farm. The land is one organism. Its parts. like our
own parts. compete with each other and co-operate with each other. The
competitions are as much a part of the inner workings as the co-operations.
You can regulate them--cautiously--but not abolish them."
528