Wildlife and Plant Resource Specialist Report

For The

JACOB’S VALLEY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT ESCALANTE RANGER DISTRICT GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH

Prepared by: ______Date: ______

Mark S Carrara, Wildlife Biologist NEPA Support Team, Dixie National Forest

Reviewed by: ______Date: ______

Lisa Young, Wildlife Biologist Escalante Ranger District, Dixie National Forest

Date: July 24, 2018

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Introduction ...... 4 Project Overview ...... 4 Affected Environment ...... 5 Proposed Action ...... 6 Alternative 1 - No Action...... 6 Fuels Management ...... 9 Access Management ...... 9 FOREST PLAN MANAGEMENT AREAS ...... 10 Duration and Timing ...... 11 Climate Change Effects ...... 11 Cumulative Effects Area ...... 11 Wildlife and Plant Resources ...... 12 Current Management Direction ...... 14 Effects of the No Action Alternative ...... 14 Effects of the Proposed Action Alternative ...... 22 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ...... 23 Management Indicator Species ...... 34 Other Species of Concern ...... 38 Sensitive Plants ...... 40 Wildlife Management and Project Design Features ...... 43 Summary of Effects and Determination ...... 44 Consideration of Available Scientific Information ...... 48 Contributors ...... 49 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans: ...... 49

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the effects of the proposed Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project on wildlife and plant resources that may have Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed (P), Sensitive (S), Management Indicator Species (MIS) and/or Migratory Bird Species of Concern status. The analysis of effects are based on information provided in the silviculture and vegetation analysis, fuels analysis, wildlife and plant field surveys, a review of the current scientific literature, and in consultation with the district biologist and forest botanist.

The objectives of this report are to:

1. Identify the wildlife and plant species of concern that may occur or have potentially suitable habitat within or near the proposed project area. 2. Describe existing conditions for the identified wildlife and plant species of concern. 3. Analyze and make a determination of the effects of the proposed action and alternatives on the wildlife and plant species of concern.

Project Overview

The Dixie National Forest proposes to implement vegetation treatments including uneven-aged, even- aged and intermediate silvicultural treatments, fuels reduction, prescribed fire and an update of the 2009 Motorized Travel Plan. The project would facilitate landscape-scale forest vegetation management to promote resiliency of the Aquarius Plateau ecosystem while maintaining the aesthetics and character of the landscape. For a complete description of the project and full environmental analysis, see the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment (EA) (USDA 2018) incorporated here by reference. The Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project is located within the Escalante Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest (Figure 1). The project lies within Garfield County, Utah, approximately 19 miles north of Escalante, Utah and located within T31S R2E, T31S R3E, T32S R2E and T32S R3E relative to the Salt Lake Base and Meridian. The project boundary encompasses 13,867 acres of which 9,935 acres are proposed for various treatments. The purpose of the project is to (1) Trend vegetation toward desired forest structure, composition, disturbance regime, and vegetation patterns, and promote mature and old growth forest characteristics in compliance with the Forest Plan and Northern goshawk amendment; (2) Lower the potential of landscape-scale stand replacing wildfire by managing natural and activity fuel loading, (3) Develop vegetation patterns which promote seral species and heterogeneous forest canopies to maintain and enhance the visual aesthetics of the landscape, (4) Reroute, repair, and decommission portions of the trail and road systems to protect soil and water resources, and (5) Maintain recreational opportunities within the Jacob’s Valley project area.

In order to fill the gap between the existing and desired conditions the Dixie National Forest has developed the following needs for action:

(1) Modify the existing forest structure to maintain and develop suitable habitat for the Northern goshawk and to promote sustainability of Engelmann spruce and aspen.

(2) Improve the silvicultural condition of forested stands and promote resiliency of the forest landscape by reducing stand densities to improve forest health and vigor, and reduce insect and disease populations.

(3) Improve seral species composition and promote a mosaic of vegetation patterns.

(4) Reduce the risk of large scale stand replacing wildfire through the proactive management of fuel loadings and strategic use of prescribed fire to reduce risk to heritage resources such as the Jubilee Guard Station from fire damage in conformance with the Utah Fire Amendment.

(5) Protect and improve water quality and soil integrity by minimizing additional compaction and erosion along riparian and travel corridors.

(6) Make minor updates to the 2009 MTP decision to allow for and provide access to recreation opportunities and resource management.

Figure 1. Vicinity map for the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project.

Affected Environment

The project area is located on the Aquarius Plateau which falls within the Dry Domain, Temperate Desert Regime Mountains, Nevada-Utah Mountains-Semi-Desert-Coniferous Forest-Alpine Meadow Province, Utah High Plateaus and Mountains Section ecoregion. The climatic regime is temperate and vegetation complexes are defined as either montane forest or montane steppe. Elevation within the project area

varies from 9,500 feet at the lowest point on Pine Creek to 11,048 feet on the eastern edge near South Point. At lower elevations the vegetation is a mosaic of sheep fescue (Festuca ovina) and silver sage (Artemisia cana) upland steppe. As elevations rise from meadows onto ridges and benches the vegetation typifies a spruce-fir dominated forest interspersed and intermixed with aspen clones (Table 1).

Table 1. Cover type and acres within the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project area.

Cover Type Acres Percent of Project Area (%) Aspen 886 6%

Spruce-Fir 8,418 61%

Spruce-Fir/Sedge 86 1%

Sagebrush/Grassland Complex 3,585 26%

Rock / Spruce-Fir 772 6%

Water 120 1%

Total 13,867 100%

Proposed Action

A summary of the proposed actions is presented below. The actions proposed by the Forest Service (Maps 4 and 5 of EA) to meet the purpose and need total 9,935 acres and 1.25 linear miles of access road management. The proposed action is split into three major categories: silvicultural management, fuels management, and access management. Each category contains specific actions to satisfy the proposed action. For a detailed description of the actions noted below see the Environmental Assessment. Alternative 1 - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management in the project area. No vegetation treatments including timber harvest, thinning and prescribed fire would be implemented to accomplish project objectives. Conifer would continue to encroach into aspen stands. Aspen presence would continue to decline. There would be no actions taken to improve wildlife habitat, reduce insect hazards, or modify fire behavior. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project or the intent of the Forest Plan but does comply with the National Environmental Policy Act as a basis for comparison with other action alternatives. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Silvicultural Management

Action 1 – Commercial Thinning (452 acres) Action 1 is an intermediate stand treatment which will reduce current stand densities to 70 square feet of basal area (BA) or between 25 and 35 percent of maximum stand density index (SDI). Species preference will favor Engelmann spruce over sub-alpine fir to improve current and future species composition of the overstory. Aspen is minimally represented in these stands and is not targeted for removal. The commercial thinning prescription will reduce stand densities to improve heath and vigor of residual trees, favor spruce over fir and contribute to the landscape scale VSS target. Activity fuels and natural fuels in excess of CWD requirements will be piled and burned through an approved burn plan. This action would satisfy need I, II and III. Action 2 – Group Selection (4,081 acres) The group selection harvest method is an uneven-aged regeneration system intended to maintain or promote an uneven-aged stand structure. This treatment will be applied only within the spruce-fir cover types. Application of the group selection method includes two components. The group selection component will include utilizing patch clearcuts of up to 1 acre in size to regenerate either aspen or spruce and create a VSS Class I component. The patch clearcuts will not exceed 1,230 acres in total. The remaining portion of the treated stands is referred to as the matrix (the forested area between patch clearcuts) and will approximate 2,851 acres. The matrix portion not within a northern goshawk PFA will receive a commercial thinning treatment implemented as a low thin to a BA target of 75 square feet or 25 to 35 percent of maximum SDI. The matrix portion within a northern goshawk PFA will receive a commercial thinning treatment implemented as a low thin to a BA target of 90 square feet or 35 to 50 percent of maximum SDI. The commercial thinning component will remove intermediate and suppressed trees, remove excess fir stocking, improve health and vigor of the residual trees and promote natural regeneration of spruce and aspen. This action would satisfy need I, II and III. Activity fuels and natural fuels in excess of CWD requirements will be piled and burned or broadcast burned through an approved burn plan. Action 3 – Individual Tree Selection (4,188 acres) Action 3 is an individual tree selection method which is an uneven-aged regeneration harvest system. Application of this method will result in a thinning across all diameter classes within each stand where appropriate to trend stands towards desired condition. The resulting target stand will contain multiple age classes. This treatment will be applied only within the spruce-fir cover types. For stands outside of a northern goshawk PFA the target stand density will be 75 square feet of BA and 25 to 35 percent of maximum SDI. For stands within a northern goshawk PFA the target stand density will be 90 square feet of BA and 35 to 55 percent of maximum SDI. This treatment will reduce stand densities, improve stand structure and species composition, improve the health and vigor of residual trees and promote the natural regeneration of spruce and aspen. Activity fuels and natural fuels in excess of CWD requirements will be piled and burned through an approved burn plan. This action would satisfy need I, II and III. Action 4 – Coppice Clearcut (397 acres) The coppice clearcut method is an even-aged harvest regeneration system. This treatment will only be applied in seral aspen stands where aspen represents at least 70 percent of the overstory composition. Each patch clearcut will not exceed 20 acres in size. Declining, over mature and decadent aspen stands will be prioritized to receive a patch clearcut treatment. Patch clearcuts will be applied as either a complete clearcut in which all trees are felled or as a staged clearcut in which only trees greater than 9 inched DBH are felled depending on the amount and quality of advanced aspen regeneration present.

This treatment will create VSS Class I within the aspen cover type, promote seral species on the landscape and promote a heterogeneous canopy structure. Broadcast burning may be used in aspen patch cuts to promote natural regeneration. This action would satisfy need I, II and III. Action 5 – Shelterwood (161 acres) Action 5 is a shelterwood method which is an even-aged regeneration harvest system. This treatment will be applied only within the spruce-fir cover types in which understory development is not present. Application of the shelterwood method involves three steps. Step one is referred to as an establishment cut in which stands are thinned from below to a specified density generally below 35 percent of maximum SDI. The residual stand consists of dominant and codominant trees representing the species which is to be regenerated. Step two is an establishment cut in which the stand density is further reduced to 30 to 50 square feet of BA and includes only the best crop trees. This step is generally used only when there is a need to create wind firmness in the residual overstory and to promote crown development. This stage of the shelterwood method resembles a seed tree method. Step three is the removal cut in which the remaining overstory is removed or most of overstory is removed except legacy trees. Following the establishment cut natural regeneration is established and continues to develop through the removal cut. The resulting stand is an even-aged or two-storied stand with a legacy tree component. Application of the shelterwood method within the Jacob’s Valley project area will consist of implementing an establishment cut to select a spruce overstory consisting of dominant and codominant trees. The target stand density will be 70 square feet of BA and between 25 and 35 percent of maximum SDI. This shelterwood method will create a VSS Class I cohort of spruce, improve the health and vigor of the residual trees, promote a heterogeneous canopy and contribute to the recruitment of legacy trees. Activity fuels and natural fuels in excess of CWD requirements will be piled and burned through an approved burn plan. This action would satisfy need I, II and III. Action 6 - Pre-commercial Thinning/Hand Piling (656 acres) Action 6 is an intermediate stand treatment intended to control understory stand density and species composition. This treatment will be applied only within the spruce-fir cover types and target tress less than 5 inches DBH. Aspen will not be thinned as part of the pre-commercial thinning treatment. Pre- commercial thinning treatments will be applied within spruce-fir stands in which the fir component exceeds 100 trees per acre. In such stands the target understory stocking level will be 400 trees per acres consisting of spruce. Within stands where the current spruce stocking is below 400 trees per acre, aspen will substitute above sub-alpine fir to achieve the stocking target. Within stands where the number of thinned trees exceeds 100 trees per acres; all thinned trees will be hand piled within natural forest openings and subsequently burned to reduce fuel loading. The pre-commercial thinning treatment will promote resiliency of forested stands, improve species composition, and reduce fuel loading. Activity fuels and natural fuels in excess of CWD requirements will be piled and burned through an approved burn plan. This action would satisfy need I, II and III. Action 7 – Sanitation and Salvage Harvest (201 acres) A sanitation and salvage harvest is proposed to remove imminent mortality and excess dead trees to reduce the potential of deleterious insects and the spread of root and stem pathogens. This treatment will be applied only within the spruce-fir cover types and in conjunction with other commercial treatments such as group selection and individual tree selection. Sanitation and salvage harvest will remove only merchantable trees within areas were the target number of snags per acre can be retained.

Activity fuels and natural fuels in excess of CWD requirements will be piled and burned through an approved burn plan. This satisfies need I and II. Action 8 – Tree Planting (510 acres) Artificial regeneration of spruce is planned for up to 510 acres of group selection and individual tree selection harvest units where the target stocking level is below 400 trees per acre. Seedling stock will consist of either 8 cubic inch containerized seedling or 2-0 bare root seedlings. Planting spruce seedlings will create a VSS Class I, improve age class and genetic diversity, and promote the sustainability of spruce on the landscape. This satisfies need I and III. Fuels Management Action 9 – Grapple Piling / Pile Burning (9,272 acres) Action 9 is grapple piling and subsequent pile burning of activity slash generated from coppice clearcutting and commercial harvest treatments. Grapple piling will be required to minimize the impact of slash on excessive fuel loading and residual vegetation. It is desirable to leave the duff and litter layer intact within the spruce-fir cover types. Grapple piling of activity generated slash as well as natural fuel loadings will leave the required amount of CWD to meet resource objectives. Grapple piles will not exceed 12 feet in height and 20 feet in diameter and will be located within natural forest openings at least 30 feet from residual trees. As burning conditions allow plies will be burned and burned areas monitored for both natural regeneration and invasive weed species. The grapple piling and pile burning treatment will reduce natural and activity fuel loading and provide site preparation for seral species establishment. This satisfies need II. Action 10- Prescribed Burning (565 acres) The prescribed burning treatments consist of both broadcast and pile burning. Broadcast burning and pile burning will be utilized within the aspen, while only pile burning will occur in spruce-fir cover types. Coppice clearcut units will receive both pile and broadcast burning to reduce activity fuels, reduce fir composition and promote aspen regeneration. The burning prescription will not remove more than 40 percent of the duff layer. Pile burning will be used in conjunction with mechanical treatments to create a defensible space perimeter around the Jubilee Guard Station. This satisfies need II. Access Management Action 11 - Reroute Trail #34024 (0.18 linear miles) Action 11 reroutes a portion of the Jubilee Trail #34024 which provides access to the historical Jubilee Guard Station. A portion of the current trail route is located on a steep grade which has become rutted and washed out. The reroute will be located on a better grade and reduce the potential for surface erosion. The existing trail segment will be decommissioned. This treatment will reduce soil erosion and protect soil resources as well as maintain recreational opportunities. This action satisfies need IV and V. Action 12 – Relocate a Portion of FR 31404A (0.52 linear miles) Action 12 relocates a portion of FR 31404A. The existing segment is located within the low spot of the meadow and is routing water down the road and into a pond. Rerouting this segment will reduce impacts to the meadow, and reduce soil erosion and sediment into the pond. This action will result in a modest increase in the motorized travel plan road system. This action satisfies need IV.

Action 13 – Surface Recreational Road Access (0.4 linear miles) and Decommission a Portion of FR 30620 (0.13 linear miles) Action 13 modifies the 2009 MTP Decision by adding 0.27 miles of Level II road to the forest transportation system and removing 0.13 miles of FR 30620. This action arises from the need to provide improved access to recreational sites. Current access options have resulted in excessive resource damage to meadows. The improved road segments will be located to reduce impacts to meadows, reduce soil erosion and compaction, and contribute to a safe and efficient road system. This satisfies need IV and V.

Action 14 – Mineral Material Borrow Sites Up to thirteen mineral material sites may need to be developed for road surfacing materials with 36 CFR 2850.2 direction which outlines the Forest Service’s objective “to meet the demand for mineral materials consistent with the management of other surface resources”. These sites are expected to be small in size (less than 1 acre) and will be reclaimed when material is no longer needed. Road surfacing materials would be used primarily on Forest Service roads to provide adequate drainage to minimize erosion from roads to nearby streams and meadows, protect watershed resources and to create safe driving conditions. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Dixie Land and Resource Management Plan, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan. General direction in the plan (G00) is to “Administer areas with producing sites and known reserves with consideration of ongoing and potential mineral activities”.

FOREST PLAN MANAGEMENT AREAS The Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 1986 as amended) defines specific goals and objectives by management area. The management areas (MA) within the Jacob’s Valley area include: MA 2A (Semi- primitive Recreation), MA 2B (Roaded Natural Recreation), MA 6 (Livestock Grazing), MA 7 (Wood Production and Utilization) and MA 9A (Riparian Management) (Table 2). Table 2. Management area and acres within the Jacob’s Valley VMP area.

Percent of

Management Sum of Project Management Area Emphasis Area Code Acres Area (%)

Semi-Primitive Recreation Opportunities 2A 710 5%

Rural and Roaded Recreation Opportunities 2B 1,930 14%

Livestock Grazing 6A 4,587 33%

Timber Management 7A 6,284 45%

Riparian Management 9A 356 3%

Grand Total 13,867 100%

Duration and Timing The timing and duration of the Proposed Action could begin as early as fall 2018 once a decision has been signed. Implementation of treatments would likely occur over a course of 15 years.

Climate Change Effects

Climate change can have direct effects on wildlife lifecycles and can indirectly affect factors such as food availability, quality and quantity (Chambers, Devoe, & Evenden, eds. 2008). Some animals have very specific climatic adaptations, such as requirements for snow, sea ice, or temperatures within a narrow range for hibernation. Some have distributions that are dependent on climate. The effects of climate changes on mammals can sometimes be ascertained directly through the study of their biology and physiology. For most mammals, however, climate broadly defines their ecological niche (McKelvey, Perry, & Mills 2013).

Managing lands in the face of climate change requires an acknowledgement of both the range of different effects and the high levels of uncertainty involved in local projections. Overall, a connected landscape allows animals to seek appropriate habitats and prevents the negative consequences faced by small isolated populations. Diverse landscapes increase overall resilience and provide opportunities for adaptation. Habitat improvement helps maintain a large, healthy population, which may improve its likelihood of persistence (McKelvey, Perry, & Mills 2013). Discussions regarding climate change effects to vegetation are summarized from the report Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector and is incorporated into this report by reference (Vose, Peterson and Patel-Weynand 2012).

Human activities such as fuel burning, land-use change, and agriculture have led to increases in ambient greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. GHGs contribute to the “greenhouse effect” and are causing the surface temperature of the Earth to increase with a number of associated large scale changes (NASA 2018). Carbon sequestration by forests is one way to mitigate GHG emissions by offsetting losses through removal and storage of carbon. Carbon dioxide uptake by forests in the conterminous United States offset approximately 16 percent of our national total carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 (US EPA 2013). Recent estimates of net annual storage indicate forests are an important carbon sink, removing more carbon from the atmosphere than they are emitting (Pan et al. 2011). Carbon stored in U.S. forests is projected to peak between 2020 and 2040 and then decline through 2060. This decline will be primarily due to removal of trees as private forest lands are converted to urban and other developed land uses (USDA 2012). Western forest ecosystems may also emit greater amounts of carbon if wildfire and insect disturbance increase as expected (Vose et al. 2012).

Cumulative Effects Area

The cumulative effects analysis area (CEA) selected for this analysis, is based on known or suspected habitat used by identified wildlife species of concern during all or a large portion of their life cycle that is continuous with and surrounds the proposed project area. This determination is based on information, experience, and recommendations from the district biologist. The CEA represents a landscape surrounding the project area where past, present, and future management actions by humans have and/or will occur. 11

The wildlife species discussed in this document use all or parts of this area. Delineation of the CEA for this project is based on estimated species use of the landscape. The selected CEA for species analysis includes the Upper Pine Creek and Upper Sand Creek 6th HUC watersheds and encompasses approximately 59,959 acres (Figure 2).

The CEA represents a landscape surrounding the project area where past, present, and future actions by humans have and will occur. Human activities have included: fire, timber management, fence construction, livestock grazing, road and trail construction, personal fuel wood gathering, fishing, camping, hunting and motorized vehicle use. Ongoing actions, or actions expected to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future include livestock grazing, recreation improvement projects (such as trails maintenance), access management (road maintenance), timber/silviculture management and recreation.

Within the CEA historical timber harvests likely contributed to the characteristic of the landscape over time (see Jacobs Valley silviculture report). Between 2006 and 2007 approximately 604 acres of pre- commercial forest thinning occurred outside the project boundary within the CEA. The recently completed Purple Timber Sale on the former Teasdale Ranger District within the CEA included an approximate 620 acres. No other timber management actions are currently proposed within the CEA. In addition to the pre-commercial thinning, Approximately 357 acres of natural ignition wildfire and 285 acres wildland fire use management have occurred within the CEA between 2008 and 2016.

Livestock allotments within the project area include two cattle allotments. In total, these allotments are permitted to have up to 1,401 cattle (cow/calf pairs) annually. Total general season of use ranges from June 16 – October 15, with season and grazing regime varying from allotment to allotment (District Range records, J Warner).

Wildlife and Plant Resources

Wildlife species selected for this analysis include: (a) species that are listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2016), (b) Sensitive Species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA 2016), (c) Management Indicator Species as designated by the Dixie National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (USDA 1986), and (d) Other Species of Concern (Table 3). Plant Species selected for this analysis include: (a) species that are listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2016), and (b) Sensitive Species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA 2016) (Table 4).

Figure 2. Cumulative effects area for the analysis of impacts to wildlife species for the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project.

The white paper “Life History and Analysis of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Sensitive and Management Indicator Species of the Dixie National Forest” (Rodriguez 2012) is a comprehensive description of life histories and habitat requirements for species that occur or have habitat on the Dixie National Forest. It also provides estimates on population trends for management indicator species and is a summary of peer reviewed literature containing monitoring, surveying and modeling techniques that are recognized as having statistically valid and regionally acceptable methods. This Forest Service document is incorporated by reference and is considered to include some of the best available science on wildlife species of concern that may occur in the project area. “Sensitive Plants of the Dixie National Forest” (Madsen 2011) is an additional Forest Service document defining sensitive plant site-specific and life history information for the Dixie National Forest. This Forest Service document is also incorporated by reference and is considered to include some of the best available science on sensitive plant species of concern that may occur in the project area.

Principal habitats and species occurrence were used to identify species for analysis for this project. The process used to identify migratory birds for consideration within the proposed project area follows the intent of the National MOU (USDA 2016) and the Utah Strategy (USDA 2007). The process includes developing a list of migratory birds that are known to occur on the Forest. From the Forest’s migratory bird list, those migratory species that are also listed because of their priority ranking in Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy (UPIF), Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and/or in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), are brought forward for consideration. Of those

migratory species brought forward from the combined lists with priority ranking, those to be evaluated in this analysis include species with potential breeding habitat within the proposed project area and are representative of species related to project area habitats.

Any Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, or MIS species that does not have suitable habitat or is not known to occur in the proposed project area will receive a programmatic “No Effect” determination and will not be analyzed further. For more information on threatened, endangered, proposed, sensitive, and MIS life histories and habitat accounts described in this document, please refer to Life History and Analysis of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species of the Dixie National Forest, Version 6.0 (Rodriguez 2012).

Current Management Direction

Current policy as stated in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.1) includes the following: Sensitive species of native plant and animal species must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing. The management direction specified by the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) is to manage classified species habitat to maintain or enhance their status through direct habitat improvement and agency cooperation and to manage and provide habitat for recovery of endangered and threatened species (USDA 1986, as amended).

Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670.3) includes; 1) Review actions carried out by the Forest Service to determine their potential effect on threatened, endangered and proposed species. 2) Avoid actions that adversely affect listed species whenever possible. 3) Initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service when the Forest Service determines that a proposed activity may affect threatened, endangered or proposed species or designated critical habitat. 4) Identify measures to prevent adverse modification or designated critical habitat or other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened and proposed species.

Effects of the No Action Alternative

Table 3. Status and habitat suitability of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, Management Indicator Species, and other wildlife Species of Concern on the Dixie National Forest for the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project.

Status Threatened, Endangered, Species Species Common Candidate Habitat Suitability or Known Analyzed Name USFS Sensitive Occurrences in the Proposed Further Scientific name Management Indicator (MIS) Project area (Yes or MBTA Species of Conservation No) Concern High elevation of adjacent cliffs do not provide suitable nesting habitat. California condor Food source in the form of carrion Federally Endangered, experimental Gymnogyps would be limited. Interior flat No population non-essential californianus meadows at this elevation are unsuitable for takeoff and attainment of soaring flight. Species occurs only in the Virgin Virgin River Chub River system of southwestern Utah, Federally Endangered No Gila seminuda southern Nevada, and northwestern Arizona.

Species occurs only in the Virgin Woundfin River system of southwestern Utah, Plagopterus Federally Endangered southern Nevada, and northwestern No argentissimus Arizona.

Yellow-billed The project does not contain low Cuckoo elevation cottonwood riparian areas Federally Threatened No Coccyzus with dense understories as required americanus by the species. Suitable habitat in the project area but Recovery Plan does not ID the Utah Prairie Dog Awapa Unit as a transplant unit. No Cynomys Federally Threatened No colonies identified in the project parvidens area based on communications with UDWR. Potential juvenile dispersal habitat Mexican Spotted from mid-Sept to early October and Owl transient habitat, although unlikely Federally Threatened Yes Strix occidentalis due to elevation and limited food lucida supply at higher elevation of project area. The project area occurs outside any Greater Sage- USFS R4 known sage-grouse lek, nesting, No grouse Sensitive brood rearing and winter use areas. 15

Potential suitable habitat in the Pygmy Rabbit USFS R4 form of tall, dense clumps of Brachylagus No Sensitive sagebrush is not available in the idahoensis project area. No suitable day roosting habitat in Townsend’s Big- or around the project area that eared Bat USFS R4 would provide foraging Corynorhinus No Sensitive opportunities. Extensive surveys in townsendii Velvet area on top of the plateau pallescens have not captured the species. Spotted Bat USFS R4 Potential foraging habitat along Euderma Yes Sensitive riparian corridors exists. maculatum Peregrine Falcon USFS R4 Falco peregrinus Potential foraging habitat exists. Yes Sensitive anatum There are no known nesting bald eagles in the project area. Adequate Bald Eagle USFS R4 foraging opportunities during the Haliaeetus No Sensitive months the species may potentially leucocephalus occur (Nov - March) is not available in project area. Species has been detected Flammulated Owl USFS R4 throughout the Forest during survey Yes Otus flammeolus Sensitive efforts. Desert Bighorn Sheep USFS R4 Potential suitable habitat does not No Ovis Canadensis Sensitive exist in project area. nelsoni

Status Threatened, Endangered, Species Species Common Candidate Habitat Suitability or Known Analyzed Name USFS Sensitive Occurrences in the Proposed Further Scientific name Management Indicator (MIS) Project area (Yes or MBTA Species of Conservation No) Concern Three-toed Potentially suitable nesting and Woodpecker USFS R4 foraging habitat is available. Yes Picoides Sensitive Expected use of the project area is tridactylus low. Southern USFS R4 Leatherside Chub Species does not occur at project Sensitive No Lepidomeda elevation or within project area. MIS aliciae Bonneville Species does not occur in USFS R4 Cutthroat Trout watershed. Sensitive No Oncorhynchus MIS clarki utah Colorado Species and habitat occurs within USFS R4 Cutthroat Trout project area. See aquatics report. Sensitive Yes Oncorhynchus MIS clarki pleuriticus Suitable habit occurs within project Boreal Toad USFS R4 area. No known species occurrence Yes Bufo boreas Sensitive within project boundary. See aquatics report.

Suitable nesting, roosting and Northern Flicker MIS foraging habitat available within Yes Colaptes auratus project area. Species range includes the Virgin River system, including the North Virgin Spinedace Fork and East Fork of the Virgin Lepidomeda MIS River in Zion National Park, the No mollispinis Santa Clara River, Beaver Dam mollispinis Creek, and Ash Creek. Not in project area

Species and habitat occurs within Nonnative Trout MIS Yes project area. See aquatics report. Mule Deer Odocoileus MIS Habitat available in project area. Yes hemionus

Wild Turkey Suitable nesting, brood rearing and Meleagrus MIS foraging habitat available within Yes gallopavo project area. merriami

Cordilleran Suitable nesting, brood rearing and Flycatcher MBTA foraging habitat available within Yes Empidonax Species of Conservation Concern project area. occidentalis

Table 4. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plant species found of the Dixie National Forest considered for project analysis with rationale for species not further considered.

Species Habitat Suitability or Known Occurrences in the Proposed Project Further Common name Analysis? Scientific name (Yes or No)

Jones Cycladenia Threatened. Species not present on Forest, no available habitat. No Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii

Siler Pincushion Threatened. Inhabitant of the Great Basin desert shrub community in UT No Cactus mostly on BLM managed lands from 2,800 to 5,400 feet Pediocactus sileri elevation. Found on gypsiferous clay and sandy soils derived from the Moenkopi Formation. Species not on Forest, habitat does not exist in project area.

Ute Ladies'- Threatened. Species occurs along riparian edges and moist to wet No Tresses meadows along perennial streams, lakes, and springs of the upper Spiranthes Colorado River Basin in north-central and western UT where the diluvialis microhabitat is temporarily inundated in the spring. Some wetland habitat exists within project boundary, no treatments are proposed in riparian areas and species has not been observed on Forest.

Species Habitat Suitability or Known Occurrences in the Proposed Project Further Common name Analysis? Scientific name (Yes or No)

Navajo Sedge Threatened. Species does not occur. No

Carex specuicola

Angell’s Sensitive. Endemic in Wayne County on the Aquarius Plateau in rocky No Cinquefoil subalpine meadows at about 11,000 feet elevation. Found only on the Potentilla Teasdale Ranger section of the Freemont District. Habitat or populations angelliae do not exist.

Aquarius Sensitive. Endemic to the Aquarius Plateau, Garfield and Wayne Counties Yes Paintbrush in sagebrush and grass meadow communities adjacent to aspen- Castilleja subalpine fir on clay-loam soils at about 9,800 to 11,000 feet elevation. aquariensis

Arizona Willow Sensitive. Found in riparian corridors above 8,500 feet elevation in No Salix arizonica unshaded or partially shaded wet meadows and streamsides. No populations exist within the project area.

Bicknell Sensitive. Endemic to Wayne County restricted to the Navajo Sandstone No Thelesperma and Carmel limestone on the peculiar varicolored phase in pinyon- Thelesperma juniper, mountain brush and bristlecone pine communities at 7,380 to subnuda var. 9,000 feet elevation. Found only on the Teasdale section of the alpina Freemont Ranger District. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Cedar Breaks Sensitive. Endemic to Cedar Breaks NM, Bryce Canyon NP, Markagunt No Biscuitroot Plateau, Paunsaugunt Plateau, and the Escalante Mountains. Cymopterus minimus

Claron Sensitive. Endemic to the Box Death Hollow Wilderness, Sand Creek, Hells No Pepperplant Backbone area, and Boulder Town. Not on district. Lepedium montanum var. Neeseae

Creeping Draba Sensitive. Endemic to the Tushar Mountains in alpine tundra and spruce- No Draba sobolifera fir communities in igneous gravels and talus between 7,500 to 12,000 feet elevation. Habitat or populations do not exist. Not likely to occur on the Dixie National Forest.

Dana Milkvetch Sensitive. This species is endemic to South central Utah in Garfield No Astragalus County in ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush communities henrimontanensis on gravelly loam soil, 7,000 to 9,200 feet elevation. Habitat or populations do not exist. 19

Species Habitat Suitability or Known Occurrences in the Proposed Project Further Common name Analysis? Scientific name (Yes or No)

Guard Milkvetch Sensitive. This plant is endemic to the east side of the Pine Valley No Astragalus zionis Mountains in pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, and oak-Garrya var. vigulus communities between 5,000-8,200 feet. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Jones Sensitive. Found in Garfield, Kane, and Washington Counties on No Goldenaster ponderosa pine, manzanita, pinyon-pine, and Douglas fir communities on Heterotheca sandstone or in sand between 4,000 to 9,450 feet elevation. Habitat or jonesii populations do not exist.

Last Chance Sensitive. Found within pinyon-juniper and saltbush communities, No Townsendia common on clay exposures on the Mancos Shale, at 6,000 to 8,000 feet, Townsendia within Emery and Sevier counties. Found only on the Teasdale section of aprica the Freemenot Ranger District. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Little Penstemon Sensitive. Endemic in Garfield, Piute, Sevier, and maybe Wayne Counties Yes Penstemon in sagebrush-grass and spruce communities between 8,200 to 10,170 parvus feet elevation.

Maguire Sensitive. Found on Claron Formations of the Markagunt Plateau, No Campion Paunsaugunt Plateau, and Escalante Mountains. Silene petersonii

Navajo Lake Sensitive. Found in plant communities with scattered bristlecone pine on No Milkvetch the Wasatch Limestone Formation between 8,800 to 10,500 feet Astragalus elevation. Specimens have not been located within the project limnocharis var. boundary. This species is dependent on the Claron Limestone community limnocharis and open escarpments. Project activities are outside of this species suitable habitat range and will not be impacted.

Neese’s Sensitive. Endemic to south-central Utah in Garfield County on dry, sandy No Peppergrass sites with little cover in ponderosa pine, manzanita, and spruce-fir Lepidium communities. Typically found on the pink and white limestone members montanum var. of the Wasatch Formation and on the Navajo Sandstone Formations at neeseae elevations of 7,300-9,000 feet. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Paradox Sensitive. Species associated with high elevation wet meadows occurring Yes Moonwort on Aquarius Plateau of Escalante Ranger District. Habitat exists in project Botrychium area. paradoxum

Species Habitat Suitability or Known Occurrences in the Proposed Project Further Common name Analysis? Scientific name (Yes or No)

Paria Breadroot Sensitive. Endemic to Garfield, Washington, and Kane Counties at Bryce No Pediomelum Canyon NP and near Mt. Carmel westward along the Grand Staircase pariense escarpment toward the east entrance of Zion National Park.

Pine Valley Sensitive. Endemic to the Pine Valley Mountains within aspen, fir/mixed No Goldenweed conifer, and mountain brush communities between 7,500-9,500 feet. Haplopappus Habitat or populations do not exist within the project area. crispus

Pinnate Spring- Sensitive. Found in sandy places within pinyon-juniper, mountain brush, No Parsley ponderosa pine-manzanita, conifer-oak, and Douglas fir communities Cymopterus between 5,500 to 8,700 feet in Wayne county. Found only on Teasdale beckii Ranger District. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Pinyon Sensitive. Endemic to the Pine Valley Mountains in Iron County in pinyon- No Penstemon juniper communities on Wasatch Claron Limestone. Species not in Penstemon project area. pinorum

Podunk Sensitive. Endemic on the Sevier-Markagunt and Paunsaugunt Plateaus No Groundsel and Escalante Mountains in Iron, Kane and Garfield Counties in Senecio bristlecone pine, limber pine, or scattered pine on steep talus slopes of malmstenii the Tertiary Claron and Canaan Peak Formations at about 8,300 to 10,400 feet elevation. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Rabbit Valley Sensitive. Endemic to Wayne County on pinyon-juniper communities on No Gilia the Carmel and Navajo formations between 5,200-8,515 feet elevation. Gilia caespitosa Found only on the Teasdale section of the Freemont Ranger District. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Red Canyon Sensitive. Endemic to Bryce Canyon NP, the Paunsaugunt Plateau, and No Beardtongue the Escalante Mountains. Habitat or populations do not exist. Penstemon bracteatus

Reveal Sensitive. Potentially suitable habitat for reveal paintbrush is the No Paintbrush Paunsaugunt Plateau. Habitat or populations do not exist. Castilleja parvula var. revealii

Rock Tansy Sensitive. Disjunctive populations in Garfield County on bristlecone pine, No Sphaeromeria limber pine, or scattered ponderosa pine on tertiary Claron formation capitata

Species Habitat Suitability or Known Occurrences in the Proposed Project Further Common name Analysis? Scientific name (Yes or No) hills and ridges at about 7,500 to 8,000 feet elevation. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Table Cliff Sensitive. Endemic to South-central Utah in Garfield County on steep, No Milkvetch unstable limestone formations on the pink member of the Wasatch Astragalus Limestone formation, 9,200 to 10,170 feet elevation. Habitat or limnocharis var. populations do not exist. tabulaeus

Tushar Sensitive. Lack of alpine areas on igneous gravels and outcrops and No Paintbrush elevation not suitable (between 10,000 to 12,100 feet). Habitat or Castilleja parvula populations do not exist. Not likely to occur on the Dixie National Forest. var. Parvula

Widtsoe Sensitive. Endemic to central Garfield County on bristlecone pine, No Buckwheat ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and Rocky Mountain juniper communities on Eriogonum the Pink Limestone member of the Wasatch Formation between 7,400- aretiodes 8,710 feet elevation. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Yellow-White Sensitive. Endemic to Bryce Canyon NP, the Paunsaugunt Plateau, and No Catseye the Escalante Mountains on open escarpments. Cryptantha ochroleuca

Zion Jamesia Sensitive. Found in pinyon-juniper, oak, and ponderosa pine communities No Jamesia along cliffsides at 4,200-6,000 feet in Kane and Washington Counties. No americana var. known occurrences on the Dixie NF. However, most suitable habitat zionis occurs on the Kolob Terrace on the Cedar City RD. Habitat or populations do not exist.

Effects of the Proposed Action Alternative The Dixie National Forest proposes to implement various vegetation treatments with a purpose to (1) Trend vegetation toward desired forest structure, composition, disturbance regime, and vegetation patterns, and promote mature and old growth forest characteristics in compliance with the Forest Plan and Northern goshawk amendment; (2) Lower the potential of landscape-scale stand replacing wildfire by managing natural and activity fuel loading, (3) Develop vegetation patterns which promote seral species and heterogeneous forest canopies to maintain and enhance the visual aesthetics of the landscape, (4) Reroute, repair, and decommission portions of the trail and road systems to protect soil and water resources, and (5) Maintain recreational opportunities within the Jacob’s Valley project area.

For this analysis, short term is defined as effects occurring during implementation and up to five years afterwards. Long-term effects are defined as occurring five years and more after implementation of treatments is complete. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

Mexican spotted owl

The Mexican spotted owl was listed as threatened in 1993 (58 FR 14248 14271) and is managed under the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012). Approximately 35,797 acres of critical habitat were designated on the Escalante and Teasdale Ranger Districts of the Dixie National Forest in August 2004 (69 FR 53181 53298). No critical habitat has been designated in the Jacob’s Valley project area; however, potential foraging and dispersal habitat is found within the project boundary. No nesting Mexican spotted owls have been located anywhere on the Dixie National Forest (Rodriguez 2012).

In southern Utah, Mexican spotted owls nest primarily on cliff ledges in steep-walled sandstone canyons (USFWS 2012, Willey 1992, Willey and van Riper 2007). Mexican spotted owls are also associated with mature mixed conifer forests that are typically uneven-aged, multistoried, and have high canopy closure (USFWS 2012, Ganey et al. 1999). In southern Utah, no nesting owls have been located in hundreds of thousands of hectares surveyed in mixed conifer or other forest types in areas with less than 40% slope (USFWS 2012). Shaded canyons and closed-canopy forests provide cool microclimates that may be sought out by Mexican spotted owls (USFWS 2012, Ganey 2004).

Since 1991, the Forest Service has collected site-specific data on the three National Forests in southern Utah that may have nesting spotted owls. These survey efforts covered 816,400 acres of habitat statewide, and over 492,554 acres on the Dixie National Forest. Despite extensive survey efforts across southwestern Utah (Dixie and Fishlake National Forests), no nesting Mexican spotted owls have been located on Forest System lands (Rodriguez 2012). Contracted survey efforts were initiated in 1990 and continued through 1995. During contracted survey efforts, one response was detected in the vicinity of Jacob’s Reservoir on June 22, 1990. Subsequent attempts to locate this owl were unsuccessful. As this area is not typical MSO habitat, the initial response is believed to represent a transient owl.

Contracted survey efforts have been replaced with Forest level surveys in suitable habitat as needed to determine owl presence in proposed project areas. From 2004 through 2011, approximately 25,682 acres of suitable habitat were surveyed on the Teasdale, Escalante, and Powell Ranger Districts with no detections. Many of these acres were repeated surveys over multiple years to follow protocol.

The large-scale contracted survey efforts provided important data to help the Forest determine that Mexican spotted owls in southwestern Utah occur in steep-walled canyon complexes. These data helped scientists fine-tune the search for Mexican spotted owls in southwestern Utah. As a result of these findings, the large-scale survey efforts in rolling forested landscapes were halted, and efforts focused on steep-walled canyon areas where owls had been located.

The 1997 and the updated 2000 Willey-Spotskey Mexican spotted owl habitat models are used for initial evaluation of potential nesting and roosting habitat in or around proposed projects in accordance with USFWS guidelines (2002). Modeled habitat is field-verified for suitability and to determine if-and-where

calling surveys would be required. In general, two years of calling surveys are required if suitable habitat is located within 0.5 mile of proposed management activities.

Dixie National Forest biologists identified additional potential MSO habitat in mixed conifer cover types on slopes greater than 40 percent in order to include areas that might have been left out of the Willey/Spotskey models due to the resolution of data that these models were based upon. Potentially suitable habitat identified from all modeling efforts near the project area were visited and ground- verified in 2004 to determine if suitable MSO habitat existed within the modeled greater than 40 percent mixed conifer slopes and steep-walled canyons. No suitable MSO nesting or roosting habitat was located in or near treatment areas. Since no suitable nesting or roosting habitat was located, surveys were not required. The areas within and surrounding the proposed project actions could provide wintering or dispersal habitat for the spotted owl.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Mexican spotted owl habitat assessment surveys were conducted across the district in 2004 following the Willey and Spotskey model (2000). Proposed project actions include commercial thinning, group selection, individual tree selection, coppice clearcut, shelterwood harvest, hand piling, sanitation and salvage harvest, tree planting, grapple piling, pile burning, and prescribed fire. Proposed management activities in general should promote conditions to a more natural fire regime schedule while allowing for a diversity of vegetative age class and habitat conditions beneficial to wildlife including the Mexican spotted owl and its associated prey species. Project design features have been established to guide management actions to follow prescriptions established by the Northern goshawk amendment which will allow for the retention of desired levels of down woody debris and snags. Down woody debris and snag levels managed in accordance with the goshawk amendment will protect and provide prey habitat.

Short-term (< 5 years) impacts to dispersing Mexican spotted owls may occur during implementation of the proposed project if management occurs during fall and winter months. Management actions would occur during the day and should not directly affect this nocturnal species. Burning piles and other prescribed burning actions might extend into the evening hours and create a short term disturbance to the incidental use of the area by owls. This direct impact is expected to be low due to the abundance of dispersal and foraging habitat available not impacted by project activities and also due to the limited documented use of the area by MSOs.

Cumulative Effects

As few Mexican spotted owls have been identified on the Forest and no known nesting occurs, it would be difficult to quantify cumulative effects to the species. The proposed action alternative could have disturbance effects during project implementation, but once the project treatments are completed, the overall condition of the habitat should improve foraging opportunities for Mexican spotted owls and its prey species. The proposed action alternative may affect individuals, but is not likely to cause harm or mortality to the Mexican spotted owl or adversely affect habitat.

Sensitive Species

Northern goshawk

The northern goshawk is a Management Indicator Species for the Dixie National Forest in addition to being on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list (USDA 2013). Forest-wide monitoring of goshawk territories over time indicates a stable to more recently a downward population trend (USDA 2017 unpublished data). Overall, goshawk population numbers fluctuate across the Forest. There are three goshawk territories within the Jacob’s Valley project area, Jacob’s Valley, Barney Lake, and Boulder Swale. All three were first detected and active in 2010. Jacob’s Valley and Boulder Swale territories have been inactive the last seven years (2011-2017). The Barney Lake territory was active in 2017 with two fledglings.

While it is recognized many factors can cause territory abandonment, adherence to the goshawk management guidance established by the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and the Utah Northern Goshawk Project (USDA 2000) is necessary to maintain viable populations at the Forest level.

The breeding range for the northern goshawk occurs across North America, the British Isles, Scandinavia, northern Russia, the Himalaya, eastern China, and Japan (NatureServe 2018). Its global status is considered secure for reasons that it is relatively abundant and widespread (NatureServe 2018). Although there is little information on the historical distribution of goshawks in Utah, early records indicate that they were an uncommon permanent resident, and primarily found in montane conifer and aspen habitat throughout the State (Graham 1999). More information has been obtained on goshawk habitat use and trend over the past 20 years of surveys and monitoring efforts. Based on data evaluated by Graham (1999) and Reynolds (1992), goshawk populations are considered stable in Utah (Rodriguez 2012). The short-term trends for the northern goshawk are considered relatively stable, but difficult to determine (NatureServe 2018).

Nesting goshawks use a variety of habitat in Utah, but prefer mature and older forests with a dense canopy cover (Rodriguez 2006, 2012). Dense cover (>60%) may be important to provide eggs and chicks protection from weather and predators (Rodriguez 2012). Principal forest types used for nesting include ponderosa pine, mixed species and spruce (Rodriguez 2006, 2012). The principle nest tree species noted by Jorgensen (2007) on the Dixie National Forest were aspen, ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir. These species are structurally more open, and may be more appropriate for accessing nests. Stands of trees on north to east facing slopes of 1-40% grade are typically taller with denser canopies, and appear to be preferred for nesting (Jorgensen 2007). Most nest sites on the Dixie NF are in drainages or canyon bottoms, where they are protected from solar radiation and higher temperatures (Reynolds et al. 1992, Jorgensen 2007).

The goshawk foraging area comprises the largest portion (90%) of a goshawk home range and includes about 5,400 acres. These large forested areas may vary spatially in composition and structure which forces foraging goshawks to confront a mosaic of forest types and conditions in their daily movements

(Reynolds et al 1992). The wide variation in habitat used by foraging goshawks suggests that prey availability may be as important as habitat structure and composition (Reynolds et al 1992). Large trees, open understories, diverse size class distribution, snags and down logs have been identified as important to prey to sustain goshawk populations (Reynolds et al 1992). Openings and associated herbaceous and shrubby vegetation provide important food and cover for a number of goshawk prey species (Reynolds et al 1992). Forests containing small to medium openings (≤4 acres) benefit some prey species while minimizing the effects on other interior forest prey species (Reynolds et al 1992).

Goshawks prey on birds and mammals in the larger body-size classes that may include woodpeckers, robins, grouse, rabbit and squirrels (Reynolds et al 1992). Although there is some evidence of goshawks using habitat opportunistically, because of its large body size and wing span, they seldom use young, dense forests, as there is insufficient space in and below the canopy to facilitate flight and capture of prey (Reynolds et al. 1992). The lifted crowns of older forests provide sub-canopy flight space that facilitates detection and pursuit of prey species (Rodriguez 2012).

Long-term impacts can occur from degrading the habitat by removing important habitat components. In addition, fire suppression, grazing, and insect and tree disease outbreaks can result in the deterioration or loss of nesting habitat (NatureServe 2018). Great horned owls prey on both young and adult goshawks (NatureServe 2018).

Direction for managing the goshawk is provided in the amended Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) on all six National Forests in Utah, including the Dixie National Forests (USDA, 2000). The intent of the amendment is to provide consistency in management direction across the state that would help maintain and restore goshawk habitat at risk, and minimize adverse effects as a result of management activities. Forest plan direction is provided for the goshawk’s home range (6,000 acres), which includes the nest area (180 acres), post-fledgling family area (420 acres) and foraging area (5,400 acres).

Key concepts in the Forest Plan amendment include managing for habitat components important to the goshawk and their prey. Components include snags, down logs and woody debris, opening sizes, and a balanced range of tree sizes across the landscape, including mature and old growth.

Development of the Utah Forest Plan amendment (USDA 2000) was based on science in: The Conservation Strategy and Agreement for the Management of the Northern Goshawk (Rodriguez et al., 1998), Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States (Reynolds et al., 1992) and The Northern Goshawk in Utah: Habitat Assessment and Management Recommendations (Graham 1999). This science is still considered the best available today in managing goshawk home ranges on the Forest.

Existing conditions for the goshawk on the Dixie National Forest are based on 28 years of survey and nest monitoring efforts. Data collected for the northern goshawk uses standard protocol procedures outlined by Forest Service Intermountain Region 4. Since 1986, as many as 191 goshawk territories have been identified on the Forest. Based on data collected, goshawk nest activity may fluctuate from year to year. The Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986 as amended) provides standards and guidelines for managing Forest resources. A goal of the FP is to restore or maintain forested

landscapes in a properly functioning condition (PFC) (FP Pg. IV-6). Functioning forested landscapes provide habitat for the northern goshawk and its prey to support a viable population of goshawks in Utah. Forest Plan general direction is to maintain structural diversity of vegetation on management areas that are dominated by forested ecosystems.

A key concept in applying vegetation treatments within goshawk habitat (USDA 2000, Guideline D, E, and H) is Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS). Forests with goshawk habitat should be an interspersed mosaic of structural stages from young to old trees. VSS is a method used to describe the growth stages of a stand of living trees. It is based on tree size and total canopy cover. Overall, the VSS is dependent on the time it takes seedlings to become established and subsequent growth rates. Life expectancy of trees determines how long the oldest VSS can be maintained (Reynolds 1992). Six VSS classes have been used to describe regeneration, growth and the development of forest structure for the goshawk. Based on Reynolds, the desired distribution of structural stages over a landscape in mixed conifer, aspen, and ponderosa pine cover types found in the project area would be as follows: About 10 percent of the forest in a grass/forb/shrub vegetative structural stage (VSS 1); 10 percent in seedling/saplings (VSS 2); 20 percent in Young Forest (VSS 3); 20 percent in Mid-aged Forest (VSS 4); 20 percent in Mature Forest (VSS 5); and 20 percent in Old Forest (VSS 6) (Table 5). Current conditions within the project area do not align with desired conditions. Management treatments within the project area are intended to trend conditions to meet these goals. For detailed information on VSS and other vegetative conditions within the project area, see the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Report.

Table 5. Desired and current Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS) conditions for the Jacob’s Valley project area as developed from the Jacob’s Valley vegetation report.

Total VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

Grass / Project Area Forb / Young Mid-aged Mature Old Vegetation Seedling Saplings Forest Forest Forest Forest Structural Stages

0-1" 1-5" 5-12" 12-18" DBH 18-24" 24"+ DBH DBH DBH DBH DBH

Desired Condition (%) 10 10 20 20 20 20 100

Existing Condition (%) 1-3 0-7 45-74 14-40 2-13 0-1 100

Snags are an important component of goshawk habitat. The desired condition is to maintain 300 snags greater than 18 inches DBH (diameter at breast height) per 100 acres in the mixed conifer and spruce/fir types, and 200 snags greater than 8 inches DBH per 100 acres in the aspen type (USDA 2000). Spruce/fir stands constitute approximately 61% (8,418 acres) of the project area. Approximately 700 snags per 100 acres (8” - 12” DBH) exist in the spruce/fir and aspen cover types in the project area. Although the

number of 18” DBH snags is below guidelines for spruce/fir, the number of snags above 8” DBH exceeds the recommended number per 100 acres. Project design features have been incorporated to mitigate loss of existing snags densities.

Down woody debris and down logs is another important component of goshawk prey species habitat. The desired condition is to maintain 50 logs greater than 12 inches diameter and 8 feet long per 10 acres in the mixed conifer type and 50 logs greater than 6 inches diameter and 8 feet long per 10 acres in the aspen type. It is further desired to maintain 100 to 150 tons per 10 acres in the mixed conifer and spruce/fir types of coarse woody debris (material greater than 3 inches in diameter and 30 to 50 tons per 10 acres in the aspen type. Existing down woody debris across the three goshawk PFAs ranges from 14 to 19.5 tons per acre and approximately 1 down log per acre. Project design features have been incorporated to manage desired down woody debris levels.

Direct/Indirect Effects

The Dixie National Forest maintains a minimum viable population (MVP) level for Northern goshawks at 40 nesting pairs (USDA 2000). Over the last eleven years (2006-2016) there has been an average of 67 nesting pairs of Northern goshawk across the Forest. The number of nesting goshawk pairs ranged from a high of 103 in 2007 to a low of 30 in 2015. Over the last four years (2013-2016) goshawk population levels on the Forest has been in a downward trend (Figure 3) and the Forest dropped below the MVP level in 2014.

Dixie NF Goshawk Activity

120 MVP 100

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 3. Status of Northern goshawk nesting activity on the Dixie National Forest 2006-2016.

Annual fluctuations in the number of active territories can be affected by prey densities that may be driven by climatic factors such as drought, cold and wet early spring conditions, substantial wind events, fire, modified vegetation in the landscape, and predators (Rodriguez 2006). Non-use of goshawk territories may also occur due to a single prey species population decline (USFWS 2002). While it is recognized many factors can cause territory abandonment, adherence to the goshawk management

guidance established by the Forest Plan and the Northern goshawk amendment is necessary to maintain viable populations at the Forest level.

To maintain suitable habitat for goshawks and to meet and promote MVP levels for goshawks, requires maintaining desirable conditions and in some cases improving former suitable habitat to pre-fire suppression levels. The Utah Northern Goshawk Project (USDA 2000) provides guidance to the Forest Service on managing to protect the Northern goshawk and its habitats and is included here by reference. The amendment recognizes the combined effects from long term fire suppression, excessive fuel loadings, insect and disease outbreaks, drought, and other factors including climate change are contributing to degraded habitat conditions for the Northern goshawk. The amendment acknowledges the need and importance of good forestry practices in promoting suitable habitat conditions.

The amendment also sets standards and guidelines to follow in managing the forest to reach desired conditions when active goshawk territories fall within a proposed action. When management actions follow guidelines established in the amendment, adverse impacts to active goshawk nest areas, post fledging family areas (PFA), and territories are mitigated, and habitat connectivity is maintained. The intent of the goshawk amendment is not to discourage management where needed, but to guide managers in achieving desired conditions while maintaining MVP levels. Potential direct effects related to the proposed action alternative include nest/territory abandonment due to disturbance factors associated with implementation of treatments and degradation of habitat in the form of loss of snag trees, nest trees, and down woody debris levels. Potential indirect effects include loss of prey habit due to excessive removal of brush, down woody debris, and hiding cover related to fuels reduction treatments.

The Barney Lake PFA overlaps into the proposed defensible fire space around the Jubilee Guard Station. Seasonal timing restrictions (WL-1) will limit management actions in the PFA to minimize impacts to brood rearing birds. The thinning prescription proposed for the defensible fire space (down to 30-50 square feet BA) will be feathered where it meets the Barney Lake PFA to 90 square feet BA.

To provide managers tools to reach and maintain desired conditions for goshawks across treatments, project design features (PDF) have been incorporated (Table 6, WL 1-5). It is desirable to have snags represented in all size classes. Current snag numbers within stands are at or above guidelines, but below desired conditions for spruce/fir stands where an 18 inch DBH is the guideline. Current snag levels greater than 8 inch DBH are well represented. Vegetative management treatments in forested cover types should be designed to provide for a full range of seral stages (VSS 1-6), by forested cover type, that achieve a mosaic of habitat conditions and diversity. Each seral stage should contain a strong representation of early seral tree species (Guideline D).

Effects to Northern goshawk nesting, foraging and roosting habitat with the implementation of the proposed action alternative is based on adherence to the goshawk amendment, project design features, and the selection of tools in the treatment process. Selection of treatment tools that allows for the control and maintenance of down woody debris and snag abundance following the guidelines in the goshawk amendment and manipulating stand structure towards desired VSS to trend habitat conditions incrementally upward will protect and improve goshawk habitat and minimize impacts to MVP levels.

Management activities associated with carrying out the proposed action would cause short term disturbance to active goshawk territories if present and active during project implementation. Project design features have been put in place to guide management actions. WL-1 specifically directs seasonal restrictions within an active goshawk nest area including the active, alternate, and replacement nest areas (180 acres).

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the proposed action may add cumulatively to past, on-going, and scheduled management actions in the CEA area over the course of project implementation with respect to Northern goshawks. No recent timber management has occurred in the project area. Project design features have been incorporated to include recommendations and direction from the district biologist prior to conducting management within a goshawk nest area.

In summary, the proposed action could result in the dispersal of individuals; however, such impacts would not be expected to result in a loss of species viability or a trend towards Federal listing.

Spotted bat

Spotted bats use a variety of habitats including pinyon-juniper, mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine, and grasslands/pastures. Spotted bats roost in rock crevices located on steep rock faces (Rodriguez 2012). Foraging habitat includes riparian areas, as well as forested edges, pinyon-juniper woodlands, meadows, and old agricultural fields (Priday and Luce 1999). Availability of roost sites and human disturbance are the chief limiting factors for this species.

Acoustic analysis for Spotted bats was conducted on the Escalante Ranger District in 2014 and 2016. Recordings were taken at 33 sites across the district covering approximately 457 hours over 61 nights (Young 2016). Twenty-eight spotted bat calls were detected at three locations. Following analysis of the data, it was determined spotted bats occurred at two of the identified locations. This included Mud Springs Point on the west side of the district and in the Row Lakes area. Portions of Row Lakes fall within the project area. Spotted bats are likely to forage within the project area. In general, foraging habitat is available along forested edges and openings and especially near riparian areas within or near the project area.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Bat foraging habits differ between species and between seasons (Wai-Ping 1989). Many bat species prefer foraging above the forest canopy, while other species prefer forest openings or edges (Menzel et al. 2006). Patriquin and Barclay (2003) examined the influence of various silvicultural practices on foraging bats and suggested forest thinning has minimal effect on habitat use by bats. Management recommendations by Patriquin and Barclay include a mosaic of patches with different tree densities is likely to satisfy the requirements of more bat species than a system with less diverse harvesting styles.

Management activities associated with carrying out the proposed actions would have the potential to alter foraging habitat within openings and along riparian corridors; however, treatments as proposed

are likely to improve foraging conditions by creating additional openings in forest stands. Day time management activities would have less direct impact on foraging bats as bats are mostly nocturnal. Smoke lingering into the evening and night hours associated with burning treatments could become a temporary disturbance to foraging bats. Activities occurring during fall and winter months should not disturb Spotted or other bat species which are likely hibernating at this time of year. Project design features incorporated into the management plan to protect riparian corridors should reduce potential impacts to bat foraging habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Project activities associated with the proposed action would add cumulatively to the past, ongoing, and planned future vegetation treatments for a net improvement in habitat and an overall increase in vegetative diversity. Proposed treatments will create openings which would increase foraging opportunities for bat species. The proposed actions could result in the dispersal of individuals; however, such impacts would not be expected to result in a loss of species viability or a trend towards Federal listing.

Peregrine Falcon

In Utah, peregrine falcons typically locate their eyries on high ledges along cliff faces and river gorges located on a southern exposure. Nest selection is largely dictated by the availability of prey. Foraging usually occurs along marshes, streams, and lakes within a 10-mile radius around the nest, although 80% of all foraging occurs within one mile of the nest site. In general, peregrine falcons forage in openings greater than 25 acres. Peregrines are most susceptible to disturbance during the courtship and nest establishment period (Rodriguez 2012) which typically occurs from late winter to early spring.

The Peregrine falcon was delisted as an endangered species in 1999, and is now listed by the US Forest Service (USFS) as a Regional Sensitive Species. The Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984) outlines general protective measures which include: (1) discouraging land-use practices and development which adversely alter or eliminate the character of the hunting habitat or prey base within ten miles and the immediate habitats within one mile of the nesting cliff, (2) restricting human activities and disturbances between February 1 and August 31 (in excess of those which have historically occurred at the sites) which occur within one mile of a nesting cliff, and (3) discourage/eliminate the use of pesticides and other environmental pollutants which are harmful and would adversely affect the peregrine or its food source.

Following the delisting of the Peregrine falcon, a post-delisting monitoring plan was approved in 2003. There is one peregrine falcon eyrie located on the Escalante Ranger District. The eyrie does not occur within the project boundary; however, peregrine falcon nesting habitat exists within the project boundary and the project area would be considered potential foraging habitat. Approximately 62,162 acres of potential nesting habitat occurs across the CEA.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Given the lack of documented use of the area by peregrine falcons and the existing suitable habitat across the district, implementation of the proposed action should not result in a substantial disturbance

to this species. Treatments related to the proposed action alternative will not alter or disturb any known active or historic peregrine falcon eyries and will not result in the loss of any potentially suitable nesting habitat. Treatments will not result in the loss of any important foraging habitats for the peregrine falcon. The proposed vegetation management actions will create additional open areas and increased edge effects within the project boundary which could increase the diversity of prey species that prefer these habitats. The effects of treating these areas could result in a net improvement to potential peregrine falcon foraging habitat. Management activities might disperse foraging peregrine falcons if present from the immediate vicinity during project implementation; however, there should be no long term (≥ 5 years) effect upon the peregrine falcon or its preferred habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the proposed action may add cumulatively to past, on-going, and scheduled vegetation treatments in the CEA area over the course of project implementation with respect to possible short-term disturbance of foraging Peregrine falcons. Past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities such as vegetation management will likely increase edge effects and are intended to promote forest health. Once completed these projects would be considered to have net beneficial effects in providing increased habitat for birds and prey species.

The proposed action could result in the dispersal of individuals; however, such impacts would not be expected to result in a loss of species viability or a trend towards Federal listing.

Flammulated Owl

Flammulated owls are associated with mature pine and mixed conifer habitat types. Others have documented Flammulated owl use in incense cedar, fir, and Douglas fir, as well as suggesting that an understory of oak and pine may be a required habitat component in some portions of its range. This species is an obligate secondary cavity nester, relying on previously excavated cavities in large diameter live/dead trees for nesting habitat. Primary prey consists almost exclusively of insects, including moths, beetles, caterpillars, crickets, spiders, scorpions and other arachnids (Rodriguez 2012). Flammulated owls appear tolerant to some human disturbances (McCallum 1994). The species has been known to nest in campgrounds and other areas of human activity with no apparent effects (McCallum 1994).

Flammulated owls have been documented throughout the Dixie National Forest during the 1991-1996 Mexican spotted owl surveys as well as numerous multiple-species owl surveys in 1989-1991 (Rodriguez 2012). They have also been documented across the Escalante Ranger District during species specific surveys for project clearance. Project level surveys were conducted in 2015 at 10 survey locations across the project area with a single detection.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Potential nesting and foraging habitat in the form of pine and mixed conifer does occur within the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project area. In general, burning piles, thinning, and other project actions would have the potential to disturb this species if it were nesting in the project area. Spring burning may generate a smoke disturbance, but this would be infrequent and only during implementation. Overall disturbance due to project implementation would be considered low as

management actions will be conducted over a course of years and additional habitat exists outside of project areas.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed treatments would add cumulatively to past, proposed, or ongoing management actions and other disturbances in the CEA. Flammulated owl numbers are believed to be low in the project area likely due to existing conditions. Management actions proposed by the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project should aid in improving foraging habitat for wildlife. Nesting habitat in the form of mature older trees is lacking in the project.

The cumulative effects and disturbances would be low as there would continue to be available habitat outside of treatment area. Flammulated owls prefer to forage in open understories with well-spaced trees interspersed with grass openings and avoid dense stands where it is difficult to maneuver. The proposed treatments would improve foraging habitat for Flammulated owls. Created small openings and forest edges would provide more abundant and diverse insect prey that would increase following implementation of the proposed action.

Although implementation of the proposed action would have cumulative effects when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, these affects would be low because primary habitat does not occur and Flammulated owl numbers in the area are believed to be low. Implementation of this action would continue to support Flammulated owls at the current level and not cumulatively contribute to a loss of species viability or a trend towards Federal listing.

Three-Toed Woodpecker

The three-toed woodpecker is a high elevation species found in northern coniferous and mixed forest types including Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and tamarack. This species is attracted to stands with high densities of snags resulting from recent fires, insect infestations, or blowdowns. The species is a cavity nester preferring dead spruce, tamarack, pine, cedar, and aspen trees for nesting and prefers fire killed trees for foraging (Rodriguez 2012). Because this species requires snags for feeding, perching, nesting, and roosting, activities such as logging, which remove or eliminate snags, can be detrimental to Three-toed woodpecker presence.

Three-toed woodpecker densities are presumed to be low in the Intermountain Region. However, little information is available to support trend conclusions. Formal surveys for this species have been conducted on the Forest and for the project. A total of 131 locations have been documented since 1997 and the number of individuals increased due to the increase of spruce bark beetle infestations (Rodriguez 2012) but has since declined over the past few years due to reduction in beetle flights and counts. Project level surveys were conducted beginning in 2015. Five Three-toed woodpecker detections occurred from 96 call stations.

Direct/Indirect Effects

In general, project activities associated with the proposed actions would have the potential to displace individuals while project activities are occurring if present in the project area. This direct impact would

be considered low as current conditions within the project area would not be considered prime habitat. There have not been recent fire or insect outbreak killed trees in the project area. Project design features established to maintain snag levels have been incorporated in accordance with the Northern goshawk amendment guidelines. These guidelines should protect habitat conditions.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed action would add cumulatively to management actions and other activities in contributing to impacts affecting this species during project implementation. Treatments will not be implemented across the project area simultaneously but will occur over a period of several years. A sufficient amount of undisturbed areas also occurs within the CEA area.

The proposed action could result in the dispersal of individuals; however, such impacts would not be expected to result in a loss of species viability or a trend towards Federal listing. Management Indicator Species

The Dixie National Forest document “Life History and Analysis of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species of the Dixie National Forest” (Rodriguez 2012) is a comprehensive description of life histories and habitat requirements for species that occur within the project area. It also provides estimates on population trends for management indicator species. Rodriguez (2012) is on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Cedar City, Utah.

Northern Flicker

Although the northern flicker may breed and winter more often in-or-near riparian habitats, it is a habitat generalist, using pine, mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper, as well as other habitats. Ants are principle prey for flickers, but grubs, beetles, and insects also are in their diet. Dead-and-down wood harbor food for the flicker and standing snags for nesting are important habitat components (Rodriguez 2012).

Northern flickers occur on all five Ranger Districts on the Dixie National Forest. The Breeding Bird Survey data indicates a slight upward trend for northern flickers in Utah for the 2005-2015 time period (Saur et. al 2017). According to Parrish et al. (2002), less than one percent of the species total breeding distribution is in Utah. Flickers have been detected annually during surveys conducted on the Escalante Ranger District during Forest-wide survey efforts beginning in 2002. Forest wide flicker numbers have increased by 5.5% from 2015 to 2016.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Implementation of the proposed action would result in a short-term dispersal of Northern flickers during project implementation. There is potential of disruption of nesting birds from project activities if management occurs during the breeding season. The proposed actions associated with the project should improve foraging conditions for flickers and other wildlife species. Flickers prefer to forage over bare ground and low grass. Proposed treatments would improve this habitat characteristic. There is also additional habitat available outside the project area and across the Forest for this species in the event of

dispersal. Wiebe and Moore (2008) observed human activities are not a significant source of mortality among flicker populations.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed actions would add cumulatively to other past, on-going, or projected management projects located within the CEA. Recommended snag densities (a key component in flicker habitat) and down woody debris requirements would be managed to meet the guidelines of the goshawk amendment (Northern Goshawk Project 2000). Created openings as a result of treatments would increase foraging opportunities. This should improve habitat conditions for the Northern flicker. As habitat generalists, any displaced flicker would find suitable habitat conditions locally outside of the treatment areas during project implementation.

The proposed action would likely result in the dispersal of individuals during project implementation; however, such impacts would not be expected to cause a loss of viability to the local population or species.

Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk

Mule deer and elk occupy several types of habitat throughout the west including coniferous forests, pinyon-juniper, chaparral, grasslands and shrublands. These species prefer a mosaic of various–aged vegetation that provides woody cover, free-standing water, and openings. Pinyon-juniper and sagebrush-grass represent important wintering habitat, while mountain brush, aspen and coniferous types dominate key summer habitat for this species. The Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project area is considered summer substantial and summer crucial mule deer and elk habitat.

Utah department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) estimates population levels of deer in the region (Plateau, Boulder Unit) at 17,400 in 2014 with a population objective at 12,000. Elk population trends on this unit are currently near state set objectives at 1,500 animals. On the summer range above 9,000 feet elevation including the project area, the vegetation trend is eliminating aspen habitat and open meadows. Decadent aspen needs to be treated to regenerate stands (UDWR 2012). Because of fire suppression, the trend is toward a denser spruce climax community. Logging and/or prescribed burns may help maintain this important habitat in a seral stage, which is more productive and more favorable to big game (UDWR 2012).

The factors having the most influence on the quality of deer and elk habitat includes road density (Rowland et al. 2004 and Trombulak and Frissell 1999) and the relative amount, placement, and quality of cover and forage. Cover can be defined in a couple of different ways. There is hiding cover and security cover. Security cover is defined as being non-linear forested areas greater than 250 acres in size and further than one half of a mile from roads (Lyon and Christensen 1992). This type of cover is important during hunting seasons as it provides refugia where deer and elk can go to hide during times of stress.

Big game hiding cover is defined as that needed to hide 90 percent of a standing deer or elk at a distance of least 200 feet. Vegetation manipulation must maintain hiding cover in the following manner: (1) Hiding cover must be maintained along ≥75 percent of the edge of arterial and collector

roads and along at least 50 percent of streams and rivers; and (2) in forested areas, hiding cover must be maintained on ≥50 percent of the perimeter of openings (USDA 1986 as amended). There are approximately 31 miles of open roads within the project area. Management actions will require the use of an additional 53 miles of temporary roads. Project design features have been established to provide adequate hiding cover along roads and forested openings. All temporary roads will be completely re- contoured/ripped and seeded following treatments.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Project activities could result in dispersal of mule deer and elk in the spring, summer and early fall months during project implementation. This dispersal would be due to increased traffic and management operations. Project activities in the winter will normally have no direct impacts to big- game since these animals migrate to lower elevations during this time period. Implementation of the proposed action would also reduce vegetative hiding cover across portions of the proposed treatment areas. Established project design features will protect hiding cover along travel corridors and riparian areas. The proposed actions will promote vegetative understory growth, which will increase habitat effectiveness and hiding cover levels, and help reduce the risk of a stand replacing fire or an insect outbreak. The area surrounding the project offers alternative cover for displaced animals.

With implementation of the proposed actions, approximately 1.25 miles of new roads will be added to the transportation system with the proposed actions for access to dispersed campsites and road reroute out of a wet meadow. Some over land travel will also take place for equipment to access management sites. This impact would be considered low based on the relative short distances to treatment areas and the re-seeding or rehab that will take place post treatment. Current road densities in the project area are 1.41 mi/mi2. Forest Plan guidance calls for a road density maximum of 2 mi/mi2. Road densities will vary during project implementation as temporary road use is required to access treatment areas. If all 53 miles of temporary roads were open simultaneously, road density would reach 3.84 mi/mi2. Project implementation is planned to occur over a course of up to 15 years. During this time frame temporary roads will be closed upon completion of each phase of the project. Once the project is completed road densities will return to 1.41 mi/mi2. Since road densities in this area are currently below 2 mi/mi2 of habitat and will not change with completion of this project, habitat effectiveness should remain unchanged in the project area. Road densities post project completion follow the Forest interpretations for implementing the FP road density guidelines (Thompson 1998).

Cumulative Effects

The Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project would add cumulatively to past, present, or projected management projects in the CEA. The proposed project is intended to improve timber stand resilience to insect and disease outbreaks, promote healthy forest conditions, and trend VSS towards guidelines established in the forest plan. Initially, hiding cover will be reduced in thinning treatment areas over the short term (less than 5 years). In time, management actions will promote a diversity in vegetative age class and understory growth. This will improve both foraging opportunities and hiding cover. The current project will increase forest health across the CEA and improve habitat conditions for wildlife. This project will not have substantial detrimental impacts on deer and elk. The proposed action

could result in the dispersal of individuals; however, such impacts would not be expected to cause a loss of viability to the local population or species.

Wild Turkey

Both Merriam’s and Rio Grande turkeys are found on the Dixie National Forest. Merriam’s are the species found within the project area. This subspecies is a mountain bird, and occurs in ponderosa pine, mixed-conifer, and spruce-fir stands. These birds spend the winter months of October through March in habitats comprised of 50 percent mature ponderosa pine forests. Mast crops, such as acorns and pine nuts represent important turkey forage during this time period. Summer habitat consists of overgrazed pastures, glades, or open woods. Low cover provides abundant insects and seeds for poults, while providing good visibility to avoid predation. Mature-to-old growth conifer and aspen is important for roosting. Standing water is an important component of their habitat (Rodriguez 2012).

Based on UDWR data, turkey populations are increasing, or are in an upward trend, and therefore populations are viable in the Southern Region. Rio Grande turkeys have increased in numbers over the last 15 years primarily on the Pine Valley Ranger District. Merriam’s turkey populations have been stable on the Forest, with hunting opportunities provided on all populations on the Forest (Rodriguez 2012). Both the project and the CEA includes a diversity of habitats that support nesting and foraging opportunities for this species.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Implementation of the proposed actions would result in short-term dispersal of wild turkeys during project implementation. Some reduction in nesting cover would occur immediately following management treatments. Thinning, harvest, coppice clear cutting, and salvage treatments, along with pile burning and fuels reduction will reduce nesting cover. Project design features related to levels of down woody debris will protect nesting and hiding cover. Turkeys seek out brush and other types of hiding cover for nesting opportunities. Abundant habitat also exists outside of the project area as well as within the project area outside of treatment areas for this species. Foraging habitat would be adequately maintained or promoted with the proposed treatments.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed actions would add cumulatively to other past, on-going, or projected management projects located within the CEA over the short term (up to 5 years). Foraging opportunities for turkeys will likely improve within the CEA as a result of new vegetative growth. This project will not add significantly to other past, present, and future vegetation projects within the CEA. This project should benefit turkeys.

The proposed action could result in the dispersal of individuals; however, such impacts would not be expected to result in a trend towards Federal listing.

Other Species of Concern

Landbird conservation has become a concern in recent years mainly because of declining populations in the United States. This analysis will not focus on all Neotropical migratory bird species that occur or might possibly occur in the project area but focuses on priority species identified by the Utah Partner’s in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy (Parrish et al. 2002) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These species use habitats ranging from mixed conifer and spruce/fir cover types to mountain shrub and riparian habitats. Conservation measures for these priority species would help protect all species that use these cover types across the project area.

Priority species that have habitat within the project area identified in the Utah Partners in Flight include: Broad-tailed Hummingbird, Brewer’s sparrow and the Cordilleran flycatcher. These species are also on the USFWS species of conservation concern list (USFWS 2008). Species accounts of these birds are described in the Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy and are incorporated here by reference.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the intentional taking of migratory birds, their parts, nests, eggs, and nestlings. Deliberate take and the need for a State permit can be avoided by minimizing disturbance and habitat alteration during the breeding and nesting season. Executive Order 13186, signed January 10, 2001, directs federal agencies to protect migratory birds by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practical, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

The Broad-tailed hummingbird is essentially a mountain bird requiring stream side areas adjacent to open patches of meadows or grasses and is considered common throughout Utah. It appears in the lower valleys in April and later nests near streams in the valleys and higher elevations. Broadtails have also been recorded as breeding in aspen, ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and Douglas- fir dominated habitats. Breeding has been confirmed at elevations of 4,500 feet to 10,400 feet. Breeding begins in early may in the southern portions of its range and ends by early to mid-August. Nesting coincides with availability of flower nectar.

Riparian surveys in Utah from 1992 to 1998 indicate a decline in Broad-tailed hummingbird populations, but the trend data overall for these hummingbirds is varied (Parrish et al. 2002). Electric livestock fences with red-colored insulators have been identified as attractants to Broad-tailed hummingbirds, particularly females who think they are flowers and become electrocuted (ibid). Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) show an increasing trend in population levels across the Great Basin, but a downward trend of - 3.14 percent in Utah for the period of 2003-2015 (Saur et al 2017).

Direct and Indirect Impacts

A temporary loss of nesting habitat would be expected as a result of proposed treatments related to thinning, harvest, and fuels reduction. Project design features incorporated into the proposed project to reduce impacts to riparian corridors should serve to reduce impacts to Broad-tailed hummingbirds.

Management actions timed to avoid impacts to hummingbirds during the onset of nesting would minimize direct impacts. No treatments are proposed in grass/forb habitat. The proposed action would result in a temporary disturbance to habitat for the Broad-tailed hummingbird during project implementation. Proposed actions should promote grass and forb growth.

Cumulative Effects

Activities related to the proposed action would add cumulatively to past, on-going, or proposed vegetation management projects located within the CEA area. These actions would occur during project implementation. The proposed actions over the longer term are designed to improve forest health, which in turn will promote understory vegetative growth. The Broad-tailed-hummingbird is considered common throughout Utah, cumulative effects are expected to be low. In summary, the proposed action could result in the dispersal of individuals; however, such impacts would not be expected to result in a trend towards Federal listing.

Brewer’s sparrow

Distribution of the Brewer’s sparrow generally coincides with the distribution of sagebrush in the West, from the northern Rocky Mountains in Canada south to New Mexico (Rodriguez 2006). Brewer’s sparrows are considered Neotropical migrants, even though some may travel only short distances between breeding and wintering ranges (UDWR 2015). Brewer’s sparrow winter in the southwestern United States, south into Baja and into the central states of Mexico (UDWR 2015). Diet consists primarily of insects and spiders in the summer and seeds and grasses in the winter (Rodriguez 2006).

In Utah the Brewer’s sparrow is a common summer resident (UDWR 2015) where densities are highest in Rich and Summit counties (UDWR 2015). They rarely winter in Utah (UDWR 2015). There have been significant declines in parts of the western United States, where only Utah shows a stable population and is ranked ‘apparently secure’ in the state (NatureServe 2018).

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The proposed actions associated with this project are focused on trending forested stands towards desired conditions. Management treatments do not occur in brush habitat. During project implementation, dispersal of individual Brewer’s sparrows could occur. This disturbance is expected to occur only during active management periods. Some potential breeding habitat may be impacted by the proposed actions where fire is prescribed.

Management actions related to this project will thin forested stands and trend vegetation towards desired conditions, create small opens, and regenerate aspen. This should improve habitat conditions for wildlife and the Brewer’s sparrow. Additional sagebrush habitat also exists outside the project boundary.

Cumulative Effects

Activities related to the proposed action would add cumulatively to past, on-going, or proposed vegetation management projects located within the CEA area. These impacts would only occur over the project implementation period. The proposed actions over the longer term are designed to improve forest health. Wildlife should benefit from these actions. Manipulation of vegetation as described 39

under the proposed actions will not add substantially to the effects from other past, present, and future vegetation projects within the CEA.

Overall, the proposed action could result in the dispersal of individuals; however, such impacts would not be expected to result in a trend towards Federal listing.

Cordilleran Flycatcher

The Cordilleran flycatcher is a common small yellowish flycatcher of shaded dry forests at mid to high elevations found mostly east of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains. Commonly associated with lodgepole pine and mixed conifer forests. The species is nearly identical to the Pacific flycatcher (Cornell University 2015). Cordilleran Flycatcher populations appear stable (NatureServe 2018). The North American Bird Breeding Survey lists these bids together with the very similar Pacific-coast Flycatcher, and together the two species' populations showed a small decline between 1966 and 2015 (Saur et al. 2017). Partners in Flight estimates a total breeding population of Cordilleran Flycatcher at 3 million, with 70% breeding in the U.S., 2% in Canada, and 100% spending some part of the year in Mexico.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The proposed actions associated with this project are focused on trending forested stands towards desired conditions. During project implementation, dispersal of individual birds including Cordilleran flycatchers could occur. This disturbance is expected to occur only during active management periods. Management actions timed to avoid impacts during the onset of nesting would minimize direct impacts. Some potential breeding habitat may be impacted by the proposed actions.

Management actions related to this project will thin forested stands and trend vegetation towards desired conditions, create small opens, and regenerate aspen. This should improve habitat conditions for wildlife. Additional forested habitat exists outside the project boundary and within the project boundary outside of treatment areas.

Cumulative Effects

Overall, the proposed action could result in the dispersal of individuals; however, such impacts would not be expected to result in a trend towards Federal listing. Sensitive Plants

Suitable habitat for three sensitive plant species exists within the project boundary. These species grow at higher elevations on meadows and in silver sagebrush.

Aquarius Paintbrush

Aquarius paintbrush is endemic to the Aquarius Plateau and Boulder Mountain areas of Utah, growing on dry to moist open meadows. It is not clear how many biological occurrences of this species exist, but all occurrences are in the Dixie National Forest. The species has restricted distribution with about 75,000 plants altogether in a peak year. Counts by Forest Service research on the Dixie National Forest in 2004 and 2005 recorded 75,028 individuals (NatureServe 2018).

This species has been significantly impacted by grazing in the limited area where it occurs. It has been extensively impacted by domesticated livestock, especially sheep. In areas where sheep are kept the species has nearly been eliminated and where cattle occur it has been reduced greatly in numbers and reproductive vigor (England 2002). Perpetual grazing puts this species at risk for extirpation in much of its range, leaving it to persist only in less accessible habitat (England 2002). The Forest Service is working to mitigate the effects of grazing by livestock by deferring grazing until after seed has set 1 out of every 3 years in some pastures (NatureServe 2018). Road realignment and other construction related to recreational or timber activities also pose potential threats to the species.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Project related potential impacts to Aquarius paintbrush include the proposed action to realign a portion of Forest Road (FR) 31404A out of a wet section of a meadow and along access routes to the proposed mineral borrow sites. Current conditions of FR 31404A along a low section of a meadow is routing water down the road and into a developed spring pond. As a result, road braiding, flooding, and road entrenchment is further deteriorating the meadow habitat. Road sedimentation is also flowing into the spring pond. Once road alignment and site rehabilitation is complete conditions along FR 31404A should improve.

In order to complete the proposed actions, multiple temporary borrow pits may be opened. Access routes to borrow pits passing over meadow habit risk impacting Aquarius paintbrush. Proposed borrow pit sites have been surveyed and Aquarius paintbrush was detected at proposed borrow pit site 005. To minimize impacts to Aquarius paintbrush, borrow pit site 005 will not be used. Access to all proposed borrow pit sites should be surveyed prior to use and adjusted to minimize any additional impacts.

Cumulative Effects

Activities related to the proposed action would add cumulatively to current existing conditions within the CEA area. Long term grazing in the project area has impacted this species. Upon completion of the road alignment, habitat conditions for Aquarius paintbrush should improve. Once project activities are completed and temporary borrow pits are closed and rehabilitated, habitat characteristics of the site should return to pre-existing conditions. The proposed actions may impact individuals, but are not likely to trend the species towards Federal listing or loss of viability.

Little Penstemon

Penstemon parvus is endemic to the Aquarius Plateau on the Escalante and old Teasdale Districts of the Dixie National Forest and also found in Piute, Sevier, and Wayne Counties, UT. Species occurs between 8,500 feet to 10,500 feet on dry meadows, silver sagebrush, and high elevation black sagebrush

meadows. Historic information pulled from earlier Forest analysis (pre-2002) indicates variations in population densities of Penstemon parvus. It is speculated that both Penstemon parvus and Castilleja aquarius (Aquarius paintbrush) population levels are heavily influenced by climatic variables in addition to grazing. This observation was influenced by known population fluctuations between wet and dry years where in 1999 (wet year) Aquarius paintbrush numbers were up followed by a drought year in 2000 when populations surveyed in the same locations failed to show any sign of individuals.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Project related potential impacts to little penstemon include proposed borrow pits, access routes to borrow pits, and temporary road construction to access treatment sites. Road re-alignment to reduce meadow impacts and development of road access into dispersed campsites will improve habitat conditions. Proposed borrow pits were surveyed and no little penstemon were detected. Access routes to proposed borrow pits should be surveyed once delineated.

Cumulative Effects

Activities related to the proposed action would add cumulatively to current existing conditions within the CEA area. Long term grazing in the project area has impacted this species. Upon completion of the project and access route deconstruction, habitat conditions for little penstemon should improve. Once temporary borrow pits are closed and restored, habitat characteristics of the site should return to pre- existing conditions. The proposed actions may impact individuals, but are not likely to trend the species towards Federal listing or loss of viability.

Paradox Moonwort

Paradox moonwort has a global distribution across North America from Labrador to Maine, west to Alaska and south to Washington, Utah, and Colorado (Madsen, 2011). Distribution on the Forest includes the Escalante Ranger District near Jacobs Lake and Cyclone Lake on the Aquarius Plateau. Potentially suitable habitat is on high elevation wet meadows highly associated with frost action created hummocks.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Project related potential impacts to Paradox moonwort include access routes to borrow pits and temporary borrow pit usage. Proposed borrow pit sites have been surveyed, no Paradox moonwort was identified.

Cumulative Effects

Activities related to the proposed action would add cumulatively to current existing conditions within the CEA area. No Paradox moonwort was identified during surveys for the proposed borrow pit locations. Borrow pits sites are not proposed in wet meadows with hummocks. It is not likely the proposed actions will add cumulatively with the potential to impact Paradox moonwort. The proposed actions may impact individuals, but are not likely to trend the species towards Federal listing or loss of viability.

Wildlife Management and Project Design Features

To minimize impacts identified in the proposed actions, the following project design features (Table 6) are incorporated into this analysis. To reduce threats to any threatened, endangered, or candidate species, management actions should cease and the district biologist should be consulted if any threatened, endangered, or candidate species is present during project implementation.

Table 6. Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management project design features to minimize impacts to wildlife resources.

Project Design Features WL-1.To avoid impacts to breeding northern goshawks, timing restrictions will be applied to all activities within the designated nest areas and PFAs if nests are active as outlined in the goshawk amendment to the Forest Plan (Utah Northern Goshawk Project 2000). This feature will apply if an active nest is located prior to or during project implementation. The active nesting period will normally occur between March 1 and September 30 (Utah Northern Goshawk Project, March 14, 2000). WL-2. Maintain a minimum average of 300 snags per 100 acres (greater than 18 inches DBH and 30 feet tall) in mixed conifer and spruce/fir cover types. Maintain an average of 200 snags per 100 acres (greater than 8 inches DBH in and 15 feet tall) in aspen. If the minimum numbers of snags are unavailable, green trees should be substituted. If the minimum size is unavailable, then the largest trees on site should be substituted. WL-3. Vegetative management treatments in forested cover types should retain the following minimum amount and size of down logs and woody debris, distributed over each treated 10 acres to meet the needs of prey species that utilize this habitat (Utah Northern Goshawk Project 2000). This would average about 5 logs per acre in the spruce/fir and mixed conifer sites.

Minimum Coarse Minimum Down Cover Type Minimum Log Size Woody Debris Logs >= 3 inch diameter

(Diameter (per 10 acres) Down <__>Length) (Tons per 10 acres, logs take precedence If minimum size is not inclusive of down over tons of coarse available, retain logs. woody debris. largest available on the site.

Mixed Conifer and 50 12 inch<__>8 feet 100 Spruce/Fir

Aspen 50 6 inch<__>8 feet 30

WL-4. Forest vegetation manipulation within goshawk post-fledging family areas should be designed to maintain or improve the same habitat features as discussed for the goshawk home range (i.e., stand structure, snags, down logs, nest trees important in the life histories of the goshawk and its prey species common to the geographic location), except: Openings created as a result of vegetative treatments should not exceed the following by cover type: Spruce/fir - 1 acre, aspen – 40 acres.

WL-5. Vegetative treatment designed to maintain or promote a VSS 4, 5, and/or 6 group, the percent of the group acreage covered by clumps of trees with interlocking crowns should typically range from 40-70% in post-fledgling and foraging areas and 50-70% in nest areas. Clumps typically have 2-9 trees in the VSS 4, 5, or 6 size class with interlocking crowns (Utah Northern Goshawk Project, 2000). WL-6. Project activities shall cease which "May Affect" threatened, endangered, or proposed species discovered within or adjacent to the project area during project layout or implementation until consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concluded. Also, project implementation shall cease if any sensitive species is discovered within or adjacent to the project area that has not been addressed within the environmental analysis until an assessment can be made to determine the impact and potential adverse effects to the species. WL -7.To maintain hiding cover for big game within forested ecosystems, retain a minimum of 50 percent of the perimeter of natural openings, aspen regeneration treatments, and meadows, and 75 percent of the edge along arterial and collector roads, as described in the forest plan (S&G IV-34). WL-8. If new raptor nests are found within or adjacent to the project area, a buffer shall be placed around the nest and a timing restriction will be established if the nest area is occupied. Buffer size, timing restrictions, and restrictions of harvest activities will be made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration site-specific raptor needs and utilizing raptor protection guidelines from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (2002). If goshawk nests are found, the requirements in the forest plan are to be followed to protect the species. WL-9. Within active, alternate, and replacement goshawk nests areas (180 acres), vegetation manipulation should be designed to maintain or improve desired nest area habit (Utah Northern Goshawk Project Guideline R 2000). Use the active nest area habitat characteristics as an indicator of desired habitat and consult with the district biologist before initiating management. WL-10. To the extent possible, initiate project actions outside of the migratory bird breeding season and incorporate USFWS recommendations where practicable to minimize take. Consult with district biologist prior to treatment implementation.

Summary of Effects and Determination

A summary of effects of the proposed action alternative and the no action alternative on wildlife and plant species and their habitat for the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project is summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Comparison of the determination of effects of the proposed action and no action alternatives on wildlife and plant species and their habitat for the Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project.

SPECIES NAME NO PROPOSED ACTION Scientific name ACTION RATIONALE EFFECTS Status EFFECTS Dispersal possible during project implementation. No known nesting Mexican Spotted Owl May Affect, Not occurrence in project area. No Strix occidentalis lucida Likely to Adversely Potential winter foraging/juvenile Effect Threatened Affect species dispersal habitat occurs in project area. Treatments would enhance minor amounts of foraging habitat. May impact individuals or Adherence to Goshawk habitat, but will not Amendment, PDFs, buffers Northern Goshawk likely contribute to a No established around active nest Accipiter gentilis trend toward Impact areas, and consultation with district R4 Sensitive/MIS Federal listing or biologist will minimize impacts to cause a loss of species. species viability. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not Short-term disturbance possible Spotted Bat likely contribute to a No during project implementation. Euderma maculatum trend toward Impact Increased forest openings would R4 Sensitive Federal listing or increase prey habitat. cause a loss of species viability. May impact individuals during Nesting and foraging habitat implementation, but available outside of project area. Peregrine Falcon will not likely No Long term improvement in forest Falco peregrinus anatum contribute to a trend Impact condition and increased edge R4 Sensitive toward Federal habitat may increase foraging listing or cause a loss opportunities and nest habitat. of species viability. May impact individuals or Nesting and foraging habitat may be habitat, but will not Flammulated Owl impacted. Long term improvement likely contribute to a No Otus flammeolus in forest condition and increased trend toward Impact R4 Sensitive edge habitat may increase foraging Federal listing or opportunities and nest habitat. cause a loss of species viability.

SPECIES NAME NO PROPOSED ACTION Scientific name ACTION RATIONALE EFFECTS Status EFFECTS May impact individuals or habitat, but will not Three-toed Woodpecker likely contribute to a No Potential decrease in foraging Picoides tridactylus trend toward Impact habitat. R4 Sensitive Federal listing or cause a loss of species viability.

May impact individuals or habitat, but impacts Northern Flicker Short-term disturbance likely. would not be No Colaptes auratus Nesting habitat and foraging habitat expected to cause a Impact MIS improved. loss of viability to the local population or species.

May impact individuals during Short-term disturbance likely during implementation, but Mule Deer No project implementation. Reduced impacts would not Odocoileus hemionus Impact hiding cover but increased be expected to cause MIS understory diversity and foraging a loss of viability to opportunities. the local population or species.

May impact individuals during Short-term disturbance likely during implementation, but Rocky Mountain Elk No project implementation. Reduced impacts would not Cervus canadensis Impact hiding cover but increased be expected to cause MIS understory diversity and foraging a loss of viability to opportunities. the local population or species.

SPECIES NAME NO PROPOSED ACTION Scientific name ACTION RATIONALE EFFECTS Status EFFECTS

May impact individuals during Wild Turkey implementation, but Short-term disturbance likely during Meleagrus gallopavo impacts would not No project implementation. Nesting merriami be expected to cause Impact habitat and foraging opportunities MIS a loss of viability to improved with implementation. the local population or species.

May impact individuals during Short-term disturbance possible implementation, but Broad-tailed Hummingbird during project implementation. impacts would not No Selasphorus platycercus Possible reduced nesting habitat be expected to cause Impact MBTA and improved foraging a loss of viability to opportunities. the local population or species.

May impact individuals during implementation, but Short-term disturbance possible Brewer’s Sparrow impacts would not No during project implementation. Spizella breweri be expected to cause Impact Possible improvement in foraging MBTA a loss of viability to habitat. the local population or species.

May impact individuals during implementation, but Short-term disturbance possible Cordilleran Flycatcher impacts would not No during project implementation. Empidonax occidentalis be expected to cause Impact Possible improvement in nesting a loss of viability to habitat. the local population or species.

SPECIES NAME NO PROPOSED ACTION Scientific name ACTION RATIONALE EFFECTS Status EFFECTS Aquarius Paintbrush May impact Implementation of proposed actions individuals, but not likely to cause temporary impacts. Castilleja aquarius likely to trend No Habitat restoration or improvement towards Federal Impact over the long term (greater than 5 listing or loss of years) once project completed. viability. May impact Implementation of proposed actions individuals, but not likely to cause temporary impacts. Little Penstemon likely to trend No Habitat restoration or improvement Penstemon parvus towards Federal Impact over the long term (greater than 5 listing or loss of years) once project completed. viability. May impact individuals, but not Species not found within treatment Paradox Moonwort likely to trend No areas, habitat not likely affected. Botrychium paradoxum towards Federal Impact Implementation of proposed actions listing or loss of may impact individuals. viability.

Consideration of Available Scientific Information

The assessments and determinations used in this analysis are considered to be the best known available scientific information. The analysis includes a summary of the credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating reasonably foreseeable impacts. The analysis also identifies methods used and references scientific sources relied on. When appropriate, the conclusions are based on the scientific analysis that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk.

The relevant science considered for this analysis consists of several key elements including:

• On-site data and history. The project area and/or vicinity was surveyed and the following data or reports was collected:

1. District Goshawk Nest Monitoring/Surveys 2. Project Level Surveys

• Scientific literature. Relevant literature includes information reviewed for basic understanding, science actually cited in the specialist report, and a review of science submitted as a responsible opposing view.

Scientific literature used includes:

1. Recovery and/or Conservation Plans and Strategies for TES species.

2. USFWS publications as it relates to species addressed in project area.

3. UDWR and other publications on life history/management/counts/range maps as it relates to species in project area.

4. Life History for Dixie National Forest TES/MIS species

5. Breeding Bird Counts (BBC) specific to the state where available or region.

6. Publications on Utah migratory birds of concern.

7. Consultation with UDWR, USFS, and USFWS biologists.

• The collective knowledge of the project area by ID Team members through integration of science with local conditions. Information and knowledge about local conditions were gained from sections of other assessments written by other specialists, concerning similar activities on the Dixie and Fishlake National Forest.

Contributors

Lisa Young, Wildlife Biologist, Escalante Ranger District, Dixie National Forest. Lee Beekman, GIS Database Manager, Dixie National Forest. Mark Madsen, Botanist, Dixie National Forest.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans:

The project is consistent with the Endangered Species Act as amended. Threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species to consider were identified on the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) web site: http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/. The list was last reviewed and revised on April, 5, 2018. Although the Southwestern willow flycatcher and Yellow-billed cuckoo are listed, no habitat exists on the Dixie National Forest. The Southwestern willow flycatcher was removed from the species list and documented in a letter to the Forest Supervisor in 2002, based on genetic research.

The project is consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and associated Strategy (USDA, 2007), and MOU (USDA, 2016). The analysis for migratory birds is disclosed in this report. In accordance with the Strategy for implementing the MBTA and EO 13186 on National Forest Lands in Utah a letter was sent to the USFWS on September 26, 2016, disclosing the list of migratory bird species analyzed in this report.

With the implementation of project design features, all action alternatives are consistent with management direction found in the Forest Plan. The project is consistent with the following Federal laws, executive orders, and interagency agreements:

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended • Executive Order 13186 of January, 2001 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) • Strategy for Implementing Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and EO 13186 on National Forest Lands in Utah

• MOU between USFWS and the FS of December 2008 (MBTA) • Applicable Conservation Strategies and Recovery Plans

Literature Cited

All About Birds. 2015. Cordilleran flycatcher. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Cornell, NY. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Cordilleran_Flycatcher/id. Accessed March 15, 2017.

Chambers, J.C., Devoe, N., and Evenden, A., eds. 2008. Collaborative management and research in the Great Basin — examining the issues and developing a framework for action. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- 204. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 66 p.

Day, K. and Peterson. 1999. A bat survey of selected locations on the Cedar City and Pine Valley Ranger Districts of the Dixie National Forest, Utah. 1470 N. Airport Road, Cedar City, UT. (Pages 12-13).

England, L. 2002. Candidate and listing priority assignment form: Castilleja aquariensis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, Utah. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/candidate- conservation-process.html. Ganey, J.L. 2004. Thermal Regimes of Mexican Spotted Owl Nest Stands. The Southwestern Naturalist 49:478-486. Ganey, J.L., W.M. Block, J.S.Jenness, and R.A. Wilson. 1999. Mexican Spotted Owl Home Range and Habitat Use in Pine-Oak Forest: Implications for Forest Management. Forest Science 45:127-135. Graham, R. T. 1999. The Northern Goshawk in Utah: Habitat Assessment and Management Recommendations. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-22. Ogden, UT: Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Jorgensen, J.M. 2007. Biotic and Environmental Variables of Northern Goshawk Nesting on the Dixie National Forest, Utah. Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo. 49 pp. Lyon, L.J., and A.G. Christensen. 1992. A partial glossary of elk management terms. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- 288. Ogden. UT: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6p. Madsen, M.T. 2011. Sensitive Plants Dixie National Forest Guide. March 2011 Version.

McCallum, D. A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: Flammulated owl, in Flammulated, boreal, and Great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service GTR RM- 253. Pages 14-46

McKelvey, K.S.; Perry, R.W.; Mills, L.S. 2013. The Effects of Climate Change on Mammals. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildlife/mammals

Menzel, J.M., M.A. Menzel, J.C. Kilgo, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, and G.F. McCracken. 2005. Effect of Habitat and Foraging Height on Bat Activity in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1):235-245.

NASA. 2018. Global Climate Change, vital signs of the planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence. Accessed April 9, 2018.

NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [Greater Sage-Grouse, Northern Flicker, Ferruginous Hawk, Brewer’s Sparrow, Northern goshawk, Aquarius paintbrush]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (March 7, 2018).

Pan, Y., Birdsey, R.A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P.E., Kurz, W.A., Phillips, O.L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S.L., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R.B., Pacala, S.W., McGuire, A.D., Piao, S., Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S., & Hayes, D. 2011. A large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science, 333: 988 – 993.

Parrish, J.R., F.P. Howe, R.E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Conservation Strategy Version 2.0. UDWR Publication Number 02-27. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt lake City, Utah 291 pp.

Patriquin, K.J. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2003. Foraging By Bats in Cleared, Thinned, and Unharvested Boreal Forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 646-657.

Priday, J. and B. Luce. 1999. New distributional records for spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) in Wyoming. Great Basin Naturalist 59:97-101.

Reynolds, R. T., Russell, G. T., Reiser, M. H., Bassett, R. L., Kennedy, P. L., Boyce, J. D., Fisher, E. L. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-217. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Rodriguez R. R. Player, K.Paulin. 1998. Conservation Strategy and Agreement for the Management of Northern Goshawk Hawk in Utah. USDA Forest Service, Region 4, Ogden, UT. 21 pp.

Rodriguez, R.L. 2006. Life history and analysis of endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive and MIS species of the Fishlake National Forest. Version 4.1. Revised June 2006.

Rodriguez R. 2007. Personal communication from Howe, F. on June 6, 2007.

Rodriguez, R.L. 2012. Life history and analysis of endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive and MIS species of the Dixie National Forest. Version 6.0. Revised March 2012.

Rodriguez, R.L. 2016. Personal Communication with Chris Parrish as outlined in the Emergency Consultation for California Condor Avoidance areas on the Saddle Mountain Fire. Pine Valley Ranger District, Dixie National Forest, June 19, 2016.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of Roads on Elk: Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystems. Transactions of the Sixty-ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. March 16-20, 2004. Published by the Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, DC.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2015. Version 01.30.2015. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Accessed Dec 20, 2016. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/.

Stroud-Settles, J. 2016. Condor Notes from the Field. https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/condor_updates.htm.

SWCA, INC. Environmental Consultants. 1993. Revised Final Report 1992 Mexican and California Spotted Owl Re-Inventory, Dixie and Toiyabe National Forests Contract Number 53-8462-2-07005. On file, Dixie NF. Cedar City, UT

Thompson, H.C. 1998. Implementing the DNF Two Miles/Square Mile Open Road Density Guideline. Dixie National Forest. Cedar City, Utah.

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 1999. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology. Vol 14. No 1. Pp 18-30.

UDNR. 2003. Survey Report on Pestemon Pinorum. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program. Salt Lake City, UT. Hard copy at Dixie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Cedar City, UT.

UDWR. 2000. Summary of Bat Surveys Conducted on the Dixie National Forest in 2000. UDWR Southern Region. Cedar City, UT.

UDWR. 2014a. Utah Deer Herd Unit Objectives and Post Season Classification. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Cedar City, Utah. http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/plans/deer_28.pdf. Site accessed July 18, 2016.

UDWR. 2012. Utah Elk Herd Unit Objectives and Post Season Classification. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Cedar City, Utah. https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2012-05_elkplans_SRO.pdf. Site accessed March 1, 2017.

UDWR. 2015. Utah Conservation Data. [Brewer’s Sparrow]. Available: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/. Accessed March 31, 2015.

UDWR. 2015. Utah Conservation Data. [Common Flicker, Wild Turkey]. Available: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/. Accessed December 3, 2015.

UDWR. 2015. Pine Valley Elk Management Plan Draft. Utah Elk Herd Unit Objectives and Post Season Classification. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Cedar City, Utah.

UDWR. 2016. Utah Big Game Guidebook. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources publication. http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting-in-utah/hunting-information/big-game.html.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013- Main-Text.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2018.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended. USDA Forest Service, Cedar City, UT.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Forest Service Manual 2670, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/ag-policy/20021200-fs-sensitive- species-key-policies.pdf.

USDA. 2000. Decision Notice Finding of No Significant Impact and Non- Significant Amendment of the Forest Plans in Utah for the Utah Northern Goshawk Project.

USDA. 2000a. Scenery Management System EA (SMS). Cedar City, UT: USDA Forest Service, Dixie National Forest.

USDA. 2001. Decision Notice FONSI for the Utah Fire Amendment. Ogden: USDA Forest Service.

USDA. 2007. Letter to USFWS explaining agreed upon MBTA Utah Strategy.

USFWS/USDA. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement # 08-MU-1113-2400-264. 13pp.

USDA. 2012. Future of America’s Forest and Rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment. General Technical Report WO-87. Washington, DC. 198 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/gtr/gtr_wo87.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2016.

USDA. 2016. Intermountain Region 4 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive List. USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Baseline Estimates of Carbon Stocks in Forests and Harvested Wood Products for National Forest System Units; Intermountain Region. 42 pp. Whitepaper. http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/IntermountainRegionCarbonAssessment.pdf

USDA. 2018. Jacob’s Valley Vegetation Management Project, Environmental Assessment. Dixie National Forest. Cedar City, Utah.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011 (April 2013). http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG- Inventory-2013-Main-Text.pdf.

USFWS. 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team. Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service, 3840 York Street, Unit 1, Denver, Colorado 80205, 76 pp.

USFWS. 1984. Rocky Mountain/Southwestern Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. American peregrine falcon Rocky Mountain/Southwest population recovery plan. Denver, CO.

USFWS. 1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - California Condor Recovery Plan. Third Revision.

USFWS. 2002. Letter concerning Mexican spotted owl habitat. Letter dated November 21, 2002 from Larry Crist, Utah Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office.

USFWS. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from human and land use disturbances. Salt Lake City, Utah. January 2002 update. p 21.

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. https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/grants/BirdsofConservationConcern2008.pdf.

USFWS. 2012. Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, first revision. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 413 pp.

USFWS. 2016. Threatened and Endangered Species list. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed and requested Sept. 26, 2016.

USWMP. 2004. Upper Sevier River Community Watershed Assessment. Species and Habitats Group assessment. pp. 4-5 – 4-21.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, D.o.W.Q. 2008. Newcastle Reservoir TMDL. 188 p. http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/watersheds/docs/2008/10Oct/Newcastle _Reservoir_TMDL.pdf

Vose, J. M., Peterson, D. L., & Patel-Weynand, T. (Eds.). 2012. Effects of climatic variability and change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Wiebe, K. L. and W.S. Moore. 2008. Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus), 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/166adoi:10.2173/bna.166

Willey, D.W. 1992. Distribution and Habitat Ecology of Mexican Spotted Owls on the Colorado Plateau: Annual Report, 1991-1992. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 34 pp.

Willey, D and D Spotskey. 2000. Field Test of a Landscape Model for Mexican Spotted Owl Breeding Habbitat in Northern Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish. IIPAM Project No. I97026. 22p.

Willey, D.W. and C. van Riper III. 2007. Home Range Characteristics of Mexican Spotted Owls in the Canyonlands of Utah. Journal of Raptor Research 41:10-15.

Wai-Ping, V. and M. Brock Fenton. 1989. Ecology of Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) Roosting and Foraging Behavior. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol 70. No 3. Pp. 617-622.

Young, L. 2016. Acoustic Analysis for Townsend’s Big-eared & Spotted Bats on the Escalante Ranger District, Dixie NF. USDA. Dixie National Forest.