This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain.
SUMMARY
Laurence R. Jahn
Vice-President
Wildlife Management Institute
Washington, D.C.
Fellow Resource Managers:
I am pleased to be here at this last of the regional workshops designed as a follow-through on the 1975 Tucson symposium on the management of forest and range habitats for nongame birds.
My purpose today is to examine, through an overview, the trail of these workshops, and focus on significant items laid along the way to satisfy the objective of this series of four regional workshops. That objective was to ensure that nongame bird habitat requirements are considered in forest and range management, and that a diversity of natural biological communities are maintained.
Those generating facts on species, populations and habitat requirements of birds have learned that the information must be woven into the resource or land management plan of resource managers to yield positive on-the-ground results.
That several laws--including the Multiple Use, Sustained Yield Act of
1960--have called for effective planning to assure multiple benefits from forest lands and rangelands is obvious. Only relatively recently have the responses of resource managers, biologists and other scientists broadened to ensure sustained yields of all forms of wildlife while planning and carrying out economic and recreational activities. This is because perspectives on planning for uses of forest lands and rangelands have been evolving slowly.
The time frame, objectives and achievements are revealing, and help us understand the current transitional stage of management.
Prior to 1910. Emphasis was on selection of high-altitude vantage points for fire detection and prevention purposes.
1910-1940+. Functional resource "development plans" were framed, with.emphasis on timber and domestic livestock. Coordination among individual functional plans left much to be desired at the field level.
529

After 1960.
After 1970.
The Multiple Use, Sustained Yield Act of 1960 called for shifting from a single, functional, planning mold to a multifunctional frame that included water, timber, recreation, wildlife and forage resources. Conservation and management of the named resources was called for. Planning generally was done by one man with the information readily available. Plans largely were prepared from a forester's viewpoint, as only a few other resource professionals were employed then.
The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, the
1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act, the 1976 National Forest Management
Act and the recent implementing regulations covering forest lands and rangelands all call for interdisciplinary analyses of all "federal actions."
The overall thrust is to identify in advance how the lands and waters in the National Forest System will be allocated and managed for a variety of uses.
Natural values are to be given equal consideration with economic values in plans and actions.
In 1973, the U.S. changed from a one-objective system of national economic development (NED) to a twoobjective system by adding the environmental quality
(EQ) objective. This action was prompted by recognition that there are values important to society beyond dollar expression. Those values were given equal status with economic values. This was not completely new. For example, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture never has calculated costs and benefits on soil and water management practices recommended in farm and ranch management plans. The two-objective system recognized this procedure and also was designed to help avoid the adverse impacts of strictly economic developments and costs to taxpayers of needed corrective and restoration actions. Such costs were highlighted when some Great Lakes fishes were removed from the markets due to chemical contaminants, when residents were forced to leave their homes along New York's Love
Canal--an area where buried chemical wastes resurfaced-and in other cases as well. In all situations, economic benefit-cost analyses were misleading and incomplete; they ignored externalities and public views.
Now, within the framework of the EQ objective, both the biotic community and the ecosystem are to be accounted for in planning and carrying out proposed actions. In forests and rangelands, this means the status of birds and other living resources are to be used as barometers to reflect the integrity and health of those natural functional systems. This new demand provides biologists, foresters, and other resource managers with unique opportunities to broaden the scope of forest and range management, improve land management plans, and help assure multiple benefits on a sustained, yield basis.
530

1974.
1975.
1979.
1980.
The first final environmental impact statements for unit plans on forest and rangelands were filed with the Council on
Environmental Quality. Examination of those reports shows a general lack of information on adequate predictions of consequences of different land-use alternatives for living resources, such as fish and wildlife. None of these early plans offered concrete allocation of habitats or management direction specifically to meet the needs of nongame b{rds and other living resources.
In May at the Tucson, Arizona symposium, a strong call was registered to recognize fully nongame bird habitat needs, as well as needs for other living resources, in land planning and management decisions. A bridge had to pe built to connect the accumulating knowledge on birds and their life requirements to land-use planning and management procedures and actions. This bridge still is being worked on today. Important elements gradually being defined are quantified objectives and an accountability system for wildlife habitat in terms used easily by practical resource managers at the field level.
The helpful landmark publication entitled Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests was recently released. It provides the framework for information and procedures to help ensure input of wildlife needs into land-use planning and management decisions. Although the biological information is specific to the Blue Mountains of Washington and Oregon, the concepts, principles and procedures have universal application. That report is a substantial contribution resulting from research, management experiences and planning efforts during the
"planning decade of the 1970s."
The 1980s have been labeled the "action decade." This declaration is most appropriate for the topic being considered here. The identified c~ncepts, principles and procedures for nongame birds and other living resources must be incorporated in every compartment and unit management plan for all forests and rangelands. During the opening session, Max Peterson stated that such action would be the central focus during his term as Chief Forester. Since his term is undefined, a target year of 1985--when all land management plans are to be completed on the National Forest System--is the time frame for registering accomplishments. But remember, the acid test will be the effectiveness of management applied on the ground.
This concentrated effort will require a high degree of coordinated teamwork among professionals and citizens--a process that we have seen previously only infrequently. Foresters, wildlifers and fishery specialists are urged to pool their knowledge and judgments to advance improved management of forests and rangelands for multiple outputs and benefits.
The concepts, principles and procedures for incorporating living resource needs into land-use plans, decisions and actions have been defined. Case histories on individual forests and rangelands reported at this and previous workshops provide clear
531

testimony of practical, workable approaches. Plans for individual national forests illustrate clearly the two general concepts in planning and managing wildlife habitats. They are:
1. Species richness; and
2. Featured species habitat maintenance and management.
Species richness allocations have been designated "Resource
Production-Basic." Areas assigned to this category emphasize wood fiber and domestic livestock, with wildlife habitat at a prescribed level, such as sufficient habitat to maintain
SO percent of optimum wildlife population levels. By focusing on habitats required for feeding and reproduction, the land manager can reduce his considerations for hundreds of species to a relatively small number of life forms. For example, 379 species of land vertebrates were combined to 16 life forms in Oregon.
This is a critical simplifying approach that avoids overloading a resource manager with excessive demands in planning, decision making and implementing actions. Indicator species-those most sensitive to habitat manipulations--can serve as barometers for other species with similar but less-restrictive habitat needs. By using this life form-habitat requirement concept, a manager can make a decision with respect to wildlife, with the wildlife-commodity relationships identified clearly.
The overall objective should be to maintain the maximum number of species at densities most closely reflecting established baseline community conditions.
In proceeding on this basis, each participant in the interdisciplinary planning team will face some difficult questions.
1. What was the "pristine" vegetative community? When? What was or is the "natural" condition? When?
Answers to these questions hinge on identifying the vegetative community and the disturbances subsequent to that specific time of reference.
Several speakers emphasized difficulties in defining and reestablishing pristine or natural conditions of forests and rangelands. The problem is that such written records--usually fragmentary--span less than two centuries and photography less than 150 years. In-depth evaluations of landscape areas and plant communities are needed to piece together a firmer understanding of historic conditions.
2. A related second specific question is, how much old growth is needed?
Where?
Here we may need to consider ecoregions or states as fundamental landscape units within which to identify all existing old-growth stands of each different plant community. How many of each are there now?
Where do they exist? How many will not be subject to timber harvest and other conversions, such as those in national parks, wilderness areas, natural areas, monuments, wildlife refuges and other similarly designated areas? These communities should serve as some of the reference study areas where research is conducted to help define more precisely what is
"pristine" and "natural," and to provide information needed to improve
532

the quality of data used in the planning-decision making-management matrix employed to manage forests and rangelands.
Management plans for forests and rangelands should show how points of concern for birds are accommodated. For example, in the Douglas fir forest type, there are four concerns for birds in stands managed for timber:
1. Shortening of the grass-forb and shrub stages;
2. Effects of an even-aged Douglas fir monoculture;
3. Drastic reduction or elimination of snags; and
4. Drastic reduction or elimination of old-growth (120+ years) forest.
Managers should address these and other similar concerns in management plans and environmental impact as.sessments and statements. They should clearly spell out why each concern is unwarranted. That preventative approach would be helpful in gaining citizen support for proposed management plans and in avoiding court reviews.
Quantity and quality of the contents of management plans rest on the basic data generated for each forest and range type or biotic community. That more or better data are needed for some communities was emphasized by a number of speakers.
Two items need constant attentio~ to make the matrix system for land management planning, decision making and implementation function effectively.
1. The vegetative community classification and inventory systems must identify successional stages. Any system that fails to do this will severely limit capabilities to predict consequences of alternative management prescriptions. Current and future successional stages must be understood thoroughly.
2. Feeding and reproduction needs of individual species and groups of species must be identified. Using the best available information now should be acceptable in completing forest and range management plans. This approach is used elsewhere, such as in water pollution prevention and control programs.
The management plans developed using a matrix system must be monitored by law. Both quality control and research are needed to improve this relatively new system. Quality control is required to check on procedures and results.
Research results are needed to evaluate predicted responses called for in management plans. Segregating cause-and-effect relationships in this feedback of information will aid in improving the effectiveness of the total planningaction matrix system. Research also should supply any added basic information needed on plant communities, wildlife species or groups, and their interrelationships. Inputs on these items will strengthen the overall system. But keep in mind, the system functions continuously on the best information available.
Evaluating the vegetative stands within a community implies that the forester, range specialist, biologist or other resource manager reads the landscape and prescribes silvicultural or other management measures that will yield multiple benefits on a sustained basis. This means that the manager must have a firm understanding of each biotic community within the geographic
533

area(s) of his or her responsibility. This demand will stretch the expertise of many resource managers, especially when they rotate stations on a shortterm basis. The vehicle providing continuity in management efforts for a given compartment, unit, forest or range, as individual managers rotate stations, is the resource or land management plan. Its importance cannot be overstated.
That management prescriptions must was emphasized by a number of speakers. importance of this refined approach for benefit management. be tailored to specific communities
One example illustrates the cardinal intensive, integrated, multiple-
Fire, both wild and prescribed, should be encouraged in lodgepole pine stands. On the other hand, fire protection seems essential to help assure oldage, long-cycling (500-1000 years) stands of spruce-fir. Fire by prescription for specified vegetative communities and stands is required in 1980, not a broad prohibition on use of fire for management purposes.
Throughout these workshops, we have learned about several different approaches being developed or used to meet legal demands for integrated multiplebenefiting resource management. Except for wetlands, there is no uniform national classification system and inventory procedure based on vegetative communities, that provides information in sufficient detail to link silviculture, range, wildlife and fisheries in a matrix system. This statement does not slight the continuous survey of timber resources initiated in the late 1920s and repeated at decade intervals. It has focused almost solely on timber and wood products.
The need for establishing a national landscape classification system and inventory procedure is emphasized by the signing of an interagency agreement by five federal agencies to work toward developing such a system. Last year, some states joined in that exploration. I invite you, with your practical experiences, to help develop that system and procedure. Bailey's ecoregions provide the frame. But within each ecoregion, we must be able to step down to local sites. A common data base is needed for many purposes. You can help fill that void. Having such a national classification system and inventory procedure in place would help strengthen capabilities to make improved resource management decisions. Whether those common procedures will be developed and in place to help meet the 1985 deadline is questionable. But that does not soften the pressing need for the national approaches. They hold promise for avoiding costly duplicative efforts.
We who have been privileged to be trained to develop knowledge through observation, research and management experience have heavy responsibilities to improve the management of resources, such as forests and rangelands. The public trust doctrine of law, as well as more-recent, specific, legal authorities, mandate that living resources be perpetuated for use and enjoyment by citizens. There is no choice, it must be done.
The question of how to proceed to incorporate more effectively the needs of living resources in resource and land management plans, decisions and actions is answered now. Proceedings from the 1975 Tucson symposium and its subsequent, closely associated four implementing workshops provide much of the critical information. The pressing task is to have the information applied to forest and rangeland management units throughout this country and others.
Birds do not recognize political boundaries. They may breed in Canada and the
United States, and winter in other countries.
534
· - . ' . '

Our challenge is to have the habitat management approaches for (1) wildlife species richness and (2) featured species applied broadly to assure sustained wildlife populations. Species richness measures should be preventative. Featured species measures also can be preventative for those animals having unique habitat requirements, and can help rescue threatened and endangered species and eventually remove them from legal critical lists.
The common ground for resource professionals and citizens is an effective program for management of living resources in forests and rangelands on the basis of different types of forest and range communities. That common base of understanding holds promise for launching combined efforts to seek funds and personnel to register accomplishments. Biological expertise must be available in adequate·volume to ensure required inputs to interdisciplinary forest management teams and to forest and rangeland decision makers.
Finally, on behalf of the Steering Committee, let me express deep appreciation to the U.S. Forest Service, especially Dick DeGraaf and his associates, for accepting the recommendation to hold these regional workshops. Numbers of attendees at each workshop and subsequent requests for copies of the proceedings show clearly the interest in forest, range and wildlife management.
One further challenge and opportunity can be identified now, especially since the supplies of some regional proceedings are exhausted. One or more individuals should evaluate the merits of preparing and issuing a single volume on the concept, principles and procedures for carrying out an integrated forest-range-wildlife-fisheries planning and management system. It should be oriented to types of vegetative communities at the field level.
Such a single volume assembled through the eyes of the field resource manager, and worded in his terms, would be most helpful.
~ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1980 - 679-810/46 Reg. 8
535