Impacts on Other Wildlife
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CONTENTS Impacts on Other Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................343 Overview .........................................................................................................................................................343 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species ..........................................................................343 Mammals .........................................................................................................................................................359 Birds.................................................................................................................................................................403 Amphibians .....................................................................................................................................................425 i CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES [This page intentionally left blank.] ii IMPACTS ON OTHER WILDLIFE OVERVIEW dance of these species and the ecosystems on which they depend. The project area is home to a variety of wildlife and considered to be part of the most ecologically intact ecosystem in the lower 48 states. Bison and METHODOLOGY USED TO ANALYZE EFFECTS elk serve as food sources for predators and scav- The process for assessing impacts to threatened, engers and compete for habitat with other ungu- endangered, and sensitive species is essentially lates. They could also alter the natural environ- the same as that for other wildlife, except it is ment in ways that could either compromise or im- focused on the species that have been identified. prove another species’ ability to survive. Bison The following impact intensities include what the and elk management could impact other wildlife effect would be under section 7 of the Endangered species, and, therefore, the effects of the alterna- Species Act. tives on threatened and endangered species; other ungulates; predators and scavengers; small mam- • Negligible — Sensitive species would not be mals; large rodents; Neotropical migratory birds; affected, or the effects would be at or below gallinaceous birds; waterfowl, shorebirds, rails, the level of detection. and cranes; and amphibians are analyzed below. A negligible effect would equate with a “no effect” determination under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regulations for THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND threatened or endangered species. SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES • Minor — Impacts to sensitive species would be perceptible or measurable, but the sever- The Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et ity and timing of changes to parameter seq.) defines the terms and conditions of the fed- measurements are not expected to be outside eral status of species in a wildlife refuge or park natural variability and are not expected to and requires an examination of impacts on all spe- have effects on populations of sensitive spe- cies federally listed or proposed for listing, and cies. Impacts would be outside critical peri- designated critical habitats for threatened or en- ods. dangered species. In compliance with section 7 of A minor effect would equate with a determi- the Endangered Species Act, personnel from the nation of “not likely to adversely affect” un- National Elk Refuge and Grand Teton National der section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Park are working with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife regulations for threatened or endangered Service’s Wyoming field office to prepare a bio- species. logical evaluation of the effects of the preferred alternative on threatened and endangered spe- • Moderate — Impacts to sensitive species cies. That document will not be completed until a would be perceptible and measurable, and final preferred alternative has been selected after the severity and timing of changes to pa- the comment period closes for the draft environ- rameter measurements are expected to be mental impact statement. that document will be sometimes outside natural variability, and the official determination of effects on species and changes within natural variability might be will be incorporated by reference into the final long term. Populations of sensitive species environmental impact statement. might have small to moderate declines, but they are expected to rebound to pre-impact Both the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service and the numbers. No species would be at risk of be- National Park Service are required by their poli- ing extirpated from an area. Some impacts cies to consider potential effects of actions on might occur during key time periods. state or locally listed species. Both agencies are to A moderate effect would in most cases perpetuate the natural distribution and abun- equate with a determination of “likely to ad- 343 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES versely effect” under section 7 of the Endan- in the Jackson elk or bison herd would be greatest gered Species Act regulations for threatened under Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 5, 4, or endangered species. 3, with the least risk under Alternatives 2 and 6 (approximate equal risk) (HaydenWing and Olson • Major — Impacts to sensitive species would 2003). The severity of impacts that could poten- be measurable, and the severity and timing tially result from the establishment of chronic of changes to parameter measurements are wasting disease in the Jackson Hole area would be expected to be outside natural variability for greatest under Alternatives 1 and 5 (approxi- long periods of time or even be permanent; mately equal risk), followed by Alternatives 4 and changes within natural variability might be 3, with the least risk under Alternatives 2 and 6 long term or permanent. Populations of sen- (approximate equal risk). sitive species might have large declines, with population numbers significantly depressed. Wolves, grizzly bears, and bald eagles would not In extreme cases, a species might be at risk be impacted by contracting paratuberculosis, bru- of being extirpated from an area, key ecosys- cellosis, or chronic wasting disease under any of tem processes like nutrient cycling might be the alternatives because they are not known to be disrupted, or habitat for any species might be susceptible to these diseases (Williams 2001; rendered not functional. Substantive impacts Thorne et al. 1982). would occur during key time periods. Im- pacts would be long term to permanent. If bovine tuberculosis became established in the A major effect would equate with an “ad- Jackson Hole area, wolves and grizzly bears could versely affect with/without a jeopardy opin- contract the disease from elk and bison. Although ion” under section 7 of the Endangered Spe- individual animals could develop symptoms and cies Act regulations. die, they would not be able to sustain the disease and pass it along to other members of their spe- cies (Roffe, pers. comm. 2002). There are no IMPACTS ON GRAY WOLVES, GRIZZLY BEARS, documented cases of predator or scavenger spe- AND BALD EAGLES cies in North America maintaining the disease within their populations (Clifton-Hadley et al. Impacts of the Alternatives 2001). Impacts Common to All Alternatives Wolf and grizzly bear populations are not likely to Disease Impacts — Elk and bison make up a sub- be impacted by bovine tuberculosis in the short stantial portion of the prey base for wolves in term (Roffe, pers. comm. 2003). In the long term Jackson Hole and a portion of the prey base for the risk for transmission of this disease from elk grizzly bears and bald eagles. or bison to wolves and grizzly bears would con- tinue to increase over time, as prevalence in elk If a new disease (e.g., bovine tuberculosis, bovine and bison and the number of symptomatic cases paratuberculosis, or chronic wasting disease) was increased. Those alternatives with the highest introduced into the Jackson Hole area and re- concentrations of animals (Alternatives 1, 5, and 4, duced elk and/or bison numbers by a moderate to in that order) would have the greatest risk of major amount, wolves, grizzly bears, and bald ea- negatively impacting wolves and grizzly bears. gles in general could benefit in the short term due to more vulnerable prey and more carcasses Human Disturbance — Bald eagles are often pre- available for scavenging. In the long term wolves, sent on the refuge feedgrounds, and in 1999 grizzly bears, and bald eagles could be negatively wolves also were often present on the feed- impacted due to a decrease in the numbers of grounds. Wolves have been less visible in recent available prey. The risk of this happening would years, but they are occasionally seen in the vicin- increase under Alternatives with high concentra- ity. The feeding program does not appear to dis- tions of animals. turb predators and scavengers, but it appears to indirectly attract them as a result of large concen- The severity of impacts that could result from the trations of elk and bison. Animals new to the establishment of tuberculosis or paratuberculosis feeding operations could be wary at first, but they 344 Impacts on Other Wildlife: Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species seem to quickly habituate. Therefore, manage- Jackson Hole, the Green River basin, and the Red ment activities associated with the supplemental Desert would not be affected or would be affected feeding program for elk and bison under all alter- to a negligible degree by actions that are being natives in the short term and under Alternatives