April 25, 2005

UTAH TECHNICAL GUIDE

450-IV

NOTICE UT210

SUBJECT: TCH -- FOTG, SECTION I -- HABITAT ASSESSMENT TOOLS

[Purpose]{.underline}: To transmit information regarding new FOTG
Section I Habitat Assessment Tools and revoke the use of the previous
Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Guides.

[Effective Date]{.underline}: Begin using immediately.

[Background Information]{.underline}: Guidance on minimum quality
criteria for the fish and wildlife habitat resource concern was issued
from National Headquarters in January 2005. In addition, theories and
practices in the field of wildlife biology have changed considerably
over the past few decades. As a result, the Utah Wildlife Habitat
Evaluation Guides of July 1988 are outdated and no longer sufficient for
use in conservation planning.

Habitat Evaluation Guides provide planners with relatively simple and
objective means of determining the wildlife habitat value of a planning
unit, and measuring the improvement expected in those values after
implementation of planned conservation practices. The Guides are also
used to determine if a planning area meets the quality criteria found in
Section III of the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) for the fish and
wildlife habitat resource concern for a Resource Management System
(RMS). The Guides serve as a basis for informed decision making,
document benchmark and planned conditions, document achievement of
quality criteria, and increase understanding of wildlife habitat needs.

Habitat Evaluation Guides may be species-based or habitat-based.
Species-based models evaluate the habitat needs of a single wildlife
species. Often, the model for a carefully chosen species will also
adequately address needs of other wildlife that use the same habitat.
Sage grouse, for example, are thought to be such an "umbrella" species.
Use of a sage grouse habitat model should also aid in habitat evaluation
for other sagebrush dependent wildlife such as pronghorn, sage thrasher,
sage sparrow, and Brewer's sparrow. The following species-based models
are currently available for use in Utah.

-   Habitat Model for Elk

-   Habitat Model for Mule Deer

-   Habitat Model for Sage Grouse

-   Habitat Model for Sharp-tailed Grouse

Habitat-based models are designed to assist a planner in maximizing the
value of a particular habitat type for a diversity of species. The
following habitat-based models are currently available for use in Utah.

-   Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Guide -- Cropland, Hayland, Pastureland

-   Habitat Model for Riparian Areas

-   Habitat Model for Wetlands

[Instructions for Use of the Guides:]{.underline} Habitat Evaluation
Guides are best completed in the field with the decision maker during
Step 3 of the planning process -- Inventory Resources. Enough of the
planning area should be visited, referred to on aerial photography,
and/or discussed with the decision maker to select appropriate Guides
and complete them accurately. Sites where other Resource Inventory
information is being collected (such as Rangeland Health) may be
adequate.

A "Before" (benchmark) score of less than 0.5 on any Guide means that
quality criteria for Fish and Wildlife are not met and Fish and Wildlife
Habitat is a Resource Concern that should be addressed in the planning
process. Conservation practices and/or management measures that will
improve the score can be identified by analyzing the low scoring factors
in the Guide(s). To be considered an RMS level conservation plan, the
"After" (planned) score should meet or exceed quality criteria (0.5) in
Section III of the FOTG.

If more than one Guide is completed, an overall weighted average score
may be calculated by multiplying the Guide score by acres of land that
Guide was used to evaluate. Results are added together and the sum is
divided by the total acres in the planning area. An example of this
calculation is shown below.

+-----------+----------------+----------------+----------------------+
| **Land    | **Acres**      | **Habitat      | **Habitat Evaluation |
| Use**     |                | Evaluation     | Guide Score**        |
|           |                | Guide Used**   |                      |
+-----------+----------------+----------------+----------------------+
| Hayland   | 160            | WHEG-Crop,     | 0.5                  |
|           |                | Hay, Pasture   |                      |
+-----------+----------------+----------------+----------------------+
| Rangeland | 2550           | Habitat Model  | 0.4                  |
|           |                | -- Sage Grouse |                      |
+-----------+----------------+----------------+----------------------+
| Riparian  | 10             | Habitat Model  | 0.7                  |
| Area      |                | -- Riparian    |                      |
|           |                | Areas          |                      |
+-----------+----------------+----------------+----------------------+
| Weighted  | 160 x 0.5 = 80 | 80+1020+70 =   | 1170/2720 = 0.43     |
| Average   |                | 1170           |                      |
| Score     | 2550 x 0.4 =   |                |                      |
|           | 1020           | 16             |                      |
|           |                | 0+2550+10=2720 |                      |
|           | 10 x 0.7 = 70  |                |                      |
+-----------+----------------+----------------+----------------------+

In this example, the planning area as a whole does not meet quality
criteria. Quality criteria are met on the hayland portion and exceeded
in the riparian area, but the rangeland needs conservation practices
planned to increase the score on the Habitat Model for Sage Grouse to
0.5 or above. Use the low scoring individual factors in the Model to
determine where improvements can be made. Consider other Resource
Inventory data such as soils, Ecological Site Descriptions, etc. when
developing appropriate alternatives.

Additional instructions and guidance is contained in a General
Information paragraph in each Guide. Feedback resulting from monitoring
wildlife response to conservation practices is encouraged from Guide
users and partners. Suggestions that may increase the effective use of
habitat information for fish and wildlife planning and for additional
Guides needed are also welcome and encouraged. Comments should be
directed to the Contact below.

[Filing Instructions]{.underline}: Please route to all employees and
then file with the Biology Technical Notes. This notice will be filed in
the eFOTG **Section I\\FOTG Notices and Updates\\Notices** in the eFOTG.
The Habitat Evaluation Guides will be filed in the eFOTG under the
folder: **Section I\\References & Technical Notes\\Biology\\Habitat
Assessment Tools.** Archive the Utah Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Guides
dated July 1988. Write on the front page of the old Guides, **"Archive
-- For reference only -- Refer to the eFOTG for the most current Habitat
Evaluation Guides."**

[Contact]{.underline}: Karen Fullen, State Wildlife Biologist, at (801)
524-4566.

/s/ Mary Grande

MARY GRANDE

Acting State Resource Conservationist

Enclosures

cc:

Sylvia Gillen, STC, NRCS, SLC, UT

Mary Grande, Acting SRC, NRCS, SLC, UT

Julie Suhr-Nelson, Economist, NRCS, SLC, UT

Kerry Goodrich, CA, NRCS, SLC, UT

Shane Green, RMS, NRCS, SLC, UT

Karen Fullen, WB, NRCS, SLC, UT

Surrounding States

DIST:

FOTG