United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0045-EA

August 2018

Bison Fence

Location: Last Change Benches within the Desolation Canyon WSA T17S., R16E., Section 13, SLB&M 39.345820N., -110.082264W

Applicant/Address: Utah Grazing Improvement Program (UGIP) P.O. Box 758 Castle Dale, UT 84513

Price Field Office 125 South 600 West Price, Utah 84501 435-636-3600

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE & NEED ...... 1 1.1 – Introduction ...... 1 1.2 – Background ...... 1 1.3 – Need for Proposed Action ...... 1 1.4 – Purpose for Proposed Action...... 2 1.5 – Decision to be Made ...... 2 1.6 – Conformance with Land Use Plan ...... 2 1.7 – Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans...... 2 1.8 – Issues ...... 3 CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES ...... 3 2.1 – Introduction ...... 3 2.2 – Proposed Action Alternative ...... 4 2.3 – No Action Alternative ...... 5 2.4 – Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 5 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 6 3.1 – Introduction ...... 6 3.2 – General Setting ...... 6 3.3 – Wilderness Study Areas ...... 6 3.4 – Visual Resources ...... 6 3.5 – Mexican Spotted Owl ...... 7 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 8 4.1 – Introduction ...... 8 4.2 – Direct and Indirect Impacts: Proposed Action ...... 8 4.2.1 Wilderness Study Areas ...... 8 4.2.2 Visual Resources ...... 10 4.2.3 Mexican Spotted Owls ...... 11 4.3 – Direct and Indirect Impacts: No Action ...... 11 4.3.1 Wilderness Study Areas ...... 11 4.3.2 Visual Resources ...... 11 4.3.3 Mexican Spotted Owls ...... 11 4.4 – Cumulative Impacts...... 12 4.4.1 Introduction ...... 12 4.4.2 Cumulative Impacts to Resources ...... 12 CHAPTER 5 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 12 5.1 Introduction ...... 12 5.2 List of all Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted for Purposes of this EA...... 12 5.3 Summary of Public Participation ...... 13 5.4 List of BLM Preparers ...... 14 APPENDIX A: Interdisciplinary Team Checklist ...... 15 APPENDIX B: Maps ...... 21

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE & NEED

1.1 – Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to disclose and analyze the environmental consequences of the proposed action. The BLM is proposing to authorize the construction of a buck and rail fence in the Desolation Canyon Wilderness Study Area (WSA) to control the unwanted migration of bison from the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation onto federal, state, and private lands located within the Range Creek drainage.

The EA is a site-specific analysis of potential impacts that could result with the implementation of a proposed action or alternatives to the proposed action. The EA assists the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in project planning and ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in making a determination as to whether any “significant” impacts could result from the analyzed actions. “Significance” is defined by NEPA and is found in regulation 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.27. An EA provides evidence for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a statement of “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). If the decision maker determines that this project has “significant” impacts following the analysis in the EA, then an EIS would be prepared for the project. If not, a Decision Record may be signed for the EA approving the selected alternative, whether the proposed action or another alternative. A Decision Record (DR), including a FONSI statement, documents the reasons why implementation of the selected alternative would not result in “significant” environmental impacts (effects) beyond those already addressed in Price Field Office Resource Management Plan (October 2008).

1.2 – Background

For the past 20 years, bison from the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation have been migrating to areas west of the Green River, including Desolation Canyon, Range Creek and the West Tavaputs Plateau. In recent years, large numbers of bison (200+) have migrated off the reservation and wintered on the west side of the Green River in Desolation Canyon and Range Creek. It is difficult to prevent bison migration into Desolation Canyon, where the majority of the bison have wintered; however, there is a possibility that bison can be impeded from further encroachment into Range Creek.

Several BLM grazing allotments have been affected by the unallocated grazing use made by the bison herd. In the spring of 2018, bison migrated to the upper Range Creek drainage and intermingled with cattle on top of the West Tavaputs Plateau. A few bison remained in the area and did not return to the reservation.

The Utah Grazing Improvement Program (UGIP), which is a program under the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, has proposed to construct a buck-and-rail fence within the Desolation Canyon Wilderness Study Area (WSA).

1.3 – Need for Proposed Action

The need for the proposed action is to help control the unwanted migration of bison from the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation onto federal, state, and private lands located within the Range Creek drainage and on the Tavaputs Plateau.

1.4 – Purpose for Proposed Action

The purpose for the proposed action is to build a fence that will limit or restrict the migrating bison from accessing federal, state and private land in the Range Creek drainage and on the Tavaputs Plateau.

1.5 – Decision to be Made

The BLM will decide whether or not to approve and authorize UGIP to construct a fence, and if so, under what terms and conditions.

1.6 – Conformance with Land Use Plan

Land use decisions for the project area are contained in the Price Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP), approved in 2008. Specifically, the proposed action is in conformance with the RMP because it is specifically provided for in the following RMP goals, objective and management decisions for livestock grazing on page 99:

 Manage the public lands to promote the healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems that provide livestock forage production and allow the development of necessary livestock management facilities for the orderly use of the livestock industry.

 Maintain, restore, and improve public rangelands to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health.

 GRA-1: Manage grazing and rangeland health according to the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah, and in 43 CFR 4100 et seq. based on historical use and dependent on the availability of forage and water.

 GRA-4: Provide for the development and maintenance of range improvement projects and livestock facilities on a case-by-case basis. Construct range improvement projects to BLM specifications. Document access routes for the range improvements in the individual project files.

1.7 – Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans

The EA is being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42 USC §§ 4321 to 4370e) and in compliance with all applicable regulations and laws passed subsequently, including the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 40 CFR 1500–1508, U.S. Department of Interior requirements (Department Manual 516, Environmental Quality), BLM Handbook H 1790 1, Guidelines for Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts, and Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The proposed action complies with the following laws and agency regulations:

 Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.1701 et seq.)

 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended.

 Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Advisory Council Regulations on the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, as amended (36 CFR. Part 800).

The proposed action is also consistent with the following plans and regulations:

 Emery County Resource General Plan, Approved August 2016.

 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) Rules and Regulations, Rule 657 series; UAC Title 23, Wildlife Resources of Utah.

1.8 – Issues

The proposed action was reviewed by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) composed of resource specialists from the BLM Price Field Office. The IDT identified resources within the project area that might be affected and considered potential impacts using current office records and geographic information system (GIS) data. The results of the review are contained in the IDT Checklist in Appendix A.

The following issues were identified as a result of the IDT review and coordination and consultation with external partners.

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA)

How will the construction of a temporary buck-and-rail fence impact the size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude and recreation, and other supplemental values of Desolation Canyon WSA?

Visual Resources

How will the placement of a buck-and-rail fence impact the BLM’s ability to comply with its obligation to manage the project area as a Class I Visual Resource Management (VRM) area?

Mexican Spotted Owl

How will helicopter transportation of materials and fence construction impact Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) populations and habitat within the project area?

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES

2.1 – Introduction

This chapter presents the range of alternatives developed to meet the purpose and need for this project and to address resource issues identified in Section 1.8. It has been determined that the reasonable range of alternatives is the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

2.2 – Proposed Action Alternative

Under this alternative the BLM Price Field Office would approve and authorize the installation of a buck-and-rail fence along a pinch-point located approximately 4 miles inside of the Desolation Canyon WSA (Township 17 S., Range 16 E., Section 13) to restrict bison from the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation from migrating into the Range Creek drainage and other drainages (See Map 1). Bison migrating from tribal lands would restricted to the Desolation Canyon area. The fence would prevent bison from accessing federal, state and private land within the Range Creek drainage and the Tavaputs Plateau as stated in the purpose and need for the proposed action. The proposed project is as follows:

1. Approximately 2,000 feet of fence would be built out of purchased lumber. Initially, up to 1,000 feet of fence would be built. The fence would be extended up to 2,000 feet if the initial section of fence is not successful in stopping bison from accessing Range Creek.

2. The fence materials, construction tools and necessary equipment would be flown in by helicopter and assembled on-site.

3. The fence would consist of three to five rung buck and rail, bolted and/or nailed together for strength.

4. Hand tools would be used for construction. Use of chain saws may be necessary to achieved precise placement of fence materials along the fence line.

5. The fence would originate in a large boulder field on a steep slope to the north and terminate in a steep canyon to the south.

6. A wooden slide-rail gate would be installed to allow passage of animals in the event hazing efforts are incorporated into the overall management of bison.

7. For safety purposes, a flight plan outlining the need for helicopter use would be submitted to the BLM, reviewed and approved prior to flight.

8. A Class III Cultural Inventory would be completed on all potential disturbance areas and approved by the BLM and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

9. The fence would be a temporary structure and dismantled and removed from the Desolation Canyon WSA when a permanent solution for the migrating bison has been realized or after 5 years of being in place, whichever happens first.

10. The first section of the fence would be completed before the bison return in the fall (October 31, 2018). Any additional fence construction or fence removal would be completed outside of the MSO nesting period (September 1 – February 28).

11. All phases of the project (i.e. construction, maintenance, dismantling and removal of the fence) will adhere to the BLM non-impairment standards from “BLM Manual 6330 – Management of Wilderness Study Areas”

12. The financing, construction and maintenance, as well as the dismantling and ultimate removal of this fence will be the responsibility of the State of Utah in coordination with the BLM Price Field Office.

13. The dilapidated guzzler located within the project area may be removed by helicopter as mitigation. Removal of the guzzler would take place outside of the MSO nesting period.

2.3 – No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would deny the proposal to install any fence at this location within the Desolation Canyon WSA and all other proposed actions listed above.

2.4 – Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

The following alternatives were considered as possible solutions, but were eliminated from further analysis:

1. Construct a fence in the main drainage of Range Creek to stop bison from migrating further up the Range Creek drainage and onto the West Tavaputs Plateau.

There is no effective location within the main Range Creek drainage that would prevent bison from accessing federal, state and private land in the lower Range Creek drainage.

2. Construct fences on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation to stop bison from accessing the Green River in Desolation Canyon and migrating to the west side of the Green River and Range Creek.

Collaboration with the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in building fences on tribal land has been ongoing for several years. No formal agreement or plan of action has been reached.

3. Haze bison back to the reservation by helicopter periodically during the winter months.

This option has been used in the past, but has proven to be too costly to have a weekly or monthly helicopter flight to haze bison back across the Green River to reservation lands. Additionally, this alternative would likely leave some bison on Federal, State, and private lands on the west side of the Green River, making this an ineffective and inefficient option to address to project’s purpose and need.

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 – Introduction

This chapter presents the potentially affected existing environment (i.e., biological, physical, social, and economic elements of the environment) as identified in the IDT Checklist in Appendix A. This chapter provides the baseline for comparison of impacts described in Chapter 4.

3.2 – General Setting

The proposed fence would be located at a 7,500-foot elevation on the Last Chance Benches between Desolation/Gray Canyon and Lower Range Creek (See Appendix B). The benchlands are within the pinyon/juniper vegetation type. The project location has steep slopes and ledges to the north with canyons and draws draining south into the Green River. The area receives 8-10 inches of precipitation annually. The project site is located approximately 3 miles from the farmlands in Range Creek and 3 miles from Three Fords on the Green River. Access to the area is from Range Creek by way of a pack trail used to access the Green River from Range Creek. A road was constructed along the trail route prior to 1966 as evidenced by constructed dugways and berms along the route and from aerial photos from 1966.

3.3 – Wilderness Study Areas

The proposed action is within the Desolation Canyon WSA. The Desolation Canyon WSA is 294,581 acres. The WSA is in the Uinta Basin Section of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province. The Green River has cut a very deep, somewhat sinuous canyon through the plateaus bounded by the Roan and Tavaputs. In certain places, the canyon walls are vertical and quite narrow. The numerous tributary canyons are generally steep, in some cases falling several thousand feet in a few miles, and vary in width from narrow clefts to relatively wide gorges.

The Desolation Canyon WSA is roadless and natural, provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, and has supplemental values that include scenic, geologic, ecologic, historic, and archaeological values. This WSA is to be managed to preserve these wilderness values unless and until the Congress releases it from wilderness consideration.

3.4 – Visual Resources

The BLM uses a Visual Resource Management (VRM) system to inventory and manage visual resources on BLM-administered lands. The primary objective of VRM is to maintain the existing visual quality of BLM lands. The Price Field Office RMP established VRM class designations for the field office area that balance resource actions with visual resource values and viewer sensitivity. The VRM system uses four classes to describe the degrees of landscape modification allowed on BLM-administered public lands. Determination of classes is based on a description of an area in terms of visual quality, viewer sensitivity to the landscape, and the distance from which a viewer would observe an area. The classes (VRM I through IV) provide safeguards for the protection of scenic attractions and scenic settings by requiring resource uses and management activities to meet VRM objectives of the area in which a use or activity is proposed.

The area of the proposed action is within a VRM Class I area. VRM Class I management directives are to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.

The method utilized to determine whether proposed projects conform to VRM class objectives involves a contrast rating system that evaluates the visual resource effects of a proposed project. Contrast ratings are generally acquired from specific viewpoints along commonly traveled routes or other popular or often-visited sites. These viewpoints enable an evaluator to rate the degree of visual contrasts based on form, line, color and texture between the existing landscape and how it would look following project implementation. Contrast ratings are used to determine how the proposed project compares to VRM objectives for that area.

The primary public view of the proposed project area would be from the Green River as boaters float down Desolation Canyon. Across the greatest percentage of the view, colors are distinctly light-dark contrasts between the dark green of unbroken pinyon-juniper vegetation. Scattered throughout the dark green are visible sagebrush parks of mixed sizes. The landscape that would be affected by proposed bison fence does not currently exhibit an extraordinary range of visual diversity, and cannot be seen from the Green River due to topography.

When viewed more closely, a large percentage of the proposed overall project area contains dense closed-canopy stands of pinyon-juniper. When traveling along one of the unpaved roads throughout the area it is difficult to see through, over, or beyond the pinyon-juniper growth.

3.5 – Mexican Spotted Owl

The MSO (Strix occidentalis lucida) was listed as a threatened species March 16, 1993 and a recovery plan was adopted in December of 1995. On the Colorado Plateau, MSO tend to select narrow, steep-walled canyons as preferred nesting and roosting sites. They often nest within the canyon walls in small clefts, cracks, and depressions and make use of the canyons and adjacent uplands as foraging habitat. MSOs also have a strong association with steep canyon terrain that is cooler and often more humid than surrounding areas. MSO habitat includes high canopy closure, high stand density, and multi-layered canopies of uneven-aged mixed conifer stands. Breeding season typically begins as early as March and the fully developed owlets are independent by early October.

MSO critical habitat was designated in August 2004. Critical Habitat, as delineated and defined by the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, contains primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the species. These constituent elements can be summarized as:

1. Space needed for growth and normal behavior; 2. Food, water, air, light, and nutritional or physiological requirements; 3. Cover and shelter; 4. Sites for breeding and rearing young; and 5. Habitat protected from disturbance or representative of distribution.

The primary constituent elements form the MSO include, but are not limited to, those habitat components providing for nesting, roosting, and foraging activities that are needed for the conservation and recovery of the species. Although the Fish and Wildlife Service designated 4.6 million acres of critical habitat for the MSO, these critical habitat boundaries were not drawn to include only the owls’ preferred canyon nesting and roosting habitat, but also the surrounding uplands used for foraging.

The project area is located within MSO critical habitat, but is limited on suitable nesting habitat (See Appendix B). It appears that the Last Chance Benches are more suitable for foraging habitat than nesting habitat according to the 1997 and 2000 habitat model developed by Willey and Spotskey.

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 – Introduction

This chapter provides a summary of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no action alternatives. The discussion of environmental impacts focuses on how the proposed action and no action alternatives meet the purpose and need and address key issues. The issues evaluated here were determined by the responsible officials to be the key issues related to the proposed action, based on feedback from agency specialists, the public and cooperating partners.

4.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

4.2 – Direct and Indirect Impacts: Proposed Action

4.2.1 Wilderness Study Areas

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directed the Bureau to inventory and study its roadless areas for wilderness characteristics. By November 1980, the BLM had completed field inventories and designated about 25 million acres of Wilderness Study Areas (WSA). Since 1980, Congress has reviewed some of these areas and has designated some as wilderness, and released others for non-wilderness uses. Until Congress makes a final determination on a WSA, the BLM manages these areas to preserve their suitability for designation as wilderness.

The proposed action meets the non-impairment standard, which is defined in BLM Manual 6330 as, “The BLM will review all proposals for uses and/or facilities within WSAs to ascertain whether the proposal would impair the suitability of the WSA for preservation as wilderness. Unless excepted under 1.6.C.2, all uses and/or facilities must meet the non-impairment standard (i.e. must be both temporary and not create surface disturbance, as described in the following detailed criteria:

A. The use or facility is temporary. The use or facility is needed for a 5 year period to respond to a temporary need, and would be terminated and removed prior to or upon wilderness designation. A chronic, repeated short-term use does not meet this definition of “temporary.” Uses, activities, or facilities that create a demand for uses that would be incompatible with wilderness management also do not meet the definition of temporary.

B. The use or facility will not create new surface disturbance. There is no new disruption of the rock, soil, or vegetation, including vegetative trampling, that would necessitate reclamation, rehabilitation, or restoration in order for the site to appear and function as it did prior to the disturbance. Uses or facilities that would require only passive natural restoration may still be considered surface disturbing..... Certain activities allowed in wilderness areas, such as recreational hiking, use of pack stock, or domestic livestock grazing, are recognized as acceptable within a WSA, although, in a literal sense, they cause surface disturbance.

Management to the non-impairment standard does not mean that the lands will be managed as though they had already been designated as wilderness. Some uses that could not take place in a designated wilderness area may be permitted under the WSA Management Manual.

Furthermore, new livestock developments may be approved in WSAs; according to BLM Manual 6330, “New livestock management developments may only be approved if they meet the non- impairment standard or one of the exceptions, such as protecting or enhancing wilderness characteristics. In determining whether a development meets the protecting or enhancing wilderness characteristics exception, the BLM will determine if the structure’s benefits to the natural functioning of the ecosystem outweigh the increased presence of human developments and any loss of naturalness or outstanding recreational opportunities caused by the new development. Cumulative impacts must be assessed consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations, policy, and guidance. In addition, the BLM should consider whether or not the development will be substantially unnoticeable. The project must not require new motorized access since this would constitute surface disturbance and so would not meet the non-impairment standard.”

The proposed action meets the non-impairment standard in all facets:

 The fence would be a temporary structure and dismantled and removed from Desolation Canyon WSA when a permanent solution for the migrating bison has been realized or after 5 years of being in place, whichever happens first.

 Material for the buck and rail fence will be purchased lumber with bark intact for visual effect.

 Placing a buck and rail on the land surface does not necessitate reclamation, rehabilitation, or restoration in order for the site to appear and function as it did prior to the disturbance.

 The fence materials would be flown in by helicopter and assembled on site; therefore, no new roads or other surface disturbance would be created transporting the fencing materials.

 All phases of construction (i.e. construction, dismantling and removal of the fence) will adhere to the BLM non-impairment standards from “BLM Manual 6330 – Management of Wilderness Study Areas” and the stipulations listed above. Additionally, BLM wilderness specialists will consult on all phases of the project to ensure compliance with WSA policy.

 Per the New Livestock Developments section under “Grazing Management” of “BLM Manual 6330 – Management of Wilderness Study Areas” – the Bison fence would be allowed. Furthermore, this section states, “In addition, the BLM should consider whether or not the development will be substantially unnoticeable.” Due to the topography and remote location of the proposed project site, the proposed action will only be seen by those maintaining the fence. An overwhelming majority of recreationists experience Desolation Canyon WSA via Desolation Canyon river trip. This will be addressed further in section 4.2.2 Visual Resources.

4.2.2 Visual Resources

The proposed Bison fence project has potential to impact visual resources. The primary public view of the proposed project area would be from the Green River as boaters float down Desolation Canyon. However, the proposed project is not visible from the Green River. Ben Kraja, Outdoor Recreation Planner, hiked to the Green River Key Observation Point (KOP 1) on 7/26/18. A Visual Contrast Rating Worksheet was filled out, but it was determined that the landscape that would be affected by the proposed bison fence does not currently exhibit an extraordinary range of visual diversity, and cannot be seen from the Green River due to topography.

An additional KOP (KOP 2) was selected in Last Chance Canyon. KOP 2 was chosen from having conversations with field staff familiar with the area, and is located at the end of an old pack trail. A maximum of 50 feet of the proposed bison fence might be visible from KOP 2. Furthermore, it is likely that the only people who will see the proposed bison fence are the ranchers. The general recreating public are virtually blocked off from the proposed bison fence due to the remoteness of the project location, topography, and lack of hiking trails leading to the area. The chance of the recreating public hiking cross country to the proposed project site are slim-to-none.

Across the greatest percentage of the view, colors are distinctly light-dark contrasts between the dark green of unbroken pinyon-juniper vegetation in the foreground flat lands, and dark reddish/browns of the steep jagged geologic features in the background. Scattered throughout the dark green are visible grasses and woody brush meadows of mixed sizes.

Implementation of the proposed action would comply with the visual quality objectives for the general proposed project area. Design features incorporated into the proposed action such as leaving the bark on the buck and rail fencing would help blend the proposed project into surrounding landscape patterns. Furthermore, having the proposed bison fence follow the direction of surrounding topography lines would help the project blend in with the surrounding landscape.

In reference to this report, see the Visual Contrast Rating Worksheet for KOP 2, the Bison Fence KOPs map in Appendix B, and the Bison Fence Viewshed Analysis. 10

4.2.3 Mexican Spotted Owls

It is anticipated that there would be little to no direct impacts to MSO roosting and nesting habitat because the project activities would be limited in space and time (less than 3 acres and 3- 7 days of project work). The distance from the nearest known nest site is approximately 2 miles from the project area in a separate drainage, which should eliminate noise and/or line of site disturbance for these owls while the project is being conducted. There may be short-term impacts in which MSO may temporarily avoid foraging in the area while the project is being conducted. The current habitat provides limited opportunities for prey species.

The fence location is approximately 2 miles from a Protected Activity Center (PAC) in Rain Canyon. The initial 1,000-foot section of the proposed fence is expected to be constructed and completed in September and October of 2018. The total disturbance for the entire 2,000 feet of fence would affect less than 3 acres of foraging habitat within designated critical habitat. No vegetation would be removed with the construction of the fence.

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in regards to MSO within the proposed project area was initiated on July 30, 2018. USFWS concurred with the BLM’s determination that the proposed action “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” MSO or their habitat within the project area. The USFWS based their concurrence on the commitment from the BLM to implement the project between September 1 – February 28 to avoid the MSO nesting season and to remove the fence during the September 1 – February 28 timeframe.

4.3 – Direct and Indirect Impacts: No Action

The no action alternative would be to deny the authorization to construct the proposed fence. The result of the no action alternative as it relates to the purpose and need for the proposed action would be the continued expansion of the bison migration pattern. Bison would continue to expand into areas of the Range Creek drainage unimpeded. The effects of a wintering bison herd occupying federal, state and private lands within the Range Creek drainage and the West Tavaputs Plateau would continue.

4.3.1 Wilderness Study Areas

The no action alternative would result in denying the Utah Grazing Improvement Program proposed action to construct the bison fence within Desolation Canyon WSA. This would result in the bison continuing to cross the Green River and encroach the WSA. 4.3.2 Visual Resources

Because the proposed action of constructing a fence would be denied under this alternative, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to the visual resources within this area classified as VRM I; therefore, the existing character of the landscape would be preserved.

4.3.3 Mexican Spotted Owls

The no action alternative would deny the construction of the proposed fence. No aerial helicopter flights associated with fence construction or fence removal would be made in designated critical habitat. Disturbance to MSO nesting and roosting habitat and foraging habitat would not occur.

4.4 – Cumulative Impacts

4.4.1 Introduction

Cumulative impacts are those impacts resulting from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. 4.4.2 Cumulative Impacts to Resources

Due to remote nature of the project area, there are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Additionally, by adhering to specific timing limitations for MSO, complying with the non-impairment standard for WSAs, and implementing the design features identified in Section 2.2, all impacts are short-term in nature and minimized and avoided to the greatest extent possible. Thus, the proposed action of constructing a fence to limit and restrict the migration of bison would result in no cumulative impacts to MSO, Desolation Canyon WSA, or visual resources.

CHAPTER 5 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 Introduction

5.2 List of all Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted for Purposes of this EA.

Table 5-1: List of all Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted for Purposes of this EA.

Name Purpose & Authorities Findings & Conclusions for Consultation or Coordination Northwest Band of Shoshone Consultation as required A letter was sent on June 27, Nation by the American Indian 2018 to initiate tribal Religious Freedom Act of consultation. The Hopi Tribe and Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 1978 (42 USC 1531) and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe Navajo Nation President’s Office NHPA (16 USC 1531) responded to the consultation Ute Indian Tribe letter and requested a copy of the cultural inventory report and Hopi Tribal Council further consultation if any cultural Southern Ute Tribal Council resources are affected by the propose action. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Pueblo of Zuni Pueblo of Jemez Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Project Development and Meetings were held in January Utah Grazing Improvement Coordination and February 2018 to discuss the Program (UGIP) concern with bison migrating Utah Division of Wildlife from the Uintah and Ouray Indian Resources (UDWR) Reservation and to develop a plan of action to address the issue. A State Institutional Trust Lands site visit was made on April 25, Administration (SITLA) 2018 to the specific fence location Natural History Museum of Utah on the Last Chance Benches. (NHMU) Collaboration continues. Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Public Lands Coordinating Office (PLPCO) Emery County Butch and Jeanie Jensen, TN Ranching, LLC

Endangered Species Act, Initial consultation was made US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Consultation with the Service on August 4, (Service) 2018. The Consultation Memo was sent to the Service on August 14, 2018 for review and concurrence. Utah State Historic Preservation Consultation for A cultural inventory of the Office (SHPO) undertakings, as project area was performed on required by the National August 9, 2018. No cultural Historic Preservation resources would be affected by Act (NHPA) (16 USC the proposed action. A report 470) of the inventory was sent to SHPO on XXXX as part of the quarterly report. Southern Utah Wilderness Preliminary information Email dated May to SUWA Alliance (SUWA) about the fence location about the proposed fence within a Wilderness Study Area.

5.3 Summary of Public Participation

Notification of the preparation, on-going progress and decision regarding this environmental assessment was posted on the ePlanning website, located at: https://go.usa.gov/xUFGm, on June 9, 2018. A copy of the EA will be available by link from the ePlanning site. A public press release was published on August 15, 2018 to solicit public comments on the Tavaputs EA. The EA was posted on the ePlanning website on August 15, 2018 for 14-day public comment and review.

5.4 List of BLM Preparers

Name Title Responsible for the Following Section(s) of this Document Karl Ivory Supv Rangeland Project Lead, Vegetation, Special Status Species Management Specialist including T&E species. Dana Truman Wildlife Biologist Wildlife and Special Status Species including T&E species. Stephanie Bauer Rangeland Management Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds; Forestry/Woodland. Specialist Michael Knight GIS Specialist Project Boundary planning and coordination, map creation and consultation Jake Palma NEPA Specialist Resource team consultation, administrative record, data compilation, research, and analysis composition. Natalie Fewings Archeologists Cultural Resources and Native American Religious David Christensen Concerns Jacob Palma NEPA Coordinator Resource team consultation/coordination Ben Kraja Outdoor Recreation Wilderness Study Areas, Visual Resource Management Planner

Appendices

Appendix A – IDT Checklist

Appendix B – Maps

APPENDIX A: Interdisciplinary Team Checklist

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM CHECKLIST

RESOURCES AND ISSUES CONSIDERED (INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES APPENDIX 1 H-1790-1)

Project Title: Bison Fence

NEPA Log Number: DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0045-EA

Project Leader: Karl Ivory

DETERMINATION OF STAFF: (Choose one of the following abbreviated options for the left column) NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions NI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required PI = present with potential for relevant impact that need to be analyzed in detail in the EA NC = (DNAs only) actions and impacts not changed from those disclosed in the existing NEPA documents cited in Section D of the DNA form. The Rationale column may include NI and NP discussions. Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date Emissions, including GHG emissions, from the construction of this fence will be Air Quality & temporary (during construction only) and of Stephanie NI Greenhouse Gas 5/25/2018 such a small amount as to be Howard Emissions indistinguishable from background air quality by both monitors and models. There are no BLM Natural Areas within the NP BLM natural areas proposed project area; per review of the Ben Kraja 6/19/18 current RMP and GIS layers. The current project is determined to be a federal undertaking, per Title 36 CFR 800.16(y). As such, pursuant to Title 36 CFR 800.1(c), the project must undergo the NHPA Section 106 process prior to the approval of Cultural: the expenditure of any Federal funds on the Natalie PI Archaeological undertaking or prior to the issuance of any 8/9/2018 Fewings Resources license. Class III survey of an appropriate project area encompassing the APE must be completed and consulted on. In addition, standard inadvertent discovery processes will be stipulated for all ground disturbing activities. Tribes have requested further consultation, as Cultural: the project area falls within Natalie PI Native American 8/9/2018 traditionally/culturally significant places of Fewings Religious Concerns origin. There are no National Historic Trails within Designated Areas: NP the proposed project area; per review of the Ben Kraja 6/19/18 National Historic Trails current RMP and GIS layers. There are no Areas of Critical Environmental Designated Areas: Concern within the proposed project area; NP Areas of Critical Ben Kraja 6/19/18 per review of the current RMP and GIS Environmental Concern layers. There are no Designated Wild and Scenic Designated Areas: NP Rivers within the proposed project area; per Ben Kraja 6/19/18 Wild and Scenic Rivers review of the current RMP and GIS layers. Designated Areas: The proposed project is located within the PI Ben Kraja 6/21/18 Wilderness Study Areas Desolation Canyon Wilderness Study Area

Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date per review of the current RMP and GIS layers.

A timeframe for when the fence will be removed needs to be defined in order to meet “The use or facility is temporary” section of the Non-Impairment Standard.

Additionally, further analysis is needed to determine if 2,000 feet of buck and rail/brush fence would meet “The use or facility will not create new surface disturbance” section of the Non-Impairment Standard (BLM Manual 6330 – Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas, P.1-10). No poverty or minority populations exist in Stephanie NP Environmental Justice or near the project area so no 5/25/2018 Howard disproportionate adverse impacts will occur. No prime or unique farmlands, as identified by the NRCS based on soil survey data for Farmlands NP Emery County, are located in the project Karl Ivory 06/11/2018 (prime/unique) area; therefore, this resource will not be carried forward for analysis. There are no impacts of current fire and fuels 21 MAY NI Fuels/Fire Management management activities. Future impacts would Stuart Bedke 2018 be negligible. There are no existing leasable, locatable or salable minerals (solid or fluid) in this Geology / Minerals / project area; all mineral development has NI Mike Glasson 06/22/2018 Energy Production been withdrawn. There are no unique or desirable geologic features or mineral deposits in this site. Surface disturbing activities have the potential to introduce/spread invasive species/noxious weeds. There are no known noxious weeds within the project area however there are some isolated patches adjacent to the project area. Equipment and material should be power-washed prior to entering BLM administered lands to prevent NI Invasive Plants / Noxious inadvertently introducing noxious weeds into Stephanie 7/2/18 Weeds the project area. Domestic livestock used to Bauer access the area should be free of mud, debris and vegetative material and fed certified noxious weed free hay a minimum of 72 hours prior to entering BLM administered lands. While on BLM administered lands livestock should be fed certified noxious weed free hay to prevent introduction of noxious weeds. A review of LR2000 and the Master Title Plats showed that the proposed action is NI Lands/Access compatible with the existing land use and Jaydon Mead 5/17/18 authorized right-of-ways. There are no conflicts with other land use authorizations. There are no Lands with Wilderness Lands with Wilderness Characteristics within the proposed project NP Ben Kraja 6/19/18 Characteristics area; per review of the current RMP and GIS layers.

Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date The proposed project is not within a BLM NP Livestock Grazing permitted grazing allotment. No grazing Karl Ivory 06/11/2018 occurs in the project area. With no surface disturbance, there is no Michael NI Paleontology chance of damage to paleontological 5/19/18 Leschin resources. After review of BLM records and site conditions , there are no known population of BLM sensitive plants within the project area. Plants: NP Karl Ivory 06/14/2018 BLM Sensitive The proposed project would not cause any soil surface disturbance or vegetation removal, therefore this resource will not be carried forward for analysis. After review of BLM records and site conditions , there are no known population of threatened, endangered, proposed or Plants: candidate plants within the project area. NP Threatened, Endangered, Karl Ivory 06/14/2018 Proposed, or Candidate The proposed project would not cause any soil surface disturbance or vegetation removal, therefore this resource will not be carried forward for analysis. The proposed action will not affect the Rangeland Health NI ecological processes of the watershed due to Karl Ivory 06/11/2018 Standards the isolated nature of the project. The area of proposed action is within the Desolation Canyon Special Recreation Management Area. The purpose of this SRMA is to “…maintain the natural character of the canyon. Provide equitable access to a limited a resource. Provide a quality, wilderness experience between Sand Wash and Nefertiti. Protect the scientific value of cultural resources while allowing for their enjoyment.” (PFO RMP pg. 1 R-9). NI Recreation This action would not affect the purpose of Ben Kraja 6/19/18 the SRMA. There is no specific and/or unique recreation opportunities at the location of the proposed action. A majority of the recreation occurring within the SRMA is on the Green River. The proposed action describes a temporary buck and rail/brush fence along a pinch-point. The impacts are minor enough in nature that additional detailed analysis is not necessary.

No change to the social or economic status of the County or its communities will result Stephanie NI Socio-Economics from the construction of this fence due to the 5/25/2018 Howard project’s small size and limited utility in relation to other ongoing projects in the area. The proposed project would not disturb soils Soils: in the project area. The buck and rail fence is NI Karl Ivory 07/18/2018 Physical / Biological a free standing fence with little surface disturbing effects from construction. The proposed action will not remove or alter NI Vegetation Karl Ivory 06/11/2018 any vegetation within the project area.

Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date The proposed action will take place in a VRM Class I. The objective for VRM Class I is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.

The location of the proposed action is not visible from the two Key Observation Points (KOPs). KOP 1 - the Green River in Desolation Canyon and KOP 2 – off of a pack trail in the WSA. PI Visual Resources Ben Kraja 7/2/18

Based on the two KOPs, the proposed action isn’t visible to the recreating public (Viewshed analysis attached as Appendix). Additionally, a Visual Contrast Rating Worksheet will be completed from the KOPs and attached as an Appendix.

Although the proposed action isn’t visible to a majority of Desolation Canyon WSA users – it still needs to conform to the VRM Class I objective. The proposed action should be constructed with native materials. The bark should be left on all fencing materials to help blend it in to the landscape. No chemicals subject to reporting under SARA Title III in amounts greater than 10,000 pounds would be used, produced, stored, transported, or disposed of annually NI Wastes (hazardous/solid) Jake Palma 7/2/18 in association with the project. Trash and other waste materials would be cleaned up and removed immediately after completion of operations. Spatial analysis indicates no potential Water: conflicts with subsurface hydrologic NI Karl Ivory 07/18/2018 Groundwater Quality resources due to depth of potable groundwater sources. Stormwater and concern for Section 402 of Water: the Clean Water Act would not be an issue. NI Hydrologic Conditions Karl Ivory 07/18/2018 All impacts would be negligible therefore (stormwater) detailed analysis is not required. Water: GIS and onsite review indicate no drinking Municipal Watershed / NP water source areas or beneficial uses of Karl Ivory 07/18/2018 Drinking Water Source watersheds from UDEQ-DWQ. Protection None of these resources are within the project area. Due to the limited scope the Water: proposed action is not expected to NI Steams, Riparian Jerrad Goodell 06/05/2018 significantly impact downstream riparian, Wetlands, Floodplains wetlands, floodplains, or streams, therefore detailed analysis is not required. Water: The proposed project would have negligible NI Karl Ivory 07/18/2018 Surface Water Quality impacts to surface runoff rates and quality

Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date due to minimal surface disturbance therefore detailed analysis is not required. The proposed project would not affect any Water: water rights or the ability to use any water NP Karl Ivory 07/18/2018 Water Rights rights. Therefore detailed analysis is not required. Water: GIS review indicate no navigable waters or NI Karl Ivory 07/18/2018 Waters of the U.S. waters of the U.S. are within the project area. The proposed project is not within a Wild NP Wild Horses and Burros Mike Tweddell 7/2/2018 Horse Herd Management Area. Migratory birds including raptors use the area for foraging and nesting, If fence Wildlife: building activities adhered to the seasonal NI Migratory Birds timing limitations for the MSO (March 1 to Dana Truman 6/5/2018 (including raptors) August 31) then no impacts to foraging or nesting birds are expected because the birds would be fledged and mobile at that time There are no fish species (including their Wildlife: associated habitats) within or near the project NP Fish (designated or non- Jerrad Goodell 06/05/2018 area, therefore detailed analysis is not designated) required. Several big game species use the canyon area including deer and elk. The fence location is between to units designated as crucial winter range for deer. The Last Chance benches are designated as substantial winter range. The area is also crucial winter range for elk. Coordination with UDWR occurred on June 7 2018 (Brad Crompton). Based on knowledge of the area and radio collar data, the herd movements indicate that the Last Chance benches are rarely used by big game and are not a migration corridor. Due to the Wildlife: NI limited water and forage in the area and the Dana Truman 6/5/2018 Non-USFWS Designated fact the Last Chance benches are not a migration corridor, the construction of a fence to stop Bison is not likely to affect the deer and elk populations in the area.

The area is also designated as crucial year long habitat for Rocky Mtn Bighorn and winter crucial for other small game species. The construction of a fence is not likely to affect the sheep and small game species due to the limited area and timing of disturbances. There are several BLM sensitive species that have potential to occur in Emery County. All species were evaluated using GIS and knowledge of the area. No potential for occurrences beyond a chance flyover for Wildlife: some. Therefore no effect expected. The NI Dana Truman 6/5/2018 BLM Sensitive project area on Last Chance Benches is far (30 miles) outside designated habitat for Sage Grouse (ARMPA) and too low in elevations. Based on habitat type, geology, and location there is no potential for prairie dogs, burrowing owls and kit fox. The bats in

Determination Resource/Issue Rationale for Determination Signature Date the area are not likely affected by the temporary disturbance of a buck and rail fence. The area for the fence location is within designated critical habitat for MSO. The recommended seasonal buffer for anthropogenic disturbances is 3/1 to 8/31. Wildlife:

PI Threatened, Endangered, Dana Truman 6/5/2018 The seasonal buffer needs to be followed and Proposed or Candidate informal consultation/coordination with FWS should occur.

There are woodlands/forestry species within the project area. It is anticipated that no Stephanie NI Woodlands/Forestry cutting of woodlands/forestry species will 7/2/18 Bauer occur, therefore there will be no impact to woodlands/forestry.

FINAL REVIEW:

Reviewer Title Signature Date Comments

Environmental Coordinator

Authorized Officer

APPENDIX B: Maps