ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
United States Department of Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Agriculture
Forest Service Project Cedar City Ranger District, Dixie National Forest Intermountain Region Iron and Garfield Counties, Utah
Dixie National Forest
Cedar City Ranger District
May 2018
Title page photo description: Photo taken from Panguitch Lake looking west towards Clear Creek.
For More Information Contact: Veronica Magnuson District Ranger Cedar City Ranger District 1789 N. Wedgewood Ln Cedar City, UT 84721 Phone: (435) 865-3700 Email: [email protected] Fax: (435) 435-865-3700
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:
(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
i This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ii Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Contents
APPROXIMATIONS ...... VI
ABBREVIATIONS ...... VI CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 7
1.1 INTRODUCTION – BACKGROUND AND LOCATION ...... 7
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 7
1.3 EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS ...... 8 1.3.1 Fire and Fuels Existing Condition ...... 8 1.3.2 Fire and Fuels Desired Condition ...... 8 1.3.3 Soils, Geology and Hydrology Existing Condition ...... 8 1.3.4 Soils, Geology and Hydrology Desired Condition ...... 10 1.3.5 Recreation, Scenery and Transportation Existing Condition ...... 10 1.3.6 Recreation, Scenery and Transportation Desired Condition ...... 11 1.3.7 Silviculture and Forest Resources Existing Conditions ...... 11 1.3.8 Vegetation and Forest Resources Desired Conditions ...... 12 1.3.9 Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquatics Existing Conditions ...... 12 1.3.10 Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquatics Desired Conditions ...... 13 1.3.11 Range Resources Existing Conditions ...... 14 1.3.12 Range Resources Desired Conditions ...... 14
1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 15 1.4.1 Scoping ...... 15 1.4.2 Comment Analysis ...... 15
1.5 DECISION FRAMEWORK ...... 15
1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICY ...... 15 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 16
2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 16
2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ...... 16
2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION ...... 16
2.3.1 WATERSHED REHABILITATION...... 17
2.3.2 FUEL REDUCTION ...... 17
2.3.3 TIMBER SALVAGE ...... 18
2.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES...... 19 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 26
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 26
3.2 CULTURAL ...... 26
iii Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
3.2.1 Affected Environment/No Action ...... 26 3.2.2 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 26
3.3 FIRE AND FUELS ...... 27 3.3.1 Affected Environment/No Action ...... 27 3.3.2 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 27
3.4 FISHERIES AND AQUATICS ...... 27 3.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action ...... 27 3.4.2 Cumulative Effects of the No Action ...... 28 3.4.3 Determinations for the No Action ...... 29 3.4.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 29 3.4.5 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 31 3.4.6 Determinations for the Proposed Action ...... 32
3.5 HYDROLOGY AND SOILS ...... 32 3.5.1 Affected Environment/No Action ...... 32 3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 33 3.5.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 40
3.6 RANGE/GRAZING ...... 41 3.6.1 Affected Environment/No Action ...... 41 3.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 41 3.6.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 42
3.7 RECREATION AND SCENERY ...... 42 3.7.1 Affected Environment/No Action ...... 42 3.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 42 3.7.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 42
3.8 SILVICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ...... 42 3.8.1 Affected Environment/No Action ...... 42 3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 43 3.8.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 44
3.9 WILDLIFE ...... 46 3.9.1 Affected Environment/No Action ...... 46 3.9.2 Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 46 3.9.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 48 CHAPTER 4 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ...... 49 APPENDIX A – MAPS ...... 51 APPENDIX B – REFERENCES ...... 54
iv Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
List of Tables Table 1: Land Ownership within the Brian Head Wildfire ...... 8 Table 2: Burn Severity of the Forest Service System lands within the Brian Head Wildfire ...... 8 Table 3: Sixth field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds overlapped by the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project and corresponding Burn Severity in each...... 9 Table 4: Road Reroute Mileage ...... 17 Table 5: Temporary Road System Needed for Salvage Operations ...... 19 Table 6: Project Design Features (PDFs) for all action Alternatives ...... 19 Table 7: Watershed Condition Assessments from the State of Utah DEQ ...... 34 Table 8: Timber salvage units overlaid with BAER BARC (USDA Forest Service) Data ...... 38 Table 9: Grazing Allotments and permitted use for allotments within the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Area...... 41 Table 10: Determinations and Conclusions for Wildlife and Plant Species ...... 46 List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map and Proposed Action Brian Head Rehabilitation EA ...... 51 Figure 2: Brain Head Fire Burn Severity Map...... 52 Figure 3: Scenery Management System Map ...... 53
v Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Approximations All acreages, distances, durations, and other quantities in this document are approximations based on measurements, samples, estimates, computer models, and professional judgment commonly applied in environmental analyses.
Abbreviations Less-frequent abbreviations are noted in the text. The following abbreviations appear frequently in this document: • DFS Zone: Defensible Fire Suppression Zone • Forest Plan: Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (USDA 1986). • FRCC: Fire Regime Condition Class and sometimes also called vegetation condition class. Condition classes are a function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, and canopy closure (Hardy 2001). Condition class 1 has low departure and is considered to be within the natural (historical) variation. Condition classes 2 and 3 are considered to be at moderate and high levels of departure outside the historical range of variation (HRV) (Hann and Bunnell 2001). • MIS: Management Indicator Species (wildlife and plant), as described in species sections. • P-J: Woodland vegetation type characterized by dominance of pinyon pine [generally two-needle pinyon pine (Pinus edulis)] and juniper [generally Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma)] species. • USFS, FS: U. S. Forest Service, Forest Service • VSS: Vegetation Structural Stage, a 6-stage classification of forest vegetation based on structure and age. • WUI: Wildland Urban Interface, the line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Because of their location, these structures are extremely vulnerable to fire should an ignition occur in the surrounding area.
vi Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Introduction – Background and Location In the summer of 2017 the Brian Head Fire burned approximately 71,672 acres of private, state, and federal land. This project focuses on rehabilitation of National Forest System lands affected by the fire. This project takes steps toward restoring the land so that it may continue to be managed for multiple-use benefits. The Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project is located on the Dixie National Forest, Cedar City Ranger District (CCRD) within Garfield and Iron County, Utah. The project area encompasses the final perimeter of the Brian Head Fire plus downstream drainages affected by the fire within the CCRD for a total of approximately 89,271 acres. The project extends from the western boundary of the CCRD near the town of Brian Head to the eastern boundary of the district and extends from just south of State Route 143 North to Upper Bear Valley. The project area includes several Management Areas as defined by the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1986 as amended). A vicinity map and a map of the proposed action are shown in Figure 1. Approximately 15,411 acres of the project area are within the Bunker Creek and Bear Valley Peak Inventoried Roadless Areas, but none of the proposed actions identified in this EA fall within these roadless areas. The Forest Service (FS) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. For additional information please visit the Cedar City Ranger District (CCRD) office in Cedar City, Utah or the following website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=52918. This project was scoped concurrently with a project which approved several rehabilitation actions through Forest Service Categorical Exclusion authorities including fencing, reforestation, trail restoration, aquatic habitat improvement and wildlife habitat restoration. A separate analysis was conducted for those actions and a Decision Memo allowing for those actions to be implemented was completed in April of 2018. The website for the CE portion of the project can be found at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=53813.
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action This project focuses on the need for rehabilitation of National Forest Service System lands affected by the fire. There is a need restore the burned area so that it may continue to be managed for multiple-use benefits. This environmental analysis will investigate the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and any alternatives. The proposed action includes a proposal to decommission approximately 3.36 miles of roads and trails and re-route them with 3.71 miles of roads which will be placed in more hydrologically sustainable locations. The project also proposes to perform fuels reduction activities on 2,060 acres and complete timber harvest of burned, dying trees on 1,938 acres. These actions are consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 1986), as amended.
7 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
1.3 Existing and Desired Conditions
1.3.1 Fire and Fuels Existing Condition The Brian Head fire was a human-caused ignition that started on private lands on June 17, 2017. Over the course of approximately the next month it burned approximately 71,672 acres (Table 1). On FS lands, burn severity of the fire included 25,197 acres of low/unburned, 28,585 acres of moderate, and 9,867 acres of high severity (Table 2). Because over 60 percent of the area was burned at moderate or high intensity, the surface fuel loadings across the project area were greatly reduced and much of the area does not currently contain adequate surface or ladder fuels to present a fire hazard (Hudec and Peterson, 2012). Dead standing timber throughout the area will eventually decay and fall and this dead material in combination with successional brush and trees will eventually increase the fuel loading over the course of the next 10 to 20 years Stevens- Rumann, Sieg and Hunter, 2012). It is unlikely that natural starts within the project area due to lightening would have the fine fuels to carry fire out of the project area and due to the mixed severity, most fires within the area could be managed with typical suppression efforts. Table 1: Land Ownership within the Brian Head Wildfire Land Ownership Acres Percent of Ownership Bureau of Land Management 749 1% National Forest 63,648 89% Private 6,514 9% State 761 1% TOTAL 71,672
Table 2: Burn Severity of the Forest Service System lands within the Brian Head Wildfire Burn Severity High Low Moderate Unburned Grand Total National Forest (Acres) 9,867 14,407 28,585 10,790 63,648
1.3.2 Fire and Fuels Desired Condition The desired condition from a fuels standpoint for the burned area is to have 5 to 10 tons per acre of fuel loading in targeted areas. At this time it appears that 60 percent of the burned area meets or exceeds the Forest Plan criteria for fuels loading. The 40 percent that burned at low severity still contains a mix of burned and unburned fuels and may exceed desired fuel loading conditions. Monitoring and sampling will help to determine where exceedances still persist and help to identify priorities for future management. High priorities for future treatment include NFS lands adjacent to Wildland Urban Interface resources including homes and structures where fuel loading exceedances exist.
1.3.3 Soils, Geology and Hydrology Existing Condition There are fifty-one soil types within the Brian Head fire perimeter and approximately 90 percent of the geology within the fire perimeter is volcanic in origin of Tertiary, Miocene, and Oligocene age. Other geology of the fire area includes the Claron Formation which is calcareous and sedimentary in origin. The soils formed from this formation are highly
8 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
erosive. Recent surficial alluvium and colluvium deposits occur in a small percentage of the fire area. Alluvium is loose, unconsolidated (not cemented together into a solid rock) soil or sediments, which has been eroded, reshaped by water in some form, and redeposited in a nonmarine setting. Colluvium is a general name for loose, unconsolidated sediments that have been deposited at the base of hillslopes by either rain-wash, sheet wash, or slow continuous downslope creep. As a result of the burn severity within the fire perimeter, there are 54,275 acres rated with a high hazard for soil erosion. Hydrophobic soil conditions are common within moderate and high burn severity areas and contribute greatly to increased run-off and erosion. The soil burn severity (SBS) map (Figure 2) shows approximately 60 percent of the area burned at high and moderate soil burn severity. The rest of the fire was either low soil burn severity or unburned. Large contiguous areas of high and moderate soil burn severity occur throughout the burned area. Increased post fire soil erosion, runoff and debris flows within and downstream from these areas has caused flooding, scouring and/or deposition of materials. The fire affected several watersheds. Burned area and fire severity within each subwatershed is shown in Table 3. The burned area contained sixty perennial streams, which flow year-round, nineteen intermittent streams which normally cease flowing for weeks or months each year and one hundred and twenty-two ephemeral streams which only flow for a few hours or days as a result of rainfall. Several streams, man-made ponds and range waters were negatively affected by erosion and siltation following the fire. There are two municipal watersheds and several public drinking water sources in the project area. Table 3: Sixth field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds overlapped by the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project and corresponding Burn Severity in each. 6th Hydrological Unit Code Total Acres Acres in Fire % High % Mod % Low % Unburned Perimeter Subwatershed Names
Bear Creek 33,684 1,275 1% 2% 1% 96%
Blue Spring Creek 12,729 8,668 8% 36% 15% 41%
Butler Creek 13,826 5,124 3% 15% 9% 73%
Center Creek-Parowan Creek 16,572 10,254 20% 25% 9% 46%
Dry Lakes Creek 14,208 4,178 8% 11% 5% 75%
Fivemile Hollow-Panguitch Creek 16,088 1,278 0% 1% 3% 95%
Haycock Creek 12,900 7,004 1% 19% 19% 61%
Ipson Creek 16,261 13,406 14% 41% 15% 30%
9 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Little Creek 14,546 3,471 6% 12% 5% 78%
Middle Mammoth Creek 16,102 1,667 0% 4% 2% 93%
Red Creek 31,803 4,407 3% 8% 2% 87%
Sandy Creek 15,262 1,592 2% 3% 5% 90%
Three mile Creek 13,208 5,427 8% 18% 9% 65%
Upper Mammoth Creek 25,906 3,922 1% 6% 4% 89%
1.3.4 Soils, Geology and Hydrology Desired Condition Stabilized soil and hydrologic conditions are desired throughout the burned area. Recovery of pre-fire slope stability and watershed hydrologic response is dependent on many factors and typically occurs within 3-5 years following the fire. Recovery of high burn severity areas is slower because little or no vegetative ground cover remains, the potential for needle cast is low and soils may be impacted by fire effects. Desired soil conditions are generally soils with enough nutrient content to allow for vegetative productivity and enough roughness and litter to allow for rainwater capture and overland infiltration. The desired condition for hydrological resources is to have stabilized stream channels that are capable of dissipating energy from high stream flows, and watersheds with sufficient groundcover to retain moisture in the soils. Hydrologically, it is our goal to have reduced erosion and flood potential and preserve downstream water quality. The desired condition for soil resources is to restore soil productivity in the burned areas. Several pre-existing roads (FS 2057, FS076 and FS275) are currently located in areas that influence streams and wetlands. The fire has increased erosion and runoff and the location of these roads has the potential to degrade riparian areas and increase sediment loads to these resources. The desired condition is to have these roads located in hydrologically sustainable locations that are stable and minimally erodible.
1.3.5 Recreation, Scenery and Transportation Existing Condition The CCRD is a popular destination for recreation year round. Developed and undeveloped camp sites were damaged by the fire, the most notable being the Yankee Meadows Campground. Within the burned area, several miles of roads, and motorized and non-motorized trails were impacted by the fire and subsequent run-off due to rain events. Scenic values were also altered due to the burn severity with changes from densely forested stands to charred dead standing trees within many viewsheds. Within the burned area perimeter the transportation system includes 20 miles of Management Level (ML)-3 roads, 74 miles of ML-2 roads, 29 miles of ML-1 roads and 4 miles of motorized trails. The Brian Head burned area contains approximately 55 miles of non-motorized trails used mainly by hikers, bikers and equestrian users. Many of these trails are located in the “fall-line”,
10 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
the path of least resistance. Water washes down the trails at a high rate of speed, causing loss of soil, exposing roots, creating gullies and scarring the hillside. The 2000 Scenery Management System (SMS) Forest Plan Amendment provided guidance related to scenery management. This document rated and assigned a “Scenic Integrity Objective” (SIO) to large portions of the Dixie National Forest. SIO within the project area is noted in Figure 3. Portions of the project area are currently unassigned, and will be assigned a SIO during future planning efforts.
1.3.6 Recreation, Scenery and Transportation Desired Condition The desired condition for recreation and scenery is to have trails that incorporate modern design principals focusing on sustainability and improved user experience. Trails should generally be located outside of the fall-line onto sideslopes and outside of meadows. The trail grades should not exceed half the grade of the sideslope as detailed in the Forest Service Trails Handbook (FSH 7709.1). Visually, the desired condition is for landscapes to conform or exceed with the existing Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) designation. Project design features have been developed to support SIOs (Table 6).
1.3.7 Silviculture and Forest Resources Existing Conditions The area burned by the Brianhead Fire had many pre-fire vegetative plant communities. These included; spruce-fir (Engelmann spruce and sub-alpine fir), mixed conifer (Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa pine), mixed conifer/aspen, aspen, pockets of ponderosa pine, pinyon juniper, mountain mahogany, oakbrush, mountain big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, black sagebrush, grass and forb-dominated montane meadows, and riparian communities. The riparian communities were primarily comprised of woody plants such as willow, blue spruce, river alder, narrow-leaf cottonwood, aspen, sedges, and rushes. The burned area ranges in elevation from approximately 7,000 feet to over 10,000 feet. The fire impacted mostly non-merchantable timber in inaccessible areas, but portions of the fire near State Route 143, Bunker Creek, Blue Springs, south of Panguitch Lake, Red Creek, and Yankee Meadows were directly impacted leaving mostly dead and some dying standing timber – some of which is merchantable (at least 8 inches Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and a desirable species). Portions of this area have natural aspen regeneration present, but other locations have no existing regeneration of tree species. Post-fire, extensive pockets of aspen, forbs and grasses have begun to grow. The vegetation communities of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau are fire adapted and have been shaped by eons of natural fire and most recently through a century of systematic fire exclusion and suppression. Natural re-sprouts are positive signs that soil productivity has been retained, at least in many areas and monitoring will need to include vegetative production and diversity throughout the burned site. Noxious weeds are fairly uncommon throughout the CCRD and are managed through a standing program of continuous monitoring, early identification and rapid response through treatment. This program will be expanded post-fire. Forest resources were damaged with extensive loss to spruce and fir vegetation resources. Ponderosa pine is fire adapted, but can only withstand low or low to moderate fire events, and several stands were heavily damaged during this wildfire. Stand exams and field
11 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
reconnaissance were used to identify those dead forest stands which may hold commercial value and merit salvage harvest within two to three years post fire. Time is of the essence for successfully removing this dead timber for economic benefit before it further succumbs to disease and rot and loses any commercial value.
1.3.8 Silviculture and Forest Resources Desired Conditions The desired conditions for vegetation and forest resources of the Dixie National Forest vary by elevation, soil and community type and are identified in the Forest Plan. In general, the desired condition is to have productive grass, shrub and forb communities, ample range resources and a healthy forest stocked with a diversity of age and successional classes. The aspen community type is especially valued and identified by the Forest Plan as a Management Indicator Species. Aspen has been in decline across the forest for several years and in many locations appears to have been released from competition with conifers and may expand in number due to the fire. Locations that suffered high mortality of desirable timber species including fir, pine and spruce as well as locations identified for salvage operations may require replanting to achieve the desired stocking levels. Other locations may now be more suitable as open rangelands and meadows following the fire and may be left unplanted or will be identified for additional seeding treatments. After such a large event, collaborative monitoring will be important to identifying natural vegetative response and recovery as well as those locations that may require additional active management and restoration to meet the overall need for multiple-use of Forest Service System lands. It is desired to decrease the amount of mostly dead and some dying standing burned timber along roadways and in areas used by the public to minimize dead trees as well as to salvage the merchantable dead timber while it retains market value. Also, following treatments, there is a need to reforest these areas with desirable, tree species according to the DNF Forest Plan.
1.3.9 Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquatics Existing Conditions The Brian Head Fire impacted large areas of important wildlife habitat. Habitat for threatened and endangered species, sensitive species and Management Indicator Species (MIS) has been negatively affected due to the loss of forested conditions. The burned area is largely devoid of suitable cover types. The fire burned within crucial and substantial winter and summer range for mule deer and elk. Of note the fire burned 4,514 acres mapped as crucial deer habitat, 54,953 acres mapped as substantial deer habitat, 21,870 acres mapped as crucial elk habitat, 37,302 acres mapped as substantial elk habitat, 7,076 acres mapped as sage grouse habitat, and 42,323 acres mapped as turkey habitat. It is unknown at this time what the impact of this fire has been to goshawk nesting sites and several of historic nest sites will be monitored in coming years. The Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project area overlaps portions of thirteen 6th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subwatersheds across the northern part of the Markagunt Plateau (Table 3). Streams and lakes in this area contain a variety of fish resources including MIS nonnative trout and two Regional Sensitive species. Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) Oncorhynchus clarki utah) are Intermountain Region Sensitive species present in the project area and are managed under a Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Lentsch, Toline, Kershner, Hudson, & Mizzi, 2000). The project area also contains Southern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda aliciae), an Intermountain Region Sensitive species, which also has a Conservation Agreement and Strategy to which the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service is a signatory (Utah
12 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Division of Wildlife Resources, 2010). Prior to the Brian Head Fire, the project area had conservation populations of BCT found in Threemile Creek, Delong Creek, Indian Hollow and Little Creek. Downstream receiving waters in Mammoth Creek have a core, remnant BCT population as well. Prior to the Brian Head Fire the project area also had conservation populations of Southern leatherside in Threemile Creek and Bear Creek, as well as in Panguitch Creek which is a downstream receiving water. MIS nonnative trout are common thought the project areas streams and lakes. A comprehensive description of aquatic resources can be found in the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project Fish, Amphibian and Aquatic Habitat Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation of Fish and Amphibian Sensitive Species in the project record (Golden, 2018).
Aquatic and fishery resources have been heavily influenced by the fire and the subsequent flooding and erosion events. Ash-flows and uncharacteristically large floods with high levels of sediment and debris resulting from precipitation events on the fire scar have been the cause of the elimination, or large reduction in fish populations, as well as degradation of aquatic habitat through aggradation and incision. BCT populations appear to have been completely lost in Threemile Creek, Delong Creek, Indian Hollow and Little Creek, with the Southern leatherside in Threemile Creek being lost, as well. Additionally, nonnative trout populations appear to have been lost from Center Creek, Bowery Creek, Red Creek, Clear Creek, and Bunker Creek with many other populations seeing large reductions. Non-native trout are also present in Yankee Meadows Reservoir and Panguitch Lake within the project area. Nonnative trout were present in Paragonah Reservoir and Hendrickson Lake prior to the fire; however, flooding and ash flows following the fire appear to have eliminated those populations (Richard Hepworth, Utah Division of Wildlife resources, personal communication).
1.3.10 Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquatics Desired Conditions It is desired to re-establish and improve the shrub, grass and forb diversity throughout the project area. This would provide forage, cover, and roosting habitat for wildlife species. Improved vegetation complexity and habitat connectivity would further support hiding cover, foraging areas, and habitat effectiveness by maintaining or creating patches and corridors of trees in the landscape matrix. Well stocked forest stands with a diversity of species and age classes will provide for suitable habitat for multiple rodent and avian species. Development and retention of Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS) target distribution, including snags, as specified in the Goshawk amendment will provide habitat for cavity nesting species and other bird and mammal species. In the short term, it is desired to have these areas respond with a diversity of native grasses and forbs, followed by seedlings of desired conifers and aspen regeneration. In the long term, it is desired to reestablish suitable VSS distribution (Reynolds 1992, Northern Goshawk Project 2000). Maintain and restore adequate hiding cover and security habitat for all wildlife species. Restore and improve the grass/forb and timber component within the burned areas. Desired future conditions for fish and aquatic habitat in the Forest Plan are that “habitat will be improved for sensitive species, including aquatic species,” and that “fisheries habitat will be improved by increasing the habitat capability of streams and by expanding present habitat in marginal lakes.” “Improve riparian ecosystems that are currently in an unacceptable condition. Non-game habitat improvement and non-consumptive wildlife uses will be emphasized in some management areas. All MIS habitat will be maintained at levels that meet or exceed requirements for minimum viable populations.”
13 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
The desired condition for BCT across the Forest is to maintain and improve the amount of existing occupied habitat for conservation populations, as well as maintaining recruitment and population size structure. Within the Southern Geographic Management Unit the desire is to maintain the representation of unique genetic lineages and to provide redundancy and resiliency for those lineages (Haak, Williams, & Colyer, 2011; Lentsch, Toline, Kershner, Hudson, & Mizzi, 2000). Desired condition for MIS nonnative trout is to maintain standing crop greater than or equal to average when compared to other southern Utah trout streams. Simply stated, the desired short term and long term condition of fish, amphibians and aquatic habitat within this project area is that population abundance and distribution, as well as water quality, aquatic habitat and riparian conditions will be maintained or improved.
1.3.11 Range Resources Existing Conditions The livestock allotments within the project area include 7 cattle (1 vacant) and 4 sheep allotments. In total, these allotments are permitted to have up to 1,560 cattle (cow/calf pairs) and 3,700 head of sheep (ewe/lamb pairs) annually. Total general season of use ranges from June 1 – October 15, with season and grazing regime varying from allotment to allotment. A large portion of the range improvements (fences, gates, water developments, ponds, and pipelines) within the affected area of the Brian Head Fire were destroyed during the fire and are no longer functional. In the burned area, livestock will need to be rotated to unburned portions of allotments or locations to accommodate the rest periods required through allotment management plans. Reduction of forest canopy cover will permit sunlight to reach the ground allowing for establishment of grass, forbs and shrubs. Nutrient and water availability will also increase for grass, forb and shrub community with the reduction of competition. The recruitment of grasses, forbs and shrubs will allow for more ground cover helping with soil retention. Soil is held in place by the grass, forbs and shrubs allowing for run off of primarily water. The recruitment of grass, forbs and shrubs will provide forage for wildlife and range species (Williams 2009). The Brian Head Fire burned area contains focus areas for invasive weed monitoring adjacent to known point locations of White Top, Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, Bull Thistle, and Scotch Cotton Thistle. Also, special attention will be given to monitoring previous disturbance corridors such as bulldozer lines, drop points, safety zones, and fire travel zones that occurred during the fire.
1.3.12 Range Resources Desired Conditions The desired condition for range is to have properly functioning grazing infrastructure (fences, gates, water developments, ponds, and pipelines) to allow permittees to comply with the rotations set forth in their Allotment Management Plans and Annual Operating Instructions to comply with the Forest Plan and their term grazing permits. Monitoring of NFS lands within the Brian Head burned area will take place. An early detection and rapid response monitoring system will provide early detection of new infestations of invasive weeds. When new invasive species infestations are detected, a prompt and coordinated containment and eradication response will occur to eliminate the proliferation of these noxious weeds on NFS lands. Upon location, range specialists will document the site, treat it and return within two weeks and determine the effectiveness of the treatment. Treatment will be repeated along with effectiveness monitoring until new
14 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
noxious weed sites are eradicated. Preserving the weed free nature of the CCRD remains a high priority. It is desired for damaged infrastructure to be fixed or replaced where appropriate and in consultation with permittee and FS. Additional forage for both livestock and wild ungulates is desirable throughout the burned area where it falls into alignment with the Forest Plan and other multiple uses of the DNF including timber stocking and harvest, wildlife habitat, clean water, recreation and visual resources.
1.4 Public Involvement
1.4.1 Scoping The proposed project was posted to the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) during the winter of 2017. To increase efficiency, scoping for the Brian Head Fire Project was accomplished using a combined notice detailing actions to be analyzed through Categorical Exclusion authorities and those to be analyzed through this Environmental Assessment. The scoping period and legal notice were combined using the authorities noted. The Cedar City Ranger District mailed a letter to 103 groups, agencies and individuals requesting input on the proposal. In addition a legal notice was published in the newspaper of record, The Spectrum, on 12/20/2017 noting the 30 day scoping period for this project and providing for the legal comment period for actions that were not categorically excluded and planned for analysis through this Environmental Assessment.
1.4.2 Comment Analysis Comments were received from seven groups or individuals, resulting in 46 comments. Analysis of those comments was performed by an interdisciplinary team and is included in the project record. Comments did not identify Key Issues or drive any additional alternatives. Comments did support Project Design Features (Table 6) developed to safeguard soil and water resources during salvage operations. Comments additionally noted the desire of cooperating agencies to identify future projects that would continue to provide for proactive management of FS lands.
1.5 Decision Framework The responsible official for this analysis and decision is Veronica Magnuson, District Ranger of the Cedar City Ranger District, Dixie National Forest, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, UT 84721. Given the purpose and need for the project, the Responsible Official will decide whether to take No Action (Alternative 1) or to implement all or some of the elements of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). The Environmental Assessment will be made available for administrative review before the final decision is made per Forest Service Objection Regulations at 36 CFR 218 subparts A and B.
1.6 Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Policy The following laws, regulations and policy were considered as part of the environmental analysis for the Brian Head Rehabilitation Project: • National Environmental Policy Act • Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dixie National Forest
15 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
• National Forest Management Act • National Historic Preservation Act • Archaeological Resources Protection Act • Clean Water Act • Endangered Species Act • Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management • Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands • Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice • Executive Order 13186 Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species • Utah Smoke Management Plan • MOU between USFWS and the FS of December 2008 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) • Applicable Conservation Strategies and Recovery Plans
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Brian Head Project. It includes a description of the alternatives considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, describing the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker. The Forest Service has developed two alternatives, the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives.
2.2 Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management in the project area. The existing conditions and processes described in “1.3 Existing Condition” would continue.
2.3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The Proposed Action for the Brian Head Fire Project tiers directly to the Forest Plan. It responds to the need for change and is consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the Plan. Implementation of the Proposed Action will help move the project area toward desired conditions the Forest Plan describes. There are several components to satisfy the Purpose and Need for the project stated in Section 1.2. These treatments will be implemented strategically as funding allows.
• 2.3.1 Watershed Rehabilitation o Road Rehabilitation via decommissioning and re-routing (3.71 miles)(Action 1)
16 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
• 2.3.2 Fuel Reduction (2,060 acres) (Action 2)
• 2.3.3 Timber Salvage (1,938 acres) (Action 3)
2.3.1 Watershed Rehabilitation Road Rehabilitation Decreased effective canopy and ground cover has caused a significant increase in overland runoff and erosion. This has accelerated damage to roads and trails within the burned area which funnel runoff and sedimentation through exposed and incised pathways. Segments of these travelways need to be rerouted and their old routes decommissioned. The reroutes will move these pathways to more hydrologically sustainable locations and in many instances out of wet areas. Meadow restoration will result from the decommissioning of FS Road 30275 and the associated trail segment (see Figure 1). Table 4 below shows the approximate existing mileage and proposed reroute mileage for each segment being proposed for rerouting. There would be a net change in the motorized travel system with the addition of approximately 0.35 miles. This is consistent with the Dixie Motorized Travel Plan Environmental Impact Statement (USDA, 2009) which allows for project-level NEPA analyses to be conducted and for resulting Decisions to reflect adjustments to the travel system approved through MTP. All road re-routes would be constructed prior to decommissioning of the old segments. Table 4: Road Reroute Mileage Route Name Decommission Mileage Proposed Reroute Mileage
FS Road 32057 0.69 0.58
FS Road 30275/Mud Springs 1.24 1.66 AVT Trail 32009
FS Road 30076 0.55 0.62
FS Road 30079 0.88 0.85
TOTAL 3.36 3.71
2.3.2 Fuel Reduction Fuel reduction may be needed in the areas where vegetation felling activities result in fuel loadings that are outside of the Forest Plan and scientific guidance (Johnson et al. 2013, Peterson et al. 2014). This will apply to areas affected by the in 2.3.3 (Timber Salvage) proposed in this project as well as timber salvage done as part of the Highway 143 and Forest Service Road 050 Salvage Project Decision Memo (USDA, 2018). The fuels reduction related to timber salvage areas are outlined in Figure 1. Felled material will be piled by hand or mechanized equipment. These piles will be constructed and burned in accordance with forest service policy, best management practices, and project design features set forth below (see Table 6).
17 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
2.3.3 Timber Salvage Identification of trees appropriate for salvage or felling followed the field guide developed by Smith and Cluck (Smith and Cluck 2011). To identify salvage locations the following screening process was developed using ecological considerations adopted from Lindenmayer et al. (Lindenmayer and Noss) within workforce capacity considerations: • Units should occur where site conditions such as soils and aspect are favorable for establishment and sustainability of early seral species. • Units should occur on sites with enough merchantable wood product material that they are economically viable. Helicopter logging is not considered economically viable for this project. • Units should generally avoid areas of high soil burn severity to not increase detrimental impacts to soils and leave standing dead to provide shade for future revegetation efforts. • Units should occur on sites where salvage is consistent with the Dixie National Forest LRMP, 1986. • Salvage should occur within locations that predominately burned at high vegetation fire severity, as measured by greater than 75 percent basal area loss. • Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) [referred to in the proposed action as stream management zones (SMZ)] will be excluded except where treatments are needed to mitigate human health and safety concerns along roadsides and trails open to public use, as well as within developed sites. • Avoid sites with high landslide potential, modifying as needed based on soil burn severity. • Construction of temporary roads would preferably occur on an existing road prism and not enter RCAs or landslide prone areas. Surfacing material when needed will come from existing mineral pits on the District when possible. Harvesting some of the dead and dying trees to recover economic value will aid in implementation of other proposed actions mentioned above. Timber salvage would allow for the removal of dead and dying trees from approximately 1,938 acres within the 63,649 acres that burned on the DNF. Specifically, this project proposes tree salvage to recover the economic value to support restoration and recovery efforts within the project area in accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2409.19_10. Because all acres have not been field verified, some acres proposed for treatment may eventually be eliminated during project layout and implementation. For example, additional small streams and springs could be discovered in areas proposed for salvage. Once these riparian conservation areas (RCAs or SMZ) are identified, areas proposed for salvage may no longer be consistent with resource protection and restoration objectives. Other areas may be eliminated because they are too steep for safely operating ground-based machinery or they lack the necessary access for cable yarding. Temporary road construction is needed to gain access into the timber salvage areas. As stated above existing road prisms will be preferable. It is estimated that approximately 5.8 miles of temporary roads will be needed. Of this total 3.7 miles will be on existing road beds that are currently classified as “closed” based on the current motorized travel plan (MTP) (Dixie National Forest USDA 2009) and 2.1 miles will be temporary roads not on existing prisms. All new temporary roads will be obliterated and re-contoured following the timber harvest activities.
18 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Temporary roads on existing road beds that are currently classified as “closed” based on MTP will be managed in accordance with the MTP decision (Table 5). Table 5: Temporary Road System Needed for Salvage Operations Temporary Roads-Needed for Timber Salvage Operations Route Number Current Status MILES 30389 Closed Classified 0.14 30389 Closed Classified 0.26 30986 Closed Classified 0.27 30986 Closed Classified 1.00 30986 Closed Classified 0.97 30986 Closed Classified 0.22 30986A Closed Classified 0.59 G2390 Closed Unauthorized 0.26 N/A New Temporary Roads 2.1 TOTAL 5.81
2.4 Project Design Features To help minimize the effects of the Proposed Action, the following Project Design Features were developed collaboratively by an interdisciplinary team of Forest Resource Specialists. These design features are included as part of the Proposed Action. Table 6: Project Design Features (PDFs) for all action Alternatives Resource Project Design Feature
Aquatics - 1 Equipment that comes in contact with water (including boots/waders) should be cleaned and dried before moving from one water source to another to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS). If equipment cannot be completely dried, equipment will be decontaminated following the 2017 Guide to Preventing Aquatic Invasive Species Transport by Wildland Fire Operations (NWCG 2017).
Aquatics -2 Before skidding/hauling the low water crossings of FSR 30389 across the unnamed tributary to Red Creek and FSR 30390 across the unnamed tributary to Little Creek will have temporary culverts installed. Temporary culverts will also be installed on any other low water crossing identified to be of concern during implementation. Upon project completion temporary culverts will be removed and the stream channel restored to its appropriate configuration.
Fuels - 1 Hand Piles should be; tee-pee shaped, taller than they are wide, contain no dirt or trash, piled out from under the drip line of
19 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Resource Project Design Feature residual trees, not hollow, not piled on stumps or logs, and have nothing sticking out of them by more than 12 inches.
Heritage - 1 All project activities will be cleared by the Dixie National Forest Archaeologist prior to implementation to avoid impacts to Historic Properties. Should an unexpected discovery occur during the course of project implementation, work will cease within a 100 foot buffer around the resource, as permitted by safety, and the Forest Archaeologist will be contacted immediately for the appropriate course of action.
Heritage - 2 The Dixie NF Archaeologist must be contacted prior to implementation of proposed project activities to ensure the protection of Historic Properties within the project boundary.
Hydrology/Soils - 1 Curtail all mechanical vegetation treatment when soil is at or near field capacity. Indicators of this condition are when ruts caused by wheeled or tracked machinery are 2 inches deep or greater with an intact depression casting of the track or tire tread.
Hydrology/Soils - 2 Winter (dormant season) logging will be required of units where Aspen regeneration is occurring and is needed for soil stability and browsing pressure is high (areas requiring this design feature will be determined by the Silviculturist and Hydrologist). If snow is present check ground conditions to ensure frozen conditions exist under the snow. This will reduce the amount of detrimental soil displacement and compaction.
Hydrology/Soils - 3 Ground based Harvest/Yarding equipment will be restricted to slopes less than 40%
Hydrology/Soils - 4 Ground based Harvest/Yarding equipment will be excluded from the stream management zone (SMZ) (an area within 100 ft. of perennial stream channels) except for work necessary to complete stream rehabilitation related to the watershed rehabilitation proposed action.
Hydrology/Soils - 5 If a temporary road is needed to cross a stream, the CCRD Hydrologist will work closely with engineering to find a suitable location.
Hydrology/Soils - 6 To reduce impacts of transportation plan following harvest, all new construction temporary roads will be, recontoured, seeded with
20 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Resource Project Design Feature native seed, slashed and barricaded in order to return to pre- project condition and status.
Hydrology/Soils - 7 All piles will be stacked outside of the inner gorge; or 50 ft. from all intermittent or 100 ft. away from all perennial channels, whichever is greater. Any site specific deviations to this will be approved by the CCRD Hydrologist. (Inner Gorge is a stream reach bounded by steep valley walls that terminate upslope into a more gentle topography —note inner gorges are common in areas of rapid stream downcutting or uplift).
Hydrology/Soils - 8 All applicable Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) will be adhered to during the implementation of the project.
Hydrology/Soils - 9 Cutting of cottonwood, willows, and birch trees will be avoided.
Hydrology/Soils - 10 A no equipment buffer strip of 50 ft. will be maintained around all intermittent drainages and 100 ft. for areas with seeps, springs, and wet meadows.
Hydrology/Soils - 11 On skid trails within the timber salvage areas will have a residual coarse wood of less than 3 inch material at rate of 70 pieces per 100 ft. transect. This transect will also need to show a retention of groundcover of at least 80%.
Range/Grazing - 1 Protect all range improvements (fences, gates, water developments, ponds, and pipelines) during implementation activities. Any damages incurred as a result of implementation must be restored to pre-burn functioning condition.
Recreation - 1 Any dispersed campsites that are used as landings will be rehabilitated to pre-project status by practices such as landing material removal, scarifying, seeding with native seed and/or chipping.
Recreation - 2 There will be no weekend or holiday cutting, skidding or decking along Markagunt ATV trail 1 as well as the First Left Hand Canyon during the normal operating season as defined in the contract. There will be no hauling on weekends or holidays. Weekends are defined as 8:00 pm on Friday to 11:59 pm Sunday. Holidays are defined as all state and federal holidays, July 4th through to the nearest weekend and July 24th through to the nearest weekend.
21 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Resource Project Design Feature Modifications to these restrictions on cutting, skidding, decking and hauling will be at the discretion of the District Ranger.
Recreation - 3 Timber will consult with Engineering Staff, and Line Officer or designated representative in development of the traffic control plan. A traffic control plan will be included in sale contracts.
Recreation - 4 Open roads and trails will remain clear of activity-generated slash for the duration of the project. Trees shall not be felled across the travel way and all activity-generated slash shall be removed immediately.
Recreation-5 To curtail OHV proliferation following project implementation, all routes created or used to access and/or repair fence line will be slashed with woody debris, within line of sight of legal route (or approximately 75 feet), to prevent motorized access along fence lines.
Scenery - 1 Along State Route 143, and Forest Roads 048, 049 and 050. Visible vegetation damage, skidding, slash and soil exposure shall be minimized (to remain visually unnoticed from Road and appearing as only minor visual contrasts.
Scenery - 2 Along State Route 143, and Forest Roads 048, 049 and 050. Vegetation removal shall be done in a manner that protects remaining trees and ground cover characteristics from apparent damage.
Scenery - 3 Along State Route 143, and Forest Roads 048, 049 and 050. Visible vegetation damage, skidding, slash and soil exposure shall be minimized (to remain visually unnoticed from Road and appearing as only minor visual contrasts.
Scenery - 4 Within 150 ft. from State Route 143, and Forest Roads 048, 049 and 050 trees should be marked only one side of the tree to minimize the visibility of marking from the road.
Scenery - 5 Along State Route 143, and Forest Roads 048, 049 and 050 skid Roads and Landings: Utilize existing skid roads and landings to the extent possible. New landings shall be located out of view to the extent possible and shall be restored.
22 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Resource Project Design Feature
Scenery - 6 Along State Route 143, and Forest Roads 048, 049 and 050, cutting unit boundaries and treatments will be laid out in such a way as to be “naturally appearing” and not create a hard line edge.
Wildlife-1 Prohibit forest vegetative manipulation within active Northern goshawk nest areas (30 acres) during the active nesting period between March 1st and September 30th, as outlined in the Utah Northern Goshawk Project (USDA 2000), to avoid impacts to breeding northern goshawks and other bird species. Within active, alternate, and replacement goshawk nests areas (180 acres), vegetation manipulation should be designed to maintain or improve desired nest area habitat. Given the severity of the fire its possible there will be no active goshawk nests within the project area. A Forest biologist will be available to determine nest activity.
Wildlife-2 Vegetative management treatments in forested cover types should retain the following minimum amount and size of down logs and woody debris, distributed over each treated 10 acres to meet the needs of prey and other wildlife species that utilize this habitat (Utah Northern Goshawk Project 2000). Downed logs are preferred; however, currently the salvage and fuels reduction treatment areas are lacking in downed logs based on post fire ground conditions. Focus on leaving smaller coarse woody debris created by project activities to move towards desired tons per acre.
Minimum Coarse Minimum Minimum Woody Cover Type Down Logs Log Size Debris >= 3 inch diameter
(per 10 (Diameter <__>Length) acres) Down (Tons per logs take If minimum 10 acres,
precedence size is not inclusive of over tons of available, down logs. coarse retain largest woody available on
23 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Resource Project Design Feature
debris. the site.
Mixed 12 inch<__>8 Conifer and 50 100 feet Spruce/Fir
Ponderosa 12 inch<__>8 30 50 Pine feet
6 inch<__>8 Aspen 50 30 feet
Wildlife-3 Maintain a minimum average of 300 snags per 100 acres (greater than 18 inches dbh and 30 feet tall) in mixed conifer and spruce/fir cover types. Maintain an average of 200 snags per 100 acres (greater than 18 inches dbh in ponderosa pine and 8 inches dbh in aspen, and 30 feet tall in ponderosa pine and 15 feet tall in aspen). Within the timber salvage and reforestation areas, most of the timber including suitable snags were burned during the fire with mixed severity. Where feasible, utilize any timbered areas or patches that left green trees or partially burned trees for snag recruitment in these areas. This may include suitable trees along the border of the salvage areas. If the minimum numbers of snags are unavailable, green trees should be substituted. If the minimum size is unavailable, then the largest trees on site should be substituted (USDA 2000).
Wildlife-4 Maintain hiding cover along 75% of the arterial and collector roads in the project area in order to provide hiding cover for deer, elk, and other wildlife as prescribed under the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1986). For this project, this would apply only to treatment areas where cover is intact within 200 feet from the road.
Wildlife-5 To minimize impacts to sensitive plant species such as Arizona willow, keep heavy equipment out of low gradient wet meadows and stream corridors in compliance with PDF Hydrology/Soils-6.
24 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Resource Project Design Feature
Wildlife-6 If aspen regeneration has not met Forest Plan objectives due ungulate browsing after 6 years monitoring exclusion devices such as fencing may be considered.
Wildlife-7 Chaining/seeding treatments will not be conducted during the Sage Grouse breeding or nesting season. Consult with district wildlife biologist for direction prior to implementation.
Wildlife-8 To the extent possible complete project treatments outside of the migratory bird breeding season to minimize incidental take. The migratory bird breeding season generally extends from April to July 15. Consult with district biologist during implementation planning and during pre-work meeting.
25 Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3.1 Introduction This section summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives.
3.2 Cultural
3.2.1 Affected Environment/No Action Cultural Resources on the Cedar City Ranger District are susceptible to natural erosion and to continued use of the land by humans. The desired condition for all known Historic Properties on the Cedar City Ranger District is that they retain the characteristics which make them eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural Resources on the District will continue to be affected as part of the natural environment under the No Action alternative. The two main possible natural effects include erosion of soils and use of the area by ungulates. Natural processes will continue to impact the Cultural Resources and the increase of any human use or use by wildlife and livestock will increase the rate at which the resources are impacted. Protection of all known Historic Properties will continue under the No Action alternative.
3.2.2 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action The following are possible direct and indirect effects to Cultural Resources from the proposed Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project: Direct Effects and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action During the course of salvage, fuels reduction, and road re-alignment, there will be use of heavy equipment and vehicles. Temporary roads are identified in order to facilitate salvage, however all Historic Properties will be avoided by road construction and possible impacts from salvage activities. Temporary roads will be obliterated post implementation. Pre-implementation surveys will identify resources that need to be avoided by project activities and areas where staging of equipment or decks cannot occur. Potential impacts to Historic Properties will be avoided due to these precautions and adherence to Project Design Features listed in Table 6. In the short term, salvage, road relocation and fence building operations may expose soil to additional runoff which increases the possibility that additional resources could be exposed as a consequence. This possibility is very slight and would be diminished over time as vegetation re-growth occurs within the project area. Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action The cumulative effects of this project when combined with other rehabilitation and salvage work within the area does not pose significant effects to Historic Properties. Many of the reforestation
26
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
and hydrological actions proposed through the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation CE Project Decision Memo (USDA, 2018) will contribute to long-term stabilization of the project area and the resources within it.
3.3 Fire and Fuels
3.3.1 Affected Environment/No Action Under the No Action Alterative, no treatment would take place, and the current condition as detailed in Section 1.3 (existing conditions) would persist. Eventually, natural recruitment of trees, brush, grasses and forbs will reclaim the project site and in combination with falling dead trees and brush create fuel loading problems in some areas.
3.3.2 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Direct effects of timber harvest, fuels reduction and road relocation will be an overall reduction on fuel loading on approximately 2,080 acres (Johnson et al. 2013, Peterson et al. 2014). This area will be replanted and restocked to forest plan levels, but is unlikely to pose a fuel hazard for many years. Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Within the cumulative effects area, past and present activities along with fire suppression policies have led to conditions that are prone to large-scale, high severity wildland fires (USDI 1995). Confine, contain, and control strategies of past wildland fires have led to condition classes and fire return intervals outside of the historic range. The management strategies of confine, contain, and control will still be used in the future to minimize the effects of naturally occurring fires when environmental conditions are above the historic thresholds determined acceptable for resource benefit fires. All non-natural ignitions (i.e. human caused) will continue to be suppressed consistent with the Dixie LRMP and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5100 and the Dixie N.F. Fire Management Plan, Dixie LRMP and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5100.
3.4 Fisheries and Aquatics
3.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action The affected environment for the fisheries resource is described in the existing conditions for hydrology, wildlife and fisheries, Section 1.3.3 and 1.3.9, of this document. Under the No Action Alternative the project area would not undergo any of the activities associated with the proposed action. Loss of ground cover related to the fire will continue to impact watershed function. Dead trees will continue to lose commercial value. Poorly placed roads/trails negatively impacted by post-fire runoff would continue to impact bank stability and introduce fine sediment to Birch Creek. Fuel levels, surrounding the Panguitch Municipal Water Supply would remain high and may increase as fuel loading and fuel continuity across the surface increases. Streams may continue to aggrade or incise as post-fire runoff patterns change watershed function and affect stream bank stability. As discussed in the aquatic habitat section, the indirect effects of the No Action Alternative are the continued impacts of past and current 27
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
management on riparian vegetation, fine sediment loading, stream bank stability and water temperature. Current livestock management, roads and trails, riparian condition and channel stability/morphology will continue to have effects on BCT habitat. Prior to the Brian Head Fire these impacts did not appear to be preventing establishment and maintenance of BCT populations in Little Creek and the Threemile Creek drainage. The Brian Head Fire burned much of the headwaters of Threemile Creek and Little Creek at moderate and high severities. As discussed in the Affected Environment post-fire flooding resulted in the loss of stream habitat and the elimination of BCT in these streams. Similar to the Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative on BCT, no direct effects are expected to conservation populations of Southern leatherside chub are expected from implementation of the No Action Alternative. Indirect impacts described to BCT and aquatic habitat above could affect conservation populations in Bear Creek and Panguitch Creek. As discussed under the Affected Environment Southern leatherside chub appear to have been lost from Threemile Creek in post-fire flooding and ash flows. Direct and indirect effects of the No Action Alternative on MIS nonnative trout are similar to those described for BCT. Unlike BCT in some cases nonnative trout may have the opportunity to naturally recolonize streams where catastrophic events have occurred.
3.4.2 Cumulative Effects of the No Action Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities potentially effecting aquatic habitat in the CEA include: vegetation management projects, wildfire, grazing, off- road ATV use, roads, trails, dispersed campsites, water diversion, nonnative fish stocking, riparian exclosure construction, Aquatic Organism Passage projects and future BCT restoration activities (including barrier construction and nonnative fish removal). Effects from all these activities will continue under both the no action and proposed action alternatives. Past and future management actions could impact/have impacted Sensitive and MIS fish populations and aquatic habitat through habitat loss and fragmentation, competition with and/or depredation by nonnative fish, riparian and stream channel habitat degradation and impacts to water quality, including fine sediment deposition and increased temperatures. The Dixie National Forest has begun projects in Upper Mammoth Creek and the East Fork Sevier River drainage that should eventually restore close to 80 miles of stream for BCT. Once these projects are completed genetic stocks of BCT in the Southern GMU should have adequate representation, redundancy and resiliency to be secure. Within the Southern GMU BCT occupied habitat has already been dramatically expanded over the early 2000’s through active projects to maintain and restore BCT populations. As discussed previously under the Affected Environment, the 2017 Brian Head Fire encompasses the headwaters of most streams in the project area. The bulk of negative fire-related impacts to fish and aquatic invertebrate communities occur when large, high severity fires are followed by heavy precipitation events. Extremely high sediment loads, and in some cases debris flows, during the resulting runoff can cause large-scale mortality to aquatic biota and major changes in stream geomorphology (Rinne, 1996; Gresswell, 1999; Benda, Miller, Bigelow, & Andras, 2003; Dunham, Young, Gresswell, & Rieman, 2003; Minshall, 2003; Rinne, 2004). These impacts have already occurred in several streams within the project area and the potential for impacts will continue for at least another 2-3 years, or until uplands and riparian
28
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
areas recover their pre-fire ground cover and soil conditions. Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Efforts along with the fire Phase of Fire Rehabilitation funded by Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative put straw mulch and seed on more than 6,100 acres in the project area following the fire. Additionally these acres received a secondary seeding, along with more than 10,800 additional acres within the fire perimeter. These initial efforts were aimed at recovering ground cover and reducing the time necessary to reach pre-fire conditions. Overall implementation of the No Action Alternative would be expected maintain the current condition and trend for aquatic habitat in the CEA. As discussed under direct and indirect effects, the No Action Alternative could slow the recovery of areas burned by the Brian Head Fire which could have a substantial cumulative effect on Sensitive and MIS fish, and aquatic habitat. If future restoration plans are not completed prior to such an event the more fish populations could be eliminated and aquatic habitat degraded.
3.4.3 Determinations for the No Action Since no actions will take place under the No Action Alternative, implementation of this alternative will have no direct effects to aquatic habitat or any core, or conservation, populations of BCT, conservation populations of Southern leatherside chub or MIS nonnative trout populations. Implementation of the No Action Alternative could have indirect and cumulative effects throughout the CEA reducing the time to recovery of areas affected by the Brian Head Fire. In terms of nonnative trout trend across the Forest is stable to increasing and the loss of populations in select watersheds will only temporarily impact Forest-wide trend for nonnative trout. Because of these factors implementation of the No Action Alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species for MIS nonnative trout. Continued elevated runoff and erosion from the Brian Head fire scar has the potential to affect aquatic habitat and conservation populations of BCT and Southern leatherside chub; however, any potential impacts would not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the species.
3.4.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Timber salvage This action proposes the ground based harvest of trees in 5 of the 6th HUC watersheds in the proposed project area. While these may occur across different vegetation types their potential impacts to riparian vegetation are similar regardless of the upland vegetation type being treated. The treatments proposed overlap 0.7 miles of perennial stream, 0.1 of which are fish bearing, and 0.75 miles of intermittent stream channel. Removing tree canopy and/or the use of ground-based equipment could directly impact riparian vegetation by removing riparian ground cover and hardwood species. The use of ground-based equipment for mechanical thinning and mastication could result in direct impacts to stream bank stability through a loss of ground cover, displacement of soil, and compaction of soils (Chamberlain, Harr, & Everest, 1991). Implementation of PDFs HS-1 and HS-2 should ameliorate these concerns as they specify that machinery will be excluded from Riparian Influence Zones. Loss of ground cover, displacement of soil, and compaction of soils from machinery could increase overland flow and upland erosion rates. Commercial thinning, along with the felling and skidding of commercial harvest treatments can elevate runoff and fine sediment transport for 2 to
29
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
12 years following implementation, while non-commercial thinning appears to have considerably shorter and less substantial impacts (Lewis & Keppler, 2007; Robichaud, MacDonald, & Foltz, 2010). Reviews of the available information on the impacts of postfire logging indicate that the synergistic effect of a fire and subsequent logging on the burned landscape can be greater than either individual action (McIver & Starr, 2000; McIver & Starr, 2001; Beschta, et al., 2004; Karr, et al., 2004; Lindenmayer & Noss, 2006). Studies and literature reviews suggest that timber harvest, especially ground-based skidding, on a burned landscape will create higher rates of soil compaction and disturbance resulting in increased overland flow, erosion, and sediment (McIver & Starr, 2000; McIver & Starr, 2001; Wagenbrenner, MacDonald, Coats, Robichaud, & Brown, 2015; Wagenbrenner, Robichaud, & Brown, 2016). The potential for roads to change overland flow patterns increasing erosion and runoff is well documented (Furniss, Roelofs, & Yee, 1991; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000). Changes in water and sediment volumes reaching stream channels can impact stream channel morphology through affecting channel and stream bank stability (Lane, 1955). Canopy removal is associated activities proposed in timber salvage activities and this can cause increases in solar radiation reaching streams that results in water temperature increases. Any increased influx of sediment from the proposed action would have a negative effect on fish and fish habitat present within and downstream from the proposed project area. Increased sedimentation can result in the loss of habitat for both aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish, through the elimination of the interstitial spaces in the streambed and the filling of pools. Suspended and deposited sediment directly impact fish and aquatic invertebrates through clogging of the gills or smothering and indirectly affect them by reducing spawning and resting habitat (Waters, 1995). Sedimentation can also adversely affect the spawning success of salmonids, by impeding the process of excavating, depleting oxygen flow to the eggs and sac fry, and blocking the passage of emerging sac fry (Waters, 1995). These effects can lead to decreased abundance, diversity, and species composition within the aquatic community. Stream temperature regulates metabolism in fish and elevating temperatures can cause changes in growth, survival, and reproductive success (Bell, 2006). With riparian buffers in place, the timber salvage activities should not have an appreciable impact on riparian vegetation, bank stability or water temperature. Implementation of PDFs HS- 4, HS-5, HS-8, HS-9 and HS-10 focus on protecting and maintaining riparian areas which should help to ameliorate the potential impacts of upland treatments. These PDFS should prevent any direct impacts to BCT, MIS nonnative trout and their habitats. In addition to these mitigating factors, PDFs AQ-2, HS-1, HS-2, HS-3, HS-5, HS-8, and HS-11 should limit the scope and duration impacts from sediment generation. Removing canopy or having detrimental soil impacts on greater than 15-20% of a subwatershed can result in negative impacts to watershed function. The hydrology and soils analysis for the project indicate that project activities will not add appreciably to the detrimental disturbance these watersheds currently face from Brian Head Fire effects. These PDFS should ameliorate any direct impacts to BCT, MIS nonnative trout and their habitats. Fuels reduction The fuels reduction treatment proposes mechanical and hand piling in areas affected by proposed and past salvage logging activities in three of the 6th HUC watersheds in the proposed project
30
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
area. The treatments proposed overlap 0.06 miles of perennial stream, none of which are fish bearing, and 0.25 miles of intermittent stream channel. Road rehabilitation Road decommissioning and reroutes are not near any fish-bearing streams. While the reroute construction and former route obliteration may temporarily increase bare ground and sediment generation in the short-term, the long-term impact of better road alignment and former route reclamation will reduce erosion and sediment generation. These sites are 2-3 miles from fish bearing portions of any stream and their short-term sediment generation is unlikely to have an impact of aquatic habitat in those streams. Receiving streams do not contain BCT or Southern leatherside chub populations, but do contain MIS nonnative trout populations, which have been eliminated or significantly reduced by runoff from the Brian Head Fire. Hand piling will have no direct or indirect impacts to fish and aquatic habitat. Machine piling could have similar impacts described from machinery use in salvage proposed actions. Pile burning can increase sediment generation and runoff by damaging soil structure (Robichaud, MacDonald, & Foltz, 2010). Activities in the Middle and Upper Mammoth Creek watersheds are more than a mile from any perennial streams and are not expected to have any direct or indirect impacts to fish and aquatic habitat. Monitoring on the Dixie National Forest has shown that when piles are placed more than 50 feet from a stream, sediment generation from the burn scar is unlikely to be a source of sediment to the stream. The fuel reduction activities in the Blue Springs Creek drainage are more than 100 feet from any fish-bearing streams (Deer Creek) and cross 0.2 miles of a small, perennial stream. PDFs HS-7, HS-8, HS-9 and HS-10 should minimize or alleviate any potential impacts from fuels reductions activities to fish and aquatic habitat. The distance from streams along with associated PDFs make it unlikely that the proposed fuel reduction treatments will have direct or indirect impacts to fish or aquatic habitat.
3.4.5 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action As noted under the Cumulative Effects section for the No Action Alternative, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities potentially effecting aquatic habitat in the CEA include: vegetation management projects, wildfire, grazing, off- road ATV use, roads, trails, dispersed campsites, water diversion, nonnative fish stocking, riparian exclosure construction, Aquatic Organism Passage projects and future BCT restoration activities (including barrier construction and nonnative fish removal). Effects from all these activities will continue under both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. The biggest potential long-term, cumulative impacts to aquatic habitat from these activities are changes to riparian vegetation, hydrology and stream bank stability that cause sedimentation and or loss of channel form. As highlighted in the Affected Environment section, the current overriding impact to these three variables throughout the majority of the project area and CEA is the Brian Head Fire. The fire has altered hydrology at the heads of almost all streams in the project area and altered riparian vegetation and its role in stream bank stability in others. Four conservation populations of BCT and one conservation population of Southern leatherside have been lost, as have at least five populations of MIS nonnative trout. Channel form has been affected by both aggradation and incision in upstream across the project area and may continue
31
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
to do so for at least 3-5 more years until watersheds have recovered comparable hydrologic function. Road Rehabilitation may have short-term impacts to ground cover and or sedimentation and riparian vegetation; however, the goal of this action is to more quickly recover watershed or stream channel form and function. The areas proposed for rehabilitation are unlikely to contribute sediment loading in any perennial or fish bearing stream. The proposed salvage logging (including temporary roads) and fuels reduction treatments are to recover commercial value from trees lost to the fire and meet Forest Plan standards for fuel loading following the treatments. As noted in the direct and indirect effects analysis for these two actions, there is a potential for increased runoff, erosion and sediment transport from these areas following treatment. The BMPs and PDFs associated with the Proposed Action should minimize these impacts to the greatest possible extent. Recent literature has suggested that salvage logging does not appear to have long-term impacts to understory vegetation recovery, particularly when PDFS and BMPs like those in the Proposed Action are used (Peterson & Dodson, 2016). The proposed PDFs and BMPs, in conjunction with the mulching and seeding completed under the first emergency phase of the Brian Head fire rehabilitation in summer and fall 2017, make it unlikely that the cumulative effects of the proposed salvage logging and fuels reduction treatments will have a cumulative effect to fish and aquatic habitat in the project area or CEA.
3.4.6 Determinations for the Proposed Action The highest probability of effects is from the proposed timber salvage and associated road construction. Potential impacts include direct impacts to riparian vegetation and stream bank stability. Indirect impacts are primarily associated with increased sedimentation and increases in water temperature. PDFs associated with the project substantially reduced the potential for impacts. With implementation of all associated PDFS no direct impacts are anticipated and indirect effects should be limited to minor, short-term impacts to sediment generation and possibly temperature. The Proposed Action will not impact to any Southern leatherside individuals, conservation populations, or their habitat. The Proposed Action may impact individual BCT, their conservation populations in Little Creek, and their habitat; however, any potential impacts would not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the species. The Proposed Action may impact MIS nonnative trout individuals or habitat in Red Creek, Bowery Creek, Bunker Creek and Deer Creek but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
3.5 Hydrology and Soils
3.5.1 Affected Environment/No Action The affected environment for the hydrologic and soils resource is described in the existing conditions in Section 1.3.3 of this document. Under the No Action Alternative, hydrology and soil resources will not be affected by the salvage operations. Also, no improvements will be made to allow the hydrologic and soil resources to rebound as quickly. These resources would be expected to continue degradation as explained in the existing condition of this document (1.3.3).
32
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action The following watershed condition indicators (WCI) will be used: Stream Flows (peak flow and base flow), Water Quality (turbidity, temperature, and condition of GDE) and Road Density/Drainage Network. The following soil condition indicators will be used: Detrimental Soil Disturbance (defined by one or more of the following: soil displacement, soil compaction, soil puddling, and severely burned soil) and Effective Ground Cover (including above-ground organic matter). All of these soil issue indicators together will also be an indicator for soil productivity. The analysis was performed by breaking up the proposed actions into two groups: 1) Timber Salvage and 2) Road Rehabilitation and Fuel Reduction because a comment was received referencing concerns specifically related to timber salvage. Stream Flows Proposed Action: Timber Salvage The driving factors of watershed response to the Brian Head Fire in the project area are the presence of steep slopes, lack of effective ground cover, and the loss of raindrop interception via the absence of vegetation canopy cover. Changes to vegetation can affect the frequency and magnitude of runoff events (Harr and others 1975). Peak flows have increased as a result of the fire but are not expected to change further because of salvage harvest activities including harvesting, temporary road construction, or road maintenance. Salvage harvest would not measurably alter the current hydrology because trees that already burned in the Brian Head Fire either have no crown, or their crowns have been greatly reduced and are no longer contributing to transpiration or interception. When followed, Project Design Features in Table 6 would minimize soil and water impacts from skid trail networks in salvage harvest units by outlining appropriate erosion control measures. Proposed temporary road construction is not expected to increase stream flows because proposed activities would not appreciably change existing road densities in the affected watersheds, and temporary roads would be decommissioned. Increased road maintenance would maintain the functionality of the roads and their associated drainage features; thus, no measurable change in peak and base flows are expected. Road improvements associated with the Proposed Action are necessary and may reduce overall long term, post-fire sediment yield. Any road decommissioning activities would increase infiltration, decrease runoff and sediment, and encourage revegetation. Though these activities together improve this WCI, the results would be immeasurable. Based on the analysis, this proposed action is not likely to have a measureable effect on this indicator. Proposed Action: All Others The remaining proposed actions of watershed rehabilitation (via road relocation and decommissioning) and fuel reduction are anticipated to have no measurable detrimental impact on stream flows. The area has already experienced such a large effect to this indicator directly related to the fire, that the impacts from these actions will be immeasurable in comparison. Road rehabilitation will improve this indicator by moving roads to more hydrologically friendly locations. Based on the analysis, these proposed actions are not likely to have a measurable effect on this indicator.
33
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Water Quality Proposed Action: Timber Salvage There are Municipal Watersheds, Drinking Water Surface Protection Zones, and Public Water Sources that fall within the proposed salvage treatments. Also, the following Assessment Units are classified by the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality as “Impaired” and have a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as specified below: Table 7: Watershed Condition Assessments from the State of Utah DEQ Assessment Units from Utah DEQ Unit ID Cause of Impairment
Threemile Creek UT16030001-014_00 Temperature
Mammoth Creek Lower UT16030001-009_00 Total Phosphorous
Panguitch Creek – 1 UT16030001-008_00 Temperature
Hydrologic indicators used for analysis of potential water quality issues include: chemical contamination, sedimentation, and temperature. Each is discussed separately below. Chemical Contamination Through the implementation of project design features, the cause of impairment mentioned in Table 7 would likely be maintained but not further degraded. The Proposed Action incorporates SWCPs mentioned in Hydrology/Soils – 8. Those include design features intended to address the potential for chemical contamination of surface water from fuel and or chemical releases associated with equipment used to implement the Proposed Action. These SWCPs address fuel storage, refueling of equipment, disposal of waste associated with implementation activities, and spill containment and cleanup procedures. Sedimentation We expect the risk of sediment delivery to streams to immeasurably increase in the temporary timeframe. This risk is primarily associated with heavy road maintenance and use required to implement the Proposed Action. The effects are negligible due to the relatively small expected magnitude of change. In the temporary and short-term (0–3 years) timeframes, sediment yield would be dominated by post-fire processes, which we expect to result in increases in sediment yield that could be orders of magnitude above natural. Possible changes in stream channel characteristics from altered flow dynamics and potential debris flows are also possible in the area. Temporary road construction The Proposed Action includes the construction and use of 5.8 miles of temporary roads. Approximately 4.1, 0.4, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.5 miles of temporary roads are proposed within the Blue Spring Creek, Center Creek-Parowan Creek, Little Creek, Middle Mammoth Creek, and Red Creek 6th HUC watersheds, respectively. Approximately 3.7 miles of proposed temporary roads are located on previously existing road alignments. Temporary roads are primarily proposed in
34
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
areas outside riparian areas. However, there are two road segments located within 100 ft of perennial and intermittent streams, but these two roads will be located on previously existing alignments (see Table 6, Hydrology/Soils Project Design Features 5 and 6). Proper drainage techniques will be used as part of road construction to reduce road surface erosion. We expect that some ground disturbance would occur from preparing these roads for log hauling. Blading the road surface and vegetation removal would occur. Water bars would be constructed at the appropriate location and spacing to reduce road surface erosion. The risk of sediment delivery would be increased during road construction due to ground disturbance and exposing of soil; however, we expect sediment delivery to streams only at the two locations where temporary roads cross stream channels. We expect the amount of sediment associated with these crossings to be minimal, but the actual amount would be dependent upon precipitation events that occur while the temporary road is in place. For all other temporary road segments, we do not expect sediment delivery to streams to occur as a result of temporary road construction due to limited ground disturbance from using the previously existing road alignments. Where temporary roads are proposed and existing road prisms do not exist, temporary roads are planned to be located outside stream management zones, far enough from streams that sediment delivery is not expected. After the completion of project activities, temporary roads would be decommissioned in manner that allows for revegetation of the disturbed area as described in PDF HS-6. Road maintenance and use In terms of erosion and sediment delivery to streams, contributions from roads are often much greater than that from all other land management activities combined, including log skidding and yarding (Gibbons and Salo 1973). Maintenance activities on roads are designed to ensure the functionality of the travel way and road drainage. Road surface sediment production can be readily reduced by improving road drainage (MacDonald and Coe 2008). However blading and ditch cleaning can increase the erodibility of the road prism by removing vegetation, breaking up armor layers on the road surface or ditch, and result in increased sediment production. Additionally, increasing traffic on native surface roads also increases sediment production, though the two are not necessarily additive (Luce and Black 1999). Roads throughout the project area are in need of varying degrees of maintenance. BAER work has included road maintenance on existing NFS roads and more maintenance would be needed to support harvesting equipment. Maintenance activities in the BAER area needed to support harvesting would include clearing brush from the road shoulders to improve sight distance, blading and shaping the road, cleaning ditches, maintaining or improving drainage structures, and improving the road surface. Some roads merely require routine blading and ditch cleaning, while others require more template reshaping and vegetation clearing. Increases in the amount of traffic on native surface roads can also increase the amount of sediment production. This has implications for log hauling associated with the Proposed Action. Luce and Black (Luce and others 2001) suggest that there is little difference in sediment yields between traffic and no traffic when ditches have recently been graded. Regular maintenance should limit sediment production from increased traffic. Required contract specifications limit log hauling to dry conditions, by limiting the formation of ruts, to minimize road damage and sediment production.
35
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Snow plowing may be used for both salvage harvest and for access to planting units. If not done properly, snow plowing can disturb the road surface and/or reduce the drainage capacity in a way that causes increased erosion and risk of sediment delivery. SWCPs mentioned in Design Feature HS-8 includes descriptions associated with snow plowing that would be implemented to minimize sediment delivery. Salvage harvest Approximately 1,938 acres of salvage tree harvest would occur as a part of the Proposed Action. Sediment production associated with salvage harvest units is primarily a function of the magnitude of ground cover alteration and soil compaction that occurs associated with activities of the logging operation and the rainfall intensity (Wagenbrenner and others 2015; Wagenbrenner and others 2016). Falling trees generally result in little to no ground disturbance when accomplished with hand fallers. Processing and yarding of material with skidders and tractor jammers increases the potential for ground disturbance and subsequent sediment delivery depending on the extent of the disturbance from logging equipment. The greatest risk of sediment delivery is associated with ground-based harvest units that use skid trails and or feller- buncher trails (Wagenbrenner and others 2016). No salvage units would occur within stream management zones (Design Feature HS-4). Skid trails within the timber salvage areas will have a residual coarse wood of 3 inch minus material at rate of 70 pieces per 100 ft. transect. This transect will also need to show a retention of groundcover of at least 80 percent (Table 6, Project Design Feature HS-11). Wagenbrenner et al. (Wagenbrenner and others 2015) found that adding slash to skid trails reduced sediment delivery 5 to 50 times compared to untreated skid trails. Slash created during logging (from limbs and tops of trees) can provide additional ground cover that can reduce erosion (Shakesby and Doerr 2006). We do not expect sediment delivery to streams from salvage harvest units due to a combination of SWCPs to reduce erosion from skid trails, and by limiting salvage units to locations outside SMZs. MK sediment modeling and post- fire salvage harvest monitoring results from Maloney and Thornton (Maloney and Thornton 1995) agree with the conclusion that sediment travel distances would be less than SMZ buffer width for activities such as tractor jammer yarding and the construction of skid trails as described in the methodology and assumptions section. Past and newly constructed landings would be used to facilitate processing and decking of cut trees and loading of log trucks for haul. Sediment production from the surface and cut-and-fill slopes of landings may occur due to exposed and/or compacted soils. SWCPs limit new landing construction to areas outside SMZs and requires all constructed landings to be reclaimed after use by reshaping, ripping, slash placement, and seeding. MK sediment modeling and post-fire salvage harvest monitoring results from Maloney and Thornton indicate that SMZ buffer distances designed for the project would be sufficient to provide adequate buffer distance to limit sediment delivery to streams. Monitoring data indicated that the longest observed sediment travel distance associated with landings was 108 feet, with an average of 46 feet. Sediment Conclusion: Sediment transport or stream turbidity is expected to be maintained and not measurably increased in all timeframes as a result of project activities. An increase in the risk of sediment delivery in the temporary timeframe (0–3 yrs.) exists associated with temporary roads, road maintenance, and log hauling activities where they occur within SMZs, and especially where roads are in close proximity to streams(<70 feet). In the short (3–15 years) and long-term (15 or more years), risk of sediment delivery to streams would be reduced by ensuring
36
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
proper road drainage and road maintenance. Designated SMZ buffers for project activities have been designed to minimize the potential for sediment delivery where possible. Observed and modeled sediment transport distances from similar post-fire salvage harvest projects on the Forest suggest that the designated SMZ buffers provide reasonable protection to streams from sediment delivery. Where sediment producing activities are proposed to occur within SMZs, such as road maintenance, sediment delivery would be minimized through application of design features and BMPs to reduce both sediment production and delivery to streams. Temperature Streams in the area are already negatively impacted by the loss of shade from the lack of canopy cover and vegetation lost due to the fire. Existing Project design features prohibit the harvesting of trees within riparian areas. Thus existing shade from remaining vegetation within this buffer would be expected to continue. Also, we would expect that natural regeneration and planting in riparian areas would increase stream shade over time, and contribute to the recovery of stream temperatures in the analysis area. Temperature Conclusion: Even though the project area could see increased summer maximum water temperature, we do not expect that project activities themselves would degrade this WCI. This is because the canopy loss of trees in the burned environment has already reduced stream shade proportional to burn intensity. No project activities are proposed in SMZs except for hazard tree mitigations and riparian restoration. Thus, within the watersheds, we expect the percent stream shading from non-canopy tree-based shade to decrease slightly from project activities with an immeasurable effect on stream temperatures in the temporary timeframe (0–3 years). The magnitude and effect of these changes to stream temperature would be small, localized, and/or negligible in the context of the entire analysis area. Reforestation and riparian planting efforts would contribute along with natural regeneration to an increase in the quality of this WCI by increasing stream shade (and potentially channel stability) in the short- (3– 10 years) and long-term (15 and more years) timeframes. Other project activities, such as road maintenance, temporary road construction, and road decommissioning do not affect stream temperature. Salvage activities would not result in effects that would directly, indirectly, or cumulatively degrade stream temperature. Based on the analysis, this proposed action is not likely to have a significant effect on these indicators. Proposed Action: All Others The remaining proposed actions of watershed rehabilitation (via road relocation and decommissioning) and fuel reduction are anticipated to have no measurable detrimental impact on water quality. The area has already experienced such a large effect to this indicator directly related to the fire, that the impacts from these actions will be immeasurable in comparison. If anything, road rehabilitation will only improve this indicator by moving roads to more hydrologically friendly locations. Based on the analysis, these proposed actions are not likely to have a measurable effect on this indicator.
37
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Road Density/Drainage Network Proposed Action: Timber Salvage There would be a temporary (0–3 years) increase in road density during implementation due to the construction of temporary roads. The Proposed Action would maintain the existing functionality of the road density in the short- (3–15 years) and long-term (15 and more years) timeframes. Skid trails and temporary roads could extend the length of the current drainage network in the temporary and short term; however, in the long term, all temporary roads, skid trails, and many unauthorized travel routes would be put back to pre-project condition status and no longer be present on the landscape at the scope it was during project implementation. Thus, we expect a net benefit (in the long term) to this WCI under the Proposed Action. While the effects to this WCI may be measurable, in terms of miles of road, the effects would not be at the scale of analysis. The Proposed Action would not change the overall functional rating of the subwatersheds for this WCI. Based on the analysis, this proposed action is not likely to have a measurable effect on this indicator. Proposed Action: All Others The remaining proposed action of watershed rehabilitation (via road relocation and decommissioning) is anticipated to have minimal impact on road density/drainage networks. Despite adding some length to the forest service road system through these reroutes, the roads will be moved to more hydrologic friendly locations that will only improve the functionality of the roads and drainage networks. The proposed action of fuel reduction is anticipated to not affect this indicator. Based on the analysis, these proposed actions are not likely to have a measurable effect on this indicator. For more information, see the Travel Analysis Process (TAP) (USDA, 2018) within the project record. Detrimental Soil Disturbance Proposed Action: Timber Salvage After the fire a BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) assessment was completed. Part of that work involved the creating of a BARC map. BARC data is explained in detail on the BAER website (USDA Forest Service). It is essentially a way to measure soil burn severity based on vegetative changes from a fire and is verified and adjusted with actual data during the BAER assessment phase following BAER guidance (Parsons and others 2010). The timber salvage acres were overlapped with fire burn severity data from the BARC map as shown in the table below: Table 8: Timber salvage units overlaid with BAER BARC (USDA Forest Service) Data Salvage Unit High/% Unit Moderate/% Unit Low/% Unit Unburned/% Unit
Amoeba 14 / 2% 417 / 65% 164 / 26% 42 / 7%
Antique Truck 4 / 2% 104/ / 65% 44 / 27% 9 / 6%
38
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Bunker Creek 18 / 10% 104 / 56% 53 / 29% 10 / 5% South
Red Creek 61 / 35% 97 / 55% 15 / 9% 2 / 1%
Rock Squirrel 18 / 11% 135 / 79% 17 / 10% 0 / 0%
Stair Step 31 / 9% 154 / 47% 98/ / 30% 45 / 14%
Yankee 149 / 54% 120 / 44% 6 / 2% 0 / 0%
TOTAL 295 / 15% 1131 / 59% 397 / 21% 108 / 6%
It is observed that the BARC data shows unburned acres within the salvage units. Those areas are unburned due to fuel conditions during the fire. Some of the acres are riparian zones, rocky areas with no fuels during the fire, or other geological or hydrologic variables that created fuels conditions leaving that area untouched. Much of those areas will not be harvested due to the characteristics of those areas. That could vary from being with the stream management zone or in too rocky of an area that it will naturally exclude heavy equipment. FSH 2550 (USDA Forest Service 2011) states: “In an activity area where existing conditions of detrimental soil disturbance exceed 15 percent of the area, management activities should include mitigation and restoration so that detrimental soil disturbance levels are less than pre management activities and moved back toward 15 percent or less following completion of the management activities.” Looking at the totals on Table 8 it is observed that 15 percent of those areas cumulatively account for high soil burn severity and 59 percent for moderate soil burn severity. FSH 2550 also states, “The severely burned soil guideline applies to prescribed fire. Severely burned soils are identified by ratings of fire severity and the effects to the soil. A severely burned soil is generally soil that is within a High Fire Severity burn”. A high soil burn severity along with cumulative effects of past treatments within these areas would put these activity areas outside the 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance. However following FSH 2550 guidance restoration work is planned and project design features are set forth that will move the activity areas back toward lowering the percent detrimental soil disturbance. This includes tree planting and coarse woody debris requirements (PDF Wildlife-2). Based on the analysis, this proposed action is not likely to have a measurable effect on this indicator. Proposed Action: All Others The remaining proposed actions of watershed rehabilitation (via road relocation and decommissioning) and fuel reduction are anticipated to have no measurable detrimental impact on detrimental soil disturbance. The area has already experienced such a large effect to this indicator directly related to the fire (mostly due to high soil burn severities), that the impacts from these actions will be immeasurable in comparison. If anything, road rehabilitation will only improve this indicator by moving roads to more hydrologically friendly locations. Based on the analysis, these proposed actions are not likely to have a measurable effect on this indicator.
39
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Effective Ground Cover Proposed Action: Timber Salvage Effective ground cover within the burned area is well below levels recommended in FSH 2509.18 (Forest 2010). In the operation of a timber harvest tree tops, limbs, and other organic matter are anticipated to be scattered throughout the activity area. On top of that, these areas are slated to be planted, there will be rehabilitation of skid trails (PDF HS-11), and there are coarse woody debris requirements (PDF Wildlife-2). All of these actions will help move the area towards recommended ground cover levels. Based on the analysis, this proposed action is not likely to have a significant effect on this indicator. Proposed Action: All Others As stated above, effective ground cover within the burned area is well below levels recommended in FSH 2509.18. Road rehabilitation is not likely to significantly affect this indicator since the old route will be decommissioned. Fuels reduction will remove groundcover from the area that has already experienced such a large effect to this indicator related directly to the fire (mostly due to high soil burn severities). However, the PDF Wildlife-2 gives coarse woody debris requirements which will help facilitate moving this indicator in the right direction by not allowing fuels reduction to take ground cover below a certain level (see Table 6, Wildlife -2 and Hydrology Soils-11 PDFs). Based on the analysis, these proposed actions are not likely to have a measurable effect on this indicator.
3.5.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action
The cumulative effects area (CEA) for hydrology was selected for each 6th HUC watershed intersecting the project area. For soils analysis it was the project areas with more specific information collected for timber salvage. In summary, prior to the Brian Head Fire, the CEA had undergone a considerable amount of vegetation management activity over the past 50 to 60 years. The character of this landscape was influenced by a Cedar City district wide Spruce Bark Beetle epidemic that began in the mid 1990’s. Vegetation treatment projects near the proposed analysis area were proposed and implemented within the spruce/fir and ponderosa pine timber types. The majority of this landscape was impacted by the Spruce Bark Beetle epidemic where over 44,000+ acres were impacted District wide. These treatments have contributed to the characteristic of the landscape over time. Previous timber harvests involved salvage logging of dead and dying spruce. Most timber harvest activity prior to salvage logging occurred from the early small sales. Other vegetation management actions include prescribed fire, fuel rearrangement piling and chipping, planting and seeding and invasive plant treatments. Most recently the area was impacted by the 2017 Brian Head Fire. The Brian Head Fire drove the analysis of each indicator for hydrologic and soils resources due to the scope, severity, and recent history despite the other effects listed in the paragraph above. The fire has caused much of the area to be pushed outside the desired condition for many of these indicators and adding on top of it any other past events wouldn’t have measurably added any additional detrimental disturbance. The analysis of the effects of the proposed action combined with the effects of the Brian Head Fire is outlined in section 3.5.2. That section
40
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
analyzed the combined cumulative effects of past, present and foreseeable actions in combination with the current proposed action. Based on the analysis, these proposed actions are not likely to have a detrimental cumulative effect on the hydrologic and soils indicators.
3.6 Range/Grazing
3.6.1 Affected Environment/No Action The affected environment is described in the existing conditions section for range noted in section 1.3.11 and in the table below. The No Action would continue management of the project area as it currently stands. It is expected that the BAER seeding and natural regeneration may increase the overall amount of forage in the project area over time due to decreased competition. Table 9: Grazing Allotments and permitted use for allotments within the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Area. Allotment Number Class Season
Bowery 160 Cow/Calf 6/21 – 9/20
Butler Creek 100 Cow/Calf 6/16 – 9/30
Dry Lake – Bunker- 130 Cow/Calf 6/16 – 9/30 Hatch Mt.
Haycock Creek 1000 Ewe/Lamb 6/11 – 10/10
Haycock Mt. – Brian 950 Ewe/Lamb 6/11 – 9/30 Head
Little Valley 303 Cow/Calf 6/1 – 10/15
Red Creek 690 Cow/Calf 6/16 – 10/15
Sage Valley - Horse 1350 Ewe/Lamb 6/26 – 10/10 Valley
Sidney Valley 60 Cow/Calf 7/11 – 9/20
Warren Bunker – Castle 900 Ewe/Lamb 7/6 – 9/20 Valley
White Canyon Vacant Cow/Calf N/A
3.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action There is a potential for short-term direct disturbance to livestock if project activities were to occur during the authorized grazing season. Vegetation treatment activities could cause disturbances to any livestock in the vicinity of said treatment. However, the disturbances would
41
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
be minimal to the livestock and could potentially be mitigated through rotation schedules and herding.
3.6.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action The proposed action would combine with ongoing range management projects and activities to create additional sustainable grazing opportunities. Some improvement to overall rangeland heath and increased forage is anticipated. Additionally, the likelihood of catastrophic fire events displacing grazing opportunities would be greatly reduced.
3.7 Recreation and Scenery
3.7.1 Affected Environment/No Action The affected environment is as described in section 1.3.5 existing condition for recreation and scenery. The No Action would result in continued degradation of the Forest Service system roads identified in the Proposed Action. This could eventually lead to diminished utility and degraded connectivity and recreational opportunities within those locations. Degraded and washed out roads could also cause localized route proliferation.
3.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action The direct effect of implementation of the Proposed Action would include short term displacement and interruption of recreation activities due to project implementation, including equipment and construction activities. There will also be a short-term visual impact related to the salvage, fuels and road construction activities. It is expected that in treatment areas, within 2-3 years of project implementation, visual resources will recover due to natural recovery and reforestation efforts. Due to the seamless road relocation construction and decommissioning, there are no direct effects expected to travel connectivity and recreation opportunities based on the FS travel system. An indirect effect of the road relocation would include increased connectivity and recreation opportunity spectrum.
3.7.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action Cumulatively, due to the work proposed in this project and the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation CE – Project (USDA, 2018) route proliferation associated with rangeland fence maintenance may occur. Project design feature Recreation-5, was developed to limit this potential. This is a potential effect of both the restoration efforts and as a consequence of the wildfire creating a more open landscape. Heavy timbered forest acted as a natural barrier to un-authorized overland travel, and it will take several years for this landscape to recover.
3.8 Silviculture and Forest Resources
3.8.1 Affected Environment/No Action The affected environment is described in section 1.3.7 existing conditions. Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management for the Brian Head
42
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Fire area. Other than the rehabilitation actions (reforestation, wildlife habitat improvement and aquatic habitat improvement) allowed through the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project CE Decision Memo (USDA, 2018), no additional silvicultural treatments would be implemented to restore woodlands towards a properly functioning condition. Reforestation would take longer to occur on these sites, mortality of remaining live trees will increase and fuel loadings will remain higher for a longer period of time possibly fueling another high severity wildfire to kill vegetation on the sites.
3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Direct Effects There would be a change to stand structure as dead trees are removed from the site. Within all treatment areas, mortality from the fire is greater than 90 percent on average with much of the treatment sites having more than 99 percent mortality, but high density of snags continue to shade young seedlings and vegetation growing on the site. Removal of the trees will increase sunlight in the area further helping early successional species establish on the sites more quickly. In terms of climate change, there will be a direct effect of replanting the salvaged area with young saplings which will sequester increased amounts of carbon until the stand reaches maturity. The harvesting, fuels reduction and road construction equipment will give off carbon emissions during operations. Indirect Effects Structure, Composition, and Patterns With removal of the dead trees the site will receive more sunlight increasing establishment of early successional species. Removal of dead trees will also slow the buildup of insect pest populations to lessen the stress on remaining live trees (Peterson et al 2009) (McIvar and Starr 2001). Snag persistence in the treated areas will decrease from removal of dead trees, but Forest Plan requirement for snags will still be met (see Table 6, PDF Wildlife-3). Disturbance Regime The reduced fuel load through tree removal will allow the treated areas to be less likely to incur a future high severity wildfire that can kill young tree seedlings. With any ground disturbing activity, there may be increased opportunities for noxious or invasive species, both native and nonnative, to increase in the project area. Invasive species disturbance is highly dependent on the timing of the project, proximity of invasive species to the disturbed area and environmental factors (precipitation, soil conditions, etc.). Socioeconomics The wood products from the salvage will economically benefit the local community. Most of this wood will sell as firewood and be utilized by local property homeowners to provide heat for homes as well as income for loggers and for wood processors. Some of the wood may be salvaged for higher value wood products such as lumber and house logs as well. These materials will be limited though since the wood will come from dead trees and will decay quickly with most of it not being valuable even for firewood within 5 years of the fire.
43
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Climate Change Indirect effects to climate change from the standing dead trees being harvested will be nominal and will vary depending on the product created. If the harvested wood is used as firewood, it will release carbon, but off-set the burning of natural gas or other fossil fuels for heating purposes. If it is used as a building material, most of the wood will be left intact as boards and remain a carbon sink for the life of the product. Indirect effects from the road relocation could include increased emissions due to increased use and better connectivity, but are hard to predict and would likely be nominal.
3.8.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action In addition to these treatments in the Brian Head Fire Area there are also 192 acres of additional salvage logging treatments that will occur from the Highway 143 Forest Service Road 30050 Salvage Project Decision Memo (USDA, 2018) and up to an additional 18,363 acres of reforestation may be implemented in areas where sites are suitable for trees, forest openings are not desired for wildlife habitat or other resource needs, and if natural regeneration of tree species such as aspen does not establish. The combination of these treatments will aid in the re- establishment of vegetation including trees within the fire area. These rehabilitation efforts will not only trend the forest in a positive vegetative condition, but it will make both the forest and the species that depend on it more resilient towards other natural stressors including climate change. Vegetative Structure Size class Distribution With removal of dead trees there will be no impact to remaining live trees. Existing size classes will still exist and will be more resilient to attacks from insects. Canopy Cover There will be an increase in the amount of sunlight that these sites receive as a result of removal of the standing snags. Snags Future snags created by insects or disease would only be removed in future maintenance treatments if necessary for health and safety or hazardous fuel loading concerns. Downed Logs and Coarse Woody Debris The required amounts of downed logs and coarse woody debris would be maintained on these sites as a result of these treatments. Vegetative Composition Early successional vegetation will be aided by removal of the dead trees from the fire including trees that are trying to grow or establish themselves on these sites.
44
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Vegetative Processes Insects and Diseases Proposed treatments would reduce the hazard of insect infestation as removal of host trees that allow populations to build up after a large wildfire event will be reduced from the treatments. Fire The Proposed action would effectively reduce fire hazard. See section 3.3 of this document for more discussion on fire. Vegetative Patterns Stands will develop as treatments are implemented and as given time to grow. Most stands will be even aged since very few trees remain alive from the fire. Where trees do remain alive stands will be two storied with a few scattered remaining overstory trees and young seedlings establishing. National Forest Management Act Compliance The Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project was designed in conformance with land and resource management plan standards and incorporates appropriate land and resource management plan guidelines. This project will harvest timber, and does propose vegetative manipulation as part of the actions. This vegetation manipulation will not cause soil, slope or other watershed conditions to be irreversibly damaged. Several hydrological/soils PDFs (Table 6) have been included to safeguard soil resources, and the project components are designed to benefit the area into the future. According to the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) general direction is to obtain the optimum use of the timber resources, offer for sale the full potential yield of the standard and special components, assure timber harvesting is compatible with all other resource values. Commercial utilization of the timber resource is consistent with the LRMP and compatible with management areas 1, 2B and 6A which are the areas that the timber salvage will occur from the fire. After the salvage, reforesting non-stocked areas and increasing stocking on understocked areas will occur by emphasizing natural regeneration within five years first, where feasible, after final harvest except in the following: for permanent openings that serve specific management objectives for wildlife habitat or other reasons; where site limitations such as nutrient poor soil or rock outcrops inhibit tree growth; when other resource objectives dictate a different period, such as spruce clearcuts, where planting must occur within three years after harvest; or when provided for otherwise in specific management prescriptions. Tree planting to achieve forest plan prescribed stocking rates will be performed where natural regeneration is not producing the desired outcome for the management area whenever a salvage harvest operation is performed. The desired stocking rates in most management areas (MA) is as follows: ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce/fir forest types all have 150 trees per acre (TPA) with aspen having 300 TPA. The exception in this TPA minimum is in the management area 4A (Fish and Aquatic Habitat) where the mixed conifer is increased to 190 TPA. The other TPA minimum for the other forest types in the 4A MA remains the same as in the other management areas.
45
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
In naturally disturbed areas such as blow downed timber or wildfire areas, the Dixie LRMP does not have a reforestation requirement timeframe. However, in areas that were forested prior to the fire and within approximately one-half mile of existing roadways, tree planting may occur if there is insufficient regeneration. Feasibility for planting will also be based on other limitations or objectives that indicate a preference for forest openings, as described in the preceding paragraph. This planting will consist of tree species appropriate for the planting location, and the minimum TPA will coincide with the desire to obtain stocking as follows: ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce/fir forest types 150 TPA. No aspen is planned to be planted. If the listed stocking is not achieved, no additional planting is expected to be performed.
3.9 Wildlife
3.9.1 Affected Environment/No Action Wildlife species selected for this analysis include: (a) species that are listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service), (b) Sensitive Species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, (c) Management Indicator Species as designated by the Dixie National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service), and (d) other species of concern. Plant species selected for this analysis include: (a) species that are listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service), and (b) Sensitive Species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Any Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or MIS species that does not have suitable habitat or is not known to occur in the proposed project area will receive a programmatic “No Effect” determination and not be analyzed further. For a complete list of species considered and specific effects to species analyzed, refer to the Wildlife and Plant Specialist Report (Johnson, 2018) which is incorporated by reference. Under the No Action Alternative, current management would continue within the project area. No vegetation treatments would be implemented to accomplish project objectives. There would be no actions taken to restore vegetative conditions, improve riparian areas, streams and wildlife habitat, and reduce fuels other than those that were previously approved through other Decisions. The No Action Alternative provides a basis for comparing the proposed action alternative to what would occur if an action alternative is not chosen.
3.9.2 Effects of the Proposed Action The following table summarizes the determinations and effects of the Proposed Action Alternative on wildlife and plant species and their habitat analyzed for the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project.
Table 10: Determinations and Conclusions for Wildlife and Plant Species Determinations or Conclusions Species Proposed Action Rationale (Common Name) Threatened and Endangered Species Mexican Spotted Owl May Affect, but Not Likely to Displacement possible during project (Strix occidentalis lucida) Adversely Affect. implementation. No known nesting (Threatened) occurrence in project area. Potential winter
46
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
foraging/juvenile dispersal habitat occurs in project area.
California Condor Will Not Jeopardize this non- Potential short term disturbance during (Gymnogyps californianus) essential population. project activities; alteration of foraging (Endangered) habitat. Long-term improvement in habitat conditions.
Intermountain Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Greater Sage-Grouse May impact individuals or Displacement possible during project (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat, but will not likely implementation. Proposed chaining/seeding contribute to a trend toward treatment will improve habitat conditions. Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
Flammulated Owl May impact individuals or Long term improvement in forest condition (Otus flammeolus) habitat, but will not likely and increased edge habitat may increase contribute to a trend toward foraging opportunities and nest habitat. Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
Northern Goshawk May impact individuals or Adherence to Goshawk Amendment, PDFs, (Accipiter gentilis) habitat, but will not likely and buffers established around active nest contribute to a trend toward areas, and consultation with district biologist Federal listing or cause a loss will minimize impacts to species if present. of viability to the population or species.
Spotted Bat / Townsend’s big- May impact individuals or Short-term disturbance possible during project eared Bat habitat, but will not likely implementation. contribute to a trend toward (Corynorhinus townsendii Federal listing or cause a loss pallescens) of viability to the population or species.
Three-toed Woodpecker May impact individuals or Short term disturbance during project habitat, but will not likely implementation with a minimal decrease in (Picoides dorsalis) contribute to a trend toward foraging habit as a result of project Federal listing or cause a loss treatments. of viability to the population or species.
Arizona Willow May impact individual plants No work will be conducted on Castle creek (Salix arizonica) or habitat, but will not likely until AZ willow surveys are conducted and contribute to a trend toward mitigation measures established. Federal listing or cause a loss
47
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
of viability to the population or species.
Management Indicator Species
Mule Deer / Rocky Mountain May impact individuals or Short-term disturbance likely during project Elk habitat, but will not cause a implementation. Long-term improvement of (Odocoileus hemionus) loss of viability to the foraging habitat and hiding cover. (Cervus Canadensis) population or species.
Viable populations maintained.
Northern Flicker May impact individuals or Short term disturbance; minor loss of foraging (Colaptes auratus) habitat, but will not cause a and or nesting habitat. Long-term loss of viability to the improvement in foraging habitat with increase
population or species. ground cover
Viable populations maintained.
Wild Turkey May impact individuals or Short-term disturbance likely during project (Meleagris gallopavo) habitat, but will not cause a implementation. Nesting habitat and foraging loss of viability to the opportunities improved with implementation.
population or species.
Viable populations maintained.
Other Species of Concern
Broad-tailed humming-bird May impact individuals or Short-term disturbance possible during project (Selasphorus platycercus) habitat, but will not cause a implementation. Possible reduced nesting loss of viability to the habitat. population or species.
Brewer’s Sparrow May impact individuals or Short-term disturbance during project (Spizella breweri) habitat, but will not cause a implementation. Possible reduction in nesting loss of viability to the habitat following chaining treatment. population or species.
3.9.3 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action
The cumulative effects area (CEA) selected for this report is based on known or suspected habitat used by identified species of concern during all or a large portion of their life cycle that is continuous with and surrounds the proposed project area. It represents a landscape surrounding the project area where past, present, and future management actions by humans have and/or will occur. Delineation of the CEA for this project is based on estimated species use of the landscape and includes the entire project boundary encompassing approximately 89,271 acres.
48
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Analysis for wide ranging species like big game (mule deer and rocky mountain elk), involve a much larger CEA area. The CEA for big game (mule deer and elk) totals approximately 544,675 acres that are the boundaries of the Panguitch Lake (unit #28) wildlife management units delineated by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. In summary, prior to the Brian Head Fire, the CEA had undergone a considerable amount of vegetation management activity over the past 50 – 60 years. The character of this landscape was influenced by a Cedar City district wide Spruce Bark Beetle epidemic that began in the mid 1990’s. Vegetation treatment projects near the proposed analysis area were proposed and implemented within the spruce/fir and ponderosa pine timber types. The majority of this landscape was impacted by the Spruce Bark Beetle epidemic where over 44,000+ acres were impacted District wide. These treatments have contributed to the characteristic of the landscape over time. Previous timber harvests involved salvage logging of dead and dying spruce. Most timber harvest activity prior to salvage logging occurred from the early small sales. The Bark Beetle epidemic and subsequent harvest activity actions have contributed greatly to the lack of green trees within this landscape. Other vegetation management actions include prescribed fire, fuel rearrangement piling and chipping, planting and seeding and invasive plant treatments. The combined cumulative effects of past, present and foreseeable actions in combination with the current proposed action have been analyzed in the Wildlife and Plant Specialist Report and are not expected to surpass any thresholds related to species viability or to contribute to federal listing of species in the project area.
CHAPTER 4 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and other organization and individuals during the development of this Environmental Assessment: ID TEAM MEMBERS: Eric Eastep – Fire and Fuels Jason Villwock – Silviculture and Vegetation Adam Howes - Hydrology/Soils/Engineering and Transportation Susan Baughman – Mining/Materials Devin Johnson -Wildlife and Botany Clayton Collins - Range Mike Golden – Aquatic Biota Jennifer Green - NEPA/Writer/Editor Maia London – Heritage Devin Johnson - Wildlife Robert Lopez - District Fire Management Officer Del Orme – Recreation/Scenery FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: Brian Head Town Mayor Cedar City Mayor
49
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Cedar Mountain Fire Protection District Five County Association of Governments Garfield County Commissioners Iron County Commissioners Iron County Natural Resource Specialist Kane County Commissioners Kane County Water Conservancy District Panguitch City Mayor Parowan City Mayor United States Congressman - Chris Stewart United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Senator - Mike Lee United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation District Utah Department of Environmental Quality Utah Department of Transportation Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Utah Farm Bureau Utah Resource Development Coordinating Committee Utah State Representative - Mike Noel Utah State Senator – Evan Vickers United States Senator - Orrin G. Hatch TRIBES: Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah OTHERS: Grand Canyon Trust Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Utah Shared Access Alliance Private Citizens
50
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
APPENDIX A – MAPS
Figure 1: Vicinity Map and Proposed Action Brian Head Rehabilitation EA
51
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Figure 2: Brain Head Fire Burn Severity Map
52
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Figure 3: Scenery Management System Map
53
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
APPENDIX B – REFERENCES
54
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
2013. Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species. Ogden: USDA Forest Service.
Forest, U.F.S.-D.N. 2010. FSH 2509.18 - Soil Management Handbook. Federal Register. Benda, L., Miller, D., Bigelow, P., & Andras, K. (2003). Effects of post-wildfire erosion on channel environments, Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management, 178, 105-119. Beschta, R., Rhodes, J., Kauffman, J., Gresswell, R., Minshall, G., Karr, J., Frissell, C. (2004). Postfire management on forested public lands of the western United States. Conservation Biology, 18(4), 957-967. Chamberlain, T., Harr, R., & Everest, F. (1991). Timber Harvesting, Silviculture and Watershed Process. In W. Meehan, Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitat (pp. 181-205). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Dunham, J., Young, M., Gresswell, R., & Rieman, B. (2003). Effects of fire on fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish invasions. Forest Ecology and Management, 178, 183-196. Gibbons, D.R.; Salo, E.O. 1973. An annotated bibliography of the effects of logging on fish of the western United States and Canada. Gresswell, R. (1999). Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems in Forested Biomes of North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 128(2), 193-221. Hann, W.J.; Bunnell, D.L. 2001. Fire and land managment planning and implementation across multiple scales. Brandon, Manitoba: International Journal of Wildland Fire. Volume 10, 389-403 p. Hardy, C.C., Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.P., Sampson, R.N. 2001. Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel management: International Journal of Wildland Fire. Volume 10, 353-372 p. Harr, D.H.; Harper, W.C.; Krieger, J.T. 1975. Changes in Storm Hydrographs after Road Building and Clear-Cutting in the Oreon Coast Range. Water Resources Research. 436-444 p.
Hudec, J.L. and Peterson, D.L. 2012. Fuel Variability Following Wildfire in Forests With Mixed Severity Fire Regimes, Cascade Range, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 277, 11-24.
Johnson, M.C., Halofsky, J.E. and Peterson, D.L. 2013. Effects of Salvage Logging and Pile-and-Burn on Fuel Loading, Potential Fire Behavior, Fuel Consumption and Emissions. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22, 757-769.
Karr, J., Rhodes, J., Minshall, G., Hauer, F., Beschta, R., Frissel, C., & Perry, D. (2004). The effects of postfire salvage logging on aquatic systems in the American West. Bioscience, 54(11), 1029-1033. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Noss, R.F. 2006. Salvage Logging, Ecosystem Processes, and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology. 20(4): 949-958. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00497.x. Lentsch, L., Toline, C., Kershner, J., Hudson, J., & Mizzi, J. 2000. Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah). Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication Number 00-19. Lewis, J., & Keppler, E. (2007). Trends in streamflow and suspended sediment after logging, North Fork Caspar Creek. Proceedings of the redwood region forest science symposium: What does the future hold? (pp. 95-106). Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Luce, C.H.; Black, T.A. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resources Research. 35(8): 2561-2570. Luce, C.H.; Rieman, B.E.; Dunham, J.B. [and others]. 2001. Incorporating Aquatic Ecology into Decisions on Prioritization of Road Decommissioning. Water Resources Impact. American Water Resources Association. May 2001). MacDonald, L.H.; Coe, D. 2008. Road sediment production and delivery: processes and management. In: The First World Landslide Forum; United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan. Parallel Session. Global Promotion Committee of The International Programme on Landslides (IPL): 385-388 p. Maloney, C.; Thornton, J. 1995. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring of Best Management Practices and Soil and Water Conservation Measures within the Foothills Fire Salvage Logging Area: Boise National Forest. 53 p.
55
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
McIver, J., & Starr, L. (2000). Environmental effects of postfire logging; literature review and annotated bibliography. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. McIver, J., & Starr, L. (2001). A literature review on the environmental effects of postfire logging. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 16(4), 159-168. Minshall, G. (2003). Responses of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to fire. Forest Ecology and Management, 178, 155–161. NWCG. 2017. Guide to Preventing Aquatic Invasive Species Transport by Wildland Fire Operations. https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pms444.pdf Rinne, J. (1996). Short-Term Effects of Wildfire on Fishes and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in the Southwestern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Manaftement, 16, 653-658. Rinne, J. (2004). Forests, Fish and Fire: Relationships and Management Implications for Fishes in the Southwestern USA. In G. Scrimgeour, G. Eisler, B. McCulloch, U. Silins, & M. Monita (Ed.), Proc. Forest-Land-Fish Conf. II, April 26-28, 2004 (pp. 151-156). Edmonton, Alberta: Forest Land–Fish Conference II– Ecosystem Stewardship through Collaboration. Parsons, A.; Robichaud, P.R.; Lewis, S.A. [and others]. 2010. Field Guide for Mapping Post-Fire Soil Burn Severity. General Technical Report: Rocky Mountain Research Station. Peterson, D.W., Dodson, E.K. and Harrod, R.J. 2014. Post-Fire Logging Reduces Surface Woody Fuels Up to Four Decades Following Wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management 338, 84-91. Peterson, D., & Dodson, E. (2016). Post-fire logging produces minimal persistent impacts on understory vegetation in northeastern Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 2016(370), 56-64. Program, U.C.C.S.; Research, S.o.G.C. 2008. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. US Environmental Protection Agency. 362 p. Robichaud, P., MacDonald, L., & Foltz, R. (2010). Chapter 5: Fuel Management and Erosion. In W. Elliot, I. Miller, & L. Audin, Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States (pp. 79-100). Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest. Service, U.F. Burned Area Reflectance Classification (BARC) Information. https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/rsac/baer/barc.html. Service, U.F. 1986. Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Dixie National Forest. Service, U.F. 2011. FSH 2550 - Soil Management Manual, Region 4. Service, U.F.a.W. 2016. Threatened and Endangered Species List. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. (September 26, 2016). Shakesby, R.A.; Doerr, S.H. 2006. Wildfire as a hydrological and geomorphological agent. Earth-Science Reviews.(74): 269- 307 Smith, S.L.; Cluck, D.R. 2011. Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California. Report # RO-11-01. US Forest Service, Region 5, Forest Health Protection. 15 p.
Stevens-Rumann, C.S., Sieg, C.H. and Hunter, M.E. 2012. Ten Years After Wildfires: How Does Varying Tree Mortality Impact Fire Hazard and Forest Resiliency? Forest Ecology and Management 267, 199-208.
USDA. 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dixie National Forest. Cedar City, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Dixie National Forest. USDA. 2000. Scenery Management System, Amendment. UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. USDA. 2000. Utah Northern Goshawk Project Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact and Amendment. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. USDA, D.N.F. 2009. Record of Decision for the Dixie National Forest Motorzied Travel Plan. Cedar City: USDA Forest Service, Dixie National Forest. USDI. 1995. Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy & Program Review. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2010. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Southern leatherside (Lepidomeda aliciae) in the State of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication Number 10-19. Wagenbrenner, J.W.; MacDonald, L.H.; Coats, R.N. [and others]. 2015. Effects of post-fire salvage logging and a skid trail treatment on ground cover, soils, and sediment production in the interior western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 335: 176-193.
56
Environmental Assessment Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project
Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Robichaud, P.R.; Brown, R.E. 2016. Rill erosion in burned and salvage logged western montane forests: Effects of logging equipment type, traffic level, and slash treatment. Journal of Hydrology. 541: 889-901. Williams, C.K. 2009. Properly Functioning Condition.
57