Weber River Basin Planning for the Future

The water resources of the Weber River Basin play an integral role in the life of every basin resident. From a morning shower to a weekend trip on Pineview Reservoir, water is interwoven into nearly every activity. Use of the basin’s water resources has allowed the land to be settled, has provided the basin’s citizens with numerous employment and recreational opportunities, and has made possible a high quality of life. The far-reaching vision of the basin’s leaders, coupled with modern engineering technology, has allowed the basin’s water supply to be harnessed and used on a large scale. Water has been made so readily available, in fact, that its scarcity is often overlooked. This reality must be fully recognized and appropriate decisions made in order to provide sufficient water for the basin’s future population

Utah Wolf Management Plan, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication #: 05-17

This plan will guide management of wolves in Utah during an interim period from delisting until 2015, or until it is determined that wolves have established1 in Utah, or assumptions of the plan (political, social, biological, or legal) change. During this interim period, arriving wolves will be studied to determine where they are most likely to settle without conflict. The goal of this plan is to manage, study, and conserve wolves moving into Utah while avoiding conflicts with the wildlife management objectives of the Ute Indian Tribe; preventing livestock depredation; and protecting the investment made in wildlife in Utah

Habitat Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs in Iron County, Utah

The Utah prairie dog is a federally threatened species that occurs only in southwestern Utah. A large proportion (65%) of the total population of Utah prairie dogs occurs in Iron County, and a high percentage (86%) of those (2,456/2,843 in 1997) occur on privately owned lands. Population growth in Iron County has averaged more than 6% over the last five years, and is expected to continue at least at the same pace, and possibly as high as 10% (Colgan 1997). The increase in both residential and commercial development in Iron County has been the greatest in Cedar City, but has also increased in and around other municipalities along the Interstate 15 corridor, including Kanarraville, Enoch, Summit, and Parowan. It is along this corridor where the majority of Utah prairie dogs in Iron County occur. Thus, conflicts between development of private lands and the federally protected Utah prairie dog have become increasingly common. To address these conflicts and provide a comprehensive solution to the problems, Iron County and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) have developed this Habitat Conservation Plan (RCP) to obtain a Section 1 O(a)(l )(B) Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The HCP process allows take of a species, and/or its habitat, as long as the species is protected, its habitat is conserved, and the permitted take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities and will not jeopardize the ultimate survival of the species (USFWS 1996). The goal of this plan is to allow continued development and economic growth in Iron County, while conserving and recovering the Utah prairie dog on public lands. The biological approach to this HCP is premised on coordinating with recovery program goals, which in tum are rooted in the best biological knowledge regarding Utah prairie dogs. Thus, it is the biology of the Utah prairie dog which largely dictates the necessary direction of this HCP. This coordination between the HCP, the Interim Conservation Strategy (Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Implementation Team (UPDRIT) 1997), and the Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan (USFWS 1991a) involves ensuring the permanent establishment of Utah prairie dogs on public lands through translocation and intense management. All activities outlined in this HCP are designed to follow and complement overall recovery efforts as are outlined in the Interim Conservation Strategy (UPDRIT 1997) and Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan (USFWS 1991a). This HCP follows guidelines prepared by the USFWS (1996), and attempts to address requirements of the HCP application and approval process

Utah Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 2007 (Final Draft)

The monitoring network has been described in the network reviews from 1982 through 2007. A complete description of each station is located in the station file at the Air Monitoring Center and is available upon request. This network review will focus on the adequacy of the existing network and the changes that are needed. The existing or proposed monitoring stations are reviewed to see if the objectives are being met. The most recent emissions inventories for each pollutant are reviewed along with ambient data gathered in the area and, when available, current computer air pollution dispersion modeling is also reviewed. The practicality of installing or maintaining a monitoring station at the current or proposed location is then reviewed with respect to the initial monitoring objectives, the available budget for monitoring, and the Division\u27s monitoring priorities. A Network Modification Form is submitted to Region VIII of the Environmental Protection Agency prior to or as part of installing a new station. The network review process follows the requirements of 40 CFR 58.20(d)

Woodruff Narrows: Low Head Hydroelectric Power Plant Feasibility Determination

Chapter 1 - Summary

Strategic Management Plan for Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse 2002

The Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) is one of seven subspecies of Sharp-tailed Grouse. Historically, Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse occurred within sagebrush-native bunch grass habitat throughout the intermountain region, extending from British Columbia, Washington, Idaho and Montana south through portions of Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. Sharp-tailed Grouse populations range-wide began declining during 1880-1920 (Bart 2000). By 1936, the range of distribution had been reduced by two-thirds (Hart et al. 1950). Currently, Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse occur in only 5 % of their historic range-wide distribution and 4% of their distribution in Utah (Bart 2000). Within the United States, the largest remaining populations occur in southeastern Idaho, northern Utah, and northern Colorado. Although Sharp-tailed Grouse were never widely distributed throughout Utah, they were very abundant where they occurred (Figure 1). Since the early 1900s, agricultural developments, over grazing by livestock and big game animals and human population growth significantly reduced the quantity and quality of native grassland and shrub-grassland vegetation types used by Sharp-tailed Grouse. By 1975, isolated populations remained only in east Box Elder, Cache, Morgan, Summit, and Weber Counties in northern Utah. However, implementation of the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in 1987 benefited Sharp-tailed Grouse substantially and increased their distribution by approximately 400 percent by 2000 (Figure 1). Elimination or reduction in the acreage of CRP would result in population declines

Vertebrate Information Compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: A Progress Report

The Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP) assimilates and synthesizes information concerning rare species for use in land management and species conservation applications. This information is maintained in the UNHP database and includes both species-level information—e.g., assessments of species conservation status from a statewide perspective—and population-level information, which includes GIS coverages for species of high conservational interest. Beginning in 1996 an effort to develop information in the UNHP database for animal species was funded by the Utah Reclamation, Mitigation, and Conservation Commission under authority of the Central Utah Project Completion Act. Initial efforts focused on assigning conservation priority ranks. Several factors—comprising the number and size of populations, the extent of the Utah range, population trends, and threats to population viability—for each vertebrate species occurring in the state were considered in the development of relative conservation priority ranks. Species having the greatest and most immediate conservation needs comprise the UNHP tracking list, which designates species for which data are acquired and managed in the UNHP database. A UNHP report completed during 1997 (UDWR 1997) summarized the UNHP vertebrate tracking list and reviewed literature pertaining to the conservation status of these species. Since 1997, a focus of database development efforts has been the acquisition of population-level data, comprising geospatial attributes of populations and information pertaining to their status and viability, such as observation dates, population estimates, population trends, and habitat condition. Although published literature has been an important source of these data, a large portion of the information in the database is unpublished. Many records have been acquired through queries of museum research collections, notably collections maintained by the University of Utah’s Museum of Natural History and Brigham Young University’s Monte L. Bean Museum. Many other unpublished records in the database have been acquired through collaboration with agency biologists, including those associated with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U. S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. Data acquired within UDWR from the various programs involved in the management of native species comprises the bulk of the unpublished information in the database. Concurrent with the development of population-level data, the UNHP tracking list has been modified as data have been acquired and changes in conservation priorities have become evident. This report summarizes the information contained in the UNHP database for the 132 taxa on the current vertebrate tracking list

Spatial Processes Decouple Management from Objectives in a Heterogeneous Landscape: Predator Control as a Case Study

Predator control is often implemented with the intent of disrupting top‐down regulation in sensitive prey populations. However, ambiguity surrounding the efficacy of predator management, as well as the strength of top‐down effects of predators in general, is often exacerbated by the spatially implicit analytical approaches used in assessing data with explicit spatial structure. Here, we highlight the importance of considering spatial context in the case of a predator control study in south‐central Utah. We assessed the spatial match between aerial removal risk in coyotes (Canis latrans) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) resource selection during parturition using a spatially explicit, multi‐level Bayesian model. With our model, we were able to evaluate spatial congruence between management action (i.e., coyote removal) and objective (i.e., parturient deer site selection) at two distinct scales: the level of the management unit and the individual coyote removal. In the case of the former, our results indicated substantial spatial heterogeneity in expected congruence between removal risk and parturient deer site selection across large areas, and is a reflection of logistical constraints acting on the management strategy and differences in space use between the two species. At the level of the individual removal, we demonstrated that the potential management benefits of a removed coyote were highly variable across all individuals removed and in many cases, spatially distinct from parturient deer resource selection. Our methods and results provide a means of evaluating where we might anticipate an impact of predator control, while emphasizing the need to weight individual removals based on spatial proximity to management objectives in any assessment of large‐scale predator control. Although we highlight the importance of spatial context in assessments of predator control strategy, we believe our methods are readily generalizable in any management or large‐scale experimental framework where spatial context is likely an important driver of outcomes

Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact For the Proposed Safety of Dams Modifications and Bridge Reconstruction

The Bureau of Reclamation, Provo Area Office (Reclamation) proposes to replace the concrete spillway structure at Scofield Dam, the principal feature of the Scofield Project. This construction project would be completed under the Safety of Dams (SOD) Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-578, as amended). The proposed SOD modifications would correct safety deficiencies of the dam without affecting the purpose, or benefits of the dam. Reclamation also proposes to replace the existing gate house at its current position on the crest of the dam. This building is in poor condition and would be replaced with either a new concrete structure or a metal building