United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northern 

Research Station

Research Paper NRS-12

A Multi-Criteria 

Decisionmaking Approach 

for Management Indicator 

Species Selection on the 

Monongahela National 

Forest, West Virginia

Kurtis R. Moseley

W. Mark Ford

John W. Edwards

Michael P. Strager
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service 

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

 Delaware, OH 43015-8640

March 2010 Fax: (740)368-0152

Abstract

The management indicator species concept remains an appealing tool for land 

managers charged with monitoring and conserving complex biological diversity over 

large landscapes with limited available resources. However, selecting management 

indicator species that adequately represent the ecological composition, structure, and 

function of complex ecological systems is a daunting challenge. We used the analytical 

hierarchy process (AHP) to determine the best management indicator species (MIS) for 

three management objectives of the 364,225-ha Monongahela National Forest (MNF) in 

West Virginia. The criteria to our AHP analyses were sensitivity to management actions 

common on the MNF (sensitivity), monitoring effi cacy and effectiveness (monitoring), 

species baseline information (documentation), and social, political, and economic 

importance (SPE). We compiled a set of alternative MIS, including current MNF MIS, for 

each objective based on a literature review of species-habitat relations in the Appalachian 

Mountain region. We used the AHP to determine local priorities, based on pair-wise 

comparisons for criteria and MIS alternatives. Among potential alternatives, total global 

priority scores for the ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus 

pileatus), and Virginia northern fl ying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) contributed 

most to respective management objectives. We believe the AHP is an effective tool for 

MIS selection, particularly within complex Appalachian ecosystems, because it provides a 

formal structured decision procedure, has a strong theoretical foundation, accommodates 

incomplete ecological data, and offers transparency to the MIS decisionmaking process.

Cover Photo

Golden winged warbler. Photo by Jerry Kreiser, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Division, West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

Manuscript received for publication 29 September 2009
1

INTRODUCTION

Public and scientifi c concern over altered or declining biodiversity and 

species extinction has led to the passage of several key pieces of Federal 

legislation over the past few decades designed to address these issues 

in the United States. Among these, the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 directs the U.S. Forest Service to identify and actively 

monitor management indicator species (MIS) to assess impacts of forest 

management activities on native biota within national forest lands 

(Code of Federal Regulations 1985). As defi ned by the National Forest 

Management Act, MIS may include species listed as (1) threatened, 

endangered, or rare, (2) having habitat requirements sensitive to 

management activities, (3) having social or economic value, and (4) 

serving as monitors for environmental factors, population trends of other 

species, or habitat condition. However, the MIS concept has received 

much criticism, primarily because many selection criteria and processes 

are vague or lack scientifi c rigor. Moreover, the suite of indicators selected 

generally fails to consider the full complexity of ecological systems to 

be represented (Caro and O’Doherty 1999, Dale and Beyeler 2001, 

Landres et al. 1988, Niemi et al. 1997, Rolstad et al. 2002). In part, these 

criticisms have led to elimination of mandatory MIS designation in the 

proposed 2005 Forest Planning Rules for national forest lands (Federal 

Register 2005). Regardless, the MIS concept remains an appealing tool 

for land managers charged with monitoring and conserving the vast and 

complex biological diversity with limited available resources. However, 

selecting MIS that adequately represent the ecological composition, 

structure, and function of complex ecological systems is a daunting 

challenge (Karr 1991), especially when the number of MIS selected and 

their subsequent monitoring are limited due to budgetary constraints 

and incomplete ecological information (Caro and O’Doherty 1999, 

Dale and Beyeler 2001). Because complete knowledge of ecosystems 

will always be lacking, particularly for complex ecological regions such 

as the Appalachian Mountains, decisionmaking approaches that allow 

land managers to overcome knowledge gaps with expert judgment may 

provide a more robust MIS selection process.

Th e Authors

KURTIS R. MOSELEY is a wildlife 

biologist, U.S. Marine Corps Natural 

Resources and Environmental Aff airs, 

Quantico, VA.

W. MARK FORD is a research 

wildlife biologist, U.S. Army Engineer 

and Research Development Center, 

Vicksburg, MS.

JOHN W. EDWARDS is an associate 

professor, Division of Forestry and 

Natural Resources, West Virginia 

University, Morgantown, WV.

MICHAEL P. STRAGER is an 

assistant professor, Division of Resource 

Management, West Virginia University, 

Morgantown, WV.
2

Although extensive time and eff ort are spent collecting 

information about natural resources, relatively little 

attention is given to the decisionmaking processes that 

integrate this information into rational choices (Schmoldt 

et al. 1994, 2001). Multiple criteria decisionmaking 

(MCDM) techniques allow land managers to incorporate 

available ecological information and expert judgment 

within an organized framework to determine the best 

alternatives (Mendoza and Martins 2006, Moff ett and 

Sarkar 2006, Schmoldt et al. 2001). Th ese techniques 

are generally comprised of three primary components: 

a decision objective, a list of criteria deemed important 

to reach the objective, and a list of alternatives wherein 

the best will be selected relative to the objective and 

based on the criteria (Mendoza and Martins 2006). 

One such technique, the Analytical Hierarchy Process 

(AHP), allows decisionmakers to assess several criteria 

and alternatives and give each a priority based on pairwise comparisons of the relative importance of one over 

another relative to the objective (Saaty 1990). Although 

various aspects of the AHP have been criticized, such 

as subjective priority scores and possible rank reversal 

(Dyer 1990, Mendoza and Prabhu 2000), it has a 

strong theoretical foundation (Harker and Vargas 1987, 

Perez 1995, Saaty 2003). Th e AHP increasingly is 

being applied to complex natural resource management 

decisionmaking problems involving ecological, political, 

and economic aspects (Diaz-Balteiro and Romero 2008, 

Gomontean et al. 2008, Herath 2004, Kuusipalo and 

Kangas 1994, Regan et al. 2007, Villa et al. 2002). For 

example, Regan et al. (2007) used the AHP to prioritize 

criteria for determining biodiversity value of private lands 

planning units in California. Tran et al. (2002) ranked 

ecological health of watersheds in the mid-Atlantic 

region based on indicators using the AHP. Despite the 

potential use of AHP and other MCDM techniques 

in natural resources management, the vast majority of 

natural resources decisions, particularly those regarding 

biodiversity, still are determined using ad hoc procedures 

(Schmoldt et al. 2001).

Our objective was to apply the AHP as a more rigorous 

approach to MIS selection. Accordingly, herein we use 

the AHP to determine the best MIS among a suite of 

alternative species, including current MIS, for three 

Monongahela National Forest (MNF) management 

objectives: (1) maintenance of 20,250 ha of early 

successional habitat, (2) maintenance of >20,250 ha of 

>80-year-old mixed mesophytic and cove hardwood 

stands, and (3) maintenance of >8,100 ha of >80-yearold red spruce (Picea rubens) stands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area

Located within the central Appalachians of eastern West 

Virginia, the MNF contains a diverse suite of fl ora and 

fauna (Ricketts et al. 1999). Occupying 362,225 ha, 

the forest occurs within portions of 10 counties of the 

state. Because of its latitudinal position and elevation 

gradients, the MNF contains aspects of temperate forest 

assemblages at lower elevations and more northern to 

boreal forest assemblages above 900 m. Most of the 

MNF is located in the Allegheny Mountains and Plateau 

physiographic province that is characterized by a series of 

high ridges, often with broad summits, running southwestnortheast and separated by elevated, narrow valleys. Lesser 

acreage of the forest on the eastern portion is located in the 

Ridge and Valley physiographic province, characterized 

by elongated, sharp-crested ridges running southwestnortheast (Stephenson 1993). Soil types throughout are 

primarily composed of Inceptisols, Ultisols, and Spodosols; 

soil pH decreases and organic matter content increases 

with increased elevation. Th e Allegheny Mountains can 

receive more than 150 cm of yearly precipitation and 

typically have a growing season of 90−160 days depending 

on elevation. Conversely, the Ridge and Valley lies within 

a precipitation shadow of the Allegheny Mountains and 

exhibits somewhat drier conditions of 115 cm or less of 

yearly precipitation with a longer, yet similarly variable 

growing season of 120-180 days.

Before establishment in 1920, most of the MNF was 

heavily cutover from the late 1890s through the 1920s 

(Stephenson 1993). For example, exploitative logging 

and subsequent wildfi res during this period reduced 

red spruce-dominated montane boreal forests from an 

estimated 200,000+ ha to approximately 24,000 ha 

at present (Schuler et al. 2002). Many areas of highelevation sites were maintained as livestock summer range 

by repeated burning for several decades following the 

initial anthropogenic disturbances (Stephenson 1993). 
3

At lower- and mid-elevations, fi re suppression policy 

after national forest establishment and extensive use of 

diameter-limit harvesting throughout much of the 20th

century has resulted in increased dominance of shade 

tolerant, mixed mesophytic woody species and decline 

of oak (Quercus spp.)-dominated stands at lower- and 

mid-elevations (Schuler 2004). Currently, most forest 

stands in the MNF are mixed mesophytic assemblages 

consisting of sugar maple (Acer saccharinum), red maple 

(A. rubra), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), chestnut 

oak (Q. prinus), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), 

American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sweet birch (Betula 

lenta), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and basswood (Tilia 

americana; Madarish et al. 2002). Before the 1920s, 

American chestnut (Castanea dentata) also was a regular 

component of hardwood forests at these elevations, but 

was eliminated by chestnut blight (Endothia parasitica). 

At approximately 900-1,100 m elevation, and depending 

on aspect and landform position, the forest transitions 

to northern hardwood or northern hardwood-montane 

boreal assemblages of sugar maple, American beech, 

yellow birch (B. alleghaniensis), eastern hemlock 

(Tsuga canadensis), and red spruce (Stephenson 1993). 

Currently, about 93 percent of the MNF is forested. Th e 

small amount of non-forested area primarily consists 

of livestock grazing allotments, wildlife food plots or 

similarly maintained grassy openings, natural gas wells, 

abandoned surface mines and some upland and wetland 

areas such as the Dolly Sods Scenic Area that never fully 

recovered from logging and burning (U.S. Forest Service 

2006a).

Criteria and Alternatives Selection

We used AHP to determine the best MIS alternative 

for forest management objectives on the MNF. Our 

analysis included three forest management objectives: 

(1) maintenance of 20,250 ha of early successional 

habitat, (2) maintenance of >20,250 ha of >80-yearold mixed mesophytic and cove hardwood stands (U.S. 

Forest Service 2006a), and (3) maintenance of >8,100 

ha of >80-year-old red spruce stands (U.S. Forest 

Service 2006a). Th e relative ecological and management 

importance and rationale of each management objective 

to the overall MNF plan is beyond the scope of our 

study.

We determined four selection criteria characteristic of 

eff ective MIS based on existing reviews of the indicator 

species concept and its application (Carignan and Villard 

2002, Dale and Beyeler 2001, Landres et al. 1988): 

(1) sensitivity—MIS alternatives should be sensitive to 

habitat alteration or parameters of management concern 

while having limited sensitivity to natural variation and 

should respond in a predictable manner that refl ects 

disturbance intensity; (2) monitoring—MIS alternatives 

should be cost eff ective to monitor and population 

parameters accurately estimated; (3) documentation—

MIS alternatives should have suffi cient baseline 

information so that changes in population parameters 

can be related to specifi c environmental disturbances; and 

(4) social, political, and economic importance of MIS 

alternatives—such as game (legal hunting seasons) and 

threatened and endangered species (SPE).

We selected a suite of alternatives for each objective 

based on several factors including current and former 

MIS, species with viability concerns (U.S. Forest Service 

2006b), and species believed to most satisfy our selection 

criteria.

For objective 1, our alternative MIS species included 

(1) golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera)—a 

neotropical migratory songbird classifi ed as “sensitive” 

on the MNF (U.S. Forest Service 2006a), associated with 

oldfi elds, power-line corridors, shrub bogs, reclaimed 

surface mines, and regenerating clearcuts with clumps 

of shrub and areas of abundant herbaceous vegetation 

adjacent to forest stands (Confer 1992, Confer and 

Pascoe 2003, Hamel et al. 2005, Hunter et al. 2001, 

Klaus and Buehler 2001, La Sorte et al. 2007); (2) 

ruff ed grouse (Bonasa umbellus)—an important 

gamebird throughout its distribution, associated with 

a variety of forest habitats in the Appalachians, but 

greater reproductive success of grouse, invertebrate prey 

abundance, and predator avoidance have been linked 

to availability and spatial confi guration of regenerating 

clearcuts, road rights-of-way, canopy openings with 

abundant herbaceous cover, and shrub-dominated 

oldfi elds (Dessecker and McAuley 2001; Fearer and 

Stauff er 2003; Jones and Harper 2007; Jones et al. 2008; 

La Sort et al. 2007; Tirpak et al. 2006; Whitaker et al. 

2006, 2007; Wiggers et al. 1992); (3) yellow-breasted 
4

chat (Icteria virens)—a neotropical migratory songbird, 

associated with large forest openings dominated by 

herbaceous fl ora, power-line corridors, riparian thickets 

and regenerating clearcuts interspersed with shrub 

and sapling patches (Baker and Lacki 1997, Confer 

and Pascoe 2003, Crawford et al. 1981, La Sorte et al. 

2007, Penhollow and Stauff er 2000); (4) meadow vole 

(Microtus pennsylvanicus)—associated with a variety of 

maintained or arrested early successional habitats such 

as fence rows, gas-well openings, powerline and gasline 

rights-of-way, emergent bogs, and wildlife food plots 

(Cranford and Maly 1986; Ford et al. 2007a; Francl et 

al. 2004, 2008; Litvaitis 2001) and (5) Sylvilagus spp.—

comprised locally of both eastern cottontail (S. fl oridanus) 

and Appalachian cottontail (S. obscurus)—that occupy 

a variety of early successional habitat types including 

regenerating clearcuts, agricultural fi elds, oldfi elds, and 

open areas dominated by thick shrub growth such as 

mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) or Rubus spp. cover 

(Althoff et al. 1997, Boyce 2001, Chapman et al. 1980, 

Sommer 1997, Stevens and Berry 2002, Sucke 2002).

For objective 2, our alternative MIS species included (1) 

Indiana myotis (Myotis sodalis)—a federally endangered 

bat species. During spring and summer, male residents 

primarily roost in snags and live trees with exfoliating 

bark, particularly shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and 

sugar maple locally, and forage along forested riparian 

corridors, whereas females form maternity colonies under 

exfoliating bark of dead or dying trees in open conditions 

within a variety of upland and bottomland forest 

types. During winter, both males and females occupy 

cave hibernacula within and near MNF (Brack 2006, 

Britzke et al. 2003; Ford et al. 2002a, 2006; Ford and 

Chapman 2007; Menzel et al. 2001, 2005); (2) Virginia 

big-eared bat (Corynorrhinus townsendii virginianus)—a 

federally endangered subspecies, day-roosts during spring 

and summer and hibernates during winter within and 

near MNF in caves also associated with karst geology 

locally and forages in open pastures and along forested 

ridgetops (Adam et al. 1994, Chapman 2007, Lacki et 

al. 1993, Sample and Whitmore 1993); (3) cerulean 

warbler (Dendroica cerulea)—a neotropical migratory 

sogbird classifi ed as “sensitive” on the MNF (U.S. Forest 

Service 2006a), associated with ridgetops and convex 

cove landforms within large mixed mesophytic forest 

stands exhibiting a high degree of horizontal canopy 

heterogeneity and internal edge associated with canopy 

gaps (Buehler et al. 2006, Hamel and Rosenberg 2007, 

La Sorte et al. 2007, Robbins et al. 1989, Weakland and 

Wood 2005, Wood et al. 2006); (4) hooded warbler 

(Wilsonia citrina)—also associated with large patches 

of mature mixed mesophytic forest with abundant 

interior edge created by canopy gaps (Augenfeld et al. 

2008, Crawford et al. 1981, Greenberg and Lanham 

2001, La Sorte et al. 2007); (5) pileated woodpecker 

(Dryocopus pileatus)—associated with mature mixed 

mesophytic forest containing abundant large diameter 

trees for cavity excavation and foraging (Conner 1980, 

Conner et al. 1975, La Sorte et al. 2007, Penhollow and 

Stauff er 2000); and (6) red-backed salamander (Plethodon 

cinereus)—most abundant in mature mixed mesophytic 

forests with moist microhabitats, such as coarse woody 

debris (CWD) and emergent colluvium, but also occur 

within agricultural fi elds, golf courses, and forest/opening 

edge when suitable cover is available (Ford et al. 2002b,c; 

Marsh et al. 2004; Moseley et al. 2009; Petranka et al. 

1993; Petranka 1998; Riedel et al. 2008; Russell et al. 

2004).

For objective 3, our alternative MIS species included 

(1) Virginia northern fl ying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus 

fuscus)—a formally federally listed endangered subspecies 

of the northern fl ying squirrel classifi ed as “sensitive” 

on the MNF, associated with forests dominated by 

red spruce or northern hardwoods with a substantial 

red spruce component (Ford et al. 2004, 2007b,c; 

Menzel 2003; Menzel et al. 2006; Odom et al. 2001; 

Smith 2007); (2) southern rock vole (M. chrotorrhinus 

carolinensis)—classifi ed as “sensitive” on the MNF, 

associated with large emergent colluvium typically 

above 900 m elevation within mature red spruce, mixed 

spruce-northern hardwood, northern hardwood, and 

mixed mesophytic forest types (Healy and Brooks 1988, 

Kirkland and Jannett 1982, Orrock and Pagels 2003, 

Pagels and Laerm 2007); (3) hermit thrush (Catharus 

guttatus)—a short-distance migrant, associated with 

mid- to late-successional stage red spruce, mixed red 

spruce-northern hardwood, northern hardwood, and 

mixed mesophytic forests for breeding habitat (Brooks 

1935; Dellinger et al. 2007a,b; Hall 1984; Stewart and 

Aldrich 1949); and (4) Cheat Mountain salamander (P. 
5

nettingi)—a federally listed threatened species, primarily 

associated with emergent colluvium and abundant 

bryophytes at high elevations, primarily in red spruce 

forests (Brooks 1948; Dillard et al. 2008a,b; Pauley 

1998).

Pair-wise Comparisons and Priority 

Assignment

We determined preference scores for MIS alternatives 

based on a literature review. Specifi cally, for each MIS 

alternative, we determined habitat associations in the 

Appalachian region, sensitivity to forest management, 

occurrence and abundance within the MNF, availability 

of baseline species information, and existing monitoring 

protocol. Similarly, we determined preferences of 

selection criteria based on a literature review of the 

indicator species concept. We assigned selection criteria 

and alternative MIS preference scores of the relative 

importance of one over another based on a nine-point 

scale (1 = equal importance, 3 = weakly more important, 

5 = more important, 7 = strongly more important, 

9 = absolutely more important; Appendices 1–4) as 

recommended by Saaty (1980). Using preference 

scores, we conducted pair-wise comparisons for criteria 

and MIS alternatives relative to each criterion. Pairwise comparisons are used to create a matrix, whereby 

the number in the ith row and jth column represents 

the preference score for alternative i as compared 

with alternative j. We converted preference scores to 

local priorities using the eigenvector technique. For 

the eigenvalue technique, pair-wise comparisons are 

converted to local priority scores by calculating the 

eigenvalue of the normalized pair-wise comparison matrix 

(Saaty 1980). Criteria and alternatives with higher local 

priorities are more important relative to other criteria and 

alternatives in the comparison, with local priorities being 

scaled to sum to one (Saaty 1980, 1990). Additionally, 

we calculated a consistency value to determine the 

degree of inconsistency and coherence for pair-wise 

comparisons, with a consistency ratio ≤ 0.10 generally 

considered acceptable (Saaty 1980). Using local priorities 

for alternatives and criteria, we also created global priority 

values for each alternative relative to each selection 

criteria. Global priorities are calculated by multiplying 

the local priority score of a given alternative by the local 

priority score of the respective criterion. Global priorities 

are the contribution of an alternative, relative to a given 

selection criteria, to the overall management objective, 

with each management objective having a priority of 

1 (Saaty 1980). Th e alternative with the greatest total 

global priority is considered to contribute the most to 

the overall management objective and thereby is the best 

alternative (Saaty 1980). Our analyses were performed 

using MultSync software (Moff ett et al. 2005).

RESULTS

For our MIS selection criteria, monitoring (0.55) had 

the highest local priority, thereby contributing most to 

selection of the best MIS alternative for management 

objectives, followed by sensitivity (0.32), documentation 

(0.10), and SPE (0.04). Th e consistency ratio for criteria 

pair-wise comparisons was ≤ 0.10, suggesting consistency 

in preference assignments.

For objective 1, the ruff ed grouse had the highest 

local priority for monitoring, documentation, and 

SPE selection criteria (Table 1). Th e meadow vole had 

the highest local priority for the sensitivity criterion 

(Table 1). Overall, the ruff ed grouse had the highest 

global priority total, thereby contributing the most to 

this management objective, followed by meadow vole, 

Sylvilagus spp., yellow-breasted chat, and golden-winged 

warbler (Table 1).

For objective 2, the pileated woodpecker had the 

highest local priority for monitoring, sensitivity, and 

documentation, whereas the Indiana myotis and Virginia 

big-eared bat had the highest local priority for the SPE 

criterion (Table 2). Overall, the pileated woodpecker had 

the highest global priority total, thereby contributing 

most to this management objective, followed by the redbacked salamander, hooded warbler, cerulean warbler, 

Indiana myotis, and Virginia big-eared bat (Table 2). Th e 

consistency ratio for the SPE selection criteria was 0.14 

(Table 3), suggesting minimal inconsistency in preference 

assignments.

For objective 3, the Virginia northern fl ying squirrel 

had the highest local priority for sensitivity and 

documentation, whereas the hermit thrush and Cheat 

Mountain salamander had the highest local priority for 
6

Table 1.—Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia, objective 1, maintenance of > 20,250 ha of early successional habitat; 

local and global priority scores based on pair-wise comparisons for golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), ruffed 

grouse (Bonasa umbellus), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and Sylvilagus spp. 

(Sylvilagus)1

Criterion

Sensitivity Monitoring Documentation SPE

Local Global Local Global Local Global Local Global Global total

Ruffed grouse 0.03 0.01 0.52 0.29 0.52 0.05 0.49 0.02 0.37

Meadow vole 0.47 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.19

Sylvilagus 0.06 0.02 0.22 0.12 0.25 0.03 0.29 0.01 0.18

Golden-winged warbler 0.22 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.14

Yellow-breasted

Chat 0.22 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.14

Total 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.10 1.01 0.04 1.00

1 Management indicator species alternatives based on four selection criteria: sensitivity to management actions (sensitivity), monitoring effi cacy and 

effectiveness (monitoring), species baseline information (documentation), and social, political, and economic importance (SPE)

Table 2.—Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia, objective 2, maintenance of >20,250 ha of >80-year-old mixed 

mesophytic and cove hardwood forest; local and global priority scores based on pair-wise comparisons for Indiana myotis 

(Myotis sodalis), Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorrhinus townsendii virginianus), red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus), 

cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)1

Criterion 

Sensitivity Monitoring Documentation SPE

Local Global Local Global Local Global Local Global Global total

Pileated woodpecker 0.49 0.16 0.45 0.25 0.47 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.45

Red-backed salamander 0.03 0.01 0.23 0.13 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.16

Hooded warbler 0.26 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.15

Cerulean warbler 0.07 0.02 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.10

Indiana myotis 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.37 0.01 0.08

Virginia big-eared bat 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.37 0.01 0.07

Total 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.04 1.00

1 Management indicator species alternatives based on four selection criteria: sensitivity to management actions (sensitivity), monitoring effi cacy and 

effectiveness (monitoring), species baseline information (documentation), and social, political, and economic importance (SPE).

Table 3.—Consistency ratios for pair-wise comparison judgments of management indicator 

species alternatives for three Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia, management objectives1

Criterion

 Sensitivity Monitoring Documentation SPE

Objective 1 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.08

Objective 2 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.14

Objective 3 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.11

1

Judgments were based on four selection criteria: sensitivity to management actions (sensitivity), monitoring 

effi cacy and effectiveness (monitoring), species baseline information (documentation), and social, political, and 

economic importance (SPE)
7

SPE (Table 4). Overall, the Virginia northern fl ying 

squirrel had the highest global priority total, thereby 

contributing most to this management objective, 

followed by the hermit thrush, Cheat Mountain 

salamander, and southern rock vole (Table 4). Th e 

consistency ratio for the SPE selection criteria was 0.11 

(Table 3), suggesting minimal inconsistency in preference 

assignments.

DISCUSSION

Objective 1

Th e ruff ed grouse serves as a designated MIS for national 

forests in eight states in the eastern United States 

(Moseley 2008). In our AHP analysis, ruff ed grouse, 

which contributed most to the early successional habitat 

objective, had the highest local priorities for monitoring, 

documentation, and SPE categories. Th ese weights 

partly refl ect its status as a popular gamebird in the 

region. Th at, combined with recent population declines 

within the region (Dessecker and McAuley 2001), has 

generated much research attention in the Appalachians 

for this species (Devers et al. 2007; Fearer and Stauff er 

2003; Tirpark et al. 2005, 2006; Whitaker et al. 2007). 

Consequently, the ruff ed grouse received the lowest 

weight for the sensitivity criterion partly because of its 

status as a game species. Using game species as MIS has 

been criticized because of the diffi culty in distinguishing 

between changes in habitat and potential additive 

mortality impacts to populations from hunting (Landres 

et al. 1988, Simberloff 1998). However, hunter-induced 

mortality below 20 percent is regarded as compensatory 

for Appalachian ruff ed grouse populations (Devers et 

al. 2007). Hunting mortality for ruff ed grouse ranges 

from 8 to 20 percent in the central Appalachian region 

(Devers et al. 2007). Furthermore, grouse abundance 

and reproductive success have been linked to availability 

and spatial confi guration of early successional habitats 

within the Appalachians (Fearer and Stauff er 2003). 

In addition to the ruff ed grouse’s role as a suitable 

MIS for early successional habitats for the MNF, it 

may also serve as a partial indicator for mature mixed 

mesophytic and northern hardwood forest conditions. 

Some component of ruff ed grouse reproductive success 

has been linked to hard mast forage availability in oakhickory forests (Devers et al. 2007), CWD abundance, 

and large-diameter tree availability (Tirpak et al. 2006) 

in the central Appalachians within the Ridge and 

Valley Province. Th is may add to the ruff ed grouse’s 

eff ectiveness as an MIS by complementing other MIS 

representing mature mixed mesophytic and northern 

hardwood forest characteristics such as abundant canopy 

gaps and CWD.

Th e meadow vole had the highest local priority for 

the sensitivity criteria and ranked second overall for 

objective 1, refl ecting its sensitivity to forest succession 

and dependence on grassy/meadow habitats, the most 

commonly maintained early successional habitat type 

Table 4.—Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia, objective 3, maintenance of >8,100 ha of >80-year-old red spruce (Picea 

rubens); local and global priority scores based on pair-wise comparisons for Virginia northern fl ying squirrel (Glaucomys 

sabrinus fuscus), Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon nettingi), southern rock vole (Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis), 

and hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus)1

 Criterion

Sensitivity Monitoring Documentation SPE

Local Global Local Global Local Global Local Global Global total

Virginia northern 

fl ying squirrel 0.58 0.19 0.29 0.16 0.62 0.06 0.23 0.01 0.42

Hermit thrush 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.32 0.27 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.38

Cheat Mountain

Salamander 0.29 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.62 0.02 0.17

Southern rock

Vole 0.04 0.01 0.58 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.05

Total 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.04 1.00

1

Management indicator species alternatives based on four selection criteria: sensitivity to management actions (sensitivity), monitoring effi cacy and 

effectiveness (monitoring), species baseline information (documentation), and social, political, and economic importance (SPE).
8

in the MNF. For example, Moseley (2008) surveyed 

natural gas-well openings and surrounding forests in 

the MNF and found that meadow voles primarily were 

restricted to the natural gas-well openings. Despite 

a strong association with maintained old fi elds and 

meadow habitats locally (Ford et al. 2007a; Francl et 

al. 2004, 2008), the meadow vole was weighted lowest 

for monitoring and SPE criteria. Unlike ruff ed grouse 

(Bookout 1996, Zimmerman and Gutierrez 2007) and 

neotropical migratory songbirds (Pollack 2006, Simons 

et al. 1999) few long-term, large-scale population 

monitoring protocols have been established for small 

mammal species not having State or Federal protection 

status. Additionally, small mammal population 

fl uctuations can be cyclic (Getz et al. 2001) and sensitive 

to abiotic factors (Whittaker and Feldhamer 2005) such 

as precipitation, diminishing their utility as MIS due 

to the inability to discriminate between managementinduced population changes and those resulting from 

climatic or other conditions (Odum 1971).

Currently, the MNF does not have a MIS representing 

an early successional management objective, although 

white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and black 

bear (Ursus americanus) are used as indicators for 

comparing proposed alternative management actions 

on the MNF (U.S. Forest Service 2006a). Regenerating 

forest openings and other early successional woody 

habitats that represent the shrub-scrub sere are among 

the most rapidly declining habitats throughout the 

Appalachian Mountains (Litvaitis 2001). In the eastern 

United States, recruitment and maintenance of early 

successional woody habitats have declined as even-aged 

timber management and other anthropogenic forest 

disturbances are increasingly constrained due, in part, to 

negative public perception (Litvaitus 2001, 2003; Trani 

et al. 2001). Nonetheless, half of all bird species classifi ed 

as sensitive on the MNF, such as the golden-winged 

warbler, Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), 

vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and loggerhead 

shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; U.S. Forest Service 2006a), 

are associated with early successional woody habitat 

(King et al. 2001, King and Byers 2002). Furthermore, 

the central Appalachian location of the MNF has been 

identifi ed as a conservation priority region for several 

declining or sensitive birds such as the golden-winged 

warbler, Bewick’s wren (Th ryomanes bewickii altus) and 

mammals such as the Appalachian cottontail (Dettmers 

2003, Fuller and DeStefano 2003, Litvaitus 2001). In 

Appalachian landscapes, many managers assign higher 

priority to conservation of species associated with large 

tracts of mature forest. However, active management for 

early successional and mature forest habitats does not 

have to be mutually exclusive, especially when conducted 

within an adaptive management framework (Hamel et al. 

2005).

Objective 2

Th e cerulean warbler, currently the MNF MIS 

representing maintenance of >80-year-old mixed 

mesophytic and cove forest assemblages, contributed 

little to management objective 2. Th e cerulean warbler’s 

primary weakness as an MIS, relative to other alternative 

MIS species, is that its association with undisturbed 

mixed mesophytic forest in the Appalachian region 

has not been clearly established (Hamel et al. 2004, 

Weakland and Wood 2005, Wood et al. 2006), thereby 

compromising its value for guiding MNF management. 

Indeed, Buehler et al. (2006) found that habitat 

models based on cerulean warbler presence/absence 

data in the Cumberland Mountains, Tennessee, were 

somewhat inaccurate in classifying cerulean absence 

and suggested that this species may occur across a 

broader range of conditions than those defi ned by 

their model. Furthermore, cerulean warblers are longdistance neotropical migrants, spending winters in South 

America (Hamel et al. 2004). Th erefore, it is still not 

known whether cerulean warbler population declines 

are attributable to reduced breeding habitat availability 

or are exacerbated by conditions at wintering grounds 

(Buehler et al. 2006, Rappole and McDonald 1994). 

Similarly, the hooded warbler received a lower priority 

for the sensitivity criteria weight because of its status 

as a neotropical migratory songbird (Peterson 1980). 

However, unlike those of the cerulean warblers, habitat 

associations and positive response of hooded warblers to 

some active forest management has been documented 

(Augenfeld et al. 2008, Baker and Lacki 1997, Greenberg 

and Lanham 2001). Currently, the hooded warbler serves 

as an MIS for national forests within fi ve southeastern 

states (Moseley 2008). Although only ranked as second 
9

highest, the hooded warbler may complement the 

pileated woodpecker as a MIS for mixed mesophytic-cove 

hardwood forests, serving as an indicator for functioning 

canopy gap-phase dynamics (Baker and Lacki 1997, 

Greenberg and Lanham 2001, Kilgo 2005, Moorman et 

al. 2002).

Th e pileated woodpecker contributed the most to 

objective 2 and received the highest local priorities for 

sensitivity, monitoring, and documentation. Th e pileated 

woodpecker is non-migratory and occurs in mixed 

mesophytic and northern hardwood forests (Conner et al. 

1975). Southeast of the MNF, on the Jeff erson National 

Forest, Virginia, pileated woodpeckers prefer forest stands 

with high basal area containing large-diameter hardwoods 

(> 38 cm diameter at breast height) for cavity excavation 

(Conner et al. 1975). Because of its dependence on large 

snags and CWD for foraging and large snags for nesting 

and roosting (Conner et al. 1975, Renken and Wiggers 

1989), the pileated woodpecker is used as a MIS in 

approximately 63 percent of the national forests within 

the U.S. Forest Service Southern and Eastern regions—

primarily to indicate adequate presence of CWD and 

large snag availability (Moseley 2008). Indeed, because 

of their association with snags and ease of recognition 

in the fi eld, woodpeckers (Family Picidae) have been 

used as reliable indicators of bird diversity within 

forested landscapes in Europe and elsewhere (Mikusinski 

et al. 2001, Roberge and Angelstam 2006). Pileated 

woodpeckers also may serve as keystone species in some 

forest types due to the importance of their cavities to 

secondary cavity nesters such as northern fl ying squirrels, 

northern saw-whet owls (Aegolius acadicus), and bats 

(Bednarz et al. 2004, Bonar 2000, Menzel et al. 2004).

Th e Indiana myotis and Virginia big-eared bat received 

the highest local priority for the SPE criterion, the 

lowest ranked criterion. Despite their high ranking for 

this category, these species received the lowest global 

priorities for objective 2. Although cave-dwelling bats 

can be monitored eff ectively either by direct counting 

of individuals in winter hibernacula or during cave 

emergence (Kunz et al. 1996), it is diffi cult to relate 

population changes from cave surveys to specifi c habitat 

changes within the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, 

following post-hibernation emergence, it is assumed that 

most female Indiana myotis migrate to warmer regions 

to the east or west of the Appalachians for maternity 

activity (Ford and Chapman 2007), further confounding 

local population estimates. In addition to monitoring 

diffi culties, Indiana myotis and Virginia big-eared bat 

habitat use patterns in the Appalachians are not restricted 

to mature mixed mesophytic-cove hardwood forest 

(Chapman 2007, Ford et al. 2002a, Menzel et al. 2001, 

Sample and Whitmore 1993). For example, in eastern 

West Virginia, Virginia big-eared bats were observed 

foraging over pastures adjacent to cave roosts (Sample 

and Whitmore 1993). Use of large snags or live trees 

with exfoliating bark by Indiana myotis is somewhat 

independent of stand age and structure and often is 

more related to the periodicity of forest disturbance from 

fl ooding or fi re (Carter 2006). Individuals, particularly 

summer resident males and those in maternity colonies, 

often prefer roost sites with low to moderate canopy 

cover to increase solar exposure (Brack 2006, Britzke et 

al. 2003, Ford et al. 2002a, Ford and Chapman 2007, 

Menzel et al. 2001). Th e only known maternity roost 

observed within the proclamation boundary of the MNF 

was in a fi re-killed red maple snag within a stand that had 

been selectively harvested prior to burning (Keyser and 

Ford 2006). On the Fernow Experimental Forest portion 

of the MNF, an adult male Indiana bat was observed 

day-roosting in mid-summer in a residual shagbark 

hickory within a 6-year-old patch clearcut (Ford et al. 

2002a). Accordingly, maintenance of mature >80-yearold mixed mesophytic and cove forest assemblages is 

somewhat contradictory to some aspects of Indiana 

myotis and Virginia big-eared bat habitat associations 

within the central Appalachians. Th e eff ectiveness of bats 

as MIS for objective 2, therefore, appears limited.

Objective 3

Our AHP analysis supports the MNF’s selection of the 

Virginia northern fl ying squirrel as a MIS representing 

mature red spruce forests (U.S. Forest Service 2006a). 

Th e Virginia northern fl ying squirrel received the 

highest local priorities for sensitivity and documentation 

criteria. Although northern hardwood forests adjacent 

to red spruce stands are used for denning and to a lesser 

degree for foraging (Ford et al. 2004, Ford and Rodrigue 

2007, Menzel 2003, Menzel et al. 2006, Smith 2007), 
10

large mature red spruce stands are believed to harbor 

greater food resources such as mycorrhizal fungi thereby 

providing higher quality habitat. In addition, these 

red spruce forests support few or no southern fl ying 

squirrels (G. volans) that compete with northern fl ying 

squirrels for den cavities (Loeb et al. 2000, Menzel 2003, 

Menzel et al. 2005, Mitchell 2001). Until its delisiting 

in 2008 (Federal Register 2008), the Virginia northern 

fl ying squirrel was a federally endangered subspecies 

of the northern fl ying squirrel (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1985). Th e delisting was due, in part, to current 

protection of mature red spruce stands within the MNF 

along with a recently documented wider distribution 

than previously believed (Odom et al. 2001, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007). Long-term monitoring 

eff orts for Virginia northern fl ying squirrels primarily 

involve placing nest boxes within known and possibly 

occupied forest stands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007). Th ese monitoring eff orts can provide important 

population information, such as sex ratios and age 

distribution as well as detection probabilities and percent 

area occupied; such data could then be linked to natural 

or management-accelerated development of red spruce 

with older forest characteristics (Reynolds et al. 1999, 

Terry 2004, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). 

Furthermore, its new legal status requires a long-term 

post-delisting monitoring of populations and habitats 

for the upcoming decade (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007).

Cheat Mountain salamanders primarily are associated 

with emergent colluvium within mature red spruce and 

red spruce-northern hardwood stands (Brooks 1948; 

Dillard et al. 2008a, b). Th e Cheat Mountain salamander 

is federally threatened (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1991), limited to approximately 70 known isolated 

“populations” within an 1,800 km2

 area (Petranka 1998). 

Despite its listed status for two decades, only the work of 

Dillard et al. (2008a,b) quantitatively documents Cheat 

Mountain salamander habitat relations. Furthermore, 

investigation and monitoring of Cheat Mountain 

salamanders are inhibited partly by their cryptic, fossorial 

habits that make survey and sampling eff orts diffi cult 

and ineffi cient (Petranka 1998, M. Crockett, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, pers. comm) as well as the diffi culty 

of obtaining survey and handling permits from State 

and Federal authorities. Despite these issues, the Cheat 

Mountain salamander received the highest local priority 

for SPE. Additionally, the Cheat Mountain salamander 

constitutes a distinct species, whereas the Virginia 

northern fl ying squirrel (Wells-Gosling and Heaney 

1984) and southern rock vole (Kirkland and Jannett 

1982, Pagels and Laerm 2007) are recognized only as 

subspecies.

Th e hermit thrush received the highest local priority 

for monitoring, the highest ranked selection criterion. 

Despite established monitoring eff orts, the Virginia 

northern fl ying squirrel was not ranked highest for 

this criterion because of its perceived low detection 

probability and nocturnal habits (Menzel 2003). 

Alternatively, because of the hermit thrush’s diurnal 

activity, distinct vocalizations, and ease of training 

personnel in fi eld identifi cation, hermit thrush 

populations can be monitored more eff ectively than 

secretive taxa, such as the Virginia northern fl ying 

squirrel and Cheat Mountain salamander. Although the 

hermit thrush often is associated with mature red spruce 

forests (Brooks 1935, Hall 1984, Stewart and Aldrich 

1949), it is not as dependent on this forest type as the 

Virginia northern fl ying squirrel (Menzel 2003, Menzel 

et al. 2005), occurring in as high or higher densities in 

northern hardwood forests (Dellinger et al. 2007, Hall 

1984). Similar to other migratory songbirds, however, it 

is diffi cult to determine whether population fl uctuations 

are attributable to reduced breeding habitat availability 

and/or exacerbated by wintering ground conditions 

(Brown et al. 2002).

CONCLUSION

Th e AHP was used to determine the best MIS for MNF 

forest management objectives from a suite of alternative 

species. To our knowledge, this is the fi rst application 

of a multiple-criteria decisionmaking technique to MIS 

species selection. Although we had some inconsistency 

in our pair-wise comparisons for the SPE criterion, we 

believe the impact on our overall results is negligible due 

to the low priority of the SPE criterion. We also believe 

that our criteria priorities and rankings for alternative 

MIS species are comprehensive and defensible. A major 

criticism of the AHP is that preferences and subsequent 
11

priorities are somewhat subjective (Mendoza and Prabhu 

2000). We acknowledge that another group’s preferences 

may produce results diff erent from ours, particularly for 

national forests in other regions. Nonetheless, we believe 

application of the AHP to MIS selection provides several 

important advantages over currently employed informal 

selection procedures. First, the AHP provides an open 

and straightforward decisionmaking process that allows 

evaluation by outside parties (Mendoza and Prabhu 

2000). Secondly, the AHP has a strong theoretical 

foundation (Harker and Vargas 1987, Perez 1995, 

Saaty 2003). Th irdly, the AHP allows land managers 

to account for insuffi cient or missing information by 

incorporating expert opinion (Mendoza 2006). Similar 

to the adaptive management paradigm, this stregthens 

the decisionmaking process through a cycle of evaluation, 

planning, action, monitoring, and implementation, 

where MIS and criteria can be reassessed as new 

information becomes available (Lindenmayer et al. 2000, 

Williams et al. 2007).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this study was provided by the U.S. Forest 

Service Participating Agreement 04-PA-11092100-010 

and the West Virginia University Division of Forestry 

and Natural Resources. Helpful comments on an earlier 

draft of this manuscript were provided by J. Kilgo, R. 

Perry, and J. Anderson.

REFERENCES

Adam, M.D.; Lacki, M.J.; Barnes T.G. 1994. Foraging 

areas and habitat use of the Virginia big-eared bat 

in Kentucky. Journal of Wildlife Management. 58: 

462-469.

Althoff , D.P.; Storm, G.L.; Dewalle, D.R. 1997. 

Daytime habitat selection by cottontails in central 

Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61: 

450-459.

Augenfeld, K.H.; Franklin, S.B.; Snyder, D.H. 2008. 

Breeding bird communities of upland hardwood 

forest 12 years after shelterwood logging. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255: 1271-1282.

Baker, M.D.; Lacki, M.J. 1997. Short-term changes 

in bird communities in response to silvicultural 

prescriptions. Forest Ecology and Management. 96: 

27-36.

Bednarz, J.C.; Ripper, D.; Radley, P.M. 2004. Emerging 

concepts and research directions in the study of 

cavity-nesting birds: keystone ecological processes.

Condor. 106: 1-4.

Bonar, R.L. 2000. Availability of pileated woodpecker 

cavities and use by other species. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 64: 52-59.

Bookout, T.A. 1996. Research and management 

techniques for wildlife and habitat. Bethesda, MD: 

Th e Wildlife Society: 740.

Boyce, K.A. 2001. Distribution, seasonal home 

range, movements and habitat of the Appalachian 

cottontail, Sylvilagus obscurus, at Dolly Sods, West 

Virginia. Frostburg, MD: Frostburg State University. 

134 p. M.S. Th esis.

Brack, V.B. 2006. Autumn activity of Myotis 

sodalis (Indiana bat) in Bland County, Virginia. 

Northeastern Naturalist. 13: 421-434.

Britzke, E.R.; Harvey, M.J.; Loeb, S.C. 2003. Indiana 

bat, Myotis sodalis, maternity roosts in the southern 

United States. Southeastern Naturalist. 2: 235-242.

Brooks, A.B. 1935. Hermit thrushes nesting in West 

Virginia. Auk. 52: 456.

Brooks, M. 1948. Notes on the Cheat Mountain 

salamander. Copeia. 1948: 239-244.

Brown, D.R.; Strong, C.M.; Stouff er, P.C. 2002. 

Demographic eff ects of habitat selection by hermit 

thrushes wintering in a pine plantation landscape.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 66: 407-416.

Buehler, D.A.; Welton, M.J.; Beachy, T.A. 2006. 

Predicting cerulean warbler habitat use in the 
12

Cumberland Mountains of Tennessee. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 70: 1763-1769.

Carignan, V.; Villard, M.A. 2002. Selecting indicator 

species to monitor ecological intergrity: a review. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 78: 45-

61.

Caro, T.M.; O’Doherty, G. 1999. On the use of 

surrogate species in biology. Conservation 

Biology.13: 805-814.

Carter, T.C. 2006. Indiana bats in the Midwest: the 

importance of hydric habitats. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 70: 1185-1190.

Chapman, B.R. 2007. Townsend’s big-eared bat.

In: Trani-Griep, M.; Ford, W.M.; Chapman, 

B.R., eds. Land managers guide to mammals of the 

southern United States. Durham, NC: Th e Nature 

Conservancy: 140-145.

Chapman, J.A.; Hockman, J.G.; Ojeda, C.M.M. 1980. 

Sylvilagus fl oridanus. Mammalian Species. 136: 1-8.

Code of Federal Regulations. 1985. 36 CFR Chapter II. 

219.16: 64.

Confer, J.L.; Knapp, K. 1981. Golden-winged warblers 

and blue-winged warblers: the relative success of a 

habitat specialist and a generalist. Auk. 98: 108-114.

Confer, J.L.; Pascoe, S.M. 2003. Avian communities on 

utility right-of-ways and other managed shrublands 

in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 185:193-205.

Conner, R.N. 1980. Foraging habitats of woodpeckers 

in southwestern Virginia. Journal of Field 

Ornithology. 51: 119-127.

Conner, R.N.; Hooper, R.G.; Crawford, H.S.; Mosby, 

H.S. 1975. Woodpecker nesting habitat in cut and 

uncut woodlands in Virginia. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 39: 144-150.

Cranford, J.A.; Maly, M.S. 1986. Habitat associations 

among small mammals in an oldfi eld community 

on Butt Mountain, Virginia. Virginia Journal of 

Science. 37: 172.

Crawford, H.S.; Hooper, R.G.; Titterington, R.W. 

1981. Songbird population response to silvicultural 

practices in central Appalachian hardwoods. Journal 

of Wildlife Management. 45: 680-692.

Dale, V.H.; Beyeler, S.C. 2001. Challenges in the 

development and use of ecological indicators.

Ecological Indicators. 1: 3-10.

Dellinger, R.L.; Wood, P.B.; Keyser, P.D. 2007a. 

Occurrence and nest survival of four thrush species 

on a managed central Appalachian forest. Ecology 

and Management. 243: 248-258.

Dellinger, R.L.; Wood, P.B.; Keyser, P.D.; Seidel, G. 

2007b. Habitat partitioning of four sympatric 

thrush species at three spatial scales on a managed 

forest in West Virginia. Auk. 124: 1425-1438.

Dessecker, D.R.; McAuley, D.G. 2001. Importance 

of early successional habitat to ruff ed grouse and 

American woodcock. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29: 

456-465.

Dettmers, R. 2003. Status and conservation of 

shrubland birds in the northeastern U.S. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 185: 81-93.

Devers, P.K.; Stauff er, D.F.; Norman, G.W.; Steff en, 

D.E.; Whitaker, D.M.; Sole, J.D.;Allen, T.J.; Bittner, 

S.L.; Buehler, D.A.; Edwards, J.W.; Figert, D.E.; 

Friedhoff , S.T.; Giuliano, W.W.; Harper, C.A.; Igo, 

W.K.; Kirkpatrick, R.L.; Seamster, M.H.; Spiker, 

H.A. Jr.; Swanson, D.A.; Teff t, B.C. 2007. Ruff ed 

grouse population ecology in the Appalachian 

region. Wildlife Monographs. 168: 1-36.

Diaz-Balteiro, L.; Romero, C. 2008. Making forestry 

decisions with multiple criteria: a review and 

assessment. Forest Ecology and Management. 255: 

3222-3241.
13

Dillard, L.O.; Russell, K.R.; Ford, W.M. 2008a. Sitelevel habitat models for the endemic, threatened 

Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon nettingi): 

the importance of geophysical and biotic attributes 

for predicting occurrence. Biodiversity and 

Conservation. 17: 1475-1492.

Dillard, L.O.; Russell, K.R.; Ford, W.M. 2008b. 

Macrohabitat models of occurrence for the 

threatened Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon 

nettingi). Applied Herpetology. 5: 201-224.

Dyer, J.S. 1990. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy 

process. Management Science. 36: 249-258.

Fearer, T.M.; Stauff er, D.F. 2003. Relationship of 

ruff ed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) home range 

to landscape characteristics. American Midland 

Naturalist. 150: 104-114.

Federal Register. 2005. Accessible at: http://www.fs.fed.

us/emc/nfma/includes/rule%20.pdf. Federal Register. 

70: 1023-1061.

Federal Register. 2008. Accessible at: http://frwebgate.

access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2008_

register&docid=fr26au08-12 Federal Register. 73: 

50226-50247.

Ford, W.M.; Chapman, B.R. 2007. Indiana myotis.

In: Trani-Griep, M. Ford, W.M.; Chapman, B.R., 

eds. Land managers guide to mammals of the 

southern United States. Durham, NC: Th e Nature 

Conservancy: 205-211

Ford, W.M.; Chapman, B.R.; Menzel, M.A.; Odom, 

R.H. 2002c. Stand age and habitat infl uences on 

salamanders in Appalachian cove hardwood forests.

Forest Ecology and Management. 155: 131-142.

Ford, W.M.; Menzel, J.M.; Menzel, M.A.; Edwards, 

J.W. 2002a. Summer roost-tree selection by a 

male Indiana bat on the Fernow experimental 

forest. Res. Note NE-378. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station. 8 p.

Ford, W.M.; Menzel, M.A.; Odom, R.H. 2002b. 

Elevation, aspect, and cove size eff ects on southern 

Appalachian salamander. Southeastern Naturalist. 1: 

315-324.

Ford, W.M.; Menzel, M.A.; Rodrigue, J.L.; Menzel, 

J.M.; Johnson, J.B. 2006. Relating bat species 

presence to simple habitat measures in a central 

Appalachian forest. Biological Conservation. 126: 

528-539.

Ford, W.M.; Mertz, K.N.; Menzel, J.M.; Sturm, K.K. 

2007b. Winter home range and habitat use of 

the Virginia northern fl ying squirrel (Glaucomys 

sabrinus fuscus). Res. Pap. NRS-4. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 16 p.

Ford, W.M.; Rodrigue, J.L. 2007. Virginia northern 

fl ying squirrel. In: Trani-Griep; M.; Ford, W.M.; 

Chapman, B.R., eds. Land managers guide to 

mammals of the southern United States. Durham, 

NC: Th e Nature Conservancy: 138-143.

Ford, W.M.; Rodrigue, J.L.; Laerm, J. 2007a. Meadow 

vole. In: Trani-Griep, M.; Ford, W.M.; Chapman, 

B.R., eds., Land managers guide to mammals of the 

southern United States. Durham, NC: Th e Nature 

Conservancy: 284-288.

Ford, W.M.; Stephenson, S.L.; Menzel, J.M.; Black, 

D.R.; Edwards, J.W. 2004. Habitat characteristics 

of the endangered Virginia northern fl ying 

squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) in the central 

Appalachian Mountains. American Midland 

Naturalist.152: 430-438.

Francl, K.E.; Castleberry, S.B.; Ford, W.M. 2004. Small 

mammal communities of high elevation central 

Appalachian wetlands. American Midland Naturalist. 

151: 388-398.

Francl, K.E.; Glenn, T.C.; Castleberry, S.B.; Ford, 

W.M. 2008. Genetic relationship of meadow vole 

(Microtus pennsylvanicus) populations in central 
14

Appalachian wetlands. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 

86: 344-355.

Fuller, T.K.; DeStefano, S. 2003. Relative importance 

of early successional forests and shrubland habitats 

to mammals in the northeastern United States.

Forest Ecology and Management.185: 75-79.

Getz, L.L.; Hoff man, J.E.; McGuire, B.; Dolan, 

T.W. III. 2001. Twenty-fi ve years of population 

fl uctuations of Microtus ochrogaster and M. 

pennsylvanicus in three habitats in east-central 

Illinois. Journal of Mammalogy. 82: 22-34.

Gomontean, B.; Gajaseni, J.; Edwards-Jones, G.; 

Gajaseni, N. 2008. Th e development of appropriate 

ecological criteria and indicators for community 

forest conservation using participatory methods: 

a case study in northeastern Th ailand. Ecological 

Indicators. 8: 614-624.

Greenberg, C.H.; Lanham, J.D. 2001. Breeding bird 

assemblages of hurricane-created gaps and adjacent 

closed canopy forest in the southern Appalachians.

Forest Ecology and Management. 154: 251-260.

Hall, G.A. 1984. A long-term bird population study in 

an Appalachian spruce forest. Wilson Bulletin. 96: 

228-240.

Hamel, P.B.; Dawson, D.K.; Keyser, P.B. 2004. How 

we can learn more about the cerulean warbler 

(Dendroica cerulean). Auk. 121: 7-14.

Hamel, P.B.; Rosenberg, K.V. 2007. Developing 

management guidelines for cerulean warbler 

breeding habitat. In: Buckley, D.S.; Clatterbuck, 

W.K., eds. Proceedings of the 15th central hardwood 

conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-101. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 364-374.

Hamel, P.B.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Buehler, D.A. 2005. 

Is management for golden-winged warblers and 

cerulean warblers compatible? In: John, R.C.; 

Rich, T.D., eds. Bird conservation implementation 

and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the 

third International Partners in Flight conference. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-191. Asilomar, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacifi c 

Southwest Research Station: 322- 331.

Harker, D.T.; Vargas, L.G. 1987. Th e theory of ratio 

scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process.

Management Science. 33: 1383-1403.

Healy, W.M.; Brooks, R.T. 1988. Small mammal 

abundance in northern hardwood stands in West 

Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52: 491-

496.

Herath, G. 2004. Incorporating community 

objectives in improved wetland management: the 

use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 70: 263-273.

Hunter, W.C.; Buehler, D.A.; Canterbury, R.A.; 

Confer, J.L.; Hamel, P.B. 2001. Conservation of 

disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North 

America. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29: 440-455.

Jones, B.C.; Harper, C.A. 2007. Ruff ed grouse 

(Bonasa umbellus) use of stands harvested via 

alternative regeneration methods in the southern 

Appalachians. In: Buckley, D.S.; Clatterbuck, 

W.K. eds. Proceedings of the 15th central hardwood 

conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-101. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 375-382.

Jones, B.C.; Kleitch, J.L.; Harper, C.A.; Buehler, 

D.A. 2008. Ruff ed grouse brood habitat use in a 

mixed hardwood forest: implications for forest 

management inthe Appalachians. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 255: 3580-3588.

Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long neglected 

aspect of water resourcemanagement. Ecological 

Applications. 1: 66-84.

Keyser, P.K.; Ford, W.M. 2006. Infl uence of fi re on 

mammals in eastern oak forests. In: Dickenson, 
15

M.B., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering science 

to land managers proceedings of a conference. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station: 180-190.

Kilgo, J.C. 2005. Harvest-related edge eff ects on prey 

availability and foraging of hooded warblers in a 

bottomland hardwood forest. Condor. 107: 627-

636.

King, D.I.; Byers, B.E. 2002. An evaluation of power 

line right-of-ways as habitat for early successional 

shrubland birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30: 868-

874.

King, D.I.; DeGraaf, R.M.; Griffi n, C.R. 2001. 

Productivity of early-successional shrubland birds 

in clearcuts and groupcuts in an eastern deciduous 

forest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65: 345-350.

Kirkland, G.L., Jr; Jannett, F.J., Jr. 1982. Microtus 

chrotorrhinus. Mammalian Species. 180: 1-5.

Klaus, N.A.; Buehler, D.A. 2001. Golden-winged 

warbler breeding habitat characteristics and nest 

success in clearcuts in the southern Appalachian 

Mountains. Wilson Bulletin. 113: 297-301.

Kunz, T.H.; Th omas, D.W.; Richards, G.C.; Tidemann, 

C.R.; Pierson, E.D.; Racey, P.A. 1996. Observational 

techniques for bats. In: Wilson, D.E.; Cole, 

F.R.; Nichols, J.D.; Rudran, R.; Foster, M.S., eds. 

Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: 

standard methods for mammals. Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution Press: 105-155.

Kuusipalo, J.; Kangas, J. 1994. Managing biodiversity 

on a forested environment. Conservation Biology. 8: 

450-460.

Lacki, M.J.; Adam, M.D.; Shoemaker, L.D. 1993. 

Characteristics of feeding roosts of Virginia bigeared bats in Daniel Boone National Forest. Journal 

of Wildlife Management. 57: 539-543.

Landres, P.B.; Verner, J.; Th omas, J.W. 1988. Ecological 

uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique.

Conservation Biology. 2: 316-328.

La Sorte, F.A.; Th ompson, F.R. III; Trani, M.K.; 

Mersmann, T.J. 2007. Population trends and 

habitat occurrence of forest birds on southern 

national forests, 1992-2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-9. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 260 p.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Margules, C.R.; Botkin, D.B. 

2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically 

sustainable forest management. Conservation 

Biology. 14: 941-950.

Litvaitis, J.A. 2001. Importance of early successional 

habitats to mammals in eastern forests. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 29: 466-473.

Litvaitus, J.A. 2003. Shrublands and early successional 

forests: critical habitats dependent on disturbance 

in the northeastern Unites States. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 185: 1-4.

Loeb, S.C.; Tainter, F.H.; Cazares, E. 2000. Habitat 

associations of hypogeous fungi in the southern 

Appalachians: implications for the endangered 

northern fl ying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus 

coloratus). American Midland Naturalist. 144: 286-

296.

Madarish, D.M.; Rodrigue, J.L.; Adams, M.B. 2002. 

Vascular fl ora and macroscopic fauna on the 

Fernow Experimental Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NE-291. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 23 p.

Marsh, D.M.; Th akur, K.A.; Bulka, K.C.; Clarke, L.B. 

2004. Dispersal and colonization through open 

fi elds by a terrestrial, woodland salamander.

Ecology. 85: 3396-3405.
16

Mendoza, G.A.; Martins, H. 2006. Multi-criteria 

decision analysis in natural resource management: 

a critical review of methods and new modeling 

paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management. 230: 

1-22.

Mendoza, M.A.; Prabhu, R. 2000. Development of a 

methodology for selecting criteria and indicators 

of sustainable forest management: a case study 

on participatory assessment. Environmental 

Management. 26: 659-673.

Menzel, J.M. 2003. An examination of the habitat 

requirements of the endangered northern fl ying 

squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) by assessing 

nesting sites, habitat use and the development of 

a habitat model. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia 

University. 122 p. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Menzel, J.M.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W.; Menzel, 

M.A. 2004. Nest tree use by the endangered 

Virginia northern fl ying squirrel in the central 

Appalachian Mountains. American Midland 

Naturalist. 151: 355-368.

Menzel, J.M.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W.; Terry, T.M. 

2006. Home range and habitat use of the vulnerable 

Virginia northern fl ying squirrel Glaucomy 

sabrinus fuscus in the central Appalachian 

Mountains, USA. Oryx. 40: 204-210.

Menzel, J.M.; Ford, W.M.; Menzel, M.A.; Carter, T.C.; 

Gardner, J.E.; Garner, J.D.; Hofmann, J.E. 2005. 

Summer habitat use and home range analysis of 

the endangered Indiana bat. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 69: 430-436.

Menzel, M.A.; Menzel, J.M.; Carter, T.C.; Ford, W.M.; 

Edwards, J.W. 2001. Review of the forest habitat 

relationships of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-284. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station. 21 p.

Mikusinski, G.; Gromadzki, M.; Chylarecki, P. 2001. 

Woodpeckers as indicators of forest bird diversity.

Conservation Biology. 15: 208-217.

Mitchell, D. 2001. Spring and fall diet of the 

endangered West Virginia northern fl ying squirrel 

(Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus). American Midland 

Naturalist. 146: 439-445.

Moff ett, A.; Garson, J.; Sarkar, S. 2005. MultCSync: 

a software package for incorporating multiple 

criteria in conservation planning. Environmental 

Monitoring and Software. 20: 1315-1322.

Moff ett, A; Sarkar, S. 2006. Incorporating multiple 

criteria into the design of conservation area 

networks: a minireview with recommendations.

Diversity and Distributions. 12: 125-137.

Moorman, C.E.; Guynn, D.C., Jr.; Kilgo, J.C. 2002. 

Hooded warbler nesting success adjacent to groupselection and clearcut edges in a southeastern 

bottomland forest. Condor. 104: 366-377.

Moseley, K.R. 2008. Assessment of Monongahela 

National Forest management indicator species.

Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University. 274 p. 

Ph.D. Dissertation.

Moseley, K.R.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W. 2009. 

Local and landscape scale factors infl uencing edge 

eff ects on woodland salamanders. Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment. 51: 425-435.

Niemi, G.J.; Hanowski, J.M.; Lima, A.R.; Nicholls, T.; 

Weiland, N. 1997. A critical analysis on the use of 

indicator species in management. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 61: 1240-1252.

Odom, R.H.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W.; Stihler, 

C.W.; Menzel, J.M. 2001. Developing a habitat 

model for the endangered Virginia northern 

fl ying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) in the 

Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia. Biological 

Conservation. 99: 245-252.
17

Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology.

Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders. 574 p.

Orrock, J.L.; Pagels, J.F. 2003. Tree communities, 

microhabitat characteristics, and small mammals 

associated with the endangered rock vole, Microtus 

chrotorrhinus, in Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist. 

2: 547-558.

Pagels, J.F.; Laerm, J. 2007. Rock vole. In: Trani-Griep, 

M; Ford, W.M.; Chapman, B.R., eds. Land managers 

guide to mammals of the southern United States. 

Durham, NC: Th e Nature Conservancy: 284-288.

Pauley, B.A. 1998. Th e use of emergent rocks as refugia 

for the Cheat Mountain salamander, Plethodon 

nettingi Green. Huntington, WV: Marshall 

University. 81 p. M.S. Th esis.

Penhollow, M.E.; Stauff er, D.F. 2000. Large-scale 

habitat relationships of neotropical migratory birds 

in Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64: 

362-373.

Perez, J. 1995. Some comments on Saaty’s AHP.

Management Science. 41: 1091-1095.

Peterson, R.T. 1980. A fi eld guide to eastern birds.

4th ed. New York, NY: Houghton Miffl in Company. 

380 p.

Petranka, J.W. 1998. Salamanders of the United 

States and Canada. Washington DC: Smithsonian 

Institution Press. 587 p.

Petranka, J.W.; Eldridge, M.E.; Haley, K.E. 1993. 

Eff ects of timber harvesting on southern 

Appalachian salamanders. Conservation Biology. 7: 

363-370.

Pollack, J.F. 2006. Detecting population declines 

over large areas with presence-absence, time-toencounter, and count survey methods. Conservation 

Biology. 20: 882-892.

Rappole, J.H.; McDonald, M.V. 1994. Cause and eff ect 

in population declines of migratory birds. Auk. 111: 

652-660.

Regan, H.M.; Davis, F.W.; Andelman, S.J.; Widyanata, 

A.; Freese, M. 2007. Comprehensive criteria for 

biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning.

Biodiversity and Conservation. 16: 2715-2728.

Renken, R.B.; Wiggers, E.P. 1989. Forest characteristics 

related to pileated woodpecker territory size in 

Missouri. Condor. 91: 642-652.

Reynolds, R.J.; Pagels, J.F.; Fies, M.L.1999. 

Demography of northern fl ying squirrels in

Virginia. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 53: 340-349.

Ricketts, T.H.; Dinerstein, E.; Olson, D.M.; Loucks, 

C.J.; Eichbaum, W.; DellaSala, D.; Kavanaugh, K.; 

Hedao, P.; Hurley, P.T.; Carney, K.M.; Abell, R.; 

Walters, S. 1999. Terrestrial ecoregions of North 

America: a conservation assessment. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 368 p.

Riedel, B.L.; Russell, K.R.; Ford, W.M.; O’Neill, 

K.P.; Godwin, H.W. 2008. Habitat relationships 

of eastern red-backed salamanders (Plethodon 

cinereus) in Appalachian agroforestry and grazing 

systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment. 

124: 229-236.

Robbins, C.S.; Dawson, D.K.; Dowell, B.A.1989. 

Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds 

of the middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs. 

103: 1-34.

Roberge, J.M.; Angelstam, P. 2006. Indicator species 

among resident forest birds—a cross-regional 

evaluation in northern Europe. Biological 

Conservation. 130: 134-147.

Rolstad, J.; Gjerge, I.; Gundersen, V.S.; Saetersdal, 

M. 2002. Use of indicator species to assess forest 

continuity: a critique. Conservation Biology. 16: 

253-257.
18

Russell, K.R.; Wigley, T.B.; Baughman, W.M.; Hanlin, 

H.G.; Ford, W.M. 2004. Responses of southeastern 

amphibians and reptiles to forest management: 

a review. In: Rauscher, H.M.; Johnsen, K., eds. 

Southern forest science: past, present, future. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-75. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 319-334.

Saaty, T.L. 1980. Th e analytic hierarchy process: 

planning, setting priorities, resource allocation. 

London, England: McGraw-Hill International. 287 p.

Saaty, T.L. 2003. Decision-making with the AHP: 

Why is the principal eigenvector necessary.

European Journal of Operational Research. 145: 85-

91.

Saaty, T.L. 1990. Multicriteria decision making: the 

analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS 

Publications. 192 p.

Sample, B.E.; Whitmore, R.C. 1993. Food habits of the 

endangered Virginia big-eared bat in West Virginia.

Journal of Mammalogy. 74: 428-435.

Schmoldt, D.L.; Kangas, J.; Mendoza, G.A. 2001. Th e 

analytic hierarchy process in natural resource 

and environmental decision making. Dordrecht, 

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing. 306 p.

Schmoldt, D.L.; Peterson, D.L.; Silsbee, D.G. 1994. 

Developing inventory and monitoring programs 

based on multiple objectives. Environmental 

Management. 18: 707-727.

Schuler, T.M. 2004. Fifty years of partial harvesting 

in a mixed mesophytic forest: composition and 

productivity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

34: 985-997.

Schuler, T.M.; Ford, W.M.; Collins, R.J. 2002. 

Successional dynamics and restoration implications 

of a montane coniferous forest in the central 

Appalachians. Natural Areas Journal. 22: 88-98.

Simberloff , D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and 

keystones: is single-species management passé in 

the landscape era? Biological Conservation. 83: 247-

257.

Simons, T.R.; Rabenold, K.N.; Buehler, D.A.; Collazo, 

J.A.; Franzreb, K.E. 1999. Th e role of indicator 

species: neotropical migratory song birds.

Ecosystem management for sustainability: principles 

and practices illustrated by a regional biosphere reserve 

cooperative. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Lewis 

Publishers: 187-208.

Smith, W.P. 2007. Ecology of Glaucomys sabrinus: 

habitat, demography and community relations.

Journal of Mammalogy. 88: 862-881.

Sommer, M.A. 1997. Distribution, habitat, and home 

range of the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus 

transitionalis) in western Maryland. Frostburg, MD: 

Frostburg State University. 89 p. M.S. Th esis.

Stephenson, S.L. 1993. An introduction to the upland 

region. In: Stephenson, S.L., ed. Upland forests of 

West Virginia. Parsons, WV: McClain Printing Co: 

1-9.

Stevens, M.A.; Barry, R.E. 2002. Selection, size, and 

use of home range of the Appalachian cottontail, 

Sylvilagus obscurus. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 116: 

529-535.

Stewart, R.E.; Aldrich, J.W. 1949. Breeding bird 

populations in the spruce region of the central 

Appalachians. Ecology. 30: 75-82.

Sucke, A.C. 2002. Survival, winter diet, density 

and microhabitat of the Appalachian cottontail, 

Sylvilagus obscurus, in West Virginia. Frostburg, 

MD: Frostburg State University. 89 p. M.S. Th esis.

Terry, T.M. 2004. An examination of Glaucomys 

sabrinus fuscus habitat and nest box use in West 

Virginia with management recommendations for 

Kumbrabow State Forest. Morgantown, WV: West 

Virginia University. 93 p. M.S. Th esis.
19

Tirpak, J.M.; Giuliano, W.M.; Miller, C.A. 2005. 

Nocturnal roost habitat selection by ruff ed grouse 

broods. Journal of Field Ornithology. 76: 168-174.

Tirpak, J.M.; Giuliano, W.M.; Miller, C.A.; Allen, T.J.; 

Bittner, S.; Edwards, J.W.; Friedhoff , S.; Igo, W.K.; 

Stauff er, D.F.; Norman, G.W. 2006. Ruff ed grouse 

nest success and habitat selection in the central 

and southern Appalachians. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 70: 138-144.

Tran, L.T.; Knight, C.G.; O’Neill, R.V.; Smith, 

E.R.; Riitters, K.H.; Wickham, J. 2002. Fuzzy 

decision analysis for integrated environmental 

vulnerability assessment of the Mid-Atlantic region.

Environmental Management. 29: 845-859.

Trani, M.K.; Brooks, R.T.; Schmidt, T.L.; Rudis, V.A.; 

Gabbard, C.M. 2001. Patterns and trends of early 

successional forests in the eastern United States. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29: 413-424.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Final rule for 

listing the Carolina northern fl ying squirrel and 

Virginia northern fl ying squirrel as endangered. 

Federal Register 27002.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Cheat Mountain 

salamander recovery plan. Newton Corner, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft postdelisting monitoring plan for the West Virginia 

northern fl ying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus 

fuscus). Elkins, WV: West Virginia Field Offi ce. 27 p.

U.S Forest Service. 2006b. Final environmental impact 

statement for forest plan revision. Elkins WV: 

Monongahela National Forest.

U. S. Forest Service. 2006a. Forest plan: fi nal draft.

Elkins WV: Monongahela National Forest.

Villa, F.; Tunesi, L.; Agardy, T. 2002. Zoning marine 

protected areas through spatial multiple-criteria 

analysis: the case of the Asinara Island National 

Marine Reserve of Italy. Conservation Biology. 16: 

515-526.

Weakland, C.A.; Wood, P.B. 2005. Cerulean warbler 

(Dendroica cerulean) micro-habitat and landscapelevel habitat characteristics in southern West 

Virginia. Auk. 122: 497-508.

Wells-Gosling, N.; Heaney, L.R. 1984. Glaucomys 

sabrinus. Mammalian Species. 229:1-8.

Whitaker, D.M.; Stauff er, D.F. 2003. Night roost 

selection during winter by ruff ed grouse in the 

central Appalachians. Southeastern Naturalist. 2: 

377-392.

Whitaker, D.M.; Stauff er, D.F.; Norman, G.W.; Devers, 

P.K.; Allen, T.J.; Bittner, S.; Buehler, D.; Edwards, 

J.W.; Friedhoff , S.; Giuliano, W.M.; Harper, C.A.; 

Teff t, B. 2006. Factors aff ecting habitat use by 

Appalachian ruff ed grouse. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 70: 460-471.

Whitaker, D.M.; Stauff er, D.F.; Norman, G.W.; Devers, 

P.K.; Edwards, J.W.; Giuliano, W.M.; Harper, C.A.; 

Igo, W.; Sole, J.; Spiker, H.; Teff t, B. 2007. Factors 

associated with variation in home-range size of 

Appalachian ruff ed grouse (Bonasa umbellus). Auk. 

124: 1407-1424.

Whittaker, J.C.; Feldhamer, G.A. 2005. Population 

dynamics and activity of southern short-tailed 

shrews (Blarina carolinensis) in southern Illinois.

Journal of Mammalogy. 86: 294-301

Wiggers, E.P.; Laubhan, M.K.; Hamilton, D.A. 1992. 

Forest structure associated with ruff ed grouse 

abundance. Forest Ecology and Management. 49: 

211-218.

Williams, B.K.; Szaro, R.C.; Shapiro, C.D. 2007. 

Adaptive management: the U.S. Department of 

the Interior Guide. Washington, DC: Adaptive 

Management Working Group, U.S. Department of 

the Interior.
20

Wood, P.B.; Bosworth, S.B.; Dettmers, R. 2006. 

Cerulean warbler abundance and occurrence 

relative to large-scale edge and habitat 

characteristics. Th e Condor. 108: 154-165.

Zimmerman, G.S.; Gutierrez, R.J. 2007. Th e infl uence 

of ecological factors on detecting ruff ed grouse. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 1765-1772.
21

Appendix 1.—Management indicator species selection criteria 

judgments for the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia

Pair-wise Comparison Better Intensity1

Sensitivity vs Monitoring Monitoring 3

Sensitivity vs Documentation Sensitivity 5

Sensitivity vs SPE Sensitivity 9

Monitoring vs Documentation Monitoring 5

Monitoring vs SPE Monitoring 9

Documentation vs SPE Documentation 4

1

Selection criteria: 1 = equal importance, 3 = weakly more important, 

5 = more important, 7 = strongly more important, and 9 = absolutely more 

important.

Appendix 2.—Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia, objective 1, maintenance of > 20,250 ha of early successional 

habitat, judgments for golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera; GWWA), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus; BOUM), 

yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens; ICVI), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus; MIPE), and Sylvilagus spp. (Sylvilagus) 

management indicator species alternatives based on four selection criteria: sensitivity to management actions (sensitivity), 

monitoring efficacy and effectiveness (monitoring), species baseline information (documentation), and social, political, and 

economic importance (SPE).

Criterion

Sensitivity Monitoring Documentation SPE

Pair-wise 

Comparison Better Intensity1 Better Intensity1 Better Intensity1 Better Intensity1

GWWA vs BOUM GWWA 7 BOUM 5 BOUM 9 BOUM 5

GWWA vs ICVI – 1 – 1 ICVI 3 GWWA 3

GWWA vs MIPE MIPE 3 GWWA 5 MIPE 7 GWWA 9

GWWA vs Sylvilagus GWWA 5 Sylvilagus 3 Sylvilagus 7 Sylvilagus 3

 BOUM vs ICVI ICVI 7 BOUM 5 BOUM 9 BOUM 7

BOUM vs MIPE MIPE 9 BOUM 9 BOUM 5 BOUM 9

BOUM vs Sylvilagus Sylvilagus 3 BOUM 3 BOUM 3 BOUM 3

ICVI vs MIPE MIPE 3 ICVI 5 MIPE 5 ICVI 3

ICVI vs Sylvilagus ICVI 5 Sylvilagus 3 Sylvilagus 5 Sylvilagus 7

MIPE vs Sylvilagus MIPE 7 Sylvilagus 3 Sylvilagus 3 Sylvilagus 9

1

Selection criteria: 1= equal importance, 3 = weakly more important, 5 = more important, 7 = strongly more important, and 9 = absolutely more important.

APPENDIX
22

Appendix 4.—Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia, objective 3, maintenance of >8,100 ha of >80 year old red spruce 

(Picea rubens) stands; judgments for Virginia northern fl ying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus; GLSA), Cheat Mountain 

salamander (Plethodon nettingi; PLNE), Southern rock vole (Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis; MICH), and hermit 

thrush (Catharus guttatus; CAGU) management indicator species alternatives based on four selection criteria: sensitivity 

to management actions (sensitivity), monitoring efficacy and effectiveness (monitoring), species baseline information 

(documentation), and social, political, and economic importance (SPE).

Criterion

Sensitivity Monitoring Documentation SPE

Pair-wise 

Comparison Better Intensity1 Better Intensity1 Better Intensity1 Better Intensity1

GLSA vs PLNE GLSA 3 GLSA 5 GLSA 9 PLNE 5

GLSA vs MICH GLSA 9 GLSA 7 GLSA 9 GLSA 3

GLSA vs CAGU GLSA 7 CAGU 3 GLSA 3 GLSA 7

PLNE vs MICH PLNE 7 PLNE 3 PLNE 1 PLNE 5

PLNE vs CAGU PLNE 5 CAGU 9 CAGU 5 PLNE 9

MICH vs CAGU CAGU 3 CAGU 7 CAGU 5 MICH 5

1

Selection criteria: 1= equal importance, 3 = weakly more important, 5 = more important, 7 = strongly more important, and 9 = absolutely more 

important.

Appendix 3.—Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia, objective 2, maintenance of >20,250 ha of >80-year-old 

mixed mesophytic and cove hardwood stands; judgments for Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis; MYSO), Virginia big-eared bat 

(Corynorrhinus townsendii virginianus; COTO), red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus; PLCI), cerulean warbler 

(Dendroica cerulea; DECE), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina; WICI), and pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus; DRPI) 

management indicator species alternatives based on four selection criteria: sensitivity to management actions (sensitivity), 

monitoring efficacy and effectiveness (monitoring), species baseline information (documentation), and social, political, and 

economic importance (SPE).

Criterion 

Sensitivity Monitoring Documentation SPE

Pair-wise

 Comparison Better Intensity1 Better Intensity1 Better Intensity1 Better Intensity1

MYSO vs COTO MYSO 5 COTO 5 – 1 – 1

MYSO vs PLCI MYSO 5 PLCI 7 PLCI 5 MYSO 9

MYSO vs DECE MYSO 3 DECE 5 DECE 3 MYSO 5

MYSO vs WICI WICI 3 WICI 5 – 1 MYSO 7

MYSO vs DRPI DRPI 7 DRPI 9 DRPI 7 MYSO 7

COTO vs PLCI – 1 PLCI 3 PLCI 7 COTO 9

COTO vs DECE DECE 3 DECE 3 DECE 3 COTO 5

COTO vs WICI WICI 7 WICI 3 – 1 COTO 7

COTO vs DRPI DRPI 9 DRPI 5 DRPI 7 COTO 7

PLCI vs DECE DECE 3 PLCI 3 PLCI 5 DECE 7

PLCI vs WICI WICI 7 PLCI 3 PLCI 5 WICI 5

PLCI vs DRPI DRPI 9 DRPI 3 DRPI 3 DRPI 5

DECE vs WICI WICI 5 – 1 DECE 3 DECE 3

DECE vs DRPI DRPI 7 DRPI 5 DRPI 7 DECE 7

WICI vs DRPI DRPI 3 DRPI 5 DRPI 7 WICI 5

1

Selection criteria: 1= equal importance, 3 = weakly more important, 5 = more important, 7 = strongly more important, and 9 = absolutely more 

important.
Printed on Recycled Paper

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Offi ce 

of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Moseley, K.R.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W.; Strager, M.P. 2010. A multi-criteria 

decisionmaking approach to management indicator species selection for 

the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Res. Pap. NRS-12. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 22 p.

The management indicator species concept is useful for land managers charged 

with monitoring and conserving complex biological diversity over large landscapes 

with limited available resources. We used the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) 

to determine the best management indicator species (MIS) for three management 

objectives of the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) in West Virginia. We compiled 

a set of alternative MIS, including current MNF MIS, for each objective based 

on a literature review of species-habitat relations in the Appalachian Mountain 

region. We believe the AHP is an effective tool for MIS selection, particularly within 

complex Appalachian ecosystems, because it provides a formal structured decision 

procedure, has a strong theoretical foundation, accommodates incomplete ecological 

data, and offers transparency to the MIS decisionmaking process.

KEY WORDS: analytical hierarchy process, Appalachians, management indicator 

species, Monongahela National Forest, multi-criteria decisionmaking
www.nrs.fs.fed.us