[Black Rosy-Finch] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: B

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

SPECIES: Scientific [common] Leucosticte atrata [Black Rosy-finch] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: B. Smith, T. Cummins Date of Review: Sept 9, 2016 Forest concurrence (or Yes recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

Forest review result:

The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes_X__ No___

Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ______

Issue: Whether the species identified above should be listed as a species of Conservation Concern (SCC) for the Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF) as identified in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219).

Rule: The 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR 219.7(c)(3)] states that “The regional forester shall identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area in coordination with the responsible official.” It [36 CFR 219.9(b)(2)(c)] defines a species of conservation concern as “…a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.”

Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that the species is of local conservation concern.

Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: _black rosy-finch______

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION

Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4/N4

Natural UT - Not listed (UDNR 2003). Heritage CO – Not listed (CNHP 2015). Program State List UT – S1 (NatureServe 2015) Status UT - Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WAP 2015)

CO – S4N nonbreeding (NatureServe 2015) CO - Tier II species in the Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, the Ashley National Forest has recommended this Service species be considered as a potential SCC candidate but it is not listed as a sensitive species on any other adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern list (USFWS 2008) BCR 9 and 16 - Great Basin and Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau region. Other

Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition

1. Native to the plan area

a. Is the species native to the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

i. If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: _black rosy-finch______

2. Known to occur in the plan area

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 3 MLNF 2014 years Year Last Observed 2014 MLNF 2014

a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?

Yes___ No__X_

1) If yes, document source for determination.

b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area

a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.

Rangewide, this species has moderate numbers of occurrences and limited range. The species is not well-sampled by the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) due to the inaccessibility of its alpine habitat. Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data from 1962-2011 indicates stable range-wide populations (UDWR 2013). Overall, the black rosy-finch global population is apparently secure (NatureServe 2015).

Although this species is most commonly sighted in Wyoming and Utah (Johnson 2002), within the plan area there are few sightings documented. However, breeding activity on the La Sal Mountains has been confirmed through the observation of fledglings in recent years and from other local sources (MLNF 2014, UDWR 2013, Righter et al 2004). There 13 records in the Utah Natural Heritage database for this species in Utah; 1 from the

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Manti-La Sal National Forest Moab District in 1961.

There is not enough information to determine abundance or population trends.

b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information.

Impacts from recreation activity are thought to be minor, as the species seems tolerant of human presence (Johnson 2002). Grazing (domestic livestock and/or introduced ungulates) would have a negative impact if it reduced food supply or resulted in an increase in brown-headed cowbirds (nest parasite) in alpine habitat (Johnson 2002). Climate change and resulting changes to snowpack resulting in drought, treeline elevation, or breeding habitat quality, is considered to be a potential threat/risk (WAP 2015). The Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan (Rosenberg et al 2016) includes the black rosy-finch as a Watch List species with extremely high vulnerability due to small population and range, high threats and range-wide declines.

Other considerations for local conservation concern are: limited range, specificity of habitat requirements and apparently low population numbers in the plan area. A resumption of hard rock mining in breeding habitat, or large- scale mining, development or habitat conversion in winter habitat may have negative impacts in some areas of its range.

c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

4. Range Map

Map 1. Black rosy-finch range map (Peterson 2008).

5. Literature Cited

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Bird Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/birds.asp.

Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for conserving wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 865 pgs. http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx

Johnson, R. 2002. Black Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte atrata), 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/678 doi:10.2173/bna.678. (Accessed: May 06, 2016).

Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF). 2014. 2014. Bird point count data and wildlife observations – Black rosy-finch. MLNF, Moab District.

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 2, 2016).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

K. V. Rosenberg, J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J.D. Alexander, C. J. Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, A. F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W. Demarest, W. E. Easton, J.J. Giocomo, R.H. Keller, A. E. Mini, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, T. D. Rich, J. M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton and T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States. Partners in Flight Science Committee.

Peterson, R.T. 2008. Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America. First Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society.

U.S. Forest Service (USFSa). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at ]

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR); Bosworth III, William R.; Division of Wildlife Resources; and Utah Natural Heritage Program. 2003. "Vertebrate Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report”. All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 411.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2013. Black rosy-finch fact sheet. Unpublished.

Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Draft version 2.0. DWR Publication No. 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 400 pgs. http://wildlife.utah.gov/wap/wap2015draft2.pdf

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

SPECIES: Scientific [common] Catostomus discobolus [Bluehead Sucker] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: Manders, Cummins Date of Review: 8/23/2016 Forest concurrence (or YES recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

Forest review result:

The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes_X__ No___

Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates limited availale habitat within and beyond the plan area and its status as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Utah and its Tier One status in Colorado.

Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: _____Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus)______

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION

Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4 (NatureServe 2016)

Natural UT –Conservation Agreement Species (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not listed (CNHP 2015). Program State List UT-S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status UT – Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WAP 2015)

CO – S4 (NatureServe 2015) CO – “Tier 1” Species (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Service Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013).

USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other CO BLM Sensitive Species (SWAP 2015).

Navajo Nation’s Threatened and Endangered Species List: Group 4, “Any species or subspecies for which the Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife NNDFW does not currently have sufficient information to support their being listed in G2 or G3 but has reason to consider them.” (NNDFW 2008).

Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition

1. Native to the plan area

b) Is the species native to the plan area?

Yes__X_ No___

i) If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: ___ Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus ______

2. Known to occur in the plan area

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 2 pop. MLNF 2012, MLNF 2014 years Year Last Observed 2014 MLNF 2014

a) Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?

Yes___ No_X__

b) Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes X___ No___

1. If no, provide explanation.

3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area

a) Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.

Bluehead suckers are found in most historical habitats although declines have been noted in the White River and in the upper Green River into Wyoming (UDWR 2005). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists the status of the entire bluehead sucker population as ‘stable’ (IUCN 2007). The species is locally abundant in all of the three major sub-drainages of the San Rafael River. In the Bonneville Basin, Weber River, blueheads were found in 2003 and 2004; but not in streams surveyed in 2005 (UDWR, 2005).

Bluehead sucker are found in the mainstem Green, Colorado, and San Juan rivers, including the Duchesne, White, Strawberry, Price, San Rafael, Fremont, and Escalante rivers and Muddy Creek tributaries. They are also found in the Weber, Ogden, and Bear Rivers in the Bonneville basin (UDWR 2005).

Within the planning area, surveys conducted by Forest Service biologists in 2012 and 2014 found bluehead suckers in both Ferron and Lowry creeks (MLNF 2012, MLNF 2014). There are no other populations that have been found within the planning area.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

b) Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on available scientific information.

This species is usually found in rocky riffles and runs of small to large rivers (IUCN 2007, NatureServe 2015). Currently, the threats that affect the populations of bluehead suckers are diversions, damming, and water quality, lack of habitat, hybridization, nonnative presence and dams (CNHP 2015, UDNR 2006, UDNR 2003, IUCN 2007).

Bluehead suckers are cool water species. As air and water temperatures rise resulting from a warming climate, the cool water will shift upstream and there is potential that the bluehead suckers may be able to shift upstream as well (Duffield pers. comm. 2016). However, there is not a guarantee that the upstream sections that will cool to provide potential future habitat will meet other habitat requirements (as describe above) or that they will not be forced to move into habitats that are already occupied by competing species.

Limited distribution of the species on the Forest, combined with the uncertainty of available habitat for the species to move to as water temperatures rise, combined with its status as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Utah and its Tier One status in Colorado, indicate the species warrants SCC status.

c) Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area? Yes_X_ No___

1) If no, provide explanation

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

4. Range Map

Map 1. Utah occurrence map for the Catostomus discobolus (UDNR 2003).

Map 2. Species distribution range for the Catostomus discobolus (IUCN 2007).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

5. Literature Cited

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Fish Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/fish.asp.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2007. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: June 02, 2016).

NatureServe 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 20, 2016).

Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF). 2014. Wildlife observation records – blueheaded sucker. MLNF, UT.

______. 2012. Wildlife observation records – blueheaded sucker. MLNF, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.

______. Division of Wildlife Resources. 2006. Conservation and Management Plan for Three Fish Species in Utah. Addressing needs for the Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta), Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus), and Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis).

______; Bosworth III, William R.; Division of Wildlife Resources; and Utah Natural Heritage Program. 2003. "Vertebrate Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report”. All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 411.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2016. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Utah Conservation Data Center.

______. 2005. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservations Strategy.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

SPECIES: Scientific [common] Oncorhynchus clarkii utah [Bonneville Cutthroat Trout] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: Manders, Cummins Date of Review: 9/16/2016 Forest concurrence (or Yes recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

Forest review result:

The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes_X__ No___

Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) shows that there is substantial concern for species and habitat persistence in the plan area.

Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: _____BCT______

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION

Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4 (NatureServe 2015)

Natural UT – Conservation Agreement Species (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – Not listed (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT-S4 (NatureServe 2015) Status UT – Species of Greatest Conservation Concern (WAP 2015).

CO – Not Listed (NatureServe 2015) CO – Not listed in the Colorado Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest This species is currently listed as a Sensitive Species for the Manti-La Sal Service National Forest (USFS 2013).

As of May 2016, this species is not listed as a potential SCC or Sensitive Species for any adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Petitioned for listing multiple times (WAP 2015). Other

Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition

1. Native to the plan area

a. Is the species native to the plan area?

Yes__X_ No___

i. If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: ___BCT______

2. Known to occur in the plan area

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 Several P. Manders pers. obs. 2016 years Year Last Observed 2013 P. Manders pers. obs. 2016

a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?

Yes___ No_X__

b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area

a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.

This species needs cool oxygenated water (WAP 2015). This species occurs within the Bonneville Basin streams and lakes and also occurs within a limited portion of the Virgin River Drainage (UDNR 2003). Most are found in the headwater streams and high-elevation river reaches, but a few populations occur in perennial streams located in the Deep Creek Mountains

Populations of this species are much reduced from historical levels (UDNR 2003). The distribution of the Bonneville, Colorado River, Yellowstone and Westslope cutthroat trout has declined >50% (IAP 2016). On the Forest, populations are sparse due to diversion and other non-native species, mostly in headwaters, trend is stable moving slightly upward with conservation efforts (P. Manders pers. obs. 2016).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on available scientific information.

Cutthroat trout require coldwater natal habitat in areas exceeding ~2-6-miles for have a high probability of persistence (IAP 2016). August temperatures <48 °F are suboptimal for cutthroat trout species resulting in frequent recruitment failure.

Population decline has been due to, and major threats consist of: (1) hybridization with introduced non-native trout, especially rainbow trout and other subspecies of cutthroat trout, (2) loss and fragmentation of habitat from man-made causes such as water diversions, overgrazing of riparian areas, timber harvest, road building, and water pollution (e.g., from herbicide application and oil spills), some of which may result in sedimentation, loss of pool habitat, dewatering and unfavorable heating of habitat, and blockage of migration by poorly designed and placed culverts, and (3) overfishing (not now a threat). Access to the mainstream rivers, which probably were formerly important during parts of the life history, is now largely nonexistent due to physical barriers from irrigation, power, and agricultural diversions. Competition with non-native salmonids may be a factor in the decline and/or in failure to regain historical habitat (Natureserve 2015, UDNR 2003, DOI 2001, IAP 2016).

c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

4. Range Map

Map 1. Utah occurrence map for Oncorhynchus clarkii utah (UDNR 2003).

5. Literature Cited

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Fish Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/fish.asp.

Intermountain Adaptation Partners (IAP). 2016. DRAFT Vulnerability Assessment Summary. 116 pgs. http://adaptationpartners.org/iap/

Manders,P. 2016. Personal observations by Wildlife Biologist over many years on the Manti-La Sal National Forest.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

United States Department of Interior (DOI). US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Status Review for Bonneville Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah).

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

SPECIES: Scientific [common] Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus [Colorado River Cutthroat Trout] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: Manders, Cummins Date of Review: 9/16/2016 Forest concurrence (or Yes recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

Forest review result:

The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes_X__ No___

Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) shows that there is substantial concern for species and habitat persistence in the plan area.

Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: _____CRCT______

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION

Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4T3 (NatureServe 2015)

Natural UT – Conservation Agreement Species (UDNR 2015) Heritage CO – ‘SC’ Species of Special Concern (CHNP 2015) Program State List UT-S3 (NatureServe 2015) Status UT – Species of Greatest Conservation Concern (WAP 2015)

CO – S3 (NatureServe 2015) CO – “Tier 1” and a Species of Special Concern (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest This species is currently listed as a Sensitive Species for the Manti-La Sal Service National Forest and three adjoining National Forests; the Fish Lake, Ashley, and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests (USFS 2013).

USDI FWS Not a listed species; in 2007 a ‘Not Warranted’ finding was returned (WAP 2015) Other CO BLM Sensitive Species (SWAP 2015)

Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition

1. Native to the plan area

a. Is the species native to the plan area?

Yes__X_ No___

i. If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: ___CRCT______

2. Known to occur in the plan area

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 Frequent P. Manders pers. obs. 2016 years Year Last Observed 2015 P. Manders pers. obs. 2016

a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?

Yes___ No_X__

b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area

a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.

This species requires cool, clear water and well-vegetated streambanks for cover and bank stability; instream cover in the form of deep pools and boulders and logs also is important; adapted to relatively cold water, thrives at high elevations (NatureServe 2015). The Utah Wildlife Action Plan (2015) estimates that this species currently inhabits approximately 1/3 of its available habitat. The distribution of the Bonneville, Colorado River, Yellowstone and Westslope cutthroat trout has declined >50% (IAP 2016).

Common where populations have been located within the planning area, mostly in headwaters, the local trend is stable, moving slightly upward with conservation efforts (P. Manders pers. obs. 2016).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on available scientific information.

Historically, natural system modification from mining, agriculture, water and other development contributed to the extirpation or reduction of large numbers of populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Currently, the introductions and invasions of nonnative trout probably represent the greatest cause of recent declines and the major impediment to restoration of this fish in much of its historical range. Many populations appear to remain vulnerable to this threat either because barriers to ongoing invasions are absent or because existing barriers may be temporary or have nonnative fish passed over them illegally. Ironically, the barriers themselves pose a threat because most populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout are restricted to short, headwater stream segments (SWAP 2015, USDA 2008)

Climate change is an additional threat to cutthroat trout species. Potential impacts from a changing climate include: warming air temperatures and potential changes in the amount, timing, and type (snow versus rain) of precipitation (IAP 2016). The scale and location of these changes, these will generally combine to cause warmer water temperatures, earlier snowmelt runoff, earlier declines to lower summer baseflows, and downstream contraction of perennial flow initiation from headwaters. Warming temperatures are expected to result in habitats for trout to continue to shift upstream; over the last four decades, this has been occurring at a recently estimated rate of 1000-1600 ft/decade. Additionally, smaller snowpacks and earlier runoff are projected to continue reducing habitat volume and size while potentially increasing fragmentation.

Lack of connectivity to other populations renders them vulnerable in the short term to extirpation from natural disturbances such as fire, post-fire debris torrents, or floods and in the long term to loss of genetic variability and the potential for evolving in response to changing environmental conditions. This lack of connectivity also contributes to the greatest future

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

threat to the persistence of this subspecies—climate change (WAP 2015, SWAP 2015, USDA 2008, IAP 2016).

Additional threats include incompatible agriculture, energy production, transportation and service corridors (SWAP 2015).

c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation

4. Range Map

Map 1. Utah occurrence map for Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus (UDNR 2003).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

5. Literature Cited

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Fish Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/fish.asp.

Intermountain Adaptation Partners (IAP). 2016. DRAFT Vulnerability Assessment Summary. 116 pgs. http://adaptationpartners.org/iap/

Manders, P. 2016. Personal observations by Wildlife Biologist over many years on the Manti-La Sal National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region Species Conservation Project. 2008. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia pleurituicus): A Technical Conservation Assessment.

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

SPECIES: Scientific [common] Myotis thysanodes [Fringed Myotis] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: B. Smith Date of Review: 2may2016 Forest concurrence (or Yes recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

Forest review result:

The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes_X__ No___

Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) shows that there is substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area.

Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: __Fringed Myotis______

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION

Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4/N4 (NatureServe 2015)

Natural UT - State Sensitive Species (UDWR 2015) Heritage CO – “Fully Track”, but not listed as a sensitive species (CNHP 2015) Program State List UT – S2B (NatureServe 2015) Status Utah Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WAP 2015)

CO - S3 (NatureServe 2015) Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan Tier I Species (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, the Ashley National Forest has recommended to the Service Regional Forester that this species be considered as a potential SCC candidate, but it is not listed as a sensitive species on any other adjoining National Forests (USFS 2013). USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other Western Bat Working group ranking – High Threat in (6) Intermountain Semi-Desert/Desert province and Medium Threat in (7) Colorado Plateau Semi-Desert (WBWG 2015)

BLM Special Status Species (CNHP 2015).

Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition

1. Native to the plan area

a. Is the species native to the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

i. If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: _Fringed Myotis______

2. Known to occur in the plan area

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 22+ UNHP 2015 years Wright 2009, 2012 and 2013 UDWR 2007 Year Last Observed 2013 Wright 2013

a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?

Yes___ No_X__

1) If yes, document source for determination.

b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area

a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.

Overall the fringed myotis is widely distributed in the western US, but the species is uncommon in Utah (UCDC 2016). They occur primarily at middle elevations (2,400 to 8,900-ft) in desert, riparian, grassland, and woodland habitats. Its abundance varies locally (WAP 2015, UDNR 2000). There are 15 records for this species from Utah, 2 from Manti-La Sal NF, Monticello District (UNHP 2015). Abundance and trend in the plan area are unknown (UDNR 2003).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information.

There is a very high threat severity from invasive species including disease (white-nose syndrome) (WAP 2015). Habitat modification and human disturbance are also high risks (NatureServe 2015, UDNR 2000). The lower and mid-elevation habitats occupied by this species are vulnerable to changes from increased temperatures and severe or multiyear drought. This species relies on water sources and riparian areas; threats to these habitat types from climate-change related warming temperatures, decreased snowpack, shifting timing of snowmelt and lower summer streamflows could also impact this species (UDNR 2003, CNHP 2015).

c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?

Yes__X_ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

4. Range Maps

Map 1. Utah occurrence map for Myotis thysanodes; 1983 to 2003 (UDNR 2003).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Map 2. Distribution map for fringed myotis bats (Myotis thysanodes) showing permanent resident populations (NatureServe 2015).

5. Literature Cited Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Mammal Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/mammals.asp

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Intermountain Region (R4) threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species: known / suspected distribution by Forest.

Utah Conservation Data Center (UCDC). 2016. Fringed Myotis. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/Display.asp?FlNm=myotthys (Accessed: May 22, 2016).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

______; Oliver, G. V.; Division of Wildlife Resources; and Utah Natural Heritage Program. 2000. "The Bats of Utah; A Literature Review”.Paper 141.

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah Sensitive Species List.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2007. Bat capture data_Twomile Creek, Manti-La Sal National Forest.

Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Natural Heritage database records for fringed myotis on the Manti-La Sal NF.

Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2015. Regional Priority matrix – fringed myotis. http://wbwg.org/matrices/species-matrix/ Accessed May 17, 2016.

Wright. A. 2013. Fall Bat Surveys on the South Portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest 2013 Final Report. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Price, UT.

______. 2012. Southeastern Utah Forest and Rangeland Bat Inventory 2012. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Price, UT.

______. 2009. Bat Inventory Manti-La Sal National Forest 2008 Final Report. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Price, UT.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

SPECIES: Scientific [common] Centrocercus urophasianus [Greater Sage-Grouse] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: Albrecht, T. Cummins Date of Review: 09/09/2016 Forest concurrence (or Yes recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

Forest review result:

The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes__X_ No___

Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) indicates that the species is of local conservation concern due to the threats and risks identified within the FEIS and Manti La-Sal Sage grouse amendment are consistent with many of the same threats and risks found on the local planning unit.

Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: ___Greater Sage-Grouse__

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION

Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G3 (Nature Serve 2015)

Natural UT – Sensitive Species (WAP 2015) Heritage CO – Special Concern ‘SC’ (SWAP 2015, CNHP 2015) Program State List UT- S2 (Nature Serve 2015) Status CO – S2 (Nature Serve 2015)

USDA Forest This species is currently listed as a Sensitive Species for the Manti-La Sal Service National Forest and three adjoining National Forests; the Fish Lake, Ashley, and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests (USFS 2013).

As of May 2016, this species has also been identified as a potential SCC for the Ashley National Forest. USDI FWS In 2015 the US Fish and Wildlife Service returned a ‘Not Warranted’ finding for listing under the Endangered Species Act (DOI 2015). Other List species is listed as ‘Near Threatened’ on the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International 2012) and is a Partner In Flight (PIF) Tier 1 priority species (Rosenberg 2004.).

Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition

1. Native to the plan area

a. Is the species native to the plan area?

Yes__X_ No___

i. If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

2. Known to occur in the plan area

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 Stable USFS 2013b years Year Last Observed 2016 Jewkes, J. per. comm. 2016

a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?

Yes___ No__X_

1) If yes, document source for determination.

b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?

Yes__X_ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area

a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area

Scattered populations of Centrocercus urophasianus occur throughout UT, primarily in habitat dominated by sagebrush (Artemisa spp.), excluding the southeastern quarter of the state (UDNR 2003). The Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP 2015) estimates that within the state, current populations only cover 41% of historic habitat. State-wide, the UT greater sage-grouse population has declined since 1967, with the 2001 population estimated at 12,999 birds (UDNR 2002).

For the Manti-La Sal National Forest, the USDA, Forest Service, greater sage- grouse record of decision (2015), defines the desired habitat conditions as, “…large contiguous areas of native vegetation, approximately 6-to-62 square miles in area…” Within the planning area, great sage-grouse are found on two of the five districts; the Ferron and Price Ranger Districts (Jewkes, J. per. comm. 2016). Range wide sage-grouse trend is highly cyclical. Trend within the planning area seems to remain stable (USFSb 2013).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information

Habitat quality and quantity have declined throughout Utah with a resulting decline in sage-grouse numbers (UDNR 2002). Habitat fragmentation and loss as a result of lands being converted to agriculture, urbanization, infrastructure, recreation, commercial use, catastrophic fire, invasive and encroaching plant species, grazing, energy development and mining, disease and predation as well as climate change are all potential threats to greater sage-grouse populations (USDA 2015, SWAP 2015, UDNR 2003).

The vulnerability of greater sage-grouse is linked with the future of sagebrush. Invasion by cheat grass and tree species (e.g., juniper), both influenced by climate, degrade sagebrush habitats and result in habitat loss for the sage-grouse. Under warmer and drier conditions, sagebrush is expected to decline through much of Nevada and Utah. (IAP 2016).

c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?

Yes__X_ No___

1) If no, provide explanation

4. Range Map

Map 1. Occurrence map of Centrocercus urophasianus in Utah (UDNR 2003).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Map 2. Distribution map of Centrocercus urophasianus (NatureServe 2015).

5. Literature Cited

BirdLife International. 2012. Centrocercus urophasianus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T22679503A38569269. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012- 1.RLTS.T22679503A38569269.en. (Accessed: 01 June 2016).

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Bird Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/birds.asp.

Jewkes, J. 2016. Personal communication via telephone, June 1, 2016. Tiffany Cummins, MLNF.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Intermountain Adaptation Partners (IAP). 2016. DRAFT Vulnerability Assessment Summary. 116 pgs. http://adaptationpartners.org/iap/

Rosenberg, K. V. 2004. Partners in Flight Continental Priorities and Objectives Defined at the State and Bird Conservation Region Levels; Utah. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2015. Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision for Idaho and Southwest Montana, Nevada and Utah; and Land Management Plan Amendments for the Manti-La Sal National Forest.

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17.

U.S. Forest Service (USFSa). 2013. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species List, R4. Known / Suspected Distribution by Forest.

U.S. Forest Service (USFSb). 2013. Manti-La Sal National Forest; Greater Sage-Grouse Annual Lek Counts 1978-2013. Not published.

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), Division of Wildlife Resources. 2002. Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse. Publication 02-20.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review Template DRAFT

SPECIES: Scientific [common] Ochotona princeps [American pika] Forest: Manti-La Sal Forest Reviewer: B. Smith, T. Cummins Date of Review: 9/7/2016 Forest concurrence (or Yes recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) shows that the species may be adversely impacted by climate change in areas of restricted range.

Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.

Forest review result:

The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes_X__ No___

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review Template DRAFT

Species: _American pika______

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION

Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5/N5 (NatureServe 2015)

Natural UT Natural Heritage Program (2015) – 279 records for state; 158 records Heritage for MLNF, some from original collections in early 1900s and some from Program surveys in 2001 to 2010.

CO –Not listed as a sensitive species (CNHP 2015) State List UT – S4 (NatureServe 2015) Status CO- S5 (NatureServe 2015)

UT - Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WAP 2015) CO - Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan Tier I Species (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest None Service

USDI FWS Petitioned, but found Not Warranted for ESA listing (USFWS 2010) Other

Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition

1. Native to the plan area

a. Is the species native to the plan area?

Yes__X_ No___

i. If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review Template DRAFT

Species: __American pika______

2. Known to occur in the plan area

Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 200+ UNHP 2016, MLNF 2015 years Year Last Observed 2015 MLNF 2015

a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?

Yes___ No__X_

1) If yes, document source for determination.

b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area

a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.

Found on the Wasatch Plateau and La Sal Mountains in high elevation, alpine habitats above 9000-ft in association with talus slopes. Limited survey data indicates a well-distributed and stable population, with high occupancy rates in suitable habitat on the La Sals, but on the Wasatch Plateau there is reduced distribution since 1985, with small isolated populations subject to elimination (UDWR 2009).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review Template DRAFT

b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information.

Climate change is the primary threat to the species (USFWS 2010). Alpine ecosystems are considered one of the most sensitive habitat types to adverse impacts from climate change related stressors (IAP 2016). This threat may be direct (pikas are highly temperature-sensitive; increased ambient temperatures can result in death and reduce the area they can occupy) or indirect through changes in treeline, forage production and snowpack. The Colorado Wildlife Action Plan lists warming impacts resulting in a decline in forage availability as its main concern for climate change impacts on Colorado pika populations; it continues recommend continued monitoring for this species due to potential climate change impacts on this species (CNHP 2015).

Recent research has documented the loss of several pika populations in the state and region over the last 5 years due to climate related factors (Beever et al 2016). The loss of these populations highlights the importance of remaining populations, including those within the plan area. Grazing by domestic livestock and native or introduced ungulates may impact populations on a local level, such as those within the plan area (USFWS 2010). c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review Template DRAFT

4. Range Map

Map 1. Range Map for Ochotona princeps (NatureServe 2015).

5. Literature Cited

Beever, E.A., J.D. Perrine, T. Rickman, M. Flores, J.P. Clark, C. Waters, S.S. Weber, B. Yardley, D. Thoma, T. Chesley-Preston, K.E. Goehring, M.Magnuson, N. Nordensten, M. Nelson and G.H. Collins. 2016. Pika (Ochotona princeps) losses from two isolated regions reflect temperature and water balance, but reflect habitat area in a mainland region. Journal of Mammology 97:4. Published online 25 August 2016.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Mammal Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/mammals.asp

Intermountain Adaptation Partners (IAP). 2016. DRAFT Vulnerability Assessment Summary. 116 pgs. http://adaptationpartners.org/iap/

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review Template DRAFT

Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF). 2015. Wildlife observation records – pika. MLNF, Moab District.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the American Pika as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 26/Feb 9, 2010/pg 6438-6471.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2009. The status of the American pika in Utah.

Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2016. Natural Heritage database records for Pika on the Manti-La Sal NF.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

SPECIES: Scientific [common] Corynorhinus townsendii [Townsend’s big-eared bat] Forest: Manti-La Sal National Forest Forest Reviewer: B. Smith, T. Cummins Date of Review: 9/7/2016 Forest concurrence (or Yes recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

Forest review result:

The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes__X_ No___

Analysis: The best available scientific information (BASI) shows that there is a high level of threat to the populations due to loss of habitat related to the management of mining and abandoned mines, and species persistence is of concern in the plan area.

Conclusion: Based upon the BASI documented herein, it is recommended that this species be included in the potential list of SCC for the MLNF.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: _Townsend’s big-eared bat______

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION

Status summary based on other methods (information is on the Regional Office list of species considered; correct as needed):

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G4/N3N4 (NatureServe 2015)

Natural UT – Sensitive Species (WAP 2015, UDNR 2003) Heritage CO – Special Concern ‘SC’ (SWAP 2015, CNHP 2015) Program State List UT- S4 (NatureServe 2015) Status Utah Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WAP 2015) Utah State Sensitive Species (UDWR 2015)

CO – S2 (NatureServe 2015) Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan Tier I Species (SWAP 2015) USDA Forest As of May 2016, Townsend’s big-eared bat is listed as a sensitive species Service throughout all National Forests in Region 4 (USFS 2013).

USDI FWS Not a listed species. Other Western Bat Working Group ranking – High Threat throughout its range in western US (WBWG 2015)

BLM Special Status Species

Navajo Nation – S2S3 (NatureServe 2015)

This species is listed on the Navajo Nation’s Threatened and Endangered Species List (NNDFW 20008) as G4 – A species or subspecies that “… does not currently have sufficient information to support their being listed in G2 or G3 but has reason to consider them.”

Review of species of conservation concern criteria based on definition

1. Native to the plan area

a. Is the species native to the plan area?

Yes__X_ No___

i. If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Species: __Townsend’s big-eared bat______

2. Known to occur in the plan area Table 2. Known Occurrence Frequency within the Planning Area (NRIS database) Occurrence: Number Source of Information Known Occurrences in the past 20 10* UDWR 2007 years Western Land Services 2011 UNHD 2015 Perkins and Peterson 1996 Diamond and Diamond 2000 MLNF 2009 Year Last Observed 2013 Wright 2013 *several records are from audible data recordings so actual number of occurrences cannot be determined

a. Are all species occurrences only accidental or transient?

Yes___ No __X_

1) If yes, document source for determination.

b. Based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area? Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

3. Substantial concern for species persistence in the plan area

a. Describe briefly the distribution, abundance, and population trend of the species in the plan area.

Generally rare, although they may be locally common near appropriate roosting habitat (WAP 2015). Found throughout Utah in a wide variety of habitats but closely tied to caves and abandoned mines (UDNR 2003). Populations thought to be declining over the long-term. 43 records from Utah, 4 records from MLNF (UNHP 2015). Abundance and trend in the plan area are unknown.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

The current NatureServe status for this species in Utah (S4) appears to contradict its inclusion in the 2015 Utah Wildlife Action Plan as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need, and as a State Sensitive Species.

b. Describe briefly threats or risk factors to the species or the ecological conditions that support it (i.e. habitat) based on best available scientific information.

This species uses caves and mines year-round for maternity colonies and hibernacula. The greatest threats include disturbance and closure of abandoned mines and from white nose syndrome (WAP 2015). White-nose syndrome has not yet been documented as afflicting Townsend's big-eared bats, but this fungal disease of bats now occurs throughout much of the eastern portion of the range of C. townsendii (NatureServe 2015). Mortality associated with wind turbines is a potential threat (NatureServe 2015). This species is also particularly vulnerable to human disturbance at roost sites (UDNR 2003).

Climate change-related impacts to pinyon-juniper, big sagebrush and riparian habitats from warming temperatures, drought, lower summer streamflows and increased wildfire (IAP 2016) may also adversely impact the species due to impacts on their foraging habitats.

c. Considering the trend in populations or habitat and threats or risk factors for those populations or habitats, is there substantial concern for persistence of the species in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

1) If no, provide explanation.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

4. Range Maps

Map 1. UT occurrence map for Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii) showing permanent resident populations (UDNR 2003).

Map 2. Distribution map for Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii) showing permanent resident populations (NatureServe 2015).

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

5. Literature Cited:

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. Tracked Mammal Species. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/mammals.asp

Diamond, G.F and J.M. Diamond. 2000. An evaluation of abandoned underground uranium hard rock mines as bat roosting habitat in the Cottonwood Wash abandoned mine project area, San Juan County, Utah. Report for the State of Utah Dept. of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program. Salt Lake City, Ut.

Intermountain Adaptation Partners (IAP). 2016. DRAFT Vulnerability Assessment Summary. 116 pgs. http://adaptationpartners.org/iap/

Manti-La Sal National Forest (MLNF). 2009. Wildlife observation – Townsend’s big-eared bat. MLNF, Moab/Monticello District.

Navajo Nations Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW). 2008. Navajo endangered species list; resource committee resolution. http://nndfw.org/nnhp/nnhp_nesl.pdf

Perkins, J.M. and J.R. Peterson. 1996. Results of the Bat Survey for the Monticello District of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. Monticello, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Intermountain Region (R4) threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species: known / suspected distribution by Forest.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2015. State Sensitive Species List.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2007. Bat capture data_Twomile Creek, Manti-La Sal National Forest.

Intermountain Region Species of Conservation Concern Review DRAFT Template

Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP). 2015. Natural Heritage database records for Townsend’s big-eared bat on the Manti-La Sal NF.

Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2015. Regional Priority matrix – Townsend’s big- eared bat. http://wbwg.org/matrices/species-matrix/ Accessed May 17, 2016.

Western Land Services, Inc. 2011. Valley View and Vision Mine Complexes Bat Acoustical and External Analysis Project. Report prepared for USFS, Manti-La Sal NF, Moab District. Sept 8, 2011.

Wright. A. 2013. Fall Bat Surveys on the South Portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest 2013 Final Report. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Price, UT.