Principle – Ecological integrity

Criterion- Species diversity

Indicator –

Number of known forest-dependent species classified as extinct, threatened, endangered, rare or vulnerable relative to the total number of known forest-dependent species

Revised indicator-

Number of known forest-dependent species classified as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened or vulnerable relative to the total number of known forest-dependent species

Box B: Definition:

"Extinct" refers to species that no longer exist. Endangered species are those facing imminent extinction or extirpation; threatened species could become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed; and vulnerable species are those that are especially sensitive to human activities or natural disturbances. Many government agencies maintain lists of animals and plants falling into the above categories. The forest types that tend to contain the most species at risk are those with the most restricted distribution which are also heavily used and may have experienced clearing for agriculture. Some of the most endangered species are highly dependent on old-growth forests.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

This indicator is more useful to large landowners than to small ones. Natural population fluctuations result in changes in species frequency across a landscape. This effect would be more dramatic in a small area than in a large area.

Box E: Overlap:

None

Notes:

Tracking the proportions of species that are at risk or have declined from historical levels is best done at a regional level.

Notes:

This indicator is primarily diagnostic. When monitored over time, it provides a series of snapshots of the status of the species in the study area. If the proportion of species at risk is high and/or increasing with time, the sustainability of the land management is called into question.

Notes:

This indicator provides information about the resilience and the integrity of the system, in terms of the sensitivity of its components. Study areas with high numbers of listed species have reduced ability to withstand stressors.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Is there a convention – definition of different categories – what are the triggers

The underlying concept is relatively simple. The indicator tells the management agencies whether they are accomplishing the goal of conservation of species diversity in terms of whether the proportion of species at risk is increasing or decreasing over time. The number of species is an integral component of all species diversity indices. Total number of species in an area gives an estimate of species richness. Expressing the number of species at risk as a proportion of the total over time, provides a measure of the trends in species richness.

Exact definitions of species at risk vary in different jurisdictions. See, for example the definitions of designations from Idaho and Canada below.

From Idaho State Department of Fish and Game:

Of particular interest to the Conservation Data Center are Species of Special Concern (SC) , Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) wildlife, and protected non-game species (P). Some of

the species which fall into these categories are also considered game (G) species.

SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (SC). Native species which are either low in numbers, limited in distribution, or have suffered significant habitat losses. The list includes three

categories:

• PRIORITY SPECIES - species which meet one or more of the criteria above AND for which Idaho presently contains or formerly constituted a significant portion of their range;
• PERIPHERAL SPECIES - species which meet one or more of the criteria above but whose populations in Idaho are on the edge of a breeding range that falls largely outside the state; and
• UNDETERMINED STATUS SPECIES - species that might be rare in the state but for which there is little information on their population status, distribution, and/or habitat requirements.
• THREATENED (T). Any species likely to be classified as Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its Idaho range.
• ENDANGERED (E). Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its Idaho range.

In Canada:

COSEWIC Status Definitions

The revised (1994) status definitions used by the Committee together with the COSEWIC definition of what constitutes a species for purposes of status report preparation are as follows:

"Species" means an indigenous [Canadian] species, subspecies, variety or geographically defined population of wild fauna and flora.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

From CCFM "Conservationists worldwide agree that humans have a responsibility to maintain all life-forms. How populations of species are affected by environmental change is key to assessing

impacts of human activities. Therefore, an important objective of sustainable forest management is ensuring that populations of species are not put at risk as a result of forest harvesting and regeneration. A component of biodiversity monitoring is to follow species or groups to determine whether they face long-term changes in population size or distribution. Species extinction is the ultimate sign of environmental degradation and unsustainable resource use."

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Measurement is straight-forward in areas which have Conservation Data Centers (sometimes called Natural Heritage Centers) or the equivalent. Conservation Data Centers (CDCs) were initiated by the Nature Conservancy and the operation and responsibility for the CDCs has generally been assumed by state government agencies. All US states, most Canadian provinces and some Mexican states have CDCs.

Conservation Data Centers maintain occurrence data on species in various risk categories, they are designed to respond to public requests such as this.

If there is no Conservation Data Center covering the study area, other sources of information may be botanical and zoological departments of universities, nature museums, or government resource departments.

Box L: Data Required:

Data on the total number of forest dependent species is available as part of the 1989 RPA Wildlife and Fish Assessment. Compilation of the data is on a state-by-state basis, and from this data a species list and count of all species associated with forest can be obtained. This data should be compiled by class (vegetation, mammals, insect, fish, etc.), because data for some taxa are more complete than others.

The data specifically required for this indicator are:

1. The number of forest-dependent species naturally occurring in the study area. This would ideally include all species, but failing that level of knowledge, data should be collected on numbers of whatever taxa are known, particularly taxa for which information is available regarding the numbers of species at risk. Typically, this would include vascular plants and vertebrates at a minimum
2. The number of forest-dependent species in the study area in each of the categories: extinct, extirpated, threatened, endangered, rare, and vulnerable. Information may not be available for each of the categories broken down as listed.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

The data used for the Idaho test is from the state Conservation Data Center which is housed at the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. This was supplemented by information from O’Laughlin, et al. (1995), and a "Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation" for the national forests in the study area (anon. 1997).

Box N: Example Results:

The approximate numbers of species in the Interior Columbia Basin are: plants and allies - 12,797; insects and arthropods - 3,400; vertebrates - 609.

From the Conservation Data Centre: Within the project area, the number of special status animal

species (= species which have federal or state status as rare, threatened, or endangered) is 22. The number of special status plant species is 30. It would take a more thorough review of each of the species to determine whether ranges have been reduced and come up with a total number in that category. To my knowledge, no species in the project area has become extinct.

Of the animal species, one has been petitioned for (federal) listing as threatened or endangered, one is currently proposed to be listed as Threatened, one is listed as Threatened, and another will be listed as Threatened this week. I suppose you could interpret these as species for which "the range or frequency has been reduced ..." None of the plants are federally listed as threatened or endangered, and none are candidates for listing.

From the "Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation" :

There are two endangered species known to be in the study area: gray wolf and peregrine falcon. Four known or suspected threatened species are found in the study area: the bald eagle, chinook salmon, steelhead trout and redband trout.

In addition there are 35 species that are known or suspected to be "sensitive" in the study area. Of the 35 species, 5 are mammals, 9 are birds, 3 are fish, 1 is amphibian and the remaining 17 are plants. Many of the plants are meadow species, so it is questionable whether they should be categorized as "forest dependent".

Gray wolf has reintroduced to the area over the past two years with apparent success to date (Koch 1998).

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

This indicator can be easily tracked in areas where the information is available (most areas of the world). It is very inexpensive and easy to assess. It requires access to a good data base such as a Conservation Data Center.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value :

The information value is good for the amount of effort expended. When this indicator is monitored over time it will provide one useful measure of trends with respect to species diversity. If the indicator is negative, the numbers of listed or declining species are increasing with time. This is a clear signal of serious sustainability problems.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted

Strengths – easy to assess; good information value for the effort required.

Weaknesses – not great sensitivity in that it is bulk numbers that are reported rather than status of individual species.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

The indicator has been slightly adjusted to read:

Number of known forest-dependent species classified as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable, relative to the total number of known forest-dependent species.

Box S: References:

• Anonomous. 1997. Preliminary analysis of the management situation. Southwest Idaho Ecogrou Forest Plan Revision.Boise, Payette and Sawtooth National Forests.
• Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1997. Criteria & Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. Technical Report. Cat. Fo75-3/6-1997E, ISBN 0-662-25623-9. Natural Resources Canada–Canadian Forest Service 8th floor, 580 Booth Street,Ottawa ON
• Flather, C.H., L.A. Joyce, and C.A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species Endangerment Patterns in the United States. General Technical Report RM-241, Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 42 pps.
• Kendall, K.C. and S. F. Arno. 1990. Whitebark pine – an important but endangered wildlife resource. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Whitebark Pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource, Bozeman , MT, March 29-31, 1989, pp 264-273.
• Koch, T. 1998. Wolves, outreach, and rural Idaho. Endangered Species Bulletin. Vol. XXI(3)
• O’Laughlin, J, and P.S. Cook, with K. Rogers and T. Merrill. 1995. Endangered Species Act at the Crossroads: New Directions from Idaho Case Studies. Report No. 13, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 307pp.
• Rapport, DJ, HA Regier, and TC Hutchinson. Ecosystem behavior under stress. Am. Nat. 1985, 125:617640.

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here.

From Idaho Fish and Wildlife webpage