A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)

On August 17, 1997, Judge Schell issued an order stating that the agency’s actions or
failure to act, have been “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise
not in accordance with law” i.e. the NFMA and regulations, and that the FS has
neither protected the key resources of soil and watershed nor adequately inventoried
and monitored for wildlife and diversity, and whether the FS is meeting objectives and
adhering to standards and guidelines of the regulations.
Cause No. 4:04-CV-00374 - Sierra Club, et al v. Jacobs, et al in the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division involves four issues. In a partial
ruling, the court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs – and against the Forest Service – on two
counts. The court found that the NFGT was arbitrary and capricious when it issued two
projects and vacated Forest Plan Amendment #4. It also ordered that an evidentiary
hearing be held to consider the additional two counts concerning both MIS & PETS
(Protected, Endangered and Threatened Species).
MI or MIS and Other Forests
The White River National Forest (WRNF) in Colorado revised its MIS list in 2006 in order to
establish a revised MIS list that was better aligned with the applicable regulation, better
served to indicate the effects of management activities on the forest, and ensured monitoring
was conducted on species for which monitoring population trend is most feasible and useful.
The WRNF reduced its MIS list from 16 to 10 species as a result of this Forest Plan
Amendment.
The Hoosier National Forest (HNF) in the Revised Land and Resource Management
Plan, reduced the number of MIS to five species in 2006.
The National Forests in North Carolina amended the Land and Resource Management
Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in 2005. The Nantahala and Pisgah
National Forests reduced their MIS list from 63 species down to 18 species.
Conclusion/Strategies for Change
Relevant publications and research are mixed on the use of MI to determine
the effects of management activities on ecosystems. Courts nationally and
locally have varied in their rulings on the MI issue, with some finding the
Forest Service is doing an insufficient job of monitoring as planned and
others stating that the Forest Service is being held to an impossible standard.
It appears that MI are dealt with nationally and in Region 8 in a fairly consistent manner
because species are chosen as a result of their direct links to each forests’ available
habitat. However, many different varieties of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fisheries
and biotic species, as well as biotic communities are chosen because of the differences in
the range for species and differences in ecological conditions available on each national
forest.
Good indicators
must be chosen to
provide beneficial
information.