A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
After evaluating all of the available information, the NFGT FLT approved the development of a Forest Plan Amendment to revise the NFGT’s current list of MI (September 2009). The Plan can be amended (by a Non-Significant Amendment) with a list that contains more effective MI. 1. Either substitute a new MI species or community for existing MI for those that are proposed to be dropped and/or look for opportunities to reduce the number of species or communities where there may be duplications or overlap. 2. Public involvement (early and often) would be a key element to processing a Non-Significant Amendment. A Public Involvement Plan should be developed with detailed steps to be taken to involve interested and affected stakeholders. 3. The Non-Significant Amendment would require use of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. With public involvement, a step-by-step strategy can be developed, documented, and implemented in order to move the NFGT towards making changes needed to better monitor its management actions. The strategy will address: 1. Why we are creating a monitoring program. 2. What we are going to measure. 3. Where we are going to put sampling points or where sources of data will be obtained. 4. How we are going to measure and provide results. By completing a Forest Plan Amendment, the NFGT can provide a list of MI that would better assess whether we are sustaining forest health and the viability of species (as required by NFMA).
Page 1 and 2: Introduction A White Paper Discussi
Page 3 and 4: The NFGT utilized the 1982 Planning
Page 5: 1. Monitoring programs often depend

A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?