Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 1 

APPENDIX J 

Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator 

Communities 

Introduction 

Management indicators are used to assess the effects of a management activity on wildlife. One 

of the factors considered when selecting management indicator species (MIS) is their close tie to 

the communities they represent. The communities being monitored through MIS are where the 

majority of management actions will take place. 

 

The general guidance and criteria for selecting MIS are contained in 36CFR219.19(a) and in the 

Forest Service Manual 2621.1. The 1985 Forest Plan includes two categories in the MIS 

discussion. These are Ecological Indicators that are intended to show the effects of management 

on the ecosystem, and High Interest Species that identify species of economic importance (such 

as big game) and species of concern (such as Federally listed species, Forest Service sensitive 

species and other species at risk). The 1985 Plan includes 14 Ecological Indicators to monitor 13 

vegetation types or age classes within a vegetation type, rivers and lakes. There are eight High 

Interest Species, including 3 big game animals, 2 fish species, and 3 species of concern. 

Updating MIS was recommended in the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation 

(USDA Forest Service 1999a). The Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation proposed 

to use neo-tropical migratory birds for the majority of MIS. This was done in the DEIS for the 

revised Forest Plan. In reviewing the DEIS it was decided that neo-tropical migrants would not 

be suitable as MIS because they spend much of their time off on the Forest. Also, in reviewing 

USGS Breeding Bird surveys USGS always notes that on an individual site (survey route) 

variances may not be valid. For valid variances one must go to a larger area and that is provided 

on a statewide analysis. When the Forest Plan allows an average of 500 acres of timber to be 

harvested annually across the Forest a statewide analysis of the species would not show locations 

of increases or decreases in any frame of reference to indicate what Forest management practices 

might be having. 

Selection of Management Indicators 

The following criteria were used in selecting MIS: 

1. MIS must have a strong (but not exclusive) affinity for the habitat type. 

2. The habitat type is key habitat in the life cycle of the MIS. 

3. The MIS is sensitive to change. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 2 

4. The MIS is relatively easy to monitor, i.e., high visibility and in adequate 

numbers. 

5. The MIS is somewhat representative of all species that use the habitat type. 

6. The MIS is, for the most part, a year round resident on the forest. 

36 CFR 219.19(a)(1) states, “...the following categories shall be represented where appropriate.” 

1. Endangered and threatened plant and animal species. Endangered and threatened species 

have not been selected as MIS because none present on the Wasatch-Cache are well distributed 

across the Forest in a fashion that indicates how management activities are affecting the 

population as a whole. 

2. Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management programs. Again, these are usually inherently rare species and in most cases 

narrow endemics that are considered on a case-by-case basis for individual projects. 

 

3. Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped. Big game species are not used because they 

are very mobile, have relatively weak affinity for a given vegetation type, are somewhat 

insensitive to alteration of local habitat and their numbers are more controlled by State hunting 

regulations. Three species from this group have been selected as MIS. Cutthroat trout will be 

monitored by condition as well as estimated population. Snowshoe hares are not heavily hunted 

and beaver are in general not heavily trapped. More discussion follows. 

4. Non-game species of special interest. The goshawk has been selected from this group and is 

discussed below. 

5. Other. The CFR actually states, “...and additional plant or animal species selected because 

their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities...” The 

Forest has not chosen any MIS that fall into this category although vegetation is monitored 

through the range program and in connection with properly functioning condition and historic 

range of variability. 

Some revision participants suggested that large predators should be used as management 

indicator species. They were not chosen as MIS because they did not meet criteria 1-MIS must 

have a strong (but not exclusive) affinity for the habitat type; 2- The habitat type is key habitat in 

the life cycle of the MIS; and 4-The MIS is relatively easy to monitor, i.e., high visibility and in 

adequate numbers, above. 

It must be realized that almost every project that is implemented will benefit some wildlife 

species and be detrimental to others. In considering the effects on MIS we include how much 

habitat is available, how that habitat is spread across the Forest, and are we operating in or 

moving toward properly functioning condition (PFC) and the historic range of variability (HRV). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 3 

Following the above criteria, Table MI-1 shows the disposition of the 22 MIS identified in the 

1985 Forest Plan. 

Table MI-1. Management Indicator Species from the 1985 Plan and Disposition In Revised Plan 

MIS Disposition In New Forest Plan 

Ecological Indicators 

Gray Jay Species is not spread across the Forest. USGS 

Breeding Bird Survey results for Utah indicate the 

Uinta Mountains is the only area where there is a 

good population in the state. 

Red-breasted nuthatch Not a yearlong resident. 

Hairy woodpecker Replaced by the goshawk. 

Pine siskin Not a yearlong resident. 

Red-naped sapsucker Not a yearlong resident. 

Warbling vireo Not a yearlong resident. 

Mountain bluebird Not a yearlong resident. 

Water pipit Not a yearlong resident. 

MacGillivray’s warbler Not a yearlong resident. 

Green-tailed towhee Not a yearlong resident. 

Black-throated gray warbler Not a yearlong resident. 

Vesper sparrow Not a yearlong resident. 

Macroinvertebrates The cutthroat trout provide duplication on 

monitoring of aquatic habitat. It is also significantly 

less expensive and baselines are generally 

available. 

Cutthroat trout Carried over into new plan. 

 

Species of Special Interest 

Mule deer Generally very mobile, have relatively weak affinity 

for any given vegetation type, are somewhat 

insensitive to alteration of local habitat, and 

numbers are controlled more by State hunting 

regulations and number of permits issued. 

Elk Same as mule deer above. 

Moose Same as mule deer above. 

Bonneville cutthroat trout Carried over into new plan. 

Colorado River cutthroat trout Carried over into new plan. 

Pine marten Being high on the food chain it’s population are 

subject to changes in prey species populations. 

Monitoring is costly. 

Peregrine falcon Habitat is not in areas with high management 

opportunities and would not indicate what 

management in doing. 

Bald eagle Same as peregrine falcon above. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 4 

Table MI-2 shows the disposition of MIS identified in the DEIS and Proposed Plan. 

Table MI-2. Management Indicators Identified in DEIS and Proposed Plan and Disposition Into 

FEIS and Revised Plan. 

MIS Disposition Between Draft and Final 

 

MacGillivray’s warbler Not a yearlong resident. 

Goshawk Carried into final. 

Warbling vireo Not a yearlong resident. 

Snowshoe hare Carried into final. 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Not a yearlong resident. 

Vesper sparrow Not a yearlong resident. 

Brewer’s sparrow Not a yearlong resident. 

Cutthroat trout (Bonneville and Colorado River) Carried into final. 

Selected Management Indicator Species 

Table MI-3 shows the management indicator species that will be used on the Forest. 

Table MI-3. Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator Communities 

Management Indicator Associated Vegetation Community 

Goshawk 

 Accipiter gentilis 

Aspen, Conifer, Mixed Conifer 

Snowshoe Hare 

 Lepus americanus 

Pole/Sapling Aspen, Conifer, and Mixed 

Conifer 

Beaver 

 Castor canadensis 

Riparian 

Cutthroat Trout 

 Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus 

 Oncorhynchus clarki utah 

Aquatic 

Goshawk – aspen, conifer and mixed conifer. The goshawk is a forest habitat generalist that 

uses a wide variety of forest ages, structural conditions, and successional stages. The goshawk 

preys on large-to-medium-sized birds and mammals, which it captures on the ground, in trees, or 

in the air. Three components of a goshawk's home range have been identified: nest area 

(approximately 30 acres), post fledging-family area (approximately 420 acres), and foraging area 

(approximately 5,400 acres). The species nests in a wide variety of forest types including aspen, 

coniferous, and mixed conifer forests. It typically nests in mature and old-growth forests (Nature 

Conservancy, 1999). 

Snowshoe hare -- pole/sapling aspen, conifer and mixed conifer. In the Rockies and 

westward, hares mainly use coniferous forests. They are predominately associated with forests 

that have a well-developed understory that provides protection from predation and supplies them 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 5 

with food. Such habitat structure is common in early seral stages but may also occur in 

coniferous forests with mature but relatively open overstories (Ruggiero, 2000). 

Beaver – riparian. The beaver occurs throughout most of North America and is fairly common 

in Utah. It is found in permanent slow moving streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs. On 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the Uinta Mountains are classed as “substantial value” 

habitat and the rest of the Forest as “critical value” or “high value habitat as indicated on Gap 

Analysis maps. 

Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout – aquatic. The number of fish in a reach of 

stream is not considered a good monitoring factor because some streams are stocked and most 

streams are fished. Number fluctuations due to stocking and angling make it difficult, at best, to 

determine the effects of forest management activities on the population. Cutthroat trout 

(Bonneville or Colorado River, depending on the drainage) will be used as MIS using a 

“condition” factor as the monitoring tool (see monitoring below). 

Vegetation types not monitored by MIS 

There are two vegetation types not covered by MIS. The first is the sage/grasslands of which 

there are 189,600 acres across the Forest. The species which best fit the criteria for 

sage/grasslands is the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Since the sage grouse is not 

spread across the Forest in a manner that it will be able to indicate the effects of management in 

the sage/grasslands across the Forest it was determined not to fit the criteria in a manner to be 

acceptable as an MIS. With proposed projects in used habitat the species can be used on a 

project to monitor the effects of the individual project. This would be determined in a sitespecific NEPA document. The sage/grassland vegetation type will be monitored to track 

changes in amounts and age classes, as age classes are mapped. 

The other vegetation type not covered is oak/maple (mapped separately in the GIS layer with oak 

covering 90,800 acres and maple covering 14,600 acres). Work in the oak/maple is planned in 

the form of fuels reduction along the urban interface. This is planned to be mechanical and 

would serve to give better age class diversity in the type. As with the sage/grassland, oak/maple 

will be monitored as to assess changes in amounts and age classes, as age classes are mapped. 

Habitat Availability 

Table MI-4 shows the acres within the GIS vegetation layers that represent the habitats 

represented by each MI species. Maps showing how each of these habitats is spread across the 

Forest are in Appendix A of this paper. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 6 

Table MI-4 Habitat Availability 

Species Habitat 

Represented 

GIS Veg Layer 

Designation 

Acres 

 

Goshawk Aspen/Mixed Conifer AC, AS, CA, LP, MC, DF 1 506,200

Snowshoe Hare Pole/Sapling Conifer 

(Form 2+3 where 

available) 

AC, CA, LP, MC, DF, SF 1 

 

556,800

 

Beaver Riparian WM, WI, BH 24,800

Cutthroat Trout Aquatic Aquatic Refer to Chapter 

3 Topic 2 of the 

FEIS2

1 These are total acres not broken out by age class. It is realized that goshawks prefer mature and old 

age classes and showshoe hares prefer younger age classes or vegetative structure that has an open 

canopy that allows uderstory growth. 

2 There are approximately 640 miles of perennial streams on the Wasatch-Cache. Not all have cutthroat 

trout in them. The aquatic section of Chapter 3 better discusses waters having or not having cutthroat 

trout.

WM – Wet Meadow (16,900 acres) AS – Aspen (102,800 acres) 

 WI – Willow (4,400 acres) MC – Mixed Conifer (151,700 acres) 

BH – Bottomland Hardwood (3,500 acres) DF – Douglas Fir (87,600 acres) 

AC – Aspen/Conifer (55,800 acres) SF – Spruce/Fir (153,400 acres) 

CA – Conifer/Aspen (47,000 acres) LP – Lodgepole Pine (61,300 acres) 

The following figures, at the end of this report, show how the vegetation types for each terrestrial 

species are spread across the Forest. Also included are figures showing the sage/grassland and 

oak/maple distribution: 

 Figure 1 Goshawk. 

 Figure 2 Snowshoe Hare. 

 Figure 3 Beaver. 

 Figure 4 Sage/Grassland. 

 Figure 5 Oak/Maple. 

Population Information and Needs 

Goshawk 

The Forest has been monitoring goshawks territory occupancy since the Utah Forest Plan 

amendment in 1999. Monitoring results for different parts of the Wasatch-Cache are shown in 

Table MI-5. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 7 

Table MI-5 Goshawk Territory Occupancy 

Territories Monitored Active 

‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02

 

Kamas/Evanston/Mt.View 21 22 22 22 12 22 18 22 4 2 6 6 

Ogden/Logan 7 8 11 11 7 8 11 11 2 4 4 6 

Salt Lake 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Snowshoe Hare 

In Utah a study was done in the Bear River Range on the Wasatch-Cache where snowshoe hare 

densities were determined in different vegetation types (Wolfe, 1982). Data included: 

Aspen – sprce understory 0.01 hares/hectare ( .02 hares/acre) 

 Aspen – dense understory 0.22 “ ( .54 “ ) 

 Aspen-conifer edge 0.17 “ ( .42 “ ) 

 Douglas fir 0.57 “ (1.41 “ ) 

 Subalpine fir 0.99 “ (2.45 “ ) 

 Engelmann spruce 0.10 “ ( .10 “ ) 

Dennis Austin of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has been doing track and pellet 

transects in the Cache Wildlife Management Unit, North Amazon Basin since 1998. His 

findings are shown in Tables MI-6 and 7. 

 

Table MI-6 Snowshoe Hare Track Counts 

Accomplished in January and February 

 Snowshoe Hare 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Track Count 

 111(1)1 255(1) 054(0) 064(0) 051(0) 

 1 Number in ( ) indicates actual number of animals observed 

 when transect was being read. 

Table MI-7 Snowshoe Hare Pellets Counted per 100 m2 

Accomplished in July 

Plot 1999 2000 2001 2002 

1 008 013 021 114 

2 082 006 101 1327 

3 030 005 107 329 

4 071 015 022 515 

5 109 030 131 495 

6 079 007 031 326 

7 059 029 228 414 

8 177 033 044 651 

9 078 130 077 330 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 8 

10 247 027 226 1128 

 

Total 940 295 988 5629 

Mean 94.0 29.5 98.8 562.9 

Standard 

Deviation 

70.2 36.9 77.5 381.0 

 

111 ND ND 203 456 

1 Adjacent to Plot 10, but cleared of dead under brush after the 2001 count. 

Mr. Austin feels that the summer pellet counts are much more reliable than the winter track 

counts. The large jump in the 2002 pellet counts definitely coincides with an increase hare 

population although it is to early to speculate on the cause of this jump. 

Information for the Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Mountains is not presently available. A 

baseline will be established using pellet counts. The same protocol will be used across the 

Forest. 

As the database is built, consideration must be taken for the cyclic nature of snowshoe hares. As 

described in Ruggiero (1999), cycles can vary by one of four scenarios. Data from local areas 

would determine how these cycles run for that area. 

Beaver 

At the present time the Forest has no information on beaver populations on the Forest. The Utah 

Furbearer Harvest Report, 1998-1999 indicates that statewide the number of trappers increased 

by 36% in 1998-1999 but harvest was lower than expected although up 2% from the previous 

season. Beaver harvested per trapper decreased 25% from the previous season but was still 6% 

above the long-term average. This indicates that beaver are doing well in the state. 

Harvest information is not the most reliable source to gain information of beaver populations. 

The monitoring schedule will be set up to get population information across the Forest in the 

most expedient timeframes possible. 

Bonneville and Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

Most streams on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest have been surveyed for fish over the past 10 

years. This information will be summarized and comparisons made as the individual 4th level 

HUC are surveys as identified in the monitoring section of the Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 9 

Survey Protocol 

Goshawks 

The Forest has been monitoring goshawk territory occupancy for several years. Protocol calls 

for annual monitoring of 50% of known territories or all territories if there are less than 20. The 

acceptable range of change is less than a 20% decline in territory occupancy over a 3-year 

period. 

Snowshoe Hare 

Monitoring transects will be set up on the Bear River Range, the Uinta Mountains and the 

Wasatch Range. Protocols are being investigated with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

to determine the best for the Wasatch-Cache. McKelvey, et.al. (2002) and Krebs et.al. (2001) 

are the latest literature found on snowshoe hare transects and population density estimates. 

Plans are to have a pellet group protocol where transects are read in July. Transects will be read 

annually at least until a baseline is established. Then a proper timing interval will be established 

on how often transects will be read. 

Beaver 

Beaver will be monitored by surveying selected streams in the 4th order HUCs (hydrologic units) 

on the Forest. This can be done from the ground or the air (Hay 1958). Selected streams will be 

surveyed annually at least until a baseline is established. Then a proper timing interval will be 

established on how often transects will be read. Stream selection and protocols will be 

coordinated with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources so that we can establish transects that 

will benefit both agencies in our management responsibilities. 

Cutthroat Trout 

The relationship between length and weight of fish has been studied biologically and the lengthweight relationship is used from a purely academic view of growth. The coefficient of condition 

(K) is found by dividing the weight (W) by the length cubed (L3

), or K=W/L3 (Lagler, 1956). 

This technique has the advantage that data on fish from years past can be used to generate a 

baseline from which to analyze data collected in the future. The data is automatically collected 

as stream surveys are accomplished. Aquatic biologists have a schedule for surveys across the 

Forest on a regular basis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 10 

Figure 1

Figure 2
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 11 

Figure 3

Figure 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest J - 12 

Figure 5