A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)

activities and detect change in the status of forest resources,” 2 changes are still needed.
In order to decide what needs to be done to resolve problems with monitoring the existing
MI, the planning staff has done several things. First, current laws and other direction
were reviewed along with relevant publications and/or research articles. Next, court
rulings where MI were an issue were considered and assessments were made of how
other forests are dealing with this issue – both nationally and in Region 8.
A general recap of the information that was evaluated and recommendations for strategies
for promoting needed changes are provided in the following text.
Laws and Other Direction
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA at 16 United States Code (U.S.C.)
1604] directed that management of wildlife habitats “maintain viable populations of
existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.” The
NFMA, however, did not specify a method for monitoring Forest Service activity to
determine its performance toward achieving these goals.
A committee of scientists recommended the Management Indicator Species (MIS)
approach and Forest Service regulations dated September 30, 1982 (36 CFR 219 – also
known as the 1982 Planning Rule) adopted the committee’s recommendations. Under
this MIS approach, forest managers identify and select a limited number of species that
are then tracked as means of making broader assessments of the overall ecological
conditions of the forest’s wildlife habitat and the other species dwelling in the habitat, as
well as the effects of Forest Service management activities. Population changes in the
indicator species being monitored are interpreted as a signal of changes in the health of
the ecosystem.
In a 1991 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report to the Secretary of Agriculture,
the reviewing office determined that, “The Forest Service MIS approach to monitoring
appeared to have several practical drawbacks (Table 1).” The report also noted that,
“…substantial additional funds would be needed to support the carefully designed
research essential to help identify and judge the efficacy of MIS as ecological
indicators.” 3
Forest Service Washington Office (WO) acknowledged the problems; however, it was
felt “that the difficulties stemmed from the way the MIS principles were applied.”
National direction was then revised to a management indicators (MI) concept that would
include not only species, but also special habitats and unique biological communities
identified in the forest planning area. The intent was for monitoring to focus on habitat
capability and to relate changes in habitat capability to associated effects on species
populations.
2
USDA Forest Service-Resource Information Group. 2009. Draft Technical Guide: Developing a
Monitoring Guide. Fort Collins, CO.
3
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1991. Wildlife Management: Problems Being Experienced with
Current Monitoring Approach. Washington, D.C.