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

ii

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

36

Appendix A