REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”) NOTICE Notice is hereby given that Sun Peak Master Association (the ‘HOA’), as the sub-applicant of Summit County for awarded FEMA Hazardous Mitigation Grant Program (‘HGMP’) funds for use by the Sun Peak Master Association (the ‘HOA), requests qualifications for a Hazardous Fuels and Defensible Space Wildfire Mitigation Vegetation Management Contractor until 5:00 pm MST on May 21, 2024. Proposals will be accepted only from contractors that: are free of all obligations and interests that could conflict with the best interests of the HOA; comply with FEMA and Summit County procurement regulations; and have the capacity to provide services in a timely manner within the HGMP approved budget. Respondents must address the needs and requirements stated in the Scope of Work and Deliverables of this RFP and are advised to read this RFP in its entirety. Failure to read and/or understand any portion of this RFP shall not be cause for waiver of any portion of the RFP or subsequent agreement. The submitted proposal and this RFP become a part of the subsequent agreement. Proposals will be evaluated, and the successful contractor will be determined and approved by representatives from the HOA Control Board, with guidance from the Summit County Lands and Natural Resources Director, and Summit County Attorney’s office. The HOA and Summit County reserves the right to reject any or all qualification proposals, and to select the contractor and services that best meet the needs of the HGMP and HOA obligations*. Schedule RFP is posted April 8, 2024 Site Tour May 03, 2024 at 10:00 am Last Day for Contractor Questions May 10, 2024 Contractor Questions Answered May 16, 2024 RFP Proposals Due May 21, 2024 Review and approval May 23-30, 2024 Contractor award June 4, 2024 Performance period July 16 - March 31, 2025 *Sun Peak Master Association reserves the right to select a contractor from submitted qualification proposals without Summit County approval, so long as procurement requirements are met as stated above. Term of Engagement: The HOA intends to contract for the services presented herein for the performance period term not to exceed March 31, 2025. The HOA may cancel the contract at any time with 15 days’ written notice. 1. INTRODUCTION The HOA is accepting RFPs for contracted services related to Hazardous Fuels and Defensible Space Wildfire Mitigation Vegetation Management on the HOA-owned or controlled property for the purpose of providing defensible space and hazardous fuels treatments. Proposals submitted by interested contractors shall be evaluated using, including but not limited to, the following criteria: 1) Ability to perform within performance period; 2) Overall price and ability to stay on budget; 3) Past record and experience; and 4) Availability to work ethically and professionally. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to secure a reputable contractor or contractors to implement the mitigation actions needed to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire within the HOA community. Using details outlined within the Scope of Work, (Section 7), the project will improve forest health, create defensible space, and mitigate hazardous fuels. Proposals will be accepted for the entire project or for any individual “Unit” as described under the Scope of Work. All proposals must include 1) cutting and/or thinning and, 2) disposal of all slash, woody material, and debris. However, if the contractor feels piling and burning is the most effective disposal process but is not certified by the state as approved for burning piles, they may submit a bid based on piling but must follow the piling specifications stated in this RFP. As good stewards of the lands, the HOA seeks to manage its open space proactively and responsibly with public safety, habitat restoration, and asset protection in mind. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The HOA seeks a contractor with sufficient qualifications and experience to work effectively and collaboratively with the HOA to implement the Scope of Work as specified in Section 7. The contractor must have experience with vegetation removal for the purpose of reducing wildland fire risk to communities by mitigating hazardous fuels and creating defensible space. The contractor must agree to follow and comply with all FEMA HGMP regulations, budget constraints, and procurement requirements (Exhibit A). Sun Peak is a body comprised of 294 owners of lots with single-family homes, and 80 owners of Condominium units within 312 acres of HOA owned open space and forested land experiencing forest health and fuels concerns. Wildland fuels are continuous outside of, and within, the developed area. Sun Peak is classified as a community in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) which exists where structures are adjacent to, and scattered throughout, a wildland area. The development density in the community ranges from structures very close together - considered interface - to one structure every few acres in the intermix. This Request for Proposal (RFP) consists of two phases (Phase 2 and 3). Phase 1 has already been completed or is in progress. Phase 2 considers the next priority within Sun Peak Master HOA as identified in later mentioned planning documents and is identified within the FEMA HMGP as Defensible Space and addresses the concept of Fire Adapted Communities (FAC). Phase 3 is identified in the FEMA HMGP as Hazardous Fuels Reduction and addresses both concepts of FAC and Resilient Landscapes. These efforts are intended to address creating a Fire Adapted Community and is in support of the shared responsibility and Resilient Landscapes in creating a Firewise designated community. No additional and future treatment work is planned under this grant although future fuels treatment work and treatment maintenance will be required. The details of Phase 2 and Phase 3 are included under Section 7 of this RFP and identified as “Phase 2 – Scope of Work” and “Phase 3 – Scope of Work.” 4. LOCATION Sun Peak is in Summit County, Utah, and is located west of Utah Highway 224 at Mile Post 141. Sun Peak may be accessed by traveling South on SR 224 and turning right (West) onto Bear Hollow Drive or Sun Peak Drive. 5. LIMITED OPERATIONAL PERIOD In compliance with the USFWS Migratory bird act, NO project work is to occur between April 1 to July 15, the time frame when the majority of annual bird nesting occurs. (Exhibit B). Except for Unit 8, the authorized working period shall commence on July 16. For Unit 8, the authorized working period shall commence on August 1. The work on all units may continue until operations cannot continue due to mud or winter conditions, except that pile burning may continue as long as practical operations, subject to all state and local approved conditions, are allowed year-round. 6. AVAILABLE FUNDS AND CONTRACT TERM Funding available for contract(s) awarded under this FEMA grant is not to exceed five hundred one thousand six hundred dollars and zero cents ($501,600.00). The Contractor(s) will be hired for the duration of the project scope not to exceed March 31, 2025. The HOA reserves the right to hire one (1) or several contractors to perform all duties outlined within the Scope of Work. Contract division, if necessary, will be based on Contractors’ abilities, cost of each treatment, method of each treatment, estimated area of each treatment method, and timeline. 7. SCOPE OF WORK SUMMARY OF CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS The contractor must provide Hazardous Fuels and Defensible Space services plan(s) that details the proposed methods by which he or she will achieve the specific requirements herein, as well as the associated costs and timeline. All treatment methods and treatment prescriptions should align with treatment guidelines and additional performance standards outlined in this document. The plan should not exceed the areas noted on the following maps of the treatment area. Proposals can contain more than one plan, with proposed optional methods and treatments. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS General Treatment Method: Treatment methods should align with terrain, access, and ground disturbance limitations. Cutting and thinning methods may include hand-cut and pile, pile burning, or chipping to meet the prescription requirements. All dead standing and large (greater than 3in diameter) downed woody debris will be removed, treated, or prepared for disposal. All ladder fuels will be removed. Ladder fuels are defined as brush and small trees under 8ft tall. Ladder fuels should be cut at a minimum of 4in from ground, making sure to cut parallel to ground, to avoid leaving spike or jab sticks. Treatment Prescriptions: Treatment methods shall follow as outlined: Mixed Conifer Prescription Sun Peak and the surrounding areas have a current infestation of the Fir Engraver Beetle and the Balsam Woolly Adelgid. Both beetles target true firs, such as White fir (Abies concolorand) Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), but not Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). True fir trees showing damage and disease will suffer high mortality and should be targeted for removal in this treatment. Whenever possible, Douglas Fir is to be left intact. Large conifers, greater than 15in diameter at breast height, (DBH), will be isolated from other conifers. All qualifying conifers in the fuel break less than 30ft in height will be removed unless there are no other conifers within a 30ft radius. When removing live trees, target the White fir for removal and leave Douglas-fir standing. This treatment is intended to reduce hazardous fuels and create defensible space in accordance with the standards outline in the Utah Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy (https://ag.utah.gov/documents/CatFireFinalReport120213.pdf) and the National Fire Prevention Association Firewise USA program (https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-andrisks/ Wildfire/Firewise-USA ). Conifer trees shall be pruned up six to eight feet from the ground depending on slope angle; for shorter trees, pruning shall not exceed 1/3 of the overall tree height. Thinning of doghair thickets of conifer regeneration consisting of groups of 3-10 coniferous trees shall have smallest and least vigorous trees removed, leaving 50% of the largest and most vigorous in the group as reserve. Gambel oak Prescription Gambel oak has basically three stand structures or life forms within the Sun Peak area: ? 1-5’ tall growth with desire to break up some of the horizontal continuity and maintain some younger structure. The desire is to reduce the basal area by 30% to break up the horizontal continuity and maintain a mosaic of younger composition. Any dead and decadent stems should be cut and disposed of. ? 5-15’ tall growth with similar desire to break up the horizontal and vertical continuity and removing any dead and decadent woody material. The desire is to reduce the living and dead basal area by 20% to break up the horizontal and vertical continuity in a mosaic to maintain a younger composition. Any dead and decadent stems should be cut and disposed of. ? 15-35’ tall growth with desire to maintain as a shaded fuel break but reducing some of the dead and decadent woody material and vertical structure. The desire to maintain as a shaded fuel break by reducing the dead and decadent woody material and vertical structure in the understory. Any dead and decadent stems should be cut and disposed of. Aspen Prescription Thin all dead and decadent aspen, cottonwoods, hardwoods, and conifer trees within the unit. All thinned material shall be disposed of. All cut, and dead and down material, up to10 inches in diameter shall be disposed of. Any lopped slash 3 inches in diameter or smaller shall be disposed of. Dead and down aspen showing significant signs of decay can be left on the ground. Dead and down trees greater than 10 inches in diameter shall be lopped and bucked so that the log is in contact with the ground or in 6-foot lengths and the logs left in place, but dispersed as to not create a significant concentration of logs piled on top of one another. The lopped slash shall be disposed of. No woody material should be left on existing trails and shall be pulled back 10 feet from the edge of the trail where possible. Select hardwoods and conifers encroaching into aspen clones may be cut. These trees shall be individually marked for removal Any dead and decadent stems of sagebrush, Gambel oak or other hardwoods and conifers should be cut. All cut material shall be disposed of. Curlleaf Mountain-Mahogany, Gambel oak, Sagebrush and Grass Curl leaf mountain mahogany stands occupies sites with very low fuel levels that rarely burn. However, many researchers indicate that curlleaf mountain-mahogany abundance has increased in the absence of fire since the early1900s. Several stands of mahogany within Sun Peak are seeing increased levels of dead and decadent material that should be cut and disposed of. SITE PREPARATION AND DEBRIS MANAGEMENT Marking Treatment Area: The Contractor will be tasked to mark with flagging the boundary line of Sun Peak homeowners’ private property adjacent to the areas of HOA open space to be treated. In addition, the contractor will be tasked to mark treatment trees for removal to create desired crown spacing for treatment prescriptions. Marked trees will follow guidelines that align with the prescription as specified herein. Finalized marking will require Project Manager approval prior to mobilization. If paint is used to mark trees, Quik-Mark Inverted Marking Chalk, or equivalent temporary marking paint, should be used. Flagging is an acceptable means of marking, so long as flags are removed upon project completion. All retention trees will be marked with an “L” in paint. Take trees should be marked with a horizontal band of paint. Slash, Woody Material and Debris Management: Slash Management: Slash is defined as the branches, treetops and other woody material left behind after cutting, thinning, and/or other forest treatments. The contractor shall determine the method of disposal of slash, woody material and debris management and specify their method or methods in their bid. The process may vary for each of the Units specified in this RFP or, where applicable, multiple disposal methods within a given Unit. This may include any combination of the following: straight biomass removal, chipping with broadcast, chipping with biomass removal, and/or piling/burning. Chipping could be performed on site by directly placing material in a chipper as it is cut and thinned, or it could be stacked (piled) to facilitate chipping after the thinning and cutting is completed. The contractor shall specify which process they intend to follow. Soil moisture and disturbance need to be considered when using a tracked chipper. Chips (from a chipper) left on site should be broadcast and shall not exceed 4in in depth. Additionally, no chips may not be left within 30ft of any flammable structure whether on or adjacent to the treatment property or adjacent to a riparian area. Biomass removal shall be the dispose of material by hauling away from the treatment site. This method would apply to any treated area within 30 feet of a riparian area or structure. The contractor is responsible for biomass removal and/or chipping, hauling and disposal of material away from Sun Peak Master HOA. If the contractor selects piling/burning to be the preferred method toward debris management, all slash between 1 and 10 inches in diameter and greater than 2 feet in length shall be piled. In areas of heavy brush, brush may need to be cleared to better facilitate pile construction. Each pile shall include an area within the center of the pile consisting of small sized slash to provide kindling for ignition. Piles shall be covered with a minimum of 6x6 foot piece of waxed paper. The covering shall be placed in the upper 1/3rd of the pile. Unless approved in writing, maximum pile size shall be no more than 8 feet in diameter and 6 feet in height. Pile size should be dictated by surrounding reserve vegetation and may need to be smaller to reduce the convective heat from the piles impacting the surrounding area. Where excessive airspace occurs within a pile and because of such the pile will not consume well, a chain saw may need to be run through the pile laterally a number of times to reduce the airspace and increase the contact of wood fuel with other wood fuel. Piles shall not be placed within the drip line, or 10 feet, to reserved trees. Piles shall not be placed on logs or stumps, within or 25 feet from riparian areas or on private property, within 10 feet of trails, or within drainage ditches. Stump Height All cut stumps shall be left with no more than 4in above ground, as measured from the uphill side of the stump. Notification The Sun Peak Master Association Manager shall be notified within 24 hours of any new planned activities at [email protected] and via phone message at 435.655.8365. The association manager will send appropriate notice to all home and lot owners. PHASE 2 Scope of Work - Defensible Space Unit 2B – Rob’s Corridor Fuels Reduction - 7.0 acres Objective - Implement a “community protection” hazardous fuel reduction project on the Sun Peak open space to reduce hazardous fuels and improve forest health. Description – This is beyond a pile burn unit, (from Phase 1), that is partially treated with some piles remaining and shall consist of a 250’ fuel break extending along Rob’s Trail and the western boundary of the Wildland/Urban Interface within Sun Peak Master HOA. TCFC Leaseco LP (Talisker) lands occur to the west of this unit. In general, the unit is a 250’ buffer between private structures and Sun Peak open space. The mixed conifer forest contains white fir, subalpine fire and some Douglas fir with treatments consisting of selectively thinning conifers, removal of ladder fuels, and reducing accumulated dead standing and dead/down material. Efforts should focus on maintaining the Aspen and Douglas fir within the unit. The unit connects The Enclave HOA Fuel Reduction Project on the east side and the aspen stand behind 2525 Bear Hollow Dr. to the west. The unit is along a drainage and has a general eastern exposure although includes transitions to north aspects. The contractor shall advise details as to their intended method or methods of disposal of the thinned vegetation. Unit 4 – Northeast Fuel Break – 9.9 acres Objective – Implement a “defensible space” hazardous fuel reduction project to create a buffer between HOA open space and private property. Description - The fuel break extends from the Millennial Trail west and to the north along Kidd Circle, Mahre Drive, and Heuga Court. The fuel break extends from the boundary of private property and onto Sun Peak Master HOA Open Lands for 100’ to the north. Vegetation is composed of Gambel oak, sagebrush, and curly leave mountain mahogany along with other mountain brush species. The desire is to break up the horizontal continuity of the brush by reducing the vegetation by 30% to 50% focusing on any dead and decadent sage brush and Gambel oak. The contractor shall advise details as to their intended method or methods of disposal of the thinned vegetation. Unit 5 – Northcentral Fuel Break – 9.1 acres Objective – Implement a “defensible space” hazardous fuel reduction project to create a buffer between HOA open space and private property. Description - The fuel break extends from Bear Hollow Drive north and around Bear View Drive. The fuel break extends from the boundary of private property and onto Sun Peak Master HOA Open Lands for 100’ to the north. Vegetation is composed of Gambel oak, sagebrush, and curly leave mountain mahogany along with other mountain brush species. A small stringer of mixed conifer exists at the end of Bear Hollow Drive composed mostly of white fir experiencing some forest health concerns but is beyond the unit boundary. The desire is to break up the horizontal continuity of the brush by reducing the vegetation by 30% to 50% focusing on any dead and decadent sage brush and Gambel oak. Any dead and decedent mixed conifer should be cut, and ladder fuels removed to keep fire on the surface. The contractor shall advise details as to their intended method or methods of disposal of the thinned vegetation. Unit 6 – Northwest Fuel Break – 6.3 acres Objective – Implement a “defensible space” hazardous fuel reduction project to create a buffer between HOA open space and private property. Description - The fuel break extends from Bear View Drive and then back up to the top of Bear Hollow Drive that provides a back entrance to Utah Olympic Park. The fuel break extends from the boundary of private property and onto Sun Peak Master HOA Open Lands for 100’ in varying directions. Vegetation is composed of Gambel oak, curly leave mountain mahogany, and sagebrush along with other mountain brush species. The Gambel oak in this area is more of the tree form variety along with a higher density of mahogany. The desire is to break up the horizontal continuity of the brush by reducing the vegetation by 30% focusing on any dead and decadent Gambel oak and mahogany. The desire in the taller tree form of vegetation is to create a shaded fuels break. The contractor shall advise details as to their intended method or methods of disposal of the thinned vegetation. Unit 7 – Interior Fuel Break – 6.8 acres Objective – Implement a “defensible space” hazardous fuel reduction project to thin out fuels within the HOA open space in the interior of Sun Peak. Description – These interior fuels reduction unit runs along an intermittent creek within the watershed between Bear Hollow and Mahre Drive. Vegetation is composed of cottonwoods and other riparian vegetation along the creek bed with sagebrush, Gambel oak, and associated grasses in the uplands. Within the riparian area dead and decadent brush and trees along with dead and down material which should be cut and disposed of. Within the uplands, the Gambel oak, is in the short and moderate life form, and sagebrush is fairly broken up, but where dead and decadent oak and sage exists or where larger clumps exist, some thinning should occur to provide for a diversity of age classes. Within this unit there are several dead cottonwood trees which shall be cut down and be disposed of. Because this area has several different conditions as to vegetation, proximity to homes and proximity to the riparian area this unit has been subdivided on the map into three different sub-units. As a result, the contractor shall advise details as to their intended method or methods of treating and disposal in each of the sub-units. PHASE 3 Scope of Work – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Unit 8 – Rob’s Fuel Reduction and Aspen Restoration – 34.5 acres Objective – Address the forest health concerns and create a resilient landscape in the upper reaches of Sun Peak in an area identified for hazardous fuels reduction. . Description – Treatments will occur above the upper end of Bear Hollow Drive adjacent treatments conducted along Rob’s Trail and The Enclave until reaching the east to west ridgeline that breaks into the Canyons Village part of Park City Mountain Resort. Within this area on a northeastern aspect there are several vegetation types including seral aspen, mixed conifer (white fir, subalpine fir, and Douglas fir), Gambel oak, maple and choke cherry. Treatments within this area with a higher Suppression Difficulty Index will address creating a more resilient fire environment with shaded fuel breaks that address concerns for fire reaching the canopy of the mixed conifer and increasing the potential of crown fire and potential of spotting into the community. Within the serel aspen, efforts will be taken to reduce conifer encroachment, seen with both subalpine and white fir. It appears the subalpine fir may be experiencing an insect known as Balsam Woolly Adelgid and the white fir is being impacted by fir engraver beetle causing significant levels of mortality with red needles remaining on dead trees. Dead and decadent trees should be thinned out throughout unit. In addition, to decrease competition within the aspen, understory brush consisting of maple, oak and chokecherry should be thinned. The contractor shall advise details as to their intended method of disposal of the thinned vegetation. Unit 9 – Northeast Fuels Reduction – 9B Only- 0.8 Acres Objective – Implement a hazardous fuel reduction project intended to treat the vegetation between the Millennium Trail and the Northeast Fuel Break. 9B contains a string of mixed conifer suffering serious forest health concerns exists within this unit is a priority for treatment within this area. The area is a concern as an ignition source with amount of vehicle traffic along State Highway 224 and public use along the Millennium Trail. All dead and decadent mixed conifer within Unit 9B shall be treated. The contractor shall provide details as to their intended method or methods of disposal of the thinned vegetation in unit 9B. (Based on Sun Peak Fire Safety Committee review it felt its not necessary to treat this area at this time). Unit 14 – Southeast Fuels Reduction – 10.2 acres Objective - Implement a hazardous fuel reduction project intended to treat the vegetation adjacent to Phase 1 - Unit 3 – Southern Fuels Reduction. Description – This unit is in the lower reaches of Sun Peak with Phase 1- Unit 3 located to the north of the Canyons Golf Club LLC lands occur to the south (Frostwood Master Development Plat) and Sun Peak Drive to the east. This unit has a diversity of vegetation types but largely composed of mountain brush (Gambel oak, curly leaf mountain mahogany, sage brush, and choke cherry) that increases in density as you get higher into the unit. There are a few white firs and some aspen around the water tanks. The desire is to reduce the vegetation density by 15-30% of the mountain brush with a focus on dead and decadent vegetation while creating some diversity in the age classes of the vegetation. An easement runs though parts of the unit that was opened in the summer of 2022 to allow access for replacing and fire hardening the Rocky Mountain Power transmission line. Due to potential limited funds remaining under the FEMA, Grant the HOA, in consultation with the contractor, wishes to have the discretion to determine the extent of treatment in this area. However, it is hoped there will be sufficient funds to treat the entire Unit. The contractor shall advise details as to their intended method or methods of disposal of the thinned vegetation. Common to All Prescriptions Cultural Resources The contractor shall immediately notify the landowner if disturbance occurs to any known site and shall immediately halt operations in the vicinity of the site until Sun Peak Master HOA authorizes contractor to proceed. Riparian Areas Careful consideration and precautions shall be given to protect stream bed and riparian zone (e.g. no fueling of drip torches within 30 feet of a perennial or seasonal stream). Piles will not be constructed within a stream bed. If piles need to be constructed within riparian area, contractor shall consult with Project Manager. Noxious Weeds To reduce the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, ensure that all equipment is cleaned off prior to operating on Sun Peak Open Space lands. Remove all dirt, grease, and plant parts that carry noxious weed seeds or vegetative parts. This may be accomplished with a pressure washer. In addition, if equipment is found operating in a noxious weed area, the equipment must be cleaned before leaving the project or moving to another area in the location identified in the Request for Proposal. Aerial Hazards Any aerial hazards such as snags, and widow makers need to be removed and brought down to the ground. Cutting of live trees is permissible if required to bring any aerial hazard to the ground. If it is not possible to mitigate the hazard the area should be clearly flagged of such hazard. No aerial hazards should remain along trails or other areas of higher public use. Warning and Signage Contractor shall furnish warning signs along any trails leading to the project area. Where hazardous are such that thinning trees along a trail, the trail may be required to be closed at the judgement of either the contractor or project manager. For prescribed burning, warning signs along adjacent roads shall also be provided by the contractor to advise public of smoke. Warning signage regarding all burning must be posted no less than 24 hours in advance of planned activity. Access to Project Areas 1. Access is by all-weather roads and trails managed by the Sun Peak Master HOA and Snyderville Basin Recreation District and Trails. 2. Contractors desiring access to project areas via private land shall request that Sun Peak Master HOA seek to obtain permission to travel over private lands at least two weeks before access is needed. The Contractor may not travel over any private lands before the HOA provides permission based upon receipt of permission from the private landowner. Communications A working (English literate) crew supervisor, who is knowledgeable and experienced in the required work and supervision, shall be provided for each crew, and is required to stay with the crew while work is in progress. Crew supervisor should have cellular phone communications for the project location to the Project Manager. Personal Protective Equipment 1. The contractor shall furnish personal protective equipment as required for the work involved. 2. Chain saw work should employ hard helmets, chaps, hearing protection, and chain breaks. 3. Prescribed fire operations within Utah can occur outside of normal wildfire conditions and under adverse weather conditions of cold temperatures, rain, and/or snow. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) exemptions to normal NWCG requirements for prescribed fire operations are allowed under such conditions. Such exemption may include requirements for the use of fire shelters, flame resistant shirts and trousers, and wildland fire boots. Equipment The contractor is responsible for providing all applicable equipment including chain saws, drip torches, other ignition devices, fire tools, equipment for mop-up, fuel for equipment and ignition, transportation for equipment and personnel, and vehicles, trailers, masticators, feller buncher and/or chippers for removal and transport of biomass. Global Positioning System GPS equipment is required for this Request for Proposal and must have an accuracy of +/- 10 meters and be capable of accepting/uploading shape files or track logs (i.e. iPhone with Google Earth acceptable). Approximate unit boundaries will be provided through geospatial data, and it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure work is occurring on Sun Peak Master HOA open lands. Fire Prevention and Liability The Contractor may be held liable for all operator fire starts. State and local fire prevention laws may exist and must be followed by the Contractor unless written directions are provided by the Project Manager. All contracts shall at a minimum: 1. To operate all internal and external combustion engines on Sun Peak lands, such engines need to be equipped with a qualified spark arrester that is maintained and not modified. 2. Carry shovels, water, and fire extinguishers that are rated at a minimum as ABC - 10 pound on all equipment and vehicles. 3. Have means of communication with Project Manager and Park City Fire District. 4. Initiate fire suppression actions in the work area to prevent fire spread on Sun Peak Master HOA or adjacent lands. 5. Notify the appropriate dispatch center or 911 immediately of the location and status of any unplanned ignition. 6. After notifying 911, immediately notify Project Manager of the incident. Contract provisions Contractor will be responsible for compliance will all local, state and federal provisions and should be familiar with, and able to implement the following guidelines and requirements USFWS Utah Migratory Bird Recommendations Comply with, and ensure contractor compliance with, all USFWS Utah Migratory Bird Recommendations (Exhibit B - USFWS Utah Migratory Bird Recommendations). Forest Water Quality Guidelines Project work should follow the Utah Forest Water Quality Guidelines for streams when encountered (Exhibit C - UFWQGtech). SWAT Apply for a Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) permit if more than 1 acre of ground is disturbed during the project. (Exhibit D - SWAT NOI Flowchart). FEMA Record of Environmental Considerations Comply with, and ensure contractor compliance with all FEMA Record of Environmental Considerations (Exhibit E - Record of Environmental Considerations). Resident Identified Leave Vegetation Sun Peak Fire Safety Committee to provide "no cut flagging" and education for residents within the treatment area(s). Sun Peak Fire Safety Committee to work with residents and the contractor to determine if marked vegetation will or will not be removed. Notification to County of Work Completed At the completion of each phase of the project, notify the HOA and Summit County to schedule a work site inspection to determine compliance and resolve any issues with the contractor. Documentation Cooperate with Summit County to provide requested or necessary documentation and information; comply with all deadlines, documentation and reporting requirements, and requests from the Utah Division of Emergency Management (DEM), and the State Administrative Agency (SAA). Sun Peak Prescribed Burn and Mop-Up: Hand Pile Burn All elements of the plan shall be followed unless a deviation has been approved in writing in advance by the Sun Peak Master HOA. The burning season for hand piles in the Park City area normally is from November through April. However, conditions permit burning to occur at any time from the middle of October through May with precipitation or snow covering the ground. Control problems can occur if snow melts off with strong winds. Close attention to weather forecasts and securing and patrolling of previously burned units is common practice to eliminate any fire spread from burned piles or escaped fire outside unit boundaries. All prescribed fire operations shall be initiated only when a Prescribed Fire Plan, or equivalent meeting State of Utah requirements, has been approved and signed by the Sun Peak Master HOA. The Contractor is responsible for developing the Prescribed Fire Plan, or equivalent meeting State of Utah requirements (i.e. planned date, size, location, type of burn, fuel load, the purpose of the burn, and smoke management techniques, such as avoidance strategy, dilution, and emission reduction procedures). All elements of the plan shall be followed unless a deviation has been approved in advance by the Sun Peak Master HOA. The Contractor is responsible for obtaining all Smoke Management approvals and any local burn permits. Sun Peak Master HOA will contact adjacent property owners and provide announcements within Sun Peak Master HOA with the contractor responsible for agency notifications as identified in the prescribed fire plan or equivalent. Clearance to Burn The Contractor shall be responsible for monitoring fuel and weather conditions to determine time periods when units are in the prescription parameters identified in the Prescribed Fire Plan. The Contractor shall consult the Project Manager regarding short-, mid-, and long-term weather forecast to determine the potential impacts to fuel moisture conditions and the ability to meet Prescribed Fire Plan objectives. The Contractor shall notify Sun Peak Master HOA no later than 1500 hours on the day prior to ignition when specific units are within burn prescription parameters and of their request to burn. Contractor must be able to mobilize within 24 hours of agreement that burn window might exist. Sun Peak Master HOA and the Contractor will communicate at or before 0900 hours on the day of the proposed ignition to agree that conditions of smoke management and any updated weather forecasts that would allow or cancel the burning. The Project Manager will grant final approval to conduct burning. Approval is based on the Sun Peak Master HOA and contractor verifying: 1. unit fuel and weather conditions are within Prescribed Fire Plan parameters and prescribed fire and resource objectives are attainable. 2. Prescribed Fire Plan parameters and objectives for smoke management are attainable based on smoke management approval, and weather forecasts for proposed burn date and time. 3. The requirement for pile burning on Sun Peak Open Space to be done following – Utah State Rule R307-204 Emission Standards: Smoke Management with approval from the Director of the Utah Division of Air Quality with a clearing index of 500 or above is desirable, but a clearing index down to be 400 allowed. The burn boss has the discretion to further limit or cancel burning if dispersion of smoke is not meeting the desired results, and 4. successful completion of the Go/No Go Checklist and the test fire. During ignition operations, the Contractor's RXB3 shall always maintain contact with the Project Manager through phone or text messaging. Qualifications For the prescribed burning, the minimum qualification required for managing the pile burning is that of Prescribed Fire Burn Boss T3 (RXB3) and may be managed through the National Wildfire Suppression Association or like organization. A qualified RXB3 should be assigned to the prescribed fire while ignition operations are occurring but is not required to be onsite once ignition operations have commenced but will still have responsibility for the prescribed fire until the mop-up and patrol is complete. A minimum of 90% of all piles shall be ignited. Stoke each pile until at least 90% of each pile is consumed. Units with a high tree cover and pile density shall be staged burned to reduce crown scorch. In cases where staged burning does not meet crown scorch parameters, piles may need to be cooled through methods such as placing snow and/or cooling with water. If contractor feels they cannot burn a pile without causing mortality to adjacent reserve tree(s), the contractor can coordinate with the Project Manager to not ignite a specific pile(s). Holding typically is not necessary when piles are burned during prescribed conditions. Conduct holding operations as necessary in accordance with the prescribed fire plan. Relocation of personnel and equipment may be required as ignition and burnout progress. The Contractor's RXB3 shall recognize the need for and make such relocations, dependent upon on-site weather and fire conditions. Extinguish any fire outside the general vicinity of the pile or unit boundary, and promptly report this to the Project Manager. A Fireline shall be constructed completely around fire inside the unit, slop over, and/or spot fires outside the primary unit boundaries. The minimum shall be Fireline scraped to mineral soil 18 inches in width with all overhanging combustible material cleared for 3 feet on either side and 6 feet overhead. Standard Mop-Up and Patrol Complete mop-up and patrol of unit(s) to the extent provided for in this section to meet the mop-up objectives of: 1. the prevention of fire escape outside the primary unit boundaries, and 2. prevention of reburn within unit boundaries. Patrol and mop-up shall begin immediately following completion of ignition on any portion or whole of each unit as conditions dictate. If the weather conditions, forecasts, fuel conditions change, and/or smoke management concerns occur during mop-up and patrol operations to a point where the standard mop-up and patrol may no longer meet mop-up or smoke management objectives, then the Project Manager may request additional mopup resources as needed and determined by discussions between the contractor and the Project Manager. Complete mop-up and patrol to meet the objectives described within 48 hours from 0800 the day following completion of ignition in that unit, or until released from such services by the Project Manager. Advise the Project Manager of conditions which prevent the meeting of mop-up objectives within the 48-hour period. Completely extinguish all burning material within the designated mop-up area. Patrol shall include the visual inspection of all sites where burning was performed and checking for and mop-up of burning material that threatens the achievement of mop-up objectives or the prevent fire escape outside the unit boundary and/or to prevent reburn within the unit boundary. Immediately take actions to Fireline, mop up, and identify all slopovers or spot fires. If Contractor is unable to contain or control slopover or spot fires with patrol resources within 30 minutes after discovery, notify the Project Manager of the situation and continue to take action to contain or control fire. The Contractor may use water, wetting agents, or foam during mop-up and ignition operations. The Contractor shall assure these do not leak or spread into streams, water sources or standing water. Large logs on the ground and root wads (uprooted stumps with roots attached) shall be thoroughly extinguished (dug around and rotten or loose wood scraped off). Fireline berms shall be thoroughly extinguished. Logs and chunks with a minimum size of 12 inches diameter x 4 feet in length up to a maximum of 20 inches diameter x 8 feet in length on slopes greater than 50% shall be turned and placed in a manner that prevents this debris from rolling. Wildfire Occurrence and Project Area Reburn Should a reburn occur during the mop-up operation, the Contractor shall suppress the fire and notify the Project Manager immediately. The cost of reworking the area to contract requirements shall be borne by the Contractor. Contingencies and mop-up are established and will be initiated by the Contractor for the following situations: 1. If a Fire Weather Watch or Red-Flag Warning is issued or predicted by the National Weather Service for extreme fire weather conditions; or if smoke emissions from the burn unit during mop-up are creating air quality impacts to Sun Peak Master HOA or other smoke sensitive areas, the Contractor may be required to complete mop-up within a 24-hour period. If satisfactory progress is not made, or a mop-up plan is not provided that ensures completion within the 24hour period, Park City Fire District, or the Summit County Fire Warden, when determined necessary, may immediately assume control of the project area and provide personnel and/or equipment to complete the work. In this event, the Contractor will be liable for the cost to the Sun Peak Master HOA of performing mop-up. 2. If prescribed fire is declared a wildfire by the Project Manager and/or contractor, Park City Fire District or the Summit County Fire Warden will assume control of the project area. Following declaration of the wildland fire, Contractor’s personnel shall be made available to the Park City Fire District or Summit County Fire Warden for fire suppression. In this event, the Contractor will be liable for the cost to the Sun Peak Master HOA of performing suppression actions. The scope of work is limited to the areas identified herein. Nothing contained in this Agreement should be construed as being an exclusive relationship for Contractor to perform additional work on additional areas in the Sun Peak Community which additional work shall go through a request for proposal process. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS To be considered for selection, submit the information below in a manner that is clearly labeled with heading that match the content described below. The contractor should submit one (1) digital copy in PDF format. All materials must be received no later than 5:00pm MST on May 21, 2024. The HOA reserves the right to reject any or all submittals and to waive any irregularities of information in the evaluation process. The final selection is the sole decision of The HOA and the HOA, and the respondents to this request have no appeal rights or procedures guaranteed to them. All costs related to the preparation of the proposals and any related activities are the sole responsibility of the respondent. The HOA and the HOA assume no liability for any costs incurred by offerors throughout the entire selection process. Phone calls and/or in-person visits are prohibited except for the express purpose of conducting a site visit if the respondent believes it necessary for the submittal of their proposal. Do not contact any member of the HOA or its committees, any County departments, officers, employees, or elected officials regarding this proposal. All questions and answers posed will be forwarded to all interested persons or contractors through SciQuest. No other members of the HOA Selection Committee, County Staff, or Elected Officials may be contacted regarding this RFP. All proposals shall become the property of The HOA. Proposals: Information contained in the proposal must be clearly marked and delineated. The HOA may release any information contained in the proposal that is not marked and delineated as proprietary 30 days following the execution of a contract for services. A. Cover Page a. List the individual or organization’s name(s), project name, and contact information. Include resumes only of those principals, project manager, and other primary representatives who will be directly involved in the overall effort. Additional information may include a web address or social media links. b. State the name of the person authorized to represent the contractor and sign any contract that may result. Include this person’s email address, mailing address, phone number, and signature. c. Include an introduction to the proposal including a summary of the contractor’s understanding of the scope of the project and overall approach to delivering the desired services. B. Experience and Qualifications a. Provide an overview of qualifications including how the qualifications relate to the scope of work. b. Highlight past performance, projects, and/or assignments in completing similar scope of services. C. Approach Describe how the contractor will approach the project. Include a detailed chart of staff and other resources that will be enlisted to complete the scope of work for each task. D. Fee Proposal and Service Structure The contractor shall provide a fee proposal using the provided worksheet (Exhibit B). The fee proposal should include all relevant details as requested. Include any details you feel are necessary to explain your fee. The project budget refers to all costs anticipated to be incurred by the individual or organization for the scope of the project including, but not limited to, the performance of the services, labor, insurance, and materials costs. The HOA will require that the selected Contractor be willing to negotiate, and to enter into a written agreement with the HOA to provide all services required within the Scope of Work as submitted by the contractor in its proposal. The HOA, working with the selected contractor, will negotiate the agreement. All provisions of the agreement will be in compliance with Summit County, State and Federal laws. Adequate and satisfactory insurance is also required, including general liability, automobile, and workers’ compensation. Qualifications 8. EVALUATION CRITERIA Criteria Description Weight Qualifications Contractor’s qualifications related to Hazardous Fuels and Defensible Space Wildfire Mitigation Vegetation Management. 20% Past record and experience Demonstrated qualifications and experience with Hazardous Fuels and Defensible Space Wildfire Mitigation Vegetation Management 20% Access to staff Ability to access the needed staff and resources to complete the assigned scope of work within allowed time. 30% Cost Cost or cost-effectiveness and resource allocation. Value of services proposed. Commitment to the provided budget. 30% TOTAL 100% SITE TOUR There will be a scheduled site tour of the project area on May 03, 2024 at 10:00 am (meet at the Sun Peak Club House which is located at 1950 Bear Hollow Drive in Park City is off SR 224. Bidders must visit the site before their bids will be accepted. Attendance at the tour is strongly recommended. If you are unable to attend the tour, please call Bill Riley at 435.655.8365 or email [email protected] to discuss other arrangements. Site tour RSVPs should be sent in advance to [email protected] by 5:00 PM on the date prior to the tour. EXHIBIT A FEE PROPOSAL WORKSHEET UNIT TREATMENT ACRES PRICE/ACRE PRICE 2B - ROB'S CORRIDOR FUEL REDUCTION 7 HAND CUT BIO MASS REMOVAL CHIPPING IN PLACE CHIPPING/REMOVAL PILING FOR BURNING BURNING TOTAL 4 - NORTH EAST FUEL BREAK 9.9 HAND CUT BIO MASS REMOVAL CHIPPING IN PLACE CHIPPING/REMOVAL PILING FOR BURNING BURNING TOTAL 5 - NORTHCENTRAL FUEL BREAK 9.1 HAND CUT BIO MASS REMOVAL CHIPPING IN PLACE CHIPPING/REMOVAL PILING FOR BURNING BURNING TOTAL 6 - NORTHWEST FUEL BREAK 6.3 HAND CUT BIO MASS REMOVAL CHIPPING IN PLACE CHIPPING/REMOVAL PILING FOR BURNING BURNING TOTAL 8 - ROB'S FUEL REDUCTION & 34.5 ASPEN RESTORATION HAND CUT BIO MASS REMOVAL CHIPPING IN PLACE CHIPPING/REMOVAL PILING FOR BURNING BURNING TOTAL 9B - NORTHEAST FUELS REDUCTION 0.8 HAND CUT BIO MASS REMOVAL CHIPPING IN PLACE CHIPPING/REMOVAL PILING FOR BURNING BURNING TOTAL 7A - INTERIOR FUEL BREAK 2.4 HAND CUT BIO MASS REMOVAL CHIPPING IN PLACE CHIPPING/REMOVAL TOTAL 7B - INTERIOR FUEL BREAK 2.5 HAND CUT BIO MASS REMOVAL CHIPPING IN PLACE CHIPPING/REMOVAL PILING FOR BURNING BURNING TOTAL 7C - INTERIOR FUEL BREAK 1.9 HAND CUT BIO MASS REMOVAL CHIPPING IN PLACE CHIPPING/REMOVAL TOTAL 14 - SOUTHEAST FUELS REDUCTION NOTE * HAND CUT X X BIO MASS REMOVAL X X CHIPPING IN PLACE X X CHIPPING/REMOVAL X X PILING FOR BURNING X X BURNING X X TOTAL * The total area is 10.2 acres. However, there may not be sufficient funds remaining from the grant to treat the entire area. Therefore, the Contractor is requested to quote only the price per acre for the various treatments and the acreage will be jointly determine by the Contractor and the HOA project manager. NAME OF CONTRACTOR DATE These fees are to cover all expenses incurred in performing the services as outlined in the Scope of Work. EXHIBIT B USFWS UTAH MIGRATORY BIRD RECOMMENDATIONS Project Recommendations for Migratory Bird Conservation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office (May 2020) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is the cornerstone of migratory bird conservation and protection in the United States. The MBTA implements four treaties that provide for international protection of migratory birds. The USFWS maintains a list of all species protected by the MBTA at 50 C.F.R. § 10.13. This list includes over one thousand species of migratory birds, including eagles and other raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, wading birds, and songbirds. The MBTA does not protect introduced species such as the house (English) sparrow, European starling, rock dove (pigeon), Eurasian collared-dove, and non-migratory upland game birds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommends that the following migratory bird conservation measures be implemented as you complete your project: a. Wherever possible we recommend that projects be completed outside the migratory bird nesting season to avoid and minimize impacts to migratory birds. b. If the project includes the loss or degradation of migratory bird habitat then complete all portions of the project that could impact migratory birds outside the maximum migratory bird nesting season. This includes ground-disturbing activities, habitat removal, clearing or cutting of vegetation, grubbing, burning, etc. If that is not feasible, we recommend that you complete the project outside the minimum migratory bird nesting season. The time period associated with the maximum migratory bird nesting season is approximately December to August. The time period associated with the minimum migratory bird nesting season is April 1 to July 15 (time-frame when the majority of annual bird nesting occurs). c. If the project needs to occur during the migratory bird nesting season, impacts to birds can be avoided or minimized by completing vegetation treatments and vegetation clearing and removal actions during the fall and winter (outside the migratory bird nesting season per above) prior to the nesting season when the project will begin. d. If a project may impact migratory birds and/or cause the loss or degradation of migratory bird habitat, and such work cannot occur outside the migratory bird nesting season, we recommend surveying impacted portions of the project area to determine if migratory birds are present and nesting. Surveys should emphasize detecting presence of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, take place during the nesting season the year before the nesting season in which project is scheduled to occur, and should document presence of migratory birds at least throughout the entire minimum migratory bird nesting season (April 1 to July 15). Nest surveys should be conducted by qualified biologists using accepted survey protocols. e. If your project must occur during the maximum migratory bird nesting season, implement measures to prevent migratory birds from establishing nests in the potential impact 2 area. These steps could include covering equipment and structures and hazing birds away from the project footprint. Migratory birds can be hazed to prevent them from nesting until egg(s) are present in the nest. However, we acknowledge that hazing migratory birds away from a project site is likely only practical for projects with a relatively small footprint (i.e. projects about 5 to 10 acres in size or smaller). Do not haze or exclude access to nests for bald or golden eagles or any migratory bird species federally listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as these actions are prohibited without a permit for these species. f. If your project must be scheduled during the maximum migratory bird nest season, and vegetation clearing and removal work cannot be completed prior to the nesting season, then we recommend performing a site-specific survey for nesting birds no more than 7 days prior to all ground-disturbing activities or vegetation treatments. If you document active migratory bird nests during project nest surveys, we recommend that a spatial buffer be applied to these nests for the remainder of the nesting season. Vegetation treatments or ground-disturbing activities within the buffer areas should be postponed until after the birds have fledged from the nest. A qualified biologist should confirm that all young have fledged. We recommend the use of the Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances (Romin and Muck 2002) to provide consistent application of raptor conservation measures to your project or action in Utah. We provide recommendations for raptor surveys and conservation measures in the Guidelines to ensure that proposed projects will avoid adverse impacts to raptors. Locations of existing raptor nests should be identified prior to the initiation of project activities. We recommend that appropriate spatial buffers and timing limits be applied to your project for raptors during crucial breeding and nesting periods relative to raptor nest sites or territories per our Guidelines. Raptors may initiate nesting as early as December for certain species. Nesting and fledging can continue through August and for some species the young may not fledge from nests until September. UTAH FIELD OFFICE GUIDELINES FOR RAPTOR PROTECTION FROM HUMAN AND LAND USE DISTURBANCES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office Salt Lake City January 2002 update Prepared by Laura A. Romin and James A. Muck i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary 1 Preface 1 Introduction 2 Purpose 2 Regulatory Authority 3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 3 Eagle Protection Act 4 Endangered Species Act 5 National Environmental Policy Act 5 Wildlife Resources Code of Utah 6 Background 6 Guidelines 10 Resource Identification 11 Existing Data 11 Surveys 12 Prior Disturbance History and Tolerance of Raptors 13 Potential Level of Impacts to Raptor Populations 13 Habitat Management 14 General Guidelines 14 Guidelines for Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts 15 Raptor Foraging Habitat 15 Nesting and Roosting Habitat 16 Direct Mortality within Habitat Use Areas 17 Guidelines for Mitigating Unavoidable Impacts 18 Nest and Roost Site Protection 20 General Guidelines 20 Guidelines for Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts 21 Permits for Unavoidable Impacts 24 Federal Permits 24 State Permits 24 Guidelines for Mitigating Unavoidable Impacts 25 Mitigation Techniques 25 Conclusion 27 Literature Cited 31 ii TABLES Page Table 1 Utah Raptors, their seasonal occurrences, and use of habitat 28 types for nesting, roosting concentration areas, and foraging. Table 2 Nesting periods and recommended buffers for raptors in Utah 29 Table 3 Recommended proportion (None, Half, Full) of the species-specific 30 spatial buffer zones for level and duration of activities during raptor nesting 1 SUMMARY Proponents of land-use activities are responsible for determining potential impacts to raptors of those activities. Appropriate management strategies for conservation and restoration of raptor populations and their habitats associated with the proposed actions should be devised. The following steps should become routine during initial project planning: 1. Coordinate with appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and/or land management agency wildlife biologists at the onset of project planning. 2. Identify species and distribution of raptors occurring within the project area by evaluating existing data and/or conducting on-site surveys. 3. Determine location and distribution of important raptor habitat, raptor nests, and available prey base associated with proposed developments and activities. 4. Ascertain the type, extent, timing, and duration of development or human activities proposed to occur. 5. Consider cumulative effects to raptors of proposed projects when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. 6. Minimize, to the extent feasible, loss of raptor habitats and avoid long-term habitat degradation. Mitigate for unavoidable losses of high-valued raptor habitats, including (but not limited to) nesting, winter roosting, and foraging areas. 7. Plan and schedule short-term and long-term project disturbances and humanrelated activities to avoid raptor nesting and roosting areas, particularly during crucial breeding and wintering periods. 8. Post-project and post-mitigation monitoring are necessary to document stability of raptor populations and their prey base, and to evaluate success of mitigation efforts. PREFACE The following raptor protection guidelines were prepared by the Service in coordination with various federal, state, tribal, and private entities with an interest in raptor protection. These guidelines are intended to provide an advisory framework for consistent raptor management approaches statewide. 2 Incorporation of habitat management and nest/roost site protection measures into land use plans is recommended to ensure project compatability with the biological requirements of raptors and regulatory statutes. These guidelines are not all-inclusive of available mitigation strategies, nor are all recommendations intended to apply to every project. Project proponents should select applicable management recommendations and/or develop other protective measures based on the project and its potential impacts. Biologists from the Service, UDWR, and land management agencies are available to assist with the identification of impacts (both positive and negative) and the selection and implementation of appropriate protective measures. These guidelines are also intended to provide land use planners with the means to avoid the direct or incidental take of raptors, their nests, or eggs (as prohibited under parts of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Eagle Protection Act, and Endangered Species Act; see Regulatory Authority section for further information). In addition, these guidelines provide up-front recommendations to assist land use planners through the National Environmental Policy Act process; essentially, implementation of protective methodologies could reduce potential impacts to raptors and their habitat to insignificant levels and eliminate the need for more extensive discussion of losses in an Environmental Impact Statement. It is important to realize that these are guidelines and are subject to modification on a sitespecific and project-specific basis dependent on knowledge of the birds; topography and habitat features; and level of the proposed activity. Site-specific modifications should be coordinated with appropriate Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency biologists to ensure that the intent of these guidelines is maintained. Revisions to these guidelines may also occur as our knowledge of raptor ecology improves. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE Responsibility for protection of wildlife is rendered in part by the Service’s mission to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Raptors (birds of prey) are protected wildlife and are widely accepted indicator species of environmental quality due in part to their position at the top of biological food chains. Aesthetically, raptors are highly regarded by the public, and anthropomorphic qualities such as nobility, bravery, and wisdom have been widely used to describe these birds. Native Americans hold raptors in high regard for spiritual and religious reasons. The status of raptors can reflect either numbers or inherent biological characteristics such as sensitivity to environmental conditions. In the western United States, the status of raptors is considered stable for some species, declining for others, and uncertain for still others (White 1994). Currently the status of raptors in Utah is uncertain (J. Parrish, UDWR, 1998, pers. comm.). Certain life history characteristics, including typically long life spans, slow reproductive rates, and specific habitat requirements for nesting and foraging, make raptor 3 populations particularly vulnerable to disturbances and may retard recovery of some populations (Brown and Amadon 1968, Nelson 1979, Scott 1985, McCallum 1994). An increase in raptorhuman interactions resulting from industrial, municipal, transportation, and recreational activities have thus prompted development of the Service’s Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. Objectives of these guidelines are to maintain and enhance all raptor populations in Utah by avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating effects of the following human induced impacts: C Physical destruction of important raptor habitat components; C Disturbance resulting in displacement of raptors from high-valued habitat and use areas during crucial time periods (i.e., nesting, winter roosting); C Direct human caused stress, physical impairment, or mortality; and C Environmental degradation and contamination. These guidelines are intended to provide land use planners and resource managers with raptor protection recommendations within the area of influence of land use activities. Protection of nesting, wintering, and foraging activities are considered essential. Implementation of these guidelines is recommended whenever there is potential for an action or project to negatively affect these birds or supporting resources. REGULATORY AUTHORITY Raptors as a group are considered migratory birds. As such, federal and state protection is provided for raptors and their habitat through various legal mandates. The following are brief descriptions of provisions included in applicable federal and state laws: Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); 16 U.S.C. 703-712 Under authority of the MBTA, it is unlawful to take, kill, or possess migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs. Take is defined (50 CFR 10.12) as to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Proscription against killing birds, contained in the MBTA and the Eagle Protection Act, applies to both intentional and unintentional harmful conduct and is not limited to physical conduct normally exhibited by hunters and poachers [U.S. v. Moon Lake Electric Association, Inc. (98- CR-228-B; 10th Circuit 1998)]. When taking of raptors, their parts, nests, or eggs is determined by the applicant to be the only alternative, application for federal and state permits must be made through the appropriate authorities. Migratory Bird Permits must be obtained through the Service’s Migratory Bird 4 Permit Office for take of raptor nests (50 CFR 13, 21). The list of migratory birds protected by the MBTA includes raptors and is found in 50 CFR 10.13. On July 18, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in Humane Society v. Glickman, 217 F. 3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2000), that the MBTA applies to Federal agencies. The United States had previously taken the position that the MBTA only applied to individuals, and not to the Federal Government [Sierra Club v. Martin, 113 F 3d 15 (11th Cir. 1997); Newton Cty Wildlife Assn v. U.S. Forest Service, 113 F 3d 110 (8th Cir. 1997)]. Since the Federal Government decided not to appeal Humane Society v. Glickman, and because all Federal agencies are subject to the jurisdiction of the D.C. Circuit, the Service will implement the MBTA consistent with this decision. Federal agencies are consequently required to obtain permits for activities covered by migratory bird permit regulations (50 CFR Part 21). Director’s Order 131 (December 20, 2000) clarified that permits from the Service are required for any action resulting in intentional take of migratory birds. Permits are not issued for the unintentional take of migratory birds, including raptors; however, unintentional take is still prohibited by the MBTA, as it is a strict liability law. Executive Order 13186 (66 FR 3853, January 17, 2001) reinstated the responsibilities of Federal Agencies to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). The Executive Order establishes a process for Federal Agencies to conserve migratory birds by avoiding or minimizing unintentional take and taking actions to benefit species to the extent practical. The EO, while not eliminating the possibility of violations of the MBTA, is designed to assist Federal Agencies in their efforts to comply with the MBTA. Eagle Protection Act; 16 U.S.C. 668 Specific protection for bald and golden eagles is authorized by the Eagle Protection Act. It is illegal to take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, or transport any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof. “Take” includes to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb (50 CFR 22.3). Recent case law [U.S. v. Moon Lake Electric Association, Inc. (98-CR-228-B; 10th Circuit 1998)] concluded that proscription against killing birds, contained in the MBTA and the Eagle Protection Act, applies to both intentional and unintentional harmful conduct and is not limited to physical conduct normally exhibited by hunters and poachers. The Eagle Protection Act was amended in 1978 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to publish regulations that may permit the taking of golden eagle nests that interfere with resource development or recovery operations. Thus, the Service provides for the issuance of permits to “take” inactive golden eagle nests that interfere with resource development or recovery operations if the taking is compatible with the preservation of the area nesting population (50 CFR 22.25). The area nesting population is determined as the number of pairs of golden eagles known to have attempted nesting during the preceding 12 months within a 10-mile radius of a 5 golden eagle nest (50 CFR 22.3). The Service will issue a take permit when there is a reasonable expectation that no significant long-term loss of eagle habitat will result from the proposed action. The Eagle Protection Act applies to Federal Agencies as well as individuals. A Solicitor’s Opinion dated June 30, 1982 initially concluded that the Eagle Protection Act did not apply to the United States because the United States was not listed among the persons in 16 U.S.C. 668(c) to whom the Act applies. However, following recent court (Humane Society v. Glickman: see above description in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act section) and policy decisions, this Opinion was subsequently revoked by a January 19, 2001 Department of Solicitor Opinion. Eagle permits are also required under 50 CFR Part 22 for Federal Agency actions. It is the policy of the Department of the Interior that all projects by Departmental bureaus comply with the Eagle Protection Act and to urge other Federal agencies to follow this policy as well. Activities of the Federal government should comply with the intent of the Eagle Protection Act and should refrain from actions that would result in the taking of bald or golden eagles. Endangered Species Act (ESA); 16 U.S.C. 1513-1543 The ESA provides protection to threatened and endangered raptors and their critical habitats. As of this writing, the ESA protects the following raptor species in Utah: bald eagle (proposed for delisting) and the Mexican spotted owl (threatened). In addition, the California condor was released in northern Arizona as an experimental population (50 CFR 17, Subpart H). Current lists of endangered and threatened species in Utah can be obtained from the Service’s Utah Field Office. Section 9 of the ESA, as amended, prohibits any taking of listed species of fish or wildlife without special exemption. “Take” under the ESA means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harass is further defined by the Service to include an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harm is further defined by the Service to include an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA); 42 U.S.C. 4321 NEPA was enacted to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment [40 CFR 1500.1 (c)]. NEPA requires all federal agencies or project proponents using federal monies to prepare environmental documentation to analyze the environmental impacts of major 6 federal actions affecting the quality of the human environment. The level of NEPA documentation; Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Environmental Assessment (EA), or Categorical Exclusion; is determined by the degree of environmental impact. Generally, an EIS level analysis is required for projects with significant environmental impacts. Mitigation measures can be incorporated into project plans to reduce impacts to the degree that they are insignificant. If that is accomplished, an EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate. Mitigation as defined under NEPA (40 CFR 1508.20) includes: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance. 5. Compensating for the impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The Wildlife Resources Code of Utah; Title 23, Utah State Code Activities regulated under Utah Code Annotated, Title 23, includes any act, attempted act, or activity prohibited or regulated under any provision of Title 23 or the rules, and proclamations promulgated thereunder pertaining to protected wildlife including: fishing; hunting; trapping; taking; permitting any dog, falcon, or other domesticated animal to take; transporting; possessing; selling; wasting; importing; exporting; rearing; keeping; utilizing as a commercial venture; and releasing to the wild. The terms “endangered” and “threatened” under State Code means wildlife designated as such pursuant to Section 3 of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The term “take” under State Code means to hunt, pursue, harass, catch, capture, possess, angle, seine, trap or kill any protected wildlife or attempt any of such actions. Under Section 23- 13-3 of Title 23 of the State Code all wildlife existing within Utah, not held by private ownership and legally acquired, is declared as property of the state. Under Section 23-20-3, Section 23-20- 4, and Section 23-20-4.5 of the State Code, the taking, transporting, selling, purchasing or wanton destruction of protected wildlife are further detailed and declared illegal and as such are punishable offenses subject to restitution, reimbursement for damages, and incarceration among other actions. Federal agencies are not bound to follow Utah law. However, federal activities should be sensitive to Utah concerns. BACKGROUND Each raptor nest, its offspring, and supporting habitats are considered important to the long-term viability of raptor populations and are vulnerable to disturbance by many human activities. 7 Existing literature details site- and species-specific raptor responses to human disturbances and habitat alteration. There have been sufficient studies of intact raptor populations to suggest certain common factors that act to regulate density. Without human intervention, population regulation in many raptor species comes through competition for breeding space, assisted by the presence of surplus adults which breed only when an existing nesting territory becomes vacant. In habitat where nest sites are widely available, breeding density fluctuates generally in synchrony with availability of preferred prey (Pitelka et al. 1975, Woffinden and Murphy 1977, Newton 1979, Smith and Murphy 1979, Smith et al. 1981, Korpimaki 1984, 1986, Hamerstrom 1986, Hornfeldt et al. 1986, Ridpath and Booker 1986, Wiklund and Stigh 1986, Bates and Moretti 1994). The presence of alternate prey species may allow continued breeding success during periods when the availability of preferred prey species is low (Johnstone 1980, Thompson et al. 1982). In other areas, breeding density may be regulated by a shortage of nest sites to a lower level than would occur normally with available food supply (Edwards 1969, Boeker and Ray 1971, Smith and Murphy 1978). Hence, in relatively undisturbed raptor habitat, breeding density is naturally limited primarily by food supply or nest sites, whichever is most limited (Newton 1979, 1991). Loss and fragmentation of raptor habitat often accompany industrial, transportation, municipal, recreational and other developments. Losses or alterations of habitat can result in a loss or change in the raptor prey base or a loss of historical nesting territories (Thompson et al. 1982, Schmutz 1984, Postovit and Postovit 1987, Williams and Colson 1989). Long term raptor population responses to habitat loss and human disturbances are not well documented for many raptor species. However, there are indications that alterations of the natural environment can strongly influence nesting raptor populations. For instance, local declines in the number of nesting ferruginous hawks in Canada and Idaho resulted from the increased cultivation of native grasslands (Schmutz 1984, Bechard et al. 1986). Golden eagle breeding territories were less successful in areas lacking a mosaic of native vegetation (Thompson et al. 1982) since the habitat was unable to support abundant jackrabbit populations, their preferred prey. Red-shouldered hawk populations in Iowa decreased in response to the clearing of woodlots and bottomland hardwood forests (Brown 1964). Accelerated commercial and urban development was attributed to golden eagle nesting declines along the Colorado Front Range (Boeker 1974). Similarly, Utah’s Wasatch Front experienced the loss of many historically occupied raptor nests, likely in partial response to increased urbanization (Murphy 1975). Scott (1985) suggested that nest abandonment may be affected by regional patterns and increases in human disturbance more than by habitat destruction at a specific nest site. Not all habitat alterations are detrimental to all raptor populations. Bechard et al. (1986) suggested that conversion to irrigated hay lands which support many nest trees and rodent prey may have contributed to local increases in Swainson’s hawk nesting density. Habitat alterations may also result in species composition changes. Conversion of grasslands to cultivated fields may have resulted in reduced ferruginous hawk populations with increases in red-tailed hawk populations (Harlow and Bloom 1987). 8 Besides habitat loss and modification, human activities and development have frequently resulted in disturbances at wintering locations and aborted or reduced nesting attempts. Studies of human disturbances at winter roosting areas have mostly concerned bald eagle responses. Human disturbances may constitute a threat to wintering eagle populations by causing displacement to areas of lower human activity (Shea 1973, Servheen 1975, Stalmaster 1976, Stalmaster and Newman 1978, Brown and Stevens 1997). Human disturbances may also interfere with foraging behavior of eagles (Mathiesen 1968, Stalmaster 1976). Human disturbances near nest sites have resulted in the abandonment of the nest; high nestling mortality due to overheating, chilling or desiccation when young are left unattended; premature fledging; and ejection of eggs or young from the nest (Bent 1938, Woffinden 1942, Boeker and Ray 1971, Snow 1974, Fyfe and Olendorff 1976, Call 1979, Swenson 1979, Craighead and Mindell 1981, Suter and Joness 1981, Postovit and Postovit 1987, Palmer 1988, Tella et al. 1996, Anderson and Squires 1997). Raptors which successfully nest during a disturbance may abandon the nesting territory the year following the disturbance (Fyfe and Olendorff 1976, Platt 1977, Ratcliffe 1980, White and Thurow 1985). Responses of nesting raptors to human disturbances are generally determined by the type, duration, magnitude, noise level, and timing of activity relative to nesting phenology (Suter and Joness 1981, Götmark 1992, Richardson and Miller 1997). Overall, raptors display a high degree of fidelity to nest sites and nesting territories (Newton 1979). Certain physiographic features such as elevation, slope, aspect, habitat diversity, prey availability, nest height, and nest substrate have been measured in attempts to characterize site selection by nesting raptors (Murphy et al. 1969, Apfelbaum and Seelbach 1983, MacLaren 1986, Kirmse 1994). The majority of raptor species are firmly fixed on a special type of nest site according to a narrow genetical disposition (Kirmse 1994). Flushing responses of adult raptors during the breeding season may be related to the duration and frequency of disturbance events, and may vary between species (Fraser et al. 1985, White and Thurow 1985, Holmes 1994). Some level of habituation to continuous or repetitive disturbances may occur (Knight and Temple 1986). Even so, repeated flushing responses by adult raptors due to disturbance may increase energy expenditure during foraging and decrease energy ingestion. Accelerated depletion of energy reserves may result in premature mortality of raptors during harsh conditions (Stalmaster 1983, Knight and Skagen 1987). Sensitivity of adults and young to disturbance may vary during the nesting cycle (Nelson 1979, Holmes 1994). Generally, courtship, nest construction, incubation, and early brooding are considered higher risk periods during which adults are easily prone to desert temporarily or permanently abandon nests in response to disturbance, leaving the eggs and/or young susceptible to the effects of inclement weather, solar radiation, and predation. The days immediately before and during egg laying and early incubation are the most critical stages of the nesting cycle with respect to abandonment. Disturbance of even limited duration during this time can result in immediate and permanent departure by adults from the breeding territory. During post-brooding 9 and post-fledging dependency periods, feather development of the young is sufficiently advanced to provide some protection from the elements. Nevertheless, even temporary flushing from nests by adults due to disturbance during these periods can still result in mortality of the young which continue to be dependent on parental care and are at risk of predation. The type of disturbance can determine to some degree the response of raptors. Declines of local and regional raptor populations can result from aborted or reduced nesting attempts, particularly when the disturbance is prolonged or permanent such as industrial and transportation developments or urban expansion (Boeker and Ray 1971, Craighead and Mindell 1981, Bednarz 1984, Gerard et al.1984). Dispersed recreational activities can deter nesting success. Out-ofvehicle recreational activities are generally considered more disturbing to raptors than in-vehicle recreational activities (French 1972, Garber 1972, Kahl 1972, Skagen 1980, Fraser et al. 1985, Holmes et al. 1993, Holmes 1994). Stopped vehicles, particularly when occupants exit the vehicle, have been reported to provoke negative responses from nesting or perching raptors more often than moving vehicles (Steenhof 1976, Beck 1980, Scott 1985, White and Thurow 1985). Reactions of raptors to fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are reportedly mixed and may be related to the amount of helicopter hovering time spent above a nest, height above the nest, or the frequency of aircraft flights within a nest’s vicinity (Hancock 1966, Carrier and Melquist 1976, White and Sherrod 1973, Call 1979). Associated high noise levels and increased human activity may preclude use of otherwise acceptable raptor habitats. Areas with limited human access tend to exhibit higher nesting densities and higher fledging success for raptors (Fitzner 1980, Harmata 1991). Raptor tolerance levels to disturbance can be species-specific. Evidence suggests that some falcons, ospreys, and owls are generally more tolerant of human-induced disturbance and human environments. Golden eagles, turkey vultures, northern harriers, Cooper’s hawks, northern goshawks, and sharp-shinned hawks appear much less tolerant of disturbances. Buteos (ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, swainson’s hawk) exhibit a wide range of acceptance levels (Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973, Herron et al. 1985, Hayward 1994, Bloom and McCrary 1996), however, some have speculated that the ferruginous hawk should be considered the most sensitive raptor to human disturbance (Woffinden and Murphy 1977, Olendorff 1993). Bechard et al. (1990) found that ferruginous hawks nested twice as far away from human habitation than red-tailed or Swainson’s hawks. Additional disturbances within already altered environments may be less disruptive than disturbances associated with isolated breeding pairs of raptors in unaltered habitats. Raptor species may be less tolerant of disturbances when populations of prey species are at low levels (Snow 1974, White and Thurow 1985, Call and Tigner 1991, Holmes 1994). Some individual breeding pairs appear relatively unperturbed by human disturbance and humaninduced impacts and continue to breed successfully amid development (Mathisen 1968, Bird et al. 1996). In addition, some land-use actions are potentially beneficial for some raptor species, such as: selective logging, utility lines, dams and reservoirs, farming, grazing, fire, mechanical/chemical, and public observation (Olendorff et al. 1989). For example, peregrine 10 falcons and prairie falcons have been observed nesting on transmission towers, bridges, and buildings in many cities and raptors, including bald eagles and golden eagles, have nested within a few hundred meters of airports, blasting, construction, quarry, and mine sites (Pruett-Jones et al. 1980, Haugh 1982, White et al. 1988, Holthuijzen et al. 1990, Russell and Lewis 1993, Steenhof et al. 1993, Bird et al. 1996, Carey 1998). In Utah, peregrine and prairie falcons have nested in abandoned raven nests on 340 kV transmission towers and a peregrine falcon pair nested on a building in downtown Salt Lake City (Bunnell et al. 1997). Observations of a great horned owl nesting repeatedly atop a coal loadout facility in Carbon County, Utah, suggested a measure of tolerance for that breeding pair (L. Dalton, UDWR, 1998, pers. comm.). It is not fully understood what motivates individual breeding pairs occasionally to select nesting sites within or near human-altered habitats. Nesting within or near human-altered environments may be a manifestation of the decreased availability of high-quality natural nest sites due to increasing development; indicative of high densities of breeding birds; indicative of abundant and available prey; or simply a display of higher tolerance for disturbance by certain breeding pairs. Much more research regarding raptor responses to human activities and land use is warranted, particularly with respect to long term population responses to habitat degradation. However, the literature suggests that under many circumstances, human land-use patterns can have a negative affect on individual raptors and raptor populations. The concern is compounded when cumulative effects of various land-use activities are considered. It is likely that some threshold level of land use could be reached in a given area beyond which raptor and other wildlife populations could be seriously impacted. GUIDELINES Human activities can result in disturbance to raptors and their habitats, potentially resulting in population declines. It is the Service’s Mitigation Policy (Fed. Reg. Vol. 46, No. 15, pp. 7644- 7663) to “seek to mitigate losses of fish, wildlife, their habitats, and uses thereof from land and water developments.” Mitigation as defined [40 CFR Part 1508.20 (a-e)] by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality has been incorporated into the Service’s Mitigation Policy to sequentially include avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction over time, and compensation for negative impacts to wildlife and habitats. To facilitate maintenance and enhancement for all raptor populations amid continued human encroachment into their habitats, the following guidelines, developed according to the Service’s Mitigation Policy, provide a framework to: 1. Identify raptor resources potentially affected by proposed land use activities, including raptor nesting, wintering, and foraging habitats. 2. Assess potential level of impacts (both positive and negative) to raptors and their habitats. 1 APLIC is comprised of the Bonneville Power Administration, Edison Electric Institute, 13 electric utility companies, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 3. Protect and enhance high-valued raptor habitat components. 4. Provide reasonable protection for individual raptors and their nesting, winter-roosting, and foraging activities. 5. Document changes in raptor populations in an area during and following a proposed action. Recommendations provided herein for habitat protection and nest/roost site protection are intended to facilitate a consistent approach to raptor management. As stated previously, it is important to also realize that these guidelines can be modified on a site-specific and projectspecific basis based on field observations and knowledge of local conditions. Revisions to these guidelines may also occur as our knowledge of raptor ecology improves. The resulting management actions should always ensure protection of individual raptors and raptor populations. Guideline modifications should be coordinated with appropriate Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency biologists to ensure that the intent of these guidelines is maintained. Other interested resource specialists such as rock climbing groups (e.g., the Access Fund) or raptor groups (e.g., Hawkwatch International) should also be included as appropriate in efforts to develop raptor management actions and apply these guidelines at specific locales. Guidance specific to certain activities continue to be developed and should be used in combination with these guidelines as appropriate: for example, the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee1 (APLIC 1994, 1996) has developed practices for raptor protection on power lines and the Access Fund (Pyke 1997) provides guidance for raptor/rock climber interactions. These guidelines do not supersede provisions of the MBTA, Eagle Protection Act, ESA or associated Recovery Plans. RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION In assessing the degree of land use impacts to raptors, it is important first to document the occurrence and distribution of raptors and their habitats within and proximal to areas slated for development or increased human activity. Existing data -- Proponents of land use activities should assess all existing data available on raptors, including their nests, winter roosts, and foraging habitats within and proximal to areas slated for development or increased human activity. The UDWR maintains a computerized database regarding raptors, which can be accessed for consultation purposes and project impact assessment. Other land management agencies (U.S. Bureau Land Management, U.S. Forest 12 Service, National Park Service, etc.) also possess site-specific information and should be consulted as appropriate. C Raptors occurring in the State of Utah are identified in Table 1. Statewide seasonal occurrences for each species are also presented as well as habitats considered important for breeding, wintering, and foraging activities (Wagner 1980, Walters 1981, Palmer 1988, Dalton et al. 1990; UDWR 1997; L. Dalton, F. Howe, and J. Parrish, UDWR, pers. comm.). In addition, Table 1 identifies level of state and/or federal protection provided for each species (the Service and UDWR should be contacted for the most current legal status of each species). Surveys -- When existing raptor information is unavailable or determined to be insufficient, raptor surveys should be conducted to determine species and locate nests, winter roosts, and other important habitats (e.g., foraging). This will assist in a determination of potential impacts from the proposed action. Terrain and habitat types should be evaluated when selecting an appropriate method for conducting raptor surveys (e.g., aerial surveys vs. ground surveys, walking transects vs. driving transects). Biologists from the Service, UDWR, and/or the land management agency are available to assist with the selection of appropriate and site-specific survey techniques. Since surveys can be interactive with nesting raptors, federal and state permits will likely be required. C Surveys for broad-scale or permanent developments are advised for a minimum three year period prior to the start of construction unless there is existing information about the local raptor population. These surveys should include species use, status, and locations of raptor nest sites (occupied or unoccupied), winter roost sites, and associated habitat use areas. C Where feasible, pre-project surveys should include at least one cycle of a known prey’s population fluctuation since raptor densities are partly responsive to prey fluctuations. Microtine rodents have been documented with fluctuations of 3-4, 4-7, and 9-10 year intervals (Speirs 1939, Elton 1942, Dymond 1947, Keith 1963); prairie dogs and ground squirrels with population fluctuations of 3-5 years (Barnes 1982); and jackrabbit populations have been suggested to fluctuate at 7-10 year intervals (Clark 1972, Wagner and Stoddart 1972, Newton 1979, McAdoo and Young 1980, Thompson et al. 1982, K. Keller, 1998, pers. comm.). C For the life of the project, a qualified wildlife biologist should be retained to annually inventory and document raptor nesting and winter roosting status within the proposed land use impact area and at least one mile distant to external project boundaries. C Data and overall results from baseline and annual surveys should be provided to the Service and UDWR for incorporation into UDWR’s computerized raptor database. Publishing data and results should also be considered to develop information regarding 13 raptor populations and responses to human activities and developments. Prior disturbance history and tolerance of raptors -- As mentioned previously, some individual and breeding pairs of raptors appear relatively unperturbed by some human disturbance and human-induced impacts and continue to breed successfully amid these activities. Nesting within or near human-altered environments may be a manifestation of the decreased availability of highquality natural nest sites; indicative of high densities of breeding birds; indicative of abundant or available prey; or simply a display of higher tolerance for disturbance by certain individuals or breeding pairs. Accordingly, it is not the intent of these guidelines to restrict current land use activities in those situations where raptors appear to have acclimated to the current level of disturbance and human-induce impacts. However, these Guidelines should be closely followed if proposed land use activities may result in exceeding the current levels and timing of disturbances. Coordination with Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency wildlife biologists should be accomplished when proposed land use activities will result in increasing the current disturbance levels in or near raptor use areas. An assessment of raptor population status/trends in a project area may be important in determining current and projected levels of impact to raptors and their habitats. POTENTIAL LEVEL OF IMPACT TO RAPTOR POPULATIONS Consequences of human activities to raptor populations will depend in large part on the proportion of nests and habitats affected by a disturbance. The potential level of impacts should be determined prior to proceeding with proposed land use activities: 1. Impacts to raptor habitat should be assessed by quantifying and/or qualifying losses of habitat value. The Service’s Mitigation Policy considers habitat value to be the primary measure for determining impacts to wildlife habitat, including raptors. The Service’s Mitigation Policy further suggests application of methods such as Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) to evaluate project impacts to wildlife habitats, including raptor habitats as identified in Table 1. Other evaluation methods may be used, including best professional judgement by qualified biologists. Whether a habitat alteration is an adverse impact to raptors and whether it requires mitigation should be determined in coordination with appropriate Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency wildlife biologists. 2. Impacts to raptor population levels can be evaluated in part by determining the proportion of nests potentially affected by project activities for each species. Size of area selected for this analysis should be dependent on the type of disturbance, species of raptors, and topographical and vegetation features. Generally, broad scale land use activities are likely to impart more devastating population effects than single, point disturbances (Nelson 1979). To ensure comprehensive analysis of proposed project impacts to raptors, evaluations should 14 address, but not necessarily be limited to the following: 1. Direct and indirect impacts to raptor habitat and nesting success. Direct impacts may include, but are not limited to: loss of foraging habitat from the project footprint, direct mortality of raptors (e.g., due to collisions with vehicles, electrocution on power lines), and loss of nest sites or winter roost sites. Indirect impacts may include, but are not limited to: noise disturbance, degradation of habitat adjacent to the project area, habitat fragmentation, contamination of food sources, and reduction or changes in available prey species. 2. Cumulative impacts of the proposed project to raptor habitat and nesting success when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 3. Raptor population and habitat trends on “control areas” outside the proposed project area that are not impacted by similar actions as the proposed action. HABITAT MANAGEMENT General Guidelines Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are widely accepted causes contributing to raptor population declines worldwide (Snyder and Snyder 1975, Newton 1979, LeFranc and Millsap 1984). Availability of nests and food supply are considered limiting factors for raptor populations (Whitcomb et al. 1981, Temple 1986, Wilcove et al. 1986, Cline 1988, Watson and Langslow 1989). Raptors compensate for the loss of foraging and nesting habitat by abandoning established territories and/or attempting to utilize less productive or already occupied territories (Nelson 1979, Newton 1979). Other factors affecting raptor distributions and densities include human persecution, exposure to toxic chemicals, diseases, parasites, and predators (Mersmann and Fraser 1988, Newton 1988). Habitat management recommendations should be planned to: 1. Avoid or minimize impacts to habitats which could reduce or change raptor prey populations beyond the natural range of variation. 2. Avoid or minimize impacts to habitats preferred by raptors for nest and roost locations. 3. Mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses. Recommendations in the following sections are intended to facilitate project planning efforts in light of regulatory requirements of various wildlife laws and provisions of NEPA. These recommendations are not all-inclusive of available strategies, but provide a framework for land use planners to follow. Project proponents should select from these management 15 recommendations and/or develop other protective measures based on the raptor species, the project and its potential impacts. Generally, project proponents should first avoid impacts to raptors and only then minimize and mitigate unavoidable impacts. Coordination with biologists from the Service, UDWR, and/or the respective land management agency will help ensure that the objectives and recommendations of these guidelines are achieved. The occurrence and habitat requirements of other wildlife species in the area should also be taken into account when selecting and implementing these habitat management plans. Guidelines for Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts Raptor Foraging Habitat A variety of birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects constitute the bulk of the prey base for raptor species (Steenhof 1983, Palmer 1988). Some species will forage on carrion as well as live prey, some are specialists that primarily take fish, while others are generalists (Steenhof 1983). Construction of facilities, transportation infrastructure, power lines, and other needs contributing to habitat loss and fragmentation are often required by many types of industrial development and can directly and indirectly affect diversity, abundance, and availability of raptor prey populations. Road developments in particular have been shown to restrict movements of small mammals and birds which may affect their dispersal and population levels (Oxley et al. 1974). Management and mitigation efforts should be focused on maintaining and improving habitats sufficient to support healthy prey populations. Some raptors such as burrowing owls use human-altered environments and human structures such as culvert drains and pipes (Botelho and Arrowood 1996). In certain circumstances, these features may be emphasized in management and mitigation efforts. Recommendations: 1. Avoid disturbance to raptor habitats. Despite limited geographic extent, riparian vegetation provides extraordinary wildlife value, and should be given special attention. 2. Retain or increase snags within and adjacent to project areas as hunting perches for raptors. Prey species also utilize snags as nesting areas, food sources, and overwintering habitat. 3. Minimize impacts over broad areas, to the extent feasible. Place proposed new construction and human activities within already disturbed areas whenever possible. 4. Limit the project footprint to the smallest area necessary to meet project needs. 5. Reclaim disturbed areas and obliterate roads as soon as possible following construction, operation, and completion of project activities. 6. Close or reduce use of roads within known high-use raptor areas, particularly during crucial 16 raptor breeding or winter roosting periods. 7. Increase prey habitat through measures such as vegetation plantings or thinnings, depending on the target species. Nesting and Roosting Habitat Preservation of nesting and roosting habitat is important to maintaining raptor populations. Where feasible, activities should be managed to improve the nest stand structure and roosting habitat for raptors. Recommendations: 1. Place proposed project developments to avoid direct or indirect loss or modification of nesting and roosting habitat. 2. Enhance nest and roost site availability to increase attractiveness to raptors. For some species, artificial nest sites can be constructed to enhance use of previously or currently disturbed areas. In some situations, natural substrates can be modified or developed to attract nesting raptors. a. Plant trees to expedite replacement in areas suffering effects of habitat degradation. Trees commonly utilized by nesting raptors include aspen, cottonwoods, willows, junipers, ponderosa pines, and other conifers. Where livestock grazing occurs, plantings may need to be protected from livestock damage until they become established. Livestock grazing strategies should be developed to ensure maintenance or improvement of raptor nesting/roosting habitat. b. Trees or snags with existing raptor nests can be stabilized if alternative sites are limited. c. Rockpiles can be constructed to provide perches and nest sites for some raptor species. Prey species also benefit from the hiding and denning values provided by rockpiles. d. Ledges and crevices can be widened or deepened on cliffs to encourage nesting by some raptor species. e. Artificial nest platforms and nest boxes can be constructed for some raptor species to increase potential nesting sites (Millsap et al. 1987). Call (1979) provides appropriate specifications for tree-nesting, cavity nesting, and underground-nesting raptors. Individual artificial nest platform designs are available on a species by species basis for most raptors. 3. Improve existing nest sites. Quality of existing nests may be more important than the quantity 17 in some areas (Millsap et al 1987). a. Remove excessive accumulations of nest material (primarily for cliff-nesting raptors). Long-term buildup of nest material can bring a nest into reach of a cliff top, increasing accessibility by predators. b. Remove rocks or other debris which have fallen into nests, rendering them unusable by raptors (primarily for cliff-nesting raptors). c. Reinforce and stabilize trees, snags, and cliff ledges which contain existing nests to perpetuate continued use of these established sites. Direct Mortality within Habitat Use Areas Of 25 types of land-use actions identified by Olendorff et al. 1989, at least 8 (32%) of these are known to cause individual raptor mortalities, including: wind energy, roads/railroads, utility lines, fire, mechanical/chemical, illegal harvest, heavy metals, and rodent control agents/pesticides. For example, direct mortality of raptors occurs along roadways and railways from collisions with moving vehicles. Raptors foraging along roadside habitats or on road-killed carcasses increase the potential for raptor-vehicle collisions. For instance, in a two-year study, 26 observations were made of young ferruginous hawks eating dead jackrabbits on roads in northern Utah and southern Idaho (Howard 1975). Road-killed jackrabbits have also been identified as a primary food source for bald eagles wintering in Utah (Platt 1976a). Traffic collisions are a significant factor of mortality for many species of owls and at certain levels may result in local population declines (Glue 1971, Shawyer 1987, Moore and Mangel 1996). Illner (1992) documented 21 times greater vehicle-owl collisions along roads with car speeds of more than 50 mph than on roads with slower traffic. Raptor mortality on roadways is not well documented in Utah. However, 15 eagles (other raptors were not documented) were reported killed in Carbon and Emery counties in 1996-1997 (M. Milburn, UDWR, 1998, pers. comm.); most of the collisions were reported to involve coalhauling trucks. Many other raptor deaths likely occurred, but were not reported. Of note, in response to high eagle mortality along I-70 in Emery County, the Utah Department of Transportation in 1989 posted “Eagles on Highway” signs to warn motorists of the bird’s tendency to forage on carcasses. Other causes of direct mortality include improperly constructed power lines which can result in the electrocution of raptors attempting to utilize these structures for perching and nesting sites. Collisions with transmission lines and towers also result in direct mortality of raptor species (APLIC 1994, 1996). Many human activities and proposed developments increase human access to previously remote areas. Many projects include development of access roads which may remain following project 18 completion. These roads encourage public use for recreational purposes, unfortunately resulting in illegal shooting and other types of persecution of raptors (Newton 1979). Recommendations: 1. Reduce maximum allowable speeds on roadways as much as practicable, taking into account the type and service area of the road. 2. Implement a removal program for wildlife carcasses along roadways to avoid further mortality of raptors which are attracted to carcasses. Distribution of carcasses to appropriate areas could be considered to supplement food sources for some raptor species, especially during winter periods. 3. Establish educational programs for project area employees to increase awareness of the potential for vehicular collisions and other encounters with raptor species within the project area. 4. Place road signs indicating raptor use areas at appropriate locations along existing and newly constructed roads. Some caution is warranted here. It may be undesirable to alert the public to the presence of raptors in some areas where the potential for illegal take may increase because of such actions. 5. Install and maintain power line facilities in a way that will reduce raptor collisions and electrocution, and encourage nesting/roosting use of properly constructed transmission towers and power poles where appropriate. Reference guidelines are provided in two state-of-the-art reports by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 1994 and 1996). Additional recommendations and references are provided in Musclow and Dalton (1990, Section H). 6. Limit the number and extent of access roads to minimize recreational use of previously isolated areas, thus reducing human-raptor interactions and probable conflicts. 7. Remove and reclaim roads as soon after requirements for their use have ended. Guidelines for Mitigating Unavoidable Impacts In accordance with Service Mitigation Policy, we advise mitigation for replacement of raptor habitat values lost to unavoidable impacts. Mitigation can be accomplished by increasing habitat values of existing raptor use areas on or adjacent to project lands; restoring or rehabilitating previously altered habitat; acquiring land through fee title acquisition, conservation easements, legislative protective designations, and managing acquired land for raptor habitat values; and/or other land management strategies. Where appropriate, mitigation should be developed to contribute toward implementation of other priority action items such as those included in conservation agreements and recovery plans. 19 STEP 1 Determine the extent and duration of unavoidable losses of raptor habitat (refer to discussion on Potential Level of Impact to Raptor Populations). All opportunities to avoid or minimize impacts should already have been considered. STEP 2 Determine impacts and mitigation for all phases of proposed land use activities, including construction, operation, and reclamation. Generally, mitigation should be determined by the degree of impact to raptors. The duration of an activity (short-term or long-term) would be part of this determination as follows: For these guidelines, short-term is defined as an activity which would begin outside of a given breeding season and end prior to initiation of a given nesting season. Long-term is defined as an activity which would continue into or beyond a given nesting season. 1. If the proposed project activity is short-term, reclamation of disturbed areas can be accomplished during and following project completion. Habitat reclamation should involve seeding and/or vegetation plantings with native materials to approximate or improve preproject conditions. Specification of seed mixes and plant types should be coordinated with local natural resource managers to ensure selection of appropriate species. Seedings and plantings should be selected which provide diverse and native vegetation, encouraging habitat diversity, which supports abundant prey populations. Fertilization and/or watering programs may be necessary to successfully establish the vegetation. 2. If the proposed project is long-term or permanent, up-front habitat acquisition, development and/or improvement to mitigate for impacted areas should be considered prior to initiation of the proposed activity. The amount and type of mitigation should be based on losses in habitat value. On-site, in-kind mitigation is preferred, however, off-site and/or out-of-kind mitigation may be considered if the resulting benefits to raptor populations offset the predetermined losses for the project area. STEP 3 Post-project monitoring to determine the effectiveness of habitat mitigation measures on raptor populations should be an integral component of the mitigation plan. Publishing data and results should also be considered to develop information regarding raptor populations and responses to human activities and developments. 20 NEST AND ROOST PROTECTION General Guidelines Raptors typically demonstrate a high degree of fidelity to nesting locations. Successful habitat management should be complemented by efforts to attain natural or pre-development nesting success of local raptor populations and protection of winter roosting activities. Spatial and seasonal buffer zones have regularly been used to protect individual nest sites/territories to ensure successful breeding and to maintain high use areas by raptors. Recommendations provided herein are in accordance with the Service’s Utah Field Office policy that: No temporary or permanent surface occupancy occur within species-specific spatial and seasonal buffer zones. Coordination with appropriate Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency biologists should occur when implementing nest/roost site protective measures to ensure that the intent of these guidelines and associated state and federal regulations are realized. Buffer zones are defined as seasonal or spatial areas of inactivity in association with individual nests or nesting territories. Spatial buffers are defined as radii from known occupied and unoccupied nest sites. Seasonal buffers are restrictions on the times when human activities should be allowed to occur within the spatial buffers. Raptor nesting information and buffer recommendations provided in these guidelines were developed for Utah following review of pertinent literature and coordination with knowledgeable wildlife professionals (Call 1979, Jones 1979, Fitzner 1980, Wood 1980, Dubois 1984, USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv. 1984, White and Thurow 1985, Palmer 1988, Johnsgard 1988, Johnsgard 1990, Dalton et al. 1990, Harmata 1991, USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv. 1995, Richardson and Miller 1997, Calif. Burr. Owl Cons. 1997, L. Dalton, F. Howe, and J. Parrish, UDWR, 1998, pers. comm., C. White, Brigham Young Univ., 1998, pers. comm.). While much of this information would be relevant in other states, particularly within the Rocky Mountain region, adjustments may be needed if applying these guidelines outside Utah. Recommended buffers should be considered as optimal stipulations intended to protect nesting and roosting under a wide range of activities statewide. However, they are not necessarily sitespecific to proposed projects. Land use planners should evaluate the type and duration of the proposed activity, position of topographic and vegetative features, habituation of breeding pairs to existing activities in the proposed project area, and the local raptor nesting density when determining site-specific buffers. Nest site protection recommendations are devised to: 21 1. Provide reasonable levels of protection during the raptor nesting and wintering periods by applying appropriate spatial and seasonal buffers zones to nest and roost sites. 2. Preclude impacts to nest sites where possible. 3. Mitigate unavoidable impacts to nest sites. Protection of both occupied and unoccupied nests is important since not all raptor pairs breed every year or utilize the same individual nest within a nesting territory (Scott 1985). Individual raptor nests left unused for a number of years are frequently reoccupied. For instance, non-use may occur over one prey fluctuation period (7 ± years) for species such as golden eagles or ferruginous hawks (C. White, BYU, 1998, pers. comm.). The importance of individual nest site(s) to overall population stability is unknown, but it is likely that individual sites are selected by breeding pairs for the preferred attributes provided at that location. Occupied Nests are defined as those nests which are repaired or tended in the current year by a pair of raptors. Presence of raptors (adults, eggs, or young), evidence of nest repair or nest marking, freshly molted feathers or plucked down, or current years’ mute remains (whitewash) suggest site occupancy. Additionally, all nest sites within a nesting territory are deemed occupied while raptors are demonstrating pair bonding activities and developing an affinity to a given area. If this culminates in an individual nest being selected for use by a breeding pair, then the other nests in the nesting territory will no longer be considered occupied for the current breeding season. A nest site remains occupied throughout the periods of initial courtship and pair bonding, egg laying, incubation, brooding, fledging, and post-fledging dependency of the young. Unoccupied Nests are defined as those nests not selected by raptors for use in the current year. Nests would also be considered unoccupied for the non-breeding period of the year (see Table 2). The exact point in time when a nest becomes unoccupied should be determined by a qualified wildlife biologist based upon a knowledge that the breeding season has advanced such that nesting is not expected. Inactivity at a nest site or territory does not necessarily indicate permanent abandonment. Guidelines for Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts STEP 1 Determine the appropriate species-specific spatial and seasonal buffer zones as presented in Table 2 for raptors that may be impacted by the proposed land-use activity. Nesting C Seasonal buffers represent the outermost dates known in Utah for the arrival of adult 22 birds at nesting territories through post-fledging dependency of the young. Actual dates for each stage of nesting can vary by region, elevation, and weather conditions; as well as individual pairs. For instance, sharp-shinned hawks in Washington County in southwestern Utah nest two to three weeks earlier than those in Cache County in northern Utah [Platt 1976 (b)]. Routine, annual surveys of nesting localities may provide more precise on-site information regarding individual nests. Survey results should be clearly documented to augment available information on raptors. Biologists from the Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency should be consulted for site-specific nesting chronlogy which would allow adjustment of these recommended seasonal buffers. C Typically, the recommended spatial buffers (Table 2) for threatened and endangered species are 1.0 miles (except 0.5 miles for the Mexican spotted owl); recommended spatial buffers for other diurnal raptors are 0.5 miles except 0.25 miles for the prairie falcon; and no buffer is presently considered necessary for the American kestrel and common barn-owl. Exceptions are based in part on suspected tolerance levels within Utah and existing Recovery Plans. Winter Roosting C Spatial buffer zones recommended for raptor nesting protection are also encouraged for activities occurring proximal to raptor winter concentration areas from November through March. We recommend maintaining a spatial buffer equal to one-half of the recommended buffers for nests (Table 2) unless site-specific topography or vegetation allow for smaller buffers. Appropriate Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency biologists should be consulted prior to adjusting buffers for winter concentration areas. C Daily activities which must occur within recommended spatial buffers at winter night roost sites should be scheduled after 0900 hours, after which most raptors have vacated their roost. Likewise, daily activities should terminate at least one hour prior to official sunset to allow birds an opportunity to return to the roost site undisturbed (Call 1979). STEP 2 Consult Table 3 for recommendations to avoid and/or minimize human impacts to raptor nesting success during the breeding season. Recommendations in the table are NONE, HALF, and FULL; referring to the proportion of the spatial buffer (as presented in Table 2) recommended during progressive points in the nesting chronology. C Aircraft flight paths should also respect recommended spatial and seasonal buffer zones. Where intrusions within the recommended buffers must occur, flights should maintain a minimum 1000 feet elevation and minimum 30 mph speed during overflights 23 to minimize disturbance to raptors and raptor nest sites. STEP 3 Apply the information attained in Steps 1 and 2 to the following guidelines for occupied and unoccupied nest sites to avoid or minimize effects of proposed land use activities to nesting raptors: C Occupied raptor nests: Activities should not occur within the spatial/seasonal buffer of any nest (occupied or unoccupied) when raptors are in the process of courtship and nest site selection. Egg laying, incubation, fledging, brooding, and post-fledging dependency periods are protected by varying seasonal and spatial buffers (Tables 2 and 3). Short term land use and human use activities should only proceed within the spatial buffer of an occupied nest outside the seasonal buffer, after coordination with appropriate Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency biologists. Mitigation for habitat loss or degradation should be planned. Long term land use activities and human use activities should not occur within the species-specific spatial buffer zone of occupied nests. C Unoccupied raptor nests: If a nest site within a territory is deemed unoccupied after sufficient time has elapsed in a specified breeding season and prior to the beginning of the next year’s breeding season, human activity could be allowed within the nesting area. This period varies dependent on raptor species. However, as a general rule, even renesting will usually not occur later than May 30 (C. White, BYU, 1998, pers. comm.). Short term land use and human activities may progress near a nest or nest territory designated as unoccupied. For long term land use activities, unoccupied nests should be protected for 7 years, or the period a known preferred prey species fluctuates from population highs to lows. At the end of the 7-year period, each nest should be evaluated by a qualified wildlife biologist as to its potential future use. Criteria could include the raptor species current population trend in the local area, the corresponding prey species population levels and trends, as well as past, current, and future impacts of the proposed action. Nests could also be considered permanently abandoned if the nest has been physically damaged past the point of repair by raptors. Long-term land use activities and human use activities should not occur proximally to unoccupied nests unless it is determined that mitigation is appropriate and can be accomplished prior to initiation of the long-term disturbance. Coordination with Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency 2 Inactive nest in this context means a golden eagle nest that is not currently used by golden eagles as determined by the absence of any adult, egg, or dependent young at the nest during the 10 days before the nest is taken (50 CFR 22.3). 24 biology is recommended when completing this assessment. STEP 4 Establish and ensure implementation of post-project and post-mitigation monitoring plans to determine possible impacts to the local raptor population as well as success of mitigative measures. Monitoring should include documentation of raptor nesting success, use of historical roost concentration areas, as well as recovery of affected prey base and habitats. Permits for Unavoidable Impacts Situations may arise where human activity must occur within recommended spatial and seasonal buffers provided for raptors. For instance, a raptor may decide to construct a new nest in an area already threatened by mining subsidence or within an area previously unused by raptors and scheduled for development. When taking of nests is determined by the applicant to be the only alternative, application for federal and state permits must be made through the appropriate authorities. Coordination with appropriate Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency biologists should occur to ensure compliance with State and Federal wildlife regulations. Federal Permits Migratory Bird Permits and Eagle Permits must be obtained through the Service’s Migratory Bird Permit Office for take of raptor nests (50 CFR 13, 21-22). The Service will determine upon application whether there is a valid justification for the permit. Permits will not be issued if they would potentially threaten a wildlife or plant population [50 CFR 13.21 (b)(4)]. Permits may be revoked if continuation of the permitted activity would be detrimental to maintenance or recovery of the affected population [50 CFR 13.28 (a)(5)]. Golden eagle nests may only be taken when they are inactive2 and only if the taking is compatible with the preservation of the area nesting population [50 CFR 22.25(c)]. The applicant is responsible for determining population level and habitat impacts of the proposed project and developing mitigation measures. For instance, mitigation measures may include reclaiming disturbed land to enhance golden eagle nesting and foraging habitat as per 50 CFR 22.25 (a)(9). State Permits Take of protected wildlife is not allowed without having obtained necessary State of Utah permits and/or certificates or registration. UDWR will determine upon application whether there is a valid justification for the permit and/or certificate of registration. Additional permits and/or certificates of registration may be deemed necessary by the Wildlife Board whenever proposed 25 actions are deemed detrimental to wildlife populations in the State of Utah. Each applicant for appropriate permits and/or certificates of registration for a take of protected wildlife is required to provide detailed information why a take of protected wildlife is considered necessary. Guidelines for Mitigating Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation Techniques Examples of techniques to mitigate unavoidable impacts to raptors and their habitats follow. These recommendations are not all-inclusive of available strategies, but provide a framework for land use planners to follow. Project proponents should select management recommendations and/or develop other techniques based on the raptor species, the project and its potential impacts. Success of these techniques is generally varied and somewhat dependent on the species, individual raptors, individual breeding pairs, and type of disturbance: 1. Relocation of young and nests Extensive coordination with Service, UDWR, and/or resource management wildlife biologists is highly encouraged when attempting relocation of young and nests of raptors. Techniques involving relocation of raptor young and nests have been successfully accomplished for some species and are intended to maintain a breeding pair’s use of their home range despite disturbance or loss of the traditional nest site (Postovit et al. 1982). Nonmigratory species such as golden eagles, which maintain an average of four to six nests per nesting territory in Utah, may be more accepting of this strategy than migratory raptors which may shift territories in response to prey availability (Postovit and Postovit 1987). Case studies in Wyoming (Postovit et al. 1982, Parrish et al. 1994) showed high success rates for relocation of golden eagle and ferruginous hawk nests and nestlings. Relocations of great horned owls, short-eared owls, prairie falcons, and red-tailed hawks also have met with success. The following recommendations from Postovit and Postovit 1987 have been provided to foster successful relocation efforts: a. Determine a raptor pair’s home range and movement patterns. b. Select a relocation site as far from disturbance as possible, but within the home range and near preferred use areas such as roosts, perches, and foraging sites. C Line of sight visibility to original nest sight should be considered. If distant or not visible from original nest, the relocation may be made in stages with a mobile platform. Moves greater than 1/4 mile distant from the original nest are not recommended. Selection of previously used nest locations or natural substrates for relocation is preferred. c. Establish new nest sites at least two years prior to planned relocation to allow acclimation by the adult birds. 26 d. Schedule nest relocations to occur outside the raptor’s breeding season. e. Nestlings should only be moved when they are one-half way through the nestling period since they no longer require continuous brooding by the adults. 2. Deterring use of an existing nest Extensive coordination with Service, UDWR, and/or resource management wildlife biologists is highly encouraged when attempting to discourage use of an existing nest by raptors. Deterrence measures are restricted to non-lethal methods intended to prevent nesting in areas under active development and at nests where destruction or high levels of disturbance are likely to occur. Nesting raptors would be afforded complete protection until fledging of young is completed. Deterrence is not always successful; consideration should be given to whether other potential nests or nests sites are available within the area. Postovit and Postovit (1987) recommended the following deterrence methods: a. Blocking access to nests with welded wire to prevent egg laying. C Blocking access to nests has resulted in breeding pairs building new nest sites and accepting existing alternate nests (Parrish et al. 1994). At a coal mine in southeastern Utah, a golden eagle pair succeeded at removing the nesting material from beneath the wire cage, to rebuild the nest at a nearby location (B. Bates, UDWR, 1998, pers. comm.). b. Removing nest starts or rendering a nesting substrate unusable. c. Repeated disturbance using loud noises. C Some wildlife may become habituated over time to loud noises or scare tactics, so this may provide only short-lived deterrence. 3. Habituating raptors to increased disturbance or noise levels Beginning land use, human activities, or construction prior to the breeding season will allow a pair of raptors to “choose” whether the nest site is still acceptable considering the disturbance. Warning sirens at regular intervals have also been used to alert raptor pairs to potentially startling noises such as blasting. This technique has generally been used where there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed action. While loss of the nest site may occur, the goal of this technique is to avoid the loss of eggs or young and allow the adults an opportunity to select an alternate nesting site. 27 Monitoring and documentation of results is recommended following any of the aforementioned techniques to maximize success of efforts. Publishing data and results should also be considered to widely circulate information regarding success of raptor mitigation techniques. CONCLUSION It has been the intent of these guidelines to provide land use planners with the tools to develop successful raptor management and mitigation strategies proximal to disturbances from land use activities. Raptor survey information attained through implementation of these guidelines will also provide a means to track raptor population trends and document population responses to human use of their environments. The guidelines have presented recommendations for protection of raptor life stages (i.e., nesting and wintering) as well as raptor habitats. The recommendations are hardly exhaustive of available protective strategies, nor are all recommendations intended to be incorporated on every proposed project. Coordination with appropriate Service, UDWR, and/or land management agency biologists is important during the analysis of project impacts and selection of protective measures. Project proponents should seek first to avoid or minimize impacts. Where there are inevitable losses or degradations of habitat or disturbance to individual birds, mitigation can be incorporated to lessen the impact. Overall, these guidelines have been designed to maintain viable raptor populations amid continued human use of the environment. 28 QUATTRO PRO -- TABLE 1 INSERT 29 Table 2. Nesting periods and recommended buffers for raptors in Utah Species Spatial Buffer (miles) Seasonal Buffer Incubation, # Days Brooding, # Days Post- Hatch Fledging, # Days Post-Hatch Post-fledge Dependency to Nest, # Days1 Bald eagle 1.0 1/1-8/31 34-36 21-28 70-80 14-20 Golden eagle 0.5 1/1-8/31 43-45 30-40 66-75 14-20 N. Goshawk 0.5 3/1-8/15 36-38 20-22 34-41 20-22 N. Harrier 0.5 4/1-8/15 32-38 21-28 42 7 Cooper’s hawk 0.5 3/15-8/31 32-36 14 27-34 10 Ferruginous hawk 0.5 3/1-8/1 32-33 21 38-48 7-10 Red-tailed hawk 0.5 3/15-8/15 30-35 35 45-46 14-18 Sharp-shinned hawk 0.5 3/15-8/31 32-35 15 24-27 12-16 Swainson’s hawk 0.5 3/1-8/31 33-36 20 36-40 14 Turkey vulture 0.5 5/1-8/15 38-41 14 63-88 10-12 California condor 1.0 NN yet 56-58 5-8 weeks 5-6 months 2 months Peregrine falcon 1.0 2/1-8/31 33-35 14-21 35-49 21 Prairie falcon 0.25 4/1-8/31 29-33 28 35-42 7-14 Merlin 0.5 4/1-8/31 28-32 7 30-35 7-19 American kestrel NN2 4/1-8/15 26-32 8-10 27-30 12 Osprey 0.5 4/1-8/31 37-38 30-35 48-59 45-50 Boreal owl 0.25 2/1-7/31 25-32 20-24 28-36 12-14 Burrowing owl 0.25 3/1-8/31 27-30 20-22 40-45 21-28 Flammulated owl 0.25 4/1-9/30 21-22 12 22-25 7-14 Great horned owl 0.25 12/1-9/31 30-35 21-28 40-50 7-14 Long-eared owl 0.25 2/1-8/15 26-28 20-26 30-40 7-14 N. saw-whet owl 0.25 3/1-8/31 26-28 20-22 27-34 7-14 Short-eared owl 0.25 3/1-8/1 24-29 12-18 24-27 7-14 Mex. Spotted owl 0.5 3/1-8/31 28-32 14-21 34-36 10-12 N. Pygmy owl 0.25 4/1-8/1 27-31 10-14 28-30 7-14 W. Screech owl 0.25 3/1-8/15 21-30 10-14 30-32 7-14 Common Barn-owl NN2 2/1-9/15 30-34 20-22 56-62 7-14 1 Length of post-fledge dependency period to parents is longer than reported in this table. Reported dependency periods reflect the amount of time the young are still dependent on the nest site; i.e. they return to the nest for feeding. 2 Due to apparent high population densities and ability to adapt to human activity, a spatial buffer is not currently considered necessary for maintenance of American kestrel or Common barn-owl populations. Actions resulting in direct mortality of individual birds or take of known nest sites is unlawful. 30 Table 3. Recommended proportion (None, Half, or Full) of the species-specific spatial buffer zones for level and duration of activities during raptor nesting NESTING PHENOLOGY (Risk Level) Courtship and Nesting (High) Incubation, and Brooding (High) Post-Brooding Nestling Period (Moderate) Post Fledging Dependency (Moderate) In-Vehicle, Recreationala Activity: Any recreational vehicle driving off-road, or on dirt roads, and not part of a routinely used transportation corridor. less than 1 hourb NONE NONE NONE NONE less than 1 hourc HALF HALF NONE NONE greater than 1 hour FULL FULL HALF HALF Out-of-Vehicle, Recreational Activity: including, but not limited to hiking, dispersed camping, rock climbing, birdwatching, fishing, hunting, biological surveys. less than 1 hourb HALF HALF NONE NONE less than 1 hourc FULL FULL HALF HALF greater than 1 hour FULL FULL FULL FULL Developed Recreation: including, but not limited to ski resorts, snowmobile and off-road vehicle courses, developed campground sites, and group tour operations. FULL FULL FULL FULL Industrial, Municipal, and Transportation Disturbance: including, but not limited to urbanization; mining; oil and gas development; logging; power line construction; road construction & maintenance; use of explosives; agricultural operations; fixed wing and helicopter overflights. less than 1 hourb FULL FULL HALF HALF less than 1 hourc FULL FULL FULL HALF greater than 1 hour FULL FULL FULL FULL a Recreational activities are defined as those providing outdoor recreation, entertainment, or adventure. b No more than 1 repetition in a 24 hour period for a duration of less than 1 hour is allowable. c More than one repetition per 24 hours, spaced no less than 2 hours apart, occurs during daylight hours. Full buffer zone is required for any activities occurring during nighttime hours 31 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, S.H. and J.R. Squires. 1997. The prairie falcon. Univ. Texas Press, Austin. 162pp. Apfelbaum, S.I. and P. Seelbach. 1983. Nest tree, habitat selection and productivity of seven North American raptor species based on the Cornell University nest record card program. Raptor Research 17(4):97-113. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Res. Found., Washington, D.C. 125pp. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. 78pp. Barnes, A.M. 1982. Surveillance and control of bubonic plague in the United States. Symp. Zool. Soc. London. 50:237-270. Bates, B. 1998. Southeast Region Habitat Manager. Utah Div. Wildl. Res., Price. Personal communication. Bates J.W. and M.O. Moretti. 1994. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) population ecology in eastern Utah. Great Basin Nat. 54(3):248-255. Bechard, M.J., K. Hague-Bechard, and D. Porter. 1986. Historical and current distributions of swainson’s and ferruginous hawks in southern Idaho. Dep. Biology, Boise State Univ., Boise. 58pp. Bechard, M.J, R.L. Knight, D.G. Smith, and R.E. Fitzner. 1990. Nest sites and habitats of sympatric hawks (Buteo spp.) in Washington. J. Field Ornithol. 61:159-170. Beck, D.L. 1980. Wintering bald eagles in the Wells Resource area, Elko District, Nevada, 1979-80. U.S. Dep. Inter. Bur. Land Manage., Elko. 49pp. Bednarz, J.C. 1984. The effect of mining and blasting on breeding falcons (Falco mexicanus) occupancy in the Caballo Mountains, New Mexico. J. Raptor Res. 18(1):16-19. Bent, A.C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey, Part 2. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. No. 170. Smithsonian Inst., Washington, D.C. 482pp. Bird, D.M., D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds. 1996. Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, New York. 396pp. 32 Bloom, P.A. and M.D. McCrary. 1996. The urban buteo: red-shouldered hawks in southern California. Pages 31-39 in Bird, D.M., D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds. Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, New York. 396pp. Boeker, E.L. 1974. Status of golden eagle surveys in the western states. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2:46- 49. Boeker, E.L. and T.D. Ray. 1971. Golden eagle population studies in the southwest. The Condor 73:463-467. Botelho, E.S. and P.C. Arrowood. 1996. Nesting success of western burrowing owls in natural and human-altered environments. Pages 61-68 in Bird, D.M., D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds. Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, New York. Brown, B.T. and L.E. Stevens. 1997. Winter bald eagle distribution is inversely correlated with human activity along the Colorado River, Arizona. J. Raptor Res. 31(1):7-10. Brown, W.H. 1964. Population changes in red-shouldered and red-tailed hawks. Iowa Bird Life 34:82-87. Brown, L. and D. Amadon. 1968. Eagles, hawks, and falcons of the world. Country Life Books, London. Bunnell, S.T., C.M. White, D.S. Paul, and S.D. Bunnell. 1997. Stick nests on a building and transmission towers used for nesting by large falcons in Utah. Great Basin Nat. 57(3):263- 267. California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1997. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. J. Raptor Res. Rep. 9:171-177. Call, M. 1979. Habitat management guides for birds of prey. U.S. Dep. Inter. Bur. Land Manage. Tech. Note 338. Denver, CO. 70pp. Call, M.W. and J.R. Tigner. 1991. Artificial nesting structures for ferruginous hawks in Wyoming. Unpubl. Rep. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 6-10 Nov., 1992. Carey, M. 1998. Peregrine falcons and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Pages 121-125 in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry. Proc. of the International Conf. on wildlife ecology and transportation, Ft. Meyers, Florida, 10-12 Feb., 1998. Carrier, W.D. and W.E. Melquist. 1976. The use of a rotor winged aircraft in conducting nesting surveys of ospreys in northern Idaho. J. Raptor Res. 10(3):77-83. 33 Clark, F.W. 1972. Influence of jackrabbit density on coyote population changes. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 36:343-356. Cline, K.W. 1988. Raptor nest and roost site management in the southeast. Pages 175-188 in Proc. of the southeast raptor management symposium and workshop, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, 14-16 September, 1988. Craighead, F.C., Jr. and D.P. Mindell. 1981. Nesting raptors in western Wyoming, 1947 and 1975. J. Wildl. Manage. 45(4):865-872. Dalton, L.B. 1998. Personal communication. Terrestrial Habitat Coordinator. Utah Div. Wildl. Res., Salt Lake City. Dalton, L.B., J.S. Price, and L.A. Romin. 1990. Fauna of Southeastern Utah and life requisites regarding their ecosystems. Utah Dep. Nat. Res. Pub. No. 90-11. Utah Div. Wildl. Res., Salt Lake City. 326pp. Dubois, K. 1984. Rocky Mountain Front Raptor Survey, Dec. 1982 - Nov. 1983. Contract No. FWS-6-81-112. Montana Dep. Fish, Wildl., Parks, Bozeman. 62pp. Dymond, J.R. 1947. Fluctuations in animal populations with species reference to those of Canada. Trans. Royal Soc. Canada 41(5):1-34. Edwards, C. 1969. Winter behavior and population dynamics of American eagles in western Utah. Ph.D. Thesis. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Utah. 142pp. Elton, C. 1942. Voles, mice, and lemmings. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 496pp. Fitzner, R.E. 1980. Behavioral ecology of the Swainson’s Hawk in Washington. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland. 65pp. Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:585-592. French, J.M. 1972. Distribution, abundance, and breeding status of ospreys in northwestern California. M.S. Thesis. California State Univ., Humboldt, Arcata. 58pp. Fyfe, R.W. and R.R. Olendorff. 1976. Minimizing the dangers of studies to raptors and other sensitive species. Occas. Pap. No. 23. Can. Wildl. Serv., Ottawa. Garber, D.P. 1972. Osprey nesting ecology in Lassen and Plumas counties, California. M.S. Thesis. California State Univ., Humboldt, Arcata. 59pp. 34 Gerard, P.N., J.M. Gerrard, and G.R. Bortolotti. 1984. The impact of road development and tourist access on a bald eagle population at Besnard Lake, Saskatchewan. Pages 160-165 in J.M. Gerrard and T.M. Ingram, eds. The bald eagle in Canada. Proc. Bald Eagle Days, Winnipeg. Glue, D.E. 1971. Ringing recovery circumstances of small birds of prey. Bird Study 18:137- 146. Götmark, F. 1992. The effect of investigator disturbance on nesting birds. Chapter 3 in Power, D.M., ed. Current Ornithology. Vol. 9. Plenum Press, New York. 247pp. Hamerstrom, F. 1986. Harrier: hawk of the marshes. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Hancock, D. 1966. David Hancock reports on the bald eagle research project. Can. Audubon. 28(3):88-92. Harlow, D.L. and P.H. Bloom. 1987. Buteos and the golden eagle. Pages 102-110 in Proc. of the western raptor management symposium and workshop. Natl. Wildl. Fed. Sci. and Tech. Series No. 12. Washington, D.C. 320pp. Harmata, A.R. 1991. Impacts of oil and gas development on raptors associated with Kevin Rim, Montana. Kevin Rim Raptor Study Group. Montana State Univ. Bozeman. Prepared for U.S. Dep. Inter. Bur. Land Mgmt., Great Falls Res. Area, Montana. 37pp. Haugh, J.R. 1982. Responses of raptors to exploration and construction activities in National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Pages 244-252 in W.N. Ladd and P.F. Schempf, eds. Proc. symposium and workshop in raptor management and biology in Alaska and western Canada. U.S. Dep. Inter. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Anchorage. Hayward, G.D. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: boreal owls. Pages 92-127 in Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, eds. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the U.S.: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Rocky Mtn. Region, Denver, Colorado. 213pp. Herron, G.B., C.A. Mortimore, and M.S. Rawlings. 1985. Nevada raptors: their biology and management. Nevada Dep. Wildl. Biol. Bull. No. 8. Reno. 121pp. Holmes, T.L. 1994. Behavioral responses of grassland raptors to human disturbance. M.S. Thesis. Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins. 84pp. Holmes, T.L., R.L. Knight, L. Stegall, and G.R. Craig. 1993. Responses of wintering grassland raptors to human disturbance. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:461-468. 35 Holthuijzen, A.M.A., W.G. Eastland, A.R. Ansell, M.N. Kochert, R.D. Williams, and L.S. Young. 1990. Effects of blasting on behavior and productivity of nesting prairie falcons. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:270-281. Hornfeldt, B., Lofgren, O., and Carlsson, B.G. 1986. Cycles in voles and small game in relation to variations in plant production indices in north Sweden. Occologia 68:496-502. Howard, R.P. 1975. Breeding ecology of the ferruginous hawk in northern Utah and southern Idaho. M.S. Thesis. Utah State Univ., Logan. 60pp. Howe, F. 1998. Personal communication. Avian Program Coordinator. Utah Div. Wildl. Res., Salt Lake City. Illner, H. 1992. Road deaths of Westphalian owls: methodological problems, influence of road type and possible effects on population levels. Pages 94-100 in C.A. Galbraith, I.R. Taylor, and S. Percival, eds. The ecology and conservation of European owls. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Jones, S. 1979. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species: The accipiters: goshawk, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk. U.S. Dep. Inter. Bur. Land Manage. Tech. Note 335. 55pp. Johnsgard, P.A. 1988. North American owls: biology and natural history. Smithsonian Instit. Press, Washington. 295pp. Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Instit. Press, Washington. 403pp. Johnstone, R.S. 1980. Nesting ecology of the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) in Harney Basin, Oregon. Unpubl. Rep. U.S. Dep. Inter. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Malheur Natl. Wildl. Ref., Burns, OR. 16pp. Kahl, J.R. 1972. Osprey management on the Lassen National Forest. Pages 7-13 in California- Nevada Section, the Wildlife Society. 1972 Transactions. Keith, L.B. 1963. Wildlife’s ten-year cycle. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Oxford. 201pp. Kirmse, W. 1994. Raptor’s plasticity of nest site selection. Pages 143-145 in B.U. Meyberg and R.D. Chancellor, eds. Raptor conservation today: world working group for birds of prey and owls. London. Knight, R.L. and S.K. Skagen. 1987. Effects of recreational disturbance on birds of prey: a review. Pages 355-359 in B.G. Pendleton, ed. Proc. of the western raptor management 36 symposium and workshop. Nat. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C. Knight, R.L. and S.A. Temple. 1986. Methodological problems in the study of avian nest defense. Animal behavior 34:561-566. Korpimaki, E. 1984. Population dynamics of birds of prey in relation to fluctuations in small mammal populations in western Finland. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 21: 287-293. Korpimaki, E. 1986. Gradients in population fluctuations of Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus) in Europe. Oecologia. 69:195-201. LeFranc, M.M., Jr. and B.A. Millsap. 1984. A summary of state and federal agency raptor management programs. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12:274-282. MacLaren, P. 1986. Resource partitioning in an assemblage of breeding raptors from southeastern Wyoming. MS Thesis. Univ. Wyoming, Laramie. 64pp. Martin, D.J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446- 456. Mathisen, J.E. 1968. Effects of human disturbance on nesting bald eagles. J. Wildl. Manage. 32:1-6. McAdoo, J.K. and J.A. Young. 1980. Jackrabbits. Rangelands 2:135-138. McCallum, D.A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: flammulated owls. Pages 14-46 in Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, eds. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the U.S.: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Rocky Mtn. Region, Denver, Colorado. 213pp. Mersmann, T.J. and J.D. Fraser. 1988. Management of raptor foraging habitat in the southeast. Pages 189-198 in Proc. of the southeast raptor management symposium and workshop. National Wildlife Federation Scientific and Technical Series No. 14. Viginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, 14-16 September, 1988. Milburn, M. 1998. Personal communication. Southeastern Region Law Enforcement Program Manager. Utah Div. Wildl. Res., Price. Millsap, B.A., K.W. Cline, and B.A. Giron Pendleton. 1987. Habitat management. Pages 215- 237. in B.A. Giron Pendleton, B.A. Millsap, K.W. Cline, and D.M. Bird, eds. Raptor management techniques manual. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C. 420pp. Moore, T.G. and M. Mangel. 1996. Traffic related mortality and the effects on local populations 37 of barn owls (Tyto alba). in G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, eds. Trends in addressing transportation related wildlife mortality. Proc. of the transportation related wildlife mortality seminar. State of Florida Dep. Transp., Tallahassee. Murphy, J.R. 1975. Status of a golden eagle population in central Utah, 1967-1973. Pages 91- 96 in J.R. Murphy, C.M. White, and B.E. Harrell, eds. Population status of raptors. Proc. Conf. Raptor Conserv. Tech. Res. Rep. 3. Murphy, J.R., F.J. Camenzind, D.G. Smith, and J.B. Weston. 1969. Nesting ecology of raptorial birds in central Utah. Brigham Young Univ. Sci. Bull. Biol. Serv. 10(4):1-36. Musclow, H.J. and L.B. Dalton. 1990. Wildlife mitigation technologies for man-made impacts. Utah Dep. Nat. Resour. Pub. No. 90-3. Utah Div. Wildl. Res., Salt Lake City. 141pp. Nelson, R.W. 1979. An assessment of the impact of northern activities upon certain raptors. Unpub. Rep. prepared for Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd., Calgary. 93pp. Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology of raptors. Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota. 399pp. Newton, I. 1988. Keynote address: population limitation in raptors. Pages 3-12 in Proc. of the northeast raptor management symposium and workshop, Syracuse, New York, 16-18 May, 1988. Newton, I. 1991. Population limitation in birds of prey: a comparative approach. Pages 3-21 in C.M Perrins, J.D. Lebreton, and G.J. M. Hirons, eds. Bird population studies: relevance to conservation and management. Oxford. Olendorff, R.R. 1993. Status, biology, and management of ferruginous hawks: a review. Raptor Res. and Tech. Asst. Cen., Spec. Rep. U.S. Dep. Inter. Bur. Land Manage., Boise, ID. 84pp. Olendorff, R.R., D.D. Bibles, M.T. Dean, J.R. Haugh, and M.N. Kochert. 1989. Raptor habitat management under the U.S. Bureau of Land Management multiple-use mandate. Raptor Res. Reports No. 8. 80 pp. Oxley, D.J., M.B. Fenton, and G.R. Carmody. 1974. The effects of roads on populations of small mammals. J. App. Ecology. 11(1):51-59. Palmer, R.S. 1988a. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 4. Yale Univ. Press, London. 433 pp. Palmer, R.S. 1988b. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 5. Yale Univ. Press, London. 465 pp. 38 Parrish, J. 1998. Personal communication. Utah Partners in Flight Program Coordinator. Utah Div. Wildl. Res., Salt Lake City. Parrish, T.L., S.H. Anderson, A.W. Anderson, and S. Platt. 1994. Raptor mitigation handbook. Wyoming Coop. Fish. and Wildl. Res. Unit, Laramie. 92pp. Pitelka, F.A., Tomich, P.O., and Treichel, G.W. 1975. Ecological relations of jaegers and owls as lemming predators near Barrow, Alaska. Ecol. Monogr. 25:85-117. Platt, J.R. 1976a. Bald eagles wintering in a Utah desert. Am. Birds. 30:783-788. Platt, J.R. 1976b. Sharp-shinned hawk nesting and nest site selection in Utah. Condor 78:102- 103. Platt, J.B. 1977. The breeding behavior of wild and captive gyrfalcons in relation to their environment and human disturbance. Ph.D. Thesis. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 164p. Postovit, H.R., J.W. Grier, J.M. Lockhart, and J. Tate Jr. 1982. Directed relocation of a golden eagle nest site. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:1045-1048. Postovit, H.R. and B.C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and mitigation techniques. Pages 183-2134 in B.A. Giron Pendleton, B.A. Millsap, K.W. Cline, and D.M. Bird, eds. Raptor management techniques manual. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C. 420pp. Pruett-Jones, S.G., C.M. White, and W.R. Devine. 1980. Breeding of the peregrine falcon in Victoria, Australia. Emu 80:253-269. Pyke, K. 1997. Raptors and Climbers: Guidance for managing technical climbing to protect raptor nest sites. The Access Fund, Boulder, Colorado. 27pp. Ratcliffe, D.A. 1980. The peregrine falcon. Poyser Ltd., Hertfordshire, England. 416pp. Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(3):634-638. Ridpath, M.G. and Booker, M.G. 1986. The breeding of the wedge-tailed eagle Aquila caudax in relation to its food supply in arid Western Australia. Ibis 128:177-194. Russell, W.A. and N.D. Lewis. 1993. Quantification of military noise in bald eagle habitat at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Unpubl. Rep., presented at the Raptor Res. Found. Annual Meeting Special Symp. on adaptations of raptors to human-altered environments, Charlotte, North Carolina. 29pp. 39 Schmutz, J.K. 1984. Ferruginous and swainson’s hawk abundance and distribution in relation to land use in southeastern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1180-1187. Scott, T.A. 1985. Human impacts on the golden eagle population of San Diego County from 1928-1981. M.S. Thesis. San Diego State Univ. 101pp. Servheen, C.W. 1975. Ecology of the wintering bald eagles on the Skagit River, Washington. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Washington, Seattle. 96pp. Shawyer, C.R. 1987. The Barn owl in the British Isles. Its past, present, and future. The Hawk Trust, London. Shea, D.S. 1973. A management-oriented study of bald eagle concentrations in Glacier National Park. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 78pp. Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit River, Washington. Pages 231-241 in R.L Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. Servheen, eds. Proc. of the Washington bald eagle symposium. The Nat. Conserv., Seattle. Smith, D.G. and J.R. Murphy. 1978. Biology of the ferruginous hawk in central Utah. Sociobiology 3:79-95. Smith, D.G. and J.R. Murphy. 1979. Breeding responses of raptors to jackrabbit density in the eastern Great Basin desert of Utah. J. Raptor Res. 13(1):1-14. Smith, D.G., J.R. Murphy, and N.D. Woffinden. 1981. Relationships between jackrabbit abundance and ferruginous hawk reproduction. Condor 83: 52-56. Snow, C. 1974. Ferruginous Hawk. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species, Rep. No. 13. U.S. Dep. Inter. Bur. Land Manage., Denver. 23pp. Snyder, N.F., and H.A. Snyder. 1975. Raptors in range habitat. Pages 190-209 in D.R. Smith, ed. Proc. symposium on management of food and range habitat for nongame birds. U.S. Dep. of Ag. For. Serv. Gen. Tech Ref. W0-1. Speirs, J.M. 1939. Fluctuations in numbers of birds in the Toronto region. Auk 56:411-419. Stalmaster, M.V. 1976. Winter ecology and effects of human activity on bald eagles in the Nooksak River valley, Washington. M.S. Thesis. Western Washington Univ., Bellingham. 100pp. Stalmaster, M.V. 1983. An energetics simulation model for managing wintering bald eagles. J. 40 Wildl. Manage. 47:349-359. Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 42(3):506-513. Steenhof, K. 1976. Ecology of wintering bald eagles in southeastern South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia. 146pp. Steenhof, K. 1983. Prey weights for computing percent biomass in raptor diets. J. Raptor Res. 17(91): 15-27. Steenhof, K, M.N. Kochert, and J.A. Roppe. 1993. Nesting by raptors and common ravens on electrical transmission line towers. J. Wildl. Manage. 57(2):271-281. Suter, G.W., H, and J.L. Joness. 1981. Criteria for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and prairie falcon nest site protection. J. Raptor Res. 15:12-18. Swenson, J.E. 1979. Factors affecting status and reproduction of ospreys in Yellowstone National Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:595-601. Temple, S.A. 1986. Predicting impacts of habitat fragmentation on forest birds: a comparison of two models. Pages 301-304 in J.Verner. M.L. Morrison, and C.JJJ. Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 470 pp. Tella, J.L., F. Hiraldo, J.A. Donazar-Sancho, and J.J. Negro. 1996. Costs and benefits of urban nesting in the lesser kestrel. Pages 53-56 in Bird, D.M., D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds. Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, New York. 396pp. Thompson, S.P., R.S. Johnstone, and C.D. Littlefield. 1982. Nesting history of golden eagles in Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin, southeastern Oregon. J. Raptor Res. 16(4):116-122. Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls in the Oakland municipal airport. Condor 73:177-192. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol. I. U.S. Dep. Inter. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Albuquerque, New Mexico. 172pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American peregrine falcon recovery plan (Rocky Mountain/Southwest population). U.S. Dep. Inter. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Denver, CO. 105pp. Utah Division Wildlife Resources. 1997. Inventory of sensitive species and ecosystems in Utah: Inventory of sensitive vertebrate and invertebrate species, a progress report. Salt Lake City. 41 717pp. Wagner, P.W. 1980. Raptor habitat relationships. Unpub. Rep. (submitted to USDA For. Serv., Intermountain Reg.). Utah Div. Wildl. Res., Salt Lake City. 29pp. Wagner, F.H. and L.C. Stoddart. 1972. Influence of coyote predation on black-tailed jackrabbits in Utah. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 36:329-342. Walters, R.E, ed. 1981. Utah bird latilong distribution. Utah Dept. Nat. Res. Pub. No. 81-15. Utah Div. Wildl. Res., Salt Lake City. 85pp. Watson, J. and D.R. Langslow. 1989. Can food supply explain variation in nesting density and breeding success amongst golden eagles Aquila chrysaetos? Pages 181-186 in Meyburg, B.U. and R.D. Chancellor, eds. Raptors in the modern world. Proc. of the III world conference on birds of prey and owls. 22-27 March 1987. Whitcomb, R. F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, M.K. Kimkiewkz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Pages 125- 205 in R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe, eds. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Springer Verlag, New York. 310 pp. White, C.M. 1998. Personal communication. Zoology Dep., Brigham Young Univ., Provo. White, C.M. 1994. Population trends and current status of selected western raptors. Studies in Avian Biology 15:161-172. White, C.M. and S.K. Sherrod. 1973. Advantages and disadvantages of the use of rotor-winged aircraft in raptor surveys. J. Raptor Res. 7(3/4):97-104. White, C.M. and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled disturbance. Condor 87:14-22. White, C.M., W.B. Emison, and W.M. Bren. 1988. Atypical nesting habitat of the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) in Victoria, Australia. J. Raptor Res. 22:37-43. Wiklund, C.G. and Stigh, J. 1986. Breeding density of snowy owls Nyctea scandiaca in relation to food, nest sites, and weather. Ornis Scand. 17:268-274. Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McLellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pages 237-256 in M.E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology. Sunderland, Massachusetts. 584 pp. Williams, R.D. and E.W. Colson. 1989. Raptor associations with linear rights-of-way. Pages 42 173-192 in Proc. western raptor management symposium and workshop, Nat. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C. Woffinden, N.D. 1942. Ecology of the ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) in central Utah: population dynamics and nest site selection. M.S. Thesis. Utah State Univ., Logan. Woffinden, N.D. and J.R. Murphy. 1977. Population dynamics of the ferruginous hawk during prey decline. Great Basin Nat. 37:411-425. Wood, B. 1980. Winter ecology of bald eagles at Grand Coulee Dam, Washington. Pages 195- 204 in R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. Servheen, eds. Proc. of the Washington bald eagle symposium. The Nat. Conserv., Seattle, Wash. EXHIBIT C UFWQ GTECH A P R AC T I C A L U S E R ’ S G U I D E F O R L A N D OW N E R S , L O G G E R S & R E S O U R C E M A N A G E R S U T A H ’ S F O R E S T W A T E R Q U A L I T Y G U I D E L I N E S State ofUtah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY, FIRE AND STATE LANDS State ofUtah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY, FIRE AND STATE LANDS *Appreciation is given to Washington State Department of Natural Resources for permission g ranted to use photos from their publication, Forest Practicies Illustrated.These photos are found on pages 14, 15, 16, 22, 24, 26, 27, 36. †Appreciation is also given to Wheeler Machinery Company for the photo on page 21. T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Introduction........................................................................................................................1 Watershed Basics.............................................................................................................3 Forest Water Quality Guidelines...................................................................................4 Frequently Asked Questions........................................................................................... 5 Pre-harvest Planning..........................................................................................................6 Streamside Management Zone....................................................................................8 Roads, Skid Trails, Landings & Stream Crossing......................................................12 Timber Harvesting...........................................................................................................28 Site Preparation, Regeneration & Revegetation.......................................................34 Chemical Management................................................................................................38 Forested Wetlands.........................................................................................................42 Prescribed Fire.................................................................................................................44 Glossary of Terms ..........................................................................................................46 FFSL Area Offices...........................................................................................................51 It is with heartfelt thanks and appreciation that we dedicate this publication to Rick Summers whose tireless devotion to protecting Utah’s waters is unsurpassed. I N T R O D U C T I O N Utah is primarily an arid state. However, those lands which lie at higher elevations, where precipitation is generous enough to allow trees to grow, are covered with coniferous and deciduous forests. Forests make an important contribution to Utah's way and quality of life by p roviding abundant re s o u rce benefits including wood products, fish & wildlife habitat, re c re a t i o n a l o p p o rtunities and clean air and wa te r. Utah's high elevation fo re sts are the principal sourc e of surface water and are critical recharge areas for most ground water sources in the state. From this perspective, forested lands are an impor tant natural resource. Forest types found in Utah include pine, Douglas-fir, spruce-fir, and aspen. About 20 percent of the t i m b e rland in Utah is pri va te ly owned. While the maj o rity of the sta tes' fo re stlands are in federal ownership, Utah's private forestlands are of great importance contributing numerous benefits to the sta te's economy and society at large. If these non-fe d e ral lands are well manage d , th ey have the potential to provide continuing benefits over the long-te rm. The protection and sound m a n a gement of Utah's pri va te fo re stlands is critical for the protection of wa ter quality in Uta h . Impaired water quality is costly for humans, wildlife and the environment. This book is designed to help landowners, loggers and resource managers better understand the dynamic nature of these vital areas and their role in protecting water quality. This book illustrates the use of Utah's Fo re st Wa ter Quality Guidelines (FWQGs). The FWQGs are vo l u n ta ry measures landow n e rs, l o g ge rs and re s o u rce manage rs can use to provide for the protection of our sta te's wa ter qu a l i t y. The photographs and illustrations show applied practices and how they look when applied on the ground. HOW TO US E TH I S BO O K These first few pages contain general information and answers to the most commonly asked questions about nonpoint source pollution and the Forest Water Quality Guidelines. The remainder of the book is divided into eight sections that deal specifi c a l ly with each of the guidelines: n Pre-harvest Planning n Streamside Management Zone n Ro a d s , Skid Trails, Landings & St ream Cro s s i n g s n Timber Harvesting n S i te P re p a ration, Re ge n e ration & Reve getation n Chemical Manage m e nt n Prescribed Fire n Forested Wetlands Each section describes a particular Forest Water Quality Guideline, or FWQG, and begins with a helpful "Checklist for Success." The descriptions that fo l l ow provide guidance, illust rations and photo gra p h s in the text, and offe rs the user a modera te l evel of info rmation on th e application of the guidelines. The symbol indicates examples of practices or situations to avoid. Most importantly, the book attempts to emphasize the protection of water resources above all else when c o nducting fo re st management activities. At the end of the book, you will fi n d s u p p l e m e n tal info rmation including a gl o s s a ry of te rms commonly used in fo re st ry, and sources of assistance designed to help landow n e rs manage their fo re st and wa ter re s o u rc e s . We hope you will find this publication useful as you plan and carry out your forestry operations. We welcome suggestions on how this book can be improved. To submit comments about this publication or request additional copies, please direct your inquiry to: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry, Fire & S tate Lands 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3520 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 2 W A T E R S H E D B A S I C S WH AT I S A WAT E R S H E D? A wa te rshed is an area of land that drains wa ter to a common outlet, such as a ri ve r, lake, re s e rvo i r or ocean. The land, ve getation and st ream net wo rk within the wa te rshed wo rk th rough a va ri et y of natural processes which serve to regulate the quality and quantity of water delivered to the outlet. Changes within the watershed that disrupt these natural processes, such as soil disturbance associated with road construction, can negatively affect the quality of water on which we all depend. We all depend on clean water for drinking, bathing and other residential uses; for irrigation and industry; and for the health of natural ecosystems. Throughout Utah, forestlands act as collectors of pure water. Much of Utah's water supply originates in the state's high elevation forested watersheds. For this reason, special care must be taken to protect the water supply when conducting forest management activities in these areas. Protecting the water supplied by our watersheds is everyone's responsibility. When pro p e rly conducted, fo re st management activities have minimal impacts on these natura l processes, and the quality and quantity of water discharged from a watershed. Because i mpacts from fo re st management activities can ex tend beyond pro p e rty boundaries, landow n e rs , loggers and resource managers must conduct these activities with care. 3 W A T E R S H E D B A S I C S 4 A watershed is an area from which all streams flow to a common point or outlet. VA LU E O F US E & AP P L I CAT I O N O F T H E F W Q GS The most practical and cost-effective way to assure forest management activities do not adve rs e ly impact wa ter quality is th rough the application of Utah's voluntary Forest Water Quality Guidelines. These guidelines are designed to provide the best protection for water quality and other resources during the management of forest resources, including timber h a rve sting. Through proper planning, your timber harve st can be positive for our watersheds while providing the sustained goods and services our society demands. F R E Q U E N T L Y A S K E D Q U E S T I O N S 5 Q: What are forest practices? A: Forest practices are those activities related to growing, harvesting or processing forest p roducts, including, but not limited to, road construction and maintenance, thinning, salvage harvest, reforestation, brush control, and using fertilizers or pesticides to achieve desired objectives and benefits. Q: Who can assist me with the application of the Forest Water Quality Guidelines? A: The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands emphasizes one-on-one contact with landowners, loggers and resource professionals on the use and installation of the Forest Water Quality Guidelines. The Division also offers technical assistance to landowners to help them protect the value of their land and re s o u rces to meet present and future land management objectives. Technical assistance includes development of logging and management plans, inventories, contract development and design of site specific silvicultural prescriptions. Q: What is nonpoint source pollution? A: Nonpoint source pollution is defined as diffuse sources of water pollution that originate from indefinable sources, and normally include agricultural and urban runoff. In practical terms, nonpoint sources of pollution do not discharge from a specific, single location. Nonpoint sources of pollution are generally carried over or through the soil and ground cover via stormflow processes. Q: What are the Forest Water Quality Guidelines? A: Utah's Forest Water Quality Guidelines are a collection of voluntary measures that landowners, loggers and resource managers can utilize for the conservation of Utah's forest and water resources. Q: Are the Forest Water Quality Guidelines an infringement on my private property rights? A: No. The Forest Water Quality Guidelines are entirely voluntary. Actual implementation of these guidelines will be the landowner's choice and responsibility. Q: Are there other requirements or permits necessary to conduct forestry activities? A: Yes. Certain permits and licenses related to forest management and protection of water quality exist at the state and federal level. Permits include stream alteration, burning, commercial road use and Section 404. In addition, state law requires those transporting forest products within, into or out of the state must have proof of product ownership. Q: Why does Utah have Forest Water Quality Guidelines? A: Silviculture or forest management activities has been identified as a possible source of nonpoint pollution to the state’s water bodies and courses. Timber harvesting can cause negative impacts including land degradation and poor water quality if conducted impro p e r l y. P R E - H A R V E S T P L A N N I N G 6 The following is a partial list of practices that may be applicable to pre - h a rvest planning during your forest management project. Implement the appropriate practices to pro t e c t water quality before, during and after the project is completed. Refer to the Fore s t Water Quality Guidelines for a more complete list of practices. q Consult with a professional resource manager for assistance. q Develop a forest management plan that reflects your resource management objectives. Include a list of applicable Forest Water Quality Guidelines, recommended treatments and schedule of activities. q Develop a legally binding contractual agreement that specifies the type and amount to be harvested, and includes requirements for slash disposal, site rehabilitation and all applicable Forest Water Quality Guidelines. q Locate environmentally sensitive areas such as: • streams, wetlands, lakes, ponds, steep slopes and erosive soils q Locate and mark streamside management zones (SMZs) q Consider the physical features such as: • topography, soils, slope and aspect q Identify the appropriate harvesting system for the site. Consider: • ground-based, cable or aerial q Choose the appropriate harvest prescription such as thinning, shelterwood, s e e d t ree, clearcut, etc. to ach i eve objectives and provide for desired future c o n d i t i o n s q Plan for the treatment of slash, site preparation, regeneration and revegetation prior to har vesting. q Carefully plan road layout along with landings and skid trails that best suit the harvest system and physical features of the land. Also identify which roads will be closed after the forest activity is completed. Consider the following: • follow natural contour of the land • minimize the number of landings and skid trails • minimize cuts, fills and stream crossings • construct roads to adequately support harvest and hauling needs q C a re f u l ly plan and locate dra i n a ge st ru c t u res and st ream crossings. Consider: • culverts, water bars, cross drains, dips, diversion structures q O b tain all necessary permits and/or approval re qu i rements befo re beginning the opera t i o n . CH E CK L I ST F O R SU C C E S S P R E - H A R V E S T P L A N N I N G 7 Proper planning is an essential part of timber h a rvesting. Pre - h a rvest planning is the design of timber harvest operations to meet landowner objectives. A pre-harvest plan using the Forest Water Quality Guidelines removes forest products efficiently, promotes sustainable forest growth, and protects water quality. Pre-harvest planning is recommended for timber sales and similar forest management activities. Roads produce up to 90% of all sediment from forest management activities. Proper road location and design are key to the success of your timber harvesting operation. Minimize the number and length of roads to reduce sedimentation and minimize visual impacts. Riparian vegetation adjacent to this stream make up the streamside management zone (SMZ). The vegetation provides shade which helps maintain water temperature for healthy fish populations. The SMZ also provides filtering of surface runoff and sediment. Disturbance within the SMZ should be minimized. Trees left for future harvest should be of suf ficient vigor and desirable species to ensure continuous growing and harvesting. Choose the appropriate harvest prescription to achieve your management objectives and to provide for a desired future stand condition. N E E D A S S I S T A N C E ? Forestry, Fire & S tate Lands foresters will help you develop management plans, assist with timber sales, provide advice on timber sale contracts and market your timber. For more information, contact your local FFSL office in Salt Lake City, Logan, Vernal, Richfield, Moab or Cedar City. S T R E A M S I D E M A N A G E M E N T Z O N E 8 The following is a partial list of practices which may be applicable to your forest management project. Implement the appropriate practices to protect water quality before, during and after the project is complete. Refer to the Forest Water Quality Guidelines for a more complete list of practices. q Designate the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) using recommended distances. q Establish an undisturbed strip of 15 feet along each side of water bodies to filter runoff. q Leave sufficient trees to provide bank stabilization, shade and a future source of large woody debris. q Leave enough trees and shrubs to provide adequate shade for stream. q Before logging, clearly mark the SMZ with paint, flagging or signs. q Minimize disturbances that expose mineral soil in the SMZ. q M a rk only those trees to be cut in the SMZ. Avoid clearcutting in the SMZ. q Retain a diversity of tree species and age classes in the SMZ. Keep enough mature trees to avoid potential regeneration problems. q Maintain sufficient ground cover within the SMZ to trap sediment before it enters any watercourse. q Avoid use of heavy equipment in the SMZ to minimize ground disturbance. Use winch i n g or end-lining skidding te ch n i ques to re m ove logs from the SMZ. q Use directional felling in the SMZ. A boom feller-buncher can also minimize disturbance. q Limbing of trees should always be done above the high water mark. q Avoid felling trees into streams and keep slash out of all water bodies. CH E CK L I S T F O R SU C C E S S q Plan stream crossings carefully. Streams should be crossed at a right angle to the channel. q Minimize the number of stream crossings. q Do not sidecast soil or gravel into streams or wetlands when constructing or maintaining roads. q Keep slash out of the SMZ. If slash does occur in the SMZ, do not machine-pile or burn. q When crossing Class I and Class II streams, structures should be the appropriate size to allow full sur face flow of the stream for the entire life of the structure. q Deposit and stabilize exc ava ted mate rial on stable sites outside of the SMZ. q Remove material which adversely affects the natural flow of water. Remove in a manner which causes the least disturbance. q Control skidding to prevent stream channel damage and to preclude build-up of destructive run-off flows or erosion in sensitive areas such as the SMZ , wetlands or meadows. q Avoid broadcast burning in the SMZ unless it is identified as the proper management treatment. q Do not use, mix, store or handle hazardous or toxic materials in the SMZ. Limit pesticide use in the SMZ. Do not clean equipment or containers of fuels, pesticides or herbicides in or near streams or in the SMZ. S T R E A M S I D E M A N A G E M E N T Z O N E 9 S T R E A M S I D E M A N A G E M E N T Z O N E 10 The Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) is an area or strip of land adjacent to a stream or other body of water where management practices such as harvesting of timber, road construction or prescribed burning are planned and implemented in a way to protect water quality, aquatic wildlife and wildlife habitat. Trees and vegetation within the SMZ serve as a natural filter to keep sediment out of a stream, reduce soil erosion and act as a buffer to protect the stream from degradation caused by nearby activities. The SMZ is not a zone of exclusion where all silvicultural activities are precluded but, because of the need to protect water quality and other values, the SMZ is an area where silvicultural activities should be closely managed. Class I Stream Streams or other bodies of water used for domestic water supply and/or the spawning, rearing, migration of fish, including impacted streams with recovery potential for a fishery. Also included are perennial streams that contribute significant flow to downstream fisheries. 75 feet is the recommended minimum slope distance for the Streamside Management Zone on slopes of less than 35 percent. Class II Stream All streams that do not meet the Class I definition and are identifiable in the field as having a defined channel of bed rock, sand, gravel, or rocky material, definite banks, generally having an ordinary high water mark and confines and conducts continuously or intermittently flowing water. Also included are reservoirs, lakes, and ponds greater than 1/10 acre that do not support fish or provide domestic water supply. 35 feet is the recommended minimum slope distance for the Streamside Management Zone on slopes of less than 35 percent. CH E CK L I S T F O R SU C C E S S CO N T I N U E D SMZ SMZ Slopes less than 35% Slopes greater than 35% Slopes less than 35% Slopes greater than 35% S T R E A M S I D E M A N A G E M E N T Z O N E 11 Streamside Management Zones should be clearly marked before logging begins. This allows the logger to know which areas require special considerations during timber harvest. Special provisions can be written into the timber contract to protect water quality. These provisions may not be applicable to the remainder of the sale area. Needles, leaves, small twigs and other vegetative matter are collectively called forest litter. The forest floor is covered with litter and an underlying layer of duff. The duff, litter, grass and other plants growing there are very efficient in filtering sediment from surface runoff. A filter strip of undisturbed litter, duff, grass and vegetation is recommended to protect water quality. This undisturbed area is called a leave strip and should be at least 15 feet slope distance on either side of the stream or water body. Recommended leave strip of undisturbed litter and duff Temporary flagging is one way to clearly mark the streamside management zone prior to logging R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 12 The following is a partial list of practices that may be applicable to road construction during your forest management project. Implement the appropriate practices to pro t e c t water quality before, during and after the project is completed. Refer to the Forest Water Qualilty Guidelines for a more complete list of practices. Planning: q Use the minimum number of roads to meet transportation needs. q Design roads for safety, the intended purpose and the specific site. q Avoid wetlands unless impractical. Keep wetland constraints in mind. q Design roads to fit the natural terrain. q Locate and construct road surfaces to drain naturally. q Don't make roads too steep. q Plan enough drainage features at suitable locations. q Place excavated materials in stable areas. q Use stream crossings only when necessary, and when used, be sure they will accommodate peak water flows. During construction: q Start work timely to avoid wet and winter seasons, if possible. q Install drainage features at time of road construction. q Compact all fill material. q Allow adequate drainage from road surface. q Use live vegetation or slash to prevent erosion of fill material and to prevent surface runoff from entering live streams. q Stablize disturbed areas as soon as practical. q Consider surfacing to prevent road surface erosion or exc e s s i ve mainte n a n c e . Road Maintenance: q Maintain drainage of road surface. Avoid leaving a berm which might cause standing water or channel surface runoff down the road. q Grade roads only when necessary. Avoid cutting toe slopes and creating excess material. q Surface road if appropriate to reduce erosion and rutting if road is used in all types of weather. CH E CK L I ST F O R SU C C E S S CH E CK L I ST F O R SU C C E S S CO N T I N U E D R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 13 Any construction activities affecting the bed or banks of streams may require a permit from the Division of Water Rights. A stream alteration permit is required before such work may begin. Contact the local office or their s tate office at: 801 538-7375 R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 14 PL A N N I NG Road erosion is a primary cause of stream sedimentation associated with forest harvesting. Mass movement associated with road construction also causes sedimentation. Water quality of streams and lakes can be protected by careful planning, designing and proper construction of roads after they have been appropriately located. Proper planning can be helpful to a landowner by reducing the number, width and length of roads, decreasing the amount of maintenance re q u i red and limiting the visual and physical impact to the land. A reduction in the amount of roads to be constructed can also save a landower m o n e y. Planning decisions affect the cost of a road system, long-term maintenance needs, life expectancy and the amount of nonpoint source pollution it may cause. The type, location and design of any road should be based on: n future uses of the road system, n site specifics such as soils, slopes, geology, vegetation, storm runoff, etc. n coordination with adjacent landowners, if possible, and n use of temporary roads whenever practical. Additional points to consider when planning for road construction include the following: n Locate roads on well-drained soils wherever possible. n Avoid unstable slopes which may be evidenced by slumps, uneven topography, pistol-butted or J-shaped trees, dips, cracks or previous slides. n Identify optimum stream crossing locations first, then locate roads to accommodate these crossings. n Roads should be located outside of stream management zones. n Locate roads to follow natural contours as much as possible. This will minimize cuts and fills and reduce need for fill material or removal of excess material. It will also decrease the amount of disturbed area which may then need to be revegetated. n Keep road grades below 10%, if possible. Roads may exceed 10% for short distances but, if so, install road drainage features and take measures to prevent erosion. Stream Crossings: q I n stall crossings during appro p ri a te season to minimize effects on wa ter qu a l i t y. q Consider low flow periods and impact to fish populations. q Identify appropriate type of stream crossing. q Install stream crossing appropriately whether ford, culvert or bridge. q Protect integrity of existing stream channel. q Place rock, gravel, slash or other material along streamsides to protect the fill material, culvert inlet and outlet and bridge abutments from erosion. Skid Trails: q Use fewest number of skid trails possible to limit soil disturbance. q Use appropriate skidding systems for terrain, i.e. rubber-tired skidders, tractors, cable, etc. q Avoid skidding patterns that might concentrate or channel runoff. q When skidding is terminated, consider water bars and seeding if erosion might become a problem. Landings: q Avoid landings in Streamside Management Zones. q Minimize number and size of landings. q Locate landings away from natural drainages and divert runoff away from streams. q Construct landings to allow for natural drainage to occur. q Locate landings to preclude skidding through drainages and streams. q At the end of operations, restore landings and reseed if necessary. Winter Operations: q Use winter season for low-impact logging of sensitive areas. q Construct roads during summer or fall months to insure compaction of fill material. q Provide adequate drainage for winter operations as well as other seasons . q Use cold weather to solidify roads and prevent damage to moist areas. q Suspend operations during periods of alternate freezing and thawing. When roads, streams crossings, landings,skid trails or winter operations have ended, consider the closing of such facilities. Rehabilitation of the area and revegetation is strongly recommended to prevent erosion and subsequent impact to water bodies in the area. * R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 15 R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 16 NE W VS. OL D Sometimes, existing roads can be used. Construction of new roads may be more costly and damaging than upgrading existing roads. Any roads already present should be evaluated to determine if they are properly located for long-term needs, have adequate drainage, are suited for the expected use and meet maintenance requirements. Many times, existing roads are in inappropriate locations. Roads may closely parallel streams, have little or no vegetation between the road bank and a stream or go straight up a draw or gully. Roads in these locations probably should be relocated. Other considerations are grade, curves or switchbacks and safety concerns such as blind corners. P e rmanent roads can be seasonal or all-season. Seasonal are usually not surf a c e d , are more narrow and are used when the surface is solid or frozen. All-season roads are usually designed for year-round use but may have some restrictions. Temporary roads are designed and constructed for short-term use. They are narrow and rough. When no longer needed, they are closed and reclaimed by natural or artificial regeneration. These roads are the most common type of forest road. Outsloped roads are less-expensive to construct and maintain. They should be used on moderate slopes with stable soils. Insloped roads with ditches are used on steep terrain, side slopes or when runoff can be diverted away from road fills. This may reduce erosion of the fill and prevent sedimentation. Crowned roads are elevated roadbeds that drain to each side and are used in situations such as poorly-drained soils or for a more permanent road subjected to heavier loads. Existing Road Upgrade of Existing Road Roads can be built to landowners specifications which may vary from temporary roads to roads built for more permanent use. PLANNING DR A I NAG E The most critical problem regarding road construction and maintenance is drainage of the surface water from the road surface. Traffic causes ruts when standing water is present. Running water erodes the surface of the road or embankments and deposits the sediment in streams and lakes. Design roads to address these important issues. SO LU T I O N S Grade of Original Slope Roadbed Grade of Original Slope Ditch Roadbed Roadbed Roadbed with Crown (drains off both sides) * * * 1 Keep Cut Slopes as Shallow as Possible R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 17 R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 18 There are a number of important issues to remember as roads are constructed. Some of these are illustrated in the drawing below. 1 The angle of the cut slope should be kept as low as practical to reduce the possibility of sloughing or slipping. 2 As the road base is being formed, the fill material should be compacted as c o n s t ruction occurs. Keep stumps and woody debris out of the road base. This type of material will deteriorate and leave voids in the fill which will subsequently collapse and damage the road. 3 The roadbed should be formed for the appropriate design as the cut or fill is being made. Inslope, outslope or crown will allow the road surface to shed water. Remember, standing water causes most maintenance problems with road surfaces. 4 Trees and shrubs should be maintained at the base of the slope. This vegetation acts as a filter to absorb the sediments from storm runoff. The vegetation also serves to stabililze the bottom of a fill slope. 5 Drainage features include ditches, cross culverts and rolling dips. These features abate the problem of excess runoff on the uphill side of a road. ROA D CO N ST RU C T I O N CU TS & FI L LS When a road is cut along a steep hillside, the embankment is excavated in such a manner that the roadbed rests on the original material of the hillside. This is called a full-bench road. There is no fill material used in this construction other than perhaps gravel for the surfacing of the road itself. All excess material should be hauled away. Any material pushed down the slope will become a major contributor of sedimentation. The terrain is usually steep enough to require special provisions for surface drainage. A ditch is usually constructed on the inside or next to the excavated bank to handle surface runoff. H o w e v e r, when the slope is more moderate, the side-cast method of road cons t ruction can be used. This type of road uses the excavated material as fill for the lower portion of the road. If planned correctly and constructed appro p r i a t e l y, there will be no excess material which would need to be removed from the site. As described on the previous page, vegetation left at the bottom of the fill slope will help stabilize the fill. When either of these construction methods is used, the issue of surface runoff still needs to be addressed. In addition, the side-cast road creates cutbanks and raw fill slopes. The full-bench method exposes cutbanks only but they are usually much larger. 4 Maintain Trees & Shurbs at Base of Fill Slopes 2 Compacted Fill with no Stumps or Woody Debris 5 Install Drainage Features such as Ditches, Cross-Culverts or Rolling Dips Grade of Original Slope Grade of Original Slope Roadbed Full-bench Road Side-cast Road Roadbed 3 Roadbed is Crowned or Sloped Roadbed 120°to 140° R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 19 R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 20 There are a number of features that can be built during road construction to contend with the issue of surface drainage. Three of the most commonly used features are the rolling dip, the spreader ditch and a cross culvert. Rolling Dip A rolling dip is much like a hump constructed in the road bed itself. The purpose is to divert any water from the road surface or the inside ditch off the road into the adjacent terrain. The rolling dip is constructed at a gentle angle to the direction of the road so the dip may be easily traveled. The bottom of the dip is sloped to the outside to carry water away from the road. The dip should be 120º to 140º to the direction of travel. S p reader Ditch A spreader ditch diverts water from the road onto an adjacent area where vegetation, a decrease in velocity or the spreading out of the stream of water will allow the sediment to settle out and the water to be absorbed into the ground. The spreader ditch can be successfully used wherever excessive amounts of water may collect on the road surface or in drainage ditches. The spreader ditch works particularly well when used in conjuction with a rolling dip. But it can work equally well with an inside ditch or cross culvert. SU R FAC E DR A I NAG E C ross Culve rt During road construction, a cross culvert should be installed to drain water from either the inside ditch or from natural water sources such as seeps or small springs uncovered by road excavation. These culverts are used to transport water to areas where infiltration can occur or the natural flow will be resumed. Rolling dips, spreader ditches or cross culverts can each be used to suit a specific situation on any particular road. The combination of two or more are even more effective to control the movement of water away from the road surface, cut slopes and fill embankments. Other features of more limited utililty can be used. Some of these are the open-top culverts, water bars and box or log culvert s . ROA D CO N ST RU C T I O N Roadbed Culvert Construct catch basin to divert water through the culvert. Catch basin should be lined with rock, masonry or other material to prevent erosion. This type of protection is called armor. Outfall of culvert should also be armored to prevent erosion and damage to slope. End of pipe should not be elevated above fill material. When ditches are used with insloped roads, drain runoff through culverts or into adjacent vegetation to filter sediment. R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 21 R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 22 Grading is usually done by a road patrol or road grader and should only be done as needed to maintain the surface of the road, repair ruts, restore drainage of the road surface or to maintain the ditches for proper drainage and flow of water. Grading creates a newly-disturbed surface which is prone to erosion so grade only those sections of the road and ditches that require maintenance. When grading, lift the blade where no grading is necessary. ROA D MA I N T E NA NCE SK I D TR A I LS Ground-based skidding creates skid trails which are paths used to drag logs to an area where the logs are collected into a log deck for loading onto trucks. Limit the number and length of skid trails to minimize the total amount of area disturbed by skidding. In most instances, the disturbance by skidding will aid natural regeneration of the forest. However, care must be used to prevent excessive erosion of skid trails or sedimentation of streams. Directional felling is one way to minimize the number of skid trails or amount of area disturbed by skid trails. The roads or skid trails are laid out before the trees are cut. The trees are then cut for the most efficient access. Note the additional length and number of skid trails to access the same number of t rees in the diagrams. Foresight is needed to facilitate skidding with the minimum amount of skid trails. Avoid creating berms that channel all runoff water onto and down a road surface. Retain the natural drainage of the road surface. When grading, avoid cutting the toe of a slope. This causes slope ins tability and can lead to mass movement of upslope areas. Maintenance needs can be subs tantially reduced if road travel during wet condtions can be avoided. Place gates at strategic points to limit access. Apply gravel to improve the surface, reduce the maintenance needs and extend the season of use. D i rectional Felling VS . Unplanned Fe l l i n g Excessive skidding on the same trail. Skid Trail Skid Trail Keep ditches and culverts free of debris and clean catch basins periodically, particularly after severe storms. † R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 23 Landings are cleared areas where logs are collected for loading on trucks. Logs are usually stacked or decked for loading and may also be limbed and cut to length at a landing. This concentration of activities may cause compaction, erosion or sedimentation. To avoid these problems, landings and decks should be made larger than necessary to safely conduct the operations. The number of landings should be kept to a minimum as well. Adequate drainage for the landing is essential but excessive slope can cause erosion. LA N D I NG S Avoid perched landings which may fail and cause substantial erosion problems. Decking logs along a road is one way to minimize the number of landings needed When no longer needed, reclaim landings by recontouring or reshaping and reseeding the area. R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 24 ST R E A M CRO S S I NG S Select a site for a stream crossing before the rest of the road system is laid out or planned. This will allow the road system to be designed for the best approach to the stream crossings. The profile of a streambed should not be changed when constructing crossings. Alteration of the stream banks should be minimized and a permit is required prior to any work being done. All stream crossings should be done at right angles to the stream channel to minimize disturbance to vegetation, banks and streambed. Fords, culverts or bridges are most commonly used for stream crossings Fo rd s A ford is simply a crossing of a stream without a structure or culvert. They can be used where stream banks are low and firm, the streambed is firm and the stream is shallow. Fords should not be used if significant alteration of the stream bank is required. Rock and gravel may be used to stabilize the streambed and approaches. Concrete may be placed in streambeds or flow areas of intermittent watercourses when warranted to protect the streambed under all weather conditions. B ri d ge s Bridges can be used for temporary or permanent crossings of streams. Usually, permanent bridges are used for larger streams or for more permanent roads. Temporary bridges are used for smaller streams, infrequent or one-time access and can be made of other suitable materials or devices. Use care to minimize disturbance to stream banks and approaches. A permit is required for any stream bank alteration. * R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 25 C u lve rt s Culverts are the most commonly-used form of stream crossing. A culvert is easily placed, functions well and can be reused upon removal when no longer needed. There are several important considerations when using culverts for stream crossings. 1 Use adequate size for stream and runoff flow. Anticipate storm peak flows and size culverts accordingly 2 Stream gradients should not be changed when installing culverts.. 3 Protect fill over culvert by armoring upstream end of culvert. 4 Provide armor of some type to prevent erosion at discharge end of culvert. Culverts should be placed slightly below the natural stream bed to preclude culvert outfall barriers. Culverts should be installed with the same slope of the natural stream bed. A pitch of 2-3 percent will cause the culvert to be self-cleaning. Culverts should be extended at least one foot beyond the fill at both the inlet and outlet ends. Culverts need to be inspected regularly and cleaned out as necessary. ST R E A M CRO S S I NG S Fill material is tamped and compacted Level of natural streambed Cover culvert with 12” minimum or 1/2 - 1/3 diameter of culvert Road Surface Existing ground Culvert Water Level Culvert Installation R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 26 WI N T E R OP E R AT I O N S Winter provides an opportunity to conduct harvest operations in areas which might be sensitive during warmer drier times. One example is wetland areas which are particularly suited to being logged during winter. The snow pack can provide support across wet areas which would be deeply rutted if logged during the summer months. Freezing of some wetland areas can also extend operating periods and reduce impact from logging. Operations conducted during cold weather months have different maintenance requirements. Roads are vulnerable to heavy damage and erosion if not maintained correctly. However, if properly maintained during winter months, road usage can extend the logging season without creating excessive impacts. Some of the issues of winter operation are: Remove snow from roads initially to allow deep freezing which will increase stability of the road base. After roads have frozen solidly, maintain packed snow on the road to insulate the frozen road base. Berms of snow along road edges can keep melted snow on the road surface from entering streams. During times of alternative freezing and thawing, suspend operations if deeply frozen road base begins to thaw. Use snow berms to keep streams clean. Use wa ter bar to dive rt snow melt from frozen ro a d . * * R O A D S , S K I D T R A I L S , L A N D I N G S & S T R E A M C R O S S I N G S 27 After harvesting operations, the future need for a road should be considered. If plans have changed since the planning of the harvest, the road may need to be kept open for other uses. However, most roads can be closed when logging operations cease. The closure and rehabilitation of roads can do much to pre v e n t sedimentation of streams and lakes. Roads should be ripped or loosened so vegetation can grow. If necessary, the roadbed should also be contoured to the original slope of the land. Stream courses and natural drainages should be restored to their natural channels. These rehabilitated roads should be barricaded to prevent use by vehicles while revegetation occurs. Some ways of barricading roads are shown below. ROA D CLO S U R E S Roads may need to be ripped before they are closed. This will allow vegetation to grow more easily on the abandoned road. T I M B E R H A R V E S T I N G 28 The following is a partial list of practices that may be applicable to timber harvesting during your forest management project. Implement the appropriate practices to pro t e c t water quality before, during and after the project is completed. Refer to the Forest Water Quality Guidelines for a more complete list of practices. H a rve sting Equipment Considera t i o n s q Choose the appropriate size and type of equipment to adequately perform the operation, and will minimize soil compaction and damage to the residual stand. q Plan and layout skid trails prior to harvesting. q Use directional felling techniques. q Avoid skidding in drainages and stream channels to prevent excessive soil displacement. q Exclude operation of ground based machinery within streamside management zones. q Consider the use of low ground pressure equipment in wetlands. q Avoid the use of skidder blades for braking when descending steep slopes. Wi n ter Logging Considera t i o n s q Consider harve sting wetlands and other sensitive areas during winter month s. q Conduct winter logging operations when the ground is frozen or adequate snow cover exists to minimize disturbance. q Install adequate road or skid trail drainage prior to the start of har vesting activities. q Compact skid trails in snow prior to harvesting. q Clearly mark culverts and other drainage structures making them visible in deep snow. q Keep all dra i n a ge st ru c t u res clear and ensure culve rts remain free of debri s . q Avoid road construction during winter months. Slash Management Considera t i o n s q Lopping and scatte ring, crushing, or chipping slash mate rial, as opposed to b u rning, aids nutrient cycling, protects re p roduction, reduces potential insect i n fe stations and impedes surface wa ter fl ow. q Use brush blades for piling slash to reduce soil dist u r b a n c e . q Ensure the best possible utilization of wood to prevent excessive slash accumulations. CH E CK L I ST F O R SU C C E S S * T I M B E R H A R V E S T I N G 29 CH E CK L I ST F O R SU C C E S S CO N T I N U E D Regeneration Considerations q Retain a sufficient number of healthy trees with adequate crowns and good form for seed trees or retention trees. q Restrict equipment to designated trails to limit soil compaction. Treat excessively compacted areas to obtain adequate regeneration or revegetation. q Scarify the soil only to the extent necessary to meet regeneration objectives. F O R E S T P R O D U C T S T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A C T Transportation of forest products within, into or out of the State of Utah requires c o mpliance with the Utah Fo re st Products Tra n s p o rtation Act (Utah Code 78-38-4.5). This law re qu i res proof of product ow n e rship to harve st or tra n s p o rt fo re st pro d u c t s from state, private and federal lands in Utah. The Act: n protects the rights of private landowners n assures forest products are obtained legally n promotes fair market value for products harvested n prevents theft P roof of ow n e rship may include a timber sale contract, permit, bill of sale or lading, receipt, or other legal instrument which provides the following information: n date of sale n p u rch a s e r, tra n s p o rte r, landow n e r, agency and vendor name & addre s s n legal or other description of sale area n product, species and quantity being harvested or removed n delivery point T I M B E R H A R V E S T I N G 30 Timber harvesting is the cutting and removal of trees. Harvesting activities should be conducted to ensure long-term maintenance of water quality. Using the Forest Water Quality Guidelines in a timber sale contract protects your property and helps ensure availability of forest resources for future generations. HA RV E ST I NG SYST E M S Generally, harvesting systems fall into three categories: ground-based, cable and aerial. Choose the harvesting system best suited to site conditions, cost-effectiveness and your management objectives. Ground-based Ground-based harvesting systems are typically used on gentle terrain, stable soils and in areas with adequate access. Ground based systems are generally used on slopes less than 40% and skidding distances less than 600 feet for tracked machines and 1200 feet for rubber tired equipment Although used infrequently, harvesting by horses can be used in smaller timber. Best suited for relatively flat, level ground. Rubber tired grapple skidder: The most commonly used and least expensive system. Skidders may cause excessive soil damage (i.e. compaction) if operating in wet conditions. Tracked grapple dozer: Suitable for use on modera te slopes. May cause less damage than rubber tired skidders when soils are wet . Delimber/Processor: This equipment begins the manufacturing process in the forest by cutting trees to exact lengths. Feller-buncher: Mechanical harvesters can minimize damage to residual trees, wa ter & soil. T I M B E R H A R V E S T I N G 31 T I M B E R H A R V E S T I N G 32 Winter Logging Considerations Sometimes the best time to harvest timber is during the winter. With the onset of winter comes the opportunity for low-impact logging. With proper precautions, timber harvesting in sensitive areas can be done without impacting water quality. Consider winter harvesting when logging sites are characterized by soil erosion and compaction hazards, high water tables or wetlands. Cable Cable harvesting systems are generally used on steep slopes, broken topography or where ground-based equipment cannot operate. Cable harvesting systems are typically used on slopes in excess of 40% and yarding distances of 1000 feet. They lift logs off the ground and move them to a landing where they are loaded and hauled away. Aerial Where road construction, unstable terrain and steep slopes preclude standard harvest methods, aerial harvesting systems can be effective. Aerial harvesting systems are also used for high-value selective logging and in areas where aesthetics are important. A high-lead or skyline logging system. Cable harvesting system using a tower and drum assembly. Spruce salvage sale using helicopter to haul the logs to a landing. Aerial harvesting systems are the most expensive. A mechanical harvester operating on snow covered ground. Winter har vesting provides for low impact logging. A rubber-tired grapple skidder skidding logs over frozen surface HA RV E ST I NG SYST E M S HA RV E ST I NG SYST E M S T I M B E R H A R V E S T I N G 33 Slash Management Timber harvesting is only one step toward managing your resources. Upon completion of harvest, you may need to take steps to prevent soil erosion, reduce fire risk and insect & disease problems. Leaving logging debris on the ground provides many benefits. However, excessive slash can cause many p roblems. Treating slash can be accomplished by hand, mechanical or burn i n g treatments. Proper slash treatment should allow for: n adequate regeneration/reforestation n nutrient cycling n soil stabilization n fire hazard reduction n insect & disease risk reduction n recreation & aesthetics HA RV E ST I NG SYST E M S Ensure adequate slash disposal and treatment through the use of fire and/or mechanical means. Here, the slash has been lopped and scattered leaving branches and foliage within a foot or two of the ground. Slash treated in this manner can be left to aid in nutrient cycling and provide protection for regeneration. Untreated slash: Reduction of slash to decrease fire hazard is recommended. This pho to shows unacceptable slash treatment. Slash produced from timber har vesting activities should never be cast, piled or burned in the streamside management zone (SMZ). S I T E P R E P A R A T I O N , R E G E N E R A T I O N & R E V E G E T A T I O N 34 The following is a partial list of practices that may be applicable to site preparation, regeneration and revegetation during your forest management project. Implement the appropriate practices to protect water quality before, during and after the project is completed. Refer to the Forest Water Quality Guidelines for a more complete list of practices. S i te Pre p a ra t i o n q Dispose and treat slash with fire and/or other mechanical means. q If needed, mechanically scarify soil to create optimal conditions for regeneration. q Plan prescribed burning to accomplish management objectives without causing excessive damage to the soil or residual stand. q Consider chemical site preparation where practical to minimize soil disturbance. Re ge n e ra t i o n q Retain a sufficient number of healthy trees with adequate crowns and good form for seed trees to provide quality regeneration from genetically superior seed sources. q Retain stocking levels suited to moisture conditions of the site. Dry sites may require retention of additional trees. q When using artificial regeneration, plant species best suited to the soil and site conditions. q Monitor survival of regeneration to ensure management objectives and protection of water quality are being met. Reve geta t i o n q Roads, skid trails and landings should be revegetated using natural or artificial means as soon as practical. q Exposed sites or other areas should be stabilized using proper seed mixtures adapted to soil and site conditions. q On steep slopes, the use of mulch or slash material may be used to stabilize soil and slow surface water flow until vegetation becomes established. q Utilize native herbaceous seed mixtures best suited to the soil and site conditions. q Avoid seeding where tree seedling establishment is desired unless conditions warrant. CH E CK L I ST F O R SU C C E S S S I T E P R E P A R A T I O N , R E G E N E R A T I O N & R E V E G E T A T I O N 35 Site preparation is the use of mechanical, chemical or other means to prepare a site for regeneration of a forest. Regeneration is the re-establishment of a forest stand. Revegetation may include regeneration, but should also address the need for soil stabilization on sites such as landings, skid trails, roads and SMZs. Site preparation, regeneration and revegetation is recommended for all timber harvesting activities. GE N E R A L Choose appropriate equipment for harvest on sensitive areas, including wetlands, bogs, slide areas and steep slopes. Equipment selection should consider the effects of erosion, compaction, sedimentation of water bodies, soil displacement and minimization of soil disturbance. SI T E PR E PA R AT I O N Proper site preparation provides adequate planting space to ensure the survival and growth of newly planted or established seedlings. Without proper site preparation, harvested sites can be overtaken by undesirable brush and weed species and remain unstocked for long periods of time. P R O T E C T S O I L F R O M C O M P A C T I O N Take special precautions when using heavy equipment to prepare the site for planting. Because trees need water and air for growth, compacting the soil can delay or even eliminate the start of the next forest. Soil may look and feel solid, but much of it is actually empty pore space. Use of heavy equipment can squeeze pore space which reduces space for water and air and nutrient uptake through the roots of the newly planted seedlings. In most cases, site preparation is necessary to reduce logging debris or to control other vegetation prior to planting. Site preparation practices include many different methods. Here, site scarification using a brush blade is being demonstrated to ef fectively prepare the site for planting. In some cases, site scarification to expose mineral soil is necessary to improve seed germination and seedling establishment. Sensitive areas such as this bog require special care during harvesting activities. Advanced natural regeneration in the understory. The mature trees left from previous harvesting provide adequate shading for the establishment of a new forest. A vigorous, well-stocked forest on its way to maturity. With proper management, your forest can continue to provide economic and environmental benefits. S I T E P R E P A R A T I O N , R E G E N E R A T I O N & R E V E G E T A T I O N 36 RE G E N E R AT I O N Plan for a new forest. There are two primary ways to regenerate your new fore s t : natural and artificial regeneration. Choose the best option suited to your specific management goals and needs. Artificial regeneration: A newly planted stand of trees. Planting aids in rapid reforestation with healthy, vigorous seedlings at the proper spacing. Natural regeneration: Retention of healthy and desirable species with suf ficient crowns and growth form provides for the es tablishment of seedlings from genetically superior seed sources. * S I T E P R E P A R A T I O N , R E G E N E R A T I O N & R E V E G E T A T I O N 37 RE V E G E TAT I O N Areas such as road cuts and fills, landings, skid trails and drainage structures should be revegetated and/or stabilized as soon as practical. Natural re v e g e t a t i o n may be adequate. If not, revegetation should be complimented by seeding, mulching or other means. O T H E R P O I N T S T O C O N S I D E R n Upon termination of operations, landings should be recontoured to the extent practical and revegetated. n Stabilize exposed soil (including firelines) with proper seed mixture for soil and site conditions. Minimize the use of fertilizers to amend the soil. n On steep slopes, the use of straw mulch or logging slash may be needed to stabilize soil until grasses and other ground cover become established. n Following removal of temporary culverts and bridges, establish earth or straw dikes on stream banks and seed with proper seed mixtures. n Utilize a native herbaceous seed mixture suited to site conditions. Avoid seeding herbaceous vegetation where tree seedlings es tablishment is desired unless erosive conditions warrant. Slash may be used to reduce erosion. Upon termination of forestry activities, temporary roads should be closed to reduce maintenance costs. Here, this road has been closed and properly seeded to reduce erosion and sedimentation. A well established grass understory shown in this photo is the result of proper planning. Note proper harvesting method and slash treatment shown as well. In addition to protecting the soil, vegetative cover can enhance wildlife habitat and provide forage for lives tock. C H E M I C A L M A N A G E M E N T 38 The following is a partial list of practices that may be applicable to chemical management during your forest management project. Implement the appropriate practices to pro t e c t water quality before, during and after the project is completed. Refer to the Forest Water Quality Guidelines for a more complete list of practices. G e n e ra l q Have a contingency plan to follow in the event of a chemical spill. The plan should include who to contact in the event of a spill, and may include having absorbent or neutralizing materials on hand with literature that describes spill cleanup or containment procedures. q Follow all label instructions, EPA guidelines and state laws when using chemicals. q Transport, store and apply chemicals in leak-proof, labeled containers. Dispose of chemical containers in an approved landfill or according to label instructions. q Chemical storage containers and facilities should be located away from Streamside Management Zones (SMZs). q When possible, mix chemicals and clean equipment only in areas that are part of the application site. Avoid streams, waterbodies and Streamside Management Zones (SMZs). Pe st i c i d e s q Apply chemicals during appropriate weather and season. q Avoid aerial or broadcast application of pesticides in SMZs unless the chemical is specifically labeled for applicatrion over or near water. q Consider chemical site preparation instead of mechanical where possible to reduce sedimentation and other adverse impacts to water quality. q Mix only the appropriate amount of pesticide needed. Dispose of excess pesticides according to label instructions and existing regulations. q Keep and maintain records of the type of chemical, amount and dates applied, weather conditions and results. Pet ro chemicals and Antifre e z e q Avoid draining used oil, fuel or antifreeze onto the ground. q Fuel and service equipment away from SMZs and avoid spillage. q Keep all fuel, oil and antifreeze away from surface waters and areas where spilled material may enter or be washed into water. CH E CK L I ST F O R SU C C E S S C H E M I C A L M A N A G E M E N T 39 Use of chemicals during forestry activities can have considerable benefit. Chemical management refers to the use of chemicals such as pesticides (herbicides, rodenticides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.), petrochemicals (oil, gasoline, diesel), antifreeze, fire retardants and fertilizers for forest management. In some cases, the use of chemicals is nearly unavoidable, such as the use of petrochemicals and antifreeze in vehicles and machinery. However, most chemicals have a potentially great impact on water quality and aquatic organisms if they are misused, misapplied or spilled. O T H E R P O I N T S T O C O N S I D E R Forest chemicals, when applied correctly, can be a useful management tool for landowners. Chemicals are sometimes used in the forest to: n control insects and diseases n control noxious weeds n prepare sites for planting n control competing vegetation n fertilize trees to improve growth n minimize wildlife damage n maintain forest road rights-of-way Many chemicals can be toxic and must be handled carefully. Properly applied forest chemicals can help you achieve desired benefits without putting water, soil, fish, wildlife or humans at risk. R E A D A N D F O L L O W L A B E L D I R E C T I O N S : By following a few straightforward guidelines, you can use chemicals in an environmentally sensitive manner. Chemical labels are often updated from year to year, so it is important to always read the label carefully. In fact, the law requires you to read and follow label directions for: n Storage n Transportation n Loading and mixing n Application n Cleaning n Removal of containers n Emergency spills n Disposal n Worker protection standards Be sure to remove all empty chemical containers from the site for proper disposal. C H E M I C A L M A N A G E M E N T 40 When is it Too Windy to Apply Chemicals It is recommended that chemicals be applied when wind speed is less than 5 mph. Also, use drift control agents as directed by label instructions. The following chart is provided to assist you with estimating wind speed: C O N S I D E R Whether applying forest chemicals by hand, power equipment or air, precautions need to be taken to protect water. Pesticides and fertilizers entering water can harm fish and other aquatic organisms. Regardless of the application technique used, you should keep chemicals out of the water. Wind Speed & Observable Features Less than 1 mph Smoke rises vertically; no foliage movement. 1-3 mph Foliage and small twigs sway very gently; grass and weeds sway and bend. 4-7 mph Small trees in open sway gently; loose scraps of paper move, flags flutter; you feel a slight breeze on your face. C H E M I C A L M A N A G E M E N T 41 SP I L L PR E PA R E D N E S S Be prepared for accidents. Develop a plan for chemical spills, and discuss the plan with all those who are involved in your forest operation. A well thought out plan includes procedures for cleaning up the spill and notifying the appropriate authorities: Utah Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Environmental Response and Remediation Office: (801) 536-4100 Emergency Hotline: (801) 536-4123 http://www.deq.state.ut.us National Response Center 1-800-424-8802 Utah Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Quality Office: (801) 536-6146 http://www.deq.state.ut.us Utah Poison Control 1-800-456-7707 The Utah Department of Agriculture has specific regulations re g a rding pesticides including registration and labeling, classification, applicator cert i f i c a t i o n , licensing and transportation. For further information contact: Utah Department of Agriculture Office: (801) 538-7188 http://www.ag.state.ut.us Prevent Chemicals From Entering Water Prevent chemicals from entering water or wetlands by avoiding mixing, loading, or applying chemicals within the ordinary high water mark. Locate mixing and loading areas at least 75 feet above the ordinary high water mark or where spills will not enter water or wetlands. Remove all empty containers from the site for proper disposal. F O R E S T E D W E T L A N D S 42 The following is a partial list of practices that may be applicable to forested wetlands during your forest management project. Implement the appropriate practices to pro t e c t water quality before, during and after the project is completed. Refer to the Forest Water Quality Guidelines for a more complete list of practices that might be applicable. q Identify, locate and mark wetlands prior to the start of forest operations. q Avoid locating roads, trails and landings in wetlands. q Conduct harvest activities in wetlands when the ground is frozen, covered with snow or during extended dry periods. q Keep open water free from slash and other debris. q Use only pesticides labeled for use in wetlands. q Avoid fueling and servicing equipment in wetlands. q Avoid operating equipment in areas of open water, seeps and springs. q Utilize low ground pressure equipment to minimize compaction, rutting or other site disturbance. q Provide adequate drainage to minimize changes to natural surface and subsurface flows. q Whenever possible, skid around or endline trees out of wetlands. Avoid skidding through open wetlands and meadows. q Whenever possible, divert runoff from roads, trails and landings to upland areas to reduce siltation of wetland areas. The construction and maintenance of roads for purposes other than forestry activities within wetland areas may be subject to federally required Best Management Practices (BMPs). Refer to the Nonpoint Source Management Plan for Silvicultural Activities for a complete listing of these BMPs. CH E CK L I S T F O R SU C C E S S F O R E S T E D W E T L A N D S 43 WE T LA N D DE F I N I T I O N Wetlands, as defined in federal regulations and laws are "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to s upport, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Forested wetlands are wetland areas covered by or surrounded by trees or forests. Forest wetlands are nature's filter for streams and water supplies. Forest management activities and timber harvesting are compatible with the management of wetlands when done properly and in a sensitive manner. When conducting timber harvesting and other forest management activities in or near forested wetlands, care should be taken to protect the aquatic and hy d rologic functions that occur in these sensitive are a s . Minimize rutting and compaction in areas of seeps, springs and open water. Also, provide for adequate drainage and divert runoff from roads, trails and landings to reduce silting of wetland areas. P R E S C R I B E D F I R E 44 The following is a partial list of practices that may be applicable to the use of fire during your forest management project. Implement the appropriate practices to protect water quality before, during and after the project is completed. Refer to the Forest Water Quality Guidelines for a more complete list of practices. q Use a prescribed burn plan prepared by a qualified professional. Part of the plan should include analysis of the need to burn. Alternatives exist which may accomplish the same purpose. Some of these alternatives are chipping, crushing, lopping, utilization of substandard merchantable material or even giving away free firewood from slash areas. A minimal amount of slash can be beneficial by providing protection to regeneration, aiding nutrient recycling and impeding surface water flow. q Do not burn within the SMZ unless specifically re q u i red by a management objective. q Ensure control of a fire at all times to limit the risk of fire escaping the intended burn area. In the event of a wildfire, construct fire lines along contours as much as possible. If erosion could be a problem, use erosion control measures such as water bars, spreader ditches and reseeding of fire lines. q If weather conditions are marginal for control of fire, fire suppression forces should be available to respond if needed. q Personnel experienced and qualified in fire management techniques should plan and conduct burns, provide supervision or be asked to provide technical expertise to conduct a safe, efficient, minimal-impact burn. q Prepare a contingency plan to identify appropriate actions to be taken if a p rescribed fire exceeds control parameters (area, size, flame length or rate of spre a d ) . q Slash which is piled for burning should be free from dirt and other noncombustible material to allow efficient burning for disposal of the slash. q Use caution when considering burning on steep slopes. Moderately steep slopes may be more appropriately burned without the slash being piled since the use of dozers may cause erosion. Burning may not be appropriate on very steep slopes since serious erosion could result. q A burning permit is required for burning. Local offices of the Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands can provide information about when and where the permits may be obtained. CH E CK L I ST F O R SU C C E S S P R E S C R I B E D F I R E 45 Keep slash pile free from dirt and other debris. This pile will burn cleanly and leave little residue. Slash can be safely burned when snow prevents a fire from spreading. Fi re can be used to re m ove slash and debris but must be used safe ly. Fire can also be used to remove excessive slash which is widely scattered. This area might be a candidate for a broadcast burn. The slash in the foreground is poorly piled and the dirt included in this pile will prevent a clean burn. G L O S S A R Y O F T E R M S 46 This glossary is provided to help you understand commonly used terms that occur in this publication. GLO S SA RY O F TE R M S Artificial regeneration: Direct seeding or by planting seedlings or cuttings. B e st Management Practice (BMP): A practice or a combination of practices, that is determ i n e d b y a State (or designated area-wide planning agency) after problem assessment, examination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective, practical (including technological, economic and institutional considerations) means of preventing or re d u c i n g the amount of pollution generated by Nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (40 CFR 130.2(q). This definition is consistent with the State of Utah definition of "Forest Water Quality Guideline." Clean Air Ac t: Established in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990, is the federal law re g u l a t i n g air emissions; enforcement authority lies with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who is charged with establishing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), these standards were to be established in every state by 1975; states were required to adopt standards that met or exceeded federal standards. Clean Water Act: Established in 1977 as an amendment to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Clean Water Act makes discharging pollutants from a point source to navigable waters illegal without a permit. The amendments of 1987 provide for the management of nonpoint source pollution into the waters of the United States. Drainage structure: Any device, excavation, berm or constructed structure used to provide stream crossings or divert runoff and/or stream channels. These structures may include bridges, culverts, waterbars, rolling dips, ditches, cross-drains, pipes, down spouts and other similar structures. Fireline: A constructed area generally void of combustible fuels that is used to stop or direct the spread of wild or prescribed fire occurring in forest, grass, range or brush. Fishery: Any stream, lake, river, creek, reservoir, and or other body of water that supports naturally reproducing or stocked fish populations of any life stage. Forest: An area where the predominant vegetation is trees. GLO S SA RY O F TE R M S CO N T I N U E D Forest Water Quality Guideline (FWQG): A collection of voluntary, field applicable practices for use during forestry activities to protect water quality adopted by the State and contained within the Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Guideline: See Forest Water Quality Guideline (FWQG). Hydrologic modification: Occurs whenever human activities significantly change the hydrologic function (dynamics) or the attendant pollutant release regime of rivers (and streams) and riverine systems, lakes and impoundments and ground water systems. These modifications can create nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution (and impacts to related aquatic wildlife habitat). Insloped road: A road constructed with a surface slope graded toward the cut slope to dire c t water to a ditch on the cut bank side of the road. Landing: A collection area, usually centrally located, to where logs or forest products are transported by skidders, dozers, cable systems or other means so the products may be loaded onto trucks for transport to another destination. Landowner: An individual or group of individuals or any form of a legal entity that owns or possesses any interest in land; any government agency charged with management of public lands or any other type of group or agency that owns or manages land. Natural Handbook of Conservation Practices: A document containing a collection of specifications on a variety of conservation practices maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Nonpoint source pollution: Diffuse sources of water pollution that originate from many indefinable sources and normally include agricultural and urban runoff, runoff from construction activities, etc. In practical terms, nonpoint sources do not discharge at a specific, single location (such as a single pipe). Nonpoint source pollutants are generally carried over or through the soil and ground cover via stormflow processes. Unlike point sources of pollution (such as industrial and municipal effluent discharge pipes), nonpoint sources are diffuse and can come from any land area. The following silvicultural activities are considered to be nonpoint sources of pollution: nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvest operations, surface drainage and road construction and maintenance from which there is natural runoff (40CFR 122.27). GLO S SA RY O F TE R M S CO N T I N U E D G L O S S A R Y O F T E R M S G L O S S A R Y O F T E R M S 47 48 Noxious weed: Any plant the Commissioner of Agriculture determines to be especially injurious to public health, crops, livestock, land or other property. Outsloped road: A road constructed with a surface graded toward the fill slope to direct water off the road in sheet flow. Riparian areas: Units of land along watercourses or water bodies that product unique vegetation as a result of abundant water in the rooting zone. The species and proportional amounts of vegetation are usually in marked contrast to the more arid adjacent uplands. Professional forester: A person who has earned a bachelor of science in forestry or masters degree in forestry from a Society of American Foresters accredited college or university or equivalent and has experience in the management of forested lands. Scarify: To mechanically (e.g. plowing, disking, ripping) break up or loosen the surface of the soil, roads or other areas. Sedimentation: The process of deposition of eroded and transported material, usually in the context of stream channel bottoms, reservoirs and lakes. Silvicultural activities: Activities that involve controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health and quality of forests and woodlands to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis; these activities do not include land conversion to non-forest uses or range management activities. Skid trail: A corridor used for the dragging or transportation of logs by logging equipment. Slash: Any residual woody material left on the site after any type of harvest operation and usually includes tree stems, branches and foliage. Slope distance: A distance measured parallel to or along the ground with no correction for the slope. Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCP): The set of practices used by the U.S. Forest S e rvice which, when applied during implementation of a project, ensures that soil p ro d u c t i v i t y is maintained, soil loss and water quality impacts are minimized, and waterrelated beneficial uses are protected. G L O S S A R Y O F T E R M S G L O S S A R Y O F T E R M S 49 50 GLO S SA RY O F TE R M S CO N T I N U E D Special use permit: A permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service under established laws and regulations to an individual, organization or some company for occupancy or use of National Forest System lands for some special purpose. Stand: A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age class distribution, composition and stru c t u re, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality to be a distinguishable unit. Stream: For purposes of SMZ application, a stream is a natural water course of perceptible extent with definite beds and banks that confine and conducts continuously or intermittently flowing water; definite beds are defined as having a sandy, gravel or rocky bottom surface that is a result of the scouring action of water flow. Perennial stream: Streams that flow most of the year in all but the driest of climactic cycles. Intermittent stream: Streams that flow only part of the year when they receive water from springs or runoff. Ephemeral stream: Streams that are above the water table at all times; these streams carry water only during and immediately after precipitation or during snowmelt runoff. Streamside management zone (SMZ): State definition: An area of specialized management to protect water quality by limiting soil disturbance and exposure; an area of land adjacent to a waterbody where soil disturbance is minimal and vegetative disturbance is reduced to provide a buffer for the filtration of water entering the waterbody. U.S.F.S. definition: As defined by the U.S. Forest Service, an SMZ is a designated zone that consists of the stream and an adjacent area of varying width where management practices that might affect water quality, fish or other aquatic resources are modified. The SMZ is not a zone of exclusion, but a zone of closely managed activity. It is a zone which acts as an effective filter and absorptive zone for sediment; maintains shade; protects aquatic and terrestrial riparian habitats; protects channel and streambanks; and promotes floodplain stability. The SMZ may be wider than the riparian area. Tu r b i d i t y: An optical pro p e rty of water that is a measure of the ability of suspended and colloidal materials to diminish the penetration of light through the water column. Turbidity increases with increased suspended sediment concentrations. Waterbody: Any stream, creek, river, pond, lake, reservoir or other feature that contains or seasonally contains water. Wetland: Sta te & U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defi n i t i o n : A reas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support , and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and other similar areas. U.S. Forest Service definition: Wetlands are those areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do or would support a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats and natural ponds. GLO S SA RY O F TE R M S CO N T I N U E D F O R E S T R Y , F I R E & S T A T E L A N D S A R E A O F F I C E S 51 For information or assistance, contact the Division Headquarters or your local Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands Office listed below: Salt Lake City Headquarters Forest Stewardship Coordinator 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3520 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 801-538-5418 Bear River Area 1780 N. Research Parkway North Logan, UT 84321 435-265-5071 Wasatch Front Area 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3520 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 385-264-2428 Northeast Area 2210 S Highway 40, Ste B Heber City, UT 84302 435-671-9170 Central Area 2031 S Industrial Park Road Richfield, UT 84701 435-896-2558 Southwest Area 646 N Main Cedar City, UT 84721 435-586-4408 Southeast Area 1165 S. Hwy 191, Suite 6 Moab, UT 84532 435-259-3766 Bear River Area Wasatch Front Area Northeast Area Central Area Southeast Area Southwest Area The Utah Department of Natural Resources receives federal aid and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, age, national origin or disability. For information or complaints regarding discrimination, contact Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 145610, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5610 or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1801 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20507-0001. Printed on recycled paper using vegetable-base inks. 6000 6/01 Acknowledgments Writers: Ed Storey, Ron Gropp, Darren McAvoy The Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands gratefully acknowledges the many people who provided information and insight to this publication. Special thanks to the following for their assistance with the development, review and production of this publication: The staff of Forestry, Fire & State Lands Utah State University Cooperative Extension Utah Division of Water Quality Environmental Protection Agency Utah Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee Utah Farm Bureau Federation Forest Landowner Education Program Design: Milne Advertising/Design EXHIBIT D SWAT NOI Flowchart Residential Commercial Is the project a residential building on a single lot and disturbing more than one acre? Is the project a residential building on a single lot and disturbing one acre or less? Is the lot a part of a Common Plan of Development/ Subdivision? Is it a single home on a lot that is part of a Common Plan of Development? You will need a Construction General Permit NOI/SWPPP You will need a Construction General Permit NOI/SWPPP When was the lot first platted by the county? After October 1992*? Before October 1992? You are exempt from needing a State permit. Erosion control practices are still required by the county. YES YES NO NO Is the project disturbing more than one acre? NO YES You will need a Common Plan Permit NOI/SWPPP * “Common Plan of Development” - For UPDES storm water permit purposes, a common plan must have been initiated after October, 1992. A common plan of development or sale remains so until each lot or section of the development has fulfilled its planned purposes (e.g. in a residential development as homes are completed, stabilized, and sold or occupied). As lots or separated sections of the development are completed, the lot or section is stabilized, and the plan purposes are fulfilled for that area, lot, or section, it is no longer part of the common plan of development or sale (e.g. if a home is sold in a development and the owner decides to add a garage somewhere on the lot, that garage project is not part of the common plan of development or sale. In this process a common plan of development or sale may become reduced in size and/or separated by completed areas which are no longer part of the common plan of development or sale, but all unfinished lots remain part of the same common plan of development or sale until they are completed, stabilized, and fulfilled according to the purposes of the plan. Helpful Links/Tips https://deq.utah.gov/water-quality/general-construction-storm-water-updes-permits When applying for the NOI, it is important for contractors to apply as a “Signatory” NOT a “Preparer” while filling out these documents online, be sure to use full legal names and home addresses. This is the federal government’s website, and they are verifying that you are you while applying for this permit. This process is only done ONE time for all NOI’s throughout Utah. There is a help desk phone number and email address on the website (top right corner) that have been very useful. When filing for an NOI within Summit County, please be sure to list Summit County as the MS4, NOT Park City. EXHIBIT E Record of Environmental Considerations 02/08/2023 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REC-01 17:15:01 RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC) Project Title: HMGP-5388-0003-UT(R)(1) Sun Peak D-space and HFR wildfire mitigation project Non Compliant Flag: Level: EA Draft Date: EA Final Date: EA Public Notice Date: EA Fonsi EIS Notice of Intent EIS ROD Date: No EA 08/19/2019 09/27/2019 09/27/2019 09/27/2019 Comment The FEMA 2019 PEA for Wildfire Mitigation Projects in the State of Utah and the corresponding FONSI, signed on September 27, 2019, sufficiently addresses the environmental consequences of the proposed action. Project fits alternatives evaluated in the final Programmatic Environmental Assessment. As the proposed action would not result in substantial impacts to the environment beyond those described in the PEA, no additional NEPA-specific public noticing or required. Please find the prescribed mitigation measures and stipulations illustrated in the project conditions. - kturne15 - 02/07/2023 18:29:06 GMT Sun Peak Community Defensible Space and Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project will include 194 acres (153 acres of hazardous fuels reduction and 41 acres of defensible space). Treatment activities will occur within approximately 10 to 30 feet from the road edge. Vegetation will be removed using manual and mechanical hand tools. The equipment and tools that will be used include chainsaws, pole pruners, bucket trucks, weed eaters, and broom pullers. Hand crews will manually cut vegetation and either pile for burning or stack for chipping. Only existing access points, trails and roads will be used to access the site with equipment when needed. - kturne15 - 02/07/2023 18:29:51 GMT NEPA DETERMINATION Extraordinary Circumstance Code Description Selected ? No Extraordinary Circumstances were selected EXTRAORDINARY Environmental Law/ Executive Order Status Description Comment Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) Review concluded Removal of vegetation in the project areas has the potential to impact migratory birds, Bald and Golden eagles, and other raptors. The proposed actions are subject to compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). See project conditions. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:24:08 GMT Completed Clean Air Act (CAA) Project will not result in permanent air emissions - Review concluded Completed Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) Project is not on or connected to CBRA Unit or otherwise protected area - Review concluded Completed Clean Water Act (CWA) Project would not affect any water of the U.S. - Review concluded Project would have no impact on wetlands or Waters of the US and no permit is required. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:18:10 GMT Completed Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Project is not located in a coastal zone area and does not affect a coastal zone area - Review concluded Completed ENVIRONMENTAL LAW / EXECUTIVE ORDER NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 1 of 6 02/08/2023 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REC-01 17:15:01 RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC) Project Title: HMGP-5388-0003-UT(R)(1) Sun Peak D-space and HFR wildfire mitigation project Environmental Law/ Executive Order Status Description Comment Executive Order 11988 - Floodplains Located in floodplain or effects on floodplain/flood levels Although portions of the project may be located within the Special Floodplain Area, the scope of work is to reduce hazardous fuels, which will have no adverse effect on the floodplain function or resources. No further floodplain review is required under the 8-step process. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:25:55 GMT Completed No adverse effect on floodplain and not adversely affected by the floodplain - Review concluded Completed Executive Order 11990 - Wetlands No effects on wetlands and project outside wetlands - Review concluded Based on the scope of work and project location, impacts to wetlands are not likely. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:26:24 GMT Completed Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations Low income or minority population in or near project area Minority or low-income populations were identified through program coordination and public involvement, state EJ community lists or maps, or EJSCREEN reports for the project area. Review of the project scope of work revealed no adverse effects on these populations. Therefore, no additional review for potential EJ concerns is required. The maps, reports, and other information are saved to the project files. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:27:09 GMT Completed No disproportionately high and adverse impact on low income or minority population - Review concluded Completed Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listed species and/or designated critical habitat present in areas affected directly or indirectly by the federal action The USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) was accessed to obtain a list of federally listed threatened and endangered species that have the potential to occur in the project areas. The following listed threatened, endangered, and candidatespecies have the potential to occur in the project area: Canada Lynx, Monarch Butterfly and Ute Ladies' -tresses. Based on the project scope of work, project location elevation, prior coordination with USFS related to potential presence of the Canada Lynx in approximate to the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest, and applicant committed conservation measures, FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:17:47 GMT Completed No effect to species or designated critical habitat (See comments for justification) - Review concluded Completed NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 2 of 6 02/08/2023 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REC-01 17:15:01 RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC) Project Title: HMGP-5388-0003-UT(R)(1) Sun Peak D-space and HFR wildfire mitigation project Environmental Law/ Executive Order Status Description Comment Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) Project does not affect designated prime or unique farmland - Review concluded Completed Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) Project does not affect, control, or modify a waterway/body of water - Review concluded Completed Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Project located within a flyway zone Removal of vegetation in the project areas has the potential to impact migratory birds, Bald and Golden eagles, and other raptors. The proposed actions are subject to compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. See project conditions. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:19:41 GMT Completed Project does not have potential to take migratory birds - Review concluded Completed Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Project not located in or near Essential Fish Habitat - Review concluded Completed National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Applicable executed Programmatic Agreement. Activity meets Programmatic Allowance (enter date and # in comments) - Review concluded The proposed project will complete hazardous fuels reduction treatments and create defensible space around select structures. Treatment activities will also occur within approximately 10 to 30 feet from the road edge. Vegetation will be removed using manual and mechanical hand tools. The equipment and tools that will be used include chainsaws, pole pruners, bucket trucks, weed eaters, and broom pullers. No new access will be created. Only existing access points, trails and roads will be used to access the site with equipment when needed. Otherwise, materials will be hand cut and carried to an access location to be processed. Larger rubber-tired and/or tracked equipment are not required to complete the proposed project. Disturbance will be above ground, vegetation removal, no subsurface disturbance. To minimize impacts to ground disturbance, hand crews will be prioritized over machinery, especially when treatment areas are not easily accessible from a road or otherwise impacted area. When machinery is necessary, special attention will be given to soil moisture, ensuring that the ground is dry, or snow covered to minimize damage to the ground. The scope of work has been reviewed and meets the criteria of the February 25,2022 FEMA, UDEM, UT SHPO Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B: Programmatic Allowances. Project fits Allowances Tier I: A.1. (c) and (f) and Tier II A.6. (e) and (f). See project conditions. - Completed NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 3 of 6 02/08/2023 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REC-01 17:15:01 RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC) Project Title: HMGP-5388-0003-UT(R)(1) Sun Peak D-space and HFR wildfire mitigation project Environmental Law/ Executive Order Status Description Comment kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:16:53 GMT OTHER (enter specifics in comments) Review concluded 1. The project sponsor must obtain and comply with all applicable permit and approvals required by federal, state, tribal and local regulatory agencies.2. To avoid unnecessary ground disturbance, all project activities would be conducted during time periods when the ground is frozen or dry.3. Standard BMP for equipment maintenance, noise and dust abatement, worker protection, fire safety, etc. must be implemented during project activities.4. All waste material associated with the project must be disposed of properly and not placed in identified floodway or wetland areas. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:38:07 GMTDisregard the above as these are the project conditions. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:46:27 GMT Completed State Air Quality Laws Review concluded See project conditions related to pile burning. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 19:34:51 GMT Completed State Water and Soil Laws Review concluded See Project Conditions. - kturne15 - 01/26/2023 16:24:23 GMT Completed Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSR) Project is not along and does not affect Wild and Scenic River - Review concluded Completed Special Conditions required on implementation of Projects: Executive Order 11988 - Floodplains The applicant must comply with local floodplain ordinances and state regulations relating to floodplain management. Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) Removal of vegetation in the project area has the potential to impact migratory birds and raptors. The proposed actions are subject to compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). In accordance with US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) guidelines, the applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with any necessary permits from USFWS. To avoid impacts to migratory birds and raptors, the project area must be inspected for nesting activity prior to the removal of vegetation. Nest surveys/searches shall occur no earlier than two weeks prior to construction. If active nests are discovered, the Utah Ecological Services Field Office must be contacted. Appropriate USFWS buffer zones and/or seasonal restrictions may be required. Alternatively, work can be completed outside of the nesting season (generally between March and August). For more specific information on nesting season dates, please contact the USFWS Utah Ecological Services Field Office. Please see publications attached to the project award letter for more recommendations and guidelines - UT Raptor guidelines and USFWS Utah Field Office Migratory Bird Recommendations May2020. Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No CONDITIONS NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 4 of 6 02/08/2023 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REC-01 17:15:01 RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC) Project Title: HMGP-5388-0003-UT(R)(1) Sun Peak D-space and HFR wildfire mitigation project Endangered Species Act (ESA) As stated in the project application, a 200ft buffer where no thinning will occur must implemented in identified stream/river areas and around wetlands. Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Removal of vegetation in the project area has the potential to impact migratory birds and raptors. The proposed actions are subject to compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In accordance with US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) guidelines, the applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with any necessary permits from USFWS. To avoid impacts to migratory birds and raptors, the project area must be inspected for nesting activity prior to the removal of vegetation. Nest surveys/searches shall occur no earlier than two weeks prior to construction. If active nests are discovered, the Utah Ecological Services Field Office must be contacted. Appropriate USFWS buffer zones and/or seasonal restrictions may be required. Alternatively, work can be completed outside of the nesting season (generally between March and August) For more specific information on nesting season dates, please contact the USFWS Utah Ecological Services Field Office. Please see publications attached to the project award letter for more recommendations and guidelines - UT Raptor guidelines and USFWS Utah Field Office Migratory Bird Recommendations May2020. Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) If unidentified archeological, historic, or cultural resources are discovered during project implementation activities, work shall be halted near such areas until FEMA is notified and the resources have been evaluated. Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No OTHER (enter specifics in comments) 1. The project sponsor must obtain and comply with all applicable permit and approvals required by federal, state, tribal and local regulatory agencies. 2. To avoid unnecessary ground disturbance, all project activities would be conducted during time periods when the ground is frozen or dry. 3. Standard BMP for equipment maintenance, noise and dust abatement, worker protection, fire safety, etc. must be implemented during project activities. 4. All waste material associated with the project must be disposed of properly and not placed in identified floodway or wetland areas. Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No State Air Quality Laws Burning activities must be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws. State regulations for smoke management (UAC R307-204) apply to parties conducting burning actions, including pile burns for fuel management activities. All required permits must be obtained from Utah Division of Environmental Quality, as well as any local permits, prior to burning activities. Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No Source of condition: State Air Quality Laws Monitoring Required: No State Water and Soil Laws 1. All local guidelines and Utahs Forest Water Quality Guidelines (2001) must be followed to the greatest extent practicable. Streamside management zone (SMZ) boundaries must be clearly marked in project work areas and avoided consistent with Utahs Forest Water Quality Guidelines. 2. For projects that involve disturbance of more than 1 acre, a General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities may be required. The applicant must implement erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities (Permit No. UTRC00000 or subsequent permits) authorized under the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No Standard Conditions: Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders. This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient to comply with all federal, state and local laws. Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding. NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 5 of 6 02/08/2023 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REC-01 17:15:01 RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC) Project Title: HMGP-5388-0003-UT(R)(1) Sun Peak D-space and HFR wildfire mitigation project If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground disturbance and if any potential archeological resources are discovered, will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA. NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 6 of 6