Questions for the Bureau of Reclamation about the Central Utah Project, 1978-1979

Page 27

input into management is still inadequate. Beaver activities on the Uintas are significant in the creation o f wetlands,moose habitat,and fish pond environment. Research on "be aver /moose symbiotic relationship is available. Still, Impacts from CUP developments by the Bureau of Reclamation is measured in so many moose lost to project development, only; beaver is considered an irretrievable loss; and beaver manage­ment by the Forest Service stems from the value of this animal for trapping or the nuisance from pond-overruns which necessitate eradication measures. - impacts on streams from CUP must be evaluated from a point of moose habitat, as well as from fishery loss. Cumulative impacts on riparian ecosystems will be significant for moose with 10 - 22 streams dewatered. Bats have not been systematically studied in spite of the presence of numerous sizable caverns connecting the Mississippian limestone structure of the South Slopes. The entrance to White­rocks Canyon cave is above the proposed water level for the reservoir, yet no data exists on use of this relatively unex-* plored cave by bats or their habitat on the wetland/river bottomlands below. (In addition,"nobody knows"the possible effects of water backed up into this Canyon by a dam on the limestone cavern structure abutting.) Information needed on small animal habitat to determine mitigation - species related to habitat types - locations of habitat types and interrelationships of use - species habitat requirements; adequacy on Range; limiting factors - predator prey relationships: Why is the Canada lynx disappearing? Related to a 10 year lynx-hare cycle only? - to what degree is Forest Service management geared to general and specific wildlife requirements? - Pine marten, Fisher, Otter, Beaver - habitat types impacted by CUP developments - relative values of impacted resources: economic (trapping); as prey: rarity; biologic diversity Rocky Mountain Sheep - potential restitution of some species formerly present on the Uinta Range requires that habitat areas and types are not fore­closed. One present deterrent, raising domestic sheep, likely will not prevail. The Uinta Range is not a wildlife refuge. Given different circumstances, it might have been a first of its kind as a mountain wildlife refuge in recognition of its unique features. Size-wise, until just very recently, it has pro­vided habitat for more varieties of the very diverse Rocky Mountain wildlife of any area. The gradual attrition of species native to this Range is being accepted as inevitable. With adequate recognition, it need not be inevitable.