wildlife technical report -...

Forest Service

Platt Petroleum Corporation Application for Permit to Drill Well #1-3

Wildlife Technical Report

Prepared by: Traci Allen

Fish and Wildlife Program Manager Uinta-Wasatch-Cache

3/17/2016

i

Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Alternative 1 (No Action) ......................................................................................................................... 2

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ............................................................................................................... 2

Assumptions and Methodologies of Analysis ............................................................................................... 3

Key Assumptions and Methodologies ...................................................................................................... 3

Mule deer .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Moose .................................................................................................................................................... 5

Blue Grouse .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Ruffed Grouse ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Mountain Cottontail .............................................................................................................................. 8

Small Mammals ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Beaver-riparian ................................................................................................................................... 11

Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species (Wildlife) .................................................. 11

Canada Lynx ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive Species ......................................................................... 15

Gray Wolf ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Wolverine ............................................................................................................................................ 17

Boreal Owl .......................................................................................................................................... 18

American Three-toed Woodpecker ..................................................................................................... 19

Great Gray Owl ................................................................................................................................... 19

Forest Plan Direction Common to All Alternatives .................................................................................... 30

References ................................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................. 42

ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of potential acres of big game habitat impacted by species to acres

available by hunt management area ................................................................................................ 7

Table 2. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that occur, or potentially

occur in Summit County, Utah on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest ....................................... 12

Table 3: Acres and percentage of lynx habitat on the Evanston-Mt. View Ranger District (USFS

managed lands only) ..................................................................................................................... 14

Table 4: Lynx habitat by Lynx Analysis Unit compared to proposed project area ...................... 15

Table 5: Complete list of sensitive mammal and avian species for the Wasatch-Cache National

Forest and their relationship to the proposed project .................................................................... 15

Table 6: BCC and UPF species listed for the Utah Mountains and Wyoming Basin Physiographic

Regions ......................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 7: Timber treatments within the last 20 years for LAU #33 near Project Area .................. 29

List of Figures

Figure 1: Percent of occupied territories for all monitored MIS goshawk territories on the

Wasatch-Cache Planning Area from 2003 to 2013....................................................................... 21

Figure 2: Percent of monitored MIS territories with active nests on the Wasatch-Cache Planning

Area from 2003 to 2013 ................................................................................................................ 21

1

Introduction The Burnett Oil Company has submitted an application for permit to drill for the West Bridger Lake Unit

(WBLU) #1-3 well on the Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District. To analyze the proposal, the Uinta-

Wasatch-Cache National Forest will undertake an environmental assessment to analyze the impacts of the

proposed action on surface resources. The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) will be a cooperating

agency with the Forest Service and will analyze subsurface impacts. In addition, BLM personnel with

particular areas of expertise, such as air quality, will assist with surface analysis when appropriate.

Burnett Oil Company proposes to drill a test well on surface land managed by the Forest Service and

minerals managed by the BLM. No existing facilities are found on the proposed well site. The proposed

well site lies within a unit harvested via a clear cut in 1995.

A graded well pad with a maximum dimension of 600 feet by 600 feet would be constructed, depending

on the rig and operational design requirements. To minimize surface disturbance, a portion of the

constructed area outside the well head, associated tankage, and access road would be reclaimed and

reseeded after drilling and operations on the lease are completed and further development is not

anticipated. All areas would be reclaimed and reseeded after the well is plugged and abandoned. Spoil

and top soil pile areas would not be scrapped during construction. Spoil and top soil piles would be

divided physically to prevent mixture.

Drilling would determine whether oil and/or gas production is possible and economically feasible. The

test well would target the Nugget Formation at a depth of approximately 18,600 feet. All oil, gas, and

water production from the wells would be measured at the well site.

During operations, surface facilities at the well site are anticipated to consist of a well head, four 400-

barrel tanks, and production separator and dehydration unit if necessary. The wellbore may have a

pumping unit installed to pump oil from the formation. Exposed surface facilities would be painted shale

green or a color approved by the Forest Service.

The size of surface facilities depends on the success of the well. Therefore, if the well is productive, a

sundry would be filed with the Forest Service showing the actual production facility layout diagram. At a

minimum the well site layout would provide for facilities only on the disturbed area in minimal cut no

closer than 25 feet from a back slope with containment structures having a holding capacity of 110

percent of the largest fluid container.

All operations associated with the well would comply with Onshore Order #1 and #1, BLM Manual 9113,

and the Forest Service Gold Book Standards, unless otherwise proposed and shall conform to the site

specific reclamation plan submitted by Burnett Oil Company.

If the well is found to be unproductive, it would be plugged and abandoned as soon as practical after the

conclusion of production testing.

No new roads would be needed for access to the test well. Burnett Oil Company shall improve

approximately 1.5 miles of Forest Road 388. Up to 15 miles of road would be temporarily improved with

gravel for equipment access. After the well is completed, travel normally would be limited to one visit per

day. If the well is productive, the access route would be resurfaced with gravel acceptable to the Forest

Service to allow for all-weather access.

2

Water used for drilling, completing the proposed well, and dust control would be obtained from a water

well that Burnett Oil Company proposes to drill on the site. If additional sources of water are required,

the operator would obtain needed water from a diversion on Gilbert Creek approved by the Forest

Service. Water volume used for the well proposal is estimated at 100,000 barrels but depends on the

depth of the well and losses that might occur during operation. Authorization to appropriate water as part

of the proposal would be obtained from the Utah State Engineer’s Office.

No construction materials would be needed for drilling purposes. There are no plans to use any material

obtained from National Forest System lands. Construction and drilling would not be conducted using

frozen or saturated soils. If production is successful, gravel would be purchased from a local supplier and

spread on the roadway and the well site to maintain all-weather travel.

Additional activities associated with the proposal that should be reviewed during the environmental

analysis are found in items 1 through 12 in Appendix A, which captures the proposal as presented in the

application for permit to drill.

Water-based cuttings will be placed in the reserve pit during drilling. A wire fence will be installed

around the pit during drilling (three sides) and on all four sides after the drill rig leaves the site. Pit

closure and reclamation are discussed later in this document. Oil-based cuttings will be placed in above-

ground leak proof-steel tank(s) and promptly removed from the national forest. For more information on

pits, see APPENDIX F: FOREST SERVICE OIL AND GAS PIT SITING CONSTRUCTION AND

CLOSURE GUIDANCE.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the no action alternative, there would be no exploration drilling occurring within the proposed

project area.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Burnett Oil Company proposes to drill a test well on surface land managed by the Forest Service and

minerals managed by the BLM. No existing facilities are found on the proposed well site. The proposed

well site lies within a unit harvested via a clear cut in 1995.

A graded well pad with a maximum dimension of 600 feet by 600 feet would be constructed, depending

on the rig and operational design requirements. To minimize surface disturbance, a portion of the

constructed area outside the well head, associated tankage, and access road would be reclaimed and

reseeded after drilling and operations on the lease are completed and further development is not

anticipated. All areas would be reclaimed and reseeded after the well is plugged and abandoned. Spoil

and top soil pile areas would not be scrapped during construction. Spoil and top soil piles would be

divided physically to prevent mixture.

Drilling would determine whether oil and/or gas production is possible and economically feasible. The

test well would target the Nugget Formation at a depth of approximately 18,600 feet. All oil, gas, and

water production from the wells would be measured at the well site.

During operations, surface facilities at the well site are anticipated to consist of a well head, four 400-

barrel tanks, and production separator and dehydration unit if necessary. The wellbore may have a

pumping unit installed to pump oil from the formation. Exposed surface facilities would be painted shale

green or a color approved by the Forest Service.

3

The size of surface facilities depends on the success of the well. Therefore, if the well is productive, a

sundry would be filed with the Forest Service showing the actual production facility layout diagram. At a

minimum the well site layout would provide for facilities only on the disturbed area in minimal cut no

closer than 25 feet from a back slope with containment structures having a holding capacity of 110

percent of the largest fluid container.

All operations associated with the well would comply with Onshore Order #1 and #1, BLM Manual 9113,

and the Forest Service Gold Book Standards, unless otherwise proposed and shall conform to the site

specific reclamation plan submitted by Burnett Oil Company.

If the well is found to be unproductive, it would be plugged and abandoned as soon as practical after the

conclusion of production testing.

No new roads would be needed for access to the test well. Burnett Oil Company shall improve

approximately 1.5 miles of Forest Road 388. Up to 15 miles of road would be temporarily improved with

gravel for equipment access. After the well is completed, travel normally would be limited to one visit per

day. If the well is productive, the access route would be resurfaced with gravel acceptable to the Forest

Service to allow for all-weather access.

Water used for drilling, completing the proposed well, and dust control would be obtained from a water

well that Burnett Oil Company proposes to drill on the site. If additional sources of water are required,

the operator would obtain needed water from a diversion on Gilbert Creek approved by the Forest

Service. Water volume used for the well proposal is estimated at 100,000 barrels but depends on the

depth of the well and losses that might occur during operation. Authorization to appropriate water as part

of the proposal would be obtained from the Utah State Engineer’s Office.

No construction materials would be needed for drilling purposes. There are no plans to use any material

obtained from National Forest System lands. Construction and drilling would not be conducted using

frozen or saturated soils. If production is successful, gravel would be purchased from a local supplier and

spread on the roadway and the well site to maintain all-weather travel.

Additional activities associated with the proposal that should be reviewed during the environmental

analysis are found in items 1 through 12 in Appendix A, which captures the proposal as presented in the

application for permit to drill. A summary of the proposed major structural improvements include:

Construction of a graded well pad with a maximum dimension of 600 feet by 600 feet.

Approximately 15 miles of existing Forest Road 388 would be improved.

Assumptions and Methodologies of Analysis

Key Assumptions and Methodologies Assumptions for the evaluation of effects on the species analyzed are made based on drainages and

topography of the project area. Disturbance may vary among species and individuals based on varying

environmental conditions, disturbance and the associated response of a species. These are disclosed in

the discussions of the individual species groups.

Disclosure of Methodologies

The method for analysis for this report is to present the desired conditions for the resources from the

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Revised Forest Plan (2003) and describe the potential effects and impacts

4

of the proposed action to the various wildlife species that are known to inhabit or could potentially inhabit

the proposed project area.

Consideration of Best Available Science The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF) is required to evaluate potential effects from the

proposed project on Management Indicator Species (MIS), Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species,

migratory birds, and any species federally listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This document

uses the best available science to analyze the current environment and potential impacts from the project

alternatives. Data available for this analysis includes Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR)

habitat and big game data, Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) big game data, MIS reports,

and surveys conducted by the Forest Service and others.

Big Game Species The proposed project area falls within the state jurisdictional boundary of the Utah Division of Wildlife

Resources (UDWR). The most recent data (habitat polygons) were downloaded August 2014 for analysis

of the project area. A variety of big game species inhabit the project area include mule deer (Odocoileus

hemionus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), moose (Alces alces shirasi),and pronghorn

(Antilocapra Americana). General information about each species within the project area is discussed

below.

Elk Elk are a generalist ungulate with a diet consisting of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and thus inhabit a variety

of habitat types within Utah and Wyoming. During summers, they prefer higher elevations in

aspen/conifer forests. In winter, they inhabit mid to low elevation habitats that are primarily comprised of

sagebrush and shrub communities (UDWR 2010b).

The elk in the North Slope Harvest Unit have been classified as an interstate herd summering in Utah and

wintering in Wyoming. Annual variations in elk movements from summer ranges (Utah) to winter ranges

(Wyoming) are dependent upon winter weather severity.

The UDWR classifies the project area as mostly crucial summer (calving habitat) and some crucial winter

habitat. The elk population on the North Slope Harvest Unit (North Slope Summit) meets the population

objective of 300 animals. Despite losses of crucial habitat throughout Utah, elk numbers within three

subunits of the North Slope Harvest Unit have been near or above the collective population objective of

2,100 since 2005 (UDWR 2010b).

Mule deer Mule deer forage on a diversity of plants (browse, forbs, and grasses) and thrive in early successional

habitats (WAFWA 2003). Tree-dominated habitats offer mule deer thermal cover from severe weather,

but provide little foraging opportunities. A mosaic or pattern of habitats can provide both, food and cover.

Thick brush and trees provide ungulates with cover, while the small openings provide forage and feeding

areas (UDWR 2008).

Herd numbers in Utah have been below objective statewide since 1994 when a combination of factors

including drought, heavy winters, and degraded winter habitat caused mule deer populations to crash

statewide. Herd numbers have slowly increased from 1994-2003. In 2003, deer numbers again decreased

statewide when several years of drought condition led to lower fawn production. This extended drought

was also a factor that allowed fire to burn on many deer winter ranges causing loss of resources for deer

5

during the critical winter months. From 2008 to 2010, the mule deer population on the North Slope unit

increased from 4,800 to 6,200 animals. The proposed project area is classified as crucial summer habitat

by the UDWR.

Moose The Shiras, or Wyoming moose, the smallest of four subspecies, inhabits Utah and Wyoming, Aspen,

willows, and a variety of aquatic emergent and submergent vegetation are preferred forage species for

moose. Wet meadows and riparian habitat are important for cow moose and calves during the summer.

Moose habitats in Utah and Wyoming are associated with riparian and wetland areas and upland areas

dominated by mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), Gamble oak (Quercus gambelii Nutt),

serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea), quaking aspen, and burned over coniferous forests (UDWR 2009).

Moose habitat in the proposed project area is classified as crucial winter by the UDWR. The herd in Uinta

County, Wyoming is jointly managed with Utah on the north slope of the Uinta mountain range. The

post-season population objective is 900 moose. UDWR funds an interstate elk and moose survey every 3rd

year. In 2010, the survey was postponed until January 2011 because of snow conditions. During the

survey, 324 moose were counted between the North Slope hunt unit and Wyoming hunt areas 27 and 35.

Between the 2007 and the 2011 survey, field observations, comments from landowners and sportsmen,

and reduced nuisance moose or damage complaints all suggest the herd has experienced a sharp reduction

in this moose population (WGFD 2010).

Pronghorn

Pronghorn populations are currently established in suitable habitats throughout Utah primarily the

shrubsteppe plant community. Large expanses of open, low rolling or flat terrain characterize the

topography of most of those habitats. Sustaining pronghorn populations requires a vegetative mix with a

strong forb component (Yoakum 2004b). Succulent forbs are essential to lactating does and fawn survival

during the spring and early summer (Ellis and Travis 1975, Howard et al. 1990). High quality browse,

protruding above snow level, is especially critical to winter survival of pronghorn (Yoakum 2004b). The

proposed project area falls within the North Slope (Summit) Herd Unit. The latest report does not indicate

a population estimate; however, both the 5-year and 10-year trends indicate the population is stable

(UDWR 2009). The North Slope/West Daggett herd unit has a population estimate of 800 animals and

both the 5-year and 10-year trends indicate the population is stable (UDWR 2009).

Impacts to big game

A variety of disturbances can impact big game temporarily or long term depending upon the activity,

timing and duration. Potential impacts to big game would be relatively similar in nature for all species

discussed. A summary of potential impacts to big game are shown below.

Potential Impacts to Big Game include:

Decrease protective/thermal cover as habitat availability deceases

Increase in physiological stress

Avoidance of roads

Temporary displacement and disturbance from activities during construction and operation

activities (e.g., noise, dust)

6

Increase in the probability of animal/vehicle collisions as vehicular traffic increases

In general, big game can be affected by anthropogenic disturbances such as urbanization, road

construction, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and energy development. Developments can create habitat

fragmentation and reduce available hiding and thermal cover as well as forage. Hiding and escape cover

at the edge of a forest opening is extremely important in forest types with a grass-forb understory with

few shrubs and decreases in importance as shrub cover increases inside an opening. Elk prefer clear-cut

areas with cover in the opening only where such cover does not inhibit the growth of forage. Interior

habitat or thermal cover is extremely important to moose for protection from inclement weather

conditions, security and protection from harassment and predation. Moose utilize lodgepole pine as a

thermal cover source during these months. Anthropogenic disturbances can also facilitate the spread of

exotic vegetation which in turn reduces quality and quantity of forage available to elk (Gelbard and

Belnap 2003). Big game can experience physiological stress in areas of high road density. Elk exposed to

increased road density and traffic has higher levels of physiological indicators, such as glucocorticoids

(Millspaugh et al. 2001). In addition to the increased stress hormone levels, the energetic costs of moving

away from disturbance associated with roads may be substantial (Cole et al. 1997).

The scientific literature highlights the significance of roads and road densities to big game. A summary of

peer-reviewed and UDWR impacts are discussed below. Big game response to roads vary greatly in

relation to the rates of vehicular traffic, the extent of forest escape cover near open roads, topography, and

the type of road, which also correlates with traffic rates (Lyon 1979, Witmer and deCalesta 1985, Johnson

et al. 2000, Rowland et al. 2000, Ager et al. 2003, Wisdom et al. 2005, Benkobi et al. 2004). Elk will

avoid areas near open roads (Lyon 1983). The frequency of elk occurrence and use increases at greater

distances from roads where motorized travel is allowed (Rowland et al. 2005).

In general, a road-effect zone exists, which is defined as an area beyond a physical boundary of the road,

can impact big game. Heavily roaded areas contain few patches of forest cover large enough to effectively

function as habitat for elk, especially during hunting areas seasons (Rowland et al. 2000, Ager et al.

2003). Wisdom et al. (2005b) observed deer more frequently selecting areas bordering forest roads with

higher levels of traffic (>4 vehicles for a 12 hour period) than roads with lower levels. This was true for

habitat selection during both diurnal and nocturnal hours, as well as between seasons.

A Shanley and Pyare (2011) study indicated that the road-effect zone for influencing moose behavior was

between 500 and 1,000 m (1,640 and 3,281 ft) for bull moose and over 1,000 m (3,281 ft) for cow moose.

Additionally, the probability of moose utilizing habitat within 500 m (1,640 ft) of a road decreased as

traffic levels increased. Additionally, the probability of moose utilizing habitat within 500 m (1,640 ft)

of a road decreased as traffic levels increased. Gaines et al. (2003) identified a correlation of road

avoidance for elk between road type based on traffic volume and mean distance ranging from estimated

zone of influence of 900 meters for low traffic (0-1 cars/12-hour period) to 900 m zone of influence for

high traffic (> 4 vehicles/12-hour period). It is anticipated that one vehicular trip will be made to the site

daily during operations.

Although forest roads can have negative effects on big game they also can provide some benefits. Forest

roads used by snowmobilers compact the snow making it passable for big game in lodgepole pine stands

in winter ranges near foraging areas as shelter in the winter months and security cover from predators.

Indirect impacts to big game can occur from noise. The acoustical environment in the vicinity of the

project area is typical of that associated with rural areas. Sound background levels would be expected

to range from nighttime levels of approximately 35 dBA to daytime levels of approximately 45-50

dBA. Actual noise levels within the project area would vary depending upon topography, proximity

to noise sources, and weather conditions, in particular wind velocity and direction. The typical noise

7

from the roads in the project area include grazing operations, light traffic on unpaved roads, and hunting

or other dispersed recreational activities. Sporadic road maintenance activities could increase local

noise levels. Hunting noise, including that associated with OHVs and gunfire, would be sporadically

noticed during the fall hunting seasons. Noise levels in the vicinity of the well pad would be

elevated during the four to eight weeks during which construction and drilling operations would

occur. Sound levels of 80 dBA or higher would be noted within 50 feet of the activities and

perception of sound could be heard up to several miles from the source of the activities,

depending on topography, vegetative buffering, and current local noise conditions. Following

completion of operations, the acoustical environment would continue to be modified by natural

sounds and those from introduced activities consistent with Forest management objectives.

The impacts to big game habitat from the proposed project in comparison to the hunt management area

are significantly small and shown below (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of potential acres of big game habitat impacted by species to acres available by hunt

management area

Species Proposed Project

Impacted

(Acres)

Hunt Management Area

(Acres)

Elk

Crucial summer range

8.26

(<.00001%)

376,640

Mule deer

[North Slope - Summit]

Crucial summer range

8.26

(<.00001%)

376,640

Moose

[(North Slope -Uinta

Mountains (Unit 138)]

Crucial winter range

8.26

(<.00001%)

358,822

Pronghorn

[(North Slope -Uinta

Mountains (Unit 138)]

8.26

(<.00001%)

358,822

Of the 358,822 acres of crucial winter range for moose and pronghorn habitat on the North Slope Summit

in Utah, only 8.26 acres of habitat or <.00001% are within the proposed treatment units.

Of the acres of 376,640 acres of crucial summer range for mule deer and elk habitat on the North Slope

Summit in Utah, only 8.26 acres of habitat or <.00001% are within the proposed treatment units.

No roads are anticipated to be built for the project. Big game using the area may already be habituated to

the existing road structure. Approximately 1.5 miles of the existing roads are proposed to be improved for

access to and from the drill sight. These roads are anticipated to be used incrementally for the proposed

project only once per day. The maximum size for the drill pad proposed is 600’ X 600’. For protection to

big game and other animals, all reserve pits holding waste materials will be lined, and fenced stock tight

and pits containing oil or toxic liquids will be netted with a 2” mesh netting to avoid entrapment (see

Appendix F for details).

8

Because no new roads planned for the project, a low rate of additional use of the existing roads, a small

footprint of disturbance, lined, fenced and netted pits, and amount of available habitat adjacent to the

project area, the impacts to big games (mule deer, elk, moose, and pronghorn) are not anticipated to cause

detrimental effects to the big game populations in the project area.

Upland Game

Upland game that are known to occur, or could potentially occur, within the proposed project area include

blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), snowshoe hare (Lepus

americanus) and mountain cottontails (Sylvilagus nuttalli). Since snowshoe hares are also considered a

USFS Region 4 Management Indicator Species, its current environment within the proposed project area

and possible effects from the alternatives will be discussed in the Management Indicator Species section.

Blue Grouse Blue grouse are spread across the Wasatch-Cache but, they are rarely seen, and therefore, no great

concentrations exist on the North Slope. The UDWR classifies the blue grouse habitat within the Project

project area as year-long crucial and high value habitat. During the majority of the year, blue grouse

prefer habitats with open stands of conifer or aspen that have a brushy understory, but they will relocate

to mountain shrub, lower meadows, or open timber stands in the spring for the mating period. Mating

occurs in April, and nesting occurs during the months of May and June. During the spring/summer period,

their diet consists of green vegetation, seeds, buds, berries, and insects. Some males move back to higher

elevations immediately after breeding, while others relocate during the late summer/early fall, which is

the same time that the hens and young relocate. The bird’s diet during fall/winter at these higher

elevations primarily consists of needles and buds of fir trees (Rawley et al. 1996, Zwickel and Bendell

2005).

Ruffed Grouse Ruffed grouse numbers on the Forest are fairly low, but have been stable for several years. The UDWR

classifies the ruffed grouse habitat within the Project project area as year-long high value habitat. In

addition to utilizing thickets of mixed hardwood that includes aspen and conifers, the grouse will also use

brushy woodland areas adjacent to streams. The primary habitat during the breeding season is aspen, but

mountain riparian areas can be used as a secondary option (Parrish et al. 2002). Nesting generally occurs

during late April, May, or June. Important forage during these months until winter includes insects, fruits,

forbs, seeds, and plant tissues. During winter, the grouse’s diet will shift to almost exclusively deciduous

plant buds (Rawley et al. 1996). Ruffed grouse thrive best in young seral stage forests where understory

forbs and shrubs flourish.

Mountain Cottontail Mountain cottontails are common throughout the state of Utah in elevations over 6,000 ft (1,829 m). They

generally live in burrows near brush piles in sagebrush and mountain shrub communities. The rabbits are

active year round, and their diet consists of a wide variety of forbs, grasses, and shrubs (Rawley et al.

1996). The UDWR classifies mountain cotton-tail habitat is the Project project area as year-long high

value habitat.

Effects on Upland Game

Alternative 1

9

Under the No Action alternative there would be activities occurring with the project area. Under the No

Action alternative, there would be no direct effects to upland game species. Indirect effects to upland

game species may occur in the project area from impacts associated with large-scale natural disturbances

such as continued mountain pine beetle tree mortality and wildfire.

Alternative 2

Because of the small size of the project foot print and the amount of available habitat surrounding this

area, the project is not anticipated to cause population level affects to upland game.

Small Mammals Small mammals that occur, or are likely to occur, near the project area, according to the UDWR, include

the least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus), the Uinta chipmunk (Neotamias umbrinus), the Wyoming

ground squirrel (Spermophilus elegans), the northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), the long-

tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), and various shrews, mice, voles. A general summary of the dietary and

habitat requirements for these species is provided in the following:

Least chipmunks occur in various habitat types, which range from deserts to mountain forests,

and their diet primarily consists of seeds, fruits, nuts, and insects.

Uinta chipmunks are common inhabitants of mountainous areas of Utah and Wyoming. This

species is often found in coniferous forests, usually on the forest edge or in open areas. The diet

of the Uinta chipmunk generally consists of seeds, berries, and occasionally insects, eggs, and

carrion.

Wyoming ground squirrels prefer the loose soils of sagebrush, grassland, and mountain

meadow habitats. This squirrel is native to the extreme northeastern portion of Utah and southern

Wyoming. The Wyoming ground squirrel’s diet consists primarily of seeds, flowers, other types

of vegetation, insects, and meat.

Northern pocket gophers occupy a variety of habitat types, which includes grasslands, montane

riparian areas, and brushy habitats. Their diet primarily consists of plant roots, bulbs, stems, and

leaves.

Long-tailed weasels are habitat generalists that occur throughout Utah and Wyoming. Small

rodents, insects, birds, and other animals make up the diet of this small carnivore.

Shrews are primarily insectivores and are usually tied to moist habitats with higher amounts of

vegetative cover such as riparian areas and meadows.

Mice occupy a variety of habitat types throughout the state of Utah and Wyoming, and they have

a diverse diet which includes insects, seeds, and plant material.

Voles primarily use plant material for food and can occupy a variety of habitats, which include

upland sagebrush, riparian areas, and meadows.

Skunks prefer open areas, especially grasslands and meadows, and they have an omnivorous diet

that consists of small vertebrate animals, insects, plant matter, eggs, and carrion.

Snowshoe Hare The snowshoe hare is Management Indicator Species (MIS) of immature forest stands (pole/sapling)

(Forest Service 2003b:J4-J5). MIS are species selected because changes in their populations could

indicate the impacts of management actions on the overall quality of habitat for other species that utilize

the same habitat type. For the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis),

10

snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), and beaver (Castor canadensis) have been identified as “terrestrial

wildlife” MIS.

Hares are prey for a suite of forest predators including the federally listed Canada lynx (Lynx

Canadensis), American Marten, great grey owl, and northern goshawk. Hares are non-migratory but may

make seasonal movements to access winter and summer foraging areas (Ellsworth & Reynolds, 2006).

Snowshoe hares generally disperse less than 8 km and they will swim; therefore, small to medium sized

streams are generally not thought to be a barrier to dispersal (NatureServe, 2009).

Utah is the southern periphery of the range of the snowshoe hare (Ellsworth & Reynolds, 2006). Average

hare density in the intermountain west ranges from 0 to 2.70 hares/ha (Ellsworth & Reynolds, 2006). In

Utah and Colorado home ranges average 20 acres (8 hectares) (Dolbeer & Clark, 1975)). Snowshoe hare

habitat occurs within specific forest types that grow within a limited elevation gradient that contains a

high degree of natural habitat fragmentation and variability compared to northern latitudes. Because of

this fragmentation, changes to forest habitats could reduce survival, limit dispersal, isolate populations,

decrease connectivity and reduce recolonization (Ellsworth & Reynolds, 2006).

Snowshoe hares use thick dense woodlands with deep snow (Ellsworth & Reynolds, 2006). Several

authors have cited the importance of abundant understory to provide cover and forage for snowshoe hares

( (Belovsky, 1984), (Litvaitis, 1985), (Rohner & Krebs, 1996), (Wirsing, Steury, & Murray, 2002), (Berg,

2009)) Forest types that are used by snowshoe hares include aspen, aspen-conifer, Engleman spruce,

subalpine fir, limberpine, Douglas fir, white fir, grand fir, bristlecone pine, and cotton wood willow

habitats (Ellsworth & Reynolds, 2006). In the intermountain region, snowshoe hares are found in

lodgepole pine, multi-storied spruce-fir forests, Douglas fir, mixed conifer, aspen conifer, and riparian

willow.

In Utah the species is limited to coniferous forests, interspersed with thickets of aspen, willow, and alder

in the higher mountains (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2004). On the UWC National Forest,

snowshoe hares are found in lodgepole pine, aspen-conifer, mixed conifer, spruce-fir, and Douglas Fir.

The snowshoe hare inhabit immature forest stands (pole/sapling) with a dense shrubby understory. There

is an estimate of 558,200 acres of snowshoe hare habitat within the Planning Area (aspen/conifer,

conifer/aspen, lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, Douglas fir, and spruce/fir forest types).

The snowshoe hares of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Planning Area, has been divided into two

separate populations, the Wasatch/Bear River Range and the Uinta Mountain “North Slope Range”

because of a large habitat gap between mountain ranges that prevents genetic mixing of the populations.

The proposed project is within the Uinta Mountains population (Kamas portion of the Heber-Kamas

District and the Evanston- Mountain View District) of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Planning Area.

Approximately 384,000 acres of the 558,000 acres of suitable habitat are within the Uinta Mountains.

In 2013 the number of pellets counted in the Uinta Mountains Population averaged 2.83 pellets/plot and

ranged from 0 – 18.4 pellets/plot. Calculations were made using Berg’s full equation buffer (Berg, 2009).

The 2013 snowshoe hare abundance is 0.35 hares/ha compared (0.29 hares/ha) in 2012. These data show

a statistically significant declining trend in pellets counted from 2004 through 2013 in the Uinta area (F=

11.20, p= 0.010). The downward trend in the Uinta Mountains population is likely due to a spike in the

population of snowshoe hares in 2004 and 2005. Comparatively, surveys in the past reported that hare

densities in Utah averaged between 0.34 to 0.68 hares/ha (depending on the method used (Bunnell, 2005))

11

and a spike of 2.70 hares/ha occurred in 1978 (Andersen, Macmahon, & Wolf, 1980). Since 2006 the

trend appears to be stable, to slightly declining and averages about 2.98 pellets per plot over 7 years.

Beaver-riparian The American beaver, which is the largest rodent in North America, was selected as a MIS for the

Wasatch-Cache National Forest because the rodent depends on riparian habitat which can be affected by

land use practices on the Forest and because the beaver is widely recognized as a keystone species, whose

dam-building behavior significantly affects ecosystem structure and function, as well as the habitat for

numerous plant and animal species (UWCNF 2012).

Beavers occur in permanent slow moving streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs. Within these

habitats, their home range can vary between 20-45 acres, with nonfamily groups more often occupying

larger territories than family groups (UDWR 2010c). A family group makes up a beaver colony, which

generally consists of an adult pair, the young of the present year, and the young from the previous year.

On average, a colony consists of 5 or 6 beaver, with a typical range being 4 to 8 (UWCNF 2012).

No riparian habitat is within 1.25 miles of the project; therefore, impacts to beaver are not anticipated to

beaver and no further analysis is required.

Effects on Small Mammals

Alternative 1

Under the No Action alternative there would be activities occurring with the project area. Under the No

Action alternative, there would be no direct effects to small mammals. Indirect effects to upland game

species may occur in the project area from impacts associated with large-scale natural disturbances such

as continued mountain pine beetle tree mortality and wildfire.

Saplings will take over the open areas, regenerating the forest. Under the No Action alternative, this

succession will take a greater amount of time to occur.

Alternative 2

Because of the small size of the project foot print and the amount of available habitat surrounding this

area, the project is not anticipated to cause population level affects to small mammals including two MIS

(snowshoe hare and American beaver). Therefore, these effects are not expected to result in a change in

the population numbers or trend within the analysis area or result in a significant change in overall habitat

quality and population numbers or trend of snowshoe hares forest-wide

Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species (Wildlife) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one Endangered, one Threatened, and two Candidate

terrestrial species occurring, or potentially occurring, in Summit County, Utah These species and their

status are listed in Table 2.

12

Table 2. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species that occur, or potentially occur in Summit County,

Utah on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Common Name Status Location(s) Habitat in

Project Area

Comments

Black-footed Ferret

(Mustela nigripes)

Endangered

Summit County,

Utah(1)

No Listed as historical in

Utah. Prairie dog habitat is

not present within the

proposed project area. No

Effect to this species, no

habitat present, therefore

no further discussion will

follow.

Canada Lynx

(Lynx Canadensis)

Threatened Summit County,

Utah; WCNF

Yes LAUs #33.Considered

dispersers and no evidence

of lynx reproducing in

Utah. Track surveys in

January through March

2012 did not find hard

evidence of Lynx on the

North Slope of the Uintas.

May affect, not likely to

adversely affect.

Greater Sage Grouse

(Centrocercus

urophasianus) (2)

Candidate Summit County,

Utah;

No Habitat not present in the

proposed project area.

Discussed as a Forest

Service Sensitive Species.

Western Yellow-billed

Cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus

occidentalis) (2)

Candidate Summit County,

Utah;

No Yellow-billed cuckoo nests

in lowland riparian

hardwoods (nest 2500-

6000’ elevation) not

present within the

proposed project area.

Discussed as a Forest

Service Sensitive Species. (1)Summit County, Utah is considered historical range for the black-footed ferret. (2)The greater sage grouse and western yellow-billed cuckoo are also listed as Sensitive for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.

Canada Lynx The Canada lynx was proposed for listing as a threatened species under the Endangered

Species Act on July 8, 1998 (Federal Register Volume 63, No. 130). The final decision to list the

contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which included Utah, occurred on March

24, 2000 (Federal Register Volume 65, No. 58). The rationale for the listing was based on the conclusion

that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was a major threat to the species.

In North America, Canada lynx range from the boreal forests of Alaska and Canada, to the subalpine

forests of the western United States and the boreal/hardwood forests of the eastern United States. Within

this distribution, lynx have large home ranges that generally vary between 12-83 miles2 (31-216 km2) and

vary based on habitat quality and prey availability (Koehler 1990, Aubry et al. 2000, Squires and Laurion

1999, Vashon et al. 2005). Characteristics of quality lynx habitat consists of mature forests at higher

elevations that have a dense, multi-layered understory. Along with lynx home range size, its survivorship,

13

productivity, and population dynamics are closely linked to the density of snowshoe hares, which is its

primary prey source.

Snowshoe hares are linked with disturbed and subclimax communities adjacent to thick cover (Giusti et

al. 1992, Koehler 1990, Poole et al. 1996, Wolff 1980). These types of areas are created mainly by burns

and clearcuts (Poole et al. 1996). The optimum habitat for snowshoe hares is second-growth forest stands

that are 15 to 40 years old and contain brushy understory and have a high density of saplings (Koehler

1990, Koehler et al. 1994). The successional changes in the disturbed forest stands that favor snowshoe

hares may also favor Canada lynxes (Koch 1996). For hunting snowshoe hares and dense climax forests

for denning and traveling, the Canada lynx prefer forest stands that are second-growth forests between 20

and 30 years old for hunting snowshoe hares (Fisher and Wilkinson 2005, Koehler 1990, Koehler and

Brittell 1990, Koehler et al. 1979, Parker et al. 1983, Thompson et al. 1989). For denning and traveling,

lynxes prefer dense climax forests, although the optimal age of forests for denning and traveling is not

currently available (Koehler and Brittell 1990, Murray et al. 1994, Ulev 2007).

Engelmann spruce, white fir (Abies concolor), subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine forests at elevations

ranging from 7,300 to 10,500 ft (2,250 - 3,250 m) are the primary vegetation types and elevations that

may contribute to lynx habitat in Utah. Stands only containing quaking aspen also occur throughout the

state, but snowshoe hares may use aspen stands much less than conifer stands (Wolfe et al. 1982). This is

probably because aspen stands lack dense over-story cover (Hodges 2000). Where they are intermixed

with spruce-fir and lodgepole pine stands, aspen stands would constitute secondary vegetation that may

contribute to lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000).

Within the USFWS Recovery Outline for the Canada Lynx (USFWS, September 14, 2005), core areas,

provisional core areas, secondary areas, and peripheral areas were identified; none of these areas have

been identified to occur within or near the proposed project area. On November 9, 2005, the USFWS

proposed critical habitat for the Canada lynx within the United States; no critical habitat occurs within

Utah (50 CFR Part 17, Volume 70, No. 216).

The Uinta Mountains (both north and south slope) are the only place in Utah that has designated Lynx

Analysis Units (LAU), which represent an approximate home range of a lynx. They were established by a

working group comprised of biologists from the Ashley, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests, US

Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Lynx habitat was then

classified as primary, secondary and non-habitat. The proposed project is located within LAU 33

(Appendix A).

The following is general lynx information for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and the Evanston-Mt.

View Ranger District. On the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, there have been lynx sightings, as well as

surveys conducted to analyze the felids presence on the Forest. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 a national hair

snare survey was conducted to determine a presence/absence of lynx. Samples collected from the

Evanston Ranger District were sent in for analysis; results were negative for lynx hair. Winter track

surveys were conducted in conjunction with the Ashley National forest February thru March 2010,

February through April in 2011, and February through April 2012, in a coordinated effort to locate lynx

tracks on the Uintas and document their presence. Surveys conducted on the North Slope were

14

unsuccessful in finding any tracks documenting the presence of lynx. One of the 2012 lynx routes in

April, did survey the North Slope road from the west boundary of the project area, up the Suicide Park

Road (FS Road 074), and just outside the eastern boundary of the proposed project area along FS Road

072. Although tracks of other more common wildlife species were observed, no lynx tracks were seen

during the survey.

Additionally, the USFWS issued a Notice of Remanded Determination of Status for the contiguous

United States DPS of the Canada Lynx on July 3, 2003 (USDI 2003). The notice stated that “there are

only 10 verified records of lynx in Utah since 1916 (McKay 1991; McKelvey et al. 2000). Nearly all of

the reliable lynx reports are from the Uinta Mountain Range along the Wyoming border (McKay 1991).

Four of the records correlate to the cyclic highs of the 1960s and 1970s. Recent DNA results documented

the presence of a lynx in Utah (McKelvey in lit. 2003). There is no evidence of lynx reproduction in Utah.

We conclude that lynx that occur in the state as dispersers rather than residents, because most of the few

existing records correspond to cyclic population highs, there is no evidence of reproduction, and boreal

forest habitat in Utah is remote and far from source lynx populations.”

In recent years, there have been no confirmed lynx sightings in Utah. There is, however, documentation

that several radio-collared lynx from the Colorado reintroduction have at least passed through Utah and

spent time in the Hwy 150/Whitney Lake area of the Uinta Mountains in 2004 and 2006.

Maintaining connectivity with Canada and between mountain ranges is an important consideration for the

Northern Rocky Mountains Geographic Area (Ruediger et al. 2000). It is likely that the Northern Rocky

Mountains Geographic Area and the Southern Rocky Mountains Geographic Area of Colorado and

southern Wyoming are poorly connected. Shrub-steppe communities in central and southern Idaho,

Wyoming, southeast Montana, and eastern Oregon may provide connectivity between adjacent mountain

ranges. Along the Continental Divide, they may also provide an important north-south link between large

patches of lynx habitat. Table 3 displays the percentage and number of acres of primary and secondary

habitat that occurs on the Evanston-Mt. View Ranger District (USFS managed lands only).

Table 3: Acres and percentage of lynx habitat on the Evanston-Mt. View Ranger District (USFS managed lands only)

Location Total Acres Primary

Habitat

Percentage Secondary

Habitat

Percentage

Evanston-Mt. View

Ranger District

409,638 224,636 55 71,950 18

Alternative 1

Under the No Action alternative there would be activities occurring within the project area. Under the No

Action alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects to Canada lynx.

Alternative 2 In the unlikely event of a lynx present, direct effects include the displacing of any animals and/or the

removal of primary and secondary habitat, which is high elevation mixed conifer forest. The proposed

action occurs in suitable, high elevation mixed conifer-dominated forest.

15

Table 4: Lynx habitat by Lynx Analysis Unit compared to proposed project area

LAU 33

Primary Habitat

(Conifer/Aspen,Conifer

Spruce-fir, Willow, Wet Meadow, Mixed

Conifer)

45,378

Secondary Habitat

(Aspen/Conifer, Aspen,

Bottomland Hardwood

Douglas-fir, Limber Pine

Lodgepole Pine)

12,678

Total Acres 73,400

Acres Primary Habitat Treated Under

Alternative 2 0

Acres Secondary Habitat Treated Under

Alternative 2 8.26

Total Acres Treated Under Alternative 2 8.26

Percent Treated 1.125 X 10e-4

Analysis and Determination of Effect

Because there are no known lynx occupying the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains, the lynx habitat in

the vicinity is considered a transitory corridor, no increase in existing road base, and an extremely small

amount of habitat would be impacted by the proposed treatment, our determination s that the proposed

salvage project May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect this species.

Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive Species Sensitive species are those species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a

concern, as evidenced by a significant current or predicted downward trend in numbers or density, or a

significant current or predicted downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce the species’

existing distribution. The complete list of mammalian and avian species designated as “sensitive” on the

Wasatch-Cache National Forest are displayed in Table 5. Detailed habitat requirements and general

distribution information for these species on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are discussed in the

Revised Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2003).

Table 5: Complete list of sensitive mammal and avian species for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and their

relationship to the proposed project

Species Habitat in Project

Area

Comments

Bighorn Sheep

(Ovis canadensis)

No No impact. Project area is not located near or within

bighorn sheep occupied habitat. No further

discussion will follow.

Gray Wolf (Rocky Mountain DPS)

(Canis lupus)

Yes Habitat present. May Impact Individuals or

Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a

Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss

of Viability to the Population or Species.

Spotted Bat

(Euderma maculatum)

Yes No impact. Spotted bats roost in caves, mines and

cliff crevices. Since there will be no degradation or

disturbance to this habitat component, there will be

no impact on the species. No further discussion will

follow.

16

North American Wolverine (Gulo

gulo)





Townsend’s Western Big-eared

Bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii

townsendii)

Yes No impact. Townsend’s big-eared bats roost in

caves, mines and cliff crevices. Since there will be no

degradation or disturbance to this habitat component,

there will be no impact on the species. No further


Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

No No impact. Nesting occurs at lower elevations in the

state and elevation is not conducive to winter

foraging by bald eagles. No further discussion will

follow.

Boreal Owl

(Aegolius funereus)





Greater Sage Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus)

No No impact. Species exists at lower elevations on

BLM lands further north and east from the analysis

area. No further discussion will follow.

Peregrine Falcon 3/20/84 (Falco

peregrinus anatum)

Yes No impact. Habitat exists in the Uinta High

Wilderness, but no peregrines have been

documented. No further discussion will follow.

Flammulated Owl

(Otus flammeolus)

Yes No impact. Insectivorous lower elevation old forest

ponderosa pine open habitat species. Very rare if

present on north slope. No further discussion will

follow.

American Three-toed

Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus)





Great Gray Owl

(Strix nebulosa)





Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

(Tympanuchus phasianellus

columbianus)

No No impact. Project area not within species range. No

further discussion will follow.

Northern Goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis)





Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

No No impact. Yellow-billed cuckoo nests in lowland

riparian hardwoods (nest 2,500-6,000 ft elevation)

not present within the project area. No further


Gray Wolf The gray wolf is a large dog-like mammal that is usually gray in color, but can vary from almost white to

black. The distribution of the gray wolf is circumpolar throughout the northern hemisphere. The native

range of the gray wolf is one of the most extensive of any terrestrial mammal species, with the historical

17

range encompassing all of Eurasia and North America (UDWR 2005). Present distribution is more

restricted to remote, undeveloped areas with sparse human populations (UDWR 2005). The gray wolf was

historically common in Utah, but extirpated from the state by early settlers. Recent reintroductions of the

gray wolf occurred in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, and recent reports suggest that gray wolves

may move to Utah from surrounding states in the near future (UDWR 2005).

The species can live in various habitat types, but prefer areas with little human activity. Gray wolves

typically travel and hunt in packs covering large areas in search of prey. Prey species for the wolf are

typically larger animals, such as deer and elk, but they will also consume small mammals and carrion.


The UDWR considers the gray wolf to be extirpated from the state of Utah. There are currently no known

packs or breeding pairs inhabiting Utah. In 2009, a radio collared wolf from the Yellowstone area traveled

through the North Slope and into Colorado unseen by anyone. The North Slope of the Uintas contains

suitable habitat for the gray wolf, but presently there are no known packs or breeding pairs on the

Evanston-Mt. View Ranger District (Pers. Comm. Dave Rich, UDWR wildlife biologist, and Jeff Short,

WGFD wildlife biologist) and wolves that have crossed into the District were just dispersing through.

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action May Impact individuals or habitat but will not likely

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or causes a loss of viability to the population or species.

Wolverine The wolverine is the largest terrestrial mustelid and is found in the tundra, taiga, and forest zones of North

America. Wolverines are typically associated with remote wilderness areas where minimal contact with

humans or developments occurs. As a scavenger it depends largely on mammal carrion provided from

kills by wolves and other predators. Wolverine will forage on snowshoe hare and other small mammals.

However, because of their size, carrion of ungulate species in the winter is also necessary for their

survival.

Refugia may be most important in providing availability and protection of reproductive denning habitat.

Life history requirements of the wolverine are tied to the presence and stability of ecosystems lacking

broad scale human influence. Dispersing wolverines in Idaho traveled over 124 miles following routes

across isolated subalpine habitat. They are able to move more than 20 miles in a day through rough terrain

and deep snow (Copeland 1996).

On February 4, 2013, the USFWS proposed to protect the North American wolverine as a threatened

species under the ESA. According to the USFWS, extensive climate modeling indicates that the

wolverine’s snowpack habitat will be greatly reduced and fragmented in the coming years due to climate

warming, thereby threatening the species with extinction. In a February 1, 2013 press release, the Service

stated that “the Service does not consider most activities occurring within the high elevation habitat of the

wolverine, including snowmobiling and backcountry skiing, and land management activities like timber

harvesting and infrastructure development, to constitute significant threats to the wolverine. As a result,

the Service has proposed a special rule under Section 4(d) of the ESA that, should the species be listed,

would allow these types of activities to continue.

18

On August 13, 2014, the USFWS withdrew the proposal to list the North American wolverine in the

contiguous United States as a threatened species under the ESA (USFWS 2014).

The Service stated the rationale for withdrawing the proposal in the August 13, 2014 Federal Register

Notice was “We have re-analyzed the effects of climate change on the wolverine under listing factor A

(the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range). While

there is significant evidence that the climate within the larger range of the wolverine is changing,

affecting snow patterns and associated wolverine habitat, the specific response or sensitivity of

wolverines to these forecasted changes involves considerable uncertainty at this time.”

Recently, a trail camera picked up a wolverine about 20 miles from Evanston in Wyoming on April 10,

2014 (Uinta County Herald 2 May 2014) off National Forest lands. This animal stayed in the area for

about two weeks and was last seen on the April 27, 2014. On June 17th similar trail cameras were pulled

from the East Fork of the Blacks Fork just south of the guard station and the information analyzed. The

camera documented that a wolverine was in the area on the 18th of February, 2014. The individual was

not picked up after the 18th. The sighting on February 18, 2014 is approximately 5 miles from the nearest

treatment unit.

Analysis and Determination of Effect Wolverines are considered wanderers and travel great distances over their home range. In fact, estimates

generally suggest that female home ranges can encompass an area of 28 to 129 mi2 and males ranging

from 163 to 581 mi2 (Whitman et al. 1986, Copeland 1996, Landa et al. 1998, Persson et al. 2010).

Vegetative characteristics appear less important to wolverine than physiographic structure of the habitat.

Montane coniferous forests, suitable for winter foraging and summer kit rearing, may only be useful if

connected with subalpine cirque habitats required for natal denning, security areas, and summer foraging

(Wolverine Foundation, 2012). Natal den habitat on talus slopes may exist within the High Uintas

Wilderness, but salvage logging will not occur in these areas, nor will disturbance at lower elevations

occur during the winter months when this habitat is potentially utilized by wolverine. Prey base in the

summer months will include snowshoe hare and ground squirrels and these species can be affected by

salvage logging. Because wolverines have large home ranges, do not tolerate human disturbance, spend

majority of their time in high elevation wilderness areas, the proposed project is not expected to have

significant impact to wolverine or its habitat. Therefore implementations of the Proposed Action May

Impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a

loss of viability to the population or species.

Boreal Owl The species breeds in North America from Canada to northeastern Minnesota, local breeding populations

can be found in Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado. Forests ranging from pure deciduous to

mixed and pure coniferous composition characterize boreal owl habitat in North America. Suitable habitat

on the Evanston-Mt. View Ranger District would be old-growth Spruce-fir and high elevation mixed-

conifer stands. Boreal owls are cavity dependent and typically use old woodpecker nests. Southern red-

backed voles and other small mammals are important food sources for foraging boreal owls. Habitat

requirements for prey species vary from a well-developed understory to clear-cuts or natural openings.

Recently there was a confirmed nesting pair on the Uinta National Forest that is the first nesting pair

found in Utah. There has been one confirmed boreal owl on the Evanston-Mt. View Ranger District that

responded to broadcast surveys and it was located within a roadless portion of the West Bear Analysis

Area, in the vicinity of Whitney Reservoir approximately 22 miles west of the project area.

19


Because of the very limited boreal owl occurrences and small size of the project area, the Proposed

Action May Impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing

or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

American Three-toed Woodpecker The three-toed woodpecker is found in sub-alpine conifer and lodgepole pine. It is a permanent resident

above 8,000 ft and dependent on live and dead trees for foraging and nesting. Trees with scaly bark

remaining on the tree are important to support their foraging technique. American three-toed woodpeckers

require trees infested with bark- and wood-boring insects for foraging. Greater than 75% of their diet

consists of wood-boring insects, mostly beetle larvae, but they also eat wood-boring Lepidoptera (mainly

moth) larvae, and occasionally fruit and sap at sapsucker pits (Leonard 2001). In the Wasatch NF BBS

(Sauer et al. 2008), this species was detected once in 2003 and twice in 2004.


The pine beetle outbreak has created increased abundant opportunities for foraging and nesting in cavities

of dead trees. Because three-toed woodpeckers are dependent on dead conifers for both nesting and

foraging, and small project size, the implementation of the Proposed Action May Impact individuals or

habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the

population or species.

Great Gray Owl Great gray owls use mixed coniferous and hardwood forests usually bordering small openings or

meadows, foraging along edges of clearings.

In general, optimal habitat for great gray owls consists of semi-open areas, where small rodents are

abundant, and near dense coniferous forests for roosting and nesting. In the northern part of their range,

great gray owls are found in boreal forests. In Canada, studies have found that great gray owls breed in

forests near marshes, lakes, muskegs, wet meadows, and pastures. The forest types between 900m to

1200m elevation dominated by the following species (Duncan and Hayward 1994). Southwestern

Wyoming and Utah is considered wintering range from vagrants. The boreal owl is rare in Utah, where it

occurs in the Wasatch Mountains, the Bear River Range, and the Uinta Mountains (UDWR 2005).

The great gray owl's diet consists of almost entirely small rodents. About 90% of their diet consists of

pocket gophers and voles. Other small mammals taken by the owl include mice, squirrels, young rabbits,

hares, rats, moles, and weasels. Also taken are birds, usually small, although there are records of sharp-

shinned hawks, ducks, and grouse. Availability of nest sites and suitable foraging habitat are considered

the most important factors governing habitat use by breeding great gray owls.


Great Gray Owl

Because of numerous nesting and foraging habitat on the North Slope as well as the status of the boreal

owl as a rare migrant, implementation of the Proposed Action May Impact individuals or habitat, but will

not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or

species.

20

Northern Goshawk The northern goshawk is a Forest Sensitive Species and also a MIS species as an indicator of mature

conifer forest. Goshawks nest in a wide variety of forest types including aspen, coniferous, and mixed

conifer forests in a wide variety of forest ages, structural conditions and successional stages. Northern

goshawk territories are found throughout the mixed conifer/aspen belt along the North Slope. Typically,

northern goshawks will nest in mature and old forests.

There are three main components of a goshawk’s home range (6,000 acres): nesting area, post fledging-

family area (PFA), and foraging area. On a landscape scale, the goshawk habitat on the North Slope has

been impacted by the destruction of 80-90%+ of the lodgepole pine forest type by the mountain beetle

pine throughout the goshawk’s home range. Nest areas contain one or more stands of large, old trees with

a dense canopy cover. Most goshawks have 2 to 4 alternate nest areas within their home range; alternate

nest areas are used in different years, but some nests may be used for decades.

The nesting trees (lodgepole pine) or the surrounding nests tree are typically dead and may eventually fall

over as evidenced by the number of down, dead trees throughout the North Slope. The goshawk PFA

surrounds the nest areas within a home range, totaling 420 acres and because of its size, includes a variety

of forest types and conditions. The foraging areas are approximately 5,400 acres in size. Goshawks are

more generalist predators and rely on a variety of mammals and birds as their prey base. Foraging

goshawks are found within a mosaic of forest types and hunt in many forest conditions. Goshawks in the

analysis area use mature lodgepole pine dominated stands and aspen/conifer stands. The goshawk preys

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

Observations of foraging goshawks have shown that they hunt in many forest conditions. This

opportunism suggests that the choice of foraging habitat by goshawks may be as closely tied to prey

availability, as to habitat structure and composition. Specific habitat attributes used by these species

include snags, downed logs and woody debris, large trees, herbaceous and shrubby understories, and a

mixture of various forest vegetation structural stages.

It was concluded in the Conservation Strategy and Agreement for the Management of Northern Goshawk

Habitat in Utah that goshawk populations in Utah were viable. This conclusion was based on the findings

of Graham et al. (1999) that good quality habitat is well distributed and connected throughout the state.

The lack of evidence of a population decline on National Forest System lands since 1991, and conclusions

made by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), after a review of scientific literature, aided in their

decision to not list the northern goshawk under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1998). The overall

trend of goshawk territories that have been occupied and active is stable (Figure 1, Figure 2).

21

Figure 1: Percent of occupied territories for all monitored MIS goshawk territories on the Wasatch-Cache Planning Area

from 2003 to 2013

Figure 2: Percent of monitored MIS territories with active nests on the Wasatch-Cache Planning Area from 2003 to 2013

There are 516,446 acres of northern goshawk habitat on the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Forest. The

habitat has been impacted on a landscape scale by a mountain pine beetle epidemic that has destroyed 80-

90%+ of the lodgepole pine forest type throughout the goshawk habitat. The beetle kill has deteriorated

the quality of the goshawk habitat making achieving desired conditions (Guideline 14) unattainable.

Guideline 14 identifies percentages that of landscape structures in different cover types that the forest is to

manage for. For the lodgepole pine cover type the balanced range is 10% grass/forb, 10%

seedling/sapling, 20% young forest, 20% mid aged forest, 20% mature forest and 20% old forest. These

percentages were initially set to provide large trees for goshawks in perpetuity (personal communication

Russell Graham, Research Forester 2011). The guidelines apply to living trees and major insect

infestations and tree mortality were not considered when the guideline was established. As mentioned

previously, the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains has experienced 80-90+% of lodgepole pine mortality

from the mountain pine beetle. In this situation the guideline percentages for mid-aged, mature and old

timber are unrealistic and unattainable.

R² = 0.0617

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Pe

rce

nt

occ

up

ied

Year

Percent of Monitored MIS Territories that were Occupied

R² = 0.0954

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Pe

rce

nt

wit

h a

ctiv

e n

est

s

Year

Percent of Monitored MIS Territories with Active Nests

22

Goshawks prefer stands of mature and over-mature trees for nesting and foraging, but can breed

successfully in forests where timber harvesting has occurred. Patch size in a timber stand has been

positively associated with the occupancy of an area. However, the effects of reducing the number and size

of mature trees on existing goshawk densities or productivity, is unknown (Graham et al. 1999).

The proposed project is within mapped goshawk habitat; however, there are no known goshawk territories

within 10-miles of the project area.

Analysis and Determination of Effect Because there are no known goshawk nests within the project vicinity, goshawks are generalists when it

comes to prey base, and a very small percent of goshawk habitat will be impacted by the proposed

project, the implementation of the action alternative is not expected to negatively impact the goshawks

ability to forage successfully in the proposed project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed

action May Impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing

or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Northern Goshawk Mitigation A seasonal nesting restriction from March 1st through August 1st will be in effect for any active territory

in the project area. Monitoring of northern goshawk territories on the North Slope have demonstrated that

goshawk nestlings fledged by the end of July and the adults are able to move the fledglings away from

any disturbance within the PFA. The District Biologist will be responsible on an annual basis for

determining if any of territories are active prior to commencing salvage harvest activities within nesting

areas.

Neo-tropical Migratory/Song Birds The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 provide direction for the U.S. Forest Service

on the management of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Established a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill,

attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for

shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or

cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at

any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the

protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." (16 U.S.C. 703)

Executive Order 13186

Support the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation

principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent

practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions. Design

practices into agency plans and planning processes (natural resource, land management, and

environmental quality planning, including, but not limited to, forest and rangeland planning, coastal

management planning, watershed planning, etc.) as practicable and coordinate with other agencies and

nonfederal partners in planning efforts.

The Utah Partners in Flight (UPF) Utah Avian Conservation Strategy Ver. 2.0 (Parrish et al. 2002) ,

Wyoming Partners in Flight (WYPF) Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan Ver. 2.0 (Nicholoff 2003), and

the USFWS’s Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 2008 (USFWS 2008) were evaluated to determine

which species occur, or could potentially occur, within the area of the proposed project. The ecological

23

tenet underlying the process is that conservation actions focused on priority species will benefit other

avian species that utilize similar habitats.

UPF lists the project area occurring within the Utah Mountains and Wyoming Basin Physiographic

Regions. These regions comprise approximately 24% of the total land mass in Utah. The Utah Mountains

ecoregion occupies 23% of Utah’s land area and is made up primarily of the Wasatch and Uinta mountain

ranges and their associated valleys. Elevations range from 4,462 ft (1,360 m) in the Salt Lake Valley at

the edge of the ecoregion to 13,419 ft (4090 m) on King’s Peak. Most of Utah’s forested habitats occur

within this ecoregion. Lower elevations that have not been converted to urban or agriculture are primarily

shrub steppe, high desert shrub, and grasslands. The Wyoming Basin ecoregion covers only 1% of Utah’s

land mass. The majority of this ecoregion is located in Wyoming, where it covers nearly half of the state.

The elevations in the Wyoming Basin ecoregion are relatively high compared to the other ecoregions in

Utah. Elevations in this ecoregion range from 6,500 ft (1,970 m) in the valleys to 10,000 ft (3,030 m) at

the transition with the Utah Mountain ecoregion. The most common habitat type in the Wyoming Basin

ecoregion is high desert scrub, but shrubsteppe and grasslands are also sparsely scattered throughout the

ecoregion.

Table 3: Acres and percentage of lynx habitat on the Evanston-Mt. View Ranger District (USFS managed

lands only)shows species listed on the USFWS’s BCC and UPF Priority Species for the Utah Mountains

and Wyoming Basin ecoregions. Only species that are known to occur in the analysis area or that are

possible or probable inhabitants are carried into the discussion following the table.

Table 6: BCC and UPF species listed for the Utah Mountains and Wyoming Basin Physiographic Regions

Common and

Scientific Name

Utah

Mountains

(UPF)/BCR

16 (BCC)

Wyoming

Basin

(UPF)/BCR

10 (BCC)

Primary

Breeding

Secondary

Breeding

Winter

Habitat

Present in

Project Area

American Avocet*

(Recurvirostra

americana)

X Wetland Playa Migrant No

American Bittern***

(Botaurus

lentiginosus)

X Wetland Wetland Migrant No

American White

Pelican** (Pelecanus

erythrorhynchos)

X Water Wetland Migrant No

Bald Eagle***

(Haliaeetus

leucocephalus)

X Lowland

Riparian

Agriculture Lowland

Riparian

No

Black Rosy-Finch*

(Leucosticte atrata)

X Alpine Alpine Grassland No

Black Swift*

(Cypseloides niger)

X Lowland

Riparian

Cliff Migrant No

Black-throated Gray

Warbler**

(Dendroica

nigrescens)

X Pinyon-Juniper Mountain

Shrub

Migrant No

Brewer's Sparrow*

(Spizella breweri)

X X Shrubsteppe High Desert

Scrub

Migrant No

Broad-tailed

Hummingbird**

(Selasphorus

platycercus)

X X Lowland

Riparian

Mountain

Riparian

Migrant Yes

Calliope

Hummingbird***

X X Mountain

Riparian

Mountain

Shrub

Migrant No

24

Common and

Scientific Name

Utah

Mountains

(UPF)/BCR

16 (BCC)

Wyoming

Basin

(UPF)/BCR

10 (BCC)

Primary

Breeding

Secondary

Breeding

Winter

Habitat

Present in

Project Area

(Stellula calliope)

Cassin’s Finch***

(Carpodacus cassinii)

X X Aspen Sub-Alpine

Conifer

Lowland

Riparian

Yes

Cordilleran

Flycatcher**

(Empidonax

occidentalis)

X X Sub-Alpine

Conifer

Mountain

Riparian

Migrant Yes

Ferruginous Hawk*

(Buteo regalis)

X Pinyon-Juniper Shrubsteppe Grassland No

Flammulated

Owl***

(Otus flammeolus)

X Ponderosa Pine Sub-Alpine

Conifer

Migrant No

Golden Eagle***

(Aquila chrysaetos)

X X Cliff High Desert

Scrub

High Desert

Scrub

Possibly in

Wilderness

Grace’s Warbler***

(Dendroica graciae)

X Ponderosa Pine Mixed Conifer Migrant No; W-C out

of range

Grasshopper

Sparrow*

(Ammodramus

savannarum)

X Grassland Grassland Migrant No

Gray Flycatcher**

(Empidonax wrightii)

X Pinyon-Juniper High Desert

Scrub

Migrant No

Gray Vireo*

(Vireo vicinior)

X Pinyon-Juniper Northern Oak Migrant No

Greater Sage

Grouse**

(Centrocercus

urophasianus)

X X Shrubsteppe Shrubsteppe Shrubsteppe No

Juniper Titmouse***

(Baeolophus

ridgwayi)

X Pinyon-Juniper Pinyon-Juniper Pinyon-Juniper No

Lewis’s

Woodpecker*

(Melanerpes lewis)

X X Ponderosa Pine Lowland

Riparian

Northern Oak No

Loggerhead

Shrike***

(Lanius ludovicianus)

X X High Desert

Scrub

Pinyon-Juniper High Desert

Scrub

No

Long-billed Curlew*

(Numenius

americanus)

X Grassland Agriculture Migrant No

Mountain Plover*

(Charadrius

montanus)

X High Desert

Scrub

High Desert

Scrub

Migrant No

Olive-sided

Flycatcher***

(Contopus cooperi)

X X Sub-Alpine

Conifer

Ponderosa Pine Migrant Yes

Peregrine Falcon***

(Falco peregrinus)

X Cliff Lowland

Riparian

Wetland No

Pinyon Jay***

(Gymnorhinus

cyanocephalus)

X X Pinyon-Juniper Ponderosa Pine Pinyon-Juniper No

Prairie Falcon***

(Falco mexicanus)

X X Cliff High Desert

Scrub

Agriculture No

Sage Sparrow*

(Amphispiza belli)

X X Shrubsteppe High Desert

Scrub

Low Desert

Scrub

No

Sage Thrasher*** X X Shrubsteppe High Desert Migrant No

25

Common and

Scientific Name

Utah

Mountains

(UPF)/BCR

16 (BCC)

Wyoming

Basin

(UPF)/BCR

10 (BCC)

Primary

Breeding

Secondary

Breeding

Winter

Habitat

Present in

Project Area

(Oreoscoptes

montanus)

Scrub

Sharp-tailed

Grouse**

(Tympanuchus

phasianellus)

X Shrubsteppe Grassland Shrubsteppe No

Snowy Plover***

(Charadrius

alexandrines)

X Playa Playa Migrant No

Spotted Owl**

(Strix occidentalis

lucida)

X Cliff Lowland

Riparian

Cliff No

Swainson’s Hawk***

(Buteo swainsoni)

X X Agriculture Mid- to low

elevation

Aspen and

grasslands

Migrant No

Three-toed

Woodpecker**

(Picoides tridactylus)

X Sub-Alpine

Conifer

Lodgepole Pine Sub-Alpine

Conifer

Yes

Veery***

(Catharus

fuscescens)

X X Lowland

Riparian

Lowland

Riparian

Migrant No

Virginia’s

Warbler**

(Vermivora virginiae)

X Northern Oak Pinyon-Juniper Migrant No

Williamson’s

Sapsucker***

(Sphyrapicus

thyroideus)

X Sub-Alpine

Conifer

Aspen Migrant Yes

Willow

Flycatcher***

(Empidonax traillii)

X X Lowland

Riparian

Mountain

Riparian

Migrant No

Yellow-billed

cuckoo*

(Coccyzus

americanus)

X Lowland

Riparian

Agriculture Migrant No

* On both lists (FWS BCC and UPF)

** UPF list only

*** FWS BCC list only

Black Rosy-finch This species is an altitudinal migrant that nests above the tree line in the alpine tundra and winters in low

elevation valleys. The black rosy-finch feeds primarily on seeds of alpine plants, with some insects. The

black rosy-finch nests in cliffs or rock talus slopes. (Parrish et al. 2002). Wintering flocks of black rosy-

finches roost in large communal roosts in caves, mine shafts, on rafters of barns, and in clusters of old

cliff swallow nests. Black rosy-finches are among the least studied of North American birds because of

the inaccessibility of their general alpine habitat and nest sites generally located on cliffs. Because of their

high elevation use of alpine habitat, they were not detected on the Wasatch NF BBS.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird The broad-tailed hummingbird is essentially a mountain bird, and is common throughout Utah and in

most mountainous areas of Wyoming, although the state is on the northern edge of its range (Cerovski et

al. 2001). The broad-tailed humming bird has been described as the most common avian species in Utah

26

as it occurs in every part of the state. The broadtail breeds in riparian areas or adjacent habitat in both

lower valleys and higher elevations. The Broadtail appears in the lower valleys in April and later nests

near streams in the valleys and at higher elevations. The Broadtail is most conspicuous wherever it

occurs. The wings of the male make a loud shrill whirring or buzzing noise in flight which is

characteristic of summer in the mountain west. Breeding males defend their territory in U-shaped flight

displays which they perform in a pendulum fashion consisting of a series of power dives. The male will

fly vertically to a height of 9 or 12 m (30 or 40 ft) before turning to dive vertically over the nesting area.

The vertical climb is then repeated, and these breeding males perform these flights repeatedly during the

day over the nesting area (Parrish et al. 2002). Dorsal coloration of both males and females is iridescent

BBS data indicate a stable population in the Uinta Mountains but state point count data indicate a

downward trend throughout the state. From 1988 through 2007 the broad-tailed hummingbird was

detected on the Wasatch NF BBS survey in the area in 13 of the years and averaged 12 per year surveyed.

The high count was 19 in 1994 and the low count was 8 in 2003.

Broad-tailed humming birds are dependent on nectar-bearing flowering plants as they feed on floral

nectar. These hummingbirds will also feed on small insects, spiders, and occasionally tree sap from

woodpecker drillings. Insects are caught in the air as well as by gleaning from forage. The lack of nectar-

bearing plants in a home range will cause the females to abandon nesting (UCDC 2009).

Cassin’s Finch The Cassin’s finch breeds from Canada to the west-central United States. It inhabits montane coniferous

forests at high elevations. In winter months, some birds will migrate to lowlands, though most of the

breeding range remains occupied year round.

Nests are constructed on branches located high in conifer trees during the month of May. Occasionally the

nests are built near the trunk within a few feet from the top of the tree. In general, 4 to 5, but sometimes 3

or 6, eggs are laid and incubated by only the female. While incubating the eggs, the female receives food

from the male. The young are tended to by both parents and fledge from the nest at approximately 14 days

old.

The diet of this finch consists primarily of buds, fruit, and seeds. Occasionally the Cassin’s finch will

consume insects (Hahn 1996; Baicich and Harrison 1997).

Cordilleran Flycatcher The cordilleran flycatcher breeds in the western United States, Mexico, and a small portion of

southwestern Canada. During the winter, this flycatcher will migrate south particularly to Mexico. This

bird prefers forest, woodland, and riparian habitats.

The cordilleran flycatcher constructs nests on cliffs, steep banks, and sometimes around man-made

structures. In early summer, the female lays 3 to 4 eggs which are incubated by the female for 2 weeks.

Both parents tend to the chicks, which fledge from the nest at approximately 14 to 18 days old.

This flycatcher’s diet consists almost exclusively of insects. The insects are generally captured in flight,

but are also gleaned from foliage of trees and shrubs (Lowther 2000).

Golden Eagle Golden eagles are found in open habitats, which include tundra, shrublands, grasslands, woodland-

brushlands, and coniferous forests, from Alaska to northern Mexico. The bird feeds on small mammals,

snakes, birds, juvenile ungulates, and carrion. Nests are generally constructed on cliffs or in large trees.

27

On the Uinta Mountains, eggs are generally laid from late February to early March, and the incubation

period is generally between 43 and 45 days. Young are capable of flight between 60-77 days.

Elevations where nesting habitat may occur are high elevation (most likely 10,000 ft plus in elevation) so

nesting would be sporadic at best and associated with the mountain cliffs in the High Uinta Wilderness.

Home range varies from 20-33 square kilometers. Golden eagles have not been detected on the Wasatch

NF BBS.

Olive-sided Flycatcher The olive sided flycatcher breeds in Alaska, Canada, much of the United States, and part of northern

Mexico. The olive-sided flycatcher is migratory and travels into South America, Central America, and

southern Mexico for the winter months. During the breeding season, this bird prefers woodland and

forested areas, particularly areas where standing dead trees are present.

These birds nest in trees and produce a clutch of 3 eggs. The incubation is completed by only the female

for 2 weeks. The young will fledge from the nest around 2 to 3 weeks of age.

The olive-sided flycatcher is active mostly during the day. The bird will almost always perch on dead

branches in an exposed position near, or at the tops of the tallest trees in the stand. The diet of this

flycatcher is mainly made up of flying insects (Farrand 2009).

American Three-toed Woodpecker This species is also a Forest Service Sensitive species and is discussed under that section.

Williamson’s Sapsucker These birds feed on sap, mainly from conifers, but insects are their main food source during the nesting

season and they also eat berries outside of the breeding period. Sapsuckers are unique among

woodpeckers in drilling neat rows of tiny holes-or sapwells-in the trunks of trees. The sap provides food

for the sapsuckers and snags small insects that are eaten by hummingbirds and warblers (Bird Note,

2004). Williamson sapsuckers are primary cavity excavators nesting from 8,000 feet to timberline in

Utah. The major vegetation types used are sub-alpine conifer and aspen (UCDC, 2009). In the Wasatch

NF BBS this species has been detected 3 years between 1988 and 2007 and averaged .3 birds per year

surveyed. The high detection was 2 records in the 1988 survey and the low was zero detection in1990-94,

2001-03 and 2006-07.

Effects on Neo-tropical Migratory/Song Birds

Alternative 1 No impacts to neo-tropical migratory/song birds are anticipated from the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 It is not anticipated that implementation of Alternative 2 would have any significant negative impacts to

neotropical migratory bird species in the proposed project area. When an active nest is identified, a no

activity buffer zone, which has been set by the USFWS Utah Ecological Services Salt Lake City Field

Office, would be applied to the nesting area to avoid potential take. Salvage activities may resume once

the young have fledged the nest, or if it has been determined by a wildlife professional that the nest has

failed. If pre-disturbance surveys are not completed, salvage activities should not take place until after the

migratory bird breeding season is complete on July 31. With mitigation measures in place, it is

determined that Alternative 2 would not be detrimental to migratory bird species. For protection to

migratory birds all reserve pits holding waste materials will be lined and fenced stock tight. Pits

containing oil or toxic liquids will be netted with a 2” mesh netting to avoid entrapment. Netting pits to

28

exclude birds and other wildlife may include the following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service design

recommendations for effective net installation (USFWS 2015).

Maintenance of fencing and netting would be performed to repair holes, re-stretch fencing and netting,

reset posts, etc. when corrective action is needed as a condition of the lease.

The intent for both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 are being met by reducing

the negative impacts and potential take of migratory bird species and by meeting guidelines and standards

established in the Forest Plan.

Cumulative Effects to Wildlife/Big Game Cumulative effects for wildlife in the project area include roads and recreation.

Roads/Recreation Cumulative impacts associated with recreation activities (e.g., hiking, camping, off-highway vehicle use,

hunting, etc.) are within the project area, constituting disturbance from noise and human presence during

these activities. This disturbance may displace wildlife into other areas. The displacement is not

anticipated to impact wildlife and big game significantly as no new roads planned as a result of

implementing the Proposed Action. There would not be an increase in the number of roads per square

mile and creating measurable long-term negative impacts to the big game species.

Cumulative Effects for Sensitive Species

Timber Past timber harvests was in 1995. Regeneration has created hiding cover for larger prey species. As the

regenerated trees thin out and increase in size, they become more suitable habitat for species such as the

boreal owl and northern goshawk. Since there are stands treated at various times since 1961, there is a

variety of age classes and suitable habitat for the various sensitive species and in conjunction with the

Proposed Action, past timber treatments will not result in long-term negative impacts to sensitive species.

Roads/Recreation Cumulative impacts associated with recreation activities (e.g., hiking, camping, off-highway vehicle use,

fishing, hunting, etc.) within the project area constitute disturbance from noise and human presence

during these activities. This disturbance may displace wildlife into other areas within the drainage. The

project is near adjacent roads, dispersed sites, campgrounds and the wilderness trail system. This will

leave large areas that are undisturbed and can provide sanctuary for wildlife species within the project

area.

Cumulative Effects for MIS

Timber Effects of past timber harvests vary between northern goshawks and snowshoe hares, the only MIS

species that may be impacted by the Proposed Action. Areas that have been treated create good foraging

grounds for goshawks during the 5-10 years in which there is an increase in the amount of forage for

small prey species. As the lodgepole saplings and aspen suckers begin to regenerate, the stands are very

thick and not suitable for goshawks. During the period in which the treated stands have thick regrowth,

the habitat becomes suitable for snowshoe hares. The stands can remain suitable snowshoe hare habitat

until about year 40 after the treatment. When the trees become too large, there is not enough forage and

cover for snowshoe hares during the winter months and the species moves to more suitable habitat. After

the trees have started thinning out, the habitat once again becomes suitable to goshawks. Goshawks will

begin to start nesting in these stands when the trees become large enough to hold nests.

29

Roads/Recreation See discussion for effects to sensitive species.

Livestock Grazing Browsing or grazing can have impacts on MIS by reducing the amount of forage and altering the structure

or composition of native plant communities. Grazing by livestock and wild ungulates may increase

competition with snowshoe hare for forage resources, particularly in riparian areas. Browsing or grazing

can also impact snowshoe hare habitat by reducing the amount of available winter browse.

Cattle are not likely to use the conifer habitats extensively because they do not produce more than 200 lbs

of forage per acre (USDA Forest Service 2007). Therefore effects from competitions with grazing occur

only within conifer/aspen and aspen/conifer habitats that are used both by snowshoe hares and grazed by

livestock. There is an estimate of 558,200 acres of snowshoe hare habitat within the Planning Area

(aspen/conifer, conifer/aspen, lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, Douglas fir, and spruce/fir forest types) of

these approximately 8.29 would be impacted by project activities .Therefore the effects are minimal to

snowshoe hare habitat within the proposed project area.

Cumulative Effects for Lynx

Timber

Table 7: Timber treatments within the last 20 years for LAU #33 near Project Area

LAU 33

Primary Habitat

(Conifer/Aspen,Conifer

Spruce-fir, Willow, Wet Meadow,

Mixed Conifer)

45,215

Secondary Habitat

(Aspen/Conifer, Aspen,

Bottomland Hardwood

Douglas-fir, Limber Pine

Lodgepole Pine)

12,719

Non Habitat 14,880

Total Acres 72,814

Primary + Secondary Habitat

Treated (Acres)

1995-2013

4,073

Percent Treated

1995-2013 5.6%

Total Percent of Habitat that will

be altered to unsuitable

(Past 20 year activity + Proposed

Proposed Project)

5.6%

In Table 7 above, the “Acres Unsuitable” would not change to percentage of unsuitable acres. These

percentages are in compliance with the 2003 Revised Forest Plan.

Roads/Recreation

Roads and trails increase fragmentation of habitat across the landscape. Isolated island areas may become

unsuitable habitat and affect lynx by increasing forest edge and changing the amount of structural

30

complexity of the forest. There are no new roads planned as a result of implementing the Proposed Action

and no increase in the number of roads per square mile, therefore there would be no measurable negative

effects to lynx. Ruediger et al. (2000) recommends keeping road densities below two-miles/square mile.

Thomas (1979) recommends <1.5 miles of road/square mile for maintaining ~ 70 percent habitat

effectiveness within ¼- ½ mile of secondary roads. The existing open road densities for LAUs in the

analysis area are less than one mile/square mile and are within Ruediger et al’s 2000 recommended

guidelines for open road density to maintain habitat effectiveness adjacent to secondary roads.

Cumulative impacts associated with recreation activities (e.g., hiking, camping, off-highway vehicle use,

fishing, hunting, etc.) within the project area in LAUs 33, constitute disturbance from noise and human

presence during these activities. This disturbance may displace any lynx present within the proposed

project area into other areas within the LAUs. The majority of the recreational activity is from roads,

dispersed sites, campgrounds and the wilderness trail system. This will leave large areas that are

undisturbed and can provide sanctuary for lynx within the project area. Since a lot of the disturbance

occurs within specified areas, in most instances wildlife in and near these areas have habituated to the

level of noise and disturbance that currently exists. So within these areas of disturbance, recreational

activities combined with salvage logging activities should have minimal effects to lynx.

Cumulative Effects of Oil and Gas/ Seismic Exploration for all species

There are no plans for seismic activity. There are no active wells in the area.

All oil and gas which have been drilled in the area were drilled in the 90’s and have been plugged,

abandoned and reclaimed.

Forest Plan Direction Common to All Alternatives

Wasatch-Cache - Forest Plan Standards (S) and Guidelines (G)

Standards:

(S8) In Lynx Analysis Units with current habitat at 30% or more in unsuitable condition, allow no

vegetation management activities that would result in a further increase of unsuitable conditions.

(USDA Forest Service 2003a, Page 4-39)

N/A. This Forest Plan Standard does not apply.

(S10) In Lynx Analysis Units allow no net increase in groomed or designated open over-the-snow

routes or play areas. (USDA Forest Service 2003a, Page 4-39)

There is no increase in groomed or designated open over-the-snow routes or play areas associated with

the proposed project.

Guidelines:

(G15) In goshawk habitat design all management activities to maintain, restore, or protect desired

goshawk and goshawk prey habitat including foraging, nesting and movement. (USDA Forest Service

2003a, Page4-42)

N/A. No known goshawk territories inhabit the area.

31

(G18) In Lynx Analysis Units design all management activities to maintain, restore, or protect desired

lynx and lynx prey habitats including foraging, denning and movement. (USDA Forest Service 2003a,

Page4-43)

The project is within a small portion of LAU 33 (8.2 acres). There are no known issues associated with

seasonal movement by lynx in relation to the position the proposed project.

(G19) In Lynx Analysis Units with less than 10% denning habitat well-distributed, retain disturbance

areas smaller than 5 acres with tree mortality that could contribute to denning habitat. (USDA Forest

Service 2003a, Page4-43)

N/A. Denning habitat in LAU 33 is currently found in abundance and well distributed throughout the

analysis area. Forest Plan Guideline does not apply.

(G20) In Lynx Analysis Units maintain or restore (defer action) denning habitat in patches larger than

5 acres comprising at least 10% of habitat. (USDA Forest Service 2003a, Page4-43)

N/A. Denning habitat in LAUs 33 is currently found in abundance and well distributed throughout the

analysis area. Forest Plan Guideline does not apply.

(G21) For projects that may affect Forest Service Sensitive species, develop conservation measures and

strategies to maintain, improve and/or minimize impacts to species and their habitats. Short-term

deviations may be allowed as long as the action maintains or improves the habitat in the long term.

(USDA Forest Service 2003a, Page4-43)

There are no known FS Sensitive species that may be impacted by this project. Every effort has been

made to avoid and minimize impacts to the species and its habitat. Seasonal restriction of for nesting

birds will be implemented.

(G26) Protect key big game calving, fawning and lambing habitat and provide security in summer

concentration areas. (USDA Forest Service 2003a, Page4-43)

There are summer ranges found within the project area. Disturbance associated with project activities

will be minimal overall and there are large amounts of acres of available summer range throughout the

analysis area for big game to utilize as they migrate through.

(G29) Avoid disruptive management activities in elk calving areas, elk spring use areas, and bighorn

sheep lambing areas from May 1 through June 30. (USDA Forest Service 2003a, Page4-44)

Disturbance activities associated with salvage will be minimal overall and there are countless acres of

available calving and fawning habitat throughout the analysis area for big game to utilize as they migrate

through.

(G30) Avoid disruptive management activities (not public recreation activities) on deer, elk, mountain

goat and bighorn sheep winter range from November 15 through April 30. (USDA Forest Service

2003a, Page4-44)

Winter range does not exist for the above species mentioned.

32

References Ager, A.A., B.K. Johnson, J.W. Kern, and J.G. Kie. 2003. Daily and seasonal movements and

habitat use by female Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy

84(3):1076-1088

Andersen, D., Macmahon, J., & Wolf, D. 1980. Herbivorous mammals along a montane sere:

community structure and energetics. Journal of Mammalology 61(3):500-519.

Ashley National Forest. 1998. Northern goshawk monitoring information 1996-1998,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. Vernal, UT.

Aubry, K.B., G.M. Koehler, and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx in southern boreal

forests. Pages 373–396 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W.Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.

J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.S. Squires, editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in

the United States. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, USA.

Austin, D. (2002, July 23). Snowshoe hare transect and time series data: Cache Wildlife Management

Unit: North Amazon Bsin. 23 July 2002 Report.

Baicich, P.J., and C.J.O. Harrison. 1997. A guide to the nests, eggs, and nestlings of North

American Birds. Second Ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 347 pp.

Belovsky, G. (1984). Snowshoe hare optimal foraging and its impolications for population

dynamics. 25 , 235-264. Theoretical Population Biology.

Benkobi, L., M.A. Rumble, G.C. Brundige, and J.J. Millspaugh. 2004. Refinement of the Arc

Habcap model to predict habitat effectiveness for elk. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-51. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 18 p.

Berg, N. (2009). Snowshoe hare and forest structure relationships in western Wyoming. Logan, UT:

MS Thesis Utah State University.

BirdNote. 2004. Williamson’s Sapsucker. http://www.birdnote.org/birdnote.cfm?id=675.

Bunnell, K. D., J. J. Shirley, J. T. Flinders, M. L. Wolfe, and J. A. Bissonette. 2004. Forest

carnivores occurrence, distribution and limiting factors: Canada Lynx and wolverine surveys

in Utah. Final Report to Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, U. S. Forest Service, and U. S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. 113 pp.

Bunnell, K. 2005. Factors potentially limiting Canada lynx conservation in the Uinta

Mountains and the intermountain west. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utah State

University. Logan, UT.

Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and D. Felley. 2001. Wyoming Partners in Flight

Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan Version 1.0.

http://www.birdnote.org/birdnote.cfm?id=675

33

Clark, W. (1973). Reproduction, survival, and density of snowshoe hares in northeastern Utah. (M.

Thesis, Ed.) Logan, Utah: Utah State University.

Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope, and R.G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of road management on movement and

survival of Roosevelt elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1115-1126.

Collins, W.B. and P.J. Urness. 1983. Feeding behavior and habitat selection of mule deer and elk

on northern Utah summer range. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(3):646-663.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), 2006-2007. Wildlife Report Post Release Monitoring of Canada

Lynx Reintroduction to Colorado. pp. 55.

CDOW, 2007-2008. Division of Wildlife (CDOW), 2006-2007. Wildlife Report Post Release

Monitoring of Canada Lynx Reintroduction to Colorado. pp. 38.

Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.Sc. thesis, University of

Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Dolbeer, R. and W. Clark. 1975. Population ecology of snowshoe hares in the central Rocky

Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 39(3):535-549.

Dodds, D., & Thurber, H. (1965). Snowshoe hare harvest on Long Island, Nova Scotia. Canadian Field

Naturalist , 79(2) , 130-133.

Dewey, S.R. 1996. Ashley National Forest: Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring report:

1991-1996. Unpublished Monitoring Report. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. Vernal, UT. 29 p.

Edge, W.D. and C.L. Marcum. 1985. Movements of elk in relation to logging disturbances.

Journal of Wildlife Management 49(4):926-930.

Ellis, J. E., and M. Travis. 1975. Comparative aspects of foraging behavior of pronghorn

antelope and cattle. Journal of Applied Ecology 12:411–420.

Farrand, Jr., J. 2009. National Audubon Society field guide to North American birds: western

region. Second edition, eleventh printing. New York, New York. Alfred A. Knopf a

division of Random House Inc.

Fisher, J.T. and L. Wilkinson. 2005. The response of mammals to forest fire and timber

harvest in the North American boreal forest. Mammal Review. 35(1): 51-81.

Gaines, W.L., P. H. Singleton, and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear

recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. Portland, OR.

Gelbard, J.L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid

landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):420-432.

Gill, T. 2012. Project project Silvicultural Specialist Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

34

Forest Service, Evanston-Mt. View Ranger District, Evanston, WY.

Graham, R.T., R.L. Rodriguez, K.M. Paulin, R.L. Player, A.P. Heap, R. Williams. 1999. The

Northern goshawk in Utah: habitat assessment and management recommendations.

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-22. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 48 p.

Gratson, M.W. and C.L. Whitman. 2000. Road closures and density and success of elk hunters in

Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(2):302-310.

Giusti, G.A., R.H. Schmidt, R.M. Timm, J.E. Borrecco, and T.P. Sullivan. 1992. The

lagomorphs: rabbits, hares, and pika. In: Silvicultural approaches to animal damage

management in Pacific Northwest forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-287.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:

289-307. Portland, OR.

Hahn, T. P. 1996. Cassin’s finch (Carpodacus cassinii). Birds of North America 240: 20 pp.

Hargis, C.D., R.D. Perloff, and C.D. McCarthy. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of

northern goshawks in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:66-74.

Hayes, S.G., D.J. Leptich, and P. Zager. 2002. Proximate factors affecting male elk hunting

mortality in northern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(2):491-499.

Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, tech. editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in

the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 214 p. 3 Maps.

Hayward, G.D. 2008. Response of boreal owl to epidemic mountain pine beetle-caused

mortality under a no-action alternative. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region.

Hayward, G.D. 2008b. Response of pine squirrel under a no-action alternative to tree

mortality resulting from a mountain pine beetle epidemic. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain

Region.

Hodges, K., & Mills, L. (2008). Designing fecal pellet surveys for snowshoe hares. Forest

Ecology and Management , 256, 1918-1926.

Hodges, K., & Mills., L. (2005). Snowshoe hares in Yellowstone. 13(2) , 3-6. Yellowstone

Science.

Hodges, K.E. 2000. Ecology of snowshoe hares in southern boreal and montane forests. Pages

163–206 in L. F. Ruggiero, C. Krebs, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, K. S.

McKelvey, J. R. Squires, and C. J. Krebs, editors. The ecology and conservation of lynx in the

United States. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, USA.

Homyack, J., Harrison, D., Litvaitis, J., & Krohn, W. (2006). Quantifying densities of snowshoe hares in

Main using pellet plots. Wildlife Services Bulletin, 34 , 74-80.

Howard, V. W., J. L. Holechek, R. D. Pieper, K. Green-Hammond, M. Cardenas, and S. L.

35

Beasom. 1990. Habitat requirements for pronghorn on rangelands impacted by livestock

and net wire in east central New Mexico, Bulletin 750. Agricultural Experiment Station,

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA.

Johnson, B.K., J.W. Kern, M.J. Wisdom, S.L. Findholt, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Resource selection

and spatial separation of mule deer and elk during spring. Journal of Wildlife

Management 64(3):685-697.

Keith, L., & Windberg, L. (1978). A demographic analysis of the snowshoe hare cycle.

WildlifeMonograph , 58 , 70. The Wildlife Society.

Koch, P. 1996. Lodgepole pine commercial forests: an essay comparing the natural cycle of

insect kill and subsequent wildfire with management for utilization and wildlife. Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-342. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 24 p.

Koehler, G.M. and K.B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry,

S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. The scientific basis

for conserving carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: Fort Collins, CO. 74-98.

Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north

central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:845–851.

Koehler, G.M. and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe

hares. Journal of Forestry 88(10): 10-14.

Koehler, G.M., M.G. Hornocker, and H.S. Hash. 1979. Lynx movements and habitat use in

Montana. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 93(4): 441-442.

Krebs, C. J., Boutin, S., Boonstra, R., Sinclair, A., Smith, J., Dale, M., et al. (1995). Impact of food

and predation on the snowshoe hare cycle. Science , 269 , 1112-1115.

Krebs, C., Boonstra, R., Nams, V., O'Donoghue, M., Hodges, K., & Boutin, S. (2001). Estimating

snowshoe hare population density from pellet plots: a futher evaluation. Canadian Journal of Zoology ,

79 , 1-4.

Krebs, C., Gilbert, B., Boutin, S., & Boonstra, R. (1987). Estimation of snowshoe hare population

density from turd transects. 65 , 565-567. Canadian Journal of Zoology.

Landa, A.,O. Strand, J.D.C. Linell, and T. Skogland. 1998. Home-range sizes and altitude

selection for arctic foxes and wolverines in an alpine environment. Canadian Journal of

Zoology 76:448-457.

Leonard, Jr., D.L. 2001. American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis), The Birds of

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved

from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/588.

Lilieholm, R.J., J.N. Long, and S. Patla. 1994. Assessment of goshawk nest area habitat

using stand density index. Studies in Avian Biology 16:18-23.

36

Loose, S. 2009. Response of three-toed woodpecker to environmental conditions under a no

action alternative. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Litvaitis, J. (1985). Influence of understory characteristics on snowshoe hare habitat use and density.

Journal of Wildlife Management , 49 , 866-873.

Lowther, P.E. 2000. Cordilleran Flycatcher (Empidonax occidentalis), The Birds of North

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the

Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/556b

Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. Journal of

Forestry 77(10):658-660.

Lyon, L.J. and C.E. Jensen. 1980. Management implications of elk and deer use of clear-cuts in

Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 44(2):352-362.

Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of

Forestry 81(9):592-613.

Lyon, L.J. 1984. Field tests of elk/timber coordination guidelines. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper INT-RP-325, Ogden, Utah.

Lyon, L.J., T.N. Lonner, J.P. Weigand, C.L. Marcum, W.D. Edge, J.D. Jones, D.W.

McCleerey, and L.L. Hicks. 1985. Coordinating elk and timber management: Final

report of the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study. Helena: Montana Department of

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

Millspaugh, J.J., R.J. Woods, K.E. Hunt, K.J. Raedeke, G.C. Brundige, B.E. Washburn, and S.K.

Wasser. 2001. Fecal glucocorticoid assays and the physiological stress response in elk.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(3):899-907.

Mills, L., Griffin, P., Hodges, K., McKelvey, K., Ruggiero, L., & Ulizio, T. (2005). Pellet count indices

compared to mark-recapture estimates for evaluating snowshoe hare density. 69, 1053-1062. Journal of

Wildlife Management.

McCann, N., Moen, R., & Niemi., G. (2008). Using pellet counts to estimate snowshoe hare

numbers in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72 , 955-958.

McKay, R. 1991. Biological assessment and inventory plan for the North American lynx (Lynx

canadensis) in the Uinta Mountains. Prepared for Ashley National Forest and Utah

Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City.

McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution oflynx in the

contiguous United States. In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, et al., tech. eds.

The scientific basis for lynx conservation in the contiguous United States. Gen. Tech.

Rpt. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station.

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/556b

37

McKelvey, K., McDaniel, G., Mills, L., & Griffin, P. (2002). Effects of plot size and shape on pellet

density estimates for snowshare hare. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 30(3) , 751-755.

Murray, D.L., S. Boutin, and M. O'Donoghue. 1994. Winter habitat selection by lynx and

coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare abundance. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72(8):

1444-1451.

Murray, D., J. Roth, E. Ellsworth, A. Wirsing, and T. Steury. 2002. Estimating low-density

snowshoe hare poppulations using fecal pellet counts. Candian Journal of

Zoology 80:771-781.

Nicholoff, S.H. 2003. Wyoming Partners in Flight Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan.

http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/WY/menu.htm.

Parker, G.R., J.W. Maxwell, L.D. Morton, and G.E.J. Smith. 1983. The ecology of the lynx

(Lynx canadensis) on Cape Breton Island. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61(4): 770-786.

Parrish, J.R., F.P. Howe, and R.E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation

Strategy Version 2.0. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1594

West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, UDWR Publication Number 02-27. i–xiv + 302

pp.

Persson, J., P. Wedholm, and P. Segerstrom. 2010. Space use and territoriality of wolverines

(Gulo gulo) in northern Scandinavia. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56(19):49

57.

Poole, K.G., L.A. Wakelyn, and P.N. Nicklen. 1996. Habitat selection by lynx in the

Northwest Territories. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74(5): 845-850.

Prugh, L., & Krebs, C. (2004). Snowshoe hare pellet-decay rates and aging in different habitats. 32 , (2),

286-393. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Rawley, E.V., W.J. Bailey, D.L. Mitchell, J. Roberson, and J. Leatham. 1996. Utah upland

game. Publication number 63-12. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G.

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the

Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service General

Technical Report RM-217.

Rodriguez, R.L., R.L. Player, K.M. Paulin, and R.L. Williams. Conservation Strategy and

Agreement for the Management of Northern Goshawk Habitat in Utah. Utah National

Forests, Bureau of Land Management, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, United

States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service [Unpublished data].

Roloff, G.J. 1998. Habitat potential model for Rocky Mountain elk. In Proceedings 1997

Deer/Elk Workshop, Rio Rico, Arizona, ed. J. C. deVos, Jr., 158-175. Phoenix: Arizona

Game and Fish Department.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and

38

modeling in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3):672-684.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on

elk: Implications for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M.J.,

technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long term studies of elk and mule deer.

Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources

Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R.

Squires. 1999. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RMRS-GTR-30WWW. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R.

Squires. 2000. The scientific basis for lynx conservation: qualified insights. Pages

443-454 In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S.

McKelvey, and J.S. Squires, editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the contiguous

United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T.

Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000.

Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Missoula, MT.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,

Laurel, MD.

Sawyer, H. and R. Nielson. 2005. Seasonal distribution and habitat use patterns of elk in the Jack

Morrow Kills Planning Area, Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs

Field Office and Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

Shanley, C.S. and S. Pyare. 2011. Evaluating the road-effect zone on wildlife distribution in a

rural landscape. Ecosphere 2(2):1-16.

Skorkowsky, R.C. 2009. Response of northern goshawk to epidemic mountain pine beetle caused

mortality under a no-action alternative. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region.

Stewart, K.M., R.T. Bowyer, J.G. Kie, N.J. Cimon, B.K. Johnson. 2002. Temporospatial,

distributions of Elk, Mule Deer, and Cattle: Resource Partitioning and competitive

displacement. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 229-244.

Squires, J.R., and T. Laurion. 1999. Lynx home range and movements in Montana and

Wyoming: preliminary results. Pages 337–350 In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W.

Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.S. Squires, editors. Ecology and

conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Thomas, J.W. USDA Forest Service. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests, the Blue

mountains of Oregon and Washington. Ag. Handbook No. 553. Portland, OR. 512pp.

Thompson, I.D., I.J. Davidson, S. O'Donnell, and F. Brazeau. 1989. Use of track transects to

39

measure the relative occurrence of some boreal mammals in uncut forest and regeneration

stands. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 1816-1823.

Utah Conservation Data Center (UCDC). 2009. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp.

Utah Division of Wildlife Services, Department of Natural Resources.2009.Utah Pronghorn

Statewide Management Plan.

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF). 2012. Management Indicator Species

Monitoring on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Planning Area. Version 2012-1, March 10,

2012.

Ulev, E. 2007. Lynx canadensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2012,

August 17].

Unsworth, J.W., L. Kuck, M.D. Scott, and E.O. Garton. 1993. Elk mortality in the Clearwater

Drainage of northcentral Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(3):495-502.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. “Revised Forest Plan Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest” and

“Final Environmental Impact Statement Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest”.

USDA Forest Service WCNF. 2007. Assessment of Management Indicator Species

Capability and Suitability on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest with the Management

and Restoration Direction.

USDI. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Remanded

Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of

the Canada Lynx; Clarification of Findings; Final Rule. Federal Register. July 3, 2003

USFWS. 1998. Notice of 12-month finding on a petition to list the northern goshawk in the

contiguous United States west of the 100th Meridian. Federal Register. June 29, 1998.

USFWS. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Outline for the Canada Lynx (USFWS,

September 14, 2005) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6. pp.21

USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of

Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA.

USFWS. 2013a. United States Fish & Wildlife Proposed to List the Wolverine under the Endangered

Species Act. Press Release. February 1, 2013.

USFWS. 2013b. Notice of proposal to list the distinct population segment of the

North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States, as a

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register. February 4, 2013.

USFWS. 2014.Notice of withdraw of the proposed rule to list the distinct population segment of the

North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) occurring in the contiguous United States as a

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register. August 13, 2014.

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp

40

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2000. Utah Statewide Management Plan for

Moose.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2005. Utah Statewide Management Plan for

Gray Wolf. DWR Publication 05-17.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/wolf_management_plan.pdf.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2008. Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management

Plan. http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/mule_deer_plan.pdf

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2009a. Utah Moose Statewide Management Plan.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/moose_plan.pdf

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2009b. Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/Statewide_prong_mgmt_2009.pdf

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2010a. Utah Big Game Annual Report.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/annual_reports/10_bg_report.pdf.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2010b. Utah Elk Statewide Management Plan.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2010-03-02.pdf

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2010c. Utah Beaver Statewide Management

Plan. DWR Publication 09-29. http://wildlife.utah.gov/furbearer/pdf/beaver_plan_2010

2020.pdf.

Vashon, J.H., A.L. Meehan, W.J. Jakubas, J.F. Organ, A.D. Vashon, C.R. McLaughlin, G.J.

Matula, and S.M. Crowley. 2008. Spatial ecology of a Canada lynx population in northern Maine.

Journal of Wildlife Management 72(7):1479–1487.

WAFWA . 2003. Mule Deer: Changing landscapes, changing perspectives. Mule Deer

Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Ward, R., & Krebs, C. (1985). Behavioural responses of lynx to declining snowshoe hare abundance. 63 ,

2817-2824. Candian Journal of Zoology.

Weber, K.T., C.L. Marcum, M.G. Burcham, and L.J. Lyon. 2000. Landscape influences on elk

vulnerability to hunting. Intermountain Journal of Science 6:86-94.

Wertz, T.L., A. Blumton, and L.E. Erickson. 2004. Conflict resolution by adaptive management: moving

elk where they want to go. In Proceedings 2001 Western States and Provinces Deer and Elk

Rowland et al. 10 Workshop, ed. J. Mortensen, D. G. Whittaker, E. C. Meslow et al., 59-66.

Salem: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Western Area F

White, C.M., L. Holman, and D. Beal. 1992. A preliminary survey of northern goshawk nesting

habitat: Manila Ranger District, Ashley National Forest and Evanston and Mountain

View District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. [Unpublished Data]. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Logan, UT.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/moose_plan.pdf

41

Whitman, J.S., W.B. Ballard, C.L. Gardner. 1986. Home range and habitat use by wolverines in

south central Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(3):460-463.

Wirsing, A., Steury, T., & Murray, D. (2002). A demographic analyusis of a southern snowshoe hare

population in a fragmented habitat: evaluating the refugium model. Canadian Journal

of Zoology 80, 169-177.

Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson. 2005. Effects of off-

road recreation on mule deer and elk. Pages 67-80 in Wisdom, M.J., technical editor, The Starkey

Project: a synthesis of long term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance

Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Wisdom, M.J., N.J. Cimon, B.K. Johnson, E.O. Garton, and J.W. Thomas. 2005b. Spatial

partitioning by mule deer and elk in relation to traffic. Pages 53-66 in Wisdom, M. J., technical

editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from

the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,

Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Witmer, G.W. and D.S. deCalesta. 1985. Effect of forest roads on habitat use by Roosevelt elk.

Northwest Science 9(2):122-125.

Wolfe, M.L., N.V. Debyle, C.S. Winchell, and T.R. McCabe. 1982. Snowshoe hare cover

relationships in northern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management 46(3):662-670.

Wolff, J.O. 1978. Food habits of snowshoe hares in interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife

Management 42(1):148-153.

Wolff, J.O. 1980. The role of habitat patchiness in the population dynamics of snowshoe

hares. Ecological Monographs 50(1): 111-130.

Wolverine Foundation. 2012. http://wolverinefoundation.org/habitat-use/.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 2010. Green River Region Annual Big Game

Herd Unit Reports.

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/JCR_BGGRCOMP_20100001033.pdf

Yoakum, J. D,2004b. Habitat characteristics and requirements. Pages 409–445 in B. W. O’Gara and

J.D. Yoakum, editors. Pronghorn Ecology and Management. University Press of Colorado,

Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Zwickel, F.C. and J.F. Bendell. 2005. Blue Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), The Birds of

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the

Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/015doi:10.2173/bna.15

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/015

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/015

42

Appendix A

wildlife technical report -...

Documents