Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management UT
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management UT-USO-04-01 September 2005 September 2005 - FONSI/DR September 2005 - FONSI/DR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND DECISION RECORD UT-USO-04-01 Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management Based on the analysis of potential environmental impacts in the attached environmental assessment (EA UT-USO-04-01) and consideration of the significance criteria in 40 CFR 1508.27, I have determined that the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management would not result in significant impacts on the human environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is therefore not required. Decision: It is my decision to amend fire and fuels management direction contained in 17 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land use plans (LUPS) in Utah as described in the Proposed Action alternative of the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management Environmental Assessment (UT-USO-04-01). The following land use plans are amended by this action: Land Use Plan Year Completed Salt Lake Field Office Iso-Tract Management Framework Plan (MFP) 1985 Park City MFP 1975 Randolph MFP 1980 Richfield Field Office Forest MFP 1977 Henry Mountain MFP 1982 Mountain Valley MFP 1982 Parker Mountain MFP 1982 Moab Field Office Grand Resource Management Plan (RMP) 1985 Monticello Field Office San Juan RMP 1991 Kanab Field Office Escalante MFP 1981 Paria MFP 1981 Vermilion MFP 1981 Zion MFP 1981 Cedar City Field Office Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony RMP 1986 Pinyon MFP 1983 St. George Field Office St. George RMP 1999 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) GSENM Monument Management Plan (MP) 1999 September 2005 - FONSI/DR While the amendment of the Box Elder, Pony Express, House Range, and Warm Springs RMPs was analyzed in this EA, these plans will not be amended at this time by this decision. Prior to any amendment to these four LUPs, BLM would require that the planning restriction imposed by Section 2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2000 be resolved and that amendment to these plans be completed in accordance with regulations in 43 CFR Part 1600. This EA may serve as the NEPA analysis document of record for BLM’s determinations with respect to amending these four LUPs in the future should these restrictions be resolved and no substantial changes in conditions apply. Summary of the Selected Alternative: The selected alternative is the Proposed Action alternative of the EA. The fire and fuels management direction as currently documented in the 17 Utah BLM LUPs would be replaced by new direction outlined in the Proposed Action alternative. The decisions in this land use plan amendment provide broad, landscape level management guidance, rather than site-specific, implementation-level actions. The selected alternative: • Establishes landscape-level, fire management goals and objectives • Describes Desired Wildland Fire Conditions (DWFC) by Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) and the management strategies and actions to meet DWFC and land use allocations • Describes areas where fire may be restored to the ecosystem through wildland fire use for resource benefit and areas where wildland fire use is not appropriate • Identifies criteria that would be used for establishing fire management priorities • Identifies maximum burned areas and treatment acres for wildland fire; wildland fire use for resource benefit; prescribed fire treatments; non-fire fuel treatments; and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions To protect natural and/or cultural resources, the selected alternative identifies fire management Resource Protection Measures (see Attachment #1) for the implementation of wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use for resource benefit, prescribed fire treatments, non-fire fuel treatments and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has completed a Biological Opinion on the Proposed Action alternative and Terms and Conditions have been identified (see Attachment #2). The Resource Protection Measures and FWS Terms and Conditions minimize or avoid resource impacts. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary because of the protections afforded by the selected alternative. Monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of the amendment will be accomplished through the development of Fire Management Plans (FMPs) at each Utah BLM Support Center and through future site-specific project planning. FMPs are implementation-level planning documents that are revised as needed to ensure that LUP goals, objectives, strategies and actions are being met. All fire management actions will be evaluated for adherence to this amendment and the associated Resource Protection Measures. In essence, monitoring will evaluate the degree to which the DWFC is being achieved. Further, specific monitoring requirements will be followed for prescribed fire (H-9214-1, 1998) and ESR (ESR Handbook 1999). The extent of monitoring activities may be limited by lack of funding. As national fire management performance measures September 2005 - FONSI/DR are issued, additional monitoring and evaluation protocols may be incorporated into the FMPs to meet DOI and BLM guidelines. Rationale for the Decision: The decision to authorize the amendment of the 17 land use plans in Utah has been made in consideration of the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The Proposed Action conforms with BLM planning directives and federal fire management policy, as described in the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995), Review and Update of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001), and A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy (2001). National fire management direction has evolved in recent years in response to increased fatalities, property loss, local economic disruptions and risk to ecosystems associated with increasingly severe wildland fire seasons, and increasing Wildland Urban Interface conflicts. Federal agencies have been mandated to revise fire management programs to incorporate practices designed to increase protection of human life while decreasing the potential for natural resource and private property damage. Further, policy and practices must integrate current scientific knowledge regarding the role of fire in natural ecological processes. This amendment incorporates these policy changes into land use plans in a consistent manner state-wide, while minimizing conflicts with other existing land use plan decisions. It provides the necessary fire management tools to public land managers across the state to meet other resource objectives described in the land use plans. This amendment provides consistent fire management direction in Utah that is compliant with national and interagency direction. The No Action alternative was not selected because it does not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. The No Action alternative would not bring these land use plans into conformance with national and agency direction for fire and fuels management and land use planning. The No Action alternative would result in inconsistent land use plans that would be sometimes silent in addressing fire and fuels management. The No Action alternative would continue fire management decisions outlined in LUPs that do not reflect current fire management priorities, do not recognize fire’s role in the ecosystem, and are inconsistent throughout the state. This decision takes into consideration the potential environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the amendment. Potential resource conflicts with fire and fuels management actions have been resolved with the incorporation of the Resource Protection Measures and FWS Terms and Conditions. These Resource Protection Measures and FWS Terms and Conditions will minimize or eliminate conflicts or potential impacts associated with the plan amendment. This planning amendment process included several opportunities for public participation. A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2004. A public scoping period was provided in the spring and summer of 2004 (April 2 to July 14, 2004) when the planning process was initiated, with five public scoping meetings. Comments received during the scoping period were helpful in finalizing the Proposed Action and addressing resource conflicts. The public was notified of and provided with an opportunity to review the draft amendment from March 28 to April 30, 2005. Four comment letters were received. Comments received led to changes in the analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed amendment and assisted the BLM in finalizing the EA. Finally, the public was given the opportunity to protest the proposed amendment in August, 2005. No protests were received during this protest period. September 2005 - FONSI/DR The BLM has complied with agency and CEQ guidelines for NEPA, land use planning and public participation. Throughout the planning process, no inconsistencies with local, state, tribal, or other federal agency land use plans, policies, or programs were identified or brought to the attention of the BLM. Additionally, in a sixty-day Governor’s Consistency Review, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman found the Proposed Action alternative to be consistent as documented in a letter to the BLM dated August 30, 2005. Further, this amendment is in