BLM

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA

July 2018

Skull Valley Land Exchange UTU-89605FD/PT (Note: Original BLM serial number UTU-81900FD/PT) West Desert District Office Office District Desert West Location: , Tooele County,

Applicant/Address: Castle Rock Land and Livestock Company, a Utah general partnership, and Skull Valley Company, Ltd., a Utah limited partnership –

Salt Lake Field Office Lake Field Salt

West Desert District Office Salt Lake Field Office 2370 South Decker Lake Boulevard West Valley City, Utah 84119 Phone: (801) 977-4300 Fax: (801) 977-4397

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 —PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 Background ...... 1-1 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 1-2 1.4 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan ...... 1-2 1.4.1 Proposed Action ...... 1-2 1.4.2 No Action Alternative ...... 1-3 1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Plans and Supporting Documentation...... 1-3 1.6 Decision to Be Made ...... 1-6 1.7 Identification of Issues ...... 1-6 1.7.1 Cultural Resources ...... 1-6 1.7.2 Fuels and Fire Management ...... 1-6 1.7.3 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 1-6 1.7.4 Livestock Grazing ...... 1-7 1.7.5 Mineral Resources ...... 1-7 1.7.6 Recreation ...... 1-7 1.7.7 Special Status Animal Species Including Migratory Birds...... 1-7 1.7.8 Special Status Plant Species (Pohl’s Milkvetch) ...... 1-7 1.7.9 Water Rights ...... 1-7 1.7.10 Wildlife Excluding Special Status Species ...... 1-7 1.7.11 and Wilderness Characteristics ...... 1-7 1.7.12 Wild Horse Herd Areas and Herd Management Areas ...... 1-8 1.8 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 1-8 2.0 —DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Alternative A – Proposed Action (Exchange) ...... 2-1 2.3 Alternative B – No Action (status quo/no exchange) ...... 2-8 2.4 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis...... 2-8 2.4.1 Purchase ...... 2-8 2.4.2 Sale ...... 2-8 2.4.3 Other Configurations ...... 2-9 3.0 —AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 General Setting...... 3-1 3.3 Potentially Affected Resources/Issues ...... 3-2 3.3.1 Cultural Resources ...... 3-2 3.3.2 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 3-8 3.3.3 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 3-9

i Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA

3.3.4 Livestock Grazing ...... 3-9 3.3.5 Mineral Resources ...... 3-11 3.3.6 Recreation ...... 3-13 3.3.7 Special Status Animal Species Including Migratory Birds...... 3-16 3.3.8 Special Status Plants (Pohl’s Milkvetch) ...... 3-22 3.3.9 Water Rights ...... 3-22 3.3.10 Wildlife Excluding Special Status Species ...... 3-23 3.3.11 Wilderness and Wilderness Characteristics ...... 3-24 3.3.12 Wild Horse Herd Areas and Herd Management Areas ...... 3-25 4.0 —ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.2 General Analysis Assumptions and Guidelines ...... 4-1 4.3 Direct and Indirect Impacts ...... 4-2 4.3.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 4-2 4.3.1.1 Cultural Resources ...... 4-2 4.3.1.2 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 4-3 4.3.1.3 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 4-3 4.3.1.4 Livestock Grazing ...... 4-3 4.3.1.5 Mineral Resources ...... 4-4 4.3.1.6 Recreation ...... 4-5 4.3.1.7 Special Status Animal Species including Migratory Birds ...... 4-7 4.3.1.8 Special Status Plants (Pohl’s Milkvetch) ...... 4-10 4.3.1.9 Water Rights ...... 4-11 4.3.1.10 Wildlife Excluding Special Status Species ...... 4-11 4.3.1.11 Wilderness and Wilderness Characteristics ...... 4-12 4.3.1.12 Wild Horse Herd Areas and Herd Management Areas ...... 4-13 4.3.1.13 Mitigation Measures ...... 4-14 4.3.1.14 Residual Impacts...... 4-15 4.3.1.15 Monitoring and/or Compliance ...... 4-15 4.3.2 Alternative B – No Action ...... 4-16 4.3.2.1 Cultural Resources ...... 4-16 4.3.2.2 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 4-16 4.3.2.3 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 4-16 4.3.2.4 Livestock Grazing ...... 4-16 4.3.2.5 Mineral Resources ...... 4-16 4.3.2.6 Recreation ...... 4-16 4.3.2.7 Special Status Animal Species Including Migratory Birds ...... 4-16 4.3.2.8 Special Status Plants (Pohl’s Milkvetch) ...... 4-16 4.3.2.9 Water Rights ...... 4-17 4.3.2.10 Wildlife Excluding Special Status Species ...... 4-17 4.3.2.11 Wilderness and Wilderness Characteristics ...... 4-17

ii Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA

4.3.2.12 Wild Horse Herd Areas and Herd Management Areas ...... 4-17 4.3.2.13 Mitigation Measures ...... 4-17 4.3.2.14 Residual Impacts...... 4-17 4.3.2.15 Monitoring and/or Compliance ...... 4-17 4.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...... 4-17 5.0 —CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ...... 5-1 5.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted ...... 5-1 5.3 Summary of Public Participation ...... 5-3 5.3.1 NHPA Compliance and SHPO Consultation ...... 5-4 5.3.2 Modifications ...... 5-5 5.4 List of Preparers ...... 5-7 5.4.1 BLM ...... 5-7 5.4.2 Non-BLM Preparers...... 5-8 6.0 —REFERENCES, ACRONYMS & APPENDICES ...... 6-1 6.1 References ...... 6-2 6.2 Acronyms ...... 6-3 6.3 Appendices ...... 6-4 APPENDIX A—PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS, ACREAGES AND INTERESTS EXCHANGED ...... A-1 APPENDIX B—MAPS ...... B-1 APPENDIX C—INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM CHECKLIST ...... C-1 APPENDIX D—AMENDED ATI PRIORITIZATION OF PARCELS FOR ELIMINATION TO EQUALIZE VALUES ...... D-1 APPENDIX E—COMMENT RESPONSE ...... E-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1 Terra, Utah...... 3-1 Figure 3-2 Pony Express National Historic Trail Sign...... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Remnants of Pony Express Station...... 3-4 Figure 3-4 Aunt Libby’s Dog/Pet Cemetery...... 3-5 Figure 3-5 Pony Express Lookout Pass Station Camping Area...... 3-5 Figure 3-6 Pony Express Monument...... 3-6 Figure 3-7 Lincoln Highway ...... 3-7 Figure 3-8 Vegetation Treatment on West Side of Onaqui Mountains ...... 3-8 Figure 3-9 OHV Tracks...... 3-16

iii Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Management Prescriptions Applied to Non-Federal Parcels...... 2-4 Table 2-2. Management Prescriptions Applied to Federal Parcels...... 2-6 Table 3-1. Livestock Grazing Allotments ...... 3-10 Table 3-2. Mineral Resources ...... 3-12 Table 3-3 BLM sensitive species potentially occurring in the exchange area...... 3-17 Table 3-4 Greater Sage-Grouse Designated Habitat...... 3-18 Table 3-5 Habitat by Vegetation Type in the PAC...... 3-19 Table 3-6 Priority migratory bird species (excluding BLM sensitive species) potentially occurring in the exchange area and their habitat types...... 3-21 Table 3-7 Big Game Habitats...... 3-23 Table 3-8 Non-Federal Land Acreages within HAs/HMAs...... 3-25 Table 3-9 Federal Land Acreages within HAs/HMAs...... 3-26 Table 4-1. Changes to BLM Grazing Ownership and Allocations ...... 4-4 Table 4-2 Summary of Changes in the Area of common Habitat Types ...... 4-8 Table 4-3 Greater Sage-Grouse Designated Habitat Changes...... 4-8 Table 4-4 Changes in Habitat by Vegetation Type in the PAC...... 4-8 Table 4-5 Big Game Habitats...... 4-11 Table 5-1 List of Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted or Coordinated ...... 5-1 Table 5-2 List of BLM Preparers...... 5-7 Table 5-3 List of Non-BLM Preparers...... 5-8 Table 6-1 Federal Lands...... 6-1 Table 6-2 Interests to be Conveyed or Reserved...... 6-3 Table 6-3 Existing Encumbrances...... 6-3 Table 6-4 Parcels with Non-Federal Rights-of-Way...... 6-4 Table 6-5 Parcels within Federal Grazing Allotments...... 6-4 Table 6-6 Parcels Encumbered with Mining Claims...... 6-4 Table 6-7 Non-Federal Lands ...... 6-5

iv Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 1.0 Purpose & Need

1.0—PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to disclose and analyze the environmental consequences of the Skull Valley Land Exchange as proposed by Castle Rock Land and Livestock Company, a Utah general partnership and Skull Valley Company, Ltd., a Utah limited partnership. 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 BLM in planning for the proposed exchange, 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, following the analysis in the EA, the decision maker determines that the proposed land exchange has the potential to cause “significant” impacts then an EIS would be prepared for the project. If not, a FONSI, would be signed and a Decision Record (DR) may be signed for the EA approving the selected alternative, whether the proposed action or another alternative. The DR documents the rationale for the selected alternative and the FONSI explains why implementation of the selected alternative would not result in “significant” environmental impacts (effects) beyond those already addressed in Pony Express Resource Management Plan (RMP) of January 12, 1990, as amended. This chapter presents the purpose and need of the proposed project, as well as the relevant issues, i.e., those elements of the human environment that could be affected by the implementation of the proposed project. In order to meet the purpose and need of the proposed project in a way that resolves the issues, the BLM considers and/or develops an appropriate range of alternatives. These alternatives are presented in Chapter 2. The potential environmental impacts or consequences resulting from the implementation of each alternative considered in detail are analyzed in Chapter 4 for each of the identified issues. 1.2 BACKGROUND The Skull Valley Land Exchange was proposed in February 2006, by and between the Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office (BLM) and Christopher F. Robinson, who represents Castle Rock Land and Livestock Company, a Utah general partnership, and Skull Valley Company, Ltd., a Utah limited partnership (collectively the “non-Federal parties”). Christopher F. Robinson represents the interests of all of the non-Federal parties on matters concerning the land exchange. In August 2009, an Agreement to Initiate (ATI) the Skull Valley Land Exchange was signed by the non-Federal parties and the BLM Salt Lake Field Office (SLFO) (43 CFR 2201.1). Under this 2009 ATI, the would acquire the surface estate of up to 14,401.28 acres on 40 parcels of non-Federal land, including all of the non-Federal parties’ interest in the mineral estate and a water right (WR #16-10) on Slater Springs. In exchange, the United States would convey to the non-Federal parties, the surface and the federally-owned mineral estate of up to 14,058.55 acres on 35 parcels of Federal land selected by the non-Federal parties.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 1-1 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 1.0 Purpose & Need

As allowed for in 43 CFR 2201.1(e), the parties amended the original ATI in June 2016. This amendment reflects the result of a land survey performed by the BLM (primarily on parcels adjacent to Highways 196 and 199) and parcel or acreage elimination for resource concerns. The amended ATI then covered 14,346.84 acres on 40 non-Federal land parcels and 12,603.27 acres on 33 Federal land parcels. The prioritization of parcels for elimination to equalize values was also modified in the amended ATI. As required in 43 CFR 2201.3-1 through 2201.3-4, the lands described in the amended ATI were appraised in order to estimate their fair market value. This land appraisal determined the value of the non-Federal lands to be substantially higher than the value of the Federal lands. As agreed in the amended ATI, the exchange values would be equalized by eliminating parcels of non-Federal land, and compensating the non-Federal parties in land value the sum of $150,000 for costs involved in the cultural survey, appraisal, and other costs in processing the exchange as outlined in the amended ATI. This compensation and elimination of lands resulted in 11,586.32 acres of non-Federal lands in the exchange. With the adjusted acreage, a cash equalization payment in the amount of $3,240 is required and would be remitted by the non-Federal parties to compensate the Federal Government. As a result of the valuation of the lands, the original and/or amended legal land descriptions and corresponding acreages for each parcel are shown in Appendix A. The Federal lands and the non-Federal lands including parcels that were removed are illustrated on Map 1 (Appendix B). All Maps (1 through 11) used in this EA are located in Appendix B. 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED The BLM has received a proposal to exchange public land for private property and must determine whether or not to approve the proposal including the application of any terms for approval. The BLM must ensure a balanced use of a variety of land disposal and acquisition tools to enhance multiple use values and management of the public lands, improve public access, protect resource values, and meet State, local government and local community needs. The BLM must consider any encumbrances and their validity, including any reservations. The objective is to determine what is in the public interest, in accordance with applicable statutory policies, standards and requirements (43 CFR 2200.0-2). 1.4 CONFORMANCE WITH BLM LAND USE PLAN 1.4.1 Proposed Action The proposed action is in conformance with the following decisions from the Record of Decision and Pony Express RMP, approved January 1990, as amended: • Lands Program Decision 3 (Lands Available for Exchange) (pages 3 and 4). • Minerals Program Decision 2 (Categorize Federal Mineral Estate) (page 23). • Hazardous Waste Management Decision 1 (Evaluate Known Sites) (page 29). • Soil, Water and Air Program Decision 2 (Acquire/Protect Water Rights) (page 30). • Range Program Decision 1 (Forage Use) (page 32). • Wildlife and Fisheries Program Decision 4 (Protect Wildlife Habitat) (page 37) as amended by the 2015 Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments (ARMPA) prepared for the Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana; Nevada and Northeastern California; Oregon; and Utah EIS.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 1-2 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 1.0 Purpose & Need

• Wild Horse Program Decision 1 (Continue to Manage AML) (page 34) as amended by the 2003 Decision Record prepared for the Wild Horse Appropriate Management Level (AML) and Herd Management Area/Herd Boundary EA (UT 020-2002-0100). • Recreation Program Decision 1 (Mange Land as SRMA or ERMA) (page 40) and Decision 2 (OHV use Designation) (page 41) as amended by the 1992 Decision Record prepared for the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Designations EA (UT-020-90-11). • Visual Resource Management (VRM) Program Decision 1 (Designate VRM Classes) (page 41). • Cultural Resource Program Decision 1 (Evaluate on Case-by-Case Basis) (page 49). • Fire Management Program Decision 1 (Suppression) (page 56) as amended by the 1998 Decision Record prepared for the Salt Lake District Fire Management Plan EA (UT-020- 98-08). It is also consistent with or does not conflict with the goals/objectives of the following RMP program decisions: areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), forestry, and transportation/utility corridors. 1.4.2 No Action Alternative This alternative would be to not exchange the lands identified under the proposed action and to retain them under their current ownership and uses. The public land retained in Federal ownership would continue to be managed under the provisions of the Pony Express RMP, as amended, and would, therefore, be consistent with the land use plan. Non-Federal lands would likely continue under current management. 1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS, PLANS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The Proposed Action is consistent with the requirements of Title II, Section 205 and Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, (90 Stat. 2776 43 U.S.C. 1761). Implementing regulations are found at title 43 CFR 2200. Section 206 of the FLPMA, as amended, states: “A tract of public land or interests therein may be disposed of by exchange by the Secretary of the Interior (clarification added) under this Act. Provided, that when considering public interest the Secretary concerned shall give full consideration to better Federal land management and the needs of State and local people, including needs for lands for the economy, community expansion, recreation areas, food, fiber, minerals, and fish and wildlife and the Secretary concerned finds that the values and the objectives which Federal lands or interests to be conveyed may serve if retained in Federal ownership are not more than the values of the non-Federal lands or interests and the public objectives they could serve if acquired.” Section 7 of the National Trails System Act of 1968 outlines the United States priorities for entering into written cooperative agreement and/or acquiring non-Federal land that is within the trail right-of-way for the use of the lands for trail purposes. Section f (1) (1) The Secretary of the Interior, in the exercise of his exchange authority, may accept title to any non-Federal property within the right-of-way and in exchange therefor he may convey to the grantor of such property any federally owned property under his jurisdiction which is located in the State wherein such property is located and which he classifies as suitable for exchange or other disposal. The values

Skull Valley Land Exchange 1-3 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 1.0 Purpose & Need

of the properties so exchanged either shall be approximately equal, or if they are not approximately equal the values shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor or to the Secretary as the circumstances require. The Secretary of Agriculture, in the exercise of his exchange authority, may utilize authorities and procedures available to him in connection with exchanges of national forest lands. Section f (2) states: In acquiring lands or interests therein for a National Scenic or Historic Trail, the appropriate Secretary may, with consent of a landowner, acquire whole tracts notwithstanding that parts of such tracts may lie outside the area of trail acquisition. In furtherance of the purposes of this act, lands so acquired outside the area of trail acquisition may be exchanged for any non-Federal lands or interests therein within the trail right- of-way, or disposed of in accordance with such procedures or regulations as the appropriate Secretary shall prescribe, including: (i) provisions for conveyance of such acquired lands or interests therein at not less than fair market value to the highest bidder, and (ii) provisions for allowing the last owners of record a right to purchase said acquired lands or interests therein upon payment or agreement to pay an amount equal to the highest bid price. For lands designated for exchange or disposal, the appropriate Secretary may convey these lands with any reservations or covenants deemed desirable to further the purposes of this Act. The proceeds from any disposal shall be credited to the appropriation bearing the costs of land acquisition for the affected trail. Section 4(b) of the of 1964 sets forth the agencies’ responsibilities in administering wilderness areas and states that the preservation of wilderness character is the primary management mandate. As per BLM Manual 6340 – Management of BLM Wilderness, acquisitions may also be made of lands within a wilderness area when the owner concurs in the acquisition and inholdings acquired through exchange or donation are automatically included in and managed as wilderness without further Congressional action. Sections 381-384 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006 provides the following additional guidance related to the administration and management of the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area (WA) at subsection (e) Land Acquisition – “Any lands or interest in lands within the boundaries of the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area acquired by the United States after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be added to and administered as part of the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area.” Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 authorizes the issuance of grazing permits that specify the number and type of livestock and season of use within established grazing districts. In accordance with BLM Manual 4100 – Grazing Administration and BLM Handbook 4130 – Authorized Grazing, and the grazing regulations at 43 CFR 4110.1-1 (Acquired lands), where lands have been acquired by the BLM through purchase, exchange, Act of Congress or Executive Order, and an agreement or the terms of the act or Executive Order provide that the BLM shall honor existing grazing permits or leases, such permits or leases are governed by the terms and conditions in effect at the time of acquisition by the BLM, and are not subject to the requirements of 43 CFR 4110.1.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 1-4 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 1.0 Purpose & Need

Section 2 of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 authorizes the protection and management of wild horses within specific ranges on the public lands in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. BLM Manual 4700 – Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Management at section .06 (Policy) (E) states: “Establish or adjust AMLs for wild horses and burros through a site-specific environmental analysis and decision process (pursuant to the 1969 NEPA) which shall include an in-depth evaluation of resource monitoring data.” Similarly, Manual 4710 – Management Considerations, states an objective to maintain current data about wild horse populations and their habitat. At section .2 (.23) (A), the authorized officer may adjust AML based on an in-depth analysis of site-specific resource monitoring data. The Proposed Action is consistent with Federal, state and local laws, regulations, and plans to the maximum extent possible. The Pony Express RMP including the lands section was determined to be consistent with plans, programs and policies of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Tooele County. The following documents were prepared as part of this exchange proposal: • Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) – An ESA was completed in February 2011 for the non-Federal lands proposed for acquisition as required under the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practices using Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process E 1527-05 for acquisition of real property and 40 CFR Part 312 to satisfy the reporting requirements for an All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) requirements. The Phase 1 report for the non-Federal lands was updated with a Pre-acquisition Liability Survey in 2017 which again did not reveal any evidence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, or recognized environmental conditions and/or CERCLA 120(h) concerns in connection with this real property. A determination was made that no further inquiry is needed and therefore these properties are suitable for acquisition. An ESA was conducted in May 2013 for the Federal lands proposed for disposal under a third party contract following the procedures as required under the ASTM Standard Practice for using the Phase 1 ESA Process E 1527-05 for acquisition of real property and 40 CFR Part 312 which did not reveal any evidence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, or recognized environmental conditions, and/or CERCLA 120(h) concerns, and satisfy 40 CFR part 373, in connection with this real property. The Phase 1 report for the Federal lands was updated with a Preliminary Analysis in 2017. A determination was made that no further inquiry is needed and therefore these properties are suitable for disposal. • Mineral Potential Report (3/2007) – completed to identify physical features and access, regional/local geology, mining history/activity and surface interference. This report assesses the known mineral potential of the Federal and non-Federal lands for the proposed exchange under Section 206 of the FLPMA. • Cultural Resources Inventory/Report (12/2012) – completed for the Skull Valley Land Exchange (Utah State Antiquities Project Number U-12-UJ-0805 bp). This inventory/report documents any historic properties within the project area. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2), the “transfer, lease or sale of a property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate protections” is considered an example of adverse effect…” Consequently, this proposed exchange undertaking would have an adverse effect on these historic properties.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 1-5 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 1.0 Purpose & Need

Required elements of specific laws have been considered by the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team as documented in the ID Team Checklist in Appendix C. 1.6 DECISION TO BE MADE Upon completion of the environmental analysis and appropriate documentation, appraisals, and all other supporting studies and requirements, the decision to be made by the authorized officer is whether the proposed Skull Valley Land Exchange is in the public interest and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations so as to approve or not approve the exchange proposal. 1.7 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES The proposed exchange was posted on the Utah BLM Environmental Notification Bulletin Board (ENBB)1 on September 29, 2009. Notice of the proposed exchange was also published in the Tooele Transcript-Bulletin four separate times on August 27, 2009; September 3, 2009; September 10, 2009; and September 17, 2009. A 30-day public scoping period was offered from October 31, 2011 to November 31, 2011. A public scoping meeting was conducted at the Tooele County Building in Tooele, Utah, on November 7, 2011. Public comments made in response to the notices and the public scoping meeting were considered during the identification of issues and alternatives addressed in this EA. The ID Team Checklist (Appendix C) details all issues and resources considered by the ID Team. It also contains a clear rationale for all issues and resources dismissed from further analysis in this EA. It should be noted that issues are essentially an effect on a particular resource component. The following issue statements have been identified as relevant and are addressed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EA: 1.7.1 Cultural Resources • Would parcels containing important cultural resources that leave Federal ownership be in the public’s interest? • What management efforts would be applied to Federal and non-Federal parcels that contain segments of the Pony Express National Historic Trail (NHT), the California National Historic Trail, and the Lincoln Highway? 1.7.2 Fuels and Fire Management • Would a change in management responsibility for projects designed to reduce the risk of wildfire near the town of Terra be transferred from Federal ownership? • How would any acquired land be managed under the wildland fire program? 1.7.3 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds • What extent does the presence of invasive species/noxious weeds have in the valuation of parcels under exchange?

1 The ENBB is a BLM environmental information internet site and can be accessed online at: https://www.ut.blm.gov/enbb/. Search records by Salt Lake Field Office and Environmental Assessment. Scroll to the Skull Valley Land Exchange entry. The project was also posted to the NEPA Register on 6/2/2017 and can be accessed online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/legacyProjectSite.do?methodName=renderLegacyProjectSite&projectId=80611

Skull Valley Land Exchange 1-6 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 1.0 Purpose & Need

• What management would be necessary on parcels entering BLM administration that are infested with knapweed? • What management would be necessary for parcels that contain cheatgrass? 1.7.4 Livestock Grazing • How would grazing permits on BLM allotments and trailing authorizations on the Pony Express Livestock Trail be adjusted? • Would opportunities for prospectively valuable minerals be lost? 1.7.5 Mineral Resources • What mineral resources are encumbered with exchanged parcels? 1.7.6 Recreation • Would Federal lands be available to the public for dispersed recreation? • What are BLM’s management goals for the segments of the Hastings Cutoff route on the California National Historic Trail and Lincoln Highway within public lands selected for exchange? • How would lost public access to these segments be addressed? • Would portions of the Pony Express National Historic Trail, Cedar Mountain WA and other lands with outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation be acquired by BLM? 1.7.7 Special Status Animal Species Including Migratory Birds • How would habitat management for the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), other raptors and migratory birds occur on the proposed exchange parcels? 1.7.8 Special Status Plant Species (Pohl’s Milkvetch) • Would retaining parcels that contain habitat/populations of the BLM Sensitive Plant “Pohl’s Milkvetch” (Astragalus lentiginosus var. pohlii) be prioritized? 1.7.9 Water Rights • Would acquisition of water right to Slater Spring (#16-10) and converting beneficial use from irrigation to livestock and wildlife improve BLM management of multiple resources within the area? • Is the retention of water rights equitable to the parties? 1.7.10 Wildlife Excluding Special Status Species • How would habitat management for the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), California bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) occur on the proposed exchange parcels? 1.7.11 Wilderness and Wilderness Characteristics • Could consolidation of Federal ownership within the Cedar Mountain WA increase BLM’s ability to protect and improve the wilderness characteristics and recreational opportunities in the Cedar Mountains?

Skull Valley Land Exchange 1-7 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 1.0 Purpose & Need

• Do the parcels entering and leaving BLM management improve overall wilderness characteristics? 1.7.12 Wild Horse Herd Areas and Herd Management Areas • Would BLM control of lands within the Cedar Mountain and Onaqui Mountains Herd Management Areas (HMAs) change? • When would changes in AML be conducted? 1.8 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS The ID Team Checklist (Appendix C) identifies resources and land uses considered by BLM specialists. Potential impacts on resources covered by statutes and regulations were considered as well as issues identified through agency and public scoping. Issues and resources that were dismissed from further analysis in this EA because they are either not present (NP) or would not be affected to a degree that requires detailed analysis (NI) are described in the Checklist’s determination and corresponding rationale. There are no ACECs, BLM natural areas, prime or unique farmlands, floodplains, important paleontological resources, wild and scenic rivers, and woodland/ forestry product areas involved with the proposed exchange parcels. Therefore, while air quality, environmental justice, fish habitat, Native American religious concerns, rangeland health standards, socio-economics, soils, wastes (hazardous or solid), wetlands/riparian zones, vegetation excluding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated species, and visual resources may be present they are not impacted to a degree that warrant detailed analysis. ESA’s were completed for both the Federal and non-Federal lands and there are no known hazardous substances, petroleum products, or recognized environmental conditions and/or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 120(h) concerns. Because the potential future use of the exchanged lands would continue to be livestock grazing, wild horse use and dispersed recreation, no toxic or hazardous substances or wastes would be used on the exchanged parcels. Additional disclosure can be found in Section 1.5 and Appendix C and therefore, no further analysis is needed.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 1-8 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 2.0 Description of Alternatives

2.0—DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION The alternatives [Alternative A: Proposed Action (Exchange) and Alternative B: No Action (No Exchange)] considered in this analysis were developed by the ID Team based on comments received during the public scoping period. The range of alternatives explores alternative means of meeting the purpose and need for action. The purpose and need statement assists in defining the range of alternatives. The alternatives are described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. As described in the NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, Section 6.6, Alternative Development), NEPA directs the BLM to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;…” [NEPA Sec.102 (2) (E)]. For some proposals, there may exist a very large or even an infinite number of possible reasonable alternatives. When there are numerous alternatives, only a reasonable number are needed to cover the full spectrum of alternatives [Question 1b, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981 and 40 CFR §1502.14]. 2.2 ALTERNATIVE A – PROPOSED ACTION (EXCHANGE) As stated in Section 1.2, based on the 2016 amended ATI, and further acreage elimination for appraisal value equalization, the United States would acquire the surface estate of 11,586.32 acres on 33 parcels of non-Federal land (Table 2-1), including all of the non-Federal parties’ interest in the mineral estate and a water right (WR #16-10) on Slater Spring. In exchange, the United States would convey to the non-Federal parties, the surface and the federally-owned mineral estate of 12,603.27 acres on 33 parcels of Federal land selected by the non-Federal parties (Table 2-2). The legal land descriptions and acreages for each parcel (Federal and non-Federal) are identified in Appendix A. Certain encumbrances and/or interests would be applied on Federal and non- Federal lands as presented in Appendix A. Examples of these interests include mineral estate and valid/existing rights [ditches, canals, powerlines, pipelines (irrigation or water), grazing permits, mining claims]. Generally, exchanges are made on a fair market value for value basis and acreages may be adjusted to equalize values or the non-Federal party may make a cash payment not to exceed 25 percent of the fair market value of Federal land to be transferred to equalize values. If the appraisal indicates that there would be an imbalance in value or if parcels are removed to protect other resources, parcels would be eliminated from the exchange according to the priorities shown in Appendix D. The BLM manages the public lands in the exchange area under the Pony Express RMP (BLM 1990 as amended). The acquired non-Federal parcels would be managed in accordance with existing land use management prescriptions described in the existing Pony Express RMP and any subsequent amendments.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 2-1 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 2.0 Description of Alternatives

Those portions of the non-Federal parcels within the Cedar Mountain WA would be managed according to the BLM National Wilderness Management Policy (43 CFR 6300, BLM Manual 8560, BLM Handbook H-8560-1). On non-Federal parcel 32, an easement to an existing waterwell, tank, pipeline, powerline, and other ancillary facilities would be reserved to the non- Federal parties and would be cherry-stemmed out of the Cedar Mountain WA. Acquired lands that may have wilderness characteristics would be inventoried and if present wilderness characteristics would be evaluated and weighed as future land use decisions are made in a planning process. The management prescriptions that would apply under the Pony Express RMP can be viewed on the Planning Register.2 Table 2-1 identifies the management prescriptions that would apply to the non-Federal parcels if acquired by the BLM. Table 2-2 identifies the management prescriptions that would apply to the Federal parcels. Parcel 7 and portions of parcels 13, 14 and 33 are re-conveyed lands that would be conveyed to the non-Federal parties by quit claim deed. The remainder of the Federal lands would be conveyed by patent. The exchange would be made subject to valid existing rights such as easements, rights-of-way, etc. The documents conveying the land whether quit claim deed or patent would be made subject to or would reserve those rights for the current holders and their successors-in-interest. Refer to Appendix A for a list of rights to be reserved. Patent to the Federal lands in the exchange shall be issued subject to all valid existing rights, including land use authorizations granted by the United States, under the terms and conditions in existence at the time of patent. Subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, prior to patent issuance, a Holder of any right-of-way within the Federal lands may be given the opportunity to amend the right-of-way for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or to an easement. The BLM would adjust grazing permits for the affected grazing allotments to account for changes in Federal and non-Federal acreages within the allotments. Range improvements on both the Federal and non-Federal parcels belong to the non-Federal parties and would remain in private ownership. Allotment specific terms and conditions would still apply including assignments of range improvements. Rights-of-way held by the non-Federal parties on the non-Federal parcels would be relinquished prior to the exchange. The United States would reserve ditches and canals and two rights-of-way held by the USFS. The BLM would acquire water right (#16-10) at Slater Springs. The beneficial use classification of Slater Springs would be changed from irrigation to livestock and wildlife use. Seven water rights held or controlled by the non-Federal parties would be retained by them and used as at present.

2 The Pony Express RMP including supporting documents can be accessed on the Planning Register located at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=71247&dctmI d=0b0003e880e05ae8.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 2-2 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 2.0 Description of Alternatives

The non-Federal parties would convey the surface and all of their mineral interests in the non- Federal lands. Conveyance of the Federal parcels would include the surface and federally owned mineral estate. Placer mining claims on Federal parcels 8, 9, and 13 have lapsed and are no longer valid and would not be an impediment in the proposed exchange. All of the lands except for those within the Cedar Mountain WA would be opened to mineral entry and location of mining claims 90 days after the completion of the exchange. Withdrawal is unnecessary because there is not a high probability of locatable minerals on any of the non- Federal lands, and the BLM would acquire only 175 acres of locatable mineral ownership in the exchange. Non-Federal lands that occur within the Cedar Mountain or Onaqui Mountain HMAs/herd areas (HAs) would be managed in accordance with the Decision Record issued for the AML EA. Federal lands would be removed from the both HMAs/HAs. Non-Federal lands would be added to the both HMAs/HAs. Federally-owned minerals on four non-Federal parcels within the Cedar Mountain WA would be withdrawn from all forms of entry. However, the State of Utah would retain their current ownership of the mineral estate (65 acres are within the Cedar Mountain WA). The boundary of the landscape rock pit associated with Federal parcel 19 has been modified to exclude lands west of Utah Highway 196. Roads that provide access to the managed by the USFS Wasatch/Cache National Forest would be reserved by the United States to preserve public access to the forest lands. The BLM has completed a formal cultural resource research program and has completed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) that includes a Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) (BLM 2016), in coordination with the non-Federal parties, Consulting Parties, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (Peart et al. 2013). Mitigation would be undertaken after the exchange has been completed. Portions of Federal parcels 1, 2, 12, 17, 24, 25, and 35 totaling approximately 1,199 acres have been eliminated from the exchange due to the presence of sensitive cultural resources and the cost of mitigation for those resources. A land exchange is essentially an administrative action and does not involve any change agents that accompany other land use authorizations such as surface disturbance, construction, operation or maintenance activities. Land uses would in most cases remain the same although management of both Federal and non-Federal lands would improve through consolidation of ownership and increased efficiency of programs or operations. Once land is transferred to non-Federal ownership, it could be available for a variety of uses allowable under State and local law, although the exchange non-Federal parties have not identified any specific plans for projects or large-scale changes in the use of the parcels they acquire. Lands acquired by the BLM would be subject to the stipulations as defined in the RMP, as amended.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 2-3 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 2.0 Description of Alternatives

Table 2-1. Management Prescriptions Applied to Non-Federal Parcels. Locatable and Saleable Leasable VRM Livestock Grazing Encumbrances/ Parcel Designated Cooridor4 OHV Use5 Wilderness Character7 Wild Horse HA/HMA8 Minerals1 MineralsCategory2 Class3 Allotment6 Reservations 1 Open 1 III No Open OMW Potential Onaqui/Out - 2 Open 1 IV No Open OMW No Out - 3 Open 2 IV No Open OMW Potential Onaqui - 4 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui - 5 Open 1 IV No Open OMW Potential Onaqui - Water Right #16-10 6 Open 1 IV No Open OMW Potential Onaqui Water Right #16-162 USA IRR PPL UTU-021911 7 Open 1 IV No Open OMW Potential Onaqui BLM 11 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui - 12 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui - 13 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui - 16 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui - 17 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui - 18 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out Water Right #16-43 19 Open 1 IV Yes Limited SoSV No Cedar/Out - 20 Open 1 IV Yes Limited SoSV No Cedar/Out - Powerline easement 21 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out PacifiCorp 22 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui - 23 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Onaqui Water Right #16-39 24 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Cedar Water Right #16-28 25 Open 1 II No Open SoSV No Cedar - 26 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Cedar - Water Right #16-775 28 Open 1 IV Yes Open PET No Onaqui USA 29 Open 1 IV No Open SV No Cedar Water Right #16-94 30 Open 1 I No Closed SV WA Cedar Water Right #16-635 31 Open 1 IV No Open SV No Cedar - Water Right #16-800 Clean Harbors. 32 Closed 4 I No Closed SV WA Cedar Utility easement for access to Water Right #16-801 CRLLC.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 2-4 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 2.0 Description of Alternatives

Locatable and Saleable Leasable VRM Livestock Grazing Encumbrances/ Parcel Designated Cooridor4 OHV Use5 Wilderness Character7 Wild Horse HA/HMA8 Minerals1 MineralsCategory2 Class3 Allotment6 Reservations Powerline easement PacifiCorp. Water Well Agreement USPCI. 33 Open 1 III Yes Open Salt No Out - 34 Open 1 III Yes Open Salt No Out - 35 Open 2 III Yes Open Salt No Out - 36 Open 1 IV Yes Open Salt No Out - 37 Open 1 IV Yes Open Salt No Out - 38 Closed 4 I No Closed SV WA Cedar - 39 Close 4 I No Closed SV WA Cedar - 1 Open to location of mining claims and sale of mineral materials. 2 Category 1: Open to leasing with Standard Stipulations; Category 2 Special Stipulations; Category 4 Closed. 3 Class I: The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention; Class II: Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer; Class III Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer; Class IV: Management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. 4 Corridor: Designated corridor. Outside: Proposals that are not considered major may be sited outside corridors after demonstrating that locating within a corridor is not viable. 5 Open: Open to cross country travel; Limited: Use limited to existing roads and trails; Closed: Closed to vehicle use. 6 Open to permitted livestock use subject to current grazing practices/permitting on BLM grazing allotments. OMW= Onaqui Mountain West, SoSV= South Skull Valley, Salt = Salt Mountain, and SK = Skull Valley allotments and the PET = Pony Express Trail. 7 Potential: Contiguous with an area that BLM intends to inventory for wilderness characteristics; WA: Designated Wilderness Area; No: Does not possess wilderness characteristics. 8 HMA/HA: within or outside of the HMA/HA boundaries for the Cedar Mountain or Onaqui Mountain herds.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 2-5 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 2.0 Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Management Prescriptions Applied to Federal Parcels. Locatable and Saleable Visual Resource Livestock Grazing Parcel Leasable Minerals2 Designated Cooridor4 OHV Use5 Wilderness Character7 Wild Horse HA/HMA8 Encumbrances/Reservations Minerals1 Class3 Allotment6 Ditches and Canals (D/C), UTU- 1 Open 2 III Yes Limited Salt No Out 18471 AR USFS, 2 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out D/C, UTU-23300 AR USFS 3 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out D/C, UTU-18471 AR USFS 4 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out D/C D/C, UTU-23300 AR USFS, 5 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out UTU-021911 IRR PPL CRLLC D/C, UTU-23300 AR USFS, 6 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out UTU-021911 IRR PPL CRLLC 7 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out D/C 8 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out D/C, UTU-046101 PL RMP D/C, UTU-046101 PL RMP, 9 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out UTU-51503 TEL BEEHIVE 10 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out D/C 11 Open 2 IV No Open OMW No Onaqui D/C 12 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui D/C, UTU-80753 PPL BLM D/C, Water Right #16-738 13 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out CRLLC D/C, UTU-64758 PL RMP, UTU- 02933 PL RMP, UTU-51503 14 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Onaqui & Out TEL BEEHIVE, UTSL-063824 FED HWY UDOT D/C, UTU-64758 PL RMP, UTU- 02933 PL RMP, UTU-51503 15 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Onaqui & Out TEL BEEHIVE, UTSL-063824 FED HWY UDOT 16 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui D/C, UTU-80753 PPL BLM 17 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Onaqui D/C, UTU-80753 PPL BLM D/C, UTU-02933 PL RMP, UTU- 18 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Out 51503 TEL BEEHIVE 19 Open 1 III Yes Limited Salt No Out D/C D/C, UTU-91650, PUBLIC 20 Open 2 IV Yes Open Salt No Out ACCESS TO TRAIL (BLM), UTSL-07348 IRR DITCH SVC D/C, UTU-63224 TEL 21 Open 2 III Yes Open Salt No Out BEEHIVE, UTU-04240 FED HWY UDOT 22 Open 2 III No Limited Salt No Out D/C, UTU-80753 PPL BLM 23 Open 1 IV Yes Open Lost No Out D/C, UTU-046101 PL RMP 24 Open 1 IV No Open Lost No Out D/C 25 Open 1 IV No Open Lost No Out D/C 26 Open 1 IV Yes Open Lost No Out D/C, UTU-046101 PL RMP

Skull Valley Land Exchange 2-6 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 2.0 Description of Alternatives

Locatable and Saleable Visual Resource Livestock Grazing Parcel Leasable Minerals2 Designated Cooridor4 OHV Use5 Wilderness Character7 Wild Horse HA/HMA8 Encumbrances/Reservations Minerals1 Class3 Allotment6 27 Open 1 IV Yes Limited SoSV No Out D/C D/C, UTU-046101 PL RMP, 28 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out UTU-51503 TEL BEEHIVE 29 Open 1 IV No Open SoSV No Out D/C 30 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Out D/C 31 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Out D/C D/C, UTU-80434 FIBER 32 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Out SKYLINE 33 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Out D/C 34 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Out D/C, UTU-02933 PL RMP D/C, UTU-80434 FIBER 35 Open 1 IV Yes Open SoSV No Out SKYLINE 1 Open to location of mining claims and sale of mineral materials. 2 Category 1: Open to leasing with Standard Stipulations; Category 2: Special Stipulations. 3 Class III Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer; Class IV: Management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. 4 Corridor: Designated corridor. Outside: Proposals that are not considered major may be sited outside corridors after demonstrating that locating within a corridor is not viable. 5 Open: Open to cross country travel; Limited: Use limited to existing roads and trails 6 Open to permitted livestock use subject to current grazing practices/permitting on BLM grazing allotments. OMW= Onaqui Mountain West, SoSV= South Skull Valley, Salt = Salt Mountain, and SK = Skull Valley allotments and the PET = Pony Express Trail. 7 No: Does not possess wilderness characteristics. 8 HMA/HA: within or outside of the HMA/HA boundaries for the Cedar Mountain or Onaqui Mountain herds.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 2-7 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 2.0 Description of Alternatives

2.3 ALTERNATIVE B – NO ACTION (STATUS QUO/NO EXCHANGE) This alternative would be to not exchange the lands identified under the proposed action and to retain them under their current ownership and uses. The public land retained in Federal ownership would continue to be managed under the provisions of the Pony Express RMP and applicable Federal law and regulations. Table 2-2 identifies the current management prescriptions for the Federal parcels. The original and amended legal land descriptions and acreages for each parcel are shown in Appendix A. Certain encumbrances and/or interests would be applied on Federal and non-Federal lands as presented in Appendix A. Non-Federal lands would likely continue to be managed as they presently are consistent with State and local laws and zoning. Under the Tooele County General Plan, non-Federal Parcel 19 is currently zoned A-20, requiring 20 acres for development; Parcel 37 is zoned MG-EX zone, which would allow for development of extractive mineral operations such as sand and gravel quarries. The remaining non-Federal lands are zoned as multiple use (MU-40), requiring 40 acres for development. Under this alternative neither party to the exchange would achieve their identified purposes for making the exchange but not completing the exchange is possible if some procedural, technical or legal impediment is raised which would prevent the exchange from being made. This might include fair market values of the non-Federal and Federal land not being close enough to make the trade, title problems with the non-Federal lands that cannot be resolved, unacceptable impacts on other resources, etc. 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS The following three alternatives were considered but not carried forward for analysis in the EA. They were identified as possible alternatives by the SLFO ID Team or brought forward by the public during the scoping period. 2.4.1 Purchase Purchase by the BLM of non-Federal land is a possible alternative. Funds are generally not appropriated for purchase of privately held land by BLM. Land and Water Conservation Fund funding would be available for the purchase of privately-owned land within the Skull Valley area as it is not an area of special designation. This alternative is technically or economically infeasible. 2.4.2 Sale Sale of the Federal land to private parties is also possible. However, none of the Federal lands in the exchange proposal have been identified as suitable for disposal by sale in the Pony Express RMP of 1990. A review of the criteria for disposal of Federal Lands in the RMP did not provide justification for a plan amendment to make any of the public lands identified in the proposed action available for public sales. This alternative is not in conformance with the Pony Express RMP.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 2-8 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 2.0 Description of Alternatives

2.4.3 Other Configurations Other configurations of the exchange have been proposed and considered by BLM and the non- Federal parties over a period of many years prior to the 2009 ATI being signed. The parcels included in the present proposal have been configured to reduce impacts on protected resources and to enhance the benefit to the public as well as the non-Federal parties. Additional lands could be included through an assembled land exchange, but they would not meet the same objectives as the proposed action and would be addressed through separate exchange proposals. This alternative is remote or speculative at this time without a formal proposal.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 2-9 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

3.0—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the potentially affected existing environment of the impact area for the potentially impacted resources and issues identified in the ID Team Checklist found in Appendix C and presented in Chapter 1 of this EA. This chapter provides the baseline for analysis and comparison of impacts/consequences described in Chapter 4. 3.2 GENERAL SETTING Skull Valley is a broad open desert valley approximately 45 miles west of Salt Lake City, Utah. This area includes a north-south fault block valley of the Basin and Range geophysical province. The valley is bounded on the west by the Cedar Mountains, a low to moderately high mountain range with the highest point being 7,700 feet, and on the east by the Stansbury and Onaqui Mountain Ranges; moderate to high mountain ranges with a maximum elevation of 11,037 feet at . The parcels involved in the exchange are along the low to medium alluvial slopes of either the Cedar Mountains or Stansbury/Onaqui Mountains as shown on Map 1. Vegetation is mainly desert shrub type which in many cases has lost the shrub component due to wildfire and conversion to either cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) or areas of wheatgrass seeded by the BLM after wildfires. Many areas above 6,500 feet elevation consist of a more native vegetation of scattered juniper, sagebrush, cliffrose, and native Great Basin grasses.

Figure 3-1 Terra, Utah. The Federal lands are located primarily along the State Highways 196 and 199 corridors traversing the western base of the Stansbury and Onaqui Mountain Ranges. The majority of the lands are situated northeast of Dugway (estimated pop. 2,000) and southwest of the small community of Terra (estimated population of 25) (Figure 3-1).

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-1 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

There is limited commercial development and no industrial development in Skull Valley. Residents must commute to Tooele Valley for goods and services. Several of the Federal and non-Federal parcels adjoin State- or County-maintained roads, and the exchange has been designed to utilize the roads as logical property boundaries (Map 1). The Federal parcels are adjacent to private lands but generally the boundaries between Federal and private lands are unmarked and indistinguishable on the ground. Some of the parcels adjoin the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The non-Federal parcels are much less concentrated and mostly scattered throughout the Skull Valley floor. The non-Federal parcels are completely surrounded by or adjacent to Federal lands and cannot be readily distinguished from the Federal lands. 3.3 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED RESOURCES/ISSUES 3.3.1 Cultural Resources The term "Cultural Resources" covers three broad categories of properties. The first is prehistoric sites. These are primarily archeological sites, of value for their ability to provide information about early Native American life ways. Other prehistoric features may include rock art sites, stone alignments, and the like. The second category is historic sites such as trails or roads and buildings. The third category is commonly called "Traditional Cultural Properties" or "TCP's". These are sites or features which are valued for their association with specific traditional Native American lifestyles, or spiritual practices or values. An additional related category of resources is "Historic Landscapes where the visual setting may be an important integral part of the resource.” The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies evaluate how each of their projects or tasks (called "undertakings") could affect historic properties (cultural resources listed on, or determined eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)). It requires that the effects of the undertaking on historic properties be considered prior to the execution of the undertaking. Where “adverse effects” would occur they should be avoided, minimized, or mitigated (36 CFR 800.1). Because transfer of public historic properties to private ownership represents an adverse effect [36 CFR 800.9(b)(5)], BLM is required to inventory all of the Federal parcels, identify an Area of Potential Effect (APE) and gather sufficient information to evaluate the eligibility of properties for nomination to the NRHP. The BLM is also required to consult with the SHPO and other interested parties under section 106 of the NHPA and avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties prior to closing the exchange. The APE is comprised of the Federal Parcels. In 2012, a cultural resources inventory for the Skull Valley Land Exchange was completed. Due to the expense of a comprehensive inventory of all lands leaving Federal ownership, the BLM determined, in consultation with interested members of the public, Tribal groups, the Utah SHPO, and the ACHP, that inventory based on a stratified random sample of the APE would be appropriate.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-2 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

The survey identified 26 sites eligible to the NRHP (historic properties) included among these are segments of historic trails (Hastings Cutoff of the California Trail and the Pony Express/Central Overland Stage Trail) and highways (Lincoln Highway), a segment of a historic canal; prehistoric lithic scatters; and prehistoric campsites. A segment of the Hastings Cutoff (42TO709) traverses Parcel 20 (Map 10). In addition to being a historic property, the Hastings Cutoff is a designated National Historic Trail. In order to ensure continued public access to the Hastings Cutoff following execution of the land exchange, the BLM negotiated a perpetual, non-exclusive right-of-way for that portion of the trail in Parcel 20 with interested members of the public, including the Oregon-California Trail Association, the Utah SHPO, and the ACHP. The right-of-way will be 220 feet wide and is accessible at the Horseshoe Springs interpretive kiosk. The kiosk area provides interpretive information regarding the Hastings Cutoff as well as vehicular parking. The details regarding the Hastings Cutoff right- of-way are captured in the conveyance documents for the land exchange. Based upon the results of the 2012 survey a PA and HPTP were drafted to address the issues of adverse effects to historic properties and unknown effects. As noted earlier, 26 historic properties were identified during the survey and an estimated cost to mitigate the adverse effect of transferring these sites out of Federal ownership was calculated. Based upon these estimated costs, the non-Federal parties decided to drop portions of Federal parcels 1, 2, 12, 17, 24, 25, and 35 further reducing the acres of Federal land by 1,159 acres. The PA and HPTP were approved February 16, 2016. Non-Federal parcel 28 is crossed by a segment of the Pony Express National Historic Trail which runs from Missouri to Sacramento (Map 9 and Figure 3-2). The parcels south of Dugway are within viewing distance of the Pony Express National Historic Trail. The route was also used by the Overland Stage after the Pony Express ceased operation in 1869. In 1992, the Pony Express and Overland Stage Route was designated as a National Historic Trail and Scenic Byway. This parcel was also the site of the Lookout Pass Pony Express Station and associated Dog/Pet Cemetery where the station master’s wife buried many of her pets (Map 9, Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4). This area has heavy visitor use (Figure 3-5), and today contains one of the original obelisk monuments erected by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in the 1930s (Figure 3-6). Because of the heavy use and historical importance of the site, the BLM has assisted in managing this area under cooperative agreement with the landowner. Except for the historic roads or trails, there is not a high likelihood for the occurrence of important cultural sites on the non-Federal lands in the exchange. Utah Highway 196 from Interstate 80 to Iosepa follows a portion of the historic Hastings Cutoff of the California Trail. The Hastings Cutoff was an alternate route for emigrants to travel to California, as proposed by Lansford Hastings. In 1845, Hastings published a guide entitled The Emigrant's Guide to Oregon and California. A sentence in the book briefly describes the cutoff. The most direct route, for the California emigrants, would be to leave the Oregon route, at Fort Bridger; thence bearing West Southwest, to the Salt Lake; and thence continuing down to the bay of St. Francisco, by the route just described.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-3 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Figure 3-2 Pony Express National Historic Trail Sign.

Figure 3-3 Remnants of Pony Express Station.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-4 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Figure 3-4 Aunt Libby’s Dog/Pet Cemetery.

Figure 3-5 Pony Express Lookout Pass Station Camping Area.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-5 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Figure 3-6 Pony Express Monument. The cutoff left the Oregon Trail at Fort Bridger in Wyoming, passed through the Wasatch Range, across the Desert, an 80 mile waterless drive, looped around the Ruby Mountains, and rejoined the California Trail about seven miles west of modern Elko (also Emigrant Pass). The Donner Party, following in the wake of this initial party in 1846, had an unsuccessful experience with the Hastings Cutoff. They had arrived about a week late to travel with Hasting's party, and on his suggestion pioneered an alternate route to avoid Weber Canyon. The road building required through the Wasatch Mountains and the grueling delayed them. When they had arrived at the California Trail, they were delayed about a month. The party arrived at Donner Pass just as an early winter storm closed it. After becoming snowbound in the Sierra Nevada, many died of starvation and some of the emigrants resorted to eating their animals and the deceased members of the group.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-6 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

The Hastings Cutoff trail crosses Federal parcels 19 through 22 (1.25 miles total), and non- Federal parcels 33 through 37 (1.33 miles total). The segment on Federal parcel 22 is considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. Oregon-California Trail Association (OCTA) has placed white fiberglass trail signs and rail markers along the historic trace of the trail in Skull Valley. Wagon ruts may still be visible on Federal parcel 19, 20, and 22. The non-Federal parties have agreed to allow BLM to retain a right-of-way across parcel 20, so the BLM and the public can have access to view the visible portion of the trail, which cross this parcel. Utah Highway 199 through Johnson (Fischer) Pass to about one and a half miles south of Terra is part of the original route of the Lincoln Highway. The Lincoln Highway is reported as the first transcontinental highway and was built in the early 1900s. “Conceived in 1912 and formally dedicated October 31, 1913, the Lincoln Highway was America's first national memorial to President Abraham Lincoln, predating the 1922 dedication of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. by nine years. As the first automobile road across America, the Lincoln Highway brought great prosperity to the hundreds of cities, towns and villages along the way. The Lincoln Highway became affectionately known as "The Main Street Across America." The original 1913 route of the Lincoln Highway followed the Hastings Cutoff from Grantsville, around the north end of the Stansbury Mountains, and south into Skull Valley. The 1913 route passes through parcels 19 and 20. This route has been verified and marked with white fiberglass signposts by OCTA and BLM.

Figure 3-7 Lincoln Highway

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-7 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

About 0.9 miles south of Terra, the 1919 route of the Lincoln Highway diverges from Utah Highway 199 and extends to the west to join the Skull Valley Road (Highway 196). The 1919 route of the Lincoln Highway passes through non-Federal parcel 2 and Federal parcels 9 and 28. There are no interpretive sites or other specific points of interest along the Lincoln Highway in this area (Map 11 and Figure 3-7). Figure 3-7 is looking west at the Lincoln Highway in Skull Valley between Utah Highways 196 and 199. The Skull Valley road (Highway 196) to Dugway and several other county roads in Skull Valley were also used as part of the Lincoln Highway. A segment of Highway 199 through Federal parcels 14 and 15 is also eligible for the NRHP. All segments of the Lincoln Highway are of historical interest. 3.3.2 Fire and Fuels Management The Salt Lake Field Office participates with interagency fire partners within 11 counties in northwestern Utah, including Tooele County. The field office fire program is a complex organization with responsibilities in suppression, planning, fuel hazard reduction, aviation, mitigation, and prevention. In Skull Valley, the BLM is involved in fire suppression under agreement with the state, county and private land owners including the non-Federal parties. The light colored band in the center of the photo (Figure 3-8) is a treated area south and east of Terra.

Figure 3-8 Vegetation Treatment on West Side of Onaqui Mountains

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-8 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

In order to reduce fuel loads and reduce fire severity and frequency, the BLM completes vegetation treatments designed to reduce fuel loads that protect or improve the salt desert shrub plant communities in the Great Basin. Vegetation on Federal lands surrounding the small community of Terra has been treated to reduce fuel loads and create firebreaks to protect both Federal and private lands (Figure 3-8). 3.3.3 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Squarrose knapweed is on the Utah Noxious Weed list (Utah Weed Control Association, 2011). This knapweed is a competitive rangeland weed native to the eastern Mediterranean area. It was first discovered in Utah in the 1950s. It thrives in arid sagebrush and bunchgrass rangeland. It grows on about 150,000 acres in Juab, Tooele, Millard, Utah, and Sanpete Counties. Knapweeds have been identified along the entire length of the sheep trail in Tooele County and have been identified in several grazing allotments along the trail including those in Skull Valley. It is known to occur on the non-Federal parcels as well as the Federal parcels in the south end of Skull Valley. Tooele County is part of the Squarrose Knapweed Demonstration Area that was organized by county, state and Federal agencies in 1997 with the guidance of the BLM’s Fillmore Field Office. The demonstration area includes all of Millard, Juab, Utah and Tooele Counties. The counties and agencies join efforts to seek funding and use the grants they obtain to augment agency budgets. This allows them to sponsor cooperative workdays, aerial spraying, and to provide chemicals to private landowners whose lands are infested (UPCD 2011). The proposed exchange parcels also are in the Bonneville Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA). Noxious weed control is primarily the responsibility of Tooele County but the BLM works with the County in efforts to resolve any noxious weed problems and conducts treatment to control the spread of knapweed and other noxious species. Cheatgrass, which occurs on all of the proposed exchange parcels, is also known as downy brome or June grass. It was introduced into the United States in packing materials, ship ballast and likely as a contaminant of crop seed. It was first found in the United States near Denver, Colorado, in the late 1800s (Whitson et al. 1991). In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, it spread explosively in the ready-made seed-beds prepared by the trampling livestock hooves of overstocked rangelands. Disturbance associated with homesteading and cultivation of winter wheat also accelerated its spread and establishment. By the 1930’s, cheatgrass was becoming the dominant grass over vast areas of the Pacific Northwest and the Intermountain West regions and the “worst” western range weed. It is currently classified as an invasive weed but is not on the Utah list of noxious weeds (USDA, NRCS, 2011). 3.3.4 Livestock Grazing The Federal parcels are scattered through four BLM grazing allotments (Skull Valley, South Skull Valley, Salt Mountain and Lost Creek) and the non-Federal parcels are located in six BLM grazing allotments (Skull Valley, South Skull Valley, Salt Mountain, Onaqui Mountains West, and Riverbed) and the Pony Express Livestock Trail administered by the SLFO (Map 2).

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-9 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

The non-Federal parties are the authorized permittees on the Lost Creek and Onaqui Mountain West allotments, and are co-permittee along with Brown’s Diamond J on the Salt Mountain allotment. The grazing privileges for the Skull Valley and South Skull Valley allotments are held by the non-Federal parties and are operated along with the allotments that contain the Federal parcels. The grazing preference for the Riverbed allotment is held by the non-Federal parties but are leased to another operator. The Pony Express Livestock Trail has historically been and is currently used as a livestock trail for sheep and cattle being moved to and from summer or winter range (private pastures and/or BLM allotments). The trail is used by several individuals/livestock grazing operators on an as-needed basis but no grazing privileges are allocated by BLM. Table 3- 1 includes the livestock grazing information for the affected allotments including the current active preference for the allotments within the exchange area. Table 3-1. Livestock Grazing Allotments Number Acres Allotment Animal Acres Permit Permit and Kind Season of (AUMs) Name and Unit (AUMs) Number Holder(s) of Use Number Months Non- Federal Livestock Federal 11/01 – 11,240 Skull 1,889 cattle Non- 04/30 AUMs 2,150 52 4302018 Valley Federal 2,500 11/01 – 2,976 (117) (3) #04034 Parties 1 Sheep 04/30 AUMs 11/01 – 4,302 723 cattle Non- 04/30 AUMs 9,846 11,533 4300329 Federal 3,800 South Skull 11/01 – 4,522 (832) (1,000) Parties sheep1 Valley 04/30 AUMs #04035 Non- 11/01 – 0 0 4300329 Federal 93 cattle 367 AUMs 02/28 Parties (0) (0) Non- 05/01 – 116 1,355 4302018 Federal 767 cattle 782 AUMs Salt 05/31 (6) (70) Mountain Parties #04062 05/01 – 0 0 4302006 Brown 45 cattle 68 AUMs 06/15 (0) (0) Non- Lost Creek 11/01 – 0 1,386 4300329 Federal 36 cattle 179 AUMs 03/31 #04028 Parties (0) (70) Onaqui Non- 05/16 – 1,147 1,696 0 4300329 Mtn West Federal 228 cattle 10/15 AUMs (89) (0) #04057 Parties 4300690 Leased2 (AJR, Riverbed from Non 11/01 – 641 610 sheep 666 AUMs 0(0) CFR, VAR #05017 Federal 04/15 (9) Lease) Parties

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-10 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Number Acres Allotment Animal Acres Permit Permit and Kind Season of (AUMs) Name and Unit (AUMs) Number Holder(s) of Use Number Months Non- Federal Livestock Federal Pony Trailing Livestock Express permits 118 Trailing NA3 NA NA 0(0) Trail held by only (0) #04000 permittees 1 The sheep AUM’s in the Skull Valley and South Skull Valley allotments are annually converted to cattle usage. 2. Proposed exchange parcel within the allotment is owned by the non-Federal parties but is operated by another permittee. 3. Not applicable because no forage is allocated on the Pony Express Trail Allotment. Range improvements on the affected grazing allotments belong to the non-Federal parties. Non-Federal lands that occur within BLM grazing allotments would be managed in accordance with the Proposed or Final Decisions issued on the most recent permit renewal EAs or authorizations as follows. The latest fully processed grazing permits for Skull Valley, South Skull Valley and Lost Creek allotments were approved in the 1999 Proposed/Final Decisions issued for EA UT-020-99-067. Skull Valley was recently renewed under the Rider in 2011; South Skull Valley was recently renewed under FLPMA in 2014; and Lost Creek was recently renewed under FLPMA in 2015. The latest fully processed grazing permit for Salt Mountain was approved in the 2001 Proposed/Final Decision issued for EA UT-020-00-014 and was recently renewed under the Rider in 2010. The Onaqui Mountain West grazing permit was fully processed in the 1999 Proposed/Final Decisions issued for EA UT-020-99-092 and was recently renewed under FLPMA in 2015. The Riverbed grazing permit was fully processed in the 2000 Proposed/Final Decisions issued for EA UT-020-00-010 and it was recently renewed under FLPMA in 2016. Livestock trailing authorizations issued on the Pony Express Livestock Trail would be in accordance with the 2014 DR issued for the EA (DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2013-0026-EA). Because private and public land are intermingled and indistinguishable on the ground, OHV and other recreational activities have caused damage to the non-Federal parties’ range improvements, trampled forage and harassed cattle in certain areas. 3.3.5 Mineral Resources Congress has enacted a series of legislation that has defined minerals into three general categories; locatable minerals, leasable minerals, and salable minerals. The surface management requirements and mining regulations vary according to each mineral group. Locatable Minerals include metallic and uncommon or unique grades of industrial minerals including chemical grade diatomaceous earth. Locatable minerals may be staked as mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and the Surface Use and Occupancy Act of July 23, 1955. Federal lands are either open or closed for locatable mineral claim and development.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-11 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals require a lease to mine and consist of oil and gas, geothermal, sodium, potassium, and phosphate. Salable Minerals are acquired through contracts and permits, which are handled through the BLM field office where the minerals are located. Common varieties of sand, stone and gravel are considered salable minerals. The availability of minerals for lease or sale is determined through the RMP, as amended. On the non-Federal lands the non-Federal parties’ mineral interests include all of the mineral interests on 104.24 acres; and an undivided 50 percent interest in the minerals on 120 acres; all minerals except oil and gas on 15.33 acres; all diatomaceous earth from the surface to a depth of 150 feet on 2079.89acres; and the sand and gravel resources on 9,926.56 acres. The remainder of the mineral estate, including oil and gas, is held by the State of Utah (3,410.04 acres) and Anschutz Resources (acres). The acreage of potentially valuable mineral resources on the Federal and non-Federal lands is shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. Mineral Resource Potential on Lands in Exchange Non-Federal Land Resources1 Federal Land (acres) (acres) Geothermal 100.96 678 Sodium and Potassium 100.96 438 Diatomaceous Earth 2,079.89 1,080 Oil and Gas 11,586.32 12,603.27 Sand and Gravel 6,076.53 3,844.96 Source: BLM Mineral Report available at the SLFO 1 All except diatomaceous earth are considered potentially valuable. The extent of diatomaceous earth is unknown; the acreage figures are for ownership. A mineral potential report prepared by the BLM in January 2007 and approved in March 2007 (available at the SLFO) concluded the following: Four Federal parcels (19-22) totaling 677.42 acres and five non-Federal parcels (33-37) totaling approximately 100.96 acres have been classified as prospectively valuable for geothermal resources. Because of the relatively low geothermal water temperatures, the potential for development or use of the resource is low. In addition, three Federal parcels (19-21) totaling 437.49 acres and five non-Federal parcels (33- 37) totaling 100.96 acres are prospectively valuable for sodium and potassium minerals. The sodium and potassium minerals associated with all eight parcels are not exposed at the surface, but are generally beneath a cover of alluvial and lacustrine sand, gravel and clay. The potential for development of sodium and potassium minerals is low and it is not likely that any of these minerals would be developed. Large deposits of sand and gravel resources associated with Lake Bonneville shorelines are found on 3,844.96 acres of the Federal lands (parcels 1-4, 20-26, and 35), and 6,076.53 acres of the non-Federal lands (parcels 2, 3, 5, 7, 11-13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 33-37). Currently there are large deposits of sand and gravel much closer to developing areas such as the Tooele Valley and to Interstate 80 than those associated with the exchange parcels.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-12 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

There is an active community pit designation covering Federal parcel 19, allowing for the issuance of over-the-counter permits to the general public for landscape rock. Material removal occurs only on the east side of State Highway 196, and does not affect the exchange parcel. All of the Federal and non-Federal parcels are considered to be prospectively valuable for oil and gas resources. Of the oil and gas rights on the non-Federal parcels the State of Utah currently owns 10,647 acres, Anschutz Corporation owns 2,960 acres, the United States owns 515 acres and the non-Federal parties own the remainder. The United States owns the oil and gas rights on the Federal parcels. Although there is potential for future exploration, there have been no discoveries or successful developments for oil and gas in the Skull Valley area. Therefore the potential for development of oil and gas resources in the exchange area is low. With the exception of Federal parcels 8, 9 and 13 where there are 1,080 acres of diatom-bearing silt carbonate (diatomaceous earth), there is no known value for other locatable or leasable minerals, including coal, oil shale or phosphates, or for industrial minerals or metallic minerals on the proposed exchange parcels. The non-Federal parties own the rights to diatomaceous earth to a depth of 150 feet on 2,079.89 acres of the non-Federal parcels. 3.3.6 Recreation Dispersed camping, hunting, target shooting, wilderness travel, and OHV use are the primary recreation activities in the proposed exchange area. Other uses could include viewing historic sites, sightseeing, photography, horseback riding, studying nature, backpacking, and hiking. Non-Federal parcel 37 (11.91 acres) on the western foothills of the Stansbury Mountains is part of the South Skull Valley Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit (CWMU) where the non- Federal parties presently offer about ten buck deer and three buck pronghorn antelope permits per year to the public through Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) drawings or purchase of permit vouchers from the land owners. Federal parcels 23-26 (1,210 acres) are contiguous with the South Skull Valley CWMU. Non-Federal parcels 33-37 (101 acres) are also on the western foot hills of the Stansbury Mountains and are included with private lands where the non-Federal parties offer deer and pronghorn hunting permits to the public. Federal parcels 1 and 19-26 (2,206 acres) are contiguous with these private hunting areas. Non-Federal parcel 28 is crossed by a segment of the Pony Express National Historic Trail from Missouri to Sacramento. The route was also used by the Overland Stage after the Pony Express ceased operation in 1869. The historic Pony Express and Overland Stage Route has been designated as a National Historic Trail and Backcountry Byway. An original Pony Express and Overland Stage Station was located at Lookout Pass on non-Federal parcel 28 (Map 9). In the late 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps built a monument at the station location. Legend has it that the wife of a later station keeper could not have children so she kept a large stable of dogs for pets. She was so attached to them that when each dog died, she would bury them in a special cemetery that was constructed with concrete walls enclosing it. The “Dog” or “Pet Cemetery” is still intact with non-Federal parcel 28 and receives many curious visitors each year. The Pony Express Trail and associated sites at Lookout Pass receive heavy visitor use. Traffic counters installed by BLM near the Lookout Pass site indicate the site receives in excess of 70,000 visitors per year. This site has a large flat grassy field that is ideal for dispersed recreation and off-highway vehicle use. Lookout Pass is especially popular for family and group camping outings, especially in the spring and late fall.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-13 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Utah Highway 196 from Interstate 80 to Iosepa follows near a portion of the historic Hastings Cutoff route of the California Trail and the original 1913 route of the Lincoln Highway, which Utah historians have recently determined followed the Hastings Cutoff in Skull Valley (Map 10). The Hastings Cutoff was an 1840s shortcut route used by California-bound overland emigrant parties from Fort Bridger, Wyoming via the Salt Lake Valley. The route was made famous in 1846 through its use by the infamous Donner Reed Party, among others. Subsequent use of the Hastings Cutoff occurred from 1849-50 during the California Gold Rush years. Most emigrant parties suffered great hardships on the Hastings Cutoff. The trail’s use was discontinued after 1850 in favor of safer and more conventional routes on the Salt Lake Cutoff or a southern route from Salt Lake that intersected the Old Spanish Trail near Parowan, Utah. The Lincoln Highway was the first transcontinental motor vehicle route established in 1913 by a group of motor vehicle industry promoters. The 1913 route of the Lincoln Highway followed the Hastings Cutoff from Salt Lake City, through Grantsville, and down Skull Valley to Dugway, Utah (Maps 10 and 11). The historic trail trace of the Hastings Cutoff crosses Federal parcels 19 through 22 (1.25 miles total). The historic trace of the 1913 Lincoln Highway, following the Hastings Cutoff, also crosses Federal parcels 19 and 20. The historic trail trace or ruts from the Hastings Cutoff/Lincoln Highway are still prominent and visible within Federal parcel 20, as confirmed by a pedestrian cultural survey conducted in 2014 and BLM cadastral survey of the trail in 2015. The section of trail trace found in parcel 20 is accessible on foot by following the trail from either the BLM Horseshoe Springs historic site approximately 1.5 miles to the north or walking cross-country from Highway 196 less than a mile to the east. Motor vehicle access to the trail in Federal parcel 20 is not permitted. Within the far northwest corner of Federal parcel 19, only 125 meters of the Hastings Cutoff are present, and the trail remnants are not readily visible on the ground or on aerial imagery. Public access from the highway to this portion of trail is problematic due to the absence of any road pullout. The size and quality of the trail trace in this area is of limited value for public use and enjoyment as part of the California NHT or Hastings Cutoff. The 1850 alignment of the Hastings Cutoff trail going from Horseshoe Springs to Delle Spring crosses over the western portion of Federal parcel 22 near a substantial wash and maintained dirt road that the project proponent and land owner leaves open for public access to BLM lands farther to the south near Salt Mountain. The erosional forces that have impacted the trail near this alluvial wash since 1850 have made location of the original trail trace problematic and inconclusive. However, the trail most likely passed within a few hundred feet to the west of the existing, publicly-accessible dirt road maintained across the parcel. The public’s experience of the Hastings Cutoff trail within Federal parcel 22 is not currently dependent on public ownership of the property due to the existence and proximity of the public road to the probable trail location. In short, the visiting public is still able to have a vicarious experience of following close to the 1850 route of the Hastings Cutoff now and into the foreseeable future by using the publicly-accessible road.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-14 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

In cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS), the BLM recently implemented a Local Tour Route of the Hastings Cutoff from Interstate 80 south along Highway 196 and then across Skull Valley and the Cedar Mountains via county-maintained roads. BLM has erected signage on the tour route for visitors to follow, and an interpretive site with signage for the Hastings Cutoff was recently constructed at Horseshoe Springs. BLM has also recently worked in cooperation with NPS, OCTA, and the Lincoln Highway Association to improve signing of the historic trace of both the Hastings Cutoff and Lincoln Highway in Skull Valley. Trail history groups like the Oregon-California Trail Association frequently use this portion of the trail for recreational tours and historic sightseeing trips. State Highway 199 to Dugway from Johnson Pass to about one and a half miles south of Terra is part of the 1919 route of the Lincoln Highway. From Highway 199, the Lincoln Highway road extends to the west to join the Highway 196 (Map 11). The 1919 route of the Lincoln Highway passes through non-Federal parcel 2 and 19 and Federal parcels 9 and 26 (Map 11). The route that passes through non-Federal parcel 2, and Federal parcels 9 and 26 is composed of a both a paved state highway and county road. A short section of the 1919 and 1913 Lincoln Highway routes passes through non-Federal parcel 19 along unmaintained dirt roads for less than 200 meters. While there are no interpretive sites or other specific points of interest along the Lincoln Highway in this area, in recent years the BLM, in cooperation with the Lincoln Highway Association, has placed white fiberglass marker posts with stickers identifying the route as part of the Lincoln Highway. The public is currently able to drive the 1913 and 1919 routes of the Lincoln Highway on existing vehicle routes through the project’s Federal and non-Federal parcels without encumbrances. No known changes to current public road access across either Federal or non-Federal parcels have been specified within the proposed action. Non-Federal parcels 30, 32, 38 and 39 are within or adjacent to the Cedar Mountain WA that offers outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation including hiking, backpacking, sightseeing, photography and hobby rock collecting (Map 7). The non-Federal parcels intermingled in the Federal lands throughout Skull Valley and Federal lands located in the vicinity of Terra also are used by the public for OHV activity, hunting and general recreation. The residents of Skull Valley view the BLM lands as part of their neighborhood and use them as a readily accessible recreational opportunity. Besides the non- Federal parties, private lands adjacent to the Federal parcels are owned by 15 different owners. The Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) designations prepared in 1992 for the Pony Express Resource Area identify the area around Terra as limited to existing roads and trails. Although OHV activity in this area is prevalent, the BLM has not identified the area as a special recreation management area because of the amount of private land. The BLM has been unable to adequately manage and enforce the restrictions in the plan for this area due to other higher priority use areas. As such, the area around Terra has been impacted by dispersed OHV use, camping, and target shooting on the Federal as well as the adjacent and intermingled private lands (Figure 3-9).

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-15 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Figure 3-9 OHV Tracks. Several of the Federal parcels are crossed by roads used by the public to access the Stansbury Mountains managed by the Wasatch-Cache-Uintah National Forest (Map 1). The USFS holds rights-of-way on two the access roads that have been authorized under authority of appropriation acts (44 L.D. 513 [1916; Instructions, 44 L.D. 359; Circular 442, August 21, 1915, and Instructions 44 L.D. 513, Circular 442, January 13, 1916). 3.3.7 Special Status Animal Species Including Migratory Birds The BLM Manual 6840 establishes policy for special status plant and animal species and the habitat on which they depend. Special status animal species include federally listed, proposed, candidate, and Bureau sensitive species. The only federally listed species that could occur in the exchange area is the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), a threatened species which requires large tracts of (100-400 acres) of contiguous riparian nesting habitat. There are no records of cuckoos in the exchange area, nor is there suitable habitat, therefore the yellow-billed cuckoo would not be affected by the exchange and will not be considered further in this EA. There are no federally endangered, proposed, or candidate species occurring in the exchange area. Sensitive species are those that require special management consideration to avoid potential listing under the Endangered Species Act. The BLM sensitive species occurring in the exchange area are listed in Table 3-3.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-16 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Table 3-3 BLM sensitive species potentially occurring in the exchange area. Common Scientific Records Habitat Comments Name* Name Part of the exchange area is within the Sheeprocks Greater Sage- Centrocercus No Yes population area, but there are no records of sage- Grouse* urophasianus grouse on any of the exchange parcels. There are no records of black swifts occurring in the exchange parcels. Nesting habitat is classified as Cypseloides mountain riparian; however, waterfalls are the key Black Swift No No niger characteristic of nesting sites. This habitat is not available on any of the exchange parcels, therefore this species will not be considered further in the EA. Long-Billed Numenius Yes Yes There are occurrences and habitat in the vicinity. Curlew* americanus There are occurrences in the vicinity, but the open American Pelecanus water habitat required by this species is not available Yes N White Pelican erythrorhynchus on the exchange parcels. Therefore this species will not be considered further in the EA. Haliaeetus There is a winter roost record from 1979 on a Bald Eagle* Yes Yes leucocephalus Federal BLM parcel. There are no records of goshawks occurring in the exchange parcels. Nesting is typically in Douglas-fir, Northern Accipiter N N pines or aspen. This habitat is not available on any of Goshawk gentilis the exchange parcels, therefore this species will not be considered further in the EA. Ferruginous There are nest records on both non-Federal and Buteo regalis Yes Yes Hawk* Federal parcels. Burrowing Athene Yes Yes There are nest records on non-Federal parcels. Owl* cunicularia Short-eared Asio flammeus Yes Yes There are occurrences in the vicinity. Owl* Lewis's Melanerpes Primarily nests in open ponderosa pine stands, but No Yes Woodpecker* lewis will use fringes of juniper stands. There are no records in the exchange area and this American species nests in sub-alpine coniferous forest habitat, Picoides Three-Toed No No which is not present on the exchange parcels. dorsalis Woodpecker Therefore this species will not be considered further in the EA. Grasshopper Ammodramus There are no records in the exchange area, but No Yes Sparrow* savannarum grassland habitat is available. There are records in the Skull Valley, but it is unclear if these are breeding records. Nesting Dolichonyx habitats include wet meadows, wet grasslands, and Bobolink Yes No oryzivorous irrigated pasture and hay fields which are not available on any of the exchange parcels, therefore this species will not be considered further in the EA. Fringed Myotis There is an occurrence in the vicinity. Roosts in Yes Yes Myotis* thysanodes caves, mines, buildings.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-17 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Common Scientific Records Habitat Comments Name* Name Euderma Spotted Bat* No Yes Roosts in cliff crevices. maculatum Townsend's Corynorhinus There are occurrences in the vicinity. Roosts in Yes Yes Big-Eared Bat* townsendii caves, mines, buildings. Kit fox dens are scattered throughout the valley, Kit Fox* Vulpes macrotis No Yes although there are no known occurrences on the exchange parcels. Brachylagus Area surveyed by UDWR in 2007 and 2010 - no sign Pygmy Rabbit* No Yes idahoensis found. Species name with an asterisk (“*”) are analyzed in this EA because there is habitat available in the exchange parcels. Greater Sage-Grouse Portions of the exchange area are within the range of the Sheeprock Mountains greater sage- grouse population. In April 2010, the USFWS determined that the greater sage-grouse warranted protection under the Endangered Species Act but was precluded at that time by higher priorities. In response to this determination, the BLM developed a landscape-level management strategy, based on the best available science that was targeted, multi-tiered, coordinated, and collaborative. The resulting plan amendment, the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015) identifies objectives and directs the BLM to implement measures to conserve, enhance, and restore sage-grouse habitat across the species’ remaining range in the Great Basin Region and to provide greater certainty that BLM decisions in greater sage-grouse habitat in the Great Basin Region will lead to conservation of the greater-sage grouse and other sagebrush-steppe associated species. Most of the objectives and management actions in the ARMPA are implemented within sage-grouse habitat areas identified as Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) or General Habitat Management Area (GHMA). There are no areas of designated PHMA or GHMA on the Federal parcels; there are 119 acres of PHMA in the non-Federal lands (Parcel 28 - Map 3). Although this parcel is within habitats broadly designated as “nesting/broodrearing” and “other”, it is located in steep terrain within juniper habitat and is probably not important habitat for sage-grouse, which are closely tied to open sagebrush habitats without trees. For lands outside of PHMA/GHMA but within USFWS Priority Areas for Conservation (PAC) (USFWS 2013) the ARMPA (MA-SSS-6) directs the BLM to evaluate impacts to sage-grouse and consider measures to mitigate impacts if the area is determined to be sage-grouse habitat. There are both non-Federal (3,044) and Federal lands (1,299 acres) within designated PAC. Designated sage-grouse habitat in the project area is summarized by habitat type (UDWR 2013) in Table 3-4. Table 3-4 Greater Sage-Grouse Designated Habitat. Designation Federal Acres Non-Federal Acres Total PAC 1,299 3,044 Nesting Brood-rearing 0 48 Winter 0 0 Opportunity 1,299 2,893

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-18 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Designation Federal Acres Non-Federal Acres Other 0 71 Total Habitat 1,299 3,012 Non-habitat 0 32 PHMA 0 119 Aside from the previously discussed non-Federal parcel 28, all of the parcels within the PAC are located within “opportunity areas” or “non-habitat.” Opportunity areas are defined as “those areas…that do not currently contribute to the life cycle of a sage-grouse but are areas where restoration or rehabilitation efforts can provide additional habitat when linked to existing sage- grouse populations” (UDWR 2013). The opportunity areas in the exchange parcels do not appear to be functioning as sage-grouse habitat. There are no records of sage-grouse occurring on the PAC exchange parcels; multiple surveys on adjacent lands on the failed to find any sage-grouse or their sign (pers. comm. J. Robinson UDWR). Sage-grouse from the Sheeprocks population fitted with VHF or GPS collars have never been located on or in the vicinity of the exchange parcels within the PAC (pers. comm.T. Messmer, USU). Although there is sagebrush in the PAC area (Table 3-5), there may not be enough continuous habitat to provide functional sage-grouse habitat. Table 3-5 Habitat by Vegetation Type in the PAC. Type/Acreage Annual Grass Sagebrush Juniper Shrub

Non-Federal 1,411 84 1,343 35

Federal 192 454 559 60

Bald Eagle The only indication of bald eagles on the parcels is a 1979 record of a winter roost near Jennings Springs on Federal parcel 32, which may be inaccurate – there appear to be no large roost trees available at the reported roost location. Bald eagles require tall trees near bodies of water for nesting, and roosting; this habitat is not available on any of the exchange parcels. Bald eagles and golden eagles (see discussion in Migratory Birds) are both protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c). Long-Billed Curlew There are numerous records of curlews in the vicinity of the exchange. Although there are no records on either Federal or non-Federal parcels, there are areas of annual grassland habitat. Ferruginous Hawk There are numerous ferruginous hawk nests in the vicinity of the exchange, including seven records on Federal parcels, and one record on a non-Federal parcel. Ferruginous hawks nest on cliffs, rocky outcrops, and in pinyon-juniper, and forage in open grassland and shrub steppe habitats.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-19 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Burrowing Owl There are numerous burrowing owl burrows in the vicinity of the exchange, including seven records on non-Federal parcels. There no burrowing owl records on Federal parcels. Habitat for this species is primarily open grasslands and steppe, particularly in association with populations of burrowing mammals. Burrowing owls will also use disturbed habitats such as ruderal fields, road rights-of-way, and agricultural fields. Short-Eared Owl There are numerous short-eared owl nest records in the vicinity of the exchange, although none are on any of the non-Federal or Federal parcels. This species is usually found in open habitats, such as grasslands and shrublands. Lewis’s Woodpecker There are no records of Lewis’s woodpeckers in the vicinity of the exchange. This species typically nests in open ponderosa pine stands, but they will use the edges of pinyon-juniper stands. Grasshopper Sparrow There are no records of grasshopper sparrows in the vicinity of the exchange. This species breeds in moderately open grasslands with some shrub cover. Fringed Myotis Although there are no records of this bat on any of the exchange parcels, there is an historic record in the vicinity. Fringed myotis roost in caves, mines, and buildings within a moderately wide range of habitats, including desert shrub, juniper-sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper. Spotted Bat There are no records of spotted bats in the project vicinity, although spotted bats forage high above ground, making their detection through mist net surveys unlikely. Spotted bats typically roost in rock crevices in high cliffs within a moderately wide range of habitats, including desert shrub and sagebrush-rabbitbrush. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Although there are no records of the Townsend’s big-eared bat on the exchange parcels, there is a record from a mine on BLM lands in the vicinity. Townsend’s big-eared bats roost in caves, mines, and buildings within several habitat types including desert shrub, pinon-juniper, and pinon-juniper-sagebrush. Kit Fox Kit fox dens are scattered throughout the vicinity of exchange area. No specific dens for kit fox have been identified on the exchange parcels. The species most often occurs in open prairie, plains, and desert habitats. Pygmy Rabbit There are no records of pygmy rabbits in the vicinity of the exchange. The UDWR surveyed the area in 2007 and 2010; no pygmy rabbit sign was found. The pygmy rabbit is a sagebrush obligate species and prefers areas with tall dense sagebrush and loose soils.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-20 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Migratory Birds The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 decreed that all migratory birds and their parts are fully protected. Under the Act, it is unlawful to take, import, export, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird. Feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, and products made from migratory birds are also covered by the Act. Take is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect”. Under the direction of Executive Order 13186 signed on January 10, 2001, Federal agencies are directed to evaluate effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on priority species. Instruction Memorandum UT 2017-007 specifies that the NEPA analysis should concentrate on priority species and habitats including sensitive species (see discussion above), Partners in Flight priority species, and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Priority migratory bird species (excluding BLM sensitive species) potentially occurring in the exchange area are listed in Table 3-6. Priority bird species that are also BLM sensitive are discussed above. Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (BHCAs) have no official status and are intended to display areas where priority birds and their habitats are located as well as where habitat conservation projects may take place. The exchange area includes two BHCAs, which combined include 8,227 acres of non-Federal parcels and 10,068 acres of Federal parcels. The Horseshoe Springs BHCA (non-Federal 74 acres, Federal 440 acres) contains the priority habitats of shrub-steppe and wetlands. The Skull Valley BHCA (non-Federal 8,153 acres, Federal 9,628 acres) contains the priority habitats of shrub-steppe and associated habitats. Table 3-6 Priority migratory bird species (excluding BLM sensitive species) potentially occurring in the exchange area and their habitat types. Common Wintering Scientific Name 1st Breeding 2nd Breeding Status Name Habitat Broad-Tailed Selasphorus Lowland Mountain Migrant UPIF Hummingbird platycercus Riparian Riparian Calliope Mountain Selasphorus calliope Mountain Shrub Migrant BCC Hummingbird Riparian Black-Necked Himantopus Wetland Playa Migrant UPIF Stilt mexicanus American Recurvirostra Wetland Playa Migrant UPIF Avocet americana High Desert BCC, Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Cliff High Desert Scrub Scrub BGEPA Willow Lowland Mountain Empidonax traillii Migrant BCC Flycatcher Riparian Riparian Loggerhead High Desert Lanius ludovicianus Pinyon-Juniper High Desert Scrub BCC Shrike Scrub Gymnorhinus Pinyon- Pinyon Jay Ponderosa Pine Pinyon-Juniper BCC cyanocephalus Juniper Oreoscoptes High Desert Sage Thrasher Shrubsteppe Migrant BCC montanus Shrub

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-21 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Common Wintering Scientific Name 1st Breeding 2nd Breeding Status Name Habitat Virginia's Oreothlypis Northern Oak Pinyon-Juniper Migrant BCC, UPIF Warbler virginiae Black-Throated Setophaga Pinyon- Mountain Shrub Migrant UPIF Gray Warbler nigrescens Juniper Green-Tailed Mountain High Desert Pipilo chlorurus Migrant BCC Towhee Shrub Scrub Brewer's High Desert Spizella breweri Shrubsteppe Migrant BCC, UPIF Sparrow Scrub Sagebrush Artemisiospiza High Desert Shrubsteppe Low Desert Shrub BCC, UPIF Sparrow nevadensis Shrub UPIF = Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0 (Parrish et al., 2002) BCC = Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (USFWS, 2008) SENS = Utah BLM sensitive species BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) 3.3.8 Special Status Plants (Pohl’s Milkvetch) The only special status plant species that occurs on any of the proposed exchange parcels is the Pohl’s milkvetch. As a species, Pohl’s milkvetch is common in the Intermountain West with 10 varieties in Utah. However, the “pohlii variety” of Pohl’s milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. pohlii) is a BLM Sensitive Plant Species that occurs only in the southeastern portion of Skull Valley and the Southwestern portion of . The Utah Native Plant Society has identified Pohl’s milkvetch as one of the 31 plant species in Utah considered as extremely high priorities for conservation attention (Utah Native Plant Society 2009). Populations are reported to be declining because of OHV use and invasive species. In Skull Valley these plants are found growing in among black greasewood and Wyoming big sagebrush plants where weeds are lacking and the soils have higher concentrations of sodium. A survey conducted in 1994 located three population areas of Pohl’s milkvetch in the vicinity of three Federal parcels (18, 27 and 31). All of these parcels provide habitat for Pohl’s milkvetch, however, a resurvey conducted in May 2010 shows that populations now occur only on Federal parcels 27 and 31. The decline in occurrence of the plants is likely due to fires and invasion by cheatgrass, halogeton, summer cypress milkvetch, Russian thistle and other weeds. For this reason, parcels 27 and 31 were eliminated from the final version of the exchange. 3.3.9 Water Rights Water is scarce and unevenly distributed in exchange area. Most surface flow and groundwater recharge result from winter precipitation in the area’s mountain ranges. Summer thunderstorms can produce intense rainfall of short duration, but little precipitation escapes rapid evapo- transpiration in the dry desert climate. Within Skull Valley’s total area, the surface water and groundwater are estimated to be of good quality on mountain flanks and foothills, but are often hard and/or brackish on valley floors. BLM has identified 122 springs, 109 reservoirs, 54 wells and 9 perennial streams on public land in Tooele County. Fifty-eight springs have suitable flow and location to be used by livestock. Most of the 109 reservoirs are small entrapments constructed on intermittent stream drainages and are dry most of each year. Ten wells are abandoned and another 15 lack development for

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-22 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

livestock or wildlife watering; the remaining 29 wells serve livestock and wildlife. The nine perennial streams are small. All of the water sources on the exchange parcels are springs or wells. No perennial streams cross any of the exchange parcels (Map 2). Water right (#16-10) at Slater Springs is on non-Federal parcel 6 (Map 2). This spring is a valuable watering source for the wild horse herds, wildlife such as mule deer, pronghorn, upland game birds, and Rocky Mountain elk. Besides water right #16-10, there are 10 other water rights on the non-Federal lands. One is held by a private party not involved in the exchange (water right #16-800 held by Clean Harbors), two are held by the United States (water rights #16-162 and #16-775), and the remaining seven are held or controlled by the non-Federal parties. The water sources associated with the seven water rights are distributed on seven of the proposed exchange parcels as shown on Map 2. Several of the wells associated with these water rights are historic and not presently being used for irrigation or livestock and wildlife. There are no water rights associated with the Federal lands, except for one held by a third party on Parcel 13 (WR #16-738) - Andrus that existed prior to acquisition of the parcel by the United States. The water right has not been in use for many years, but still appears on the State Water Engineer’s records. 3.3.10 Wildlife Excluding Special Status Species The proposed exchange parcels provide habitat for a variety of common wildlife species including lizards, snakes, bats, cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus spp), black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), mountain lion (Puma concolor), small mammals, and big game. Big game species include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), California bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana). Big game habitats on the Federal and non-Federal lands as classified by the UDWR are shown on Maps 4 through 6 and detailed in Table 3-7. Table 3-7 Big Game Habitats.

Habitat Type Federal Acres Non-Federal Acres

Mule Deer Total Habitat 859 2678 Mule Deer Substantial Winter 512 61 Mule Deer Crucial Winter 0 325 Mule Deer Crucial Yearlong 0 749 Mule Deer Crucial Winter/Spring 346 1394 Mule Deer Crucial Spring/Fall 0 150 Pronghorn Crucial Yearlong 9980 9445 Rocky Mountain Elk Total Habitat 2014 0 Elk Crucial Winter/Spring 1988 0 Elk Substantial Spring/Fall 26 0 California Bighorn Substantial Yearlong 30 0

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-23 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Mule deer range (as classified by UDWR) is found on 859 acres of Federal parcels and 2,678 acres of non-Federal parcels. Specifically, there are 512 acres of substantial winter habitat and 346 acres of crucial winter/spring habitat on the non-Federal parcels; on Federal parcels there 61 acres of substantial winter habitat, 325 acres of crucial winter habitat, 749 acres of crucial yearlong habitat, 1,394 acres of crucial winter/spring habitat, and 150 acres of crucial spring/fall habitat. There are 9,980 acres of the Federal lands and 9,445 acres of non-Federal lands classified by the UDWR as crucial pronghorn yearlong range. Important use areas are clustered around water sources. There are 2,014 acres of elk habitat on the Federal parcels, including 1,988 acres of crucial winter/spring and 26 acres of substantial spring/fall habitats. There is no designated elk habitat on the non-Federal parcels. There are 30 acres of substantial yearlong California bighorn sheep habitat in Federal parcel #1; there is no bighorn habitat in the non-Federal parcels. 3.3.11 Wilderness and Wilderness Characteristics Approximately 587 acres in four of the non-Federal parcels (30, 32 and 38, and 39) are within the boundaries of the 100,000-acre Cedar Mountain WA designated by Congress on January 6, 2006 under Section 384 of PL 109-163 (Map 7). These parcels provide important access for the recreating public (e.g., hunters) and contain important wilderness values of natural appearing landscape and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. The BLM’s primary wilderness management goal is to manage and protect WAs in such a manner as to leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Wilderness areas are devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historical use. As part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Cedar Mountain WA is managed under BLM’s Management of Designated Wilderness Areas (BLM Manual 6340). The following activities are prohibited inside the Cedar Mountain WA: • Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or other forms of mechanical transport • Operation of a commercial enterprise without a permit from BLM • Commercial or organized competitive activities and events • Landing of aircraft • Building of structures • Cutting of trees and other vegetation Private land adjacent to and within the wilderness is currently used for trespass OHV use and other forms of recreation that are incompatible with management for protection of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. Section 201 of FLPMA requires the BLM to maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values, which includes wilderness characteristics. Section 603 of the FLPMA required the BLM to inventory the public lands, identify wilderness characteristics, and make recommendations for designation of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) to Congress by 1991. The BLM completed an initial inventory of wilderness character in 1979,

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-24 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

determining that some public lands did not possess wilderness character and that others would need further intensive inventory for wilderness values. Intensive wilderness inventories were conducted in 1979-80. BLM in Utah identified all current WSAs in 1980. The BLM concluded its Section 603 wilderness review in 1991 and completed a re-inventory for lands possessing wilderness character in 1999. WSAs were designated through the 1991 decision, and Wilderness Inventory Areas were identified in the 1999 process. The BLM Manual 6310 lays out policy and requirements for continuous inventorying public lands for potential wilderness character. To qualify as an area possessing wilderness character, the land must be a roadless area of at least 5,000 acres (2,000 ha) (or be of "manageable size"), possess naturalness or be generally unaffected by human development, provide outstanding opportunities for either solitude and/or primitive and unconfined recreation, and may have supplemental values such as special ecological, geological, educational, historical, scientific and/or scenic values. All Federal parcels in the proposed action were inventoried and determined by BLM in 1979 as not possessing wilderness character. In accordance with BLM Manual 6310, the BLM interdisciplinary team has determined that none of the Federal parcels identified in the proposed action fall within a roadless area of 5,000 acres or more, nor are they contiguous to an adjacent wilderness area, WSA, or USFS roadless area. With exception of non-Federal parcels 30, 32, 38, and 39 previously mentioned, no non-Federal parcels occur within an area currently identified as possessing wilderness character. For non-WSA lands that possess wilderness characteristics, BLM analyzes the impacts of future proposals on wilderness characteristics and weighs wilderness resource values along with the other resource of a proposed action as decisions are made. 3.3.12 Wild Horse Herd Areas and Herd Management Areas As denoted in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, the exchange area includes parcels that are within the boundaries for the Cedar Mountain and Onaqui Mountain HAs or HMAs in Tooele County, Utah. The BLM manages these two herds as defined in the DR, issued on 2/19/2003, prepared for the Wild Horse Appropriate Management Level and Herd Management Area/Herd Boundary EA (EA UT 020-2002-0100). The HAs and HMAs were established by this plan amendment and are illustrated on Map 8. The exchange area parcels support yearlong range for horses within both herds. The horses do not naturally migrate between the herds and are generally separated by the intersection of Highways 196 and 199. Additional information regarding the herd’s boundaries (HA/HMA), migration, historic use, and other resources affected by wild horses is incorporated by reference from EA UT 020-2002-0100. As shown in Table 3-8, approximately 9,530.71 acres of the non-Federal lands are yearlong range for horses in the Cedar Mountain [4,045.62 acres/9 parcels (24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 38 & 39)] and Onaqui Mountain [7646.46 acres/20 parcels (1, 3-17, 22, 23, 27 & 28.)]. Slater Springs, on non-Federal parcel 6, is an important source of water within the Onaqui HMA. Table 3-8 Non-Federal Land Acreages within HAs/HMAs. Herd Herd Area Acreage Herd Management Area Acreage Onaqui Mountain 5,525.94 5,492.20 Cedar Mountain 4,721.36 4,038.51 Totals 10,247.30 9,530.71

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-25 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 3.0 Affected Environment

Similarly, Table 3-9 shows approximately 2520.00 acres (6 parcels (11, 12, 16, and 17 and portions of 14 and 15) of the Federal lands. Federal land parcels were not identified for the Cedar Mountain HA/HMA. Table 3-9 Federal Land Acreages within HAs/HMAs. Herd Herd Area Acreage Herd Management Area Acreage Onaqui Mountain 2,520.00 2,520.00

Cedar Mountain 0.00 0.00

Totals 2,520.00 2,520.00

The Federal parcels are in an area (near Terra, Utah) that is not used routinely by the Onaqui wild horses as it is outside their preferred range.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 3-26 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

4.0—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the potential environmental impacts which would be expected with implementation of the Proposed Action and/or the No Action Alternative. These include the direct impacts (which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place), indirect impacts (which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance) and cumulative impacts (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). 4.2 GENERAL ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND GUIDELINES As modified by the amended ATI (2016), for the proposed action it is assumed that it would be implemented as described in Chapter 2 and that all of proposed parcels would be exchanged. Once land is transferred to non-Federal ownership, it could be available for a variety of uses allowable under State and local law, although the non-Federal parties or other land owners in Skull Valley have not identified any specific plans for projects or large scale changes in land use. The NEPA requires that Federal agencies analyze the reasonably foreseeable impacts of reasonably foreseeable actions (40 CFR 1502.22). The following assumptions are made as reasonably foreseeable actions for analysis if the proposed exchange is approved: • Current use of both the non-Federal and Federal parcels for livestock grazing would continue. • Current wild horse HAs/HMAs and AML decisions would continue. • The non-Federal parties would obtain ownership of the Federal parcels. • Valid existing rights on the proposed exchange parcels must be recognized and Tooele County and/or BLM would continue to maintain roads as in the past. Even though future oil and gas exploration and development could potentially occur on the 11,586.32 acres of non-Federal lands in the exchange where the oil and gas minerals would not be acquired by the United States, it is assumed that there would be no future oil and gas development on the proposed exchange parcels because the potential for development is low and there is no history of exploration or discovery. The community pit designation for a landscape rock site on Federal parcel 19 has been amended by the BLM to eliminate the portion west of the highway. Public use of the pit would continue as at present east of the highway. With the possible exception of continued intermittent mining of diatomaceous earth on Parcel 9, the most likely mineral to be developed is sand and gravel, and the non-Federal parties would be transferring this resource to the United States on 93 percent of the non-Federal lands in the exchange. Therefore, it is assumed that there would be no expansion of mining on any of the exchange parcels. In summary, it is assumed that no major activities including oil and gas development, mining, or commercial subdivision of private land would occur.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-1 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

4.3 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. The short-term is within two years following the exchange of ownership. The long- term would from two to 10 years. 4.3.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action 4.3.1.1 Cultural Resources The Federal lands are known to possess 26 sites eligible for listing on the NRHP ranging from prehistoric camp sites to historic roads. When lands are exchanged out of Federal ownership, private surface resources like cultural resources lose the protection afforded by Federal laws. Therefore, transfer of public historic properties to private ownership is an undertaking that results in an adverse effect [36 CFR 800.9(b)(5)]. Additional information is contained in section 5.3.1. In 2012, the BLM determined cooperatively with the SHPO and other Consulting Parties that existing cultural resource inventories of the Federal parcels were inadequate to make informed decisions about disposing of these parcels in an exchange. It was further determined that a Class III inventory of the entire 14,000 acres of Federal parcels would be prohibitively expensive so the non-Federal parties hired a consultant from Utah State University to develop a less extensive survey plan that would satisfy the parties involved. After much collaboration between the parties involved including the SHPO, a modified random sample survey was approved. Cultural surveys were conducted according to the approved design in 2013. Based upon these surveys a PA and HPTP were drafted and distributed for review. The BLM, Utah SHPO, and ACHP, signed the PA and associated HPTP in February 2016. Twenty-six historic properties were identified during the 2012 survey. Required mitigation could include such actions as photo documentation, archaeological site testing, and data recovery. Each site has been evaluated individually to determine appropriate mitigation including estimated costs for completing the necessary mitigation. Based upon the estimated costs of the planned mitigation, the non-Federal parties decided to drop portions of Federal parcels 1, 2, 12, 17, 24, 25, and 35 further reducing the acres of Federal land by 1,159 acres. Required mitigation would be completed according to the HPTP on any of the affected Federal parcels (2016 ATI). Any cultural resources on the non-Federal parcels would receive protection under Federal cultural resource laws. A Class III cultural inventory has not been done for the non-Federal parcels. Including the historic roads or trails, there is the potential for the occurrence of important cultural sites on the non-Federal lands in the exchange. Under the proposed action, an important segment of the Pony Express National Historic Trail and a monument and small segments of the Hasting’s Cutoff of the California National Historic Trail would receive the protection of Federal law. As mitigation for potential loss of public access within Federal parcel 20, the project proponent has agreed, in discussions with the Consulting Parties that the United States would reserve for itself within the land exchange conveyance document a perpetual non-exclusive right-of-way for public access of 220 foot width centered on the historic trace of the Hastings Cutoff.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-2 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

Because there are no reasonably foreseeable future ground disturbing actions, recreation access and livestock use, including wild horses would continue as at present, direct and indirect impacts on cultural resources on either the Federal or non-Federal lands would be minimal. 4.3.1.2 Fire and Fuels Management The overall change would be a reduction of 1,016.95 acres of BLM [12,603.27 (Federal parcels) minus 11,586.32 (non-Federal parcels)]. Acquisition of the scattered non-Federal parcels, which several are completely surrounded by Federal lands, would simplify the BLM’s fire suppression and prevention efforts, including in the Wilderness Area. This could assist in protecting or improving the salt desert shrub vegetative communities in this part of the Great Basin. Fire prevention efforts could incorporate management of the acquired parcels consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fire Management Plan. Disposal of the Federal lands located around the small community of Terra would reduce the BLM’s costs associated with fuel reduction projects designed to protect the community. Fuel breaks created by BLM at Round Canyon and near Terra would no longer be managed by BLM. However, because of the need to protect Federal lands north and east of Terra, BLM would still be involved in fire suppression under agreement with the private land owners including the non- Federal parties. The non-federal parties would become responsible for any fuel reduction projects on their newly acquired lands but fire frequency and severity would not increase until fuel loads increase on existing fuel brakes (20 + years) because fuel loads have been reduced by existing vegetation treatments. 4.3.1.3 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds The overall change would be a reduction of 1,016.95 acres of BLM [12,603.27 (Federal parcels) minus 11,586.32 (non-Federal parcels)]. Costs to the BLM would be reduced overall because there would be fewer acres needing survey for annual weed control and applications. However, BLM would acquire some parcels of land that are currently invaded by knapweeds and would have to take measures to eliminate or reduce the spread of knapweeds. Because this area is already part of a knapweed demonstration area and CWMA, BLM and Tooele County and other partners cooperate in weed management and control. It is anticipated that there would be only minimal increases in weed control costs for BLM and that spread of knapweed on the lands acquired by BLM would be controlled. 4.3.1.4 Livestock Grazing The overall change would be a reduction of 1,016.95 acres of BLM [12,603.27 (Federal parcels) minus 11,586.32 (non-Federal parcels)]. The proposed land exchange would have minimal impact on the number of public land AUMs allocated by BLM on the allotments within the exchange area. The principle entities which hold permits on these allotments are the non-Federal parties to the land exchange. Table 4-1 includes the proposed changes to the Federal allocations for the allotments listed above in Chapter 3.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-3 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

Table 4-1. Changes to BLM Grazing Ownership and Allocations Change in Federal Change in Federal Permit Allotment Current AUMs Acres AUMs 4302018 Skull Valley 14,335 +2,098 +114

4300329 South Skull Valley 8,824 -1,687 -168

4300329 South Skull Valley 367 0 0 4302018 Salt Mountain 782 -1,239 -64 4302006 Salt Mountain 68 0 0 4300329 Lost Creek 179 -1,386 -70 4300329 Onaqui Mtn. West 1,147 +1,696 +89 4300690 (lease) Riverbed 666 0 0 Pony Express Trail 0 +118 0 Net Change 0 -2498 -213

There would be no negative impacts associated with forage availability or to permit holders. The number of permitted livestock and the seasons of use would not change as a result of the proposed exchange. General agreement has been reached with the non-Federal parties on the proposed changes in their grazing permits. Although BLM would acquire water rights at Slater Springs on the Onaqui Mountain West Allotment, water would still be made available to permitted livestock. All other water sources and range improvements on the affected allotments are owned by the non-Federal parties and use of the improvements would continue as at present. 4.3.1.5 Mineral Resources Assuming that the 2,079.89 acres of diatomaceous earth on the non-Federal parcels cannot be considered a locatable mineral, BLM would acquire only 176 acres of locatable mineral ownership in the exchange. The non-Federal parties would acquire all of the Federal mineral ownership on the Federal lands including 1,080 acres of diatomaceous earth. All of the non- Federal lands except for the 583 acres within the Cedar Mountain WA would be opened to mineral entry 90 days of the completion of the exchange. Of approximately 121 acres of non-Federal land prospectively valuable for geothermal, potassium, and sodium, the United States would acquire the mineral interests on approximately 101 acres (the United States already owns the minerals on the remaining 20 acres). The net loss of prospectively valuable minerals would be approximately 577 acres for geothermal and approximately 337 acres for sodium and potassium. The sodium and potassium minerals are not exposed at the surface, but are generally beneath a cover of alluvial and lacustrine sand, gravel and clay. It is not likely that any development of sodium and potassium minerals would occur with or without the exchange. Development of the geothermal resources also would be unlikely to occur because of the relatively low water temperatures.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-4 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

Therefore, even though there would be a net loss of acreage with prospectively valuable geothermal, sodium or potassium there would not be an actual loss of production or development. The exchange would result in the net loss of 12,603.27 acres of Federal land considered prospectively valuable for oil and gas. Since there have been no discoveries or production of oil and gas in the past, the potential for development is considered low. Therefore, even though there would be a loss of acreage with some potential for oil and gas, the United States would likely not lose any producible oil or gas. The non-Federal parties would transfer 2,079.89 acres of diatomaceous earth to BLM but would acquire ownership of about 1,080 acres including a 5-acre pit that has been mined in the past. Over all, BLM would gain about 1,880 acres of diatomaceous earth. These lands would be available for mineral entry or mineral material sale depending on intended use under the terms of the Pony Express RMP, but the value of the diatomaceous earth deposits on the lands acquired by BLM has not been demonstrated. Large deposits of sand and gravel resources associated with Lake Bonneville shorelines are found on 3,844.97 acres of the Federal lands (parcels 1-4, 20-26, and 35), and 6,076.53 acres of the non-Federal lands (parcels 2, 3, 5, 7, 11-13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 33-37). This would result in a net BLM gain of 2,231.56 acres with sand and gravel resources. Whether or not these resources would ever be developed depends on market driven factors. Because the amount of sand and gravel resources in the area is so vast on both the Federal and non-Federal lands in Skull Valley, only those resources closest to existing transportation routes would even be considered for development in the foreseeable future. Currently there are large deposits of sand and gravel much closer to developing areas such as the Tooele Valley and to Interstate 80 than those associated with the exchange parcels. Therefore, availability of sand and gravel for economic return to the Federal government or private land owners from excavation or use of sand and gravel is not anticipated. With the possible exception of the intermittent mining of diatomaceous earth on Parcel 9, the most likely mineral to be developed is sand and gravel, and the non-Federal parties would be transferring this resource to the United States on 93 percent of the non-Federal lands in the exchange. Sand and gravel would be made available for sale under the terms of the Pony Express RMP. 4.3.1.6 Recreation Dispersed camping, hunting, target shooting, and off-road vehicle use are the primary recreation activities in the proposed exchange area. By acquiring the non-Federal parcels, BLM would consolidate public land holdings in the project area and improve its ability to provide more effective management of recreational activities, public access, visitor services, law enforcement, and mitigation of associated resource impacts within these lands. Non-Federal parcel 37 (11.91 acres) on the western foothills of the Stansbury Mountains is part of the South Skull Valley CWMU where private land owners presently offer about 10 buck deer and three buck pronghorn antelope permits per year to the public through UDWR drawings or purchase of permit vouchers from the land owners. Federal parcels 23-26 (1,210 acres) are contiguous with the South Skull Valley CWMU. Non-Federal parcels 33-37 (142.82 acres) are also on the western foot hills of the Stansbury Mountains and are included with private lands where the private land owners offer deer and pronghorn hunting permits to the public. Federal

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-5 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

parcels 1 and 19-26 (2,815.81 acres) are contiguous with these private hunting areas. The proposed exchange would make about 1,360 acres of additional private lands available for incorporation into the South Skull Valley CWMU and would make 1,555.81 additional acres of private lands available for incorporation into a CWMU. These lands would be unavailable to the general public for general season hunting but would still be available via the CWMU permit process for public hunting opportunities. The BLM would acquire non-Federal parcels 33-37 (142.82 acres) and lands in other areas such as non-Federal parcels 1-31. Overall, BLM would acquire 3,500 acres near the Onaqui and Cedar Mountains that would become available to the public for an abundance of recreational opportunities such as dispersed camping, hiking, backpacking, hunting, shooting, OHV use on existing routes, wildlife viewing and photography. The Pony Express NHT Lookout Pass Station site, monument, and Dog/Pet Cemetery on non- Federal parcel 28 would come under BLM management and Federal protection under the National Trail System Act (NTSA) and NHPA. Lookout Pass is a specific historic point of interest recreation destination on the Pony Express NHT that is heavily utilized by the public and would offer tremendous opportunities to enhance public awareness and appreciation for Pony Express NHT resources. The BLM would have more control over use and preservation of the NHT and recreation resources in support of the NTSA and NHPA. If parcel 28 is acquired, the BLM could improve overall recreational management, visitor opportunities, and service delivery to the public, such as camping facilities, sanitation, public safety, signing, and NHT resource interpretation. Federal parcels 19, 20, and 22 would come under private ownership. In the absence of mitigation measures, the public would no longer have access for viewing the historic trail traces of the Hastings Cutoff of the California NHT or Lincoln Highway within these parcels. As mitigation for potential loss of public access within Federal parcel 20, the project proponent has agreed, in discussions with the Consulting Parties that the United States would reserve for itself within the land exchange conveyance document a perpetual non-exclusive right-of-way for public access of 220 foot width centered on the historic trace of the Hastings Cutoff. The trail right-of-way for non-motorized traffic would not be developed or fenced. BLM would maintain signage within the right-of-way indicating the location of the trail. The right-of-way would be reserved for public use and access to the trail resources from the BLM’s Horseshoe Springs recreation site. In accordance with guidance found in BLM Manual 6280, page 5-10, the BLM would be able, via the land conveyance right-of-way, to preserve cultural resources, public access, use, and enjoyment of the segment of the Hastings Cutoff found in parcel 20 in order to continue to carry out the purposes of the NTSA and NHPA. The trail right-of-way would be documented and recorded in both the DR for this document and the subsequent land conveyance documents. Relative to trail resources to be found in Federal parcels 19 and 22, access limitations and environmental factors such as erosion over time have limited the value of trail resources and visitor experiences available in these parcels. In parcel 19, there is only 125 meters of potential trail that is not easily discernible to visitors. The lack of a vehicle pullout adjacent to the busy State Highway 196 makes visitor enjoyment of the trail in this location problematic and potentially unsafe. Within Federal parcel 22, the historic trace of the 1850 route of the Hastings Cutoff has been heavily impacted and mostly obscured by years of erosion. Visitor access to parcel 22 is along a maintained dirt road that is open for public travel across the non-Federal parties’ property. The current road passes within a few hundred feet of the presumed location of

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-6 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

the Hastings Cutoff within parcel 22, offering visitors a closely equivalent experience of the historic setting and viewshed compared to actually standing on the trail trace. Regardless of the quality of visitor experiences and enjoyment of the trail in Federal parcels 19 and 22, the non- Federal parties have communicated to the Consulting Parties a firm willingness to engage in agreements for as-needed public access to trail resources. The non-Federal parties have an extensive history of good cooperative engagement with the BLM and OCTA for public access on their property. Therefore, given these circumstances, the BLM is confident that allowing Federal parcels 19 and 22 to leave Federal jurisdiction would not have an adverse effect on the NHT resources, values, and visitor experiences. In accordance with current NHT management policy, the BLM has made a determination that reserving a trail right-of-way within parcels 19 and 22 would be difficult to accurately assess and not necessary to carry out the purposes of the NTSA. The BLM’s acquisition of non-Federal parcels 30, 32, 38 and 39 within or adjacent to the Cedar Mountains Wilderness would make it possible for the BLM to ensure public enjoyment and preservation of these resources in accordance with the Wilderness Act and BLM Manual 6340 – Managing Designated Wilderness Areas. The BLM would be able to manage these parcels specifically to allow public visitation and preserve wilderness characteristics such as outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation including hiking, backpacking, sightseeing, photography and hobby rock collecting. The Federal parcels and intermingled non-Federal parcels in the vicinity of Terra that are presently used by the public for OHV activity, hunting, target shooting, horseback riding and general recreation would no longer be accessible by the public. The residents of Skull Valley who use these lands as a readily accessible recreational opportunity would have to shift their use to other public lands. Generally, they would have to travel only an additional 1-2 miles to access other available public lands. Due to an abundance of recreational opportunities on adjacent public lands and the acquisition of the non-Federal parcels, the BLM has determined that loss of public access to the remaining Federal parcels in the land exchange would not have a substantial impact on overall recreational resources, opportunities, or experiences within the Skull Valley area. With additional fencing, the private lands could be distinguished from the Federal lands and it would be easier for both the BLM and the non-Federal parties to control use and enforce restrictions to protect other resources and uses. Several of the Federal parcels are crossed by roads used by the public to access the Stansbury Mountains managed by the Wasatch/Cache National Forest. Because the public would still be able to use these roads, recreation use on the Forest would not be affected. Public use and access to the Lincoln Highway would not be affected because the road would still be available to the public and there are no interpretive sites or other specific points of interest along the Lincoln Highway in the exchange parcels. There are no reasonably foreseeable actions in the Skull Valley area that would change the setting of the Lincoln Highway. 4.3.1.7 Special Status Animal Species including Migratory Birds It is difficult to predict the effects of the exchange to wildlife because the future management of the Federal parcels that would become private is unknown. Therefore this analysis focusses on changes in Federal ownership of known occurrence sites and/or habitat types. Table 4-2 below summarizes the changes in the most commonly occurring habitat types.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-7 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

Table 4-2 Summary of Changes in the Area of Common Habitat Types Type/Acreage Annual Grass Sagebrush Juniper Shrub Non-Federal 6,199 1,082 1,661 2,155 Federal 3,921 2,741 1,725 3,737 Difference 2,278 -1,659 -64 -1,582 Annual grassland habitat on BLM lands would increase by 2,278 acres. The amounts of sagebush (-1,659 acres), juniper (-64 acres), and shrub (-1,582 acres) habitats would decrease on BLM lands. The MBTA and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act protect migratory birds and bald and golden eagles, respectively, regardless of ownership. Greater Sage-Grouse The proposed exchange would result in an increase of designated habitats on public lands within the Sheeprocks PAC. Table 4-3 summarizes the changes in designated sage-grouse habitat in the PAC. Table 4-3 Greater Sage-Grouse Designated Habitat Changes. Nesting Habitat Total Oppor- Total Non- Brood- Winter Other PHMA Designation PAC tunity Habitat Habitat Rearing Federal Acres 1,299 0 0 1,299 0 1,299 0 0 Non-Federal 3,044 48 0 2,893 71 3,012 32 119 Acres Difference 1,745 48 0 1,594 71 1,713 32 119 There would also be changes in habitat by vegetation type within the PAC, as summarized in Table4-4. Table 4-4 Changes in Habitat by Vegetation Type in the PAC. Type/Acreage Annual Grass Sagebrush Juniper Shrub Non-Federal 1,411 84 1,343 35 Federal 192 454 559 60 Difference 1,219 -370 784 -25 Bald Eagle Aside from the questionable winter roost record from 1979, there is no substantial bald eagle habitat on the exchange parcels. This winter roost site would move into private ownership. Long-Billed Curlew Annual grass habitat for this species would increase on BLM lands.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-8 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

Ferruginous Hawk Of the known nest locations, six would become private and one would become Federal. Ferruginous forage in open sagebrush, shrub and grassland habitats, so the amount of foraging habitat in Federal ownership overall would be relatively unchanged. However, much of the grassland habitats being acquired by the BLM are predominated by non-native annuals, which provides lower quality foraging habitat. Burrowing Owl Seven known burrow sites would become Federal; there are no known sites that would become private. The presence of the burrow sites indicates availability of suitable habitat, suggesting that available habitat would increase on BLM lands. Short-Eared Owl None of the numerous short-eared owl nest records in the vicinity of the exchange are on any of the non-Federal or Federal parcels. Potential nesting habitat (tall grass, open shrub) on Federal lands would decrease as shrub and sagebrush habitats with taller native perennial grasses are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal. Lewis’s Woodpecker There are no records of Lewis’s woodpeckers in the vicinity of the exchange. There would be a small loss of potential juniper habitat from Federal lands. Grasshopper Sparrow There are no records of grasshopper sparrows in the vicinity of the exchange. Habitat for this species on Federal lands would be reduced as shrub and sagebrush habitats with taller native perennial grasses are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal. Fringed Myotis Survey records suggest that this species occurs in low numbers in the exchange vicinity. Roosting habitat (caves, mines, buildings) is not available in the exchange parcels. Foraging habitat for this species on Federal lands would be reduced as shrub and sagebrush habitats are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal. Spotted Bat Roosting habitat (tall cliff crevices) is not available in the exchange parcels. Foraging habitat for this species on Federal lands would be reduced as shrub and sagebrush habitats are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Roosting habitat (caves, mines, buildings) is not available in the exchange parcels. Foraging habitat for this species on Federal lands would be reduced as shrub and sagebrush habitats are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-9 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

Kit Fox Kit fox dens are scattered throughout the vicinity of exchange area. No specific dens for kit fox have been identified on the exchange parcels. The species most often occurs in open sagebrush, shrub and grassland habitats, so the amount of habitat in Federal ownership overall would be relatively unchanged. However, much of the grassland habitats being acquired by the BLM are predominated by non-native annuals, which provides lower quality habitat. Pygmy Rabbit Potential habitat for pygmy rabbits on Federal lands would be reduced as parcels predominated by sagebrush are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal. Migratory Birds A total of 1,841 fewer acres of BHCA would be on Federal lands: 366 fewer acres in the Skull Valley BHCA and 1,475 fewer acres in the Horseshoe Springs BHCA. Broad-Tailed Hummingbird, Calliope Hummingbird, and Willow Flycatcher: These species are associated with riparian habitat types, very little of which occurs in the exchange parcels, although there is a small area (<3 acres) in non-Federal parcel 6 that would become public. Black-Necked Stilt and American Avocet: There is very little habitat for these species in the exchange parcels; there are about 20 acres of playa habitat in Federal parcel 20 that would become private. Golden Eagle: There is one golden eagle nest on Federal land that would become private. Foraging habitat for this species on Federal lands would be reduced as shrub and sagebrush habitats are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal. Loggerhead Shrike, Green-Tailed Towhee: Habitat for these species, associated with high desert scrub habitats, would diminish on Federal lands as shrub habitats are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal. Pinyon Jay, Virginia’s Warbler, and Black-Throated Gray Warbler: The total acreage of juniper habitat on Federal lands would change very little. Sage Thrasher, Brewer’s Sparrow, and Sagebrush Sparrow: There would be a substantial loss of sagebrush habitat for these species on Federal lands as sagebrush habitats are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal. 4.3.1.8 Special Status Plants (Pohl’s Milkvetch) Two parcels (27 and 31) that contain habitat for Pohl’s milkvetch previously selected by the non- Federal parties have been dropped from the list of Federal parcels. The USFWS recommended that the BLM consider retaining lands that contain occupied and suitable habitats for Pohl’s milkvetch or until analysis is completed to show the areas proposed for exchange are not needed for the long term viability of the species. The BLM and the non-Federal parties agreed it would be best to eliminate those parcels from the exchange proposal to continue protection of this plant. Coordination efforts between the BLM and USFWS are detailed in Table 5-1 (Section 5.2).

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-10 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

4.3.1.9 Water Rights The exchange would result in the acquisition of a water right (#16-10) at Slater Springs. This spring is a valuable watering source for the wild horse herds, wildlife such as mule deer, pronghorn, upland game birds, and Rocky Mountain elk. Besides water right #16-10, there would be no change in ownership or impacts on the use of the 10 other water rights on the non- Federal lands. One is held by a private party not involved in the exchange (water right #16-800 held by Clean Harbors), two are held by the United States (water rights #16-162 and #16-775), and the remaining seven are held or controlled by the non-Federal parties and would be retained by them. However, the BLM would be acquiring land without ownership of water to meet multiple use purposes. There are no water rights associated with the Federal lands, except for one held by a third party on Parcel 13 (#16-738) that existed prior to acquisition of the parcel by the United States. The water right has not been in use for many years, but still appears on the State Water Engineer’s records. The non-Federal parties would be made aware of the water right and may choose to pursue abandonment proceedings. 4.3.1.10 Wildlife Excluding Special Status Species Changes in the amount of big game habitat on the Federal and non-Federal lands as classified by the UDWR are shown on Maps 4 through 6 and detailed in Table 4-5. Table 4-5 Big Game Habitats. Non-Federal Habitat Type Federal Acres Difference Acres Mule Deer Total Habitat 859 2,678 1,819 Mule Deer Substantial Winter 512 61 -451 Mule Deer Crucial Winter 0 325 325 Mule Deer Crucial Yearlong 0 749 749 Mule Deer Crucial Winter/Spring 346 1,394 1,047 Mule Deer Crucial Spring/Fall 0 150 150 Pronghorn Crucial Yearlong 9,980 9,445 -535 Rocky Mountain Elk Total Habitat 2,014 0 -2,014 Elk Crucial Winter/Spring 1,988 0 -1,988 Elk Substantial Spring/Fall 26 0 -26 California Bighorn Substantial Yearlong 30 0 -30 Mule deer habitat on Federal lands would increase, mostly crucial winter/spring range and crucial yearlong range. Total crucial yearlong habitat for pronghorn on Federal lands would decrease, and the quality of the habitat would decline as sagebrush habitats that support native forbs and provide winter browse are exchanged into private ownership and parcels predominated by non-native annual grasses become Federal. All of the elk habitat in the exchange would become private. All 30 acres of California bighorn habitat in the exchange parcels would become private.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-11 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

4.3.1.11 Wilderness and Wilderness Characteristics The exchange would result in the acquisition of four non-Federal parcels (30, 32 and 38, and 39), of which approximately 587 acres are within the Cedar Mountains Wilderness designated by Congress on January 6, 2006, under Section 384 of PL 109-163 (Map 7). These parcels contain important public access opportunities and wilderness values and those portions that are within the exterior boundary of the WA would automatically become part of the WA when acquired. Federally-owned minerals within the Wilderness are withdrawn from all forms of entry. However, the State of Utah owns the mineral interest (except for sand and gravel) on parcel 30, of which approximately 65 acres are within the Wilderness. Based on the mineral potential report, this parcel is prospectively valuable for oil and gas. Because no development has occurred anywhere in this part of the Great Basin and the potential for future development is considered low, there is little potential for impacts on wilderness characteristics of the Wilderness from locatable mineral development. As the surface owner, the BLM also could work with the lessee to minimize surface disturbance and it is possible that development of the 65 acres could be accomplished through directional drilling techniques elsewhere on the parcel without causing surface impacts within the Wilderness. There is a water well, tank, pipeline, powerline, and other ancillary facilities on Parcel 32, which is entirely within the Wilderness. The well is operated cooperatively by the non-Federal parties and another party (Clean Harbors) under an agreement and each party holds and would retain their water right (#16-800 and #16-801). As a valid existing right, these facilities would remain in maintained use within the Wilderness should this parcel become Federal. The non-Federal parties plan to reserve a right-of-way for access to and maintenance of the well and storage tank on this parcel. The powerline right-of-way held by PacifiCorp follows the alignment of the access road that would be “cherry-stemmed” from the Wilderness. In other words, the Wilderness boundary would be drawn around the existing water developments and right-of-way. The BLM would prepare and transmit a Map of the Cedar Mountain Wilderness with the cherry- stem to Congress, pursuant to Section 384(c) of PL 109-163. In the interim, the right-of-way would be managed as pre-existing use and grand-fathered right. The right-of-way would be reviewed by the BLM and the Solicitor to ensure that the terms and conditions would be administratively acceptable. The continued use of the well would occupy approximately five acres of land and would not adversely affect the BLM’s ability to manage the remaining acreage as Wilderness. Acquisition of the four parcels would enhance the BLM’s ability to manage recreation activity and other uses that are currently occurring on these parcels. Five non-Federal parcels and the surrounding lands in the Onaqui Mountains would be inventoried to determine if they possess wilderness characteristics, as appropriate, in accordance with BLM Manual 6310. If the inventory shows that wilderness characteristics are present, the BLM would analyze the impacts of future proposals on wilderness characteristics and weigh wilderness values along with other resource impacts values of a proposed action as decisions are made. At this time, there are no reasonably foreseeable future proposals that would affect the existing character of these parcels. No lands within designated Wilderness, WSAs or lands that may possess wilderness characteristics would be transferred to private ownership.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-12 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

4.3.1.12 Wild Horse Herd Areas and Herd Management Areas The exchange could result in the acquisition of over 9,530.71 acres of lands considered part of the Cedar Mountain (4,038.51 acres) and Onaqui Mountain (5,492.20 acres) Wild Horse HMAs. An additional 716.59 acres would be gained by the BLM within the Wild Horse HAs. These HMAs and HAs (shown on Map 8) are used by, and important to, the wild horse population of the area. The land to be acquired would include an additional water source at Slater Springs and important habitat within wild horse yearlong range, which would help insure the long term sustainability of these wild horse herds. The exchange would transfer approximately 2,520.00 acres within the Onaqui Mountain HMA to private ownership. On rare or infrequent occasions, the Onaqui herd access/use the northern parcels located near Terra, Utah. Their use is normally south and west as documented in aerial or ground census counts and site visits. This is based on the inventory flight observations and observations of the horses while monitoring. The overall result would be a net gain of over 7,010.71 acres of wild horse range within the affected HMAs. Water sources including the quantity and locations would not change including with the acquisition of Slater Spring. There would be no net increase in water available to horses. Water has been hauled to the Cedar Mountain herd for multiple summers. The condition and function of the non-Federal parties’ wells would not change. Some of them have not produced water due to lack of maintenance or natural flows. Agreements would not be pursued for providing water at the wells for wild horses. Since this project was started, the Record of Decision for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment was approved 2015. A portion of the Onaqui Mountain HMA is within the Greater Sheeprocks Population Area for the greater sage-grouse. On March 31, 2017 (Information Bulletin UT 2017-010), the Utah State Director acknowledged that this sage-grouse population had hit the hard triggers in the plan amendment (MA-SSS-7) and added actions are being taken to try to increase the population of sage-grouse. Appendix I Table 1.1 of the Utah Greater Sage- Grouse Plan Amendment list the specific management response to the hard triggers and states for wild horses and burros: Initiate emergency gathers to reduce wild horse and burro populations within affected area to low end of AML, subject to funding and holding space availability. For the Cedar Mountain HMA the transfer of lands would result in an increase in available forage on Federal lands for the wild horses in the HMA. All water developments within the private parcels to be transferred would remain with the non-Federal parties resulting in no new reliable water sources for the horses. The BLM water sources on the Cedar Mountain HMA historically have not provided enough water for the horses within the HMA and supplemental water has had to be provided in the summer months. The AML adjustments on the Cedar Mountain or Onaqui Mountain HMAs would be addressed after monitoring can be collected and completed to determine the permanent forage and water available on any acquired parcels.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-13 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

4.3.1.13 Mitigation Measures As stated at the conclusion of Chapter 1, a land exchange is essentially an administrative action and does not involve any change agents that accompany other land use authorizations such as surface disturbance, construction, operation and/or maintenance activities. Land uses would in most cases remain the same although management of both Federal and non-Federal lands could improve through consolidation of ownership and increased efficiency of programs or operations. Livestock would continue to graze where they have always grazed, big game and wild horses would continue to use their historic habitat, and nesting birds would continue to nest as they have in past. Once land is transferred to non-Federal ownership, it could be available for a variety of uses allowable under State and local law. The non-Federal parties have not identified any specific plans for projects or large-scale changes in the use of the parcels they acquire. (1) Cultural resource inventories based on a stratified random sample of the APE were conducted for the Federal parcels. 26 sites eligible for listing on the NRHP were found. Based on the information derived from those inventories and consultation with the SHPO and other stakeholders, a PA and a HPTP were developed to identify specific measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate, the impacts of the proposed land exchange on cultural resources. In addition, the non-Federal parties agreed to remove portions of several of the Federal parcels totaling about 1,159 acres from their proposal in order to allow sensitive cultural resource to remain under Federal protection. The non-Federal parties have also agreed to allow the BLM to reserve a perpetual, non-exclusive right-of-way on Federal parcel 20, so the BLM and the public can have access to a valuable segment of the Hastings Cutoff\California NHT-Lincoln Highway, where the historic trail traces are still visible. The trail right-of-way would be documented and recorded in both the DR for this document and the subsequent land conveyance documents. Within Federal parcels 19 and 22, the non-Federal parties have communicated to the Consulting Parties a firm willingness to engage in agreements for as-needed public access to NHT resources. The non-Federal parties have an extensive history of good cooperative engagement with the BLM and OCTA for public access on its property. Therefore, given these circumstances, the BLM is confident that allowing Federal parcels 19 and 22 to leave Federal jurisdiction would not have an adverse effect on the NHT resources, values, and visitor experiences. (2) The BLM would maintain agreements with private land owners in and around Terra, Utah, for fire suppression activities. The non-Federal parties would assume maintenance responsibilities of BLM initiated fuels treatments on the parcels leaving BLM administration. (3) The BLM and the non-Federal parties would assume management and control of invasive/noxious weeds on the exchanged parcels. (4) Livestock grazing permits would be adjusted to reflect changes in acreages. Grazing permits would be renewed for the same number of years left on the existing permits. (5) Patents, warranty deeds and other legal instruments would show ownership of minerals being conveyed. Master title plats and other applicable land records would be updated. (6) MOUs or other instruments would be utilized to allow interested public the opportunity to view the NHT on parcels 12-22. Management goals and objectives for the important historic features on parcel 28 would be developed and coordinated with the NPS and other stakeholders.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-14 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

In accordance with continued efforts to protect and preserve our shared cultural and historical treasures, the BLM shall reserve to itself a perpetual non-exclusive right-of-way for the portions of the Hastings Cutoff trail which crosses public lands set to be transferred out of Federal ownership. This right-of-way would be reserved in the exchange and would allow a public right of access in perpetuity. The trail right-of-way would not be developed or fenced. The BLM would maintain signage within the right-of-way indicating the location of the trail. The right-of- way would be reserved for public use and access to the trail resources from the BLM’s Horseshoe Springs recreation site. (8) In order to protect known populations of the Pohl’s milkvetch, parcels 27 and 31 were removed from consideration as defined in the amended ATI (2016) and would remain in Federal ownership. (9) Water right #16-10 at Slater Spring on parcel 6 would be transferred to BLM ownership. A change of use would be made with the UDWR. (10) Mitigation for wildlife species would not be warranted. (11) Acquired parcels that intersect the Cedar Mountain Wilderness would be added to other lands that are part of the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Management Plan that is being prepared. Information on this project can be accessed on the ENBB.3 (12) Acquired parcels that intersect the Cedar Mountain and Onaqui Mountain HAs/HMAs would be managed in accordance with the 2003 Decision Record prepared for the Wild Horse Appropriate Management Level and Herd Management Area/Herd Boundary Environmental Assessment EA (UT 020-2002-0100). The BLM and the non-Federal parties developed a Prioritized List of Parcels for Elimination to Equalize Values or Avoid Impacts on Resources (Appendix D). The BLM and the non-Federal parties utilized Appendix D in preparing the amended ATI in 2016. The prioritization of parcels for elimination to equalize values was refined from the original ATI to the amended ATI. 4.3.1.14 Residual Impacts With the mitigation measures identified above, the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mandate would be maintained on the acquired parcels. Other specific impacts could be avoided by eliminating all or part of specific parcels from the land exchange as outlined in the Prioritized List of Parcels for Elimination to Equalize Values or Avoid Impacts on Resources (Appendix D). 4.3.1.15 Monitoring and/or Compliance No requirements for future monitoring of effects or specific requirements for compliance with any regulations or laws are included in the terms of the proposed land exchange. The land exchange would not alter any authorities or responsibilities of the BLM or non-Federal parties with respect to compliance with laws or regulations. The BLM monitoring, inventory and administration of land resource programs would continue and work would be based on annual budgets and priorities.

3 Information on the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Plan can be access on the ENBB at: https://www.ut.blm.gov/enbb/view_project.php

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-15 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

No additional monitoring needs have been identified for the proposed action. 4.3.2 Alternative B – No Action With this alternative the proposed exchange would not take place. Existing and potential land uses on the Federal lands would remain the same and the purposes for the exchange would not be met. Uses of the non-Federal lands could change if the lands were sold to another party. It is anticipated that this alternative would not result in an accumulation of impacts. 4.3.2.1 Cultural Resources Twenty-six (26) known National Register Eligible cultural resource sites would remain under BLM management and would not be adversely affected. However, the Pony Express Station, monument, and Dog/Pet Cemetery on non-Federal parcel 28 would remain in private ownership with an uncertain future. Historic trail remnants or ruts on the Hastings Cutoff-California NHT within Federal parcels 19, 20, and 22 would remain under BLM management and protection of Federal laws. 4.3.2.2 Fire and Fuels Management The BLM would have to continue to work around private lands while conducting fire prevention efforts such as fuels reduction projects and would remain responsible for maintenance of fuel reduction projects west of Terra. 4.3.2.3 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Noxious weed control responsibilities would remain as at present. Areas known to be invaded by knapweed, which is classified as a noxious weed, would remain in private ownership and the non-Federal parties would be responsible for control. 4.3.2.4 Livestock Grazing Livestock forage allocations and grazing practices would remain as at present. 4.3.2.5 Mineral Resources The mineral estate also would remain as a present. Development or use of other minerals including sand and gravel are not expected. 4.3.2.6 Recreation Dispersed recreation including camping, hunting, target shooting, and OHV use would continue on the exchange parcels with uncontrolled trespass and OHV access to the private parcels. Vandalism and damage to the private lands would continue. The Pony Express Station and ancillary facilities would remain in private ownership and would be subject to future changes in management. The BLM would forego the opportunity to ensure future protection of this nationally important historical and recreation site. 4.3.2.7 Special Status Animal Species Including Migratory Birds Habitat for sensitive species and migratory birds would remain under present management, and the relative amounts of habitat vegetation types would remain the same. 4.3.2.8 Special Status Plants (Pohl’s Milkvetch) Habitat for the milkvetch would remain under present BLM administration and would not leave Federal ownership.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-16 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

4.3.2.9 Water Rights Water rights would be held in present ownership. Slater Springs on parcel 6 would remain in private ownership under the beneficial use status of irrigation. The opportunity for BLM to obtain the water right for the spring and change the beneficial use class to livestock and wildlife would be foregone. The BLM would not be able to ensure that water would remain available for wildlife and wild horses. 4.3.2.10 Wildlife Excluding Special Status Species Big game crucial ranges would remain under present ownership and management. About 2,014 acres of elk crucial winter/spring range, 535 acres of pronghorn crucial yearlong range, and 30 acres of California bighorn substantial yearlong range would remain under BLM administration, but the BLM would lose the opportunity to increase Federal ownership and management of mule deer range by 1,819 acres. 4.3.2.11 Wilderness and Wilderness Characteristics The opportunity for the BLM to acquire and manage 587 acres of private land in the Cedar Mountain WA for public access and wilderness character would be foregone. 4.3.2.12 Wild Horse Herd Areas and Herd Management Areas The BLM would lose the opportunity to exchange less preferred areas of the Onaqui HA/HMA wild horse range for 12,175 acres of high quality heavily used range. A net gain of 9,676 acres of BLM managed wild horse range would not occur. 4.3.2.13 Mitigation Measures Would not be warranted under the status quo. 4.3.2.14 Residual Impacts Would not occur under the status quo. 4.3.2.15 Monitoring and/or Compliance Similar to the Proposed Action, BLM monitoring and compliance of the land resource programs would be based on annual budgets and priorities. 4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS “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. The proposed exchange would result in a cumulative decrease of 1,744 acres of Federal land managed by the BLM based upon the present proposal The Federal lands acquired by the non- Federal parties may have slightly more potential for intensive agricultural use than the non- Federal lands that would transfer to the BLM since many parcels are closer to existing development and have better access, whereas most of the non-Federal parcels are scattered farther out in more remote locations. However, because the proposed land exchange is essentially an administrative action and does not involve any change agents that accompany other land use authorizations such as surface disturbance, construction, operation or maintenance activities, land uses would in most cases

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-17 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 4.0 Environmental Impacts

remain the same. The predominant use of the Federal lands is grazing and dispersed recreational activities that include OHV use, hunting, camping, hiking, etc. The predominant uses of the non- Federal lands are also grazing and dispersed recreation, similar to the Federal lands. Under the Tooele County General Plan, non-Federal Parcel 19 is currently zoned A-20, requiring 20 acres for development; Parcel 37 is zoned MG-EX zone, which would allow for development of extractive mineral operations such as sand and gravel quarries. The remaining non-Federal lands are zoned as multiple use (MU-40), requiring 40 acres for development. These lands would come under Federal ownership and would be managed according to the Pony Express RMP as described in Chapter 2 of this EA. The Federal lands would come under private ownership and would be subject to local planning as either agricultural or multiple use lands. Once land is transferred to non-Federal ownership, it could be available for a variety of uses allowable under State and local law. However, neither the BLM, the non-Federal parties or public have identified any specific plans for projects or large scale changes in the use of the parcels they acquire. There is limited commercial development and no industrial development in Skull Valley. Residents must commute to Tooele Valley for goods and services. The limited infrastructure, population and services in the valley are not supportive of growth in commercial or industrial uses (Tooele County 20-11). There are no other pending land exchanges in Skull Valley or reasonably foreseeable projects on the state, private or Federal lands near the proposed exchange parcels. Therefore, any cumulative increment of impact on the physical or biological environment would be small.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 4-18 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 5.0 Consultation & Coordination

5.0—CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION The issue identification section of Chapter 1 identifies those issues analyzed in detail in Chapter 4. The ID Team Checklist provides the rationale for issues that were considered but not analyzed in detail. The issues were identified through the public and agency involvement process described in sections 5.2 and 5.3 below. Changes made to the EA in response to the public comment period are summarized in section 5.3.2. 5.2 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED Table 5-1 identifies the agencies or groups that were consulted or coordinated with in preparing this EA. Table 5-1 List of Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted or Coordinated Purpose & Authorities for Name Findings & Conclusions Consultation or Coordination USAF – Hill AFB – UTTR Concerns relative to UTTR and No concerns for USAF operations in the Lt Col. Chris Martin MOA project area. Utah Geological Survey Potential Earthquake Hazards None noted relative to this project. Required cultural surveys were completed for the Federal parcels. Twenty six historic properties (sites meeting the eligibility criteria for listing on the Consultation as required by the National Register of Historic Places) were American Indian Religious identified. In consultation with SHPO Utah State Historic Preservation Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC (completed 25 October 2013) it was Office 1531) and NHPA (16 USC determined that a PA and HPTP would be 1531) required and implemented to fully mitigate the adverse effect of transferring historic properties to private ownership. The PA and HPTP were developed and signed 16 February 2016. Letters were sent to the SLFO on 4/12/2012 and 7/12/2012. Notified SLFO Consultation under Section 7 of that federally listed species do not occur the Endangered Species Act and US Fish and Wildlife Service within the parcels and that BLM sensitive coordination through interested species Phol’s milkvetch populations do parties letter. occur on 2 parcels and was known to occur on a 3rd parcel. Consultation as required by the American Indian Religious Tribes were notified of the proposed Confederated Tribe of Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC exchange and invited to consult by letter Indians 1531), Native American Graves dated December 3, 2009. A second Skull Valley Band Goshute and Repatriation Act invitation to consult was sent to these (NAGPRA) and NHPA (16 USC tribes on February 20, 2015. Ute Indian Tribe 1531). Consistency with Tribal Paiute and Jemez Pueblo Plans as required by FLPMA Follow-up meeting was held with the Section202(c)(9) and NEPA CTGR on June 26, 2015. Section 102(C).

Skull Valley Land Exchange 5-1 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 5.0 Consultation & Coordination

Purpose & Authorities for Name Findings & Conclusions Consultation or Coordination Invitation for Section 106 A meeting was held with the Skull Valley Consulting Party Status. Band of on February 20 2015 concerning the Skull Valley Exchange. Tribal entities were also invited to attend a Consulting Parties Meeting (separate and distinct from Tribal Consultation under NHPA). Consulting Party invitation letter sent on 5/11/2012. The following tribes participated in that process: Skull Valley Goshute, Iosepa Historical Association (Native Hawai’ian representative). Interested party letters were sent on Consistency with local plans as 9/27/2009 (NOEP), 10/19/2011 (Open required by NHPA Section 106, House), and 6/18/2012 (NOA). Tooele County Commission FLPMA Section202(c)(9) and The Tooele County Commission (Wade NEPA Section 102(C). Bitner) endorsed the plan and did attend Consulting Parties meetings. Interested party letters were sent on Consistency with local plans as 9/27/2009 (NOEP), 10/19/2011 (Open Public Lands Policy required by NHPA Section 106), House), and 6/18/2012 (NOA). PLPCO Coordinating Office FLPMA Section202(c)(9) and was notified by mail of the proposed NEPA Section 102(C). exchange. Notification required by NHPA Interested party letters were sent on Livestock Grazing Permittees Section 106), FLPMA Section 9/27/2009 (NOEP), 10/19/2011 (Open 402(g). House), and 6/18/2012 (NOA). Interested party letters were sent on Southern Utah Wilderness Invitation for NHPA Section 106 9/27/2009 (NOEP), 10/19/2011 (Open Alliance Consulting Party Status House), and 6/18/2012 (NOA). Interested party letters were sent on Invitation for NHPA Section 106 Wild Utah Project 9/27/2009 (NOEP), 10/19/2011 (Open Consulting Party Status House), and 6/18/2012 (NOA). Interested party letters were sent on Lincoln Highway Association, Invitation for NHPA Section 106 9/27/2009 (NOEP), 10/19/2011 (Open Utah Chapter Consulting Party Status House), and 6/18/2012 (NOA).Consulting Party invitation letter sent on 5/11/2012. Interested party letters were sent on Invitation for NHPA Section 106 Lincoln Highway Association 9/27/2009 (NOEP), 10/19/2011 (Open Consulting Party Status House), and 6/18/2012 (NOA). Interested party letters were sent on National Pony Express Invitation for NHPA Section 106 9/27/2009 (NOEP), 10/19/2011 (Open Association Consulting Party Status House), and 6/18/2012 (NOA). Invitation for NHPA Section 106 Consulting Party invitation letter sent on Iosepa Historical Society Consulting Party Status 5/11/2012.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 5-2 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 5.0 Consultation & Coordination

Purpose & Authorities for Name Findings & Conclusions Consultation or Coordination Email received on 3/1/2012, expressed concerns related to possible Polynesian artifacts. Invitation for NHPA Section 106 Consulting Party invitation letter sent on Christopher F. Robinson Consulting Party Status 5/11/2012. Coordination with interested In June 2017, mailing list was updated to Wild Horse Advocacy Groups individuals. include groups of record.

5.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A Notice of the Exchange Proposal (NOEP) was published in the Tooele Transcript-Bulletin four separate times (August 27, 2009; September 3, 2009; September 10, 2009; and September 17, 2009). Copies of the NOEP were also mailed to those on the distribution list September 27, 2009. Two responses were received in conjunction with the NOEP – one from the U.S. Air Force at Hill Air Force Base and the other from the Utah Geological Survey. Both responses were informational and neither raised any issues that would affect the exchange proposal. The proposed exchange was posted on the Utah BLM ENBB on September 29, 2009. A 30 day scoping period was offered from October 31, 2011 to November 30, 2011. Scoping comments were received from (1) Western Lands Project, (2) Bill Lee Johnson, (3) James and Christina Wheeler, (4) the Iosepa Historical Society and (5) the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). The Notice of an Open House Meeting was sent on October 19, 2011, to those on the distribution list (approximately 43 invitees). This announced a project open house meeting that was scheduled on November 7, 2011, in Tooele, Utah, at the Tooele County Courthouse and that scoping input would need to be submitted by November 30, 2011. Notice of an Open House Meeting was also sent to local news media in November 2011. Approximately 20 individuals attended this open house. Although written comment forms were provided, no written comments were received. All public scoping comments were considered by the ID Team in defining the issues and alternatives addressed in this EA. Public comments dealt mainly with road access and general accessibility for the parcels including access for recreation; control of OHV use on private lands not held by the parties to the exchange; impacts on the Lincoln Highway; assessment of potential future use and development potential; livestock grazing and potential for toxic and hazardous materials. All of the identified issues are addressed in the EA and ID Team. A Notice of Availability of the EA for public comment was sent to the news media on June 12, 2012, and posted to the ENBB on June 18, 2012. A copy of the notice was also mailed to the parties on the project mailing list. The BLM offered a 30 day public comment period on the EA from June 18, 2012, to July 17, 2012. Information about the proposed land exchange and the EA comment period was published on the KUER webpage on June 22, 2012, and in the Desert News on July 16, 2012.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 5-3 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 5.0 Consultation & Coordination

BLM received eight (8) comment letters from organizations (3), individuals (3), and government agencies (2) as follows. 1. Utah Wild Project, Jim Catlin 2. Oregon/California Trails Association, T. Michael Smith 3. Kevin Biddle 4. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Ray Bloxham 5. Marybeth Devlin 6. USFWS - Utah Field Office, Bekee Hotze 7. Ron Tolman 8. State of Utah; Public Lands Coordination Office, Kathleen Clark The comment letters are available for public inspection at the SLFO. Copies of the comment letters can be made in their entirety at the SLFO (fees would apply as per applicable fee schedules). Copies of the comment letters will not be placed on the ENBB or the NEPA Register because they have been reproduced in Appendix E. The comments and BLM’s responses are presented in the same order as shown in the above list in Appendix E. The BLM acknowledges the expressions of support and concerns made by the public regarding this land exchange proposal. Information within the comments that was background or general in nature was reviewed; however, responses to or clarifications made to the EA from these items are not necessary. Likewise, expressions of position or opinion are acknowledged but do not cause a change in the analysis. As identified in the NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, section 6.9.2.2 comment response), the BLM looked for modifications to the alternatives and the analysis as well as factual corrections while reviewing public comments. Overall, the commenters expressed concern over NEPA adequacy, equity in resource uses/values in non-Federal versus Federal parcels, NHTs, mitigation, access to public land and segments of NHT, wild horse AML adjustments, noxious/invasive weeds, water sources/water rights, presence of a BLM sensitive plant species, domestic sheep grazing in areas adjacent to ranges used by Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and general vegetation conditions due to wildfires or weed infestation. 5.3.1 NHPA Compliance and SHPO Consultation The BLM utilized and coordinated the NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470(f) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed land exchange will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. The BLM consulted with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, were given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed land exchange were invited to participate in the scoping process. Additional information is documented in Table 5-1.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 5-4 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 5.0 Consultation & Coordination

A series of Consulting Parties meetings were held that included interested members of the public, Tribal groups (separate from Tribal Consultation), the Utah SHPO, and the ACHP. The specific dates of these meetings were: June 12, 2012, August 2, 2012, June 26, 2014, September 11, 2014, December 8, 2014, January 28, 2015, February 23, 2015, April 9, 2015, May 27, 2015, and July 14, 2015. The general focus of these meetings pertained to the adequacy of the cultural resources inventories completed for the land exchange and the measures required to mitigate both adverse and unknown effects to historic properties. At the conclusion of the final Consulting Parties meeting a PA and associated HPTP were agreed upon in principle. Formal agreement on these documents occurred February 16, 2016. The 26 cultural resource sites identified as eligible for listing on the NRHP that are located on lands to be transferred from the BLM to the non-Federal parties have been recorded, and their eligibility determined in consultation with SHPO. Appropriate mitigation measures would be specified in a HPTP and implemented through a PA developed in consultation with the SHPO, ACHP, Tribes, and interested members of the public. Implementation of the HPTP would include such measures as photo-documentation of historic roads, trails and corrals, and data recovery on historic and prehistoric camps and lithic scatters. 5.3.2 Modifications The public comment period and internal review identified necessary corrections or clarifications to this EA. These modifications include: 1. Corrections to grammar, sentence structure, and formatting were made throughout the EA. In general, these changes were made without further clarification. Examples include: updates to the Table of Contents, changes in font size, changes in verb tense and style or insertion of footnotes. A May 2015 date replaces the May 2012 date on the cover sheet. 2. Section 1.1: was modified by inserting the paragraph that summarizes the various chapters of this EA. This paragraph was from section 1.10 from the 2012 EA. 3. Section 1.2: was edited to describe the parcels originally considered in the 2009 ATI and those that were carried forward in the 2016 ATI, as defined in the land survey record. 4. Section 1.3: was modified to clarify BLM’s purpose and need. The 2012 EA separated the purpose from the need statement. 5. Section 1.41: was edited to include other program RPM decisions beside the lands program. 6. Section 1.5: was modified to statutes for National Trails System Act, Wilderness Act, National Defense Authorization Act, Taylor Grazing Act, Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. Three additional documents were listed (Environmental Site Analysis, Mineral Potential Report and the Cultural Resources Inventory/Report). 7. Section 1.71: was edited to change the statements to questions for resources being carried forward for analysis. 8. Section 2.2: was modified to include Table 2-2. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 were changed to include the management prescriptions for which grazing allotment, wild horse HA/HMA and encumbrance/reservations for each parcel. 9. Section 2.4: was edited with subsections for each of the alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration (purchase, sale and other configurations).

Skull Valley Land Exchange 5-5 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 5.0 Consultation & Coordination

10. Sections 3.3.1 – 3.3.12: were modified to include changes in acreages due to the 2016 ATI process and other discussions to clarify the status of resources present. Some instances of new information or questions raised during the comment period required clarifications. 11. Sections 4.3.1 – 4.3.15: were edited to capture acreage changes due to the 2016 ATI process and other discussions to clarify the impacts on the resources present. Some instances of new information or questions raised during the comment period required clarifications. 12. Section 5.2: Table 5-1 was modified to include any updates to coordination and consultation with interested public and stakeholders. 13. Section 5.3: was edited to include a summary of the public comment period. 14. Section 5.3.1: was modified to include a summary of NHPA compliance and SHPO consultation. Comments and BLM’s responses are shown in a new appendix (E). 15. Section 5.4.1: was edited to include new ID team members (Randy Kyes, Mark Williams, Jerry Bullock, Nancy Williams, Mary Higgins and Pamela Schuller). 16. Section 6.1: was modified to include additional references used in the analysis. 17. Section 6.2: was edited to include additional acronyms used in the EA. 18. Section 6.3: Four appendices from the 2012 EA were deleted because they were redundant or unnecessary because the content was captured in another appendix or section of the EA (Federal Lands and Interests Proposed for Exchange, SHPO Consultation and Cultural Resource Mitigation Plan, USFWS Coordination, and Mailing List). Appendices were modified as follows: A. Parcel Legal Descriptions, Acreages and Interests Exchanged – legal descriptions and corresponding were updated for the 2009 ATI and 2016 ATI. Parcels (full or partial) that were removed from consideration are shown with 0 or +/- acreage changes. B. Maps: Maps were re-drawn or added to show parcels that were removed, new big game habitats, greater sage-grouse habitat as defined in the 2015 RMP amendment, and wild horse herd areas. Based on public comments BLM also added to show Pony Express NHT – Lookout Pass Station, California National Historic Trail – Lincoln Highway, and Cedar Mountain WA. C. ID Team Checklist: was reviewed and updated. The rationale for some resources was updated as noted with a change in the date. D. Prioritization of Parcels For Elimination To Equalize Values: this table was utilized in preparing the 2016 ATI. E. Comment Responses: this table was prepared to present public comments and BLM’s responses to those comments.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 5-6 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 5.0 Consultation & Coordination

5.4 LIST OF PREPARERS 5.4.1 BLM An ID Team prepared the document and analyzed the impact of the proposed action upon the various resources. They considered the affected environment and documented their assessment in the ID Team Checklist (Appendix C). Only those resources that would likely be impacted were carried forward into the body of the EA for further analysis. The list of BLM preparers are provided in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 List of BLM Preparers. Responsible for the Following Name Title Section(s) of this Document Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives AFM Non-Renewable Michael G. Nelson Description of General Setting Resources – Team Lead Land Use\Access Dale Earl Archaeologist Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns Michael Sheehan Archaeologist NHPA Compliance Rangeland Management Jerry Bullock Livestock Grazing Specialist Rangeland Management Dylan Tucker Livestock Grazing Specialist Fire Mitigation – Teresa Rigby Fuels and Fire Management Education Specialist Randy Kyes Fuels P&EC Fuels Management Anthony Von Rangeland Management Invasive Plant Species\Noxious Weeds Niederhausern Specialist Natural Resource Mark Williams Invasive Plant Species\Noxious Weeds Specialist Traci Allen Wildlife Biologist Migratory Birds, Wildlife and T&E animal Nancy Williams Wildlife Biologist Migratory Birds, Wildlife and T&E animal Monitoring Specialist – T Rodd Hardy BLM Sensitive Plant Species & E Plant Species Outdoor Recreation Ray Kelsey Recreation and Wilderness Planner Planning and Cindy Ledbetter Quality Control\Review Environmental Specialist David S. Watson Realty Specialist EA Document Preparation and Content Mary Higgins Realty Specialist Lands Administration Larry Garahana Geologist Mineral Resources Planning and Pamela Schuller NEPA Compliance Environmental Specialist

Skull Valley Land Exchange 5-7 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 5.0 Consultation & Coordination

Refer also to the list of specialists identified in the Interdisciplinary Team Checklist (Appendix C). 5.4.2 Non-BLM Preparers The list of contract preparers is provided in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 List of Non-BLM Preparers. Responsible for the Following Name Title Section(s) of this Document Environmental Specialist, Gregory F. Thayn Document Preparation and Technical Coordination GT Environmental Project Manager, Lamb G. William Lamb Data Gathering and Document Preparation Consulting

Skull Valley Land Exchange 5-8 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 6.0 References, Acronyms & Appendices

6.0—REFERENCES, ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS & APPENDICES

Skull Valley Land Exchange 6-1 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 6.0 References, Acronyms & Appendices

6.1 REFERENCES Peart, J., Cannon, K., Shults, S., and Paul Santarone, P., 2013. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of Selected Areas for the Skull Valley Land Exchange, Tooele, County, Utah. Report Number U-12-UJ-0805bp, on file at Utah Division of State History, Antiquities Section, Salt Lake City, Utah. Tooele County, 2011. Tooele County General Plan, Chapter 6, Skull Valley Planning District. Accessed on line at http://www.co.tooele.ut.us/tcgeneralplan.htm, January 7, 2011. Utah Natural Heritage Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2012. Element Occurrence Database and Files. Salt Lake City, Utah. UPCD 2011. Utah Partners in Conservation Development, Squarros Knapweed Demonstration Area, http://www.uacd.org/pdfs/factsheets/Weed1-square-knapweed.pdf, online, November 26, 2011. USDA NRCS, 2011. Plant Guide, Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Online at http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_brte.pdf, November 26, 2011. Utah Native Plant Society, 2009. Sego Lily, Volume 32 no.6, November, 2009. Accessed on line at http://www.unps.org/index.html. USDI BLM, 1990. Record of Decision for the Pony Express Proposed Resource Management Plan and Rangeland Program Summary for Utah County, January 1990. USDI BLM, 1988. Pony Express Proposed Resource Management Plan/ Final Environmental Impact Statement, September, 1988. USDI BLM, 1988. Draft Pony Express Proposed Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, May, 1988. Utah Weed Control Association, 2011. Utah’s Noxious Weed List, accessed on line at http://www.utahweed.org/weeds.htm, November 26, 2011. Whitson, T.D. (ed.) 1991. Weeds of the west. Western Society of Weed Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. USDI BLM, 2016. A Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Treatment Plan for the Skull Valley Land Exchange. On file at Utah Division of State History, Antiquities Section, Salt Lake City, Utah. USDI BLM 2012. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for the Skull Valley Land Exchange Tooele County, Utah, USU Archaeological Services Inc. Salt Lake City, Utah. USDI BLM 2007. Mineral Potential Report for the Exchange of Selected and Offered Lands in the Skull Valley Land Exchange, Skull Valley Tooele County, Utah. Prepared by Michael E Ford 1/24/2007. Acknowledged by Michael S. Nelson 3/29/2007. Salt Lake City, Utah. USDI BLM 2013. Environmental Site Analysis for the Skull Valley Land Exchange, Approved by Kevin Oliver. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Skull Valley Land Exchange 6-2 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 6.0 References, Acronyms & Appendices

6.2 ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern LLC Limited Liability Company ACHP Advisory Council on Historic MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act Preservation NEPA National Environmental Policy Act AML Appropriate Management Level NHPA National Historic Preservation Act APE Area of Potential Affect NHT National Historic Trail ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan NOEP Notice of Exchange Proposal Amendment NPS National Park Service ATI Agreement to Initiate NRCS U.S. Natural Resource Conservation AUM Animal Unit Month Service BHCA Bird Habitat Conservation Areas NRHP National Register of Historic Places BLM Bureau of Land Management NTSA National Trail System Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental OCTA Oregon-California Trail Association Response, Compensation, and Liability Act OHV Off-Highway Vehicle including cars, trucks, four-wheelers and motorcycles CFR Code of Federal Regulations PA Programmatic Agreement CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Area PAC Priority Areas for Conservation CWMU Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area DR Decision Record RINS Raptor Inventory Nest Survey EA Environmental Assessment RMP Resource Management Plan EIS Environmental Impact Statement SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer ENBB Environmental Notification Bulletin Board SLFO Salt Lake Field Office EO Executive Order T&E Threatened and Endangered ESA Environmental Site Assessment UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management U.S. United States Act of 1976 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact USDI U.S. Department of the Interior GHMA General Habitat Management Area USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HA Herd Area USFS U. S. Forest Service HMA Herd Management Area VRM Visual Resource Management HPTP Historic Properties Treatment Plan WSA I-80 Interstate 80 WA Wilderness Area ID Interdisciplinary

Skull Valley Land Exchange 6-3 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA 6.0 References, Acronyms & Appendices

6.3 APPENDICES A. Parcel Legal Descriptions, Acreages And Interests Exchanged B. Maps C. Interdisciplinary Team Checklist D. Prioritization of Parcels for Elimination to Equalize Values E. Comment Responses

Skull Valley Land Exchange 6-4 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix A

APPENDIX A—PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS, ACREAGES AND INTERESTS EXCHANGED Table 6-1 Federal Lands. Original Final Land Parcel Legal Description of Federal Parcels ATI Survey Review Number Acreages Acreage T. 3 S., R. 7 W., SLM sec. 6, sec. 6, lots 1, 4 thru 7, S1/2NE1/4, and 1* 1 640.96 318.64 SE1/4NW1/4 T. 5 S., R. 7 W., SLM 2* sec. 29, SW1/4, S1/2SE1/4; 2 640.00 240.00 3 sec. 30;Lots 1-4, E1/2, E1/2W1/2 3 642.72 642.72 sec. 31, lots 1 and 2, NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, and 4 4 401.44 401.44 N1/2SE1/4; 5 sec. 33, SW1/4 and W1/2SE1/4. 5 240.00 240.00 T. 6 S., R. 7 W., SLM sec. 4, lots 2 thru 4, N1/2SW1/4NE1/4, 6 SW1/4SW1/4NE1/4, E1/2SE1/4SW1/4NE1/4, and 6 234.92 234.92 S1/2NW1/4; sec. 5, lots 1 thru 4, S1/2NE1/4, S1/2NW1/4, and S1/2; 7 7 637.28 637.28 (Surface Only) 8 sec. 6, lots 5 thru 7, SE1/4NW1/4, and E1/2SW1/4; 8 241.35 241.35 9 sec. 7, lots 1 thru 3, E1/2, E1/2NW1/4, and E1/2SW1/4; 9 602.16 602.16 10 sec. 10, NE1/4NE1/4, and SE1/4SE1/4; 10 80.00 80.00 11 sec. 14, SW1/4NW1/4, and NW1/4SW1/4; 11 80.00 80.00 sec. 15, NE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4, S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4, 12* 12 600.00 540.00 N1/2SE1/4, and W1/2SW1/4SE1/4; 13 sec. 18, E1/2, E1/2NW1/4, and E1/2SW1/4; 13 480.00 480.00 sec. 18, lots 2 thru 4; (13 and 13a are one parcel, acreages 13a 120.21 120.21 split for analysis purposes) 14 sec. 19, lots 3 and 4, E1/2, E1/2NW1/4, and E1/2SW1/4; 14 560.14 560.14 sec. 19, lots 1 and 2; (14 and 14a are one parcel, acreages 14a 79.62 79.62 split for analysis purposes) 15 sec. 20, all; 15 640.00 640.00 16 sec. 21, all; 16 640.00 640.00 17* sec. 22, W1/2NW1/4NE1/4, S1/2NE1/4, NW1/4, S1/2 17 640.00 580.00 18* sec. 30, lots 6, 8, 9, and 12 18 105.26 77.52 T. 2 S., R. 8 W., SLM

Skull Valley Land Exchange A-1 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix A

Original Final Land Parcel Legal Description of Federal Parcels ATI Survey Review Number Acreages Acreage 19* sec. 13, lots 2, 3, and 6; 19 47.50 37.49 sec. 34, E1/2SW1/4, E1/2NW1/4SW1/4, 20* 20 320.00 280.00 E1/2SW1/4SW1/4, and SE1/4; 21 sec. 35, N1/2SW1/4, and SW1/4SW1/4. 21 120.00 120.00 T. 3 S., R. 8 W., SLM sec. 1, lot 1, SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4, NE1/4SE1/4, 22 22 239.93 239. 93 S1/2SE1/4. T. 4 S., R. 8 W., SLM 23 sec. 10, S1/2; 23 320.00 320.00 sec. 11, SW1/4, N1/2SE1/4, N1/2SW1/4SE1/4, 24* 24 320.00 290.00 SW1/4SW1/4SE1/4, and N1/2SE1/4SE1/4; sec. 14, W1/2NW1/4NE1/4, W1/2SW1/4NE1/4, and 25* 25 320.00 200.00 NW1/4; 26 sec. 15, N1/2 and N1/2SW1/4. 26 400.00 400.00 T. 6 S., R. 8 W., SLM * sec. 10, lots 1, 4, E1/2SW1/4; 27 140.00 0.00 27 sec. 12, N1/2, SW1/4, and N1/2SE1/4; 28 560.00 560.00 28 sec. 13; all; 29 640.00 640.00 29 sec. 14, E1/2NE1/4 and E1/2SE1/4; 30 160.00 160.00 * sec. 15, lot 1, NE1/4NE1/4; 31 65.00 0.00 sec. 22, lots 1, 4, 5, and 8, W1/2NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, 30* 32 480.00 464.29 E1/2SW1/4, and SE1/4; 31 sec. 24, SW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, and SE1/4; 33 440.00 440.00 sec. 24, N1/2NE1/4 and SE1/4NE1/4; (33 and 33a are 33a 120.00 120.00 one parcel, acreages split for analysis purposes) sec. 25, lots 2, 3, and 5, NE1/4, S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4, and 32* 34 520.00 503.32 NW1/4SE1/4; sec. 27, lots 1, 4, and 5, NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, 33* 35 540.00 392.24 NE1/4SW1/4, and N1/2SE1/4. Aggregating approximately 12,603.27 acres on 33 parcels (amended ATI)

*Parcels that have an asterisk were either removed entirely or acres were modified.

Skull Valley Land Exchange A-2 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix A

Interests to be Conveyed or Reserved: Conveyance of the Federal land would include the surface and mineral estate of all parcels except for parcel 7. This parcel was reconveyed to the United States with a reservation of all minerals. There is no water, timber, or other rights associated with the property.

Surface Ownership Acres U.S 12,603.27 Mineral Ownership Acres U.S. 11,965.99 Private 637.28 Total 12,603.27 Interests to be Conveyed or Reserved: All parcels will be conveyed with a reservation to the United States for a right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945). The following parcels will be conveyed with a reservation to the United States for the following rights-of-way: Table 6-2 Interests to be Conveyed or Reserved. Parcel Number Right-of-Way Serial Number Holder

1 & 3 44 LD 513 Access Road UTU-18471 U.S. Forest Service 2, 5, & 6 44 LD 513 Access Road UTU-23300 U.S. Forest Service 12, 16, 17, 22 Water Pipeline UTU-80753 BLM Public Access right-of-way 20 to Hastings Cutoff\California UTU-91650 BLM National Historic Trail

Existing Encumbrances: Patent to the Federal Lands in the exchange shall be issued subject to all valid existing rights, including land use authorizations granted by the United States, under the terms and conditions in existence at the time of patent. Subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, prior to patent issuance, a Holder of any right-of-way within the Federal Land may be given the opportunity to amend the right-of-way for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or to an easement. Table 6-3 Existing Encumbrances. Parcel Number Right-of-Way Serial Number Holder

8, 9, 23, 26, & 28 Powerline UTU-046101 Rocky Mountain Power Company 14 & 15 Powerline UTU-64758 Rocky Mountain Power Company 14, 15, 18, & 34 Powerline UTU-02933 Rocky Mountain Power Company 9 & 34 Telephone Line UTU-51503 Beehive Telephone Company 21 Telephone Line UTU-63224 Skyline Telecom Company 32 & 35 Fiber Optic Line UTU-80434 Skyline Telephone Company

Skull Valley Land Exchange A-3 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix A

Rights to be Relinquished Prior to Conveyance: The following rights-of-way (or portions thereof) are held or controlled by the non-Federal parties and will be relinquished prior to conveyance of the Federal land: Table 6-4 Parcels with Non-Federal Rights-of-Way. Serial Parcel Number Right-of-Way Holder Register 5 & 6 Irrigation Pipeline UTU-21911 Castle Rock Land & Livestock 10, 16, & 17 Water Pipeline UTU-80753 Castle Rock Land & Livestock 20 Irrigation Ditch UTSL-07348 Skull Valley Corporation 20 Irrigation Ditch UTSL-07349 Skull Valley Corporation

Parcels within Federal Grazing Allotments: The parcels noted below are within Federal grazing allotments. In 2017 Skull Valley Company, and Castle Rock Land and Livestock, and Brown’s Diamond J waived their 2-year notification required under 43 CFR 4110.4-2, so the respective parcels will be conveyed unencumbered. Table 6-5 Parcels within Federal Grazing Allotments. Parcel Number Allotment Permittee 1, 19, 20, 21, & 22 Salt Mountain Skull Valley Company/ Brown’s Diamond J 23, 24, 25, & 26 Lost Creek Castle Rock Land and Livestock 2-10, 12-18, & 28-35 South Skull Valley Castle Rock Land and Livestock 11 Onaqui Mtn West Castle Rock Land and Livestock The following parcels were encumbered with mining claims held by Castle Rock Land and Livestock. These claims have been allowed to lapse and no longer encumber the parcels as listed below and previously identified in the 2011 EA. Table 6-6 Parcels Encumbered with Mining Claims Parcel Number Mining Claim UMC Number Claimant

13 Diatomics #1 362247 Castle Rock Land and Livestock 13 Diatomics #2 362248 Castle Rock Land and Livestock 13 Diatomics #3 362249 Castle Rock Land and Livestock 9 Diatomics #4 362250 Castle Rock Land and Livestock 9 Diatomics #5 362251 Castle Rock Land and Livestock 9 Diatomics #6 362252 Castle Rock Land and Livestock 9 Diatomics #7 362253 Castle Rock Land and Livestock 8 Diatomics #8 364711 Castle Rock Land and Livestock The community rock pit UTU-75275 previously encompassed parcel 19. The pit boundary has been amended by the BLM to exclude parcel 19 to eliminate this encumbrance.

Skull Valley Land Exchange A-4 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix A

Table 6-7 Non-Federal Lands Final Land Original Parcel Survey Legal Description of Non-Federal Parcels ATI Number Review Acreages Acreage T. 6 S., R. 6 W., SLM 1 sec. 18, lot 3. 1 33.74 33.74 T. 5 S., R. 7 W., SLM sec. 35, E1/2NW1/4; (2 and 2a are one parcel, acreages 2 2 80.00 80.00 split for analysis purposes) sec. 35, NE1/4NW1/4. 2a 40.00 40.00 T. 6 S., R. 7 W., SLM 3 sec. 26, lot 3 and NE1/4SW1/4; 3 96.51 96.51 4 sec. 32, all; 4 640.00 640.00 5 sec. 35, S1/2NE1/4; 5 80.00 80.00 6 sec. 36, all. 6 640.00 640.00 T. 7 S., R. 7 W., SLM 7 sec. 2, all; 7 638.79 638.79 * sec. 15, W1/2; 8 320.00 0.00 * sec. 16, all; 9 640.00 0.00 * sec. 22, NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, SE1/4SW1/4; 10 280.00 0.00 8 sec. 29, all; 11 640.00 640.00 9 sec. 32, all; 12 640.00 640.00 10 sec. 33, W1/2; 13 320.00 320.00 * sec. 34, S1/2SE1/4; 14 80.00 0.00 * sec. 35, SW1/4SW1/4. 15 40.00 0.00 T. 8 S., R. 7 W., SLM 11* sec. 3, lot 4 and SW1/4NW1/4; 16 200.38 79.86 12 sec. 4, lots 1 thru 4, S1/2NE1/4, and S1/2NW1/4; 17 317.04 317.04 13 sec. 13, W1/2SE1/4 and SE1/4SE1/4. 28 120.00 120.00 T. 2 S., R. 8 W., SLM sec. 13, parcel 1 as shown on the Department of Interior 14* Bureau of Land Management plat of survey dated June 33 2.41 2.54 11, 2010; sec. 24, parcel 2 as shown on the Department of Interior 15* Bureau of Land Management plat of survey dated June 34 90.36 51.28 11, 2010;

Skull Valley Land Exchange A-5 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix A

Final Land Original Parcel Survey Legal Description of Non-Federal Parcels ATI Number Review Acreages Acreage sec. 35, parcels 3 and 4 as shown on the Department of 16* Interior Bureau of Land Management plat of survey dated 35 20.09 19.90 June 11, 2010. T. 3 S., R. 8 W., SLM sec. 10, parcel A as shown on the Department of Interior 17* Bureau of Land Management plat of survey dated 36 19.28 15.33 November 18, 2011; sec. 15, parcel B as shown on the Department of Interior 18* Bureau of Land Management plat of survey dated 37 10.68 11.91 November 18, 2011. T. 5 S., R. 8 W., SLM * sec. 24, all; 40 640.00 0.00 19 sec. 32, all; 18 640.00 640.00 T. 6 S., R. 8 W., SLM sec. 15, parcels 1 and 2 as shown on the Department of 20* Interior Bureau of Land Management plat of survey dated 19 47.73 42.85 May 9, 2011; 21 sec. 16, all; 20 640.00 640.00 sec. 36, parcels 3 thru 5 as shown on the Department of 22* Interior Bureau of Land Management plat of survey dated 21 471.27 478.06 May 9, 2011, and SE1/4. T. 7 S., R. 8 W., SLM 23 sec. 32, all 22 640.00 640.00 24 sec. 36, all 23 640.00 640.00 T. 3 S., R. 9 W., SLM sec. 8, parcel A as shown on the Department of Interior 25* Bureau of Land Management plat of survey dated June 38 23.00 13.70 24, 2013; sec. 17, parcel B as shown on the Department of Interior 26* Bureau of Land Management plat of survey dated June 39 30.00 24.81 24, 2013; 27 sec. 32, N1/2, N1/2SW1/4, and N1/2SE1/4. 30 480.00 480.00 T. 4 S., R. 9 W., SLM 28 sec. 32, N1/2, N1/2SW1/4, and N1/2SE1/4. 29 480.00 480.00 T. 5 S., R. 9 W., SLM 29 sec. 16, all; 24 640.00 640.00

Skull Valley Land Exchange A-6 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix A

Final Land Original Parcel Survey Legal Description of Non-Federal Parcels ATI Number Review Acreages Acreage 30 sec. 32, all; 25 640.00 640.00 31 sec. 36, all. 26 640.00 640.00 T. 9 S., R. 10 W., SLM * sec. 36; all 27 640.00 0.00 T. 1 S., R. 10 W., SLM 32 sec. 32; all. 31 640.00 640.00 T. 2 S., R. 10 W., SLM 33 sec. 16, N1/2, N1/2SW1/4, and N1/2SE1/4. 32 480.00 480.00 Aggregating approximately 11,586.32 acres on 33 parcels (amended ATI)

*Parcels that have an asterisk were either removed entirely or acres were modified.

Summary of Ownership:

Surface Ownership Acres CRLLC 9,246.85 SVC 2,339.47 Total 11,586.32

Mineral Ownership Acres U.S. 499.90 State 8,687.10 SVC 104.24 U.S.(OG)/SVC(rest) 15.33 Castagno 79.86 Weber River (½)/SVC(½) 120.00 Anschutz/CRLCC Diatomaceus Earth (150 ft) 2,079.89 Total 11,586.32 Interests to be Conveyed or Reserved: Conveyance of the non-Federal land would include the surface and all mineral interests owned by the non-Federal Parties, as summarized above, in addition to the diatomaceous earth from the surface to a depth of 150 feet on 2,079.89 acres, and the sand and gravel resources on 11,586.32acres. Conveyance would also include the following water right:

Parcel Water Right Holder Number 6 Water right #16-10 CRLLC

Skull Valley Land Exchange A-7 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix A

The non-Federal parties would reserve the following water rights:

Parcel Water Right Holder Number 9 Water right #16-37 CRLLC 18 Water right #16-43 CRLLC 23 Water right #16-39 CRLLC 24 Water right #16-28 CRLLC 30 Water right #16-635 SVC 29 Water right #16-94 SVC 32 Water right #16-801 SVC The non-Federal parties would reserve a utility easement for access to and maintenance of the well and storage tank associated with water right #16-801, on Parcel 32. Encumbrances: The applicable parcels would be conveyed subject to the listed encumbrances and water rights:

Parcel Encumbrances Holder Number 7 Pipeline easement USA 9 Powerline easement Pacificorp 21 Powerline easement Pacificorp 32 Powerline easement Pacificorp 32 Water well agreement USPCI Parcel Water Right Holder Number 6 Water right #16-162 USA 28 Water right #16-775 USA 32 Water right #16-800 Clean Harbors

Skull Valley Land Exchange A-8 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix B

APPENDIX B—MAPS

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-1

Map 1. Exchange Parcels Base Map

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-2

Map 2. Livestock Grazing Allotments and Water Rights

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-3

Map 3. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat and Management Areas

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-4

Map 4. Mule Deer Habitat

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-5

Map 5. Pronghorn Habitat

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-6

Map 6. Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-7

Map 7. Cedar Mountain Wilderness

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-8

Map 8. Wild Horse Herd Management Areas and Herd Areas

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-9

Map 9. Pony Express National Historic Trail – Lookout Pass Station

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-10

Map 10. California National Historic Trail – Lincoln Highway

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-11

Map 11. Lincoln Highway

Skull Valley Land Exchange B-12 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix D

APPENDIX C—INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM CHECKLIST

Skull Valley Land Exchange C-1

Project Title: Skull Valley Land Exchange NEPA Log Number: DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA File/Serial Number: UTU-89605FD Project Leader: Dave Watson/Mary Higgins/Mike Nelson Determination of Staff: 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

Determi Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date -nation

Resources and Issues Considered (Includes Supplemental Authorities Appendix 1 H-1790-1)

This land exchange proposal does not have the potential to create emissions. BLM is not authorizing any specific activity on parcels that Air Quality leave Federal ownership. Parcels entering BLM Pamela NP administration would have the same land use 06/22/17 Greenhouse Schuller Gases planning (LUP) decisions applied as adjoining or nearby public lands. Surface disturbing activities are not proposed or associated with the proposed action (ATI). The land use plan does not identify any ACECs associated with the proposed action. Horsehoe Cindy Areas of Critical Springs ACEC is within ½ mile of non-Federal Ledbetter 11/15/11 NP Environmental parcel 35 adjacent to Highway196. The R&I Concern Pamela 06/23/17 values would not be altered by the exchange Schuller proposal. No natural areas designated through BLM land BLM Natural Cindy NP use planning are within the Salt Lake Field 11/15/11 Areas Ledbetter Office (SLFO) Boundaries Twenty six archaeological sites within the Federal exchange parcels are eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. They would be lost from BLM Management and would not be afforded statutory protection by the BLM. BLM would Cultural Dale Earl 11/15/11 PI acquire an area crossed by a segment of the Resources Pony Express National Historic Trail. Mike Sheehan 06/15/17 SHPO concurred with these determinations of eligibility (25 October 2013). Agreement on mitigation of adverse effects to historic properties is captured in a Programmatic Agreement signed 16 February 2016. Environmental Low income or minority populations would not Cindy NI 11/15/11 Justice be disproportionately affected. Ledbetter

Skull Valley Land Exchange C-2

Determi Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date -nation Farmlands (Prime No irrigated or cultivated lands are included in NP Michael Gates 01/08/10 or Unique) the exchange proposal. No streams, lakes, or ponds are located on the proposed exchange parcels. A ditch on non- NI Fish Habitat Federal Parcel 20 provides marginal fish habitat Traci Allen 10/16//09 but there are no potential future uses that would adversely affect the ditch. The parcels included in the proposed exchange do not include any designated floodplains; no NP Floodplains Michael Gates 01/08/10 structures or facilities would be authorized in a floodplain as part of the exchange proposal. Acquisition of the scattered non-Federal parcels, 19 of which are completely surrounded by Federal lands, would simplify the BLM’s vegetative enhancement projects and fire prevention efforts designed to protect or improve the salt desert shrub vegetative communities in this part of the Great Basin. Fuels/Fire Disposal of the Federal lands located on the PI Teresa Rigby 10/15/09 Management west side of the small community of Terra would reduce the BLM’s costs associated with fuel reduction projects designed to reduce the risk of wild land fires near Terra. Fuelbreaks created by BLM at Round Canyon and near Terra would no longer be managed by BLM but would likely be managed under agreement with the private land owner. Area geology is not changed or impacted. LUP decisions for energy or mineral categories on Geology/ Mineral acquired parcels would be the same as Larry Garahana Resources/ adjacent/adjoining BLM land. Parcels with 01/07/10 PI Pamela Energy prospectively valuable minerals including sand 06/22/17 Production and gravel deposits are present. Additional Schuller information is documented in the Mineral Potential Report (2009).

Invasive Species/ BLM would acquire non-Federal parcels on the south end of Skull Valley that are infested with PI Noxious Weeds Gary Kidd 10/16/09 knapweed while the Federal lands have invasive (EO 13112) species but are free of noxious weeds. This is a lands action that would change land ownership and access. Valid existing rights would be maintained but use of the land for NI Lands/Access Mike Nelson 07/14/17 dispersed recreation would be affected. Refer to impacts on lands and access in the recreation discussions.

Livestock The Federal parcels that would be traded are PI Michael Gates 01/08/10 Grazing scattered throughout four Federal grazing allotments. Non-Federal parcels are in six

Skull Valley Land Exchange C-3

Determi Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date -nation allotments. The exchange would result in a change of BLM forage allocations in seven allotments. Several raptor nests including birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and BLM Special Status Species (SSS) program PI Migratory Birds. Traci Allen 10/16/09 have been monitored on the non-Federal and Federal parcels by the Raptor Inventory Nest Survey (RINS) BLM initiated consultation with the Goshute, Skull Valley Band of Goshutes, Ute, and Paiute tribes by sending letters to notify the tribes of Dale Earl Native American the proposed action on December 3, 2009. 10/15/09 NI Religious Pamela A second invitation to consult was sent to these 06/13/17 Concerns Schuller tribes, including the Jemez Pueblo on 2/20/2015. Refer to additional information provided in section 5.2 and 5.3.1. There are no known important paleontological NP Paleontology resources located within the lands that are being Larry Garahana 01/07/10 exchanged. The components of rangeland health are addressed under the appropriate headings, eg. Rangeland Health NI soil and water. Because the potential future use Michael Gates 01/08/10 Standards of the land would not change, no overall effect on range land health is anticipated. The Federal public lands are now used for dispersed recreation by the recreating public and local citizens in Skull Valley. Public access through the Federal lands would be transferred to private ownership and would no long be available for dispersed recreation without landowner permission. BLM would maintain Ray Kelsey 10/22/09 PI Recreation access to a segment of the California National Historic Trail on Parcel 20 through a reserved Mike Nelson 07/17/17 ROW. BLM control of the non-Federal private parcels would increase BLM’s ability to provide improved recreational opportunities along the Pony Express National Historic Trail (NHT) and the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area (WA). Land management would become more efficient with proposed project. Since the current use of the land for grazing and recreation would Cindy NI Socio-Economics continue and there would be no changes in 11/15/11 Ledbetter potential future uses, there would be no change in social or economic conditions at the local, regional or state levels.

Skull Valley Land Exchange C-4

Determi Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date -nation Because the current use of the land for livestock grazing and recreation would continue, and the NI Soils Michael Gates 01/08/10 only soils would not be impacted to the extent that additional analysis is needed. There are no known T&E/Candidate plant species or their critical habitat on the exchange Threatened, parcels. The BLM Sensitive Plant, “Pohl’s Endangered, Milkvetch occurs on 3 of the Federal BLM Roddy Hardy 10/15/09 PI Candidate or parcels in the southern portion of the Land Special Status Mark Williams 06/29/17 Exchange Area. If transferred, the BLM would Plant Species lose management control of this species on the exchanged lands. No listed Threatened or Endangered, or Threatened, Candidate species or their critical habitats are Endangered, known to occur on the Federal or non-Federal PI Candidate or Traci Allen 10/15/09 parcels proposed for exchange. Bald and golden Special Status eagles and other raptors forage in Skull Valley. Animal Species Raptor nests occur on several parcels. There is no evidence of hazardous substances, petroleum products, or recognized environmental conditions and/or CERCLA 120(h) concerns on the non-Federal parcels (Environmental Site Assessment Phase I Report for non-Federal lands, February 2011 and reviewed and updated with a Pre-acquisition Liability Survey (PALS) in August 2017). There are no known hazardous substances, petroleum product, or recognized environmental conditions and/or CERCLA 120(h) concerns on Wastes the Federal lands. An Environmental Site Mike Nelson 11/15/11 NI (hazardous or Assessment Phase I Report for the Federal lands Mike Nelson 07/14/17 solid) was completed May 2013, and updated with a Preliminary Analysis in August 2017. As a result of the findings, there are no RECs that could modify how the exchange could take place and further inquiries are not warranted. Exceptions or considerations were not identified. The potential future use of the exchanged lands is continued livestock grazing, wild horse use and dispersed recreation. No toxic or hazardous substances or wastes would be used on the exchanged parcels. Therefore, no further analysis is needed. There are no floodplains, wetlands or riparian Water Resources/ zones associated with the exchange parcels, Quality Dylan Tucker except for a small area (< .1 acre) of riparian 11/15/11 PI (drinking/ vegetation at Slater Spring that would be Pamela 6/22/17 surface/ground) acquired by BLM. Because the present use of Schuller Water Rights the lands for livestock grazing, wild horses and dispersed recreation would continue, new

Skull Valley Land Exchange C-5

Determi Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date -nation potential point or non- point sources of water pollution are not anticipated. Therefore, there would be no impacts on water quality. The exchange would result in the acquisition of a water right (#16-10) at Slater Springs by BLM. There are no designated floodplains, wetlands or riparian zones associated with the exchange parcels, except for a small area (< .1 acre) of Wetlands/ NI riparian vegetation at Slater Spring that would Michael Gates 01/08/10 Riparian Zones be acquired by BLM. Therefore, further analysis of impacts on wetlands or riparian zones is not needed. No designated or eligible wild, scenic or Wild and Scenic NP recreational river segments are present on the Ray Kelsey 10/22/09 Rivers exchange parcels or in the SLFO. Transfer of four private parcels to public ownership within and/or near the Cedar Mountain WA would increase the BLM’s ability to protect and improve wilderness Wilderness/ characteristics including opportunities for PI Ray Kelsey 10/22/09 WSA solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. There would be no negative impacts from proposed action. Potential beneficial impacts are addressed in Chapters 3 and 4 of the EA. Wildlife BLM would lose management control on Excluding wildlife habitats on the Federal parcels but PI USFWS Traci Allen 10/16//09 would gain greater control of the habitats on the Designated non-Federal parcels. Species There are no timber, firewood or woodland Woodland/ NP product harvest areas on any of the proposed Verlyn Pindell 10/21/09 Forestry exchange parcels. Because the current use of the land for livestock grazing and recreation would continue and vegetation would not be directly impacted. Acquisition of the scattered non-Federal Vegetation parcels, 19 of which are completely surrounded Excluding USFW by Federal lands, would simplify the BLM’s NI Michael Gates 01/08/10 Designated vegetative enhancement projects and fire Species prevention efforts designed to protect or improve the salt desert shrub vegetative communities in this part of the Great Basin. This is addressed in the Fire and Fuels section of the EA. The proposed action would not impact existing NI Visual Resources visual resources or visual resource management Ray Kelsey 10/22/09 (VRM) as the transfer would consolidate

Skull Valley Land Exchange C-6

Determi Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date -nation existing private landholdings utilized for agricultural purposes and maintain the existing character of the predominant landscape. There would be no surface disturbing projects or activities that could alter the character of the landscape. BLM control of acreage within the Cedar Mountain and Onaqui Herd Management Areas (HAs/HMAs) would change with the proposed Wild Horses and Michael Gates 01/08/10 PI land exchange. Burros Tami Howell 06/07/17 BLM acres transferred within the Onaqui HMA are in an area that is not used routinely by the horses as it is outside their preferred range. Federal public lands identified for exchange are either not roadless, or they are adjacent to already developed agricultural lands where naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation are lacking. Areas with None of the proposed exchange parcels are PI Wilderness Ray Kelsey 09/13/11 located in or adjacent to a citizens proposed Characteristics WA. Five of the non-Federal parcels in the Onaqui Mountains that would be transferred to BLM ownership are contiguous with an area that BLM intends to inventory for wilderness characteristics.

Skull Valley Land Exchange C-7

APPENDIX D—AMENDED ATI PRIORITIZATION OF PARCELS FOR ELIMINATION TO EQUALIZE VALUES

Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands

Priority for Priority for Elimination Parcel No. Acres Elimination Parcel No. Acres 1 17 580.00 1 40 640.00 2 16 640.00 2 27 640.00 3 15 640.00 3 8 320.00 4 19 37.49 4 9 640.00 5 21 120.00 5 10 280.00 6 20 280.00 6 15 40.00 7 32 464.29 7 14 80.00 8 35 392.24 8 16 200.38 9 33 560.00 9 17 317.04 10 34 503.32 10 13 320.00 11 22 239.93 11 12 640.00 12 1 318.64 12 11 640.00 13 2 240.00 13 33 2.54 14 3 642.72 14 34 51.28 15 5 240.00 15 35 19.90 16 4 401.44 16 36 15.33 17 6 234.92 17 37 11.91 18 2 290.00 18 21 478.06 19 25 200.00 19 20 640.00 20 23 320.00 20 19 42.85 21 26 400.00 21 2 120.00 22 7 637.28 22 4 640.00 23 8 241.35 23 18 640.00 24 9 602.16 24 1 33.74 25 10 80.00 25 7 638.79 26 11 80.00 26 6 640.00 27 12 540.00 27 5 80.00 28 13 600.21 28 3 96.51 29 14 639.76 29 22 640.00 30 18 77.52 30 23 640.00 31 28 560.00 31 24 640.00 32 29 640.00 32 25 640.00 33 30 160.00 33 26 640.00 34 31 640.00 35 29 480.00 36 30 480.00 37 39 24.81 38 38 13.70 39 28 120.00 40 32 480.00

Skull Valley Land Exchange E-1 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2009-0026-EA Appendix E

APPENDIX E—COMMENT RESPONSE

Skull Valley Land Exchange E-1

# Comment Response EA Changes 1 Thank you for sending me notice on the Skull Valley Land Exchange. I used ENBB to review the EA and the Map. I agree with your finding and see Not required. No this as a positive decision. 2 Introduction Authorities for the land exchange are presented in section 1.5 of the EA. This section has been Yes The Utah Crossroads Chapter of OCTA is pleased to be among those parties commenting upon the Skull Valley Land Draft Exchange edited to include the BLM’s authorities in regards to NHT management. Environmental Assessment (EA). We praise BLM for its generally fine management of the public’s resources. The proposed exchange involves a As a result of the comments received at the Consulting Parties meetings and from others, it was number of parcels, only a few of which contain high-value National Historic Trail that is important to us, to the trail cultural heritage of our nation, decided to conduct addition Class III surveys and a mitigation plan would be developed for and to the general public. We will focus most of our comments upon the concerns we have with northern Parcels 20-21 and 22-1 proposed to leave cultural resources adversely impacted by the exchange. public domain, make a couple of general comments on the EA, and note an important trail issue relating to those northern parcels. With regard to maintaining public access to NHTs affected by the land exchange, specifically the Empowerments Hastings Cutoff, the following has been added to the EA narrative: “A segment of the Hastings In the Environmental Assessment introduction, there is a brief reference to the normal environmental review involved in exchanging public property Cutoff (42TO709) traverses Parcel 20. In addition to being a historic property, the Hastings for alternative public property or non-public property. What we would also like to see in this introductory material is reference to the statutory and Cutoff is a designated National Historic Trail. In order to ensure continued public access to the regulatory documents which, according to BLM, assigns and empowers itself to exchange such property. The material in 1.5.1 Proposed Action Hastings Cutoff following execution of the land exchange, the BLM negotiated a perpetual, non- refers to the important 1990 Management Plan and how the exchange needs to address one or more of the listed management criteria. We would like exclusive right-of-way for that portion of the trail in Parcel 20 with interested members of the to see the legal basis upon which BLM claims the authority to permanently and so completely move National Historic Trail (NHT) from the public public, including the Oregon-California Trail Association, the Utah SHPO, and the ACHP. The sector to the private sector. right-of-way for non-motorized access 220’ wide and is accessible at the Horseshoe Springs NHTs versus NRs interpretive kiosk.” In reading the Environmental Assessment, we notice that there is no mention of the National Park Service’s certified trail site segment program or While it is correct to note the distinctions between NRs (Historic Properties) and NHTs, it is anything like it. Rather, the EA states that “it is anticipated that the sites would be adequately mitigated.” We do not see clear evidence in this EA imperative to note the 2013 cultural resources inventory and PA/HPTP developed for the Skull that the proposed mitigation will be done “adequately” because the Hastings Cutoff segments of the California National Historic Trail are merely Valley Land Exchange pertain exclusively to Section 106 (NHPA) compliance. Therefore, the being treated as typical National Register sites and not as the National Historic Trail (NHT) route. According to the National Trail System Act focus is on resolution of adverse/unknown effects on historic properties. Many of these comments (NTSA), NHTs differ significantly from National Register sites (NR’s) as they carry particular eligibility and management criteria too often regarding the effects of the land exchange on historic properties and historic trails appears to be overlooked. Those criteria are more rigorous than NR criteria. One of the three criteria a potential NHT must meet to be one of the relatively few based on preliminary inventories completed in 1998-99. The results of those inventories are no NHT recognized by Congress is the ability to provide and preserve recreational and historical resources that are to be publically accessible and longer valid with regard to the Skull Valley Land Exchange. Given the modifications to the APE travelable (NTSA 2009, Sec 2. a). Of course, to trade such NHT resource away would not fall within the Act’s mandates of preservation and usage for this undertaking, a new inventory based on a robust sampling strategy was completed in 2012 of these special value resources. We do not see that BLM is empowered to trade these resources as Congressional Statue has placed particular and reported in 2013. All consultation related to the effects of the Skull Valley Land Exchange on criteria on these very special types of recreational and historical public assets. Indeed, the high importance of these assets was recently further historic properties and historic trails was based on the 2013 cultural resources inventory report. emphasized when NHTs were included among those national treasures in the National Landscape Conservation Act. This clearly means that NHTs, The information in that document provided the basis for the Programmatic Agreement/Historic unlike typical NRs, now have the additional considerations afforded National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, Wilderness Study Areas, Properties Treatment Plan developed in concert with interested members of the public (including and the like. Historic Trails groups), Utah SHPO, and the ACHP, which documents relevant and appropriate mitigation strategies for the adverse effects/impacts of the land exchange on historic Land Ownership properties/trails. Edits were made to the sections 3.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.12 through 4.3.1.15, 4.3.2.1, One of the problems with this Environmental Assessment is its insistence on a far too limited view of the land ownership situation. While the EA 5.3 and 5.3.1 of the EA. correctly identifies incoming and outgoing parcels, far more is needed for an NHT exchange. As an organization that frequently deals with NHT Current land ownership designations are depicted on the maps presented in Appendix B. issues on both the private and public landscapes, Crossroads deems it necessary to know and consider the route of the trail not only on the parcels in question, but on the adjacent parcels for the following reasons: 1) an NHT is defined as a known route in the NHT Congressional enabling legislation The relative resource values for each segment of National Historic Trails are discussed in Section and is in fact a long linear historical site that is to be recognized and managed as such, and 2) in order to fundamentally understand the impact of 3.3.6. The potential impacts to resource values and mitigation measures for each NHT segment parcel exchanges/segment exchanges, we must consider the ownership of nearby parcels that also have connecting route resource. This EA does not within proposed parcels are discussed in Section 4.3.1.6. provide the necessary nearby ownership information, nor does it advance adequate evidence of route consideration. It is simply short segment BLM has consulted with members of the Lincoln Highway Association to update current oriented, which, while typical of an NR consideration is not an adequate NHT consideration. information on the different routes of the Lincoln Highway within the project area, which is By failing to provide adjacent ownership information on the proposed incoming and outgoing parcels, BLM does not provide commenting partners presented in Section 3.3.6 and on Maps 6-7 in Appendix B. the necessary information to make informed decisions. Indeed, we wonder if BLM has even considered the impact upon the linear NHT route. Updated resource information on the California NHT, Lincoln Highway, and Pony Express NHT Resource Equity is now presented in Section 3.3.6, Section 4.3.1.6., and Appendix B. We observe that the EA claims this exchange will obtain similar resource for resource. Crossroads notes that the draft EA claims that the outgoing Potential impacts and mitigation measures for discrete segments of NHT resources are addressed Parcels 19-22 are said to contain 1.25 miles of trail and the incoming 33-37 parcels are said to contain 1.33 miles. We wonder how this can be. in Section 4.3.1.6. However, what we see is that Hastings NHT resource is being exchanged for no such similar gain in Hastings NHT resource, or even NHT Lincoln In accordance with the NTSA, mitigation measures such as trail right-of-way for non-motorized Highway resource, despite implied claims to the latter. We challenge the appropriateness of exchanging one historic trail mileage unit for another access for high value NHT resources are discussed in Section 4.3.1.6 and would be addressed in unit of a distinctly different NHT. Each is a long linear site that is route defined by Congressional Statute with accompanying mandates to provide, the subsequent Decision Record. conserve and preserve that route resource. Each trail must be individually evaluated; its integrity should not be compromised through such casual Unless a requestor is the holder of a valid Antiquities Permit, accessing protected information is inter-swapping of parcels. not possible under the law and regulations regarding the management and protection cultural data. The appropriateness of exchanging non-NHT mileage for NHT path is even more unsubstantiated. Unfortunately, Crossroads thinks that may be just Persons with an Antiquities Permit can view project records on site at the SLFO. what BLM proposes here, perhaps because BLM is uncertain where LH is located, and/or perhaps mistakenly thinks LH resource is included in the In accordance with the NTSA, mitigation measures such as trail right-of-way for non-motorized incoming parcels. access for high value NHT resources in Parcel 20 are discussed in Section 4.3.1.6 and would be

Skull Valley Land Exchange E-2

# Comment Response EA Changes Lincoln Highway (LH) Route addressed in the subsequent Decision Record. Relative to Parcels 19 and 22, the project proponent Closely identifying near and overlapping NHT resources, like the LH and the Hastings Trail, is often inherently difficult and controversial. has previously communicated in meetings with the Consulting Parties a good faith willingness to Crossroads prefers to avoid this controversial identification. However, according to recent studies which were heavily based upon culvert dating and enter into agreements with outside parties for access to any NHT trail segments found within presence of gravel, many think the route of the LH through this area has been previously misinterpreted. Revisionists think the LH lies largely upon Federal parcels in the exchange. the earlier Hastings route. According to this line of thinking, its old path is essentially the CCC road route. Although the CCC may qualify as an NR, Updated resource information and potential impacts from acquiring non-Federal parcel 28 on the it is not an NHT. Crossroads sees in this draft EA nothing suggesting BLM is even aware of this important debate. Pony Express NHT Lookout Pass Station site is addressed in Section 3.3.6 and 4.3.1.6. Incoming Resource BLM greatly values the cooperative relationship it enjoys with the members of the Oregon- When Crossroads examined the incoming 33-37 parcels, we did not find similar incoming sections of Hastings Trail, nor any other incoming NHT as California Trail Association and will at all times work to enhance this relationship in the future. claimed in the draft EA (p 3-7). We note that because the LH no longer likely tracks as presumed in this draft EA, BLM lacks NHT swap equity -- if such can even exist between two distinctly defined NHTs. Crossroads’ position is that these NHTs are distinct national treasures that were established individually by Congressional Statute. We say “presumed in this draft EA” because the quality of the Maps in this EA is so poor that we are forced to presume the routes the BLM thinks the LH, Hastings Trail, and non-NHT CCC road take. Perhaps this poor route data presentation was done in an attempt to “protect” archaeological site data that is thought too sensitive to share with partners such as Crossroads, or too little known to the public to be released to them in a draft EA. However, the obvious lack of adequate documentation of trail route involved in the exchange is a serious and critically fatal flaw. In reality much NHT site/route data is already present in the public sector and is being newly developed therein over time. As some of our private Crossroads research and Mapping shows the various trails (NHT and non-NHT) within these parcels, we are attaching this revisionary interpretation in the form of Maps for your consideration as BLM rethinks its positions on this land exchange. As it is a new interpretation, it has not yet stood the test of time, although it presently appears strong. However, with NHTs, Crossroads prefers to err on the side of caution, so we suggest BLM rethink the northern parcel exchanges at a more fundamental level that preserves the integrity of the Hasting route and doesn’t fully rely on a given LH interpretation. The extremely poor filtering of non-sensitive and sensitive site data that occurs in the typical agency cultural resource reports prohibits free flow of information. The fact of the matter is this land exchange proposal directly raises questions about the trail data that are not addressed in the text. This type of inadequate trail data presentation promotes suspicion regarding the motives of the exchange advocates. When trail mileage claims do not meet the par values claimed in the Environmental Assessment, the draft EA is unacceptable and could be used to evidence a conspiracy to deceive. Crossroads thinks BLM should address this gross data inadequacy and the equality claims promptly. Even if the LH route were interpreted traditionally to be more associated with the CCC road route, there is still another critical difficulty. That road basically evolved to become the existing state highway route. The former lies within the easement of the existing highway and is already functionally public ground through the highway easement. To represent this same trail resource as mileage coming into the public sector, as this draft does on page 3-7, is disingenuous. This mileage is functionally already there. We are saddened to see this draft EA make such questionable mileage claims. Outgoing Resource We note that outgoing Parcels 20 and 22 contain important sections of Hastings Trail that will be forever lost to the public. The absence of any mention in the draft EA of negotiated access, travel within, and preservation stipulations clearly shows that, perhaps for the sake of expediency, BLM has failed to adopt the provide, preserve and conserve mandates of the NTSA. We read in the EA that “the exchange would be made subject to valid existing rights such as easements, right-of way etc” (page 2-2). However, we cannot see how the public rights mentioned in NTSA Section 2 a, are adequately met with this exchange. It appears that not only are the provide and protect provisions concerns of the Hastings Trail present in Parcels 20 and 22 not being met, those concerns are also forfeited without stipulations and exchange equalities. Access, preservation and usage stipulations within an exchange agreement could be used to accomplish much of what the private party desires while undertaking to preserve the public interest in the historic Hastings Trail, the access to, and preservation of said trail. We consider such negotiated stipulations potentially very important to the public oriented management considerations that lie at the heart of any NHT-related exchange. Crossroads notes that as property changes hands, it is not uncommon to place certain limitations, restraints and recommendations upon aspects of the ownership. To see that National Historic Trail of this value is transferred without careful consideration of such fundamental stipulations is shocking. If the BLM were truly pursuing its responsibilities to manage these NHT segments so that the NTSA’s public recreation, access, preservation requirements were met, we would then see EA text discussing those initiatives. In this draft EA we found no such evidence. The public interest to continue to have access to NHT and to have NHT resource preserved over time is not currently being served. We request that this shortfall be addressed in the revised draft, and that the due diligence to fulfill these fundamental responsibilities which are part of the NTSA become evidenced in the revised EA. Mitigation It is not uncommon to leave mitigation considerations for cultural resources such as trails to a Treatment Plan phase following the draft EA or EA. Although we did not find direction on what these trail mitigations might be in the EA, typically such mitigations are not oriented in land exchange

Skull Valley Land Exchange E-3

# Comment Response EA Changes settings toward access and preservation concerns. Rather, they are oriented toward selective data recovery, site interpretation, and non-access or limited access. We see the need not only for additional interpretation of these trails (LH and Hastings), but also for continuing access and long-term preservation. It is not in the public interest to forfeit long-term preservation for these historic parcels. Crossroads is very concerned about additional data recovery if this exchange moves forward. We urge that the public access to needed data records and preservation considerations for the two northern parcels be given their proper emphasis. We must see the specifics of this restricted existing trail data, if indeed such data exists. Crossroads does not see within the draft EA that other parcels which do not contain historic trail were alternatively considered. Because avoidance of NHT is more efficient, less costly, and often possible, such a course should be pursued. A lack of avoidance triggers data recovery, but recovery is not the equal of avoidance. We suggest BLM either search for another parcel of ground to trade besides Parcel 20 and a corner of Parcel 22, or consider modifying the exchange arranges for Parcels 20 and 22 as we suggest below. Stipulations and Exchange Modifications We notice that the section of Hastings Trail bisects Parcel 20 while the Forty-niners trail segments of the Hastings cross a corner of Parcel 22. The latter would be a likely candidate for public retention and/or easy preservation and access stipulation with probably little impact upon private usage. We find no evidence in the EA that these options to address trail concerns were either considered or pursued. Parcel 20 is different. Of the various parcels, 20 has an important segment of trail crossing its midsection. Perhaps it would be more expeditious to exchange an alternative parcel rather than arrange the means to protect the public access and insure the preservation of historical resources for a section of its middle. In lieu of an alternative parcel, perhaps the east and west portions of the parcel could be exchanged without sacrificing regulated limited access, preservation of the existing vegetation profile, and avoidance of significant surface disturbances to the trail needed for the publicly retained trail corridor section. Depending upon the usage negotiated for the east and west sections, cross fencing might not be needed. In short, special long term lease arrangements could be formed to protect that corridor’s unique resources sensitive to the NTSA’s intentions. Lookout Pass Resource We note that the addition to public sector of the trail, animal cemetery, etc. of the southern parcel at Lookout Pass would be a great accomplishment of the proposed exchange. This important area lends itself to access and interpretation. Good job BLM. Closing Comments Crossroads thanks the BLM for the occasion to comment upon this important draft EA. We note that for generations the Hastings Trail through the Skull Valley area has been an important historical resource for Crossroads and others. It will no doubt continue to be so for many years to come, save for the portions that are inaccessible and unprotected on private ground. We believe the implementation of our suggestions will safely honor the NTSA rather than challenge it, improve the exchange, and best serve the public interest. 3 I recognize the potential value for the BLM and residents of Tooele County inherent in the proposed land swap. Speaking as an enthusiastic back In all cases, BLM does not grant public access to private property. Individuals wanting access No country explorer and history buff, I'd like to encourage all parties involved to do their best to ensure that the BLM or other government agency must seek permission from the landowners. In this instance, the non-Federal parties have agreed retains control of the rights of way on all existing public travel routes, especially those routes that lie on or provide access to sites of historical to a public right-of-way for non-motorized access across parcel 20 to view the Trail. As per the significance. Allowing control of these routes or sites to fall into private hands could lead to lack of public access. 2016 ATI and prioritization of parcels shown in Appendix D, several parcels were removed from the exchange due to the presence of important historic properties. Those parcels would then remain in BLM ownership and control. Access concerns are discussed in sections 2.2, 3.3.1 and 4.3.1.1 of the EA. Map 1 illustrates parcel locations and their proximity to roads and trails. Refer also to BLM’s response to Comment #2. 4 In reviewing Salt Lake BLM's Skull Valley Land Exchange and Environmental Assessment (EA), DOI-BLM-UT-WOI0-2009-0026-EA, the In accordance with BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventories on No Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance's (SUWA) assessment is positive. In general, SUWA supports the proposal and proposed land exchange. We Public Lands, the BLM would update existing lands with wilderness character inventories on view the proposed relinquishment of federal lands and the potential acquisition of each individual property parcel into federal ownership as a lands acquired in this exchange, as appropriate. positive step towards BLM meeting its public land management objective in the Skull Valley region. It appears this proposed exchange will benefit many sensitive resources and other values. We do not see significant negative aspects. Therefore, we urge the Salt Lake BLM to finalize the EA and make no substantive changes to the document. We do, however, provide some additional comments regarding wilderness resources for the Salt Lake BLM once the EA is finalized and the land exchange is completed. Section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) guides the agency to maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values. The Salt Lake BLM should conduct an initial wilderness review of all lands that are acquired, but specifically, conduct a more in-depth review and detailed wilderness inventory of lands that become public lands within Parcels I, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 no later than six month after the land exchange is completed. This wilderness characteristic inventory should be conducted in accordance with BLM Manual 6310 - Conducting Wilderness Character Inventory on BLM Lands (Public) (March, 15, 2012). The EA acknowledges that there may be wilderness values present in Parcels 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7, but currently omits the potential for Parcel 2 as possessing a wilderness resource. Parcel 2 straddles Highway 199, but we believe the portion of this potential acquired land north of the highway

Skull Valley Land Exchange E-4

# Comment Response EA Changes demonstrates a likelihood of having wilderness character. This parcel is contiguous with additional BLM lands, Forest Service lands and also the designated Area when taken in full context. When performing the initial assessment for this parcel, Salt Lake BLM should acknowledge that the contiguous BLM lands were inventoried in 1999 as a part of BLM's larger Utah Wilderness Inventory and BLM concluded that the "Big Hollow wilderness inventory unit" possessed wilderness characteristics. Unfortunately, BLM mistakenly concluded that the overall unit lacked wilderness values because it was less than 5,000 acres. The 1999 inventory stated, "[T]he Big Hollow inventory unit meets all the basic criteria to have wilderness characteristics, except for size. While most of the acreage in the inventory unit is natural and provides outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, the unit is only 4,300 acres in size and is no longer contiguous to other lands being considered for wilderness designation." We contend that this 4,300 acres area is contiguous to the larger roadless area of the Stansbury Mountains and meets the 5,000 acre size requirement. More importantly, because of its location, its rugged terrain and vegetation character, this 4,300 acre area would easily satisfy the guidance for size under the new BLM Manual 63 IO - Conducting Wilderness Character Inventory on BLM Lands (March, 15, 2012). Section C.2.a.2.b of the Manual provides BLM with the direction for areas that may fall under the 5,000 acre threshold. It states that areas could qualify for size when, "[l]t is demonstrated that the area is of sufficient size as make it practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition." We urge BLM to asses Parcel 2 and the 1999 Big Hollow inventory unit on its own merits for meeting the guidance requirements for size once again. While the Big Hollow unit easily satisfies the wilderness character requirements on its own, Parcel 2, if acquired, would be part of the exceptionally large roadless area that includes both the Desert Peak Wilderness Area and the Nmth Stansbury Mountains Wilderness Study Area to the 1101th. Included as attachments1 are supplemental information Maps and photographs prepared by SUW A that demonstrate the wilderness resources in both the Onaqui Mountains and Big Hollow areas. See Skull Valley Land Exchange EA - Map 1, 2, 3 and 4. These accompanying Maps and aerial photographs display the lands that we have identified as having wilderness character in both the Big Hollow and the Onaqui Mountains areas. To date, the BLM has yet to fully identify the wilderness character of each of these scenic and natural areas. 1- Attachments are not reproduced here in this table. 5 I urge the BLM to choose the "No Action" alternative at this time and to renegotiate the terms of the proposed land swap following a thorough study BLM concurs that the EA content provided during the comment period was insufficient in Yes of particular matters that were insufficiently analyzed by the EA. describing parcel locations relative to the boundaries of the HAs and HMAs and how On the surface, the land exchange under consideration might seem attractive. BLM would receive slightly more land than it would lose -- about management of the herds would change due to the alternatives. Clarifications were made in 14,358 acres versus 13,960 acres -- a net gain of approximately 398 acres. However, deeper probing reveals that BLM -- and the American people in sections 1.7.12, 3.3.12, 4.3.1.12 – 4.3.1.15, 4.4, and 5.2. BLM notes the commenter’s preference whose behalf the Agency manages the public lands -- would be getting a raw deal. The commenter provides a summary of who gets what, who keeps for the No Action alternative. Instructions for filing a protest will be provided in the Decision what, who gives up what. Record. HMA Land Rarely Used by Wild Horses? Noxious weeds/invasive species, including knapweed infestations are not necessarily limited by The EA simply declares that the 2,840 acres of HMA land that BLM plans to convey to the non-Federal parties are "rarely used" by the wild horses, land ownership boundaries. BLM and Tooele County along with other parties cooperatively and that the land in question "is considered to be some of the poorest range ...." But no documentation is provided for these claims, and so they are engage in weed control measures to target noxious/invasive species regardless of land ownership unsubstantiated. BLM reviewed the listed publication on knapweed being toxic to horses and found that the type of HMA Lands -- May Include Seasonal Pastures, Migration Routes knapweed that is toxic is Russian Knapweed and it is not found in Tooele County. Squarrose Knapweed is the common species, with some smaller infestations of spotted and diffuse The EA does not explore whether the wild horses use the HMA land targeted for exchange as part of their seasonal pastures and migration routes. knapweeds. These species are much less toxic (USDA Agricultural Information Bulletin Number Access to this area would be denied by the non-Federal parties and blocked by the 8½ miles of exclusionary fences that are planned. It is 415 – Plants Poisonous to Livestock in the Western States). unacceptable to deny the wild horses use of their pastures or to block their natural migrations. Cheatgrass is an introduced invasive plant that is not considered as reliable forage. If grazed it is Moreover, it has been disclosed that many HMA boundaries were originally drawn incorrectly. They too failed to accommodate the horses' historical preferred for a few weeks in the early spring when the plaint is most nutrient and palatable. use of certain areas for seasonal grazing and migration. Thus, it is critical to ascertain just how and at what times of year the HMA acres in question Depending on seasonal precipitation, a second cheatgrass crop can greenup and provide forage in may be vital to the wild horses. The EA evidences no analysis of these issues. the fall. Some use of the plant could occur during winter months. Also, the quantity and quality of Non-HMA Land Heavily Used by Wild Horses? cheatgrass forage fluctuates wildly from year to year based on precipitation. Drought years are Correspondingly and again with no documentation, the EA merely states that 12,200 of the acres that would come under BLM's control "are heavily common; in those years cheatgrass provides almost no forage potential. And again cheatgrass used by, and important to, the wild horse population." But the land in question is predominantly used by livestock, and would continue to be invasions have no regard for property ownership. The areas infested with knapweed have a higher commercially grazed under the proposed deal. Declarations without documentation are insufficient for purposes of an EA. proportion of perennial plants making these areas better locations for foraging. Refer to the EA at Herd Areas -- Originally Much Larger Than Today's HMAs sections 3.3.3, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.2.2 and 4.4 for discussions of invasive weeds. It must be noted that the original Cedar Mountain and Onaqui Mountain herd areas (HAs) were significantly larger than the corresponding HMAs An open house was held during the 30-day scoping period to provide an opportunity for the public carved out of them. (HA/HMA Acreage figures are provided showing HMA area losses of 53% on the Cedar Mountain and 51% on the Onaqui to raise concerns or issues related to the proposed exchange prior to completing the EA. A news Mountain (with an overall loss of 51%). The proposed exchange would cause the wild horses to lose nearly 3,000 more acres of land. A better release announcing the meeting was sent to local media. A notice of the public meeting was also solution would be to restore the nearly half a million acres that were taken away from them. sent to known interested parties. It was also announced on the BLM Salt Lake Field Office Web When Would the HMAs Reflect a Gain in Acreage? Page. In addition to the open house, a 30-day comment period was provided for all interested The EA's cover sheet prominently features a photograph of wild horses. The EA emphasizes the net increase in land to be gained in the two HMAs parties. News releases and notices were distributed at the scoping and comment periods. The EA located in the district. But the EA is silent as to when an expansion of the HMAs would officially take effect (right away?) or how (amend the was released for a 30-day comment period.

Skull Valley Land Exchange E-5

# Comment Response EA Changes resource management plan?). The EA says only that BLM's "control" of certain acres in the HMAs would increase. Thus, there is no assurance that BLM – SLFO maintains a list of interested parties for Federal actions within an HMA. All the wild horses would reap any benefit from BLM's gaining control over additional acres within their HMAs. individuals or groups requesting to be placed on the SLFO’s list were reviewed and at the time When Would Appropriate Management Levels Be Raised? this EA went out for public comment the SLFO had not received any request. Mailing list for this The EA does not address an important issue: If the wild-horse HMAs are net-gaining 9,360 acres, when will their "appropriate management levels" document has been updated to include anyone that EA has since requested to be on the list. (AMLs) be raised? Given that livestock-grazing permit-holders will remain on that land and still own the water rights to all but one spring, the wild BLM’s Wild Horses and Burro’s Management Handbook (H-4700-1) and Land Use Planning horses might not be granted higher AMLs or a more generous allocation of animal unit months (AUMs). The EA says only that BLM will "adjust" Handbook (H-1601-1, at Appendix C, section F, pages 7-8), each state that adjustments to HAs or AUMs to reflect land ownership changes in grazing allotments. If BLM truly intends to expand the wild-horse AMLs and AUMs as a benefit to HMAs require a plan amendment. securing more acreage inside the HMAs, then that goal should be fully detailed in the EA. Herd areas are only adjusted if they are found to be only used by privately owned horses/burros or Knapweed Infestation -- Potentially Deadly to Horses if it does not correctly portray where horses were found in 1971. Neither circumstance applies in The land that BLM would acquire on the south end of Skull Valley is, in the words of the EA, "infested with knapweed." Inspection of the Map this situation. The BLM accounted for the historical range in the 2002 AML EA (established shows that most of the land BLM would receive is in the Valley's southern end. HA/HMA boundaries and the AMLs). Tables 2-1 and 2-2 have been modified to show which parcels occur within or outside of each herd HA and HMA. Some types of knapweed are toxic to horses. They cause a fatal neurological disorder, called "the chewing disease." There is no treatment, and the condition is irreversible. As outlined in H-4700-1, AML adjustments are made by a 3 tier process. BLM confirms that in the non-Federal land parcels within the HMAs that the four essential habitat components http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/b-710.pdf attributed to the non-Federal lands are present and that the herd sizes are sufficient to maintain http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/Toxicology/Plants-poisonous-to-horses-the-neurotoxic-variety/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/463084 health populations (Tiers 1 and 3 respectively). What information is lacking at this time is The EA addresses only Squarrose knapweed, which is considered benign. However, it is not clear whether BLM has done a recent, comprehensive monitoring data that can show that permanent forage is available and in what amounts (Tier 2). weed survey to determine if, in fact, the toxic kind of knapweeds are also present. Toxic or not, knapweed is still a noxious plant. BLM would, post- AML adjustments could only be supported by monitoring data collected on newly acquired land exchange, be responsible for eradicating the weeds that the non-Federal parties have allowed to infest the offered land. The American taxpayers parcels. This effort would be accounted for in the future after monitoring data are collected. would be left to foot the bill. About That Cheatgrass As a counterpoint, the EA notes that "the acres leaving have cheatgrass." This offset is hardly equivalent. Cheatgrass can be controlled through livestock grazing. A recent study by the University of Nevada at Reno found that cheatgrass can be successfully controlled by having livestock graze it in the fall. Moreover, at that time of year cheatgrass actually provides good nutrition. Please see article at link below. http://elkodaily.com/news/local/article_865f0904-e979-11df-a485-001cc4c002e0.html Most importantly, horses can safely graze cheatgrass. The proposed land swap would take away nearly three thousands of acres that "have cheatgrass" in exchange for over twelve thousand acres "infested with knapweed." Cheatgrass may be invasive, but knapweed is noxious. Only One Spring? No perennial streams flow on any of the parcels BLM would receive. There are only springs and wells, all but one of which would remain in "non- Federal" ownership. The EA stresses the advantages of acquiring Slater Spring's water rights, but it's the only source of water that BLM would gain. The EA mentions that "additional water rights could be transferred to BLM," but then abruptly drops the topic. Frankly, one spring is not good enough. BLM needs to negotiate fairly and aggressively on behalf of the public to secure water rights on all the land it controls. Lack of Consultation with Wild-Horse Experts and Advocates A review of the EA disclosed an absence of consultation with persons having expertise regarding wild horses and their needs. Further, no wild-horse advocacy groups were invited to participate in the planning process. Because the proposed land swap affects the HMAs, the lack of coordination in this regard reflects a failure to secure input from affected stakeholders. Literally all of the issues raised in this letter regarding the impact of the proposed land exchange on the wild horses could have -- and should have -- been addressed and resolved via coordinated resource management (CRM) -- cooperating, consulting, and coordinating with wild-horse advocates, just as BLM does with its grazing permit-holders. The CRM approach would likely have resulted in consensus-based decisions and the development of best management practices concerning the Cedar Mountain and Onaqui Mountain wild horses. Conclusions The proposed land swap is not in the public interest. The "No Action" alternative should be selected. I urge BLM to reject the proposed Skull Valley Land Exchange in its current form. The proposal has been inadequately and inappropriately evaluated. The EA touts the few pros and downplays the many cons. Competent negotiations have evidently been absent because the deal at hand is heavily lopsided in favor of the non-Federal parties. The American public's interests have not been well-served. BLM is duty-bound to negotiate fairly and forcefully on behalf of the American people when exchanging their public lands. BLM needs to reconsider the terms of this proposal and renegotiate them.

Skull Valley Land Exchange E-6

# Comment Response EA Changes 6 We have reviewed the subject environmental assessment (EA) which evaluates the effects of a proposed land exchange between Skull Valley BLM concurs and has worked with the proponent in amending the ATI in 2016. Parcels 27 and Yes Company et al and the BLM. Under the proposed exchange, the BLM would acquire up to 14,358 acres on 40 parcels of non-Federal land and the 31, which contain documented Pohl's milkvetch habitat, have been removed from consideration. proponents would acquire up to 13,960 acres on 35 parcels of Federal land. We are providing the following comments for your consideration. Table 5-1 has been edited to include the coordination with USFWS and its recommendation to The EA identifies the presence of Pohl' s milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. pohlii), a BLM sensitive species. The pohlii variety is identified by hold these parcels in Federal ownership. the Utah Native Plant Society as one of 31 plant species in the state considered an extremely high priority for conservation attention. The EA correctly notes there would be no Federal protection mechanisms for Pohl's milkvetch on parcels under private ownership. As stated in our letter of April 12, 2012. and noted in the EA, we recommend that you consider retaining lands that contain occupied and suitable habitats for Pohl' s milkvetch or that you complete an analysis to show the areas you are proposing to exchange are not needed for the long term viability of the species. 7 I have reviewed the Skull Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment and I understand the benefits to both the private parties and to the The exchange proponent has indicated willingness to allow groups or individuals access to these No public in the exchange. I have spoken to other persons who have a direct interest in the consequences of the exchange and it appears that overall, the sites. exchange is in the best interest of the BLM's public stewardship of public lands. The parcels/acreages being considered were modified (ATI 2016) due to the presence of historic Although I support the exchange in general, I do oppose one specific part of the exchange. That is in regards to Selected parcels 19, 20, and 22. properties and per the Treatment Plan. These parcels contain historic traces of the Hastings Cutoff and California National Historic Trails. The EA states regarding these traces and the The BLM’s West Desert District has several identified areas that are suitable for OHV use in the "Wagon ruts [that] may still be visible on selected parcel 19, 20, and 22." "that the public would no longer have access for viewing the historic trail region. Additional information can be accessed online at Utah BLM’s Utah Recreation Activities, traces." This is unacceptable. The BLM should not be trading away our national treasures, the BLM should offer more land and receive less, if webpage necessary, before allowing the loss of these treasures. If the property located on Selected parcels 19, 20, and 22 are essential to the land exchange; (https://www.blm.gov/programs/recreation/recreation-activities/utah). This webpage includes Off- the BLM should secure a public right of way along these portions of trail in order to ensure public access to these historic features is preserved. Such Highway Vehicle information and popular links. a public right of way should be written into the exchange. Refer also to the response to Comments #2 and #3. Additionally, I have the following comments regarding the exchanges: 1) The BLM should ensure that access to all existing and new public lands is not cut off by private property owners. Efforts to do so should include securing rights of way across private lands if necessary. 2) The BLM should conduct a motorized route inventory of the new parcels and apply the same motorized access status to the new parcels as the nearby old parcels (i.e. open, limited, closed). 3) The BLM should take note of any motorized play areas that are being lost to the land exchange and ensure that areas of equivalent size and with similar ease of access are developed (or allowed to naturally develop). For example, section 4.3.7 states in regards to the OHV play area around Terra that users "would have to shift their use to other public lands. Generally, they would have to travel only an additional 1-2 miles to access public lands." It is imperative that the BLM makes sure that the existing land uses and access are maintained on the new properties and either formally developed, or allowed to develop naturally by allowing open and unrestricted motorized use on the new, nearby parcels. 4) In regards to any soon-to-be private parcel that contains that original paths of historic trails (especially selected parcels 19, 20, and 22 as discussed above), the BLM should acquire any and all rights of way necessary to maintain public access to ALL of these trail segments. 8 The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has reviewed the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Skull Valley Land Exchange Sheep AUMs are allotted on the Skull Valley and South Skull Valley allotments. The Skull No Environmental Assessment (EA). We support this exchange, as consolidating land ownership will provide for more effective wildlife management. Valley allotment does not border the Stansbury Mountains. The Salt Mountain allotment, which is We also provide the following recommendations that would further improve this land exchange toward benefitting wildlife: a cattle allotment, lies between the Skull Valley allotment and the Stansbury Mountains. The • In Section 3.3.10, Wildlife (excluding Special Status Species), the EA fails to mention Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep on Stansbury Mountain. South Skull Valley allotment does have a portion that borders the Stansbury Mountains, but this Bighorn sheep are highly susceptible to diseases transmitted by domestic sheep and goats. It is critical that domestic sheep and goats are not portion is outside of the land exchange analysis and the management would remain the same. permitted on Stansbury Mountain parcels as a result of this proposed exchange. Sheep and cattle trailing are authorized along the Pony Express Livestock Trail including the trail • Selected Lands, parcels 1, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, could result in the loss of public access from State Road (SR) 196 for camping, hunting, target over Lookout Pass. The exchange proponent is a cattle rancher and has no plans to change use of shooting and OHV use on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands. Additionally, disposal of Selected Lands, parcels 1 and 22, could result in the acquired parcels. fragmentation and isolation of BLM parcels located immediately north and south, which could impair effective wildlife management. No legal access to parcels 1, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 would be lost due to the exchange. Refer to • The Offered Land, parcels 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, are lands that have been impacted by repeated wildfires and have little potential Section 2.2 and Map 1. for restoration success. As such, the parcels do not provide much wildlife habitat value. The entire area, including both Federal and non-Federal lands, have been impacted by wildfires. BLM manages for multiple uses in addition to hunting and wildlife habitat.

Skull Valley Land Exchange E-7