View
222
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
1/142014
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 ....................................................................................................................... 9
Mountain Cottontail ............................................................................................................... 9
Small Mammals ........................................................................................................................ 9
Beaver-riparian ....................................................................................................................12
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species (Wildlife) ............................................13
Canada Lynx......................................................................................................................... 1
Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive Species ................................................................. 4
Gray Wolf ............................................................................................................................ 5
Wolverine............................................................................................................................. 6
Boreal Owl ........................................................................................................................... 8
American Three-toed Woodpecker .......................................................................................... 8
Great Gray Owl ..................................................................................................................... 8
Forest Plan Direction Common to All Alternatives ..........................................................................22 References ..................................................................................................................................25 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................36
iii
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 ....................................... 13
Table 3: Acres and percentage of lynx habitat on the Evanston-Mt. View Ranger District (USFS
managed lands only) ....................................................................................................................... 3
Table 4: Lynx habitat by Lynx Analysis Unit compared to proposed project area ........................ 3
Table 5: Complete list of sensitive mammal and avian species for the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest and their relationship to the proposed project ...................................................................... 4
Table 6: BCC and UPF species listed for the Utah Mountains and Wyoming Basin Physiographic
Regions ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 7: Timber treatments within the last 20 years for LAU #33 near Project Area .................. 21
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: The distribution of goshawk habitat on the Wasatch Cache National Forest Planning
Area as displayed in Appendix J of the FEIS for the Revised Forest Plan .. Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 2: Percent of occupied territories for all monitored MIS goshawk territories on the
Wasatch-Cache Planning Area from 2003 to 2013....................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Percent of occupied MIS territories with active nests on the Wasatch-Cache Planning
Area from 2003 to 2013 ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4: Percent of monitored MIS territories with active nests on the Wasatch-Cache Planning
Area from 2003 to 2013 ................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 5. The trend in snowshoe pellets counted from the Uinta area. The red squares represent
the average number of snowshoe hare pellets/plot averaged over all types of forests for each year
from 2004-2013. ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 6. Conservative estimates of hares/ha based on the average pellets/plot for all timber
stands between 2001 and 2012 for the Uinta Mountain Distribution. For 2001 and 2002
conservative estimates were proportionally adjusted based on the relationship between data from
rectangular and circular plots estimated from data collected in 2003 (Bunnell (2005) and
unpublished data 2005 (example 0.27 rectangular = 0.92 circular estimates). Snowshoe hare
estimates are derived from Murray’s conservative equation for estimating snowshoe hare
abundances (Murray, Roth, Ellsworth, Wirsing, & Steury, 2002).Error! Bookmark not defined.
8
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. 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.
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.
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.
3
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. 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 1.5 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 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
4
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 during the critical winter months. From 2008 to
5
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.
6
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)
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
7
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 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
8
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’. Because no new roads planned for the project, a low rate of
additional use of the existing roads, a small footprint of disturbance, 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
9
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
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:
10
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), 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).
11
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)) and a spike of
12
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
13
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.
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.
8
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 km
2) 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, 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).
2
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 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
3
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 with 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.
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
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.
North American Wolverine
(Gulo gulo)
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.
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 discussion will follow.
Bald Eagle No No impact. Nesting occurs at lower elevations
5
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the state and elevation is not conducive to
winter foraging by bald eagles. No further
discussion will follow.
Boreal Owl
(Aegolius funereus)
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.
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)
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.
Great Gray Owl
(Strix nebulosa)
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.
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)
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.
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 discussion will follow.
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 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
6
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.
Analysis and Determination of Effect
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
7
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.
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.
8
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.
Analysis and Determination of Effect
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.
Analysis and Determination of Effect
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.
9
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.
Analysis and Determination of Effect
Great gray owls
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.
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
10
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).
11
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
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
12
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.
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 1
st 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. 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.
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,
13
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 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.
14
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***
(Stellula calliope)
X X Mountain
Riparian
Mountain
Shrub
Migrant No
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 X Pinyon- Shrubsteppe Grassland No
15
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
Hawk*
(Buteo regalis)
Juniper
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
X High Desert
Scrub
High Desert
Scrub
Migrant No
16
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
montanus)
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***
(Oreoscoptes
montanus)
X X Shrubsteppe High Desert
Scrub
Migrant No
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
17
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
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 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
18
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. 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
19
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. 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.
20
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.
Roads/Recreation
See discussion for effects to sensitive species.
Livestock Grazing
21
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
22
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 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)
23
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.
(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)
24
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.
25
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. 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.
26
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.
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,
27
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.
28
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.
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
29
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.
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.
30
McCann, N., Moen, R., & Niemi., G. (2008). Using pellet counts to estimate snowshoe hare
numbers in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72 , 955-958.
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
31
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
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
32
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
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
33
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. 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.
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.
34
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.
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.
35
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
Recommended